“The 5 Love Languages” were a staple of my evangelical college experience. We didn’t take the concept too seriously, but we loved taking the quiz and comparing our results. Although it was a fun couple’s activity, I always found it more intriguing when applied to family relationships. (For the record, my love language is quality time.)
A Cardus blog post today makes me think twice about it. Excerpt:
“… there is good merit to the metaphor of love language, but like too much of evangelical literature on relationality and community it assumes that with the right disciplines, therapies and understandings our marriages, relationships, families (etc) can become sites of intimate communion which fulfill our desires as human beings. And nothing could be further from the truth. This ‘I’ll scratch your back if you scratch mine’ is a market for self-interested, love starved individuals looking for the latest fill of the ‘love tank.’ It suggests: my desires are ok, you just need to learn how to meet them.”
Is this treatment too harsh? How can we use the love languages in a way that is unselfish?
I have had the same criticism of the love language metaphor since at least college graduation. It seems that the love language focuses on how you can fulfill me, not how I can lead you to glory more in the power and resurrection of Jesus Christ and you can do the same for me. Any time we focus on ourselves without bringing that focus into orbit around a focus on God, I think we miss the mark. Would you disagree?
ReplyDeleteAlso, the mention of the "love tank" in the blog post you linked to reminds me of C. J. Mahaney's absolutely life-changing sermon series on "The Idol Factory" which you can download for free from Sovereign Grace: http://www.sovereigngracestore.com/ProductInfo.aspx?productid=A1040-00-51. He absolutely blisters the concept. The best quote from the entire series is "are you primarily deprived, or depraved?" The person who introduced me to those three sermons suggested listening to them over and over again until the biblical concepts permeate your being, and I think it's a valid suggestion.
ReplyDeleteI agree with this assessment of the love languages concept. I'm particularly wary of modes of operating which start with my desires/needs. Perhaps for people who are recovering from some form of neglect or abuse it has merit, but in my experience too many people get stuck there and never mature past it. What I need, what I deserve, what I've been deprived of turns into their identity. How much more truth comes from considering who I've been created to be, who offers healing from my bent to wrap myself around false and enslaving ultimate realities, and how can the gospel, relational to its very core, transform my heart and mind if I center my life around it?
ReplyDeleteThough I don't really follow the love language craze, I think there is a way to use the metaphor unselfishly. By realizing that others may not feel loved the same way you do, you have to look outside yourself to determine how to serve your friends/family in a way that makes them feel loved.
ReplyDeleteI mean, anytime you look beyond yourself to try to put yourself in someone else's shoes, in a way, that is loving them, right?
lb, your grace towards other perspectives is a great example and very refreshing.
ReplyDeleteA question for you, though: should we be looking to make others feel loved, or to truly love them? I agree that looking to others is to truly love them, but I'm unsure if making someone feel loved is always the most loving thing you can do for them. I count myself firmly in the camp that helping them love God more is the most loving thing you can do. Of course, ideally you'll do that in a way that shows them that they are loved, taking into account all that they are as you communicate together with grace and humility. So it's all wrapped up in a ball and maybe you are right. Perhaps it's just a case of different focuses around the same thing?
Thanks for raising a helpful point!