Necessary, Kenotically-donated, & Self-giving Love

• Authors: McCall Bradford
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

For the God of self-giving, kenotically-donated love, the decision to express love at all times comes first. In my conception, “full-Oorded” love would encompass what is ordinarily contained within the definition of agape love, but it would also include “eros love”, for the latter is the love of co-laborment. In my appropriation has of this terminology of eros love, it would be the type of love that the desires to, e.g., expand one’s territory or one’s domain, which makes it applicable to the modern theory of evolution by natural selection. Evolution – i.e., “descent with modification”, to invoke a Darwinian phrase – then, recognizes self-giving love, and the goodness thereof, in that species regularly undergo commensalist symbiotic relationships in nature, whereby one is aided by the other, while the “other” is neither “aided” nor “harmed”. This is self-giving love in its entirety, and a proper demonstration of it. My understanding of necessarily-expressed, “full-Oorded” love also includes dimensions of philia love. Philia could be akin to the symbiotic relationship known as mutualism in biology, especially since philia love has historically been associated with friendship or the interrelatedness of the natural world. Notably, Aristotle indicates that even nonhuman animals can express philia love . The relationships marked by philia, then, could be identified by mutuality, reciprocity, and cooperation , which fits the above biological connotation well. While agape or eros might benefit from cooperation, reciprocity, and mutuality, those two forms of love do not require any of those three nouns. Philia does. I contend, in fact, that the kenosis of the Spirit into creation amounts to self-giving, betrothed love through self-donation. The union, then of agape, eros, and philia love could be expressed as mutual aid, or full-orbed, or even as I like to say, “full-Oorded” love. Flourishing lives – be they human or some other mammal – I aver, consistently and necessarily express “full-Oorded” love. Oord suggests that Process philosophy can aid one to see that full-orbed love – that which I have designated “full-Oorded” love – plays an important part in the work to increase the common good of society as a whole. Indeed, “full-Oorded” love would repay evil with good as agape would; such a “full-Oorded” love would additionally welcome the intrinsic value and beauty in others, just like eros love does; and “full-Oorded” love would also recognize the import of friendship and mutuality as does philia love. Following Oord and Wojtyla again, since God commands that we show necessarily “self-giving”, “self-donating” love, we therefore indeed have the ability to love others as kenotically-donating entities, just as the creating Spirit does. When we act as a genuine conduit and amplifier of the creating Spirit’s self-donating and self-giving love, we can truly and entirely and infinitely love others, just as God does. Of course, we cannot expect that we humans will always love alike unto how God does because we do not have an eternal and unchanging nature that is necessarily inclined toward love , but we are at least always able to do it.

Keywords

EN

agape; philia; eros; kenosis; necessity; Thomas Jay Oord

• Publisher: Wydawnictwo Diecezjalne Adalbertinum
• Journal: Studia Ełckie
• Year: 2019
• Volume: 21
• Issue: 2
• Pages: 231-241

Dates

published

2019-06-30

Contributors

author

McCall Bradford

• Claremont School of Theology, Claremont, CA, USA

References

• Aristotle, Nichomachean Ethics, eds. and trans. S. Brodie and Ch. Rowe (Oxford: Oxford Uni-versity Press, 2002).
• Bonting S. L., Chaos Theology: A Revised Creation Theology (Ottawa: Novalis, 2002).
• Brümmer V., The Model of Love: A Study in Philosophical Theology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993).
• Dunning H. R., Grace, Faith, and Holiness: A Wesleyan Systematic Theology (Kansas City: Beacon Hill, 1988).
• Hutchingson J. E., Pandemoneum Tremendum: Chaos and Mystery in the Life of God (Cleveland: Pilgrim, 2000).
• Keller C., The Face of the Deep: A Theology of Becoming (New York: Routledge, 2003).
• McCall B., Kenosis of the Spirit into Creation, “Crucible: Theology & Ministry” 1, no. 1 (May 2008).
• McCall B., Thomistic Personalism in Dialogue with Kenosis, “Studia Ełckie” 19(2017), no. 1, 21-32.
• McCall B., Whitehead, Creativity, and the Immanently Creative Spirit, “Zygon: Journal of Science and Religion” 54(2019), forthcoming.
• Moltmann J., The Trinity and the Kingdom: The Doctrine of God (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1981).
• Oord T. J., Defining Love: A Philosophical, Scientific, and Theological Engagement (Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2010).
• Oord T. J., God Can’t: How to Believe in God and Love After Tragedy, Abuse, and Other Evils (Grasmere, ID: SacraSage, 2019), 22.
• Oord T. J., Philosophy of Religion: Introductory Essays, ed. T. J. Oord (Kansas City: Mo.: Beacon Hill, 2002).
• Oord T. J., Science of Love: The Wisdom of Well-Being (Philadelphia: Templeton, 2004).
• Oord T. J., The Nature of Love: A Theology (St. Louis: Chalice, 2010).
• Oord T. J., The Uncontrolling Love of God: An Open and Relational Account of Providence (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2015).
• Pinnock C., Most Moved Mover: A Theology of God’s Openness (Grand Rapids.: Baker, 2001).
• Rowe W. L., Can God Be Free? (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004).
• Taylor M. L., God is Love: A Study in the Theology of Karl Rahner (Atlanta: Scholars, 1986).
• Wagoner R. E., The Meanings of Love: An Introduction to Philosophy of Love (Westport, CT: Greenwood, 1997).