If I may, I’d like to take a few minutes of your time to address a critical aspect of understanding the character and nature of God and the life that flows from him which creates and sustains everything that’s real. This dynamic reality that is at the center of who God is in his being is best described with the four-letter word: love.
The Problem with How Society Defines Love
The problem with using “love” is that our society has suspiciously co-opted this word, redefined it, and gutted it of its substance. I say “suspiciously” because there seems to be some sort of active power targeting this specific word, like someone has a vested interest in creating confusion or chaos around it. Interesting. However, just because our society has attempted to redefine this word does not mean we should surrender it as the most apt description of the essence of God. It does mean that we have to be extremely clear about what we mean by the word “love.”
The Reality Behind the Word “Love”
As Lewis wrote: “all language is metaphorical through and through.” In other words, the written or verbal symbols we ascribe to a reality are not the reality itself. But they are tools that carry the meaning and substance of the thing that is real, and must be used if we are to communicate about that reality. In this way, the four letters l-o-v-e placed in that order mean nothing until we assign them to the reality they are referencing.
Defining Love
So when talking about the reality we assign the symbol “love” to, what do we mean? My working definition of this reality which is drawn from multiple sources (the scriptures, other people’s writings and thoughts on the subject, my own experience, etc.) is this: Love is the others-focused, constant pursuit of the highest good of the one who is loved as far as it can be obtained.
Love Is Others-Focused
So let’s break that down. Love is others-focused. It is always “you, not me.” As soon as someone uses “love” in a self-referential or self-serving way, then you are no longer dealing with the actual reality that is love. In this way, selflessness serves as the path into and is the staying power of love. This is also where our society, which is so focused on radical individualism and self-actualization, goes horribly wrong. When anyone uses the word to describe a situation where our selfish desires become the highest end, then the word is not referencing the reality of love, but something altogether different.
Love Is Constant
Love is constant. It is not something you activate when you want or put away when you want. It is a state of being that you are either in or you are not. If people use the word “love” to refer to something conditional or a state of being only brought about by certain scenarios, then the word they are using is not referring to the reality that is love.
Love Pursues
Love pursues. Love is not passive, simply hoping that the good will be brought about by random chance. It is intentional, and maintains a posture that is oriented toward the constant flow of goodness toward and for others. This doesn’t mean love is hyperactive, like you have to constantly be doing something. But it does mean your interior posture toward others is to will their highest good. The less effort this takes, the deeper you are in the reality that is love.
Love Seeks the Highest Good
Love seeks the highest good. This part can be tricky because while the highest good of someone is often readily apparent and obvious to anyone paying attention. For example, it is the highest good of someone to have food, clothing, shelter, be in secure, healthy relationships, exercise their God-given abilities in ways that cause or promote flourishing, etc. While most of these things are readily apparent, sometimes the highest good for someone is not so obvious.
What I’m thinking of are times when people are caught in self-destructive loops which require intervention and pain to some degree to bring about their highest good. The most obvious examples of this are when someone will not stop criminal activity, or stop causing harm to others or things that bring about a diminished humanity. This person is not just hurting people around them, they’re also hurting themselves. They are choosing to act in ways that are subhuman or are harmful to themselves and society at large, so the pursuit of their highest good in those situations is to intervene and stop them from their destructive behavior. This requires no small amount of nuance and an escalation of consequences with the aim of causing the destructive behavior to stop.
These corrective measures should always be done in the spirit of restoration, gentleness, and respect. If not, people will end up doing the right action in the wrong way, which nullifies the right action. Loving action must be both accurate and motivated by a heart that respects the dignity of the person and seeks reconciliation and restoration. For the one being loved through corrective measures, this can feel like anything but love. But the pain or discomfort felt here does not make the reality less real. It is still love. I’m reminded of the Hebrews passage: “No discipline seems pleasant at the time, but painful. Later on, however, it produces a harvest of righteousness and peace for those who have been trained by it” (Heb 12:11). Or the ancient proverb: “faithful are the wounds of a friend, deceitful are the kisses of an enemy” (Prov 27:6).
The Limits of Love and Free Will
This brings us to the last part of the definition. Love seeks the highest good of the beloved as far as it can be obtained. This is the inherent danger in love: it can end in tragedy. Love requires choice. We are not automatons roboting around with pre-programmed responses and will-less actions. We choose. And if you can choose the good, then you also can choose the bad.
There is a point where the others-focused, constant pursuit of the highest good of the beloved stops. But it does not stop because love stops loving. It stops because love gives a free creature the dignity of meaningful choice. And when that free creature chooses not to be loved, regardless of what is done for them, then love becomes a judgment. Love says, “For your highest good, I can go this far and no further.” This can take the form of a loss of relationship, or community, or church discipline, or imprisonment, or in extreme cases, death. That’s why the British theologian Oliver O’Donovan once wrote, “love can sometimes smite, and even slay.” The reality we call “love” is not limited in itself. It is limited by the choices of others.
Why This Matters
Our culture has gone completely off the rails in regard to the definition of love. This is a serious problem, because when you say “God is love,” people can easily interpret that phrase through the lens of radical individualism which quickly becomes a self-referential, redefining activity and ends with the word referring to whatever we want it to. But as long as I breathe, I will not acquiesce to this nonsense. The four letters L-O-V-E placed together in this order does actually refer to something. That something is real, whether you believe in it or not, and changing the definition of the word will never change the reality itself.
Defending the True Meaning of Love
So let’s call it what it is: the others-focused, constant pursuit of the highest good of the beloved as far as it can be obtained. Let’s keep it and clarify it and defend it, this tired old word, “love.” Because when the Apostle John boiled down the essence of God into one phrase, this is what he wrote: “God is love.”
Nathan Wagnon
