Degrees of Love
Is the lack of differentation between types of love a precept behind egalitarianism? Is one kind of man nearer to us than another?
Lancelot Andrewes’ catechism (A Pattern of Catehistical Doctrine) on the second table contains an enlightening argument regarding such degrees between men, and the consequent manner of their love. Andrewes’ argument consists of two parts. The first part argues communion with God as the necessary precondition to brotherly love, and, therefore, any concern to the neighborly good of others first impinges upon our personal reconciliation to God. Once we have this peace, a greater unity can then be entered amongst men by the mutual bond of Christ Jesus. Andrewes outlines the order of these conditions:
It is certain there are degrees; for to omit our duties to our parents is worse than to omit the same duties to a stranger. Now where there is a greater duty, there must be a greater affection, and so greater love; and the order of our love must be thus,
a. To God, for He is that bonum, ‘good’, by the participation whereof all other are bona, ‘good;’ and to which all other give place, as in polity to bonum publicum, ‘the public good’.
b. Our own souls, for we are unitas, ‘an unity’, or one entire in and with ourselves, and cannot be but united with our brethern.
c. The souls of our brethern before our own bodies; for any man’s soul may directly be partaker of the universal good which is in God, but so can no man’s body but by participation with the soul, and therefore the soul is to be preferred. (p. 172)
Hence, once the eternal needs of man’s soul are met, then the temporal aspirations in right order follow, starting with our bodily well-being. Andrewes ranks outward ties:
“d. Our own bodies before other men’s
e. The bodies of our neighbors; and among them:
first to them that have need; and of those:
first to the household of faith, Gal. vi.10; and of them,
first to our countrymen, ps. cxxii.8, “brethern and companions”; and of these:
first them which are nosri, “our friends and acquaintance,’ and of them,
first to our own, and, namely, them of our household, 1 Tim. v.8, and our kindred; and
first the wife, Gen. 2.24, “they shall be one flesh;” “am not I better to thee than ten sons?” 1 Sam. 1.8.
Thus much the subject of our neighbor. “(p. 173)
Recall, Andrewes’ argument begins with the existance of God—and communion with Him as the very substance of neighborly love. Egalitarianism tends to reverses this order making communion with God ancillary or a secondary to universal brotherhood. Not only this, but modernism also displaces the immediate and natural obligations of man for an abstracted “bodiless” mankind that has no necessary ties to either person, spouse, or family. Notice the degrees posited by Andrewes are in contradistiction to egalitarianism—i.e., 1). first, the dressing and feeding of our body, 2) then our spouse, 3) then providing for our children, 4) caring for extended family or ‘kindreds’, 5) friends and those we know, 6) compatriots, and, 7) finally, our church. Notice outward ethics, or the second tablet, really depend upon concentric relations and living these out. The reverse would otherwise make a man a louse, commanding him to love the extraordinary over the familiar. Also, we might suppose the church (#5) is further ordered between degrees of ecumenical, province, and parish since what wreck the greater church would be if all her individual local parts were in destitute?
Some implications to consider: If degrees of love exist, then do degrees of hate also exist? Andrewes reminds us, “every sinner, as he is a sinner is to be hated; every man, as he is a man, is to be loved: let us love men so that we love not their sins, and love them for that which God made them, not that which by sin they made themselves”. So, perhaps hate varies, following kinds of transgression, and the hatred of sin is really pastoral implying a range of discipline according to the offense. Likewise, if love has measuring upon the earth, then why doesn’t it also have a measure in heaven? Such ideas suggest the church as an ordered society rather than a primitive, unformed mass or assembly. We see perhaps something similar with Mary as the mother of God and John as the most loved disciple—the bonds of spousal, kindred, and brotherly affection lasting or descending from the heavenlies. Andrewes’ exposition on the second tablet reminds that affections should have right ends, as God would have it, “So that our love must be toward neighbor, not as always it is towards ourselves, but as it ought to be; nor as an evil man loveth himself, but as a man’s heart well regulated affecteth his own self.” (p.176)
The degrees of love was a common understanding in the 17th century. Here is a near verbatim quote on “the method and order of love” in Bp. William Nicholson’s A Plain and full Exposition of the Catechism of the Church of England, 1655 (pp.102-3), written together with the Reverend Jeremy Taylor. Nicholson notes how Godly love is impartial yet effected through degrees of proximity, and this seems consistent with own mandate for mission:
1. That we love God first and most. The high priest carried the name of God on his head, but the names of the Israelites on his breast-plate and shoulders. That great and fearful Name must be in the highest place; the love super-eminent we bear it; and then for God’s sake it must descend to our neighbor, as the breast-plate and shoulders. Ex Deo natalis amoris, ‘Love’s birth is from God’.
2. The next step is, that we love our neighbor, i.e., every man, be it a friend, or be it an enemy. If a brother, there is in him proximitas originis, a nearness of blood; if an enemy, proximitas naturae, or scietatis, a nearness either in nature in general, or some bond of civil society.
Now in this love of our neighbor, heed would be taken of two things:
1. That our love be not erroneious, that we take not our neighbors’ sin for our neighbor, and love their sins because we love their persons… “Thou shalt rebuke thy neighbor, and not suffer sin upon him” [Lev. 19.17]
2. That we look to the degrees of proximity, and accordingly extend our love before another, as they stand farther off, or are nearer unto us. And the order is this:
1. The nearest conjunction among Christians is that of the Spirit of grace, of religion, and these are to have the first place in our love. “Do good to all men, but especially those who are the household of faith” [Gal. 6.10]
2. Among these, if there be no disparity, then those first who are nearest unto us either in friendship, blood, or some other way.
3. After, as they stand nearer or farther in relation.
1. The husband or wife. Parents.
2. The children, and those of the family.
3. Our kindred.
4. Our friends or acquaintance, near neighbors.
5. Our countrymen.
6. Societies of men before any particular. But this is not perpetual, and may be broken by many accidents, and intervenient occasions.
If there be no disparity in faith, then family relations take priority over universal man. Note: kin and kith (tribe) fall between the family and countrymen.
