THE THEOLOGY OF EROS Vladimir Moss © Vladimir Moss, 2017. All Rights Reserved. 1 This book is dedicated to my godson James and his bride Katarina, on the occasion of their wedding in the Orthodox Church. 2 FOREWORD 5 INTRODUCTION 7 The Problem Stated 7 Pagan Philosophies of Love (1) Manichaeism 9 Pagan Philosophies of Love (2) Platonism 12 Pagan Philosophies of Love (3) Stoicism 16 The “Realistic” and “Idealistic” Views of Eros 19 1. EROS IN THE BEGINNING 21 Introduction: The Limitations of our Knowledge 21 Male and Female 23 Dominion through Love 27 “It is not Good that Man should be Alone” 31 The Creation of Eve 37 Neither Male nor Female 42 The Image of God and Sexuality 48 Angelic and Sexual Modes of Procreation 53 Impure Means to a Pure End? 56 Natural and Unnatural Modes of Procreation 62 The Bonds of the Family 68 2. EROS IN THE FALL 72 Idealism and Realism 72 Dominion in the Fall 77 The Garments of Skin 81 Innocent and Guilty Passion 92 Original Sin 97 Sexual Sin 102 Sexual Shame 105 Sinful Thoughts 108 Fornication and Adultery 110 Contraception and Abortion 116 Sexual Perversion 120 Homosexuality 128 3. EROS IN CHRIST 136 The Annunciation and the Nativity 136 “Genesis” and “Gennisis” 142 The Marriage at Cana 144 The Wedding of the Lamb 149 The Two Mysteries 154 4. MARRIAGE AND MONASTICISM 163 The Definition of Marriage 163 The Permanence of Marriage 165 Civil and Ecclesiastical Marriage 167 Remarriage and Divorce 177 Mixed Marriages 181 The Purposes of Marriage 186 Marriage and Monasticism 190 Lourié’s Manichaean Thesis 200 Stars differing in glory 208 3 5. EROS AND HUMAN NATURE 211 The Nature of Eros 211 The “Sublimation” of Eros 214 Sublimation and “Falling in Love” 223 Sublimation and Marriage 237 The Resurrection of the Body 242 Eros and Agape 247 The Cult of Romantic Passion 255 Eros: Human and Divine 260 CONCLUSION AND SUMMARY 263 APPENDIX 1: THE MARRIAGE IN CANA OF GALILEE 269 APPENDIX 2: “FLEE FORNICATION” 273 APPENDIX 3. THE ORIGINS OF SEXUAL PERVERSION 283 APPENDIX 4. THE DORMITION AND WOMEN PRIESTS 298 APPENDIX 5: STUMP THE PRIEST: FASTING AND MARITAL RELATIONS 306 4 FOREWORD This book owes its origin to a recent debate in the Russian Orthodox theological literature and internet web-forums on the nature of eros and the status of married Christians and sexual love within marriage.1 This debate shows no sign of dying out, and I have felt the need to present what I have learned from it in a more systematic form in English and for English-speaking readers. The result is the present work, which attempts to expound the nature of eros, marriage and monasticism from the perspective of the Holy Fathers of the Orthodox Church. My main debt, of course, is to the Holy Fathers, especially the Greek Fathers from the fourth to the fourteenth century, from St. John Chrysostom to St. Gregory Palamas. I have also made use of Russian Fathers, such as St. Demetrius of Rostov, St. Tikhon of Zadonsk, St. Seraphim of Sarov, St. Ignaty Brianchaninov, St. Theophan the Recluse, St. John of Kronstadt, Archbishop Theophan of Poltava and New Hieromartyr Gregory (Lebedev). Also cited have been some more recent Orthodox philosophers and theologians such as Bishop Nikolai Velimirovich, Archpriest Lev Lebedev, Hieromonk Seraphim Rose, Vladimir Soloviev, S.L. Frank, S.V. Troitsky, Vladimir Lossky, I.A. Ilyin, John Romanides, Panagiotis Trembelas, Panagiotis Nellas, Georgios Mantzaridis, Anestis Keselopoulos and Philip Sherrard. Among non-Orthodox authors who have helped me I should like to mention C.S. Lewis, the contemporary English philosopher Roger Scruton, as well as the great bard, William Shakespeare, whose struggles with the concept of sexual love first aroused my interest in the subject… I should point out that the fact that I quote from an author does not necessarily imply that I agree with all his teachings. In addition, I wish to thank my friend, Anton Ter-Grigorian, for his stimulating discussion of the issues raised in this book. After writing the first draft of this book, I read the following words by Fr. Seraphim Rose: “All of this [the true nature of sexuality, and of human nature before the fall, from a patristic point of view] should one day be written out and printed, with abundant illustrations from the Holy Fathers and Lives of the Saints – together with the whole question of sexuality – abortion, natural and unnatural sins, pornography, homosexuality, etc. With Scriptural and patristic sources, this could be done carefully and without offensiveness, but clearly…”2 1 See Hieromonk Gregory Lourié, Prizvanie Avraama (The Calling of Abraham), St. Petersburg, 2000; Protopriest Michael Makeev, V. Moss, A. Ter-Grigorian, I. Grigoriev, Supruzhestvo, Zakon i Blagodat’ (Marriage, the Law and Grace), Moscow, 2001. 2 Rose, Letter 174, in Hieromonk Damascene (Christensen), Father Seraphim Rose: His Life and Works, Platina, Ca.: St. Herman of Alaska Press, 2003, p. 804. 5 This is precisely what I have tried to do in this book. It is up to the reader to judge the extent to which I have succeeded or failed. Although I have tried to remain as closely as possible to the teachings of the Orthodox Church, it goes without saying that I, and I alone, am responsible for any errors that may have crept into this book, for which I ask forgiveness. Through the prayers of our Holy Fathers, Lord Jesus Christ, our God, have mercy on us! Amen. August 11/24, 2016. East House, Beech Hill, Mayford, Woking, England. 6 INTRODUCTION Are you not yet married in the flesh? Fear not this consecration; you are pure even after marriage. I will take the risk of that. I will join you in marriage. I will lead in the bride. We do not dishonour marriage because we give a higher honour to virginity. I will imitate Christ, the pure Bridegroom and Leader of the Bride, as He both worked a miracle at a wedding, and honours marriage with His Presence. St. Gregory the Theologian, Oration on Holy :Baptism, 18. I want to purify our wedding celebrations: to restore marriage to its due nobility and to silence those heretics who call it evil. St. John Chrysostom, Homily 12 on Colossians. “The love of husband and wife is the force that welds society together. Men will take up arms and even sacrifice their lives for the sake of this love. St. Paul would not speak so earnestly about this subject without serious reason; why else would he say, ‘Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord’? Because when harmony prevails, the children are raised well, the household is kept in order, and neighbours, friends, and relatives praise the result. Great benefits, both of families and states, are thus produced. When it is otherwise, however, everything is thrown into confusion and turned upside-down.” St. John Chrysostom The Problem Stated Is there such a thing as sexual love – that is, a love that is sexual, but which is none the less love for being sexual, and which is not devalued or defiled by its sexuality? To this question there are broadly three kinds of answer:- 1. No. There is no such thing as sexual love because what goes under that name is in essence not love, but sex, a purely biological phenomenon not different fundamentally from the courtship and mating of animals. 2. No. There is such a thing as sexuality, and there is such a thing as love, and they can coexist; but only in the way that an ass’s head can fit onto a human body – the two things are of a different nature and serve different purposes that inevitably contend against each other to the detriment, invariably, of love. 3. Yes. There is a specific kind of love, called sexual love, which in origin and essence and aim cannot be divided into the separate components of “sex” and “love”, but which in the conditions of the fall and the loss of grace has undergone a fissure that sets its originally harmoniously united elements against each other, resulting in the fallen passion of lust. 7 The first answer is that of the naturalist pagan or atheist. It leads to a permissive morality and the more or less rapid destruction of civilized society. The second answer is that of the Manichaean, and it leads to a rigorist morality – and the undermining of the institution of marriage and the family. The third answer is that of the Orthodox Christian, and it leads to the harmonious concord of the Orthodox Christian family in the Orthodox Church of Christ. The first two answers are clearly related, in spite of the atheist and liberal character of the one and the theist and rigorist character of the other. Both are pessimistic about what I have called sexual love, but which they would identify as such only in inverted commas. However, the pessimism of the naturalist remains such only so long as he retains what he must consider to be his illusions about the existence of a non- animalian kind of “sexual love”. Once he has shed these, he is free to do “what comes naturally”, with no guilt or shame – or real joy. The pessimism of the Manichaean, on the other hand, is real and tragic. He knows that love does exist, but is forced to the conclusion that it cannot coexist with sexuality while remaining love, which means that sexuality must be forcibly expelled from his life in all its forms if the ideal of love is to be preserved.