I would like to revisit this concept of love-as-suffering. I hope that those brought over by Spe Salvi come back (stick around?) for this.
On that thread, Bill says:
Too many people today want to think of love as emotion, love as a reciprical relationship, love as lust.In fact the devil wants us cloudy about what real love is.
[…]
If you want to know what God thinks love really is, look at the Crufix. If you want to know how much we’re supposed to forgive others, look at the painful Crucifix.
I was reminded of this again, after letting it pass because I didn’t think I could be unsnide (I shall try), when listening to a blast from the past, Offspring’s Self Esteem:
The more you suffer
The more it shows you really care
…Right?
But what it reminded me of when I first heard it was my sisters’ responses to my moving in (sin) with my (now) husband. My favorite sister called to offer to cut off her pinky if that would keep me from doing it. She said she would do “anything” to keep me from it and offered to cut off and send me her pinky. The other sister (who believes that my parents are actually Protestants, despite what they might think, because they care too much about work) told me that, while she disapproved, she was glad that our parents had to deal with me, since they’d not experienced enough suffering in their lives.
Not profound expressions of love, me thinks. Now, I understand that love=suffering does not necessarily mean suffering=love, but surely driving nails through your own/your son’s wrists on behalf of your other children is also a strange way of expressing love.
As the saying goes, with friends like these, &c. I know that many traditions make allowances for the existence of suffering in the world in different ways and I also disagree with Buddhism’s life=suffering. I have suffered because of my loves: for my husband (as noted above), for my sisters, probably every one I’ve ever loved. But I endured the suffering because of my love; nor did I anticipate suffering due to love. Which is to say, given the opportunity to love again, I will love, whether suffering is part of the package or not.
Love is not lust, I concede that point to you readily (although we could go Greek and say that there is eros which is love and there is agape which is love), but love is an emotion. It is something you feel and have no control over. Perhaps one of the most primal of emotions (one can often learn to control anger). It is not rational, which stands at the other end of the scale from emotion. It may not be reciprocal (which is one of the proofs of its emotional state), but it can be, and is often sweeter when it is.
Sacrifice and suffering are part of existence. That they are also part of another part of existence is no great surprise. Sacrifice and suffering can be experienced not only in love but in eating, driving, sleeping, or any other activity humans participate in (even judo and skiing, those highest of activities). And certainly love is not synonymous with pleasure. But I simply have no concept of how love could possibly be suffering in any one’s mind. Or how they could continue life if that were the case.
7 responses so far ↓
1 Rich // Jan 11, 2008 at 7:48 am
I would say rather that sacrifice is one of the highest expressions of love, and it sometimes requires suffering (like Christ’s sacrifice for us) — when you are doing something, risking something, giving up something, possibly suffering in the process, to benefit another. I’m reminded for example of the man in the freezing river following a plane crash back East a few years ago, helping to get fellow passengers to safety; he finally expired in his rather noble, selfless efforts. I would call his suffering in the freezing water a most definite expression of love.
Giving birth to a baby (enduring pain), sleepless nights to feed, nurture, tend sickness, etc. — these things are often filled with unpleasantness and pain and sacrifice. But in those acts, our love for our children can and does deepen, and our lives (and theirs) are enriched as a result, and the bonds of love are strengthened in the process.
Your sisters’ (I believe loving) concern over your moving in with your (then) boyfriend) most likely sprang from the idea behind the Christian commandment for chastity that, more often than not, fidelity leads to increased trust leads to stronger bonds of love in a relationship; a way of improving your odds of happiness. But it is obviously not a a guarantee of happiness, as your boyfriend became your lover became your husband became your life parter, and you proved their concerns unwarranted. I don’t think you should therefore be too hard on them… ;^)
2 Rich // Jan 11, 2008 at 8:03 am
By way of clarification — it isn’t suffering for the sake of suffering that is love, but rather the willingness to suffer if it means that others won’t suffer, that is at the heart of love.
The idea isn’t that Christ drove nails into his own hands — he allowed others to take his life so that he could conquer death; he suffered and atoned for our sins, so that if we repent, we won’t suffer for them too. That’s the idea anyway.
3 Bored in Vernal // Jan 11, 2008 at 10:57 am
xJane, this is a wonderful and thoughtful post which I very much enjoyed reading and thinking about.
Love is very hard to define and it may or may not include some of these other things such as sacrifice or suffering. But can’t we just as well say love is JOY! Love is ECSTASY!
How about, “I am willing to experience HAPPINESS for love?”
4 xJane // Jan 11, 2008 at 12:49 pm
BiV: yes! that’s what I was trying to articulate, thank you
Yes, suffering is part & parcel of the human experience but so is joy. And I look forward to going home to a place I love, to two cats that I love, to the partner (boyfriend/husband/POSSLQ) that I love because it brings me joy & peace, not because I’ll have to sacrifice & suffer when I get there. Although that may be the case, with sick kitties and a husband with the flu…
Rich: sacrifice & suffering can be expressions of love and yes, the noble death of the man who swam to save his fellow passengers is certainly noble. But I don’t think it’s the ultimate expression by any stretch. As to being hard on my sisters…I do try, but being called whore & half expecting to receive dismembered pieces of them in the mail makes it difficult. I love them despite the suffering, not because of it.
5 Brian // Jan 13, 2008 at 2:04 am
Warning: I’m going to ramble. Probably a lot.
I’d like to talk about love, in response to your post, from two sources; human, and divine. I’ll try to tie them both into suffering as well.
Obviously, not all love involves suffering, and not all suffering is love. The same goes for love and sacrifice, though only up to a point. Love…means an awfully large spectrum of things, which I’d say depends on the object of our love. You love your home, because of how it shelters you, appeals to your aesthetic sensibilities, etc. It’s pretty one way, no need to try to keep your home happy. You love your cat to a greater degree, enjoying it from a purely physical sense, nice color, soft fur, as well as how your cat responds to you; a bond, a connection that is shared on some level. You love your partner (one would hope) even more profoundly than your cat, and now things really get messy. Pheromones and biological impulses, questions of physical attractiveness, philosophical compatibility, from the color of the eyes to the stimulating conversation and beyond, this is a bond with potential for deep mutual fulfillment. From a Christian standpoint, you become one flesh…distinct, yet joined, living separate lives, yet a shared life. Each level requires more from you, and gives more back. Your house doesn’t need attention, just upkeep. Your cat doesn’t need your emotional support and physical intimacy. Your partner can fulfill you most deeply of all, but in a relationship that requires sacrifice (though not always painful or unwilling) on both parts. (I would also posit, at least, the final level, that directed to God, to whom we owe our entire lives, passions, and energies, and, though requiring nothing from us to fulfill Himself, can provide for us as our ultimate end, our creator, sustainer, and final happiness.)
Let me also affirm something which does not seem to be touched upon much here, that love is not just an emotion (though I would say that joy and peace are some of the best examples of the emotion of love), but a choice, and an action. In the example above of a man who ultimately sacrifices his life to save others, I see shades of this. This man in all likelihood had no time or inclination for any emotional bond with the particular people he saved. No, he made a choice, and he acted, in love, perhaps knowing nothing about them. It is why I can promise my wife that I will always love her. Any couple knows that the feelings of falling in love wane over time; the hormones, the neurochemicals are not secreted as abundantly as they were at first. But feelings or the vicissitudes of circumstance do not have to prevent me from LOVING, from giving, from caring. I view love as a giving of oneself. Thus, one could say that the highest forms of love involve some sort of sacrifice in a sense. Small or large, we all give up something of ourselves for those around us, whether it is not plowing mindlessly through a crowd of people or going without food so that your child has something to eat. Though this may be sacrifice, it isn’t necessarily painful…our lives would be empty without them.
This brings me to speculation on divine love. First, if the most common Christian concept of God is used in the arguement, clearly love from God’s perspective is nothing like the human love described in the post. If God is spiritual in nature, then his love has nothing to do with endorphines, seratonin, or pheromones. If love were merely an emotion, then it would not apply to God as we know it. If God loves us, it is an act of will, of choice, of his nature. He creates and sustains, out of love, though not out of any need or deficiency in Himself. We are told that God loved us so much that he was willing to take on human form, flesh and frailty, “emptying” Himself, and ultimately submitting to an ignoble death. Issues of atonement and salvation aside, I find that a powerful statement. Not “I love you enough to share my toys” or “I love you so much I’ll try and ignore your morning breath and weight gain for the rest of my life.” but “I love you so much I would die for you.” We are told this is the highest form of love we can show as well. If love is giving yourself for another, then there is no way to surpass the giving of everything you are and everything you might one day be by dying for another.
Finally, in a slight off topic, I don’t know if you’re being hard on your sisters or not. On the one hand, your sister saying she would cut off her finger may simply be her way of stressing to you how seriously she takes your decision, and its consequences for you. She’s (hopefully) not going to break out the cleaver if you buy a Ford instead of a Toyota, but is saying (in a somewhat convoluted, terrifying way) that she feels the harm you may undergo through your choice is less than the harm she would undergo in pulling a Frodo Baggins. As to being called a whore, that is certainly not my definition of love. I don’t call into question your sister’s love for you, but that is not a means of expressing it, even if she were trying to prevent you from making a mistake. In my book, such things should be done with “gentleness and reverence”. But we are all imperfect, by any standard, and it is up to us to love one another, flaws and all. If we don’t, who will?
6 Bored in Vernal // Jan 13, 2008 at 8:07 am
Sorry, but I see the finger-chopping thing as purely manipulative. Not love at all, guys. But what do I know?
7 xJane // Jan 13, 2008 at 2:44 pm
lol! I’m totally stealing that, Brian.
I’m not certain that I will concede the point of love being a choice just yet. If I had a dime (rates have gone up) for every time I wondered just why I love [insert person/activity/thing], I’d be rich beyond imagining. I recently spoke with a coworker who just completed a successful bid toward a woman he’s been hoping to date for some time. He was very excited and I asked him what it is about her (I don’t know her) that he likes. His answer surprised me: it wasn’t “she makes me happy” or “I don’t know”, which is often the answer, but “she challenges me to do the things I want to do”. Which is a very mature answer and I wish him well in life & in love. But it seemed a little calculated (says the geek). It seemed not to leave much room for love, just political and bike-ological activism. His love for her, it seemed to me, was a choice, an informed decision. Most of the loves I personally have experienced have been beyond my control: love for my family, for my partner, even grudging love for his cats.
If we love god, it is not because we choose to, because He has made such sacrifices for us or because She has created us, but because we cannot help it. I once read that “creation is not something that gods do, it is something that they are.” I think for the purposes of our conversation here, “creation” can be exchanged for “love”. I think your example of the man who rescued his sibling-strangers is evidence: he had no moment to pause and choose to perform a selfless act. Just as the Samaritan could conceive of no other possible action than to help a sibling/stranger in need, the swimmer did what he did because he could not not do it. It was a reflex act, like catching a ball he was tossed.
& BiV: I’m totally with you on the finger-chopping…
Leave a Comment