As we consider the various dimensions of human
love expressed in the Song of Songs, I think it is good to keep in mind these
words from C. S. Lewis and his book, Mere
Christianity….
What we call “being in love” is a glorious state,
and, in several ways, good for us. It helps to make us generous and courageous,
it opens our eyes not only to the beauty of the beloved but to all beauty, and
it subordinates (especially at first) our merely animal sexuality; in that
sense, love is the great conqueror of lust. No one in his senses would deny
that being in love is far better than either common sensuality or cold self-centredness.
But, as I said before, “the most dangerous thing you can do is to take any one
impulse of our own nature and set it up as the thing you ought to follow at all
costs.” Being in love is a good thing, but it is not the best thing. There are
many things below it, but there are also things above it. You cannot make it
the basis of a whole life. It is a noble feeling, but it is still a feeling.
Now no feeling can be relied on to last in its full intensity, or even to last
at all. Knowledge can last, principles can last, habits can last; but feelings
come and go. And in fact, whatever people say, the stae called “being in love”
usually does not last. If the old fairy-tale ending “They lived happily ever
after” is taken to mean “They felt for the next fifty years exactly as they
felt the day before they were married,” then it says what probably never was
nor ever would be true, and would be highly undesirable if it were. Who could
bear to live in that excitement for even five years? What would become of your
work, your appetite, your sleep, your friendships? But, of course, ceasing to
be “in love” need not mean ceasing to love. Love in this second sense—love as
distinct from “being in love”—is not merely a feeling. It is a deep unity,
maintained by the will and deliberately strengthened by habit; reinforced by
(in Christian marriages) the grace which both partners ask, and receive, from
God. They can have this love for each other even at those moments when they do
not like each other; as you love yourself when you do not like yourself. They
can retain this love even when each would easily, if they allowed themselves,
be “in love” with someone else. “Being in love” first moved them to promise
fidelity: this quieter love enables them to keep the promise. It is on this
love that the engine of marriage is run: being in love was the explosion that
started it.
Comments