Finnish Graduate School of Theology
Head of the Graduate School
Professor Martti Nissinen
Faculty of Theology
Box 33 (Aleksanterinkatu 7)
00014 University of Helsinki
Tel. +358 9 191 24012
martti.nissinen(at)helsinki.fi
Project coordinator
Rope Kojonen
Faculty of Theology
Box 33 (Aleksanterinkatu 7)
00014 University of Helsinki
Tel. +358 9 191 22878
rope.kojonen(at)helsinki.fi
Student profiles
Lepojärvi, Jason |
![]() |
Kuva: Jani Laukkanen
C. S. Lewis and John Paul II on Love. A Dialogue
In my research I compare the conceptions of love of two influential Christian thinkers: C. S. Lewis (1898-1963) and Pope John Paul II (1920-2005). Both wrote extensively on love and can posthumously contribute to ongoing theological discussion. Two open questions in particular are at the forefront. As Christendom is divided as to how best understand love’s dynamics, both theological questions have important ecumenical and pastoral implications.
Firstly, what is the relationship between the so-called “eros” and “agape” loves? In Anders Nygren’s model, these loves were strongly juxtaposed. Eros is self-seeking pagan love, whereas the biblical agape is unselfish, creating goodness in the object of love rather than demanding it beforehand. This setting became normative in Protestant theology throughout the 20th century, but it is a caricature. Can C. S. Lewis and John Paul II provide more constructive ways of expressing the relationship between self-love and self-sacrificing love, while avoiding both of their distortions (egoism and self-abnegation)?
Secondly, what is the object of love? When we say we love a person, what exactly do we love? Loving good qualities in the person undoes love’s unconditionality. On the other hand, does loving the “whole person” regardless of their goodness imply that we love “badness”? The principle “Love the sinner but hate the sin” suggests a problematic ambiguity in locating the object of love.
It seems that both C. S. Lewis and Pope John Paul II allow a self-love that is not “selfish” in the derogatory sense. A certain goodness of the object is presupposed, although it may not constitute love’s motive. “Badness” cannot be loved – when loving human persons we love something intrinsically good (though not without faults). These findings would help Christians jinxed by Nygrenian prejudices to love, both themselves and others, with an authentic love uncontaminated by selfishness, and to locate real goodness in both themselves and others.
My links:
Virtuous Leadership: The leading leadership blog in Finnish (extracurricular)
