God is our lover

http://www.usccb.org/bible/readings/122116.cfm
SG 2:8-14
LK 1:39-45

The love between a woman and a man reflects the intimacy of God and man in a way that nothing else does. In the Song of Songs everything that stands in the way of Eros falls away. We cannot escape the union of lovers when we read this scripture. 

Our world culture has turned Eros into a conflict of desires, shamed awfully by perversity and heralded ridiculously by painted and paraded romance. In Solomon’s Song of Songs, something else is going on — unashamed beauty and entwined love, from God’s view of his creation.

C.S. Lewis describes Eros as one of the four bonds of love relationships. The Greeks coined the vast arena of love as a quadrant of agape, phileo, storge, and Eros. Translated into English, we call them affection, friendship, charity and Eros. The Greek name Eros for physical, sexual, and romantic love survives. Lewis, though, had more to say about the dangers of Eros than any other love. He wrote two books on the subject - The Four Loves and Till We Have Faces. In essence, he and many apologists approach Eros with caution. Such is our intellectual retreat from the raw nature of Eros, a holy love turned into a dangerous fire.

(I have capitalized Eros not to raise it within the ranks of love, but to focus upon it, and draw our attention to it.)

Agape points to the sacrificial, unconditional love often associated with parents and their children, the work of missionaries, and the merciful, bountiful love of God.

Phileo refers to friendship commitments that take us out of ourselves. Phileo love elevates our emotions into a relationship. Storge seems to emanate from Philia, to me, as a way to emphasize the DNA bond of friendship within families as a unique, natural affection from that of acquaintances and pals.

The classic presentation of Eros according to the mystics of Catholicism boldly proclaims the magnetic, caring, lengthy courtship of lovers and their ultimate sexual union for life as the model for God’s intimate knowledge and interplay with humanity. Nothing is unknown to God, and what God has created is wholly good.

What, then, is it that falls away in the reading of Song of Songs? How does the scripture distance itself from perversity and the ridiculous?

Hark! my lover–here he comes
springing across the mountains,
leaping across the hills.
My lover is like a gazelle
or a young stag. 
      SG 2:8

I believe scripture escapes the corruption of erotic love by removing all that surrounds Eros in our historical world. Solomon does that because he avoids cynicism. In a conversation with a dear friend this week, we discussed the blanket that cynicism drapes over the honest truth of a living, loving relationship to God. Cynicism brushes a broad cover of mistrust and failure over us all, with the “impossible to believe” love of God. God’s love of us, at a level that includes all elements of the Greek’s and Lewis’ definition of love, cannot be believed. Therefore, we do not study love in that way. We do not live out love as if God were holding our hand and whispering in our ear.

The deception of cynicism that shreds Eros into both a perversion and an animal function is a unique corruption. But like all failed love, we will lose joy, and focus instead upon the twisted view of a broken world when cynicism wins out. We will get a litany of problems. The churning doubt that cannot trust love’s purity. Suspicion that cannot believe another person cares more about us than they do themselves, which allows us to do the same. A life built upon pessimism and negative motivation attends to weariness with detachment. Like us, so must be God — doubtful due to continued rejection, and ultimately detached from our lives. And while all love appears to fail and fade, Eros particularly gets smothered under the weight of wary and dubious hearts when cynicism prevails.

We dismiss love as holy Eros with cynical eyes, deceitful thoughts, and collapsed experience. We know what happens when a lover disregards our attention and gift of our selves. We don’t just get hurt. We are rejected, and ruined for any other.

But the Song of Songs cries out a different refrain. Both the male and the female voices calls out to the other in the scripture. No misogyny marks the man. No siren call spoil the woman. In an uplifting, inspiration poem of allure and lovely courtship, God’s design upon the communion of man and woman is a symbol of Jesus and the Bride, the Christ and the People of God. It startles us with it’s captivating harkened refrain to embrace and be one.

O my dove in the clefts of the rock,
in the secret recesses of the cliff,
Let me see you,
let me hear your voice, 
For your voice is sweet,
and you are lovely.
           SG 2:14

The simile of deer and dove are not debased by their animalistic courting dance between the lovers. They enhance the inviting courtship as an essential element of a lasting love relationship.

My lover speaks; he says to me,
“Arise, my beloved, my dove, my beautiful one,
and come!”
           SG 2:10

What has cynicism brought us? As love fails between man and woman, in all the vagaries of finances, sex, politics, family and illness, another principle, that of unconditional and committed love with God as the lover, healer and guide, gets replaced. Permanence whipped away lifts up a more practical and socially acceptable serial monogamy. “For as long as we can” replaces the notion of vow and submission and forgiveness. God’s intense attentiveness to our deepest desires and gift of self no longer seems likely, then no longer apparent, and finally not an acceptable or mature reality.

Rather than youth subscribing to lifelong commitments as God’s partners in creation and examples of his love, they grasp at the individual experiences of Eros in order to learn how to establish a mature reality. Love relationships fulfill better under agreements and satisfactory partnerships, rather than God fulfilling us with our eager sharing of creation with those he joins together. In what way would God join any of us if chance encounters present us with the options, not divinity?

That, unseemly and unfortunate view of a cynically driven world does not rule, however. It only advertises itself, promotes its data, and exemplifies the outcomes of bad luck and worse choices with celebrity. The married host of lovers, though, knows better, even if the words can’t penetrate the mantle of cynicism. God’s submitted legions of vowed lovers to the divine example of all forms of love, whether Eros or Agape, fill the homes of the world.

Lovers wink and reach for each other, whether young stags or doves who can no longer fly. Their vision of the lovely disregards the wrinkles and slipping memories, because they know that creation requires that they hold fast to each other. Even as they falter, and perhaps split in painful diatribes of hurtful slings, they yearn for those moments that defined their commune. They recall the words of their wedding celebration where God did join them together. Or, they wonder if that commission would have helped them.

Eros, like the unavoidable desire to sacrifice for another out of agape or phileo or storge love, is unavoidable also. Eros attracts lovers with a power that God insists must be present.

The crude language of perversity at beautiful women or at handsome men may land like spittle that has damaged the universe, but God will not cease his winsome creatures from gracing the world. Sexual harassment, whether ignorant or mean-spirited, cannot reorder God’s design of courageous men and nurturing women. Violence in rape or destruction from whipsawed sexual anger cannot unhinge the process of courtship and wedded love. None of these corruptions hold merit.

Not only does the progeny of our unions add to the ranks of God’s beloved, his desire to fill creation with more to join him for eternity, the union of two beloveds shows the world that God has made us like him. 

We are lovers, because this is how God loves us.