The Everlasting Love

Werner Jeanrond, A Theology of Love book review

A book on love can never be an easy subject, particularly if the approach is a theological one. If we rely on the Johannine assertion which states that God Himself is Love,1 and we accept the fact that His Divine Being was revealed through Christs love, we can conclude, together with Paul R. Clifford2 that, in a sense, for us, a failure in love is a failure in being. This gives us a light over the breadth of implications and depth of significance that the subject of love has, or at least needs to have, in Christian theological discourse. Thereby, in my opinion, Jeanronds approach to such a challenging subject in his book, A Theology of Love, is first of all a question of courage. Right from the first chapter Jeanrond introduces some of the main ideas that will be subsequently developed throughout the book. In doing this, he gives us a clue to the pattern of his following arguments, and he lets us know what criteria he employed in selecting the authors. Questioning about the origin of love, he affirms that, even if there is a consensus regarding the human necessity to love, the disagreement point is the origin of love: whether it is divine or human, biological or cultural. This idea is assessed in almost every chapter, but it is more evident in the fifth one, where the author addresses the separation of divine and human love, particularly for Anders Nygren and Karl Barth, as well as in the sixth, when he praises the rediscovery of human love in Paul Tilichs and Karl Rahners theologies. Asking further what love really is, Jeanrond already offers some hints by saying that love seeks the other,3 requires a loving subject, always includes emotion and is defined by an intense desire to seek some sort of union with the other, to enter into deeper community with the other, to form a common body, to become one.4 I would add that the desire for union with the other is not limited to the body alone, but should also be present in mind, soul and heart, 5 although I think this idea is implicit in the become one expression. By giving such an extensive definition of love, Jeanrond introduces other major themes, such as the rediscovery of the loving subject (chapter 4), and the unity of love and desire (chapter 6). The dialectics of love and self and of love and community will constitute another central point of this book. Jeanrond proposes further a dose of suspicion and critique, required in any theological approach, but particularly with regards to the subject of love. This is crucial as he believes that throughout the history love has been sometimes excessively purified of its erotic component, real love being understood as purely spiritual and detached from the human body. It is important though to understand that when speaking about eroticism, Jeanrond does not understand it simply in its sexual aspect, but also as the spiritual and psychological side of the experience of love over
1 John 4:8 (NRSV). Paul R. Clifford, Interpreting Human Experience. A philosophical Prologue to Theology (London: Collins, 1971), 214. 3 Werner G. Jeanrond, A Theology of Love, (New York, NY: T&T Clark, 2010), 2. 4 Ibid. 5 Cf. Matt. 22:37.
1 2

Iacob Radu Costin, Master of Advanced Studies in Theology and Religion, K. U. Leuven

against a mere sensually and physically experienced sexuality.6 He therefore pledges for a reconsideration of eros by rediscovering the aspect of desire operating in all forms of love, 7 and by retrieving the positive significance of the body as the necessary place for the praxis of love. 8 Assessing the correct place of the body becomes a more important task for modern theologies, as we face an increasing cult of the body in a variety of forms. This inquiry should therefore neither Page | 2 neglect, nor overrate the proper role of the body in understanding the human being as a whole. The second chapter concentrates on the biblical challenges to a theology of love and opens with the best known expression, the double commandment of Christ,9 already present in the Old Testament.10 However, love is not an exclusively Christian possession, as it is present throughout history in different other religions and cultures. This raises the question of what is particular therefore to Christian faith. As a simple response I would suggest the occurrence in the New Testament of the commandment of love for ones enemies, as absolute novelty when compared with the Judaic and Islamic traditions. Describing Jesus vision of love, Jeanrond affirms that the Synoptic Gospel does not picture it as an emotional feature, but more as a call for concrete action. It is not that much something one feels, but rather something one does. In this sense, one has the duty not to have neighbours, but to become a neighbour to others.11 Thus, the horizon of love is enlarged, including not only ones family or friends, but also ones enemies and all the other people. Jeanrond analyzes then the differences between John and Paul in their understanding of love. His main idea is that while John promotes love as directed to the inner circle of a community, in order to preserve its unity and harmony, Paul is more inclusive, advancing a vision of love which reaches all others. This issue can be solved if we consider Rudolf Bultmanns argument that while John emphasizes love for the brothers in a community, nonetheless, it does not necessarily exclude a loving attitude towards the others. After a short exposition of some of the biblical challenges to a theology of love Jeanrond starts building, from chapters three to six, what I consider to be an analytical history of the theology of love. Although the author himself states that his ambition is not to trace merely a history of love in the Western theology and culture, but rather to engage with selected though significant approaches past and present to the Christian praxis of love in order to advance our understanding of this praxis and of its demands on our lives today,12 he is not, in my opinion, critical enough in constructing his exposition throughout the above-mentioned chapters. Yet, he exploits the praxis component and its demands for our contemporary world afterwards. The fruit of his research is more evident in the final part of his work, when dealing with the institutions and politics of love, and finally, in the last chapter. Jeanrond does not follow a fixed line when engaging his topics. It seems that he has chosen particular subjects in order to make his position self-evident. That allows him to step back and keep
Jeanrond, op. cit., 14. Ibid., 7. 8 Ibid., 11. 9 Matt. 22:37-39. 10 Exod. 20:6; Deut. 10:12; Lev. 19:18. 11 Jeanrond, op. cit., 32. 12 Ibid., 9.
6 7

Iacob Radu Costin, Master of Advanced Studies in Theology and Religion, K. U. Leuven

a proportionate distance from his characters. In this way his tone is neither too passionate, nor too distant, leaving much of the judgment for the reader himself. From this respect, his major contribution is the way in which his choices make his argument easy discernible. If we attempt a general overview of the first six chapters, we can notice that the tone of the third and the fifth is more critical, although in a constructive way, while that of the fourth and the Page | 3 sixth seems more appreciative. To give some examples, when Jeanrond assesses Augustines views on agency and subjectivity in love, he describes them as repulsive13 for a modern reader. His critique may appear harsh, still when I followed his argument, I was inclined to approve of it: if Augustine affirmed that God is everything and the human being nothing I find this idea repulsive indeed, at least in a modern-day understanding. Together with Jeanrond I would ask: how can we actually love God, one another and ourselves, if in reality we are unable to love?14 Advancing to the theological approaches to love in the twelfth century, Jeanrond states, with an obvious approval, that the renewals they bring appear to be much closer to our own theological horizon than the rather negative and world-denying ethos of Augustine.15 Moving to the next chapter, the tone becomes critical again, as all the four authors share the same conviction that since God is love,16 divine love must be the sole criterion for any consideration of human love, and define therefore love from above. Jeanrond concludes that all four opinions oppose any attempt to legitimize human forms of love of self and other, serving thus more as anti-examples. Yet again, Jeanrond does not simply reject all their insights, but rather takes up what he considers to be in contradiction with a modern personalistic understanding of the human person, in order to make his own argument more evident, in the final chapters of the book. In the sixth chapter, Jeanronds tone becomes favourable for a second time. Compared with the previous four theologians, Tilich, Rahner, Brmmer, Marion and Pope Benedict XVI offer a fresh understanding of the potential of human love within the larger spectrum of divine and human love. Even though they confess the divine origin of the genuine love, they acknowledge the divine vocation of women, men and children to develop loving relationships with the respective others in their own right,17 as well. Moreover, Jeanronds attitude seems positive again when he affirms that all these constructive theological projects appreciate desire as a divine gift that is able to draw us human beings more deeply into the divine and human mystery of love.18 Love can be learned and it is not instinctual behaviour. With such categorical affirmations Jeanrond introduces what I call the second part of his book. From this point, he is less descriptive and more generous in offering his own opinions and arguments, when treating different aspects of love. He presents to us the vision of the Christian family, friendship and Church as Institution of Love. First of all the Christian idea of family should be understood within Gods always larger family,19 since Gods family is inclusive.20 It includes the strangers, the others, non-persons,
Ibid., 43. Ibid., 46. 15 Ibid., 68. 16 1 John 4:8, 4:16. 17 Jeanrond, op. cit., 135. 18 Ibid. 19 Ibid., 178.
13 14

Iacob Radu Costin, Master of Advanced Studies in Theology and Religion, K. U. Leuven

enemies, criminals, losers and other outcasts21 altogether. It includes all the people in the world, as all bear the image of their Creator. It is this that makes them all brothers. It also includes not only the living, but also those fallen asleep in the Lord. Understanding the Christian family as an institution of love, Jeanrond describes it not as the perfect family but one in which fidelity, compassion, forgiveness, and concern for other, even strangers, are known. In this sense, the Page | 4 Christian family can be seen as a school of intimacy, empathy and love.22 But what is more promising for a future understanding of the family, is actually Jeanronds further assertion:
The difference between a Christian marriage and other forms of marriage cannot be found in a difference of love, but in a difference of loves basic orientation. A Christian couple celebrates their love as a transformative gift of God, a gift that always transcends the mutual attraction, attention and enjoyment of both partners towards Gods universal family. 23

In this sense, Christian marriage has a uniqueness that can be found only in its theological radicalization of human love,24 namely, the readiness of both partners to be transformed by Gods grace.25 It implies an unconditional mutual commitment in love and a willingness to love eternally, because love can never come to a conclusion; it involves the lover always more deeply in the others life as well as in Gods the radical other eternal life.26 Without this broad complex of relations which includes God as the radical other and the ecclesial community, marriage runs the risk of implosion.27 For this reason the Church has, or at least should have, an essential role in supporting, facilitating and integrating the Christian family in Gods eternal horizon of love.28 Therefore, a profound and intimate relation should be developed between the Christian family and the Church, with all the associated benefits and responsibilities. In my view, friendship should always be defined by a continuous desire for communion, in which one is not seeking their own profit, but the well-being of the other. Hence, I found confusing the integration of friendship in the chapter The Politics of Love. Moreover, when Jeanrond reminded about politicians needing the support of friends for their political careers and ambitions,29 or about business people who value essential networks of friends,30 I hoped his argument is pejorative, since I cannot consider this type of partnerships, based in most cases on interest, as genuine friendships. I admit however that exceptions happen, and even such selfinterested agreements can become amiable relationships or even real friendships sometimes. Jeanrond seems to agree, when he states that the inward-looking or private friendship may pose a real dangerbecause they lose sight of the common good and God.31 I am more inclined to sustain
Ibid. Ibid. 22 Ibid. 23 Ibid., 192. 24 Ibid., 197. 25 Ibid., 195. 26 Ibid. 27 Ibid., 197. 28 Ibid., 198. 29 Ibid., 206. 30 Ibid. 31 Ibid., 214.
20 21

Iacob Radu Costin, Master of Advanced Studies in Theology and Religion, K. U. Leuven

C. S. Lewis opinion that friendship is unnecessary, understanding by this that it should not be mingled or confused with the survival quest but, as Lewis said, it should rather be seen like a reality which adds value to life. More than this, as Teofil Prian, one of the greatest Romanian Orthodox spiritual fathers summarized, friendship is part of the reality of Heaven. He thought that the relation between those in Heaven is one of friendship. Page | 5 Jeanrond moves on to cite a generous passage from the Gospel of John. It is essential that Christ reminds again what He has periodically recommended before, namely, the crucial role of love for the relationship between his Apostles. In this sense, His statement that No one has greater love than this, to lay down ones life for ones friends,32 becomes the highest criterion and aim for any kind of friendship. But I do not think that we should understand Jesus commandment primarily in its literary sense, as it would not bring much value to an ordinary life. A more pragmatic interpretation comes from the Pateric,33: And if one hears words of contempt from one of the brothers, and he could say the same, but he does not, and strives to gamely endure and not to payback evil with evil, one like that puts his soul and his life for his brother.34 We can conclude from here that anybody can have the opportunity to lay down ones life even in the ordinary daily routine, and that they can achieve the highest stage of love, just by doing so. In this same chapter, one of the most exhaustive approaches to friendship is that of Aelred of Rievaulx. It seems that Aelred has attracted Jeanronds most attention, and for good reason. In his writings, he approaches for the first time in the Western Tradition the twofold aspect of the perfect love, that is feeling and reason. This holistic approach, however, has been experienced for at least fifteen centuries,35 being attested first in the practice of the Jesus Prayer by the Desert Fathers. Writing about the Prayer of the Heart, or the Jesus Prayer, father Dumitru Stniloae noted that what it searches for is a union of the reason (nous) with the heart. He argues that neither the heart, nor the reason must remain isolated, because a prayer performed only with reason is a cold one, while one in which only the heart is involved becomes a purely spiritual prayer, ignoring everything that God has given, gives, and will give us in Christ. Such a purely spiritual prayer is a prayer without horizon, without perspective, and one in which we dont know why to thank God, neither for what to praise Him, nor what to ask for.36 Aelred concludes that friendship originates and develops from love. But in order to be able to love the other one must, first of all, learn how to love him, understanding by this the purification from immorality and concentration on what serves Gods purpose. Proceeding from this initial stage, any friendship can go as far as to reach the presence of God: while one is entreating Christ in ones friends favour and seeking to be heard, one is stretching out towards Christ himself in love and longingSo it is that we ascend from that love, already holy, with which we embrace our friend, to the love with which we embrace Christ.37

John 15:13. The Romanian version of Apophthegmata Patrum (The Sayings of the Desert Fathers). 34 My English translation, from: For Love, http://www.pateric.ro/pentru-dragoste/ [accessed January 21, 2011]. 35 Antoine Guillaumont, Une inscription copte sur la prire de Jsus, in Aux origines du monachisme chrtien, Pour une phnomnologie du monachisme, (Bgrolles en Mauges: Abbaye de Bellefontaine, 1979), 16883. 36 My English translation, from: Dumitru Stniloae, Rugciunea lui Iisus i experiena Duhului Sfnt [The Jesus Prayer and the Experience of the Holy Spirit], 2nd ed., trans. Maria-Cornelia Ic jr (Sibiu: Deisis, 2003), 67. 37 Jeanrond, op. cit., 212.
32 33

Iacob Radu Costin, Master of Advanced Studies in Theology and Religion, K. U. Leuven

Jeanrond presents then, some other observations on the Church as an Institution of Love. He states that the core of its mission should be the education of its members, by administering Gods gift of love in creation.38 Next he goes on to engage some of the Christian visions for a global community. Here Jeanrond has a constructive remark, that even if we cannot change the very fact of globalization, still we have the duty to react, try and detect its inherent problems and dangers. 39 I Page | 6 agree with Jeanrond when he stresses that the eschatological expectation should not be understood as a mere future projection of todays realities, but rather as personal and communitarian openness to Gods creative and reconciling presence.40 Other significant contributions of Jeanronds study are found in the last chapter of the book, where he engages deeper some of the main concerns of his work. One of the most notable statements is this: God is engaged in the process of humanization of men, women and children through love. God wills and respects the freedom of human beings to say yes or no to the invitation to participating in the dynamics of love.41 Or, to put it differently, if we want to become divine, we initially have to become more and more human, through an active and enthusiastic relation with God. Jeanrond reiterates this idea further, when he considers which way to approach our human predicament is better. He concludes that taking love as our starting point frees our horizon for the dynamics of love, for transcendence and for personal and communal transformation.42 We can observe in our life like Paul did, that sometimes we fail to achieve our goals; for we are not doing what we want but the things we hate. In this regard Paul frankly noted that because of the sin which dwells in us, very often we can only will what is right but we cannot accomplish it. 43However, together with Jeanrond we affirm that the only thing required from us is our genuine desire to participate in Gods creative and reconciling project of love.44 Within this participation we are already called to become responsible agents of love, since it is not a denial of grace, but the consequence of grace. This means that the transcendence of our limits can be achieved only in an open but responsible relationship with God. It implies not a mere juridical justification of our sins, but a full and veritable transformation of our own being. Thus, with the support of Gods grace we will be able ourselves to do, not the evil we hate but the good that we yearn for. In the second part of this paper I would like to engage more with Jeanronds thinking, having a more critical approach to his book and finally, with the seminary. With regards to methodology, I appreciate first of all Jeanrond's systematic approach to such a broad and profound subject. Love cannot be even easily defined, and therefore, trying to develop this topic in a logical sequence cannot be an easy task. Secondly I admire his attempt, more evident in the final part of his work, to engage love critically and, in doing so, to achieve more than a mere history of the theology of love. The effort to recover the unity between love and desire is one of the main goals of this book, and it reveals an authentic understanding of the most crucial struggles of our times. This intimate relation is more commonly expressed today through the relation between the body and soul.
Ibidem., 215. Ibidem., 218. 40 Ibidem., 229. 41 Ibidem., 243. 42 Ibidem., 245. 43 Rom. 7: 14-20. 44 Jeanrond, op. cit., 248.
38 39

Iacob Radu Costin, Master of Advanced Studies in Theology and Religion, K. U. Leuven

Therefore, any attempt to establish or restore a natural link between these two realities is a stringent task for our times. In our society, one can find a contradictory combination of both an exacerbation of the cult of the body in the secular culture, and also the remaining challenges to an absolute spiritualization of love in the ecclesiastical tradition. They both risk failing in understanding the human person as a unique and complete reality. In this sense, Jeanronds Page | 7 attempt to find a sound, middle, but not compromising way, is vital. Besides this, I appreciate Jeanronds determination to include the different other in God's loving plan. More than this, I perfectly agree with his intuition that love has the power to transform all human relations, and transcend them to a higher reality, in the final communion of all in God.45 In proposing this attitude, Jeanrond places himself in the same tradition with Origen, Gregory of Nyssa and Sergei Bulgakov, who also expressed a certain hope for a final communion with the others and a restoration of the whole creation in the Kingdom of God. In this sense Pavel Evdokimov wrote:
The rationality of our heart makes us feel that our vision of God would be restless if He would not love His creature as far as not to punish it with the grief of separation; the same restless would be if God would redeem the loving one by limiting or destroying his libertyWhen the Father sends his Son, He knows that the Hell belongs to Him also, and that the Gates of the Death will become Gates of Life. The human person cannot fall into despair, he can only fall into God, and God is never despondent46

Furthermore, Jeanrond underlines the inner personal connection between love and salvation,47 imagined as a human participation in the divine plan of the continuous transformation of creation. Envisaging friendship in a transcendental way, Jeanrond aims in the end to recover the participation of the entire world to the dynamics of salvation. Treating the Christian family throughout an entire chapter shows the centrality of the subject in Jeanronds theology. His vision on human family as a school of love reminds me of the words of an orthodox Serbian theologian who said once that the growing bond of unity and love between the husband and wife is meant to provide human beings with their first fundamental experience of love and the awareness of their evolution through love, towards a unity in love with their Creator. During the Seminary classes, many critiques were brought to the way in which Jeanrond understood to present and develop his ideas. The main critique was that the book sometimes resembles a research in the history of theology instead of a hermeneutical retrieval of theology of love. While reading the book, sometimes I had the impression myself, that Jeanrond does not approach critically enough the theologians he discusses; neither has he developed his own opinion on the subject. However, after reading the full text, I realized that his method is creative, allowing for an active reading and different personal interpretations. Additionally, his personal comments, ideas and contributions to a theology of love are clearly and generously stated in the second part of his book. I also had the impression sometimes that Jeanrond too often tried to say so much in such a
Ibidem., 248. My English translation, from: Paul Evdokimov, Iubirea nebun a lui Dumnezeu [The Mad Love of God], (Bucureti: Anastasia, 2009), 92. 47 Jeanrond, op. cit., 247.
45 46

Iacob Radu Costin, Master of Advanced Studies in Theology and Religion, K. U. Leuven

limited space. I think that every chapter could have been extended to the dimension of an independent volume. Furthermore, I believe that the outcome of his research could have been broader and deeper, if he had included also some opinions of the Greek Fathers of the Church. Another major critique to Jeanronds method raised during the seminary classes was that he has been discriminatory, that is to say that he chose certain authors to present his own points. But I Page | 8 believe that any author trying to make cover two thousand years of history has to be, to some extent, selective and, as a result, to only address the most important personalities and currents, or at least those he considers to be so. The author himself confirms when he says that his intention is to present what I consider to be significant features of a relational understanding of the Christian praxis of love.48 Furthermore, it was argued that Jeanrond gave these authors a certain reading. My impression is that Jeanronds purpose was not to make a subjective evaluation of each author, but instead to let these authors present themselves and one another, by selecting what he considered to be their representative ideas of love. A different criticism was that Jeanronds actual theology does not meet his goals in building up a hermeneutics of love. It was argued that in the end, one cannot have a clear image of a theology of love, but rather a clear idea of how we might begin to approach one. Jeanrond personally answers this opinion, and clearly affirms his position, when he states that the aim of his book is to reflect upon the potential of love from within a theological horizon49. He does not claim that his work is an exhaustive theology of love, but rather that it investigates its potential for further research. To summarize, I think that Jeanronds urge to restore a positive view on human agency and imagine love as a complex reality - one that has a divine origin, but develops through human agency - is to be welcomed. This orthodox view not only reiterates that love is the crown of the Christian way of life, but also that love is a genuine and organic component of the human being. It should be comprehended not merely as a simple altering human feeling, but rather as the reality that renders us free to transform and transgress our limits, and by doing so, to prepare us for the final reunion with our Father.

48 49

Ibidem., 23. Ibidem.