Book of Love Review - "Agape: An Ethical Analysis" - Chapter 1
Equal Love, self-love, reciprocity, harmony, love for God, love for man, possession by God, loving for the sake of God
I just finished reading chapter 1 of Gene Outka’s Agape: An Ethical Analysis (1972). Outka references many well-known thinkers who have written about love, including Soren Kierkegaard, Anders Nygren, Reinhold Niebuhr, and more. This inspires me to greatly expand my library (my Amazon wish list has been transformed accordingly). For now, I am finding Outka’s book illuminating and thought-provoking. Without further ado, here are my thoughts on the first chapter.
Agape is Given Equally, Not Identically
One of the first meditations I encountered in reading this first chapter is the idea that agape love is most properly unto men equally, not identically. That is, to the extent that I am motivated agapically toward my neighbors, each one of my neighbors should be afforded the same amount of agapic love, but not in the same exact way. As a parent of two children, I found myself nodded in vehement agreement. What one daughter might take as an expression of love, the other might view indifferently or even antagonistically. Agapic love involves being so othermorely motivated that I am at least aware of how I might best extend my agapic love to my neighbor in ways that show that I am loving him, and not just some blank template of a human being. To the extent that my love is individualized, it seems likely that that love will be more likely to be taken as love.
Devotion-To & Perception-Of Beloved
Gene Outka pulls references from various authors to put forth the perspective that agape love is a two-fold endeavor: (1) devotion to the beloved, and (2) perception of the beloved. That is, to the extent that I have an agapic orientation toward my neighbor, I am unconditionally devoted to the other (more on that in a bit), and I perceive them as unconditionally lovable (more on that in a bit as well). Let’s break down that first one a bit.
Unconditional devotion does not mean that I remain in an abusive relationship with a neighbor. It means that my agapic orientation toward them remains steadfast no matter what they do. I can maintain my agapic orientation toward them, and distance myself from them for the very reason of my agapic orientation toward them. I can be wise as a serpent and not foolishly subject myself (and thus everyone who loves me) to undue suffering, and I can also genuinely will the moreness of my abuser. Of course, my agapic perception of their moreness will not include their abusive will and behavior. My agapic will for them is that they become more the image-bearer they were created to be.
Likewise, I see them as unconditionally lovable not in the sense that what they do is lovely, but that it is by their very nature of being an image-bearer of God that they are unconditionally lovable despite stains and blemishes their actions have spread out over that image. My agapic orientation toward them is such that I find them more lovable than they see themselves. Part of my expression of this perception of their unconditional lovability (as in the above explanation of unconditional devotion) can inspire me to distance myself from them. It does not mean that I do not see their faults or even view them as being monstrously deformed in spirit. Rather, my agapic love for them calls that out for what it is, and wills that it be done away with in favor of their own relationship with Agape Himself that they might become agapically oriented as well.
Comparison as Seemingly Anti-Agapic
Outka provides excerpts from several thinkers who have various perspectives on how the act of comparison is or isn’t anti-agapic. My own thoughts lean toward a sort of “it depends”, as usual. Comparison can certainly be anti-agapic. It can betray a sort of lack of gratitude and presence of envy. But it can also emerge as evidence of gratitude and good will.
I have been fortunate to be blessed with family and friends who desire the best for me. Many times, this has manifested in comparative forms. That is, loved ones would say things like, “You don’t deserve this” or “You have such great potential. Don’t waste it”, and so on. Even down to silly little things, like birthday wish lists. I might insist on the cheaper model of this, or a used model of that. Loved ones often insist on getting me that which, in their words, “you deserve”. Now, this isn’t exactly the sort of comparison that Outka is referencing, but it begins to touch on it.
Comparisons between people is really at the heart of this discussion, so I’ll bring it there. Suppose you’re a bachelor. You’re looking for someone to begin dating. There are a few female acquaintances who, though once were mere neighbors, now come to mind as potential future spouse. Do you not compare? Do you just roll the dice? Spin the bottle?
If I choose one over the other as a result of comparison, have I exhibited a lesser agapic love for the ones not picked? I do not think so. Agapic love does not require (indeed, almost never includes) romantic love (sometimes referred to as eros, but I’ll explore that some other day).
It is by the very agapic orientation itself that I will see the individual as an individual. The very act of seeing individuals as individuals implies necessary comparison. Now, if that comparison was of the form: “Deserves agape more than someone else”, then that comparison would of course be intrinsically anti-agapic, for it would subordinate agape to some condition.
Self-Love as Potentially Anti-Agapic
As with comparison, Outka also presents a few perspectives on whether or not self-love can be agapic. My own inclination is in the affirmative: self-love can be agapic. I’d take it further and say that to the extent that you are agapically oriented in life, you will necessarily have self-love. As the case with neighbor-love (which I will get to in a bit), self-love can become anti-agapic in two senses, both of which involve an improper ordering of one’s self-love: (1) I love myself preferentially over my neighbor, and (2) I fail to reciprocate to God the agapic love He has afforded me. Really, both imply the second: a failure to enter first and foremost into agapic relationship with Agape Himself.
To the degree that I am agapically oriented toward God, however, I will necessarily (even if seemingly by mere happenstance) love myself agapically. That is, it really is in my own best interest to love God and others agapically. Of course, in order to love them agapically, such love cannot be motivated first and foremost by my own best interest, but there’s nothing wrong with recognizing the fact that to love God and others is indeed to love myself, as it inherently is to live in oneness with Agape Himself. There is no greater reward.
Reciprocity as Potentially Anti-Agapic
Some thinkers have postulated that any idea of reciprocity should be considered distinct from agape, that a love that regards reciprocity is inherently not an agapic sort of love. Here I’d suggest that while agape does not require reciprocity, it not only inspires reciprocity but is most perfectly fulfilled in reciprocity. The story of the prodigal son seems to imply this most dramatically. Agape is content with being unto the un-agapic, but rejoices in agapic reciprocation.
Consider the call for us to love our enemies. Though we should love them whether or not they ever cease to be our enemies, we should also - to the degree that we truly have an agapic will toward them - desire reconciliation such that our agapic love for them is reciprocated.
Harmony & Agape
This was mentioned in passing in the first chapter of Outka’s book, but the word "harmony” immediately jumped out to me in relation to agapic self-love having its place among our agapic love for God and others. As a lay musician, I have had the great fortune of performing together with other musicians. The joy that comes with playing along with other musicians is dependent - to some extent - upon the harmony of the group. Each person rejoices in the experience of each person’s contribution complementing the contribution of each of the others. Without proper agapic love for self (and each of the others), the harmony cannot reach its potential. Either my contribution will fall flat (if I neglect my self-love), or my contribution will sow dissonance and take away from the contributions of one or more of the others and stain the music as a whole. Keeping the idea of harmony in mind, it seems necessarily true that some degree of self-love is necessary for the overall music of agape to be as beautiful as it can be.
God Possesses Those Who Love Him
One final note about this first chapter of Gene Outka’s Agape: An Ethical Analysis is summed up in the above phrase: God possesses those who love Him. That is, to the degree that I am agapically oriented toward God (intent on willing the will of Love Himself), I am effectively possessed by Him. What else does it mean to say, “Lord, I will to will what you will. Thy will be done”? Sure, it is a consensual possession, but I think we all chose to be possessed by different wills at any given moment of time in which we are consciously aware of choosing what we are doing. Am I going to succumb to gluttony, or refuse the cake? Am I going to exercise self-control, or spend my money on that thing want, but don’t really need? Likewise, as I begin to hand more and more of those moments over to Agape’s will be done, I am choosing to sign myself over to the will of Love Himself.
Gene Outka’s Agape: An Ethical Analysis, from what I can tell thus far, is thought-provoking, edifying, and illuminating. As I continue reading, I will contemplate writing an article reviewing each chapter. I am certain that through reading this book I’ll be all the more inspired to continue meditating on and writing about love in its various forms.
Thank you for reading. If you haven’t already, please consider subscribing to this publication by clicking the link below. Until next time, God bless.