| |
A man once said to me, “Love is an action. It was mankind who invented the slogan ‘I am in love.’”
He was frustrated with the “I’m in love” slogan. We were discussing how many people divorce because they no longer feel “in-love” with their previous partner. What they really mean by “in love” is that they no longer feel erotic toward them.
Love is an action. Paul explained that in 1 Corinthians 13.
But if we grow frustrated at mankind for inventing the phrase “in-love,” then we might want to glance back at the ancient Greeks to consider their use of the word “agape,” which means “unconditional love.” Actually, the Greeks used various different terms to describe the different kinds of loves so that they might better understand each other.
C.S. Lewis provides a list of four Greek words for love in his book, “The Four Loves.”
- Agape - Unconditional love.
- Eros - Erotic love.
- Phileo - Friendship love.
- Storge - Affectionate love.
I love God, I love my brother, and one day I will love the woman I marry. But we understand those loves to be different. I will not love my wife in the same way that I love my mother. And I will not love my children in the same way that I love my friends.
Today, we in the West use the term “love” to denote feelings for all our loved ones: siblings, friends, lovers, etc., but we do not always specify which kind of love we are addressing. If I point to a woman sitting beside me in a theatre or at school and I say to you, “I love her,” you might say to yourself, “Well he likes or cares about her very much” without understanding that my love for her is actually erotic. But if I say, “I am in love with her” you are convinced that the love I have for her is indeed erotic, without question.
In order to compare and contrast love and lust, we must understand exactly what kind of love we are addressing. Let it be known that from this moment forward, we are comparing unconditional love and lust.
We love unconditionally not because we expect something in return or because of the fact that the thing we love is so lovable (attracting our love). We love because we decided to do so. And we act on that love. In loving others, we desire the best for them.
In lusting, however, we only care about some thing or some person because of what it or he or she can offer us.
One might argue that when a man says, “I lust for her,” he could be speaking of something in regard to his wife (such as her appearance, accent, her intellect, her courtesy to strangers, the way she tilts her head, etc.) with whom he also loves unconditionally. So lust can conceivably co-exist with love. Therefore, lust is not always the opposite of love.
However, if he is setting those external qualities aside from his wife (accent, intellect, etc.) and desiring only those, then he does not care for who she is as a person, but only for how her qualities impress him or sexually entice him. Therefore, this proves that he cares for his well-being (the fact that he gets to feel enticed) more than he cares for her well-being. Therefore, lust may indeed be the opposite of love.
So what is the present conclusion?
If you lust, you desire only what can be offered you. If you love, you desire the well-being of another without any reward being offered you.
Editor’s note: For a related article in this issue, see "Purity is Possible." In a previous issue, see “Love and Lust: What’s the Difference.”
Russell Lingerfelt graduated from Auburn University in Human Development and Family Studies and is currently pursuing a Masters in Divinity at Pepperdine University. You can visit his website at www.jamesrussell.org.
|
|
