AMERICA MARCH 9, 1996VOL. 174 NO, 8

The Eclipse of Love for God

Almost allChristians talk

approvingly aboutlove for others; some

talk confidentlyabout God's love

for us; but few arewilling to talk

about their lovefor God.

w, By EDWARD COLLINS VACEK

HEN DAVID HARE INTERVIEWED CLERGY as part of hisresearch for his play, "Racing Demons," he ran into a problem: None ofthe priests wanted to talk about God. One of the disturbing questions hisplay rai.ses is whether contemporary Christians, with the exception of afew fanatical fundamentalists, are coticenied about loving God.

In my own conversations with Christians. I find that almost all ofthem talk approvingly about love for others, some talk confidently aboutGod's love for us. but few are willing to talk about their love for God.When I press them to say what it means to love God, some of them infact detiy that we can love God directly, many admit that they don't givemueh thought to love for God and most deny that there is any ethicalobligation to do so. They judge that it is wrong not to love people, butthey have no such thoughts about neglecting God. In short, many eon-temporary Christians subscribe to Jesus' second great commandment,but not to his first.

In the 17th century, some historians of spirituality point out. peoplethought the essence of Christian life was to draw close to God. After the18th century, however, the point of Christian life became service ofneighbor. Today, for example, people generally consider Mother Teresa asaint. But most people do so because of her devotion to the poor. Seldomdoes anyone say she is a saint because her love of God is so intense,though that onee was the primary meaning of sanetity.

Contemporary Objections.When I ask my students, "What do you mean by love for God?" they

usually give one of four answers. Some volunteer that loving Gixl meanskeeping the commandments, like not kiUing or stealing. Most say thatloving God means helpitig one's neighbor. The more theologically edu-cated add that it means taking eare of the poor. Lastly, those steeped inour psychological age share that loving God means caring for one's own

EDWARD COLLINS VACEK, S.J,, is a.ssociate professor of moral the-ology at Weston Jesuit School of Theology and author of Love, Humanand Divine: The Heart of Christian Ethics (Georgetown Univ. Press.1994). This year he holds the McKeever Chair in moral theology at St.John's University, Jamaica, N.Y.

AMERICA MARCH 9, 1996 13

deepest self. All seem not to notice that atheists affirmthese four practices.

Many theologians have also set aside Jesus" first greatcommandment. They do so for theological reasons. Somenote, for example, that the pertect God has no need of us;hence our love for God does nothing for God. Indeed,love for neighbor rightly enjoys a certain advantage overlove for God, since the fonner is good both for the neigh-bor and lor us.

Other theologians, followingthe strand of Karl Rahner'sthought that stressed anonymousChristianity, claim that the onenecessary love is love for neigh-bor. In their view. Matthew 25shows that we do not have tothink about God; all we must dois serve the neighbor. Thus athe-ists, paradoxically, may be"more Christian" than believerssince those who set aside time todevelop their relationship withGod through prayer and readingmay be wasting precious timeand energy tbat could better beused to help needy neighbors.

Supporters of pluralism arealso inclined to reject tbe moraldemand that everyone loveGod. For them, such love is anoption, of course; but tbere areother options, Jesus" cotnniand is for religious people, notfor nonbelievers. Even for believers, love for God issujiererogatory. not an ethical obligation.

Furthermore, ordinary people recognize that, eventhough we can perform certain behaviors on command,we cannot will ourselves to have emotions. Emotions,including love, are not tbe sorts of acts we can just decideto have. Hence, many hold that wbile we are morallyobliged to do the vt'orks of love, there can be no ethicalrequirement to love God.

Some theologians, following ceitain mysties. raiseanother diñlculty. God is transcendent and utterly incom-prehensible. But. since we cannot love what we cannotknow, we cannot love God. These Christians are joined byothers who hold that—in the dai'kness of this post-death-of-Gtxi and post-Holix;aust era—all we can do is to waitpatiently tor some new revelation from God. We sbouldnot expect ourselves to love tbe God who is uneanny,awesome, unfathomable mystery and who seems moreabsent than present.

Others argue that love for God is not really central inChristianity. Classical tbeological traditions have centeredon obedience to God's will or on tiiist in God's promises,not on love for God. Si. Paul, for exiunpie, speaks rarely oflove for God. Instead he champions faith in Gtxl, and forhim the whole law boils down to love of neighbor (Gal.

There is agreat difference between

seeking the truth andbeing in a personal

relationship with God.Those who love God

live differently.

5:14. 6:2; Rom. 13: 8-10). Pauline tbeologiatis note that it isGod's love, not our own. that flows in our hearts.

Tbus, tbeology encourages tbe current tendency to col-lapse the first great commandment into the second.Although John wrote, "those who love God must love tbeirbrothers and sisters also" (1 Jn. 4:21), thereby indicating thatlove for neighbor presupposes love for God. today a numberof theological positions conspire to suggest that love for

neighbor suffices. Where Jesusurged that we love God withour whole mind, heart, sou!and strength, today we urgeone another actively to loveour neigbbor and—harder formany—to love our own selves.

Direct Love for God.I want to argue that love of

creatures is not enough. Just aswe must eat and tbink andplay, or else we wither and die,and just as we must developgood relations witb otherhuman beings if we are todevelop as persons, so also wecannot hope to become fullyhuman unless we love God.We are essentially relationalbeings. We are stunted whenour relational potentials areunfulfilled. We have a native

desire for God, and our hearts will shrivel up unless tbeybeat for God. Hence, in order to become fully who we are,we must be growing in love for God.

The off-putting implication of this otherwise pious-sounding claim is that atheists or agnostics or even exclu-sively neigbbor-loving Christians are living objectivelyunethical lives. That claim strikes many as too haish. Letme offer thiee clarifications. First, I am speaking of wbatobjectively ought to be the ease. I do not say that sincereatheists, agnostics or neigbbor-ioving Christians are sin-ners. Presumably they are following tbeir conscience. Ifso. tbey are morally good. Nevertheless, tbeir consciencesare mistaken. Their understanding of buman life is ineom-plete. Their life is not all it should be.

Second, my fellow tbeologians. influenced by peopleHke Rabner. doubtless will argue that atheists, if they aresincere and not just lazy, seek the truth. But. since God istruth itself, tbese atheists are in fact seeking God. All theyget wrong, so to speak, is the name. To tbis position, Ioffer a personalist's response. Existentially, there is a greatdifference between seeking the truth and being in a per-sonal relationship with God. Those wbo love Gtxl live dif-ferently. They engage in time-tested ways of developingthis relationship, e.g., celebrating tbe Eucharist or partici-pating in retreats. They pray and are attentive for a per-sonal word from God. They contemplate and rely on Jesus

14 AMERICA MARCHO. I99fi

Christ. Those wbo are not in a personal relationship withthe Christian God will not do these sorts of things, and sothey cannot similarly develop this most important dimen-sion of human life.

Third, the lives of people without love for God can bemorally right in other aspects. We human beings usuallyare quite ethical in one part of our lives, wobbly in anoth-er part and downright wrong in yet another part. Indeed,ihere is embarrassing social science evidence that in therest of their lives atheists are, on average, better humanbeings than Christians. Dostoevski notwithstanding, athe-ists quite often are more honest, more generous and morecourageous than Christians. Still, in one very importantarea of their lives, those who do not love God are defi-cient human beings. Just as a man can be good to his chil-dren but neglect his wife, so many people who are other-wise wonderful persons lack this demanding and upliftingrelationship.

In shon. it is not enough just to love our fellow humanbeings. Sincere conscience and anonymous theism are notenough. To give a parallel: Imagine that I put out food fora stray dog I happen to like, but that unbeknownst to methe dog belongs to a rich but stingy woman I despise.Physically, one might say that I am serving the richwoman, but morally speaking that is not what I am doing.Similarly, giving water to a stranger is quite different fromdesiring to serve Christ. Our explicit intentions make agreat difference in our moral life.

It is also not enough to love creatures explicitly as away of showing love to God. At times, we can and mustalso direct our love immediately iuid directly to God. Ofcourse, one way of expressing love for God is to care forGod's creation. But much as taking the garbage out forsick neighbors is no substitute for directly developing aninterpersonal relationship with them, so too doing goodworks to show love for God presupposes other activitiesdevoted to directly loving God.

A Contemporary Challenge.Every age has its centriil religious concept. At one time

the question of faith energized. Today Christians oftenanswer the question "Do you believe in God?" with littleinvestment. The question "Do you trust God?" is moreinvolving, but it still leaves in abeyance the way we live ourlives. A question that will challenge all of us today is this:"Do you love God?" That question evokes the endlessnessof our heart's quest as well as the incomprehensibility ofGod. and it gives us an absorbing center for our lives.

I imagine that when Jesus went off to pray he was notjust gathering up energy to love his fellow human beings,nor was he simply purifying and developing his inner life.Rather, he chose to spend time with his Abba. He wantedand needed that time. He prayed, and in that prayer heunited his mind and heart with God. Our love for Godrequires something similar.

How might such a relationship develop? The first step

AMERICAOUR FUTURE

DEPENDSON

YOUPLEASE REMEMBER

AMERICAIN YOUR WILL

OUR LEGAL TITLE ISAMERICA PRESS, INC.

106 WEST 56TH STREETNEWYORK, NY10Ü19

The William Jcwett Tucker Foundation of Darlmoulh College is designed to fur-ther the mural and spiritual work of Dartmoulh College. The dean reports direct-ly lo Ihc provost of the College and has regular and ongoing access to Ihe presi-dent. As a senior officer, the dean provides leadership in the areas of campusreligious life and undergraduate community service. He or she organizes pro-grams that seek to connect inlellectual and moral principles with contemporarylife, supervises the work of the Christian and Jewish chaplains, and sponsorsinternships as well as community service projects for Dartmouth's students. Heor she will have the ability and desire to raise money and identify resources ofsupport. Applicants should have several years of experience in an educationalsetting: or the equivalent. A terminal degree (such as the Ph.D. or Th.D.) is high-ly desirable but not required. Candidates need not be ordained clergy, but musthave demonstrated an awareness of and familiarity with ethical and religiousissues. Candidates must be able to think and speak clearly and forcefully aboutissues of conscience and morality.

The search committee will begin reviewing applications on April 15,1996.Salary and benefits will be commensurate with experience and background.Inquiries, applications and nominations should be sent to: Dean of tbeTucker Foundation Searcb Committee, c/o M. Lee Pelton, Dean of tbeCollege, OfTice of the Provost, 6004 Parkhurst Hall, Room 204, DartmouthCollege, Hanover, NH 03755-3529.Dartmouth College is an EqualOpportunity/Affirmative ActionEmployer. Women and minorities areencouraged to apply.

Dartmoá CAMERICA MARCH 9, 1996 15

is one that, generally speaking, women seem to under-stand more quickly than men. That step is to accept God'slove for us. In other words, our first response is noi toreturn love to God. but rather to let God's love affect orchange us. We deny God's transfonning influence if werush to return love to God or to spread love to our neigh-bor. Sitting with eyes closed and hands open, we let God'slove touch and move us; there begins our salvation.

Thereafter, we can and shouldlove God in return. Love meansthat we affectively affinn God'sgoodness. We want to be closeto God, and we rejoice when weare close. At the same time ourlove for God will not long let usrest, but moves us to penetrateever more appreciatively intoGod's goodness. Correlative I y,we are disconsolate when weare alienated from God. Wemiss God when God no longerseems near.

Our love for God also makesus want to cooperate with Godin doing what God wants to do.That leads us to be involved increation. Hence love for Godat one level moves us intothe incomprehensibility ofGod and at another levelmoves us both to cherish theworld and to want to overcome its ills and injustices.

Clearly, this love for God is not reducible to texts read,prayers said or gifts offered. It is not simply a matter ofobedience or trust. Rather, this love for God can andshould become the dominant, organizing emotional centerof our whole lives. Moses Maimonides, the greatmedieval Jewish philosopher, argued that love for Godshould be similar to the passion a man has for a woman.For Aquinas, diose who love like this constantly think ofone another, constantly try to please one another. Thispr(.K:ess of attention grows and grows until it becomes apervasive feature of one's whole emotional life. So it canbe with our love for God.

There will be periods of rapid and intense growth inthis love. Births of babies and failures in achieving goalsare prime times for spurts in our love for God. Then comequieter periods in which we just maintain a good relation-ship. The quiet periods prepare the way for a deeper rela-tionship that we cannot force, but for which we can hope.As we grow in love for God, this love becomes more apail of our very identity. It more and more informs whowe iue. For example, if asked to do a new job, one of thefirst questions that enters our mind is how this new taskmight affect our relationship with God.

Before closhig this essay. I want to describe brieflythree forms of love for God. We can have an agapic love.

It is not enoughjust to love our fellow

human beings.Sincere conscience

and anonymous theismare not enough.

an eras love or a philia love for God. Normally we willhave all three mixed together. Agape, as I use the term,means love of something for its own sake. So, with anagapic love for God, we are not concerned for ourselvesbut are devoted to God for God's sake. Christian traditionposed an extremely provocative question to smoke outthis kind of love; "If it would please God just a bit. wouldyou be willing to suffer in hell forever?" The question,

of course, is unreal, and theCathohc Church condemns theteaching that we must havepure love for God. Never-theless, the question quicklyclarifies where our tlnal loyal-ties lie. Agape is representedby the cross of Christ. Thatcross says we may have togive up our lives in order to beloyal to God.

Second, eros means lovingsomeone for our own sake. Inthe traditional act of contrition,Christians have prayed thatthey are hearîily sorry for theirsins because they dread theloss of heaven and the pains ofhell, but most of all becausethese sins offend God. Theirsorrow over offending Godexpresses agape. Their dreadabout losing God and going to

hell expresses eros. An eros love for God is a genuinelove. It is a biblical love, and it is quite Catholic. We loveGod for the good we gain in being close to God.

Third, we have a philia love when we love God for thesake of the "friendship" we share with God. Our Jewishancestors fornied covenants with God. and through baptismwe Christians fonn a new covenant with God. We are God'speople, and God is "our Gtxl." We live out of this relation-ship. We do religious things like sing in church, but we alsorelax at the seashore and work hard at the soup kitchen. Thedifference between us and unbelievers is that we want to dothese things as ptirt of our relationship with G(.K1. Growing inthat desire is what it means to become a saint.

At the end of this essay, let me make it clear that inspeaking of love for God, I do not mean to exclude lovefor neighbor or self or world. Rather, love for God leadsus to cooperate with God's love of the world. Hence—strange as it seems—one of the reasons we want to loveourselves and others is that we want thereby to cooperatewith God's love for us. In a profoundly religious sense,we are aware that the ordinary and usually best way thatGod can love creatures is through our love for them. Still,although love for neighbor and love for self are essentialto the Christian hfe. my concern here is that we must notlet these wholesome Christian loves eclipse our love forGod. That love should be the sun of our lives. O

16 AMERICA MARCH 9, 1996