Pluriform Love (Thomas Jay Oord) -- A Review
How
central is love to Christian theology? Is it the essential piece of our vision
of God? Down through the ages different theologians have emphasized different
aspects of theology. For example, Luther and much of Protestantism made
justification by grace through faith the core message of Christianity. For
others, it is obedience to the ways of God? For still others, it is love, as
revealed in 1 John, where we're told that God is love. That seems pretty
straightforward, so that declaration should settle it.
One
theologian who has placed love at the center of his theology is Tom Oord. Love
is, for him, the essence of an Open and Relational theology. I have been
reading and making use of Tom's works on love for many years. I regularly turn
to his books Defining Love: A Philosophical, Scientific, and Theological Engagement and The Nature of Love: A Theology. I have
quoted these works in sermons, wedding homilies, and my own writings. More
recently Tom has expanded his theological work, building on these earlier works
to provide definitions of the nature of God from an Open and Relational perspective
along with engaging in theodicy. We see this present in his books: The
Uncontrolling Love of God and God Can't: How to Believe in God and Love after
Tragedy, Abuse, and Other Evils. With Pluriform Love, Tom brings all
of this work together in one place. If there is a “controlling” element to all
of this, it would be Tom’s desire to make sense of tragedy. The question that
has driven much of the conversation concerns the relationship between God’s
power and the reality of evil and tragedy in the world. If God is truly loving,
then why do bad things happen?
In many
ways, this effort brings together all of what Oord has been working on for the
past several decades. He addresses those who would either question the centrality
of love (Richard Hays) or try to define love in terms of Classical Theism,
which Oord believes is untenable. How can you love if you are impassible, that
is incapable of suffering or being in a relationship with another? Thus, he
argues with Millard Erickson (an evangelical of Reformed background) and of
course Augustine. This isn't the first time that Tom has engaged with Augustine
whom he believes sets the tone for much Christian theology. He also once again
takes on Anders Nygren's insistence that agape is the distinctively Christian
form of love and rules out other forms of being Christian.
As in
other works, Tom offers a very definitive definition of love. He claims that
the definition of love is uniform, and yet the Bible doesn’t offer us a uniform
definition of love. Although this is true, he believes he has found a
definition that can be used to explain love. It’s a definition that I’ve made
use of. That definition is this: "To love is to act intentionally, in
relational response to God and others, to promote overall well-being." (p.
28). Once we have that definition, then modifiers can be added to distinguish
between different forms of love such as agape, eros, and philia.
The
structure of the book follows a definite line. We begin with Oord's charge that
too often love is ignored or neglected by Christian theologians and biblical
scholars, and here he focuses his attention on Richard Hays and Millard Erickson.
From there we move to Nygren's work on agape, which Oord believes is insufficient
because it's too narrow (ch. 3). Since Nygren's work on love is deemed
insufficient for Oord's purposes, he spends chapter 4, expanding on his own
thinking on agape. Oord calls this "in spite of love." He
concludes that in the vast majority of cases in the New Testament, agape
is understood in terms of "promoting well-being," which fits his
definition of love. His exploration of love also leads to the conclusion that
God is "essentially loving." That is, God doesn't choose to love, but
that love is God's essence, which means God loves of necessity. It’s not a
choice on God’s part.
As we
move forward, things get trickier. In chapter 5, Tom takes on Augustine's
definition of love as desire. He notes here that, unlike Nygren, Augustine
makes use of eros. Tom concludes from his story of Augustine’s focus on
love as desire that his vision of love is unworkable. In essence, the problem
lies in Augustine's apparent belief that we do not love others for others' sake
but for God's sake. In other words, in Augustine's hands, love does not necessarily
promote well-being. Therefore, it doesn’t fit Tom’s uniform definition of love.
While Tom doesn’t deny that his vision of God as love can encompass eros, he
believes that as Augustine understands love, it is more about using others for
God’s sake than loving others for their own sake. That doesn’t fit his vision
of love being focused on the well-being of the other. I should note that in his
discussion of Augustine, Oord also engages with James K. A. Smith, who speaks
of us being what we love. That is, love is what we desire. Again, this is not focused
on well-being. This line of discussion continues in chapter 6, where Oord
engages more broadly the problem of classical theism, a task that is prominent
in Open and Relational theology. Classical theism is understood to have roots
in Greek/Hellenistic philosophy, especially forms of Platonism. Thus, in this
view, God is timeless, immutable (unchanging), impassible (passionless and
incapable of being influenced/affected from outside), and simple (God is one,
without parts). In Oord's view to adopt Classical Theism is to rule out love in
any true form. It is impossible to love as love requires a relationship.
I want
to pause here for a moment and take note of Tom’s path to understanding
Augustine and love. I struggled with his engagement with Augustine. He might be
correct in this, but something seemed to be missing. I realized what it was.
Augustine’s understanding of love is rooted in his understanding of the
Trinity. For Augustine, the Holy Spirit is the love the Father has for the Son
and the Son for the Father. It is out of this love that defines the internal
relationship that is the Trinity, that God then loves the world, making love
possible within the world. That is, God’s love is the source of our love. What
I discovered was that Tom didn’t take Augustine’s Trinitarian theology into
account. Then, looking at the index, I realized that Tom doesn’t discuss the
Trinity at all. There is only one footnote to the Trinity and that has nothing
to do with Augustine. I then realized
why I sometimes find myself uncomfortable with what seems a reductionism
present in the Open and Relational theology that I’ve come to embrace. I am by
training a historical theologian, and so I always take historical context into
account. Tom, like most Open and Relational theologians, are philosophical
theologians. In other words, we approach these questions from very different
vantage points. That may be why my theology is rather eclectic, whereas
philosophical theology tends to be less so (at least that’s my observation).
Returning
to the book, the opening chapters define love and argue that love is the essence
of God’s nature. These chapters provide the foundation for the rest of the book
in which Oord brings together the various elements of his theology. So, in
chapter 7, he brings into the conversation the broader concept of Open and Relational
theology, along with two concepts he has developed: "essential
kenosis" and amipotence. The first piece has to do with the overall
trajectory of his work, and that of others. He admits that it's a broad tent
and not everyone agrees (thus, I count myself in this community, but have some differences
with elements of the vision). When it comes to "essential kenosis,"
Oord suggests that it is the key to his theodicy (defense of God). His answer to
the question of the presence of evil suggests that God, who is love, is not
self-limited by choice, but by essence. In his view, love is noncoercive, thus
God must respond to evil, not through force but persuasion. God opposes evil but
needs our participation to respond. Finally, he offers the concept of amipotence
as a counter to the charge that his theology leaves impotent. God is not
omnipotent because God is love and love is noncoercive.
Early
on, Tom makes it clear that he views the question of love through the lens of
Jesus. At one point he seems to suggest that the Old Testament understanding of
love is underdeveloped, but everything gets sorted out with Jesus. I was
worried that supersessionism would creep in, as I've seen it present in some
forms of Open and Relational theology that focus on the supposed violence of
the Old Testament God. Fortunately, that doesn't get developed too much here,
but we need to be aware of the possibility of Marcionism in our visions of God.
It is in
chapter 8 that Tom engages with the Hebrew word hesed. He discusses this Hebrew word in connection
with his exploration of the Greek word philia. The focus here is on how hesed
is defined as everlasting love. That is, the idea that God's love endures
forever is a constant refrain in the Psalms and elsewhere in the Old Testament.
Oord suggests that the way the word is used, suggests that "God always and
necessarily loves creation." Therefore, he calls this "essential hesed."
(p. 175). You will notice that Tom has a penchant for using the modifier
"essential" when it comes to love, and things related to love. It is
here that he discusses love in the Old Testament. As part of this discussion,
Tom turns to creation, more specifically his rejection of creatio ex nihilo
(creation from nothing). In his view, the belief in creation out of nothing lays
the blame for evil at God's feet, for if God creates out of nothing then why
doesn't God create in such a way that evil is not present? Once again theodicy
is central to the conversation. I'm not going to engage too deeply with this
portion as I'm not well enough informed. I will say that I find Tom's theology
of creation out of love difficult to get my head around. In other words, I'm
not sure it solves the problem he's trying to deal with. Having worked through
this concept, he concludes by looking at philia as "alongside of
love." I would have liked to have seen these three topics separated into
three different chapters since I think philia got short-changed and gets
lost in the broader conversation about creation.
The
final chapter is a summation of what Oord has laid out, trying to pull together
in his book on Pluriform Love. In his view, there is but one uniform
definition of love, but this one love takes different forms (agape, eros,
and philia). Thus, it is pluriform. This vision of love is rooted in his
understanding of the nature of God, who is love.
I
appreciate all that Tom has done here. He has worked hard to develop a
distinctive theological vision that he believes is both biblical and
theologically sound. For the most part, I believe he is on the right track. I'm
comfortable putting myself within the circle. However, I do have some concerns.
Once again, I think I know the reason why I have concerns. My study of the
history of theology, plus my own experience being part of restorationist
movements, makes me leery of attempts to define theology with more precision
than is warranted. When
it comes to foundations, while Greek philosophy or Hellenism is charged with
being the corrupter of Christian theology, there appears to be a blind spot
when it comes to modern philosophical traditions. In other words, does
replacing Plato with Whitehead solve the problem or simply exchanges one
philosophical tradition for another, neither of which is truly biblical. They
are but lenses we use to interpret what we read and experience in Scripture and
beyond.
So,
here are a few concerns that emerged as I read the book. Again, this is
intended as a friendly conversation. Regarding Tom’s definitions of love, while
they are helpful and I regularly turn to them, at points they feel too
restrictive. I’m not sure I would agree that there is one uniform definition of
love, even if I like the idea that love should include well-being. So, I wonder
if both Tom’s focus on love as contributing to well-being and James Smith’s
focus on love as desire could both be true. I must admit I found Smith's
book You Are What You Love: The Spiritual Power of Habit rather
compelling. While I agree that Augustine's definition can be rather restrictive,
he does have some good things to say about love as well. So, I’ve quoted both
Tom and Augustine on love in the same sermon. I also felt that Tom was a bit
unfair by pushing to an extreme application of Paul Tillich’s definition of
love as "the drive towards the unity of the separated." (p. 35). I'm
not sure that Tillich would disagree with Tom's concern for well-being. I could
be wrong, but I felt he was unfair. I would like to see him go back and engage
with Tillich more.
Secondly,
I wonder about the audience. When dealing with Reformed theology, why choose
Millard Erickson? He may be a popular evangelical, but I wouldn't put him at
the top of the list of influential Reformed theologians. Why only mention Barth
a time or two when Barth goes into great detail about love, including offering
a detailed exploration of 1 Corinthians 13. This might seem picky, but it may
be revealing of Tom’s intended audience. He speaks of the Apostle John being
the author of the Gospel and Letters of John. That is the traditional view, but
most scholars believe that the apostle is not the author of the Gospel and
letters and that the author of the Gospel is likely not the author of the
letters. So, is Tom trying to reach out to conservative evangelicalism in the
way he speaks of biblical authorship?
Finally,
I would like to push on Tom's conversation partners. In this book and in
previous ones he takes on Augustine. That's understandable for Western
Christians. However, I believe that there is much to gain from engaging with
eastern Christian writers. For one thing, they are rooted in Greek thought and
understand the context and language in ways that are different from Western
Christians. It’s good to remember that while Augustine was greatly influenced
by Neoplatonism, he was not fluent in Greek. Thus, when it comes to eros,
I’ve found it interesting that a theologian as important as Maximus the
Confessor makes significant usage of eros, even equating it with agape. With
that in mind, I would suggest looking at Maximus along with a more recent Greek
Orthodox theologian/philosopher Christos Yannaras and his book Person and Eros. I'm not saying that looking east will change Tom's trajectory,
but it could enrich it. That is especially true of the idea prominent in
orthodox thought about the distinction between the divine essence, which is
unknowable/transcendent, and the uncreated divine energies through which we
encounter God, including God’s love.
I
appreciate the opportunity that Tom gave me to read the book in manuscript and
then once again after receiving a hard copy. I appreciate his mention of my
work on pneumatology (Unfettered Spirit) and including me within the
Open and Relational community. I believe this is an important work of theology,
especially since it brings together much of what he has been working on the
past few years. His emphasis on love being at the center of our theology and
understanding of God is important and is to be welcomed. The cautions that I
have underlined in this rather lengthy review is rooted in my rather different
vantage point. That being historical theology. Thus, when it comes to
Augustine, I don’t necessarily disagree with Tom’s assessment, but to
understand Augustine’s theology of love, one must address it in the context of
his vision of the Trinity. Interestingly enough eastern theologians find him
wanting in that they would insist that love defines all three persons of the
Trinity, not just the Holy Spirit. Since the majority of Open and Relational
thinkers appear to be philosophers, I would like to suggest that more attention
be paid to the history of theology.
In the
end, the most important takeaway from Tom’s work in Pluriform Love is
that love is the centerpiece of what it means to be Christian and that love leads to the well-being of others as well as ourselves. We might differ
on our definitions, but as St. Augustine declared: Whoever, then, thinks that he
understands the Holy Scriptures, or any part of them, but puts such an interpretation
upon them as does not tend to build up this twofold love of God and our
neighbor, does not yet understand them as he ought. [On Christian Doctrine, Kindle
Edition, loc. 808]. With this, despite his disagreements with Augustine at
other points, I believe Tom would agree.
Comments
I'm curious to know, based on your comments in this post and elsewhere, why you posit the value of history over philosophy, especially since history (its conclusions) is often a direct result of a philosophical worldview. Add to this that history is interpretation, not fact. In other words, an epistemological pursuit, a branch of philosophy. It seems to me we cannot divorce the two. How can your "historical" approach yield better results? Inquiring minds want to know.
But, hey, I'm a historian and not a philosopher!
As for facts, well they can be slippery as well, especially when it comes to theology.
I find it a bit - sorry to say - but cheap to just compare "History" with "Philosophy" and in favour of the former even. It is like comparing Mathematics with Biology kind off.
Concerning Thomas´ideas - I also have the feeling that he is going towards more fundamentalistic evangelistic ideas of Christianity. Do not get me wrong - I like his idea of the ever loving God - but this ever loving God is everywhere even amongst those who are not Christians, or religious.
This reminds me of a talk by Desmond Tutu when he received his honoral dr. degree at the Uppsala University, my alma mater. He said "I had a discusion with a physicist who claimed he did not believe in God - my answer was - that is alright - you do not have to believe in God - God believes in you!" That is the most beautiful thing I ever heard. That is what Almighy love means. God never leaves his people. God cannot save all, because people make their choices and some bad and even very bad choises, but he will love them until the end - his children and try and try to get them out of the bad - He never forsakes one of us. That is unconditional divine love.
Cannot help to think how sad God must be over all these children who do not accept his love...
Thank you for your comments. My comparison of history to philosophy isn't meant as an attack on philosophy My concern with Tom's engagement with Augustine, is contextual. There is a tendency among some in Open and Relational Theology (and I count myself as one) to unfairly compare ancient writers with contemporary philosophical views, without taking him in context.
What I value in Tom's work is his emphasis on love. I agree! I just thought he was a bit unfair with Augustine, though Augustine is far from being beyond reproach!