While I do admit there is no place on earth that you can go to actually see, taste, touch, smell or hear God, there are many abstract concepts which show us that we exercise a faith in the intangibles in our everyday lives and so a faith in the reality of God is not so far removed, no more so than a trust in a fiancé(e). I hope to address some of these in my summer posts.
We live with abstracts all the time and act as though they are daily realities though there really is no tangible or direct empirical evidence for them. Let us take love as an example. A much misunderstood book, the Song of Songs, says this of love,
“Many waters cannot quench love,
Nor can the floods drown it.
If a man would give for love
All the wealth of his house,
It would be utterly despised.”
If I were to say, “I love my wife”, as my bumper sticker declares, many people would respond with “isn’t that sweet” (though once I did have a woman try to peel it off). You can measure my love only by my corresponding actions though there might be other reasons why someone might act as they were “in love”. You can observe that I tell Mary that I love her, that I do special things for her, that I honor her by treating her uniquely, and yet you cannot witness the substance of that love outside of the shadow love throws, its corresponding actions. Though it is not some cold impersonal theory that can be empirically measured, love can be likened to gravity that is invisible. You can’t see gravity but you can witness its effect. On the other hand, though gravity can be measured as a constant (F=G([m1*m2]/D^2) ), love fluctuates, which makes it even more difficult to detect. Sometimes it’s as white hot as the verse above, sometime its flame quietly smolders (especially during the busyness of the toddler years of raising children). Either way, its observation is only a matter of effect, not observable and empiracle substance. My questions for you are two, “What is love?” and, “What defines love?”, and then “What conclusions can we draw?”.
What is love?
Let’s start with the “what” of love. I’m sure science can break down the feeling of attraction and romance to pure “chemistry”, literally, neurotransmitters like dopamine or serotonin, jumping from one nerve site to the next until every part of the body responds in some fashion to the initial impulse. I’m sure that measurements of endorphins and enkephalons would demonstrate that love has chemical and measurable properties. As with other emotions, too, like fear and anger, worry or sadness, feelings originate in and are generated and then felt in certain parts of the body. Now, I’m sure we’ve all felt the “punch in the gut” when we’ve received bad news. I’m sure we’ve all felt that “ton of bricks” feeling in our solar plexus when we are depressed, or, on the flip side, that lighter on air feeling when all goes well as planned, or that floating on the clouds feeling when we think someone of the opposite sex who we are attracted to finds us attractive. But may I ask, is this abstract emotion, just that a product of chemistry and biology? Granted those are wonderful feelings, and it is wonderful to have those feelings accompany love but is there anything more to romance than hormones? Are we just producing a reaction to a given set of stimuli? Is romance romantic, or physiologically and unromantically explainable? While the 19th century romantics and naturalists like Shelley, Keats and Wordsworth, were often inspired to express Beauty in linguistically “magical” ways, it seems they weren’t expressing transcendental thought at all, but responding hormonally to animal instinct. Furthermore, the atheistic naturalist has no platform or foundation to make a statement regarding the awe of mystery or glory of beauty since they are merely products of their environments. What a sad lot they are confined to!
What defines love?
Let’s move on to define what love is and isn’t. (If you’re looking for a definition of True Love, look no further than the movie Princess Bride, a favorite of my wife and I. Though one may argue about the significance and purpose of love in the role of procreation in a naturalistic society, do we really relegate love only to a desire to survive, as the animals do? Love goes much further than this. I don’t think love is readily observable unless you speak of human love. This does not detract from some of the beautiful acts of protection and seeming self-sacrifice witnessed in the animal kingdom. Maybe, I’m anthropomorphizing but animals can show us great beauty in reflecting a principle without even realizing what they were created to do. In addition, animal “procreation”, even with its unique and often colorful mating rituals, are just that, attempts to attract strong partners so that the species is preserved and strengthened. But is love only a desire to procreate, self-gratify, or demonstrate a principle? Is there a greater and truer definition? I remember an episode of a TV show from the 70’s, Hill Street Blues. This show often left me upset because it, more than occasionally, ended on a sour note. I enjoyed a relatively happy conclusion of most of the shows of the era. In that show there was a sergeant who was responsible for instructing, preparing and briefing the officers each day before their patrols. I don’t remember his name but one thing I do remember was his desire to have children. His reason was so that he could perpetuate his seed. It was his attempt at immortality, his grasp at purpose, his hope of contribution. Unfortunately for his character, it never became a reality. In our current cultural climate, love has in some measure been reduced to mutual self-gratification. Partners (not necessarily a wife or husband) provide some fulfillment of need for one another. Love is most admired in our society, especially through movies or television, where two souls “fall in love”, despite great differences or odds. Of course, culture promotes it as the most beautiful of relationships, but reality tells a harsher though no less beautiful tale. While the media glorifies sentimental attraction or interest, true love is much more about commitment, dedication, and self-sacrifice. Just read the grocery aisle drivel to get a glimpse of the transience and temporary nature of today’s “love”. Is this the best we can do? What exactly does “falling in love,” mean any way? Is “love” a concept that exists for the sole purpose of the survival of the species, for the preservation of the order of mankind? Is it all about chemicals in the body, based on a preferential set of desires to find a perfect companion, and even savior, or is it quite the opposite, a kind of modern epicurean’s experiment in ultimate experience, as the 60’s “free love” movement might suggest? We might heed Macbeth’s admonition, “it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing”. Is love really rational?
What conclusions can we draw?
When we more closely examine the nature of human existence, I think we find ample reason to conclude that much of what humanity values is esoteric, abstract, intangible, and transcendent. If there is more to love than brain chemicals and instinct, if we can accept irrational concepts and commitments which surround love, is it really that hard to accept a belief in God, especially One that loved us so? I would like to recommend to you the ultimate of love stories, one which explains the reality of True Love, one where Beauty married the beast, a love which was not unilateral commitment and acceptance. The love I refer to is the love between our Bridegroom, Christ, and His Bride, the people of God. Such a people were not meritorious, deserving of that love, but often behaved as a whore, selling herself for private gain. In Ezekiel’s rebuke these people, Ezekiel scorns Israel for not only being unfaithful to her heavenly Bridegroom, the God of Israel, but oddly enough for hiring her lovers. It was not enough that she could get something in return for their temporary and often lustful attention. She offered lucre for their advances. This is ultimately the only love mankind can offer, a cheap, sentimental love, grasping for identity, meaning and purpose. But despite such repudiation of tenderness and beauty, how does the heavenly Groom react? Does He abandon her for her unfaithfulness, brandish a cauterizing hot poker rod with the letter “A” (for adultery) at tips end? No, He displays real self-sacrificial and unconditional love. Despite His right as a slighted, dishonored, and betrayed Lover, to have His wife publicly humiliated, discredited, or even divorced, He embraces her in all her ugliness and shame. Even if we had it within ourselves to overlook embarrassment and dishonor of such a spouse, He went a fathom further by reckoning her repugnant behavior to Himself and suffering not just the justice and condemnation of a human court but of the Divine One. He did not trivialize her scandalous behavior, nor minimize it, but took it to His bosom and drank to the dregs the cup of indignation and wrath, His Father had filled for His adulterous Bride. With His vindication as the Blameless One, came His resurrection and the reckoning of His obedience to those who would put their trust not in themselves, but in True Love. Wesley’s words weren’t quite right when he said, “do you think true love comes around every day?” His implication was that it came around maybe once in a century. Real True Love, however, comes around once in all of history but is accessible to people of any age.
