St. Dionysius the Areopagite
In God, the ‘eros desire’ is outgoing, ecstatic. Because of it lovers no longer belong to themselves but to those whom they love. God also goes out of himself . . . when he captivates all creatures by the spell of his love and his desire . . . In a word, we might say that Beauty-and-Goodness is the object of the eros desire and is the eros desire itself . . . — St. Dionysius the Areopagite
Blessed is the person whose desire for God has become like the lover’s passion for the beloved. –St. John Climacus
One of my great surprises came in the very first chapter of the book. Since I first became a practicing Christian as a teenager, I quickly was taught what was later repeated to me in seminary, that God is without body, parts, or passion. In fact, any and all expressions of apparent passion by God in Scripture (love, wrath, etc.) were to be understood as anthropomorphic references. Many pages were used to show how these references related to qualities of God that, in their pure form, were something completely beyond and unlike human emotions.
And, yet, in this chapter were several quotes from various Early Church Fathers and saints, from both East and West, and all of them famous well-known ones. And all of them were using language about God that was anything but impassive. In fact, they all attributed to God what we would normally consider to be hothouse emotions. The God they picture is incredibly passionate, and the word they use is not one that I would normally use of God, which is eros. And, his love is this passionate “eros desire” that spills out in an “ecstatic” fashion. More than that, because we are created in his image, the erotic love of two lovers drives them to behave like God in that they no longer think as much about themselves but about the other.
Several years ago, before I became Orthodox, I can remember that Fr. John Stott and Fr. J.I. Packer began to debate whether the old construction–that God was without passions–was correct. I forget which one was the one who wished to change that definition. My assumption, and I think I learned it at seminary, was that this definition came from Greek philosophy and reflected their way of thinking about change, that anything that was perfect could not change. Since passion was a change of state, therefore God could not have any passions.
But now I find out that several of the Fathers and saints all spoke about God as having and expressing at least one passion. This leads me to question what I learned back then. It also pleases my little Latino heart. If nothing else, Latinos and strong expressions of love go together. In the interest of self-disclosure, I must tell you that when I was dating my wife, I went to her place of work with my guitar and serenaded her. So, a conception of God that sees His love as overflowing, passionate, and lover-like appeals to me and touches me strongly.
Mind you, I know that I need to do my homework. I need to follow up on this as I read through the book. I need to use my rational mind to think through the implications. I need to check with what other writers say. Nevertheless, as John Wesley said in a different context, “I feel my heart strangely warmed.”
I find that the “rational mind” can set up obstructions to understanding love/eros/Love. My experience with these quotes is to let them do their work internally without “thinking” about them.
For many years I taught poetry writing to young people–of all ages–and learned that the seed is what is important. “Closure” might not come for many, many years. It’s OK.
I like this serenading! And at her place of work! See how the two just…combine?!!
Some of these same reactions came to me in reading. I was especially moved by the description of the Son’s love for us before his incarnation! “Passionless Passion” indeed!