"Love is the doctrine of this
church."
Love is the beginning
and the end of our existence.
"Love
is never having to say,
'I'm sorry.'"
Love is the hostage we give
to an
uncertain future.
Pain and grief are the measures of our love.
"What we've
loved and lost
we lose to find how great a thing is loving
and the power
of it
to make a dream come
true."
Love is the only shelter we have
against a cold,
Love!
Love,
they say,
makes
the world go 'round.
Someone has said,
"We love out of our leisure from
self-concern
and we are always self-concerned
unless we know
that someone
other than our self
is prepared to maintain
the significance of our
being."
"We love out our
leisure from self concern...."
I wonder--
if that be true--
if we only
love because we are loved--
how ever did love arise?
How did the golden
sequence begin?
Who first achieved
sufficient leisure from self-concern
ever
to love?
When I was a child
I heard the preacher say,
in a
voice like stained-glass,
"We love Him because He first loved us."
I could
tell by the tone of voice
that HE
and HIM
were
written with capital letters.
I wondered how HE
could be impressed
by this kind of love
which
was only a payment
for services rendered
a quid-pro-quo.
When
I was a child,
I heard the congregation sing,
"Just as I am
without
one plea...."
I heard the congregation sing,
"Amazing grace, how sweet
the sound
that saved a wretch like me...."
As the harmonies and undertones
died away,
I felt, rather
than heard
another definition:
Love is not a transaction--
love is unconditional
acceptance--
with all the warts and blemishes showing--
of another
person's worth.
When I was a child,
I watched love being defined
in
the living out of every day:
two people
who could be angry with
each other--
who could afford to be angry with each other;
two people
who
knew how to hurt each other
because they had opened themselves,
had
made themselves vulnerable
to
each other--
and sometimes they hurt each other,
terribly;
two people
who always drew back
from the final, fatal blow--
who saw in each other
their
own limitations,
their own completion.
Love:
two people
who
need each other
to overcome themselves,
to fulfill their humanity;
two
people who find in each other's eyes
a promise,
I never heard them say
they loved each
other.
I'm not sure that concept
ever flitted through their minds.
"I
love you," was something
people said in movies.
Real life was too immediate
to
rest on verbal definition.
And life,
I
don't remember hearing them say,
"I love
you."
But I was loved.
It was a harder love--
Over time,
I hurt them;
they
hurt me--
for my own good
and for theirs
and for a thousand feeble
reasons.
(There is always sufficient reason
to justify a hurt.)
But
the love existed
in some
other realm--
impervious to hurt and pain and disappointment.
The love remained
and
made life--
all of life--
bearable.
Love is a personal matter--
a matter of touching
I never heard
them say,
"I love you."
But
they loved each other.
How do I know that?
In what did that love consist?
Love
for them
was a way of viewing the world
from the perspective
of the first person plural.
For them,
Nor was there ever any hint
that either one
felt lessened,
Individuality was discovered,
personality
was defined
by unconditional commitment,
merging two people
into one life.
Anything less was
neither freedom
nor individuality.
anything
else was
loneliness
and desolation.
There was a terrible
price to pay
for this love
which merged two lives.
they needed each other
with a desperate need.
For
each of them
the other was simply irreplaceable.
Their love was large
enough
to encompass their children,
to reach out to friends,
but no
one else could replace either of them
for the other.
When he died,
as
all must die,
her death began--
a terrible, long and lingering death--
the
death of half a whole--
of beginning a sentence
and discovering
there is no one there
who can
complete it;
of remembering joys and griefs
It was a quaint,
old-fashioned love,
this
merging of two into one
without loss,
with symbiotic enrichment.
It
was an unselfconscious, mystic kind of love;
quite out of step with modern
concerns
Perhaps
that is why love
is so difficult for us;
perhaps that is why love
seems
so utterly irrelevant
to
world problems and global challenges:
We have lost the aptitude for mystical
union;
we are left with a formless yearning,
for what, we know not.
We
busily guard
the fortress of our uniqueness,
failing to see ourselves
in others
or others in us;
forgetting the fact
that we receive
our very selves
as gifts from the hands of others,
that we are sustined
in life
by the faithfulness of others,
that we understand ourselves
only
as we see ourselves
reflected
in the eyes of others.
We busily guard ourselves
from the imperative
of love,
the injunction that until we are prepared
to lose ourselves
we
shall never truly find ourselves.
We busily guard ourselves
from the
full implication of love--
that all people under the sun,
regardless of
time
To
believe in the possibility
of mystic union--
an incorporation
of self and other
so that each is enhanced
and nothing lost--
to
believe in the possibility of love-
that is the precondition of love:
Whatever glory or pain human beings have created
Love
is a private matter
with public overtones,
with corporate
imperatives.
When one human being is exalted,
all are enhanced.
When
one human being is belittled,
all are diminished.
To see the world in
human perspective
is to see
the world
in the first person plural:
not me and mine,
Love is
always risky.
To love is to risk hurting
and being hurt.
To love and to
lose love
is to risk death
itself.
To love is to gamble
that in losing the self we know
in the embrace
of another,
we may find the self
for which we have yearned
all
the long millennia.
God is love,
so they say.
The god who is love
is
the urgency in us
to risk ourselves in search of our larger self--
the
god who is love
is the urgency in us
to gamble the obvious on the
just barely possible--
the god who is love
is the temptation we so stubbornly
resist
to open ourselves,
to
allow ourselves to be vulnerable,
to reach past the barriers
we
have errected
to keep us from love.
We talk too much of love;
examine
it too closely;
analyze it too finely.
We talk to avoid the necessity
of love--
we isolate ourselves behind a wall of words
--love songs, poems,
romances--
and in contemplating the image of love,
evade its demand.
Love
is two people,
or an entire species,
so conscious of their mutual
involvement
that the world
can only be seen
in terms of
the first person plural,
and life can
only be defined
by that mystic union
the origin of which we may never know,
the
reality of which is beyond doubt.
We love,
not out of leisure
from our self-concern.
We love
out of the sense of our largest self--
the
self encompassing
the entire human venture,
those with us now,
those
who have gone before,
those who shall follow after,
the offspring and
inheritors
of all our living
and loving.
Love,
they say,
makes the world go 'round.
God
is love,
or so they say.
Love is the beginning
and the end of our existence,
the hostage we give
to an uncertain future,
the only shelter we
have
against a cold,
"Ah,
love,
let us be true to one another...."