Our three-part “Theology On Tap” series came to a conclusion tonight. The Associate Young Adult Director, Pamela Poe, had tasked me to give a talk which answered the question “What does it mean to be a restless pilgrim?”. In this presentation, I recount the story of my own faith journey, I describe the story of Salvation History as a pilgrimage, and I explain why we’re all restless pilgrims…
“What does it mean to be a restless pilgrim?” (Download)
So, after years of swearing I’d never have one, a couple of months ago I signed up for an Instagram account. As part of “The Eagle and Child” podcast, each week we will be posting images with quotations from C.S. Lewis.
I’m changing the format of my notes for these summaries of “The Four Loves”. This is so they reflect the format I use to prepare for our book group meetings. Perhaps when Matt and I look at this book in the podcast, I’ll construct new notes. Until then…
C.S. Lewis Doodle
Notes & Questions
Introduction
My Greek Lexicon defines storge as “affection, especially of parents to offspring”; but also of offspring to parents.. The image we must start with is that of a mother nursing a baby, a bitch or a cat with a basketful of puppies or kittens; all in a squeaking, nuzzling heap together; purrings… Affection is responsible for nine-tenths of whatever solid and durable happiness there is in our natural lives
The Need and Need-love of the young is obvious; so is the Gift-love of the mother. She gives birth, gives suck, gives protection. On the other hand, she must give birth or die. She must give suck or suffer. That way, her Affection too is a Need-love. There is the paradox. It is a Need-love but what it needs is to give. It is a Gift-love but it needs to be needed. We shall have to return to this point.
1. How does Jack define “storge”/”affection”? 2. Why is there a paradox within affection? 3. To what kind of objects do we attach affection? 4. Do Americans know “The Wind in the Willows”?!
The objects of affection
[Affection] is indeed the least discriminating of loves… almost anyone can become an object of Affection; the ugly, the stupid, even the exasperating. There need be no apparent fitness between those whom it unites… It ignores the barriers of age, sex, class and education… It ignores even the barriers of species.
But Affection has its own criteria. Its objects have to be familiar… I doubt if we ever catch Affection beginning. To become aware of it is to become aware that it has already been going on for some time. The use of “old”…as a term of Affection is significant… It is no proof of our refinement or perceptiveness that we love them; nor that they love us. What I have called Appreciative Love is no basic element in Affection. It usually needs absence or bereavement to set us praising those to whom only Affection binds us. We take them for granted: and this taking for granted, which is an outrage in erotic love, is here right and proper up to a point. It fits the comfortable, quiet nature of the feeling… It lives with…soft slippers, old clothes, old jokes, the thump of a sleepy dog’s tail on the kitchen floor…
1. What kind of limits are there on affection? 2. Lewis says that affection has its own criteria. What is it?
The love cocktail
As gin is not only a drink in itself but also a base for many mixed drinks, so Affection…can enter into the other loves and colour them all through and become the very medium in which from day to day they operate. They would not perhaps wear very well without it… when your friend has become an old friend, all those things about him which had originally nothing to do with the friendship become familiar and dear with familiarity. As for erotic love, I can imagine nothing more disagreeable than to experience it for more than a very short time without this homespun clothing of affection…. No need to talk. No need to make love. No needs at all except perhaps to stir the fire.
…all three of [the loves] had in common, as their expression, the kiss. In modern England friendship no longer uses it, but Affection and Eros do… Again, both these loves tend – and it embarrasses many moderns – to use a “little language” or “baby-talk”… Different sorts of tenderness are both tenderness and the language of the earliest tenderness we have ever known is recalled to do duty for the new sort.
1. In what way is affection like gin? 2. Why does Jack think affection is so important in relation to friendship and eros? 3. Jack points to two things which remind us of the blending/overlappping of the loves. What are they?
…very few modern people think Friendship a love of comparable value [to Affection and Eros] or even a love at all. To the Ancients, Friendship seemed the happiest and most fully human of all loves; the crown of life and the school of virtue. The modern world, in comparison, ignores it.
The first and most obvious answer is that few value it because few experience it. And the possibility of going through life without the experience is rooted in that fact which separates Friendship so sharply from both the other loves. Friendship is…the least natural of loves; the least instinctive, organic, biological, gregarious and necessary…The pack or herd…may even dislike and distrust it.
…all that had once commended this love [to the Ancients] now began to work against it. [For modernity,] …it had not tearful smiles and keepsakes and baby-talk enough to please the sentimentalists. There was not blood and guts enough about it to attract the primitivists.
Secret Homosexuality?
It has actually become necessary in our time to rebut the theory that every firm and serious friendship is really homosexual… The very lack of evidence is thus treated as evidence; the absence of smoke proves that the fire is very carefully hidden… Those who cannot conceive Friendship as a substantive love but only as a disguise or elaboration of Eros betray the fact that they have never had a Friend…
Kisses, tears and embraces are not in themselves evidence of homosexuality… On a broad historical view it is…not the demonstrative gestures of Friendship among our ancestors but the absence of such gestures in our own society that calls for some special explanation. We, not they, are out of step.
Contrasting the friendship and the love affair
Lovers are always talking to one another about their love; Friends hardly ever about their Friendship. Lovers are normally face to face, absorbed in each other; Friends, side by side, absorbed in some common interest. Above all, Eros (while it lasts) is necessarily between two only. But [in friendship]… we possess each friend not less, but more as the number of those with whom we share… increases.
…that state which we call “being in love”… Sexuality makes part of our subject only when it becomes an ingredient in the complex state of “being in love”. That sexual experience can occur without Eros… and that Eros includes other things besides sexual activity, I take for granted… The carnal or animally sexual element within Eros, I intend… to call Venus.
Eros, Venus and Morality
I am not at all subscribing to the popular idea that it is the absence or presence of Eros which makes the sexual act “impure” or “pure”… Most of our ancestors were married off in early youth to partners chosen by their parents on grounds that had nothing to do with Eros… Conversely, this act, done under the influence of a soaring and iridescent Eros which reduces the role of the senses to a minor consideration, may yet be plain adultery, may involve breaking a wife’s heart, deceiving a husband, betraying a friend, polluting hospitality; and deserting your children. It has not pleased God that the distinction between a sin and a duty should turn on fine feelings.
Love’s Contemplative
Very often what comes first is simply a delighted pre-occupation with the Beloved – a general, unspecified pre-occupation with her in her totality. A man in this state really hasn’t leisure to think of sex. He is too busy thinking of a person. The fact that she is a woman is far less important than the fact that she is herself. He is full of desire, but the desire may not be sexually toned. If you asked him what he wanted, the true reply would often be, “To go on thinking of her.” He is love’s contemplative.
… Sexual desire, without Eros, wants it, the thing in itself; Eros wants the Beloved…
The thing is a sensory pleasure; that is, an event occurring within one’s own body. We use a most unfortunate idiom when we say, of a lustful man prowling the streets, that he “wants a woman”. Strictly speaking, a woman is just what he does not want. He wants a pleasure for which a woman happens to be the necessary piece of apparatus. How much he cares about the woman as such may be gauged by his attitude to her five minutes after fruition (one does not keep the carton after one has smoked the cigarettes). Now Eros makes a man really want, not a woman, but one particular woman. In some mysterious but quite indisputable fashion the lover desires the Beloved herself, not the pleasure she can give.
The natural loves are not self-sufficient. Something else…must come to the help of the mere feeling if the feeling is to be kept sweet… It is no disparagement to a garden to say that it will not fence and weed itself, nor prune its own fruit trees, nor roll and cut its own lawns.
Natural loves as rivals to God
There were two reasons for my delay… [The] older theologians were always saying very loudly that (natural) love is likely to be a great deal too much. The danger of loving our fellow creatures too little was less present to their minds than that of loving them idolatrously. In every wife, mother, child and friend they saw a possible rival to God. So of course does Our Lord
…For most of us the true rivalry lies between the self and the human Other, not yet between the human Other and God. It is dangerous to press upon a man the duty of getting beyond earthly love when his real difficulty lies in getting so far.
But to have stressed the rivalry earlier in this book would have been premature in another way also… The loves prove that they are unworthy to take the place of God by the fact that they cannot even remain themselves and do what they promise to do without God’s help… Even for their own sakes the loves must submit to be second things if they are to remain the things they want to be.
Disagreeing with St. Augustine
…[For the] older theologians… the danger of loving our fellow creatures too little was less present to their minds than that of loving them idolatrously. In every wife, mother, child and friend they saw a possible rival to God. So of course does Our Lord.
In words which can still bring tears to the eyes, St. Augustine describes the desolation in which the death of his friend Nebridius plunged him. Then he draws a moral. This is what comes, he says, of giving one’s heart to anything but God. All human beings pass away. Do not let your happiness depend on something you may lose…. Of course this is excellent sense… [However,] if I am sure of anything I am sure that [Jesus’] teaching was never meant to confirm my congenital preference for safe investments and limited liabilities… Would you choose a wife or a Friend – if it comes to that, would you choose a dog in this spirit? One must be outside the world of love, of all loves, before one thus calculates
We follow One who wept over Jerusalem and at the grave of Lazarus, and, loving all, yet had one disciple whom, in a special sense, he “loved”… Even if it were granted that insurances against heartbreak were our highest wisdom, does God Himself offer them? Apparently not. Christ comes at last to say “Why hast thou forsaken me?” Read more
Lewis had previously said that he thought chastity was the most unpopular thing in Christianity. In today’s episode, he changes his mind, suggesting that it is, in fact, forgiveness.
Lewis had previously said that he thought chastity was the most unpopular thing in Christianity. In today’s episode, he changes his mind, suggesting that it is, in fact, forgiveness.