So, here?s the problem:
1. Eros is desire and love for beauty, evoked by and responding to beauty in the object of desire.
2. God loves us in spite of our ugliness.
3. Therefore, God?s love for us is not erotic. He does not desire us; we cannot shoot any arrows that penetrate His eye.
4. BUT: If this is the case, what does that say about the analogy between Christ/church and husband/wife? Should a husband’s love for his wife not be erotic?
5. Besides, there are Scripture passages that seem to indicate that God desires His people, wants to be among them and with them, and is offended and grieved when we spurn Him.
Possible solutions:
1. Eros is being misdefined here. Desire is not necessarily desire evoked by the beauty of the object. At least, though, it seems that desire is responding to some desirability in the object. And even if we weaken “beauty” to “desirability,” we still have the same problem, for what is there desirable about us that God responds to?
2. Eros might PROJECT desirability or beauty. This could be taken in a few different ways. It could mean that the erotic lover imputes desirable traits or beauty to the beloved, and then responds to that imputation. Or, it could mean that desire is prospective, responding to future traits foreseen. God, then, does not desire the Bride that is but the bride that will be, the spotless bride without wrinkle. Lewis says something like this. But this also faces problems: first, that this uncomfortably softens the confidence that God loves us NOW, in the midst of our sins, and that He desires our fellowship; second, that there is still a chasm between divine-human love and marital love, for we surely do not want to encourage husbands to love the desirable traits that he foresees will develop in his wife.
3. There is an unresolvable Creator-creature issue here. Erotic love is a form of creaturely love that simply does not exist in God.
4. There is simply a surd, an aporia, we cannot untangle: There is nothing desirable about us; yet God desires us. We can say no more.
There may be other possible solutions. Which one is best? As I said, “here’s the problem.”
Dear Reader,
Can I be direct with you?
War abroad. Socialists on the rise. AI upending human life. Endless uproar online. The modern attention economy doesn’t want readers — it wants users enslaved to the tyranny of the present.
First Things is the antidote: literary excellence, timeless truths, and a fixed point of reference in a culture that has lost its bearings.
But we can’t do it without readers like you.
Our goal: Raise $150,000 by November 1 to sustain First Things in the year ahead.
Your gift anchors readers in the permanent things.
Make your Fall Campaign gift now using the button below.
If you have any questions or would like more information, please contact Giovanni Del Piero, Director of the Editor’s Circle, at gdelpiero@firstthings.com or 212-627-1985.
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE
The Church in the Age of Therapy
In 1966, Philip Rieff wrote in The Triumph of the Therapeutic that “Religious man was born to…
Canada’s Deadliest Blind Spot
On September 20, the Daily Mail ran a story with the provocative headline, “Our 83-year-old Christian grandmother…
The Faithful Joy of Dolly Parton and Fulton Sheen
Dolly Parton and Fulton Sheen seem to have had little in common. She favored rhinestones; he wore…
