18 April 2008

In class today we explored the relationship between love of truth and intellect, and love of someone—basically, the head versus the heart issue. Must one who devotes herself to academia revoke that when she gets married or can she unite the two (assuming they are exclusive, which I’m not sure that they are)? I don’t think this is actually a valid question because love of education and love of someone are merely outside distinctions of one foundational love and one unified personality. I love a book because it touches something within me—an experience or emotion or dream or idea and shows me some facet of God. Poetry beautifully written, whether purportedly Christian or not, will display before me God’s own beauty and his delight in craftsmanship which his man-creation has unwittingly echoed or reflected. A man whom I would love romantically I would love because he, too, touches something within me, and I am drawn to him as I see his godly character, a visible reminder of God’s character, which is invisible. The man, however, can never approach Christ’s purpose, for he perfectly is God’s invisible character visible and the man imperfectly is God’s invisible character visible. I suppose that’s why man was made in the image of God, a likeness but not essence, while Christ is like God in essence.

So how did I get to this point? Oh yes, discussing the unity of the personality, how love for things is an expression or desire for God the source. But also love itself is not entirely this mysterious force; it is very much based upon knowledge. Paul writes that love is patient, love is kind . . . Say I love this man again—it is because I’ve seen him display such patience, such kindness in many different situations over much time. I know him to act like that normally and so I trust him with my love. It is, in fact, a verifiable love, most definitely formed not by a flight of fancy but by empirical evidence, weighed deliberately.

No comments: