Love is primary for any adequate ethic. But can the human brain – especially the brains of those who love often and well – tell us anything about love?<\/p>\n
I’ve finished the first draft of an essay I’ve titled, “What Would Jesus’ Brain Look Like?” It serves as my contribution to a book on neuroscience and moral exemplars. I plan to publish sections here on my blogsite to get feedback on how I might improve my essay.<\/p>\n
I begin answering the question, “What would Jesus’ brain look like?” by exploring the nature of love.<\/p>\n
The Bible witnesses to the Christian belief that love is the center of how humans ought to act ethically. Jesus offers two love commands and says they are greater than all other commands. The first is “love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.” The second command is “love your neighbor as yourself.” Jesus concludes: “there is no commandment greater than these” (Mk. 12:29-31).<\/p>\n
Biblical authors testify that God believes no one is beyond the possibility of being a recipient of love. God loves the whole world (Jn. 3:16). Biblical writers teach their readers to love friends, neighbors, family, fellow believers, strangers, enemies, themselves, the poor, and all creation. All creatures are potential recipients of Christian love. Above all else, Christians are to pursue love (1 Cor. 13, 14:1).<\/p>\n
Christians seek to emulate those who consistently live lives of love. Those who love consistently – love exemplars – are supreme models of God’s own love. The apostle Paul claimed to imitate the supreme love exemplar: Jesus Christ (1 Cor. 11:1). He advised others to do the same: “Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus, who…emptied himself…” (1 Phil. 2:5,7a).<\/p>\n
Jesus washed his disciples’ feet in what many Christians take to be a servant example he intended disciples to imitate. When the washing was complete, Jesus said to his disciples, “If I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet. For I have set you an example, that you also should do as I have done to you” (Jn. 13:14-15).<\/p>\n
The Apostle Paul also recognized that imitating God required loving as Jesus loved. He commanded his readers to emulate God by living “a life of love, as Christ loved us and offered himself…” (Eph. 5:2). Our best clue as to the nature of divine love is the love example of Jesus of Nazareth (1 Jn. 3:16).<\/p>\n
The majority of Christians recognize the centrality of love for Christian ethics. They claim that God is the source of love. “We love, because he first loved us,” writes John (1 Jn. 4:19). Christians acknowledge that they should respond appropriately to God’s call to love. Love is central to the Christian life and should be the center of Christian theology.<\/p>\n
Ethicist Edward Collins Vacek summarizes succinctly why love is the heart of Christian ethics. “Christian ethics is not at bottom a matter of obeying God nor a matter of fulfilling our natures,” says Vacek. “Christian ethics must begin with God’s love for us and it must keep this love central. In acting morally, we Christians cooperate with the God who acted in Jesus and is still acting.” “In one sentence,” Vacek concludes, “the main point for ethical activity is: ‘We are God’s co-workers’” (1 Cor. 3:9).<\/p>\n
Despite the centrality of love in the Bible and much Christian ethics, however, few Christian theologians actually think seriously about what they mean by “love.” Love is rarely defined. Even odder, most scholars fail to define love clearly when they appeal to love as the center of their faith. Consequently, the word “love” may be the most used and praised yet least understood word Christians speak. <\/p>\n
I seek to rectify this unfortunate situation by offering a definition of love meant to help Christians and nonChristians alike. I intend for my definition to be consistent with and helpful for research in theology, philosophy, and the sciences. Although I admit that no definition is likely to account perfectly for love, I believe that some definitions are superior to others. Having at least some definition is often superior to affirming no definition at all. I think we best define love in the following way:<\/p>\n
to love is to act intentionally, in response to God and others, to promote overall well-being.<\/p>\n
To say it another way, love purposefully does what is good. Love does what is good in response to others: God, the community, the environment, and\/or the lover’s bodily constitution.<\/p>\n
I believe love is intentional and relational. It involves cooperating with God to do good. But my definition adds “and others” to account for one’s community, environment, and bodily components. This addition is important for many reasons, one of which – the lover’s relation to his or her own brain – I address later when talking about the brain’s role for love and exemplarity.<\/p>\n
One strength of my love definition is its ability to clarify the various forms that love takes. Most people acknowledge that we express love in many ways, and love takes many forms. It has become common among theologians and philosophers to use the Greek words agape<\/em>, eros<\/em>, and philia<\/em> to speak about three of the most general love forms. I argue that each form of love promotes overall well-being.<\/p>\n In roughly the last century, the word agape <\/em>has acquired significant power in Christian theology and ethics. Many who use the word know its frequent presence in the New Testament. But agape <\/em>has several meanings in the Bible, and contemporary scholars define agape <\/em>in different ways. The diversity of definitions prompts Gene Outka to say, “the meaning ascribed in the literature to love, in general, and to agape<\/em>, in particular, is often characterized by both variance and ambiguity.” I agree. Agape <\/em>is defined variously, and some definitions are internally incoherent or inconsistent with one another.<\/p>\n To offer clarity, I define agape <\/em>as intentional response to promote well-being when responding to that which causes ill-being. To put it in biblical language: Agape <\/em>repays evil with good (Luke 6:27-31, Rm. 12:21, 1 Thess. 5:15, 1 Pt. 3:9). This form of love turns the other cheek, does good to those who do harm, and forgives enemies. Agape <\/em>is “in spite of” love: we express agape <\/em>in spite of the unloving actions of others. Agape <\/em>is a form of love, because it promotes overall well-being.<\/p>\n Just as scholars define agape <\/em>variously, they also afford eros <\/em>diverse meanings. Plato’s thought influences most of these meanings, however. As classically understood, the affirmation of value is the core of eros<\/em>. Jules Toner captures the classic understanding when he defines eros<\/em> as “affective affirmation of its object.” While some have regarded eros <\/em>as equivalent to desire, such equivalence is problematic if <\/em>we consider eros <\/em>a form of love. Love as I define it and as often understood, promotes overall well-being. Desire, as such, does not always promote well-being. <\/p>\n In light of the history of eros<\/em> and its status as a form of love, I define eros <\/em>as intentional response to affirm and enhance what is valuable or beautiful. Eros <\/em>appreciates what is good and seeks to enhance it. Eros<\/em> not only “thinks on” what is true, honorable, pleasing, and excellent, says the Apostle Paul, it “keeps on doing these things” (Phil. 4:8, 9). Because of the valuable circumstances or individuals we encounter in a world God created and called good (Gen. 1), we appropriately express the eros<\/em> form of love at least sometimes. Eros <\/em>is “because of” love: we express eros <\/em>because of the good or beauty we encounter.<\/p>\n Although the meaning of philia <\/em>appears often in the Bible — and occasionally biblical authors even use the word – Aristotle has probably played a more influential role in how scholars think of philia<\/em>. The philia<\/em> form of love has typically been identified with friendship, and philosophers and theologians since Aristotle speak of “special” relationships as a way to account for philia<\/em>. These special relationships have primarily to do with mutuality, reciprocity, or cooperation.<\/p>\n I define the philia <\/em>form of love as intentionally responding in solidarity with others to promote what is good. Philia <\/em>works cooperatively for the common good and often <\/em>seeks to establish deeper levels of cooperative friendship. Philia <\/em>co-labors for good; it cooperates with God and others to foster shared koinonia<\/em>. Philia <\/em>is “alongside of” love: we express philia <\/em>as we come alongside of others to promote overall well-being.<\/p>\n These are dominant and overarching forms of love. Love may take many lesser forms or other particular expressions. The possibilities are vast and perhaps endless. But I argue there is only one definition of love that correctly unites the legitimate forms and expressions. That one kind involves acting intentionally, in response to God and others, to promote overall well-being.<\/p>\n In follow up blogs, I explore what it means to be a love exemplar. Imitating love exemplars is important for developing lives of love. And exemplars apparently undergo unique brain development. I’ll conclude the blog series by exploring the structure of the brain Jesus must have developed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Love is primary for any adequate ethic. But can the human brain – especially the brains of those who love often and well – tell us anything about love?<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[10],"tags":[7277,7332,7333,7334,7335],"yst_prominent_words":[2028,2037,2036,2035,2034,2033,2032,2031,2030,2029,1069,2027,2026,2025,2024,2023,2022,2021,2020,1252],"class_list":["post-1902","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-theology_and_science","tag-brain","tag-nuerology","tag-neurology","tag-exemplar","tag-imitation"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/thomasjayoord.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1902","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/thomasjayoord.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/thomasjayoord.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thomasjayoord.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thomasjayoord.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1902"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/thomasjayoord.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1902\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/thomasjayoord.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1902"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thomasjayoord.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1902"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thomasjayoord.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1902"},{"taxonomy":"yst_prominent_words","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thomasjayoord.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/yst_prominent_words?post=1902"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Eros<\/h3>\n
Philia<\/h3>\n