Eros and the Beloved as a Picture of God and the Church

Though Lewis expresses the importance of a sense of humor, I think the function of Eros in a love relationship has been grievously misconstrued by our culture. Eros is nearly always portrayed in relation to Venus, and though Venus is often born from Eros, it is important to consider Eros in itself. Lewis stresses this distinction, for by this very difference, we find the greatest danger in erotic love. Though it might seem that Venus poses the gravest threat of spiritual undoing, Eros holds the most potential for obsession. On this matter, Lewis’ appeal draws upon the ideas of St. Paul, “It is marriage itself, not the marriage bed, that will be likely to hinder us from waiting uninterruptedly on God” (96).

Indeed, Lewis is careful to describe Eros and Venus as separate entities. He specifies: “Sexual desire, without Eros, wants it, the thing in itself; Eros wants the Beloved” (94). Somehow, this image of Eros’ desire for the Beloved brings to mind images from the Scriptures in which God describes his relationship with his own Beloved. As the Lord speaks in Jeremiah 2, “I remember you [Israel], the kindness of your youth, the love of your betrothal, when you went after Me in the wilderness, in a land not sown…Yet my people have forgotten Me days without number.” Though I am not reading sexuality into this verse, the desire of God for Israel here resembles Eros much more closely than Charity. Though God is the personification of Gift-love, it is ironic that one of the most prominent metaphors God uses to picture his relationship with the Church involves Eros. God does not have need of us, but in the depths of his love for a thing created in his very image, he is fixated on the features and life of his Beloved. Even when the love is not returned, his desire is still for the love of his bride. This stands as a deep mystery – that the Godhead, perfectly complete in itself, allows itself to feel desire. I am undoubtedly opening a can of worms by this very suggestion, but in addition to the reality that we are created in the image of God, perhaps another of the reasons we are the crown of God’s created order is that we, as the Beloved, have the free will to return that love, as Need-based as it may be.

When I consider Lewis’ presentation of the loves, however, perhaps Affection is the best in the human sense, for unlike the non-necessity of Friendship or the unpredictability of Eros, Affection is a steady companion that tempers our days. As Lewis writes, “…Affection, besides being a love in itself, can enter into the other loves and colour them all through and become the very medium in which from day to day they operate” (34). Indeed, Lewis goes on to describe that this appreciative love adds “peculiar charm” both to Friendship and Eros. Though I am not even mentioning Charity in this post, Affection seems to be the means by which we navigate the other two Loves, in the sense that it provides a steadfast foundation.