I previously did a posting a while back entitled Sexual Modesty and Agape Love. Since that time, a person has posted questioning a few of my theological presuppositions in that posting. I thought that I would address those questions through a new post.
Q: Jesus says “Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.” Why do you think that a monogamous sexual relationship is greater than the self-sacrificial friendship that Jesus talks about? Where do you get the idea that sexuality has to enter the picture?
A: Because this is how Paul describes the relationship between human beings and God. In Ephesians 5:31-32 (HCS), Paul says, “31 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two will become one flesh. 32 This mystery is profound, but I am talking about Christ and the church.” At the very least at an allegorical level, Paul indicates that the relationship between Christ and the Church is sexual. The Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary says, “‘United’ means closely joined and, taken in conjunction with the reference to ‘one flesh,’ can refer only to sexual intercourse, which is thus hallowed by the approval of God himself.” You are correct that Christ said that the highest form of love was to die for one’s friends. But who is it that Christ was dying for? It was none other than his bride the church, and the point of his death was to restore the love that was lost between Christ and his bride, as a result of sin. So, Christ dies for his bride, a prostitute (Ez 16:1-59), so that he can restore her to her true glory (Ez 16:60-63). Christ dying for his lover affirms undivided sexuality as the highest form of love because it demonstrates the undivided love of Christ for his bride. “Yet I will remember the covenant I made with you in the days of your youth . . . . Then, when I make atonement for you for all you have done, you will remember and be ashamed . . . .” (Ez 16:60, 63)
Q: “Our relationship with God involves the most radical form of love because it is exclusive and undivided.”
Jesus says “Love your neighbor as yourself” in addition to loving God. Why do you think our love of God is exclusive, and how do you love a spouse if that’s true?
A: There is only one great command and that is to love God and no other. See Ex 22:20 (”Whoever sacrifices to any gods, except the LORD alone, is to be set apart for destruction.”). The second command to love neighbor as self is a logical deduction of the first command. Human beings are created in the image of God. Therefore, the second command is informing us that one way that we fulfill the first command is by doing the second command and loving the image of God in this world. This theory is supported by the text of the love commands. The first command requires absolute love with everything that we are including “heart,” “soul,” “mind,” and “strength.” See Lk 10:27 (HLS). The second command requires a more limited degree of love, which is to love “neighbor as yourself.” See id. Since the first command is absolute, the second command can only be logically reconciled with the first if it is seen as a sub-category of the first command. So, our love for God must be undivided, and our love for human beings is not inconsistent with this.
Q: “It is also the most radical form of love because it is an embrace of otherness.”
Why does this make it the most radical? And how is God the most other thing possible, when he made humans in His image? If it is the most radical form of love, why is that positive?
“Love for something that is absolutely different is an intrinsically higher form of love than love for something that is the same since it is necessarily more difficult and virtuous to embrace otherness.”
This is getting out on really scary theological ground. Just because something is more difficult, doesn’t make it better. It’s more difficult to single-handedly murder 100,000 people than to give a glass of water to a thirsty person, but it’s not better. Also, just because something is more different doesn’t mean it’s better to embrace it. Satan is more different from me than my best friend, so is it better to embrace Satan?
A: I was not making a general statement that was universally applicable to all situations. I was merely stating that the radical otherness that exists between a “man” and a “woman” creates a mysterious distance so to speak, as U2 describes it on their Atomic Bomb Album. This otherness is not something that can really be understood rationally. I would argue that it is an aspect of the feeling of love. But there is something special about embracing something so radically different in nature that at some level one cannot deny that this relationship is meant to be. See Ge 2:18 (”Then the LORD God said, ‘It is not good for the man to be alone.’”).
(Posted by Trask)
6 responses so far ↓
Jon // September 17, 2007 at 8:55 am
“Because this is how Paul describes the relationship between human beings and God.”
If this were the only way the relationship between humans and God were ever described in the scripture, you might have something to work with. However, this relationship is described in many different ways in scripture. Just a few examples:
Master/Servant - Matthew 25
Shepherd/Sheep - John 10
Teacher/Students - Matthew 10
So, by your reasoning, all of these things are the greatest relationships that people can have. Unfortunately, I must reject the idea that being a slave or owning a sheep is as good as a marital relationship.
“the second command is informing us that one way that we fulfill the first command is by doing the second command and loving the image of God in this world.”
I realize that this is straight from Augustine’s On Christian Doctrine, but I think he was wrong. If this is true, then people are not ends in themselves, but only conduits to loving God. This would reduce Christ’s love and sacrifice to nothing more than cosmic masturbation. The love that God has for people indicates to me that people should be loved for what they are, not because they can be used to get at some other goal.
“This otherness is not something that can really be understood rationally. I would argue that it is an aspect of the feeling of love. But there is something special about embracing something so radically different in nature that at some level one cannot deny that this relationship is meant to be.”
Even setting aside the silliness of doing U2 Theology, you are clearly wrong here. You can make a good case that there isn’t “radical otherness” between two people of the same time period, culture, socio-economic standing, race, and education level, who are just of different sexes. Even if you don’t make that case, it does not at all follow that whatever difference there is between men and women implies that the this kind of relationship was meant to be. In fact, the Genesis passage you quote contradicts you almost completely. It says that Woman was formed from a body part of the Man. How less “other” can you get than being of the same physical body? Clearly this image is also being glossed in the “one flesh” passages, where the authors go one step further and say that the two are not even separate beings.
Trask // September 17, 2007 at 11:48 am
If this were the only way the relationship between humans and God were ever described in the scripture, you might have something to work with. However, this relationship is described in many different ways in scripture.
I agree that there are many ways that the relationship between human beings and God is described in the scriptures. However, none of those other relationships dominate the narrative in the same fashion as the sexual allegory, especially in the prophets. The reason is that the heart of the relationship with God is undivided love, and the only relationship in this world that truly symbolizes that type of undivided love is a sexual relationship. This is why in the Ten Commandments God said, “Do not make an idol for yourself, whether in the shape of anything in the heavens above or on the earth below or in the waters under the earth. You must not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the fathers’ sin, to the third and fourth [generations] of those who hate Me, but showing faithful love to a thousand [generations] of those who love Me and keep My commands.” (Exodus 20:4-6, HCS) The first two commandments of the Ten Commandments are essentially the same because they emphasize the importance of what is being said. Undivided and exclusive love is the only way that one can love God. As I have already stated, this undivided love is shown in the love commands to be the highest form of love. Therefore, it seems that the sexual allegory must be the best allegory concerning the relationship between human beings and God.
“the second command is informing us that one way that we fulfill the first command is by doing the second command and loving the image of God in this world.”
I realize that this is straight from Augustine’s On Christian Doctrine, but I think he was wrong. If this is true, then people are not ends in themselves, but only conduits to loving God. This would reduce Christ’s love and sacrifice to nothing more than cosmic masturbation. The love that God has for people indicates to me that people should be loved for what they are, not because they can be used to get at some other goal.
I agree that human beings should be loved as ends in themselves with their own will. The reason that human beings should be loved in this way is because they are personal beings that reflect the nature of God. God, as a necessary being, has to be the ultimate standard for what has value. Human beings, because they have a nature that shares in the nature of God, have an intrinsic worth that must be respected. The love that God expresses for human beings is a love for human beings as independent personal beings with their own will. God expresses his love to human beings and not rocks because human beings have value in the same way that God has value. God is not loving himself when he loves human beings. He is loving separate beings who have value because they reflect his worth.
“This otherness is not something that can really be understood rationally. I would argue that it is an aspect of the feeling of love. But there is something special about embracing something so radically different in nature that at some level one cannot deny that this relationship is meant to be.”
Even setting aside the silliness of doing U2 Theology, you are clearly wrong here. You can make a good case that there isn’t “radical otherness” between two people of the same time period, culture, socio-economic standing, race, and education level, who are just of different sexes. Even if you don’t make that case, it does not at all follow that whatever difference there is between men and women implies that the this kind of relationship was meant to be. In fact, the Genesis passage you quote contradicts you almost completely. It says that Woman was formed from a body part of the Man. How less “other” can you get than being of the same physical body? Clearly this image is also being glossed in the “one flesh” passages, where the authors go one step further and say that the two are not even separate beings.
Do not make fun of the theology of U2. Name your theologian, and I will argue that the band members of U2 stand above him/her. Bono has a wisdom in relation to Christian principles, as a result of his personal love and devotion for God, that few other people in this world have. Hundreds of years from now people will be studying the lyrics of U2 like Shakespeare today, gleaning the depths of the wisdom and theological symbols. I have never argued that the man and woman do not share in the same nature. My argument is merely about the nature of that nature. They share in an oppositional nature. They share in a nature of mutual otherness. The penis is wholly other relative to the vagina. And the vagina is wholly other relative to the penis. Nothing, including a liver or a heart, is more different from a vagina than a penis. And, it is this perfect otherness that demonstrates that they are meant to be together.
Jon // September 18, 2007 at 1:39 pm
“Undivided and exclusive love is the only way that one can love God. As I have already stated, this undivided love is shown in the love commands to be the highest form of love. Therefore, it seems that the sexual allegory must be the best allegory concerning the relationship between human beings and God.”
1) You must only love God.
2) You must only love your spouse.
3) “Human beings should be loved as ends in themselves with their own will.”
These three statements are contradictory, but you’re saying all of them at the same time. That’s why what you’re saying doesn’t make sense.
“Do not make fun of the theology of U2. Name your theologian, and I will argue that the band members of U2 stand above him/her.”
I can’t make fun of what doesn’t exist. U2 writes pop music, they don’t do theology. The first part of your link says:
“Little sister don’t you worry about a thing today
Take the heat from the sun
Little sister
I know that everything is not ok
But you’re like honey on my tongue”
That’s not theology. To claim that it is theology is silly. Even stuff that seems like it might be metaphysical (”True love never can be rent”
is just a trite truism. That’s not what theology is. Hauerwas, Yoder, Schüssler Fiorenza, Niebuhr, Barth, they all do theology. Bono does not do theology. I’d love to know in what way he stands above Augustine, Bonhoeffer, Abraham Kuyper, or N. T. Wright.
“The penis is wholly other relative to the vagina. And the vagina is wholly other relative to the penis. Nothing, including a liver or a heart, is more different from a vagina than a penis.”
This isn’t true in any sense that I can think of. They are both about the same shape and size, though one is hollow and the other solid. They fit together well. They both have similar organs (skin, erectile tissue) and are about the same color. They’re located in similar places on the body. Both are reproductive organs. Both undergo changes at puberty. None of these things are true when you compare a liver or heart with a penis. Can you elaborate on why you think these things, that by all normal measures are so similar, are actually the most different things possible?
A Man and A Woman « AgapeRevolution.com // September 19, 2007 at 6:41 pm
[...] commenter recently stated regarding U2 that “I can’t make fun of what doesn’t exist. U2 writes pop [...]
Ella // January 7, 2008 at 11:13 am
I think this explains this song in a well written and informative way. I think U2 themselves has siad we’re a “rock band”, not self professed theologians.
They have a voice that may bring people to look at God more closely and perhaps lead them to God. After all we are each called to serve in Him in various ways. I do admire that quality as speaking about it in public can spell death to many involved in show biz or music industry.
After all they did start out as a Christian band beofre they evolved into the “U2″ band we now today. They almost borke up over religion. I think some of the other remarks made are off themark though in what they state.
I feel they have “theological virtues” though. I used this song in one of my blogs, in the exact manner you wrote about.
I like very U2, I don’t worship U2.I don’t think U2 wants that either, and anyone that thinks that is very mistaken.
God makes it very plain in the “big book”, the BIBLE that He is God and the only one we should worship. Using their music to help others find there way there to Him I think is perfectly accepatable.
Blessings,
Ella
Ella // January 7, 2008 at 11:15 am
I’m a fast and bad typer so excuse the typo’s please. I think you get the message though.
Blessings,
Ella
Leave a Comment