Thomas Jay Oord, Defining Love: A Philosophical, Scientific, and Theological Engagement (Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2010), xiii + 225 pps., $29.99; and Thomas Jay Oord, The Nature of Love: A Theology (St. Louis: Chalice Press, 2010), xii + 195 pps., $24.99.
Thomas Jay Oord is professor of theology and philosophy at Northwest Nazarene University in Nampa, Idaho. In these two titles, he seeks to develop a new programme of research – a love, science, and theology symbiosis, with the first title – i.e. Defining Love (hereafter DL) – seemingly establishing the foundation upon which the second – The Nature of Love (hereafter NoL) – builds and expands. It seems, in several places throughout the titles, that although both texts were formally published in the same year (2010), DL was antecedent to NoL in its development in Oord’s thought, so the review that follows will treat them in that manner.
I must accede at the onset that I am sympathetic with Oord’s intentions in these titles; more strongly, I am even empathetic with them. He wants to supplement, not replace, the recent resurgence in the natural and biological sciences upon the import of – nay, inescapability of – reckoning the significance of ‘love’ in the world, be it from a scientific or theological perspective. He has laid the groundwork for a potentially fruitful research programme, upon which others must base their studies.
Fundamental to both titles, with slight variation, is Oord’s definition of love: [love is to] act intentionally, in sympathetic/empathetic response to others (including God), to promote overall well-being (DL, 29; NoL, 17). In DL, Oord looks at the general forms of love – historically speaking – and thereby attempts to decide what love requires (chapter 2); he then explores how love has been illustrated and noted in the social sciences, followed by a complementary exploration of how love is pictured/depicted in the biological sciences, (where it is often encompassed under the heading of altruism, a point to which I shall return later); in the fifth chapter, Oord turns to cosmology and its depiction of love, which is followed by his constructive/prospective proposal of a theology of love informed by the sciences, which he terms an “essential kenosis” theology.
Proverbially picking up where he left off in DL, Oord expands his ‘essential kenosis theology’ in NoL, first by asserting – and defending – the primacy of love, followed by a depiction of agape, eros and philia love in the bible. In order to flesh-out his theology of love, Oord then explores Augustinian love theology, noting its positive contributions as well as its deficiencies; in chapter four, Oord does the same thing, essentially, with respect to Open Theology. This second title, NoL, reaches its apex in the last chapter, fittingly, wherein Oord proposes his promising “essential kenosis” theology, a theology that purportedly overcomes the problem of evil and presents God as steadfastly loving.
Throughout both texts, Oord is keen to highlight the relational nature of God – to love is to be mutually related – which reveals his underlying Wesleyan theological bent. Love is depicted as multiform, multiexpressive, multivarious, and multifaceted throughout, which provides both the promise of – expansionality – and the problem with – ambiguity, lack of precision – of the research programme on and regarding love. Noting the oft overlooked and under-highlighted characteristics of philia love, Oord is intentional to promote the importance – perhaps even primacy – of it, as philia is essentially the form of love that requires cooperative relations between two things to promote what is good (hence, in my opinion, and seemingly Oord’s as well, philia love is the most important for dealing with the natural sciences; philia is the love of co-laborment, so to speak).
What follows will be a selection of several important positions and statements from these two titles, simply listed and not defended per se: We should not describe God in ways that make him culpable for failing to prevent genuine (natural?) evil. A loving God does not coerce anyone or anything. The initial creation of the world was from something, not nothing (creatio ex nihilo is herein denied, for a multitude of reasons). God creates out of creation through love insomuch as he creates the new out of the old. Lack of self-love, in its logical extrapolation, is un-christian and unbiblical; we need an adequate self-love that allows for multiple responses in varying contexts.
Whereas the overall thrust of these two titles is positive and constructive for further thought, I do have some latent reservations regarding some of their entailments. For example, in supporting the notion that we should include the inference to loving motives by study of the actions of entities, I am concerned that one could be in effect wrongly imputing purposes to actions by inadvertently focusing upon epiphenomena of actions/results, and not the source of each, respectively, with the result being that one errantly reverse-extrapolates from the non-intentioned consequences of an action/result. This is seemingly an unresolvable potentiality, and thus I generally am hesitant of imputing motives to anything or anyone by simply observing the results of occurrences, be they from animate or inanimate objects. Further, in his discussions regarding altruism in the biological sciences, Oord – and I think this actually endemic to the larger conversation in general – perhaps does not clarify adequately the distinctions between mutualistic, commensalistic, parasitic, and genuinely altruistic actions (‘altruism’ as a catch-all term is nebulous); mutualistic actions – i.e., those that are self-interest driven, but have positive effects for both entities involved – are far too neglected in the literature in general, and in Oord’s text particularly. Further, in his discussions of ‘genuine’ evil, I find that Oord does not fully separate what may be called ‘natural’ evil from other forms of evil; after all, it is my contention that ‘natural’ evil is not evil at all – it just ‘is’, so to speak (i.e. ‘evil’ entails conscious intention, of which non-conscious creatures are incapable); but that is a debate for another day…
In sum, there is a logical connection between the titles in their argumentation, and as such, not only should they be reviewed together, but also read together. I would recommend – heartily –such an occurrence. Do not read either title, however, lightly, as they will simultaneously challenge preconceived notions, and open-up new ways of thinking in those who digest and reflect on them. The most long-lasting contribution of Oord in these titles will be his constructive proposal of ‘essential kenosis theology’. Oord has set-out the parameters, if you will, of an exciting new research programme; it is now up to us, the collective body of thinkers, to extend, refine, and flesh-out his proposals. May we ‘go forth and do likewise’.
Bradford McCall
Regent University