Let us first consider the concept of love. Love is not a feeling. It is a commitment to follow through, despite what emotions may come and go. Feelings are fleeting; they fluctuate often. The commitment carries one through the various moods, providing support and security. In a marriage, for example, it is inevitable that there will be periods of boredom, irritation, ennui, etc. The commitment to stay together and fulfill the obligations of the marriage facilitate its survival. A commitment to the Almighty entails a similar obligation to overcome fear, pain, jealousy, lethargy etc. and do what is right.

I once heard a drug counselor [a former addict herself] say that just because you want to do something, it doesn’t mean that you have to do it. Emotions can be transcended via free will. Emotions are not an expression of free will. They are fleeting urges. Catering to them is the opposite of free will.

Free will is the exercising of what has been consciously decided, using value judgments. In Love, Human and Divine, Edward Vacek explains how “we have the freedom to consent to emotion’s various moment’s” (Vacek 15). He goes on to describe how we have the ability to use our value judgments to modify how we emotionally respond to given situations.

Feelings of revulsion, for example, over someone who is disabled can firstly be suppressed. That is, a commitment is made to act as though the feeling was not there, even though it remains. An effective method to make this easier is to consciously decide to be empathetic. If the negative feelings begin to well up, one can simply pause and think, “what if that was me?”

Over time, as the amount of interpersonal contact accumulates, the superficiality of the disability is more and more easily ignored in favor of the special uniqueness of that person. Eventually, the need to suppress revulsion is obviated by the fact that the person is now loved as a friend.

If, in the above example, one chooses instead to cater to the revulsion, both parties are deprived. The prospective helper is less of a person. The opportunity to become a better person by modifying one’s emotions to match the values are lost. Indeed, the emotion may serve to modify the values in the negative direction instead. Someone who could have been loved is instead despised, as well as others with similar challenges.

Furthermore, I have found through numerous personal experiences that people who have endured a great deal of suffering, whether this suffering is the consequence of bad personal choices or not, have wisdom to share. It is less painful to learn from other people’s mistakes than from one’s own. Clearly there is a domino effect consequent to choosing to love, to looking for something to love in places where it may not be apparent.

Tragically, current popular culture tells us that whatever each individual may want at any particular moment is by definition what is right. As long as indulging in fleeting desires doesn’t hurt anyone else, doing so is socially acceptable. There is no provision to question whether or not these fluctuating feelings are valid. Freedom is defined by the ability to indulge in these feelings.

Animals have no option as to whether or not to act according to basic emotional reactions to external stimuli. Only humans have the ability to evaluate the validity of emotional responses. Yet, popular culture would have us abandon this ability and, consequently, abandon true freedom. The ability to choose to do what is right, regardless of what one feels, is true freedom. Having one’s actions dictated by range-of-the-moment urges is enslavement.

The story of the Biblical fall from grace [and the concept of Original Sin] is popularly portrayed as the ultimate example of arbitrary religious tyranny. This is what I had thought, until recently. Yahweh sets up a perfect environment wherein people are placed and kept perfectly ignorant. Then, man eats of the tree of knowledge and, upon discovery by Yahweh, is banished from Paradise.

How perfectly monstrous! Human beings, sentient creatures are kept as pets in an artificial environment [since current convention holds that anything constructed using thought is, by definition artificial]. The reality is more subtle than what is apparent. Prior to eating of the tree of knowledge, man was blessed with the ability to see and value things as does the Almighty.

Humans had the opportunity to look upon existence and each other as essentially a blessing. Adam and Eve saw each other as they actually were in totality, i.e. luminous beings, divine in nature, splendor incarnate. After the fall, they saw each other merely as objects to be used, as means to individual needs, not as inextricable parts of one another. In other words, The divine perspective was rejected, what remained was the perspective of the rest of the animal kingdom.

The choice to eat of the tree of knowledge symbolizes the choice to abandon the direct guidance and vision of the Almighty. This vision, prior to the fall, automatic and inconceivable otherwise is now pursued by the faithful in a quest which can take a lifetime just to take a glimpse of. There was no special knowledge nor keen insight gained by eating of the fruit. It was the spiritual equivalent of a juvenile storming out of the house before he is ready to fully take on the world.

We live by means of our intellect. We cannot survive as a race, preying upon each other as animals do. There wouldn’t be any point of us being here; animals are much better at living by means of physical abilities and basic emotions, they’ve had a great deal more practice and are designed as such. Attempting to live as animals is contrary to our design.

Man cannot regurgitate the bites of the tree of knowledge. Once innocence is lost, it cannot be regained. With the maturity that comes with making mistakes, we must knowingly choose to defer to a more qualified arbiter of values, the Almighty.

In The Authority of Women in the Catholic Church, Monica M. Miller explores the crisis of authority concerning Catholic women precipitated by the influence of feminism. The basic issues discussed in her book can be extrapolated into the crisis of faith and resistance to submission to the divine which is being played out within the entire current culture.

Long before the feminists appeared, clergy of many faiths and the hierarchy of the Catholic Church in particular had beenunder attack for unjust exercise of power and unfair access to po`sitions of power. “Their attack is based upon a secular view of authority as a quantifiable force [italics mine], exercised visibly and publicly by persons who hold a special position or office” (Miller 3).

Miller goes on to explain that “real authority is not synonymous with power.” In the secular “Nietzschean world”, authority devolves from the exertion of physical superiority to dominate a group. There is “no inherent relation between the leader and the group”, nor is there any between the members of the group. There is an implicit assumption that the interests between leadership to group and from member to member are inherently in conflict (Miller 4).

This denies that there is “ontological truth or harmony.” Each of us has our place in this world, a role to play in human existence. There is a role to play for the Almighty as well. Miller reminds us that “the word authority comes from the Latin auctores meaning to be the author or creator of something.” Miller goes on to explain that obedience is demanded of the Jews by Yahweh, “not for its own sake”, but because obeying the Almighty is critical for their survival (Miller 5).

To illustrate, consider how well an army would function if orders were not obeyed. A group of one hundred men may be ordered to attack an opposing force of one thousand. These hundred men, seeing this from only their own myopic perspective may balk at being sent in for senseless annihilation. Their generals cannot explain to them that their sacrifice will enable ten thousand of their own to safely retreat. If the hundred do not obey, they will be lost as well as the ten thousand they were sent to save.

Some times it is necessary to simply obey, even if one does not posses complete understanding as to why. Miller ends her book by admonishing us to abandon the “lust to take power for oneself, but in the power to receive and to be filled” (Miller 151). We are not equipped to understand everything. We need not. All we have to do is trust in the Almighty. That kind of trust can only issue forth from love.

Three critical aspects of love need to be defined and discussed: agape,  eros and philia. Eros is a more visceral appreciation; it is from the heart. It is not only the sexual response suggested by the related words evoked. It is also a love generated by beauty, such as a colorful sunset, a flower, a piece of music, etc. It is a response that some of the more complex animals may be capable of experiencing in their own way. It is characterized by Vacek as a love for another “directed to fulfilling the interests or development of the self” (Vacek 247).

Agape is the spiritual appreciation, which comes from the mind. An agape response may be evoked from any of the above-listed objects in addition to the eros. Agape love may be summoned by the sunset and flower for the Creator as examples of His glory. Agape love is that which is given, for the sake of the other, not because of what the other has done for the one who loves. A work of man, such as a piece of music, may evoke a similar response for the author.

Philia is a “mutual love... a pluralist approach... Most Christian authors praise a self-sacrificing love or a love that works for the other; some praise a love by which we live from others; unfortunately, only a few argue at length on behalf of a love that means being with others” (Vacek 280). The community which results from the emphasis upon “interpersonal relationships” must not be neglected, according to Vacek.

Vigen Guroian, in his book, Incarnate Love cautions us that agape and eros are “both united and distinct.”  “Eros without agape degenerates into carnal desire and finally a God- and man denying narcissism. Agape without eros is itself replaced by a benevolent self-interestedness and finally a God- and man denying egotism” (Guroian 39).

He continues by examining the denial of the possibility of agape by man, using the example of Dostoevsky’s Brothers Karamozov. Ivan is quoted as saying, “’Christ’s love for human beings was an impossible miracle [italics mine] on earth. But he was a God. And we are no gods... The idea of loving one’s neighbor is possible only as an abstraction: it may be conceivable to love one’s fellow man at a distance, but it is almost never possible to love him at close quarters’” (Guroian 41).

Dostoevsky could have looked at the above-discussed story of Adam and Eve in paradise to see that there was a time when humans loved each other in this way and deliberately chose to abandon such vision. Dostoevsky was saying more about his own cynical vision of man’s capacity to love than the actuality. “Eros united with agape belongs to the original image of god in humanity” (Guroian 42). Vacek would, most likely add philia to that as well.

For Christians, the scriptures should not be taken as a code of rules governing behavior; they are a collection of stories which show who they are [or at least, who they should be]. If one is resolved to be a person living in the grace of the Almighty, any actions taken will necessarily be good [taking into consideration human fallibility]. Put simply, if one is a good person, the need to agonize over any specific rules is diminished considerably. Good is as good does.

In Philip Hallie’s Lest Innocent Blood Be Shed, the story is told of simple villagers who risked all to hide strangers [who practiced a different religion than their own] from the Nazis in occupied France. Because of who they were, they didn’t hesitate to do so. They couldn’t conceive of doing otherwise. The phrase that comes to mind is that it wouldn’t be Christian not to help those in such dire circumstances [as being hunted down for extermination by the Nazis].

What is important to bear in mind is their identity was that of a community not an agglomeration of atomized individuals. The people of Le Chambon were essentially humble. They would do things for each other and others without a thought of getting credit for it, much less reward. Acts of help or kindness or help were often done anonymously. They chafed at any suggestion that the risks they took in sheltering these people made them heroes. They protested that they were doing what anyone else would have done. Again, they honestly couldn’t conceive of doing otherwise.

It is possible, through years of theological study, pondering highly complex and esoteric concepts to arrive at the essential truths about faith and living a virtuous life. It is equally possible to arrive at that ultimate end as a person of modest education with a simple faith and a resolve to do what is right. The people of Le Chambon demonstrated that.

How love governs action is explained in Stanley Hauerwas’ A Community of Character. Augustine’s “fourfold division of virtue” is explored. Love is described almost as an entity unto itself (Hauerwas 122). Firstly, temperance is love which “gives itself entirely to that which is loved.” Moderation and restraint of one’s passions is an expression of the conscious decision to have one’s actions circumscribed by a commitment to the Almighty.

Fortitude is love which is “readily bearing all things for the sake of the loved object” (Hauerwas 122). With such a commitment, the love impels us to suffer through the adversity which may arise and do so gladly. Indeed, the very existence of love can arouse such hatred from some that they will seek to destroy it.

[Those who have the conscious or unconscious conviction that love is a false concept are viscerally hostile to any suggestion of the existence of love, much less any demonstration of it. Hatred and love cannot exist in the same place. Thus, to ‘love one’s enemies’ can then be a practical response to hostility. The commitment to love also includes the commitment to spread it. This requires fortitude.]

Justice, as love, serves only the beloved, “therefore ruling rightly” (Hauerwas 122). When settling a dispute or taking a decision as to the correct course of action, the focus must be upon the interests of the beloved. That being done, the likelihood of just decisions [and thus, appropriate relationships] are increased. With true love, justice is guaranteed, because therein is contained the commitment to obtain all of the true and pertinent facts to facilitate it.

Prudence, as love, distinguishes “with sagacity between what hinders it and what helps it” (Hauerwas 122). With love as the motivating force behind all actions, good necessarily results. Augustine explicitly contends that it is the Almighty alone as the “chief good, the highest wisdom [and] the perfect harmony” (ibid) whom would be the object of such love. All decisions of value judgment must be taken with the consideration of the fact that the Almighty is the truly complete, archetypal mind which we should aspire to image.

With such principles as temperance, fortitude, justice and prudence expressed as aspects of true love, actions will necessarily be for the good. More often than not, applying these principles in the interest of what is right will be in conflict with basic instincts for survival. The emotions and urges which naturally consider the interests of only the individual person must be put into context. In love, one realizes that there are obligations which are superincumbent to one’s own. Furthermore, the true and valid needs of self are interdependent with the totality of existence.