What do you think?
Rate this book
The Nature of Love: A Theology
God is love. Consequently, shouldn t love exist at the center of Christian theology? When love is at the center, theology is understood differently than it has typically been understood.
Some theologians have placed faith at the center, others God s sovereignty, still others-the Church, but Dr. Oord places the emphasis on love. God s love for us, revealed in Christ, in the Church, and in creation, and our love for God and others as ourselves must be afforded its rightful place.
Beginning with the foundation of love is what differentiates the Christian faith from others...a loving God. Dr. Oord defines love
To love is to act intentionally, in sympathetic/empathetic response to God and others, to promote overall well-being.
Is this not what has defined Christians throughout history?
Some theologians have placed faith at the center, others God s sovereignty, still others-the Church, but Dr. Oord places the emphasis on love. God s love for us, revealed in Christ, in the Church, and in creation, and our love for God and others as ourselves must be afforded its rightful place.
Beginning with the foundation of love is what differentiates the Christian faith from others...a loving God. Dr. Oord defines love
To love is to act intentionally, in sympathetic/empathetic response to God and others, to promote overall well-being.
Is this not what has defined Christians throughout history?
196 pages, Paperback
First published April 10, 2010
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews
November 26, 2024
I’m unsure if I have ever read a book about love that’s so cold and arrogant.
July 8, 2026
Thomas J Oord’s definition of love is "to act intentionally, in sympathetic/empathetic response to God and others, to promote overall well-being."
While I do like that he mentions an empathetic response, I do not think this can be central to the definition. It is nice if empathy is present, and ideally, it will be present, similarly to how positive feelings or affection are helpful motivators to promote overall well-being. However, Jesus' command “love your enemies” seems to point first and foremost to something that is to be done regardless of whether we feel anything or whether we empathize.
A sociopath may not be able to empathize or feel concern for another, but they could cognitively decide another person is valuable and that they are obligated to uphold their value and seek their overall well-being, although they feel no empathy for the other. If Oord is correct, then those who cannot empathize with others cannot love. I think that is misguided.
Fortunately, for ordinary humans, we can feel empathy. I know that some of the times that I felt most like a conduit of divine love were when I felt deep empathy and concern for homeless or street people. There can be a choice involved, as we may not really empathize initially, but if we actively put ourselves in the shoes of the other and initially try to understand, this act can kindle genuine concern.
My preferred definition of love is "to intend and/or to seek a higher good for God, others, and ourselves," or more concisely, "To acknowledge value and to uphold that which is of value"
That leads me to another quibble I had with Oord. He makes much of how love needs no qualifiers; love is always good. While I can agree that the intent to bring well-being to others is always good, it is obvious that wisdom is needed for the practical expression of love, for we can have all the right motives and care about another and seek their good, but actually cause harm--if causing harm, we are NOT loving well. Oord defines love as an ACT, and just about any harmful act can be thought of as loving. Augustine justified and called for the persecution of "heretics" as loving, even if his heart was pure (I doubt it), and he thought he was loving, it was not proper love.
Oord claimed, “Love is inherently relational." He said that “love takes at least two”. I disagree; my concept of love is acknowledging and upholding value, and thus we ought to love ourselves, as we are valuable. This can be done poorly or well. To value ourselves and seek our higher good requires wisdom. If God loves us, then he sure as hell wants us to love ourselves well.
Now we are social creations, so, yes, it often will be relational. I suppose we can refer to a relation to ourselves (internal family system therapy comes to mind). How to uphold our values and truly seek our own good is complicated and unclear, as we are legion and complex creatures, part animal and part divine, both of which need to be cared for.
Anyhow, as Oord later said, Paul told us to “love our own bodies” (Eph 5:28), and for me, “Love your neighbor as yourself,” he seemed to contradict himself.
Much of the rest of the book goes into his unique theology, which has never seemed coherent to me, no matter how many times I hear it. To explain the evil of our world and the defending silence and ever-present hiddenness of God, Oord does away with divine omnipotence and says God CAN'T stop evil or act directly in our material world, as this would be coercive, and God is love and can't act coercively. I still cannot get on board with what he calls coercion. If God is love, and his love is non-coercive (cannot directly cause anything, move a trig, or create a stone), and we are to imitate God and also love, then it seems to logically entail that we ought not stop any evil or directly do anything, as this would be "coercive". There is too great a decotaomy for me between what love entails for God and what love entails for us. Almost everything a human does when loving another is something God can't do, as his love is non-coercive. Hell, merely breathing right now, I am coercively causing oxygen molecules to enter my lungs without their consent! I am also forcing these keys to type this review right now. Gosh... So unloving....
Finally, I do not think his solution works, for he still gives God an inch. If God "non-coercively" nudges us in our spirit and gently influences us towards the good, or gives us an intuition, or communicates at all, then he still is responsible for evil. For there is a lot this deity could do that he does not do. Oord told me he has addressed this in another review, but I've gone back to his book and cannot find it.
While Oord tries to undermine omnipotence, I prefer to undermine omnipresence. In many of Jesus' parables, he said it is like that Father, Bridegroom, King, or Master is AWAY. God could have love bound up in his heart for us, which we COULD express if present. The problem is that he is not present. We got a glimpse of God's love when Jesus was with us in person, as he "coercively" cast out demons, healed the sick, raised the dead, and opened the eyes of the blind.
At present, if there is a God, I am content with conceiving of it as a long-distance relationship, and said sadly, I lost his number, so there isn't any FaceTime or long-distance communication. But anyhow, I can say "God Can't" because it is like God is not here in person. If he were, like He was in Christ, then God most definitely could, and if God is love, he most definitely would act lovingly towards me.
This God who is away may be perfect Love, and I hope He is. I look forward to truly meeting Him.
While I do like that he mentions an empathetic response, I do not think this can be central to the definition. It is nice if empathy is present, and ideally, it will be present, similarly to how positive feelings or affection are helpful motivators to promote overall well-being. However, Jesus' command “love your enemies” seems to point first and foremost to something that is to be done regardless of whether we feel anything or whether we empathize.
A sociopath may not be able to empathize or feel concern for another, but they could cognitively decide another person is valuable and that they are obligated to uphold their value and seek their overall well-being, although they feel no empathy for the other. If Oord is correct, then those who cannot empathize with others cannot love. I think that is misguided.
Fortunately, for ordinary humans, we can feel empathy. I know that some of the times that I felt most like a conduit of divine love were when I felt deep empathy and concern for homeless or street people. There can be a choice involved, as we may not really empathize initially, but if we actively put ourselves in the shoes of the other and initially try to understand, this act can kindle genuine concern.
My preferred definition of love is "to intend and/or to seek a higher good for God, others, and ourselves," or more concisely, "To acknowledge value and to uphold that which is of value"
That leads me to another quibble I had with Oord. He makes much of how love needs no qualifiers; love is always good. While I can agree that the intent to bring well-being to others is always good, it is obvious that wisdom is needed for the practical expression of love, for we can have all the right motives and care about another and seek their good, but actually cause harm--if causing harm, we are NOT loving well. Oord defines love as an ACT, and just about any harmful act can be thought of as loving. Augustine justified and called for the persecution of "heretics" as loving, even if his heart was pure (I doubt it), and he thought he was loving, it was not proper love.
Oord claimed, “Love is inherently relational." He said that “love takes at least two”. I disagree; my concept of love is acknowledging and upholding value, and thus we ought to love ourselves, as we are valuable. This can be done poorly or well. To value ourselves and seek our higher good requires wisdom. If God loves us, then he sure as hell wants us to love ourselves well.
Now we are social creations, so, yes, it often will be relational. I suppose we can refer to a relation to ourselves (internal family system therapy comes to mind). How to uphold our values and truly seek our own good is complicated and unclear, as we are legion and complex creatures, part animal and part divine, both of which need to be cared for.
Anyhow, as Oord later said, Paul told us to “love our own bodies” (Eph 5:28), and for me, “Love your neighbor as yourself,” he seemed to contradict himself.
Much of the rest of the book goes into his unique theology, which has never seemed coherent to me, no matter how many times I hear it. To explain the evil of our world and the defending silence and ever-present hiddenness of God, Oord does away with divine omnipotence and says God CAN'T stop evil or act directly in our material world, as this would be coercive, and God is love and can't act coercively. I still cannot get on board with what he calls coercion. If God is love, and his love is non-coercive (cannot directly cause anything, move a trig, or create a stone), and we are to imitate God and also love, then it seems to logically entail that we ought not stop any evil or directly do anything, as this would be "coercive". There is too great a decotaomy for me between what love entails for God and what love entails for us. Almost everything a human does when loving another is something God can't do, as his love is non-coercive. Hell, merely breathing right now, I am coercively causing oxygen molecules to enter my lungs without their consent! I am also forcing these keys to type this review right now. Gosh... So unloving....
Finally, I do not think his solution works, for he still gives God an inch. If God "non-coercively" nudges us in our spirit and gently influences us towards the good, or gives us an intuition, or communicates at all, then he still is responsible for evil. For there is a lot this deity could do that he does not do. Oord told me he has addressed this in another review, but I've gone back to his book and cannot find it.
While Oord tries to undermine omnipotence, I prefer to undermine omnipresence. In many of Jesus' parables, he said it is like that Father, Bridegroom, King, or Master is AWAY. God could have love bound up in his heart for us, which we COULD express if present. The problem is that he is not present. We got a glimpse of God's love when Jesus was with us in person, as he "coercively" cast out demons, healed the sick, raised the dead, and opened the eyes of the blind.
At present, if there is a God, I am content with conceiving of it as a long-distance relationship, and said sadly, I lost his number, so there isn't any FaceTime or long-distance communication. But anyhow, I can say "God Can't" because it is like God is not here in person. If he were, like He was in Christ, then God most definitely could, and if God is love, he most definitely would act lovingly towards me.
This God who is away may be perfect Love, and I hope He is. I look forward to truly meeting Him.
April 28, 2013
Challenging ideas, prepare to think outside the box.
February 1, 2016
There should be awards for packing ability. Like when a man can pack enough for a two week trip in half the space that a woman would use for the same trip. Or when close friends can exchange as much information in a knowing glance as teens can in a week of texting back and forth. Or when Thomas Jay Oord fills 157 pages with reams of insight in his book The Nature of Love: A Theology.
Thomas uses surgeon-like precision when he tells us exactly what he wants to do and then does so in this book. After an introduction of ideas and direction he provides us his definition of love.
To love is to act intentionally, in sympathetic/empathetic response to God
and others, to promote overall well-being.
His goal is to dissect and take the best parts of love theologians from the past, of whom he says there have not been nearly enough. He wants to see Love returned to its rightful place of honor as THE core attribute of God.
He begins by tackling love theologian Anders Nygren, (not literally...it's a book on love, after all). He esteems his place in theology and then proceeds to break down the myriad of reasons why Nygren is wrong. If there's anything to be learned here, it's that we should read the Bible first, then come up with our theories, not the other way around.
Next he discusses Augustine. You might assume that there's no criticizing this philosopher who loved love, but you'd be wrong. Again, Oord does a great job of talking about the issues at hand, not the man. This is something we could use more of in these days. But in this chapter we get to see some real-life application over some of the ideas we have on God's nature and love.
The next 30 pages deal with the pros and cons of Openness Theology on the concept of Love. Again, Oord does a fantastic job of defining terms, realizing that many will automatically accept or reject theories upon hearing the phrase Open Theology. If you've never heard of Open Theology, this may make another good reason to pick up this book. Thomas does a good job of taking the good while not accepting the whole of this belief system.
Just before Oord unveils his answer to love theology he quotes Anders Nygren in what may be the best repeated quote of the entire book, outside of his own defintion of love.
Rather than worry about our discomfort, perhaps we should be worried
about God's reputation.
Essential Kenosis is the proper term for Oord's theology. Kenosis is the Greek noun in Philippians 2:7 which is translated as 'emptied himself'. This is a key passage of scripture as it details how Jesus loves us and views Himself. It begins to open up the idea that God loves creation, something that He must do, not because someone greater than God told Him to, but because it is His nature.
This theology of love is complete and returns the focus to where it never should have left, Jesus. It is God's nature of love that defines everything else about God; His power, His freedom, His purpose. I guess you could say that, in the end, love wins.
All that being said, this book is not to be approached lightly. After all, it is a theology book. But I believe Oord does a great job of simplifying mountains of heady knowledge and then showing us practical application. This should not simply be read, but preached and shared, and then lived out.
You can check out more from Thomas Jay Oord at: http://thomasjayoord.com/
The good people at SpeakEasy supplied me with this free preview copy, but much like God's love does not coerce, they did not force me to say anything good.
#SpeakEasyLove
May 26, 2012
Influenced by Greek philosophy theology has traditionally begun its treatment of the doctrine of God from a statement of God's power --- omniscience, omnipresence and omnipotence, and love is demoted to just another quality. If theology began with the simple identification of God as love, what would it look like? How would our conception of God change?
Oord begins to explore this question in an engaging and well written book that left me scouring Amazon for more of his work.
Well worth the read!
Oord begins to explore this question in an engaging and well written book that left me scouring Amazon for more of his work.
Well worth the read!
November 27, 2015
Well written and thought provoking. I recommend this book to every believer! Excellent intro to "essential kenosis" theology which is developed by the author. Mr. Oord brings numerous ideas regarding God as love together, showing convincingly why some are to be rejected and others combined in various ways. God IS love, what exactly does that mean? Read the book and find out! I only found a few things troublesome, for me. Only one really stands out as something I wish to reply to, which I will do soon at my blog site. I am co vinced
August 17, 2011
a very good read regarding the subject..the author's return to Christianity is indeed a special personal journey.
"to love is to act intentionally .." p.17 ..The author's definition of love is, of course, inadequate. . . a close resonance to Buddhist's conception of love, but yet different.
I'll continue the reading. . . :)
"to love is to act intentionally .." p.17 ..The author's definition of love is, of course, inadequate. . . a close resonance to Buddhist's conception of love, but yet different.
I'll continue the reading. . . :)
April 28, 2013
I'm rating this a four out of five, not because I wholeheartedly agree with this book, but because it attempts to be faithful to the biblical record on the issue of the love of God. It draws on some points from process and open theologies, but also departs from them in some important areas.
Be prepared to be stretched a bit.
Be prepared to be stretched a bit.
June 16, 2017
A critique of traditional theism and the view of love in theology as expressed in Nygren, Augustine, and Openness theologian extraordinaire Clark Pinnock. Oord describes the Love of God as essential to his nature in the Trinity and toward Creatures and describes a view of God that is loving and no coersive. He describes his view as Essential Kenosis.
March 11, 2011
Tom Oord has provided a much needed theological statement concerning the nature of love. We talk a lot about God being love and the love of God, but what does that mean? Oord provides very helpful definitions that should revolutionize the conversation!
December 8, 2013
Solid and interesting. Well thought out and would love to work through this in discussion with others. Good challenges to ideas of love and God, while some are not as convincing as others. I liked it and will refer to it in the future I'm sure.
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews