(This is the introduction to volume two of my Systematic Theology of Love in progress. A portion of each chapter is free to all, but paid subscribers get whole chapters, and they can offer suggestions and comments. Paid subscribers also get their names in the book’s acknowledgments and receive a signed copy of the published book in hardcover. At only $8 a month or $80 for the year, please consider a paid subscription. Click here.)
This book is the second in a projected three-volume set proposing a systematic theology of love. I’ve been very happy with the sales of the first volume and the feedback from readers. Many people sent notes expressing their appreciation that I was undertaking a sustained exploration of love from a systematic perspective.
Most reviews I have received from readers of the first volume have been positive and constructive. As I expected, some 
reviewers disagreed with points here and there. Others expressed their wish that I had expanded on particular points. And, not surprisingly, some asked questions about topics I aim to address in volumes two and three. But the overall response to Volume One has been extremely positive. I’m grateful!
This volume two picks up from the first by addressing divine revelation. It moves to issues surrounding to incarnation and the revelation of God in Jesus of Nazareth. A chapter on the Trinity will come after a discussion of Jesus. Following a sequence common to systematic theologies, the issues of sin and salvation are then addressed. As in the first volume, I address these key topics from the perspective of love. My claims about divine and creaturely love expressed in the first volume are brought to bear on topics in the following volumes.
Before exploring these topics, let me recap ground I covered in volume one.
An Open and Relational Systematic Theology of Love
I began the first volume by saying that, to my knowledge, I am writing the first book with the title, A Systematic Theology of Love. That this is the first with that title should surprise us, given the centrality of love in scripture and the witness to love by people of faith. Many people consider love primary to understanding life and establishing healthy relationships with one another and creation. Because Jesus of Nazareth lived a life of love and made love central in his teachings, Christians have additional reasons to prioritize love in their theological reflection. Love matters most.
Rather than love, most systematic theologians take sovereignty, glory, grace, or a related issue as their orienting concern. But most themes taken as central clash with love, because most theologians assume God is impassible, timeless, and omnipotent. Those systematic theologies fail to resolve the problem of evil, the problem of divine hiddenness, and say God determines our destinies. An impassible and timeless deity does not engage in give-and-receive relations with creatures.
Admittedly, the word “love” has many meanings. Biblical writers use love words in diverse ways, and we find diverse theological visions in sacred writ. For instance, sometimes New Testament writers use the Greek word agape to describe divine love, but other biblical passages they use agape in ways that don’t describe what’s good and godly. The same is true of other biblical words translated “love.” Confusion reigns.
If a systematic theologian is to make love their regulative idea and propose consistent doctrines in light of that idea, defining love well proves crucial. I define an act of love as acting intentionally, in relational response to God and others, with the aim to promote overall well-being. This definition differs from other definitions on offer. For instance, Augustine equated love with desire, and many theologians have not thought love essentially relational. Defining love as active and relational distinguishes this systematic theology from those that portray God in all respects unchanging, non-personal, and essentially independent.
This systematic theology of love operates from an open and relational perspective. While open and relational theologies come in many forms, they champion the idea that God is relational, and the future is open to everyone, including God. These theologies are known for rethinking divine power, affirming genuine creaturely agency, and taking experiences of life seriously. This theological framework is ideal for those who prioritize love, both creaturely and divine.
It doesn’t do much good to write a systematic theology of love if there are not good reasons to think God exists. People of faith appeal to various sources and arguments to justify belief in divinity, however. Scripture, religious traditions, personal experiences, and nature are among these sources, but none successfully prove that God exists. Arguments from creation’s design, beauty, causation, morality, and more have merit, but are not, in themselves, convincing as proofs.
A fair assessment of God’s possible existence includes arguments against the existence of deity. The two strongest are the problem of evil and the problem of divine hiddenness. These problems and others underscore the importance of asking what kind of God might exist. The best arguments against belief in God assume deity is omnipotent. If we deny omnipotence, the case for God’s existence grows stronger.
We can make a good abductive case for God’s existence. Drawing from experiences, various sources, reason, and more, we can make better sense of reality as we experience it if we posit a divine Lover. Such positing gives us ground to affirm ultimate meaning and make sense of our intuitions about love. Put another way, it’s plausible that an uncontrolling God of love exists, but we can’t be certain.
God is the Universal Spirit Who Always Loves
Love is the orienting concern of this systematic theology, and God is considered the universal Spirit who always loves. Although few systematic theologies prioritize love, most theologians say God loves. But what they mean by this statement is often inconsistent with their other claims about God, and it fails to match love as we know it. When addressing divine love, I use the same definition I use for creaturely love, although God’s love differs in scope, mode, degree, and so on. In other words, God loves by acting intentionally, in relations with creatures, to promote overall well-being.
Biblical writers repeatedly speak of God as an agent who loves. But the Apostle John goes further and says, “God is love.” This succinct phrase is best understood as meaning love is God’s primary attribute, and the personal Spirit loves by necessity. Divine love is self-giving, others-empowering, uncontrolling, and pluriform. God is also gracious, merciful, compassionate, and just, although not in the way many traditional theologies have understood these words.
One of my unusual claims is that God loves freely in one sense but necessarily in another. Love is an essential attribute of the divine nature, so deity must love. That’s necessary. But how God loves is freely chosen in ongoing relations with creatures who move into an open and unknown future. Those expressions of love are contingent. In short, divine freedom bows to love’s logical supremacy in God’s nature.
Closely related to love as God’s primary attribute is the common claim that the divine ontology is spirit. Jesus described God as spirit, and deity is often compared to breath, wind, mind, gravity, breath, and the spark of life. As an active and universal agent, the universal Spirit of love does not have a localized divine body. But this Lover of all is active, receptive, intentional, living, and universal.
To say that God is spirit does not mean divinity is entirely immaterial. As the living God, deity has both material and mental dimensions. These dimensions are required to make sense of how a universal God intentionally affects all creation and is affected by it. The material dimension causally influences creatures, and the mental aspect intentionally does so in loving ways. Material-mental creatures respond.
Saying God is a Spirit who loves assumes God has a personal dimension. The writers of Christian scripture often portray God as a personal being among other beings. But saying God is personal leads many (wrongly) to assume deity must have a localized divine body that is geographically in one place but not others.
To overcome problems that arise from thinking God has a localized divine body, theologians like Paul Tillich say God is being-itself. This move carries its own problems, however. It’s impossible to make good sense of God as a giving-and-receiving, personal lover if deity is being-itself. Other theologians say God is beyond the categories of being. But this also makes it difficult to think or talk about the Spirit as a lover.
At the heart of the problems that arise from considering God as being itself or beyond being is that, philosophically, “being” is a static word. Static portrayals of deity are at odds with the dynamic activity of giving-and-receiving love. We better describe the universal, dynamic Spirit as always “becoming.” The universal Spirit who always loves is an everlasting series of divine occasions of experience. Rather than onto-theology, we should embrace what I call “gino-theology.”
God as Amipotent not Omnipotent
(To read the entire chapter, become a paid subscriber on Substack. Click here.)