Monday, February 27, 2012

Secular Morality and "Love" / D'Souza



Dinesh D'Souza.  "What's so great about Christianity."

Secular Morality on "Love."

Quote:

The deepest appeal of secular morality is its role in the formation and preservation of “love relationships.” How do we know that we love? There is no other way but to reach deep into ourselves and consult the inner voice, which is not the voice of reason but the voice of feeling. We succumb to that inward self so completely that we feel that we have lost control.  We don’t love, but are “in love,” and we are now not entirely responsible for what we do.


Love is the sin for which we find it almost impossible to repent. That is why Paolo and Francesca, the two adulterers who inhabit the outer ring of Dante’s inferno, still cling together like doves, appealing to the law of love, “which absolves no one from loving.” Love has transported them into an almost transcendental state outside the real world, and yet more real than the world. Love of this kind is, quite literally, “beyond good and evil,” and that is why the new morality has become such a powerful justification for adultery. When the inner self commands love, it does so authoritatively, defiantly, and without regard to risk or cost or all other commitments. As C.S. Lewis once observed, erotic love of this kind tends to “claim for itself a divine authority.”  p. 256

21 comments:

Christine said...

I find people who want to make this type of argument are not actually quick to define love. They want to call some things "love" when really the image in their mind is of lust. References to "erotic love" here seem to be of this type. Anything described as "without regard to risk or cost or all other commitments" should not qualify as "love" in any way we might wish to use it in reference to theology.

Therefore, this quote seems to confuse the very issue it is trying to clarify. It wants to say that some love is good and some not, going as far to say love is sin. However, the meaning is not that love can be sin (God is love), but that some things we call love aren't really deserving of the term. That we call things love that aren't.

So why not just say that?

I think because sometimes one wants to have their cake and eat it to. They want to be be able to be polite and "recognize" that others have love, but what they really *mean* is that they don't really - because when pressed about that recognition, they then produce quotes like this one.

But it's disingenuous - even lying - to say "yes, I believe you have love", but when pressed say "well, love but not love love, not, you know, *real* love, like God love... just that secular immoral love". As there's no such thing as "immoral love" or "sinful love" the coded message is this: "I will agree you have love so I don't insult you until it messes with my theology, at which point I will admit that I believed all along that your 'love' doesn't count."

Can you see the problem with this? This dishonestly means you can claim something is love in once instance but not in another, whenever it suits. It keeps one from seeing critical gaps in theology by holding contradictory things to be true simultaneously.

Do you agree this is a problem with the language being used in the quote? Do you not agree we would be better off being clear?

Christine said...

I find people who want to make this type of argument are not actually quick to define love. They want to call some things "love" when really the image in their mind is of lust. References to "erotic love" here seem to be of this type. Anything described as "without regard to risk or cost or all other commitments" should not qualify as "love" in any way we might wish to use it in reference to theology.

Therefore, this quote seems to confuse the very issue it is trying to clarify. It wants to say that some love is good and some not, going as far to say love is sin. However, the meaning is not that love can be sin (God is love), but that some things we call love aren't really deserving of the term. That we call things love that aren't.

So why not just say that?

I think because sometimes one wants to have their cake and eat it to. They want to be be able to be polite and "recognize" that others have love, but what they really *mean* is that they don't really - because when pressed about that recognition, they then produce quotes like this one.

But it's disingenuous - even lying - to say "yes, I believe you have love", but when pressed say "well, love but not love love, not, you know, *real* love, like God love... just that secular immoral love". As there's no such thing as "immoral love" or "sinful love" the coded message is this: "I will agree you have love so I don't insult you until it messes with my theology, at which point I will admit that I believed all along that your 'love' doesn't count."

Can you see the problem with this? This dishonestly means you can claim something is love in once instance but not in another, whenever it suits. It keeps one from seeing critical gaps in theology by holding contradictory things to be true simultaneously.

Do you agree this is a problem with the language being used in the quote? Do you not agree we would be better off being clear?

Brigitte said...

Love is many things. C.S. Lewis wrote a book on the four loves, which I haven't read. I am guess this last quote of his comes from that.

But there is the famous philia, and eros, there is agape, etc. It's not one of my topics, but it does seem elementary in some ways. I love my friends differently from my children, or my country or my husband, or my aged mother, etc.

And there is love such as in 1. Corinthians 13. Let is try it. It's a tall order. We are not that good at it.

So, yes, I believe that you have love, but also that eros can work in a way that opposes or supports other kinds of love. It's a multi-faceted picture.

Brigitte said...

Did you read the thing about Henry Beecher?

Christine said...

Saying there are different types of genuine love relationships (parent, spouse, etc.) is *entirely* different from distinguishing between philos, eros and agape. In the first instance, all are real love, in the second they would not be. It is important not to conflate the two concepts.

"So, yes, I believe that you have love, but also that eros can work in a way that opposes or supports other kinds of love. It's a multi-faceted picture."

First off - How would you feel if I assessed what types of love you have for your husband??? You are making pretty wild assumptions about me personally. You are implying things about my sexual appetites and love relationships that you can't possibly know anything about.

But more to the point, you seem to be implying here that "eros" (I won't use "erotic love" because the point is *not* to confuse the term "love") is morally neutral? That it can contribute to or hinder real love, but is itself neither right nor wrong, neither good nor sin.

So then, what would eros have to do with the question at hand? If we indeed can clarify what we mean by love, then we aren't talking about eros at all. There is either real love or there isn't (regardless of whether passions are involved or not).

If you are saying that, in a particular instance, there IS real love, then eros, by *your* logic, does not diminish, tarnish, take away from or make sinful love than is genuine - because, in that instance, it is supporting genuine love. Becuase if eros was opposing (i.e. preventing) love, it would mean that the love was not real at all.

In other words, you can't have it both ways. You want to tell everyone they have genuine love, but then say that, for only certain classes of people, the presence of eros (which is morally neutral) makes real and genuine love actually sinful.

This makes less than no sense. How can something - again, in your view - morally neutral make something that is always good (real love) sinful? How can *real* love be sinful regardless?

Your original quote is asserting only that we sometimes call eros "love" even when it isn't really (in what I think is a convoluted and ultimately unhelpful way, but the point itself is fine).

YOU are now trying to assert that *real* love *can* be made sin, and solely by adding something that can actually support real love and is itself morally neutral.

This is like saying that you believe a pedophile has genuine love for his victims - it's just the sex that spoils it. It's ludicrous to the core.

*Real* love means there is genuine caring and commitment and consideration of the other. We must look at something like pedophilia, for instance, and conclude definitively that *no* part of that is love at all. Nothing else here makes sense.

Furthermore, when you imply that eros can turn a real, genuine love identical to others' real genuine love into sin solely because it is me that is loving, you are calling me worse than that. You are saying I am so depraved that even my committed, caring, selfless genuine love is no better than pedophilia because it is I who loves.

So, at the point at which you say a love is real, if eros exists, one must conclude that it supports that love. If it does not support it, than the love was not real in the first place. There either is real love or there isn't. Conflating these different concepts of "love" is just dodging the question - it has no actual theological substance.

Brigitte said...

It sounds like you are "conflating" pedophilia with sex between consenting adults in "my" point of view.

Though, I think in history and in practice it happens not infrequently that male homosexuals take partners that are much younger than they are. Recently, I read about the ancient Greeks and Romans. What happened in the schools was that the teachers and mentors in the schools (gymnasia) would teach the young males in return for sexual favors. (Where did I read this?) This was standard practice and fair exchange. I wonder if this is something Paul was up against, too, in the culture. The Roman world was very explicitly sexual and obviously with slavery and armies and oppression, I am sure there was plenty of sexual abuse of all kinds.

Christine said...

"It sounds like you are "conflating" pedophilia with sex between consenting adults in "my" point of view."

What??? Did you even read my comment? I was pointing out an error by making an analogy. An analogy is when you use something obvious and, by showing it's links with something else, demonstrate something more difficult to grasp.

I was using the analogy to illutrate that your conflation of the concepts makes no sense.

From that, *you* just made a leap and compared consenting acts between adults to pedophilia.

I should have known better to even use the word "pedophile" with a heterosexist... you just can't help yourself...

Christine said...

To be fair... now that we're on the topic... (my fault... never should have raised it in any context because I should have known this would happen).. those types of practices are pointing to as what Paul was actually opposing in his writings. That interpretation is quite common.

Now, can we get back to the issue at hand? Forget my anaology, you obviously didn't understand it.

Let me put it another way:

I would view marriage as having agape, philio and eros - with each supporting the other and being intwined to be indistinguiable. Do you agree? Do you think that this can be true for gay couples as well?

Christine said...

should have been "are pointed to as"

as in: pointed to by scholars as what Paul as actually talking about

Christine said...

conflate: "1a : to bring together : fuse b: confuse
2: to combine (as two readings of a text) into a composite whole"

compare: "1: to represent as similar : liken 2a: to examine the character or qualities of especially in order to discover resemblances or differences b: to view in relation to
3: to inflect or modify (an adjective or adverb) according to the degrees of comparison"

contrast: "to set off in contrast : compare or appraise in respect to differences —often used with to or with "

(all from merriam-webster.com)

Conflating means to confuse the two. My analogy *contrasted* consenting sex with abuse (genders unspecified). You then made an implied comparison between consenting sex and abuse (male with male only) as if it had anything to do with my point, which it doesn't.

Brigitte said...

I would view marriage as having agape, philio and eros - with each supporting the other and being intwined to be indistinguiable. Do you agree? Do you think that this can be true for gay couples as well?

This is probably where you going with this. Let me think about my answer. I have a houseguest coming whom I have to also transport places. I should be controlling myself and stay out of discussions. Give me 9 days till this is over.

Still, right of the top I would say that this could also be true for gay couples. I don't see why not. So if there are civil unions celebrated, that is a matter of the government. From a Biblical standpoint, however, I would have to say that there is not a mandate for this type of union, and even if there is a true and real love, it is not according to God's institution, creation (equipment), plan for procreation... Pastorally speaking, within the church, not the civil realm, (I am not a pastor, as I said), this creates a difficulty and some counselling should be contemplated, if the couple wants to be in full communicant membership.

I think I can stick with that, but as I said, I won't discuss it any more at this point.

Christine said...

Finally, an answer!

I, too, will take time to respond. There is so much here that is completely baseless and unjust.

You can write back to my forthcoming response whenever you get the chance. I'll wait.

Brigitte said...

OK.

Christine said...

I'm going to deal with everything you've said, but I am going to do it out of order and in multiple instalments. I have a lot to say and this is the best way to make it coherent. First:

"...[having agape, philio and eros - with each supporting the other and being intertwined to be indistinguishable] could also be true for gay couples. I don't see why not."

Agape would be the godly self-sacrificing love - the firm committed foundation. Agape would not nor could ever be sinful. Philios would be as good as it's object. Admiration, respect and fidelity to things that are good would be good. As we are talking about any person, in this case, any spouse, philios would be good. Eros is in itself morally neutral - it's morality being determined by what it supports. In this case, the eros is indistinguishably intertwined - i.e. supports - the agape and philios, which are good, so it is also good. This would make the entirely of a gay relationship, including commitment, passion and sex, to be (at least with equal potential as straight couples) morally commendable. I'll say it again - by this reasoning gay sex can be morally commendable. The love involved can also be inseparable from and supporting of a godly, self-sacrificing incorruptible agape. This precludes the possibility of saying that all instances of gay sex are sin. It also mean that gay relationship are equal in value and morality to straight relationships.

"...even if there is a true and real love..."

This is part where you say "yes, but...". You want to say that something other than true, real, genuine love matters in determining what is moral. Jesus disagrees with you.

"Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second [is] like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." - Matthew 22:37-40

Paul also disagrees with you.

"Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if [there be] any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love [is] the fulfilling of the law." Romans 13:8-10

There is nothing beyond love that is required. If something is love, it cannot violate the law.

Christine said...

"Pastorally speaking, within the church, not the civil realm... this creates a difficulty and some counselling should be contemplated, if the couple wants to be in full communicant membership."

So, a couple should seek counselling to determine if their loving, godly, moral, committed relationship should exclude them from full membership in your church?

"So if there are civil unions celebrated, that is a matter of the government."

Use the word "marriage", Brigitte. You live in Canada - we have full marriage equality. Marriage is first a social institution. Marriage exists in all societies, not just Judeo-Christian ones, and in many forms. No one religious group can claim ownership of a universal human experience. The church once oversaw all of family law, including marriage, but, in our part of the world at least, this is now entirely administered by the state. Furthermore, marriage is recognized as a fundamental human right which governments are required to protect for all citizens.

This is because marriage is more than a set of legal rights. It is a recognition by society as a whole that a couple forms a unit - that they relate to society jointly. This recognition - this equal recognition - is essential to people's well-being and livelihood in a given society.

In addition, for those of us for whom gay marriage forms an important element of our religious experience (see the last minute of this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0dKMhYSX20&feature=player_embedded), not haveing gay marriage violates our freedom of religion. This should be something is church is very concerned with.

So, to sumarize installment 1, you want to say that real genuine love could or should still violate the law, exempt someone from full membership in a church, and lead to a denial of their fundamental human rights. For that, I figure you have some darn reason as to why that is even possible, wouldn't overturn all other aspects of Christian theology, or open the door to numerous other types of discrimination.

...

We'll examine what you actually have to offer on that front in instalment 2.

Legal disclaimer (given the breadth of this post): Everything here reflects my personal view only - it is not reflective of any official position of any organization with which I might be connected.

Christine said...

Hey Brigitte,

Haven't forgotten you. Just been taking a short break from so much blogging.

I was going to refer you to some old posts on NP, as a shortcut, but the search engine on the site isn't working, so it would take longer to find. Probably faster just to re-write. (Some arguments you hear so often, you just recycle the answers.)

Catch up with you soon.

Christine

Brigitte said...

Thanks, Christine, my life is slowly getting back to normal after delightful time with visitor.

I have also been able to make a contact from our church body who writes about this subject matter. As I have told you before, I have had so far no experience with this before nor burning interest. I also think, that I have never been called a heterosexual before...

Christine said...

Hey Brigitte,

Glad to hear you've reached out for more information, and from those who might be able to explain things better in the context of the Lutheran view. (I know some things about Luther, not much at all about modern Lutheranism.)

In my personal view, Christians should be informed about the most pressing human rights issues of our time and should care about church views that are discriminatory. I don't think ignorance is an excuse for assenting to prejudice. But moreover, I find it troubling that people without solid information still hold very firm opinions on the subject - advocating for the withholding of human rights and of full inclusion in the church on the basis of an admittedly uninformed opinion or even a complete lack of caring. Seems outright cruel, considering the degree to which it negatively affects others.

Not sure if you meant "heterosexual", but perhaps you did. Why would you be called that if everyone just assumes everyone else is straight. But not everyone gets away with not having their sexual orientation be an issue.

But you may have meant "heterosexist", which I used above. Although the word "homophobic" is often very appropriate, there are some people, I've found, that are prejudice without necessarily being fearful. There's a new group of Christians who think it perfectly acceptable to hold their discriminatory views simply because they have gay friends or would allow gay people to attend their churches. For those people, I find "heterosexism" to be a better term. It doesn't imply a fear of gay people so much as a belief, implicit or explicit, that straight people are better than gay people and their relationships better or more legitimate. While I wouldn't consider you homophobic, necessarily (although you have used some very negative stereotypes about health and family that on occasion appear to me to walk that line), I would characterize most of your views as heterosexist. In my view, it's a prejudice like any other, such as sexism, racism or anti-Semitism.

Christine

Brigitte said...

Christine, though you don't know me, you have called my quite a few things, nouns and adjectives. Now you are trying to define me even more closely based on things about fathers and such. The things I shared with your regarding children and fathers and birthfamilies even in my own family, are the things I care about, not your sexuality. The points I made about children and fathers, if I call correctly, you have not addressed at all. I don't know why in return I should make the issue you care about the most pressing human rights issue.

If we really care about human beings and their rights, and work on those together we first of all need to treat each other as human beings. Maybe then we can talk about other things but not before.

Christine said...

Brigitte,

Are we talking about two different things here? I never specified which comments of yours I was talking about. Which ones do you think I'm talking about?

(For instance, if the comment you made about fathers could not be viewed as being about the gay community, but just your personal experiences, why would you have expected me to address them?)

I know you've shared personal stories. Completely outside of that, you have made your views clear, in my opinion. Or perhaps you don't realize the implication of some of the things you have said?

For instance, saying all children need fathers implies that lesbian couples are sub-standard parents because of their gender. It does actually imply something about me because of my sexual orientation. It also contradicts the available evidence. The studies you are aware of compare two-parent families to single-mother-headed families, not two opposite-sex parents to two same-sex parents. The only study that did do the necessary comparisons actually concluded that lesbian couples make better parents than opposite-sex couples. (http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1994480,00.html)

I believe I am treating you as a fellow human being. I believe I have done that even while I believe you have implied I was sub-human and have implied I should be denied certain human rights. (I did, on one previous occasion elsewhere, get angry and was very rude to you and for that I apologize.) However, if, before we can talk, you need me to believe you aren't prejudice on this issue, or accept your comments as not having been discriminatory... well, then I can't do that. That would be like me asking you to first agree with me before we can talk. I don't think that is a reasonable expectation.

Finally, I certainly didn't ask you to *make* anything a human rights issue. It already is one, (and not because I care about it). You can decide to know about it or not.

Christine

Brigitte said...

(For instance, if the comment you made about fathers could not be viewed as being about the gay community, but just your personal experiences, why would you have expected me to address them?)

Well, perhaps you could address them anyhow. And perhaps contrast or delineate how they do or do not interrelate with gay community.

For instance, saying all children need fathers implies that... is not what I said.


It does actually imply something about me because of my sexual orientation. It also contradicts the available evidence. The studies you are aware of compare two-parent families to single-mother-headed families, not two opposite-sex parents to two same-sex parents.

That wasn't at all what I was talking about. I have no doubt that two lesbians can be very dedicated parents.

However, if, before we can talk, you need me to believe you aren't prejudice on this issue, or accept your comments as not having been discriminatory... well, then I can't do that.

You already have me as prejudiced, discrimnatory and seeing you as sub-human, even though I have not categorized you, called you names and adjectives or taken any kind of action against you. And I am just supposed to accept that, and then we can have a conversation. Would this work for you?