![](\"https:\/\/thomasjayoord.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2013\/07\/defining_love_thomas_jay_oord1.jpg\")
<\/h3>\nFor the past decade or more, I have been thinking about the love, science, and theology interface. The questions about how these three major domains relate to one another are complex. And they require complex but understandable answers.<\/p>\n
One of the central issues in this kind of interdisciplinary love research is how one defines love itself. Many go about assuming they know what love is. But most people \u2013 including scholars \u2013 have not done the careful work of composing a love definition.<\/p>\n
<\/h3>\nTo some people, the idea of defining is sheer foolishness. Love escapes any defining, they say. Pressing them to identify how they know which action is loving and which is not, however, reveals quickly that they do <\/em>adopt some definition of love. These adopted definitions are often tacit, intuitive, or largely unconscious.<\/p>\n Part of the love scholar\u2019s task is to make explicit and conceptually coherent love assumptions that may currently remain implicit and incoherent. In my book, Defining Love: A Philosophical, Scientific, and Theological Engagement<\/em>, I explore various facets of love in various disciplines. I do the work of making the implicit explicit and the incoherent coherent.<\/p>\n Perhaps the most important contribution of the book is my proposed love definition. I define love in this way:<\/p>\n To love is to act intentionally, in sympathetic\/empathetic response to others (including God), to promote overall well-being.<\/p>\n I explore each phrase of my proposed definition in the book. When it comes down to the basics, love has three essential elements:<\/p>\n 1) intent\/motives<\/p>\n 2) relationality\/embodiment\/environment<\/p>\n 3) consequences\/outcomes<\/p>\n Defining Love <\/em>begins with philosophy and asks various questions about these three elements. Along the way, the book addresses forms of love such as agape<\/em>, eros<\/em>, and philia<\/em>.<\/p>\n The heart of the book explores recent research and theory in science. I focus on the social sciences in one chapter, the biological sciences in another, and cosmology in a third.<\/p>\n I have had the great privilege of having access to some of the most influential scientists of our time. The chapters on science and love in the book draw from their work, some of which I heard them present personally, others which they detail in their published works.<\/p>\n Readers will likely be surprised at the vast amount of research and theory pertaining to love, altruism, well-being, prosocial behavior, agape, benevolence, and related issues in science. Reviewers and readers often report being unaware of so much interesting research being done on these subjects.<\/p>\n Defining Love <\/em>concludes with a chapter exploring God\u2019s love. It quickly surveys the general approaches to how science and theology might most effectively relate. Rejected are the views that say or imply that theology always trumps science or science always trumps theology.<\/p>\n One of the more creative proposals in this final chapter emerges from the theological issue most worrisome to those who believe God loves perfectly: the problem of evil. I call my response to the problem of evil, \u201cessential kenosis.\u201d<\/p>\n Essential kenosis says God acts as a loving causal agent in every agent and\/or event. But God never entirely determines anyone or anything. To put it another way, God never totally controls others. Because of this love-grounded power, God should not be thought the cause of evil nor culpable of failing to prevent it.<\/p>\n Essential kenosis does say, however, that God’s love varies. God\u2019s persuasive influence oscillates as creatures respond appropriately or inappropriately. And God expresses diverse forms of love. Divine love is not an amorphous \u201csteady state\u201d or \u201cblind force,\u201d because God is personal.<\/p>\nTHE ESSENTIALS OF LOVE<\/h3>\n
DIVINE LOVE<\/h3>\n
A THEOLOGY OF LOVE<\/h3>\n