“GOD IS LOVE”?

“God is love.”  What does that mean, exactly?

In numerous discussions I have had with my Christian friends, that phrase keeps popping up as if it were some sort of fundamental tenet of their faith.  My sense is that the phrase serves as a mantra that stands in for a complex of Christian understandings, but I’m not sure what those understandings are.  Is the phrase some sort of code that Christians are in on but that nonChristians are not?

Superficially the phrase sounds great because it links God with the word “love,” whose many connotations are virtually all positive.  It’s a feel-good phrase.  However, when I attempt to analyze what the phrase actually means, the myriad definitions both for “God” and for “love” only serve to create ambiguities.  In the end I am tempted to paraphrase Shakespeare and say that the phrase is one “full of sound and [warm feelings], signifying . . . nothing.” 

To further complicate matters, commentary by my Christian friends surrounding the phrase tends to include numerous other references to love between God and individuals as well as between individuals.  Lots of the references are to other scripture extolling the virtues of love.  But those references have served only to confuse rather than to clarify.  

The biblical phrase originates in I John 4:8 and 4:16, so I read that portion of I John to try to understand the context.  And I have read, as well, various Christian apologists’ explanations.  But I have to confess that I am still baffled.  

I am not any sort of student of the Greek language, but I understand that Greek identifies four kinds of love: eros, philia, storge, and agape.  The word used in the I John texts is agape, the love between God and humankind or at least a sort of love at an enduring, philosophical level.  So far, so good, but so what?  I don’t consider myself particularly dense, but those distinctions do not help me to understand what the phrase actually means.

Literally, “God is love” states that a deity is equivalent to a human emotion or relationship.  And it’s possible that that is what the phrase means, that God is not a being or an omnipotent intelligence but rather some sort of emotional quality.  Somehow, I do not think most Christians see it that way.  But how do they see it?  Here are some possibilities:

1. God is the source of all love.
2. We cannot experience love without God.
3. God loves us unconditionally.
4. We need to love God unconditionally.

Let’s take a look at each of these.

God is the source of all love.  I interpret this to mean that we are capable of love because God created us that way or because God somehow empowers us to love.  I feel fortunate that I am able to enjoy the ability to experience love for my fellow humans and to experience, in turn, their love for me.  But, setting aside for this discussion the lack of objective evidence for God’s existence, I don’t see how this statement adds anything.  We have the capacity for love, however it originated.  Period.

We cannot experience love without God.  Really?  That would be news to me as well as to all of my fellow nonbelievers.  I like to think of myself as a relatively normal person.  I do not believe the feelings that I experience between myself and my loved ones are in any way diminished or less genuine by reason of my lack of belief in a deity.  As to my love for God and his love for me, see below.

God loves us unconditionally.  This is another of those statements that appears to have a clear meaning but that falls apart upon closer analysis.  Here the overarching problem is theodicy: If God is so loving, why does he permit so much pain and suffering to occur?  In my view Christians tie themselves into knots trying to explain this, but the simple fact is that the story of the fall of humans is really one of a badly botched job of creation by God.  And it’s not just that it started off badly; human suffering has continued unabated, despite God’s supposed ability to intervene.  How could a loving God stand by while six million humans died during the Nazi Holocaust?  How could a loving God fail to intervene while children die of terrible diseases and while people die in natural disasters, all of which are the inexorable result of the operation of the laws of nature that God himself supposedly established.  In light of those facts, it seems hard to maintain the idea of God’s love.

We need to love God unconditionally.  Why?  See above.  I have often felt that for a dog, its master is its god.  The dog recognizes its master’s superiority and learns obedience.  Its love for its master comes to be unconditional.  The master, in turn, assumes responsibility for the dog’s well-being.  But what if the master neglects her dog’s care and allows it to suffer unnecessarily?  A dog may not be capable of relinquishing its obedience and love for its master.  After all, it’s a dog.  But why should humans, who can observe how they are neglected by their god, remain loyal and loving? 

Maybe I am too much of a literalist, but I think that I can nevertheless appreciate metaphor.  Perhaps “God is love” is best viewed as metaphor.  But metaphor is useful as an aid to understanding, not as a substitute for clear explanation.

What am I missing here?


© 2018 John M. Phillips