Tom Oord's "Defining Love" and "The Nature of Love" -- A Review

DEFINING LOVE: A Philosophical, Scientific, and Theological Engagement. By Thomas Jay Oord. Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2010. Xiii +225 pages. THE NATURE OF LOVE: A Theology. St. Louis: Chalice Press, 2010. Xii +195 pages.

Christians talk a lot about love. We affirm that God is love. We say that God loves the world enough to send into the world his Son. We treasure the words of 1 Corinthians 13, with its suggestion that while faith and hope will abide, the greatest is love. We even sing, perhaps with an uneasy conscience, “They’ll Know We Are Christians by Our Love.” But, what do we mean when we talk about love? What is our definition? How do we know to discern whether someone is acting in love? In fact, where does love come from? All of these questions are raised and addressed in these two similar, but different, books authored by Nazarene theologian Thomas Jay Oord.

Tom Oord, who is Professor of Theology and Philosophy at Northwest Nazarene University and a Ph.D. graduate of Claremont Graduate University, has an agenda. He wants to move beyond simply putting love on the theological discussion table to placing love at the very center of theology. If God not only loves, but is love, then love should be “organizing principle” of theology. Unfortunately, in Oord’s mind, this has not happened. Too often it remains behind Oz’s curtain, but “only when placed at the center can the logic of love explicitly extend to all aspects of Christian theology” (Nature, p. 4).

Oord’s agenda, it would seem, requires too very different but related books. Defining Love is in many ways the foundational text. It provides the broader outlines for placing love at the center of theological reflection, but looking at love from philosophical and scientific angles as well as theological ones. In this challenging and at times dense book Oord lays out a new field of scholarship, what he calls the “love, science, and theology symbiosis” (Defining, p. 5). In this context Oord is advocating a program of “love research,” that has at its core the belief that it is possible for the world and individuals can get better. He wants to find ways in which we can discern the virtues and practices that will enable this to happen. In other words, love just doesn’t’ happen. It requires nurture and promotion and development. This requires research into the nature of love and how it is best expressed. With this in mind, Oord lays out his understandings of science and theology, trying to clearly define where they are different and where they relate to each other.

Essential to this program is to have a firm definition of love, one that can provide a foundation for research and theological reflection. The definition that he formulates provides the basis for discussion in both of these books. That basic definition reads as follows:

To love is to act intentionally, in sympathetic response to others (including God), to promote overall well-being (Defining, p. 15).

With this basic definition in mind, Oord proceeds to explore the diverse forms of love, for not all forms of love are alike, even if they have at their base the same purpose – “promotion of overall well-being.” Thus, he looks at agape, philia, and eros. While making use of theology here, he is more intent on exploring the input of philosophy to the discussion.

Moving from definitions, Oord brings to bear the “qualitative and quantitative” insights of the social sciences, including both psychology and sociology. Key to this discussion are concepts such as altruism and empathy, along with personality types and motives. He concludes that from examining research there is a clear move away from the idea that humans are by nature “inevitably and invariably egoistic” (Defining, p. 96). If the social sciences provide one vantage point, what about biology. Assuming that evolution is true, the question concerns how evolutionary development provides the conditions for love. Again the focus is on altruism, and whether there is evidence from the study of nature of self-sacrificial action. Although the explorations are still at their early stages, the key question, concerns the evidence that nonhuman creatures express love. This may still be speculative, but there is interesting evidence to pursue. Turning from biology to cosmology, with its discussions of the formation of the universe, including the principle of creatio ex nihilo, the issue here in part concerns the possibilities of divine engagement with the universe. This is a key question for we must wrestle with the way in which God might engage us. Does God have either the power or the will to change or affect in dramatic ways nature? Or does God work in a very different fashion? Here Oord, who can be considered part of the Open Theism movement, interacts with a variety of theological and biblical perspectives, including Process Theology, which he respects but doesn’t embrace completely. The point of the chapter isn’t to provide a final understanding but to lay out the parameters and possibilities for study. Finally, he reaches theology, where he expresses his hope for a partnership between the sciences and theology so that love can find its place at the center of theology.

If Defining Love has a scientific/philosophical focus, The Nature of Love focuses on theology itself. Of the two books, this is probably the easier read and may be for many the most appropriate place to start. Although no mention is made of Defining Love many of the ideas and foundations transfer from one book to the other (I’m not sure which book was written first, though from the reader's perspective Defining Love could be considered the foundational book).

In Nature of Love Oord begins with the same definition of love as in the first book, with a focus on intentionality and end result – promotion of well-being. Whereas in the first book his conversation partners are the sciences and philosophy, here they are theologians. He wrestles with Anders Nygren over agape, St. Augustine over eros, and Clark Pinnock over philia. He finds something of value in each of these theologians and their particular definitions and perspectives on love, but he also finds them to be deficient at important points. Of the three foci, I found the engagements with Nygren and Augustine the most pertinent. In both cases, Oord redefines in important ways how we understand love.

In regard to Nygren and Nygren’s claim that agape is the definitive form of Christian love, to the exclusion of other forms, Oord challenges the idea that we are simply conduits of a love that comes from God alone without any human engagement. In his view, agape should be understood as “in spite of love.” That is, agape is that form of love that intentionally seeks to promote the well-being of the other despite the fact that the other means us harm or evil. God is definitely involved, but that doesn’t mean that we have not part to play. With regard to eros, which Augustine saw as a deficient form of love, for Augustine believed that only God could truly love, and that the object of love has no value in and of itself. Oord defines eros as being “because of love,” by which God and we seek to promote overall well-being by affirming and promoting the value that is inherent in the other. This is, I believe an important step, for too often theology starts with the premise that we are some how “totally depraved” and thus having no inherent worth or value. If Oord is correct, then we must think differently, and that means that we act differently with regard to the other. Finally, he deals with philia, and in this regard looks to his late colleague Clark Pinnock with whom he has much in common, but with whom he has what might seem to be minor differences, but which have important implications. Philia is by definition the promotion of well-being by “coming alongside.” It is that friendship, community oriented form of love, which reminds us that we need each other. It speaks of cooperation with God and with one another. Where he differs from Pinnock is in Pinnock’s concern to protect God’s reputation.

In the final chapter of The Nature of Love, Oord offers his own theological program, which he calls “essential kenosis.” This program serves as the context in which love can be brought into the center. There are similarities to Process Theology, though through the use of the idea of kenosis (self-emptying), he hopes to distinguish from his own idea of a self-limiting God with that of an inherently limited divinity, but in this understanding self-limitation isn’t voluntary, it is essential to God’s nature. What he wants the reader to understand is that God’s love is a question of necessity. Whereas in other forms of kenosis theology, God need not love outside the Trinity, in his understanding God of necessity loves the Creation. Love is not contingent. It is part of God’s nature. External forces don’t limit God, but God’s nature does. Therefore, God cannot but love.

So the question is – what does it mean for God to love, and here it’s important that all three forms of love are brought into the equation. The kind of love that forms the center of theology – our understanding of God – must be “full-orbed.” We make a mistake when we think that we can settle on one form of love and define that as Christian or divine love. We must instead bring agape, eros, and philia into our definition. If this is true of God, then it is also true for us, who are called upon as God’s creation to imitate God by expressing this full-orbed love of God in our lives. I should add that in Oord’s understanding love means that God is not coercive in any way. Thus, even creation is not a coercive act, but requires the participation of the other for creation to occur. You can see the similarities to Process Theology. The borders the two are a bit fuzzy, but there is enough of a difference to keep these two as separate understandings of the nature and purpose of God.

I believe that Tom Oord is on to something important. I have found his definitions of love to be not only helpful but have provided a new orientation for understanding the unconditional nature of love, and the full-orbed nature of love. I believe his definitions are far superior to any others I’ve seen. Thus, as a pastor and a preacher, who believes that God not only loves, but is love, these definitions and the research that help sustain these definitions will help the church move forward into the future. It will assist us in moving away from self-centeredness to others-centeredness. It will help us reorient the way we do theology and understand God and God’s relationship to Creation.

Of the two books, The Nature of Love is the easiest to work with and may be the most helpful, but for those who wish to dig deeper into the project, then Defining Love is an important read. Both are well written, but neither of these books are quick reads. They require diligent engagement and reflection. That said, Tom Oord is on to something important that the church needs to hear.

The Servant's Call -- A Sermon

Matthew 3:13-17, Isaiah 42:1-9

What is your calling in life? That is, who are you at your core? And how do you know this to be true? What were the signs that confirmed this sense of calling or vocation? Pushing this even further – Where does God fit into your sense of vocation?

There are those, mostly hyper-Calvinists, who believe that God plans every moment of our lives, while others believe that God doesn’t play any role at all – it’s all up to you. I imagine that most of us fall somewhere in between these two extremes. We believe that God is present in our lives, guiding our choices, but we also believe that we have freedom to choose. So, given this freedom, how do you discern God’s call on your life? How do you know when God takes delight in what you’re doing with your life?

1. Epiphany, Baptism, and the Call of Jesus

I raise these questions with you as we begin our observance of the season of Epiphany. This is a season that allows us to acknowledge the light of God, which has been manifested in our world through the life and ministry of Jesus of Nazareth. The journey actually began Thursday, January 6, which marks the Day of Epiphany. In most Eastern Christian traditions, January 6 is actually Christmas Day. But for us, Western Christians, January 6 marks the end of Christmas, and the beginning of a new season of the Christian year. Epiphany begins with the story of the Magi, who bring gifts to the child Jesus, in acknowledgment that God has chosen him for a specific task – to be the light of God in the world.

Now, we’ve decided to leave up the Christmas Tree for one more service. I will admit that there’s a practical reason – we simply didn’t get around to taking it down. But this fact gave me an idea. By leaving the tree up and lit, we remind ourselves that the one whose life we honor in this season of Epiphany is the light-bearer of God. Jesus is the one whom God has chosen to make God’s self manifest in the world. Last week the text for the day was John 1, which declares that “the Word (of God) became flesh and dwelt among us” (Jn. 1:14). Now we get to see how this Word made flesh reveals God to us in the life of Jesus. So, the tree remains up, and the lights remain on, but at the end of the service, Pat will pull the plug on the tree, and the lights will go out. But do not fear, even though the tree grows dim, the light of God is not extinguished. We become the light bearers.

But, let’s not get ahead of ourselves, for we must hear the story of Jesus’ own call, which is set in the context of John’s ministry of baptism. In the verses that precede our text, we discover that God has called John to prepare the way for the Lord, who is to come baptizing not with water of repentance, as does John, but with Holy Spirit and Fire. That is, he’s called to prepare the way for the one who, to borrow from John Dominic Crossan, will introduce the “Great Divine Cleanup of the World,” or as it’s better known – the Kingdom of God.

To understand this morning’s text, we need to understand that John is waiting expectantly for the Promised One to be revealed, and so he’s taken aback when Jesus comes to him and asks to be baptized. You see, John immediately recognizes Jesus to be the one he’s been preparing the nation to receive. Although John initially refuses, he relents when Jesus tells him that this is what God desires, so that they would fulfill all righteousness. Then, as Jesus emerges from the waters of the Jordan, he hears God speak from the heavens: “This is my son, the Beloved, with whom I’m pleased.” In that moment, Jesus had his calling affirmed and sealed.

I don’t know how many of you have heard God’s voice speaking from the heavens during your baptism, but perhaps even without this your baptism serves as the sign and seal that God has called you, gifted you, and empowered you, to join with God in this “Great Divine Cleanup” that Jesus proclaimed and lived.

2. The One In Whom God Delights

As we consider Jesus’ calling, as well as our own, I’d like us to consider the words of Isaiah 42, a passage of scripture that comes from the time of the Babylonian exile. The prophet speaks of the Servant, in whom God takes delight, and whom God has chosen to receive the Spirit and bring justice to the nations (Is. 42:1). In many ways Isaiah 42 stands behind Matthew’s description of Jesus’ baptism. Remember that Matthew makes it clear that the Spirit of God fell on Jesus, the one whom God calls “my Son” and with whom God is “pleased.” He is the one, as Luke makes clear, whom God has called to bring justice and healing to the nations (Luke 4:18-19). That is, the one in whom God delights is the one who has received the Spirit and brings a light to the nations, opens the eyes of the blind, and brings the prisoners out of their dungeons of darkness. And what is true of the Servant called Jesus, would seem to be true of those who seek to be his followers.

3. The Way of the Servant

I began this sermon by asking the question – what is your calling in life and how do you know this to be true? If, as our texts suggest, we are called to be Servants of God, what does that mean for our lives?

Isaiah suggests that the way of the servant is the way of humility, of peace, and justice. The servant of God doesn’t bark angrily in the streets or even quench a dimly burning wick, but instead brings “full justice to all who have been wronged" (NLT). And Jesus offers us the model of what this calling looks like. As we look at his life and listen to his teachings, we see a man who didn’t force himself on others, didn’t seek political or military power, nor did he trod underfoot the powerless in this world.

If Jesus manifests God’s presence in the world, as the season of Epiphany suggests, then the picture of God that emerges from the life and ministry of Jesus is very different from the distant, unfeeling, self-absorbed God that many of us grew up with. This is not the God whose anger at humanity is expressed through thunder and lightening, earthquakes and floods. Instead of an imperial deity, like the one Constantine envisioned blessing his conquests, the God we meet in Jesus is the fellow sufferer who walks by our side, encouraging us, empowering us, and gifting us. I realize that many people aren’t comfortable with this kind of God, because such a God seems too weak and not worthy of our praise. But, this is the God whom Jesus envisions and reveals in his own life, and he invites us to join in this life of God

As we think of people who have tried to live out this kind of servanthood that Isaiah and Jesus envisioned, perhaps there’s no better example than Henri Nouwen. Nouwen would be the first to say that he wasn’t perfect and might not want to be pictured as an exemplar of the way of the servant. But, what can we say about a man who was a well-known and respected theologian, academic, writer, lecturer, but who in the prime of his career left an important academic post at Yale University to serve the mentally disabled. Yes, this is the way of the servant.

4. The Call to Servanthood

In our baptisms we, like Jesus, receive our calling to be servants of God, who are given the responsibility to “bring forth justice to the nations.” If we will take up this mantle, then we’ll receive the promised Spirit of God, who will not allow us to “grow faint or be crushed” until “justice is established in the earth” (Is. 42:4). If we take up this calling to be God’s servants then we’ll participate in God’s work of bringing light to the nations, open the eyes of the blind, and bring those who are caught in darkness out of their imprisonment.

Before I close this sermon with a call to remember our own callings, I need to remind us all of the tragic events of yesterday in Tucson, Arizona. As most of you know, a gunman shot and nearly killed Gabrielle Giffords, a Congresswoman from Arizona, at a meet the constituents event at a local Safeway, something she has done regularly. Although it appears that she’ll make it, several others in the crowd, including one of her aids, a Federal judge, and a nine-year old child were killed, and several more were wounded. This act of violence is a reminder that we have much work to do to restore a sense of civility to our rhetoric and end the threat violence in our land.

The way of the Servant, which leads to transforming the world, isn’t an easy calling, especially in times like this. Remember, however, that Jesus did say that the way of God is narrow and difficult. So the question of the day is this: Having been baptized into the Name of Jesus, are you ready and willing to affirm your calling to be a servant of God? Does this calling define your sense of who you are as a person? And to push this further, is this our calling as a church? That is, is this our mission – to be beacons of light in the world so that the justice and peace of the God who is love might reign?

 

Preached by:

Dr. Robert D. Cornwall

Pastor, Central Woodward Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)

Troy, Michigan

1st Sunday after Epiphany

January 9, 2010

Which God did Jesus Incarnate?

I hope that the title/question got your attention and got you thinking? 

Advent is quickly fading into Christmas.  This Sunday I'll be preaching from Matthew 1, Matthews version of the announcement of Jesus' birth, and we'll sing more Christmas than Advent hymns.  But as we prepare ourselves for the Feast of Christmas, a day on which we not only exchange presents and enjoy a hearty meal, but consider that God has become present to and with us in Jesus Christ, what we call incarnation, enfleshment, what is the nature of this God?

This is a significant question raised by John Dominic Crossan in his recent book on the Lord's Prayer that is entitled The Greatest Prayer: Rediscovering the Revolutionary Message of The Lord's Prayer (personal note, my book on the Lords' Prayer that is just coming available tracks in similar directions as Crossan regarding the prayer).   Near the close of the book, Crossan notes that the biblical story portrays God in both violent and non-violent ways, and quite correctly he notes that this isn't an OT/NT divide.  Because there are these two very stark differences in portrayals of God in both Testaments, we have to make a choice.  As we look at Jesus, what kind of God does he incarnate?  

Crossan writes:  

Confronted, as we are, by tandem visions of both a nonviolent and a nonviolent God throughout our Bible, we simply ask ourselves another question.  Is Christ the incarnation and revelation of a nonviolent or a violent God?  Since Jesus the Christ was clearly nonviolent (thank you at least for that correct judgment, Pilate), we Christians are called to believe in a nonviolent God.  (The Greatest Prayer, p. 187).

As we get ready to celebrate the feast of the Incarnation, we're posed with a serious question, and the way we answer that question will likely have important implications as to how we live out our faith. 

 

God and the Good Life (Dwight Welch)

Dwight Welch, an M.Div. student at Christian Theological Seminary and candidate for ministry with the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), returns today with a progressive theological reflection on the relationship of God and the good in life.  His premise is simple:  we will find God present in the good things of life.  In writing this, Dwight engages with Bruce Epperly, my regular Tuesday columnist.  It's great to have Dwight back, contributing to the conversation of the relationship of theology to the lived life!

**********************************

God and the Good in Life

By Dwight Welch

At the church where I work, my senior pastor will ask the 4th through 6th grade youth group, where God was at during the past week. If it is like most weeks, these kids will not be thinking about God in terms of any sort of dramatic experience. Rather they are being asked to consider where God was when they were on the playground, studying for a test, on the bus ride home, playing with friends, and so on. That is, they are being asked to consider God in the everyday goings-on of life.

The supposition behind such a question is that God is a pervasive feature of reality that can be found in any number of occasions and contexts. In that, Bruce Epperly’s statement that “God is present in every moment of life” is something I would like to build upon. Instead of an interventionist deity who breaks the laws of nature every once in a while or a deistic absentee landlord, we’re asked to consider a God who is part and parcel of our reality. Of course God is not to be confused with just reality. Otherwise there would be no point to asking the question; no discernment to be had.

But rather God is to be identified with that reality which works towards wholeness, well being, just relations, and transformation of our reality towards a better reality. That is, God is identified with whatever is good in life. This suggests something which in varying degrees is accessible to all. The young Disciples group could be asked to consider God in their life because they all experience the good in life in various ways, which they are in a position to reflect upon.

In so doing any number of modes of inquiry would be needed. The reflective processes of these youth are one mode. The resources the Christian tradition has had in terms of practices, worship, and thought is another. But I want to agree with Bruce Epperly and other progressives that the resources other religious traditions will be key as well. And there are other disciplines which will be relevant; the sciences, economics, sociology, philosophy, and so forth. The traffic between these modes and how they interrelate I don’t think can be avoided long in the church. That concern informed how I sought to relate to miracles.

To agree also with Gordon Kaufman, a turning towards the good in life, metanoia, will not be the result of some single act, it will be the result of any number of conditions, some individual, some material and social that can act in ways which humanize our existence, move us towards other regard, and relate us to each other and the world in more life building ways. That will take the combined work of any number of agencies, all of which can be understood as divine when pointed to a salvific end.

In such an account, God can be related to any number of practices and traditions, but the ones which will potently connect us are those that have grounding in our experience, in the communities where we live, and validated by a range of disciplines, focusing on whatever achievements we have had in relating well to the world and to each other. Therefore, to see God in the doctors working for a cure is not a grudging acceptance of the mundane while the real religious concern is in the unknown. Rather we should most likely find God in what has been gained through the increase of knowledge of the world for the purposes of securing a better life for all.

Dwight Welch is finishing his final year at Christian Theological Seminary in Indianapolis as a MDiv student with the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ).  He also serves as a student pastor at First Christian in Sheridan Indiana. Previously Dwight did graduate work in philosophy while serving as a campus minister at University Christian Ministries at Southern Illinois University.