Tom, Thanks for this insight. I noticed some of the same inconsistencies in Wynkoop, and noted them in my margin notes from the first time I read Theology of Love, but could never have expressed it as well as you have here.

When I was at NTS, Dr. Grider was the pre-eminent theology prof and Dr. Wynkoop was theologian-in-residence. Theology of Love was a rather new book, but I had read it ravenously.

I had two early morning classes with Dr. Grider; those classes are my fondest memories of my time in KC.

Anyway, I remember Dr. Grider saying once that he disagreed with Wynkoop. She said God was “holy love”. He said that God should be thought of as “loving holiness”. I expect they must have had some kind of feud about the correct wording. That’s what theologs do, you know.

I appreciate what you have written here, and I appreciate it bringing up and old and happy memory in me.

Thanks Tom. My favorite book of hers is “Foundations of Wesleyan Arminian Theology.” While I’ve started Theology of LOve, I have failed to finish it. Almost as many times as I have tried to finish “Atlas Shrugged.”

It is high time to get on it and finish it. This post will help. Thanks.

Would it help if we think of Mildred tracking the question of love thru the filter of what is moral, because of the abuses all around her expecting a metaphysical transformation vs a moral transformation? and then see her tracking the question of love additionally thru the biblical lens of the law? Just thoughts ...... thinking that the fulfillment of the law is to love God, others and yourself and to be lawless is to be have a relation destroying motive, which would be a perversion of love.

It’s frustrating how easy it is to find ourselves using love as a reference for things according to how the world around us defines it rather than how it consistently appears in scripture.  Thanks, Tom, for this wonderful reminder of love’s inherent holiness and goodness and for the appropriate caution of how we utilize it in our speaking.

This book in my opinion was a seminal turning point for the whole Nazarene church. Dr. G’s great love for her and her work was very influential to say the least. Emergent thought loves to love and that seems to be the essence of what holiness is or the understanding and experience of knowing and receiving God in so much of our thinking today. She does refer to her second crises to be fair but it to me seems to be only in passing. Tom how do you separate love from lust, emotion from true goodness and kindness as seen in many world religions from the love we folk try to refer to? God knew us and LOVED us from the foundations of the earth yet is this onslaught of ongoing love automatic love that we just sit back and enjoy? Am I as an evangelist to only stir the love pot for folks or is there a real sin issue that can trump love if not dealt with? I think I know your answer and to tell the truth I am somewhat afraid to fence if it may be called that with the Dr types of your class. I do believe however that her book created the process theology for the folks called Nazarenes. A Spring Revival Week or at least that’s what I saw it as at MNU a few days ago, was called Green Week. Loving the earth. Yikes, I think you understand my angst.
Blessings Bro,
Chuck Millhuff

Thanks for all of the great comments!  I appreciate them.

I want to respond to my friend, Chuck, very briefly.

If we define love in terms of ultimate devotion, I am also concerned that we would love the earth.  Defined as ultimate devotion, love should be for God and we love others as ourselves in relation to God.

But the dominant biblical use of “love” pertains to doing good (e.g., blessing, abundant life, peace, shalom, beneficence, common good).  Defined in terms of doing good, I think we can love the earth.  We love creatures when we act for their good.  And I think there’s strong biblical support for loving creation in that sense.

As my post points out, I think we should reserve “love” for acts that do good and use words like “lust” for desires that promote evil.

Tom

Love is considered to be happiness. Those who believe that “love can conquer all” and “all you need is love” can be mistaken because the concept of love is not that simple. “Love is from God, and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. The one that doesn’t love, doesn’t know God, for God is love.” (1 John 4:7,8) God tells us to love as he loves and I feel like people try to complicate love by saying, “love can be too sentimental and mushy.” We are taught that love is a profound feeling we share with our families and our significant others and I think that we as a society shouldn’t complicate it more than that.

Thank you Dr. Oord for your post. I totally agree that we need to be careful in our us of the word love. Too often is it used to describe basic lust and desire instead of something more meaningful. I think this is in part due to the English language itself. Many other languages have separate words for the different kinds of love. I do not think there is much hope for changing how society uses the word but Christians should be more selective in their use of love.

People believe that if we love that we can conquer anything and everything.  I believe that Love is a very strong word but just because we love doesn’t mean we are achieving anything.  People use the word love way to loose for different things.  Some people say “man i love my friends.” And another may say “mom I love you.”  There are two different ways of saying love in just those two examples.  We must love and show love but we must also be very careful in how we use the word.  I believe the word is being used way to loosely in our society.  Love needs to be a strong and powerful word, that takes on deep meaning of something.

I agree with Johan Tredoux. I had the good fortune to have many hours with Dr. Wynkoop at Trevecca and NTS. Her thoughts centered around a need for a clear understanding of a moral transformation.

I hate to be a debbie Downer, but even if Wynkooop had a stable meaning of love in her writing, it would not be as valuable as one would hope. The spirit of the times changes and with that, the uses and meanings of words change. I have never read Wynkooop (which I should), but if I did, I would want to look for how she constructed here thesis out of her words, not the words themselves.

I agree that how the word ‘love’ is used is very important. I had never thought of love and desire being the same thing. I don’t think this is because I had never separated the two but because the thought truly never occurred to me. If love and desire were consistently put together I would have a problem with that because God is love and (like you said) is not desire. It would be us breaking God’s character.

I definitely agree that there must be a clear definition of love that is used consistently, especially since love was central to Jesus’ teachings and is the core of Christianity.  I also agree that, although desire is sometimes and element of love, it is not equal to love.  If we consider Jesus’ command to, not only love our neighbor, but also to love our enemies, then we know that desire and love are not equal, because rarely does one truly have the “desire” to love one’s enemy.  I think the definition of love as “always acting to promote the overall well-being of others” needs to be promoted, so we all have a better understanding of what love truly means.

I completely agree that the love “terminology” should be carefully made consistent. I think that as a society we have put functions on the word love that imply love as being unholy. The love of money, the love of “sinning”, etc. I think we are the reason people can assign love to unholy things. But love by itself, in its true form is always holy and perfect.

Wynkoop seems so passionate in what she believes and I think we believe a lot of the same things. Yet when she describes how to act on love and that love is turning the other check, I find it hard to do that. For me, I love peace yet it is not in my to sit back and watch someone get beat up when I could go stand up and fight for them. Also she says, “love is happiness”. I agree with that to the extent that when you feel love, you feel that joy. Yet on the other hand, in order to love you must be vulnerable. With this vulnerability comes the chance to being hurt. I believe love can also be sorrowful.

I think I believe a lot of the same things as Wynkoop.
I found it interesting how she jumps around in her terms though. I think her opinion would had been way stronger with a more defined and strong definitions.

It has helped me to think of “love” as having two basic aspects: attributing worth to its object…and…promoting the best interests of its object. So…loving God is “worshipping” Him…and…“keeping His commandments.” God loves me…by attributing worth to me (seeking me out, while yet a sinner)...and promoting my best interests (my salvation, and sanctification).  And I am to love others…my love is “perfected” as I see others more clearly as God sees them…and perceive and promote God’s best for them. Anyway, that is where Wynkoop…and Wesley…have brought me, to date.

I do whole heartily believe that in order to create a good argument, precise language needs to be one of the central cores. But in pointing out the flaws of her language, we can also see that for the times, (this book was published in 1972) there was a sense that love could almost be a desire when looked at through a theological perspective. I am glad to know that there are positive things about her book, as well as the not so positive.

In reading this passage, I find myself confused and questioning “love” (versus desire) in the light of Wynkoop’s interpretation. All in all, I feel like she has some really strong, really concise points, but would agree that she seems to get more confusing in terms of “linguistic inconsistency,” as they are presented in this evaluation of her writings. The English major part of me, however, wonders about the context of these “inconsistencies,” as the summary offered in the reading did not qualify any of the statements. Should the inconsistencies remain, I would wonder whether they may simply be relative to Wynkoop’s personal experience with the issue of “love.” In any case, I think that “love” should remain somewhat separate from “desire,” but wonder at whether desire can exist completely outside of love, as I believe there are many levels in which desire can and does function.

I believe that she struggles with the same thing I do. What if the world was perfect and all that existed was love? What would you compare it to? But if you do end up comparing it to sin or evil, then you’re saying you have to have one in order to have the other. I think there’s a fine line there, and it can easily be crossed. Ever since I started taking this class I’ve noticed how much my theology contradicts its self. I’m constantly rephrasing my words so that I stick to what I believe, and not accidentally cross into a different idea.

Wynkoop makes some great points on how love will help us in everything that we do.  One thing that she doesn’t ever bring up that love can sometimes hurt a individual also.  Dr. Oord talked about it in class that love can sometimes, not be a great feeling when you have love for something or someone it doesn’t mean that they are yours.  It can break people’s hearts to see someone else with another person that they have love for but cannot have or share in their life.

I appreciate that you highlight the redundancy of “holy” in regard to love.  I find that holiness is often used redundantly as a kind of Wesleyan modifier.  Thanks for keeping love pure. 

On another note, however, I want to defend the notion of love as desire.  The way you define love sounds an awful lot like altruism.  If altruism is in any way equatable to love, then I believe that love does = desire.  This is because, from an evolutionary perspective, altruism is a genetic desire that has evolved through blood ties via natural selection.  In other words, altruism is an evolutionary trait to “[act] intentionally, in response to…others, to promote overall well-being”.

I think that the points you bring up about Wynkoop’s rhetoric are very interesting and useful, because the way that we use words are very important. I appreciate your emphasis on the meaning of words and the manner in which we use them, especially when related to a complex issue such as love. The way that we understand love in relation to desire certainly will influence the way that we understand ourselves and our relationships with others.

I too agree that love can never be unholy. For me, I think it is contradictory to say that love can become perversive or sentimental. I think this goes to show that we have either been misusing the word or that we don’t have enough words to describe emotions like sentimentality. However, it does make me wonder how one would explain sin. This isn’t the first time I’ve heard someone say that sin is the perversion of love, some would also say that sin is anything that is not considered holy by God-the opposite of love. For me, it is safe to say that sin is not love gone wrong, but rather, the absence of love.

Is it possible that ἀγάπη is generally positive in the Bible because the Bible generally speaks of positive loves? When it speaks of negative loves, it doesn’t hesitate to use ἀγάπη:

Lk 11:42–43 “Woe to you Pharisees! For you…neglect justice and the love (ἀγάπη) of God….Woe to you Pharisees! For you love (ἀγαπάω) the best seat in the synagogues and greetings in the marketplaces!”

Lk 16:13 “No servant can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love (ἀγαπάω) the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money.”

1 Jn 2:15 “Do not love (ἀγαπάω) the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves (ἀγαπάω) the world, the love (ἀγάπη) of the Father is not in him.”

Jn 3:19 “People loved (ἀγαπάω) the darkness rather than the light.”

Jn 12:43 “They loved (ἀγαπάω) the glory that comes from man more than the glory that comes from God.”

2 Tim 4:10 “Demas, having loved (ἀγαπάω) this present world, has deserted me” (NASB).

2 Pet 2:15 “They have followed the way of Balaam…who loved (ἀγαπάω) gain from wrongdoing.”

Rev 12:11 “They loved (ἀγαπάω) not their lives even unto death.”

2Sa 13:15 (LXX) “Then Amnon hated [Tamar] with very great hatred, so that the hatred with which he hated her was greater than the love (ἀγάπη) with which he had loved (ἀγαπάω) her.”