The language of love

Not so much anymore but several years ago the hot new relationships book was The Five Love Languages (FLL) by Gary Chapman. Though my knowledge of the book is limited to the reviews I heard from friends, some critical but mostly positive, I have been thinking about the broader topic within which the book fits and since this is my blog, here are the thoughts.

Relationship communication is frustrating, intimidating, prone to manipulation and misunderstanding, and clouded by emotion. FLL offers categories for understanding how people in relationships remind one another of their regard. It is an attempt to systematize how our friends and loved ones say “I love you” and must be applauded, because the potency of those words must not be underestimated. It is a brave book. I hope to read it someday J

Physical touch. Quality time. Words of affirmation. Gifts. Acts of Service. These are the five avenues Chapman believes everyone uses to communicate their love with another. Everyone through experience has learned comfortable channels to do an uncomfortable thing: telling each other how we feel. The author suggests that two people in a relationship understanding each other’s preferred means will lead to better communication and more enjoyment of each other as effective communication inevitably draws them closer together.

Now if we only could think rationally about something so saddled with baggage. Most of us spend inordinate amounts of time thinking about our relationships. In our obsessing, our emotional pathways do not become clearer, but, in fact, grow more obfuscated. Our over-analysis causes us to throw up our hands frustrated, because we don’t fall in only one of the categories. In fact, if given the time to recall, are we not confident we could see ways in which we communicate through two or three or all of the above avenues? So how does a man who likes physical touch and giving gifts and relate to a woman who whoe doesn’t understand why people have to be so “touchy-feely” and pines away for the days when her husband would take out the trash without being asked or serve her breakfast in bed? Is it just a case of the line from the Gershwin movie Shall We Dace?:

You like to-MAY-to, I like to-MAH-to
You like po-TAY-to, I like po-TAH-to
Let’s call the whole thing off.

Is it a wonder they made it this far?

Throughout Jesus’ ministry he continually opens up the hearts of those around him by communicating appropriately and compassionately. Just off the top of my head, I can think of multiple times where Jesus uses each of the categories mentioned to get his point across to the emotionally and spiritually stunted sheep who followed him around.

He touched people all the time and intentionally in order to draw them to himself. The bleeding and unclean woman is a good example. He makes time for those in his inner circle even though it would be easier to not avoid the crowds and pander to their adoration. He commends those who respond in faith. An example being his words to Peter after the Rock had professed his Messiahship. It would be to this same Peter that Jesus would give the money for the temple tax in a fish’s mouth and the washing of his disciples’ feet means he was not adverse to acts of service as well. Oh, and I seem to remember a story revolving around a small group of loaves and two fish that worked out pretty well for the invited guests.

My point, I think, is not just to say, “be more like Jesus. Love like he did.” Knowing ourselves and the tendencies of our loved ones is useful. I am sure Jesus leaned toward one or another of those categories, though someone smarter than I will have to write a dissertation on that. Because Jesus is the ideal and if we claim to be His follower, we must gradually but decidedly mirror his example. Now, there is the slightly complicating fact that he lived a perfectly sinless life. Yeah, insignificant, right? This means he is simultaneously the best and worst example. This complication does not affect my point which is that Jesus did not pass final judgment on people based on categories or labels. Instead, he recognized how his message matched their personality, thus not limiting himself to only those he would relate to easily.

A book like FLL is a great resource for doing some probing into our own psyches and diagnosing the reasons for some of our relational difficulties, but may it not be a tool for our selfishness or an excuse for us not engaging deeply with people who we don’t understand or know how to love. In fact, may it cause us not to acquire more friends to whom love may be easily communicated, but rather to overcome our personality so that our spheres of influence may include those whom are not exactly like us.