Looking at Two Kinds of Love from the Perspective of a Christian as Depicted by Kierkegaard and C.s. Lewis

Kierkegaard and Lewis

What is love? If such a question were posed to an assembly of a hundred people, each person could potentially provide a different answer. None would be right. But then, none would be completely wrong either. From Plato to Singer, love has been defined and redefined according to the social norms of each time period. Today, the word has been so tightly bound to romance and family that to use it outside of such occasions is likely either to stir up confusion or to incur discomfort in the receiving party. To love your friend is, of course, still normal. But to vocalize such sentiments, especially among men, is often frowned upon, unless it is voiced in a joking manner. Likewise, some people restrict their use of the term “love”, explaining that love is powerful and should mean something, as if afraid to use it unless they experience love in its truest form. But what is its truest form? Ask that question, and another string of varying answers will come forward, each one probably based on the idea of eros or philia. However, those are only two of the four kinds of love that are present in this world. There is also storge (familial love) and agape (charity), the latter of which is this paper’s focus. Even defining one type of love is a trying task as each person still interprets differently the kinds of elements present within it. But there are at least two authors, C.S. Lewis and Kierkegaard, whose works show clear parallels in their arguments of what Charity actually is. Although these two explain this type of love in different terms, both C.S. Lewis and Kierkegaard base their arguments in Christianity, which is where all of their ideas match up to each other.

C.S. Lewis’ view of Charity begins with the metaphor of a garden (Lewis 116-7), which is meant to represent the way in which love is meant to thrive. As a garden needs to be tended to in order to remain different from nature, so too must natural love be treated and acted upon with virtue and goodness in order to be the true love that God had meant for it to be. Lewis describes in his agape chapter four components that make up charity: acceptance, giving selflessly, the ability to love the unlovable, and appreciation.

According to Lewis, charity begins with the acceptance of Need (Lewis 130-1). No person is without Need. Or rather, every person is in Need (as opposed to being needy, which is more or less to desire that which is not actually needed). Accepting this need means to renounce the self-love that people have of themselves, a feeling which is far closer to the Common than it is to the Heavenly. To not need anything from anyone is simply pride. To relate it to today’s society, who is not in need of a job? Regardless of how much effort a person puts into getting that job, it is always the employer who chooses whether or not to give out that position. In other words, the job seeker needs the employer because it is he who ultimately determines whether or not the job seeker acquires what is necessary. In Lewis’ view, people first need to accept their Need for God, or Love-Himself, and, in turn, their Need for each other. By accepting this truth, the gateway to charity is opened.

The next step in achieving Charity is the one which is most familiar: giving (Lewis 128). Giving meaning to help those in need without expecting anything in return, to do something wholly for that person without regard to oneself. Like God, one must give plenteously as if unaffected by one’s own Need. Following after, Lewis declares that one must be able to love the unlovable (Lewis 133). In the book, he explains that, by nature, not all people are lovable. However, they must be loved in spite of it. Further, he says that even the lovable people will have moments which may show them to be unlovable, and by loving such people regardless, it is a part of Charity. The final component is left open to interpretation, but Lewis calls it Appreciative love towards God and states that “this is of all gifts the most to be desired” (Lewis 140).

Kierkegaard’s version of Charity is very close to Lewis’, although the focus of his argument is a bit different. According to Kierkegaard, Charity is the true love that should be taught by Christianity. The problem lies in how Christianity, at the same time, praises friendship and eros. His discussion is mainly a comparison between eros and friendship, and Charity, which are essentially opposing types of loves.

Kierkegaard begins by asserting that eros and philia are selfish due to idea that a close friend or the Beloved is another part of the Lover (Pakaluk 241-2). This concept, then, turns every virtue of love (giving, patience, equality) into an act of self-love. For who is unwilling to give to oneself or wait for oneself? And how can one not be equal to oneself? Each act of love upon the “Other I”, as Kierkegaard puts it, is only an act for oneself and is therefore Pagan as opposed to Christian because the “Other I” is praised before God. In his conclusion, one can therefore choose only Pagan love (eros and friendship) or Christian love (Charity). There is no compromise.

In terms of Charity, Kierkegaard expresses four main points: selflessness, eternity, equality, and the highest love. The argument is focused on a single commandment: You shall love thy neighbor. In loving one’s neighbor, one is able to love selflessly because the neighbor cannot be an “Other I” for the neighbor is expressed distinctly as apart from the one (Pakaluk 242). There is no merging unification in “me and my neighbor”, as opposed to lovers or friends who think of each other as each other’s halves or parts of each other. By following this one commandment, the act of selfless love is achieved because there is that distinction and recognition of the neighbor as separate from oneself, strictly as an Other and not an “Other I”, which removes the self from the act of loving.

The next two points discuss the immortality and equality of true love (Charity) as opposed to eros and friendship (Pakaluk 243-5). The commandment states to love thy neighbor, and in so doing, this love is eternal for the fact that “all men are your neighbor” (Pakaluk 239). So as long there are people on this earth, there is love. By these statements, this love is also equal because since all men are your neighbor, they are all treated in the same way, the way neighbor is mandated to be treated, with love, which casts out the preferential, and by definition unequal, love of eros and friendship. With the Pagan loves, not all people can be one’s friends or lovers, which naturally creates a certain hierarchy in terms of affection for others. Not all friends will be loved equally, and the Beloved will always be treated better than friends. In this way, eros and friendship are temporary, for preferences are constantly shifting.

Finally, Kierkegaard asserts that Charity is the highest love, for it is the only love that can bring us closer to God, who loves in this way also (Pakaluk 236). In fact, Kierkegaard deems that one must love God above all before loving one’s neighbors for it is He who dictates that this must be so. And by not choosing the love of God, one by default chooses the Pagan love.

Although Lewis and Kierkegaard explain it differently, their ideas are mainly the same. Lewis’ first explanation of accepting Need is the same as Kierkegaard’s selflessness and equality. By accepting one’s own Need, there is the understanding that everyone is need of each other and therefore equal. To love the unlovable, as expressed by Lewis, is the same as the commandment to love thy neighbor. The terms “unlovable” and “neighbor” are both used to describe “everyone” or all the equal love-objects that exist in Charity, which also includes one’s self. And also, Kierkegaard and Lewis’ arguments praise God above all else, which central to their ideas of Charity. By knowing that there is a higher power, one can truly understand his place as an equal among the others, which casts out all the pride and ego that comes from seeing one’s self as purely individual.

An example that follows both Lewis and Kierkegaard’s guidelines for Charity is the recent news video about the Somali children in Kenya and the Syrian children in Jordan, all refugees, who were exchanging letters of hope between the camps earlier this year. The first reason it fits into the definition of Charity as portrayed by Lewis and Kierkegaard is the children’s willingness to communicate with each other. Both parties understood that they were in need of support and met each other with kind words. There was an acceptance of their need. In addition, this event displays Kierkegaard’s central focus of loving one’s neighbor. Although the two refugee camps are countries apart, the children recognized that they were all in the same boat, that they were all equal and related to each other by the association that all men are neighbors. But above all, the children were giving to each other, with no other reason than to give hope to each other. The act was therefore an act of selflessness, and by definition, a true act of Charity.

In conclusion, Kierkegaard and C.S. Lewis both share similar views on Charity as both of their arguments are rooted in the Christian theology. Although different terms and focuses were made (Lewis discussed the improvement of self while Kierkegaard concentrates on how to treat others), they both come down to the same findings: Love God first, and then love others equally.