I’m not sure how many version of the best-selling The Five Love Languages Gary Chapman has written. I went to CBD, and here is at least a sampling (I think I caught most of them):
- The Five Love Languages: How to Express Heartfelt Commitment to Your Mate
- The 5 Love Languages: The Secret to Love That Lasts
- The Five Love Languages, Men’s Edition
- The Five Love Languages of Children
- The Five Love Languages of Teenagers
- The Five Love Languages, Singles Edition
- The One-Year Love Language Minute Devotional
- Heart of the Five Love Languages
- God Speaks Your Love Language: How to Feel and Reflect God’s Love
- Love as a Way of Life: The Seven Secrets Behind Every Language of Love
The gist of these books is that we each have a “love language”—affirming words, quality time, gift giving, physical affection, acts of service—and that we must learn to recognize what language or languages our loved ones speak and to act accordingly.
Many people have been quite helped by this concept—in part, I think, because this book and its iterations contain some common-sense observational insights. But it seems to me that the whole worldview it presupposes has been accepted rather uncritically. That’s why I have long appreciated the thoughtful review of the book by David Powlison, entitled, “Love Speaks Many Languages Fluently.”
Powlison begins by acknowledging that the book contains some constructive advice and accurate descriptions of lived life—it “rings bells when it describes how people typically come wired.”
Powlison summarizes Chapman’s “full working philosophy” as follows:
“I’ll find out where you itch, and I’ll scratch your back, so you feel better. Along the way, I’ll let you know my itches in a non-demanding manner. You’ll feel good about me because your itches are being scratched, so eventually you’ll probably scratch my back, too.”
But therein lies the problem: Chapman takes an “is” and turns it into an “ought”:
Unwittingly [Chapman] exalts the observation that “even tax collectors, gentiles, and sinners love those who love them” (Matt. 5:46f; Luke 6:32ff) into his guiding principle for human relationships. This is the dynamo that makes his entire model go. This is the instinct that he appeals to in his readers. If I scratch your back, you’ll tend to scratch mine. If you’re happy to see me, I’ll tend to be happy to see you, too. So, 5LL teaches you how to become aware of what others want, and then tells you to give that to them. This is the principle behind How to Win Friends and Influence People and The 30-second Manager. It’s the dynamic at work in hundreds of other books on “relational skills,” or “attending skills,” or “salesmanship,” or “how to find the love you want.” Identify the felt need and meet it, and, odds are, your relationships will go pretty well.
Powlison is at pains to show that this is not all bad:
Up to a point, 5LL can be informative, correcting ignorance about how people differ from each other, and making you more aware of patterns of expectation that you and others bring to the table.
But as Packer once said, a half truth masquerading as the whole truth becomes a complete untruth. Powlison thinks that Chapman’s advice—the point at which he moves beyond description to prescription—can actually be counterproductive to genuine biblical love:
[S]peaking love languages is surely not the whole story. In fact, it is practical, immoral wisdom—manipulation or pandering or both—when it becomes the whole story. Part of considering the interests of others is to do them tangible good. But then to really love them, you usually need to help them see their itch as idolatrous, and to awaken in them a far more serious itch! That’s basic Christianity. 5LL will never teach you to love at this deeper, more life-and-death level. Chapman’s reasons for giving accurate love to others, his explanation of what speaking another’s love language does, his ultimate goal in marriage, and his evaluation of the significance of love languages are deplorable.
Chapman’s model, Powlison argues, fails the class “Human Nature 101.”
Like all secular interpretations of human psychology (even when lightly Christianized), it makes some good observations and offers some half-decent advice (of the sort that self-effort can sometimes follow). But it doesn’t really understand human psychology. That basic misunderstanding has systematic distorting and misleading effects. Fallenness not only brings ignorance about how best to love others; it brings a perverse unwillingness and inability to love. It ingrains the perception that our lusts are in fact needs, empty places inside where others have disappointed us. The empty emotional tank construct is congenial to our fallen instincts, not transformative. It leaves what we instinctively want as an unquestionable good that must somehow be fulfilled. It not only leaves fundamental self-interest unchallenged, it plays to self-interest. . . .
Powlison goes on to contrast this perspective with the foreign “love language” of Christ:
The love of Christ speaks a “love language”—mercy to hellishly self-centered people—that no person can hear or understand unless God gives ears to hear. It is a language we cannot speak to others unless God makes us fluent in an essentially foreign language. We might say that the itch itself (an ear for God’s language) has to be created, because we live in such a stupor of self-centered itchiness. The love language model does not highlight those exquisite forms of love that do not “speak your language.” You and I need to learn a new language if we are to become fit to live with each other and with God. The greatest love ever shown does not speak the instinctively self-centered language of the recipients of such love. In fundamental ways, the love of Christ speaks contrary to your “love language” and “felt needs.” Does anyone naturally say, “I need You to rule me so I’m no longer ruled by what I want”? Does anyone naturally say, “For Your name’s sake, O LORD, pardon my iniquity for it is great” (Psalm 25:11)? Does anyone naturally say, “My greatest need is for mercy, and then for the wisdom to give mercy. I long for redemption. May Your kingdom come. Deliver us from evil”?
God’s grace aims to destroy the lordship of the five love languages, even while teaching us to speak the countless love languages with greater fluency.
Update: A response from Powlison to some of the commenters after the jump:
Fascinating responses. I think that my article acknowledges and promotes the various good things about 5LL that several commenters point out and defend. Love languages, in principle creationally, are ‘natural affections’ for good things. It is helpful for us to learn these things about others and ourselves, to seek to bless others, to recognize what brings genuine blessing to us. The “fumbling and mumbling” can be partially redressed by helping both men and women to pay attention to another’s LL. Paying attention to LLs creates more “win-win” in human relationships, and that is a good thing. The first third of the article commends the positive aspects of 5LL, and encourages readers to take those good things to heart. I mean those commendations and encouragements: “God’s grace teaches us to speak the countless love languages with greater fluency,” as I say towards the end of the article. In the language of the General Thanksgiving from the Book of Common Prayer: “We thank you for our creation, preservation, and all the blessings of this life.” To speak another’s LL brings some of those blessings.
But, on balance, was my article too critical?: “both barrels,” “making something out of nothing.” It would be unbalanced toward the negative if the final purpose of my review (and of Christian ministry) were simply to encourage more win-win relationships. But I chose also to trace the implications of 5LL for harder, deeper problems, both relationally and psychologically. As the General Thanksgiving goes on to say: “But above all, we thank you for your inestimable love in the redemption of the world through our Lord Jesus Christ, for the means of grace, and for the hope of glory.” There are things about us and our relationships that need better medicine. In order to learn to love well, we need Jesus Christ to love, to die, to be raised, to reign, to return, to work in us transforming the dynamic of inner modus operandi. Wise ministry is never less than common grace, but it surely brings something more than common grace.
As the article discusses, Chapman brings a troubling logic to his treatment of adultery, and rebellious teens, and loveless people—and the human condition. He gives no indication that it’s important to understand how natural affections for good things segue into inordinate cravings. As I say, this makes his theory simultaneously overly-sentimental and cruel. The observations and behavioral advice about LLs are fine as far as they go; it’s the theory and the outworking of its implications that become sentimental and cruel. I’m not sure that respondents adequately weighed those issues on the balance sheet. The thoughtful ambivalence of the couple in my opening paragraph set the shape of the article.
The 5LLs really are “the whole story” in Chapman’s book. Whatever Chapman might think in private, we only have his written work before us. Struggling people have only the book, and LLs are the only story the book tells. This is why throughout the book there is no place where Jesus’s love really matters. For that reason, I conclude that his schema for helping people brings light remedies to the deep troubles of life.
February 18th, 2010 | 1:05 am | #1
[...] at the Evangel blog I posted a summary and link to David Powlison’s review of Gary Chapman’s wildly influential and perennially [...]
February 18th, 2010 | 2:46 am | #2
Thanks Justin, this has been pretty helpful to me.
I think there are a couple typos in the sentence,
‘The gist of these books books is that we each have a “long language”’
February 18th, 2010 | 6:38 am | #3
I was not aware that Gary Chapman, or anybody else for that matter, considered the 5LL to be “the whole story.”
February 18th, 2010 | 8:08 am | #4
Finally. Something that has passed the Rocky movie count!
February 18th, 2010 | 8:43 am | #5
I appreciate the effort in offering a critical look at Chapman’s ideas, because they are widely taught in marital and pre-marital counseling. Part of our counseling was to discover our “love language” and understand the difference in the other. I remember reading this awhile back and thought it worth revisiting in light of our session, and I am not sure Powlison is completely on target.
He writes,
This where I think Powlison goes wrong. Of course, it is not easy to see since most of us believe that self-interest is a bad thing, and that putting to death our selfishness is how we move forward. But there is a fundamentally important distinction between “selfishness” and “self-interest” that greatly influences how we understand our social circle and human nature.
Powlison seems aware of this distinction when he tries to give Chapman the benefit of the doubt by stating Chapman is not advocating “naked self interest”—the kind of thing anyone would find deplorable—but instead tones it down to “civilized self-interest.” Naked self-interest is the kind of thing that pimps and ponzi schemes are made of. Civilized self-interest has more to do with an agreement that invites reciprocation. Powlison aptly explains, “5LL replaces naked self-interest with civilized self-interest. ‘I give, hoping to get’ is a step above ‘I only give if I’ve gotten,’ but it’s not all that different.”
Actually, it is very different.
Powlison takes quite a bit of time to chide Chapman for failing to pass “Human Nature 101” but he would do well to look after his own class work before he unloads both barrels. What he calls “civilized self-interest,” or self-interest in general, is part of the fabric of the human psyche. General self-interest is defined as the natural human capacity to look to interests that bring about human flourishing and personal livelihood. We are made with certain basic needs that our self-interest rightly propels us towards. We need food, water, clothing, and shelter to survive and thrive. We are not idolaters for wanting to avoid hunger, thirst, nakedness, and homelessness. We take the necessary actions to obtain the means to fulfill these needs in the most basic way.
If we allow for a concept of self-interest as a divinely granted quality that concerns the preservation of human dignity we can avoid this severe conflation. We can grant that Powlison rightly warns us of a mentality that conflates “civilized self-interest” with “naked self-interest,” and thus avoid the wretched excuses we can make for our abuse of others. But it will not do to castigate the fact that we are made with certain relational needs and the capacities to meet those needs in ourselves and others.
I explore this more at my own blog for anyone interested: http://ochuk.wordpress.com/2009/08/05/the-five-lust-langauges/
February 18th, 2010 | 9:34 am | #6
Good comment, Adam. I like the distinction you make between selfishness and self-interest. As I read your remarks, I was reminded of Hebrews 11:6, “But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.” There is God-interest in that, certainly, in diligently seeking Him.
But notice that faith does not just require that we believe that God is, but also that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him. We are to seek Him believing that it is in our best interest to do so, that as we diligently seek Him we receive something in return. However we might describe the nature of this reward, it is, after all, reward. So, in this relationship of faith we have with God, there is God-interest, but that is also self-interest. And this self-interest is not merely incidental, it is required — those who come to God must believe that He is a rewarder.
So, if that interest in reward is appropriate in our relationship with God, how should we consider it out of place in our relationships with each other. When we get along well with each other, we each benefit.
February 18th, 2010 | 9:46 am | #7
Here’s my .02
This is example #1289 of a reformed guy, thinking too much and working too hard to make something out of nothing.
I’m reformed, and I’m grateful for the reformed guys. But sometimes, I just wish we could take something for what it is, appreciate its contribution and move on.
For the overwhelming number of men I have met the 5LL book would be very helpful. men tend to be thoughtless and self-centered.
Personally, I would like to hear a critical review of this book by a woman whose husband has worked hard to love her in a way that she longs to be loved.
Is there more to love than scratching each others itches. You betcha. But for men who are fumbling and mumbling, they could do a lot worse than to make an effort to know their wife in “an understanding way” and respond with the sanctified common sense in this book.
My guess is that a man who is loving his wife in these practical ways, will find that his wife is eager to following him (submit) in the harder stuff that will bring lasting transformation.
Joeschmoe
February 18th, 2010 | 10:33 am | #8
I have to agree, whole heartedly with Joeschmoe. I appreciate the response so much that I am going to post my favorite part.
I’m reformed, and I’m grateful for the reformed guys. But sometimes, I just wish we could take something for what it is, appreciate its contribution and move on.
JW.
February 18th, 2010 | 10:35 am | #9
[...] Taylor: On David Powlison: On Gary Chapman’s 5 Love Languages Justin Taylor speaks to the Critique by David [...]
February 18th, 2010 | 12:30 pm | #10
GREAT ARTICLE!!! Many Christian marriage helps are horizontal in their approach. Francis Chan calls it idolatry. “If I could just figure my spouse out, then life would be better. If I could just meet their needs better, our marriage would be fine.” It would be interesting to see in Christianity today what percentage are horizontal (man centered) versus vertically directed.
February 18th, 2010 | 2:10 pm | #11
To be sure, Dr. Chapman’s variety of Love Languages presupposes that spouses actually love each other – otherwise they aren’t speaking a love language. Deeper problems are typically, if not exclusively, an issue of not loving. As far as this goes, no publication will be read or heeded by someone uninterested in actually loving their spouse, so this teaching must necessarily be addressed to people who don’t have the deeper problems. People who don’t want to love won’t listen to advice on how to love. Books addressing the deeper problems therefore are often either preaching to the proverbial choir or aimed at informing ministers or other counselors. Outside of the Holy Spirit, the biggest factor in making sinners into good spouses in the culture at large is to dramatically influence the culture.
February 18th, 2010 | 2:24 pm | #12
In his follow up comments Powlison writes,
“The observations and behavioral advice about LLs are fine as far as they go; it’s the theory and the outworking of its implications that become sentimental and cruel.
I think it is a fair point out Chapman’s rather simplistic analysis of why teens rebell and souses cheat due to a “low love tank.” That is is fair game. But the criticism that I pointed out wasn’t about keeping score on a balance sheet, but about sensing a conflation between self-interest and selfishness–or, in other words, “needs” and “lusts”–that seems fatal to the argument. If the implication of LLs is such a conflation (so that they could be call “lust languages”), or that such a conflation is likely, then Powlison has a point, but I am not so sure that is best represenation of Chapman’s views, nor has it been established that this conflation is common among readers of LLs.
I can agree that the 5LLs is not a scheme that specifically comes out of Christian teaching or New Testament theology, and are more or less a product of pragmatic popular psychology. I even can agree that they bring “light remedies to the deep troubles of life.” But I am not so sure they are designed to do that. If Chapman believes they are then he is mistaken. They are meant to be tools to help us understand how others communicate and receive love and clear away misunderstandings. That, we both agree, is very helpul.
February 18th, 2010 | 2:28 pm | #13
The core, underlying issue is: do you trust that the Lord will provide for you according to his wisdom?
Yes, people have legitimate relational and material needs, which God knows and provides for, as Jesus says. Yet, God sometimes does not give us what we need to live. Sometimes, God allows us to be martyred. Sometimes, God takes away our clothes. Sometimes, God allows a wife to be unloving and unjust.
What will be our response to (really) being wronged by a wife? Will I love her anyway for her sake, considering her more important than myself, even unto death, i.e. even if it kills me since I give up my real, legitimate needs? Yes, I should expect a reward. But the reward is from God, and though it may be given in part in this life in a wife’s reciprocation (and a wife ought to reciprocate), God may keep the reward for me in the eschaton after I die.
It is right for us to reciprocate love, and in that sense we should “expect” it, as we should expect children to clean up their clothes and treat each other well when we ask them to. But in another sense, we should *not* expect children to do justice because they are sinners, so what do we do then?
It is justice for love to be reciprocated. But that doesn’t mean the way of love is of demanding justice now from our wives. Demanding justice (in the form of a wife’s love) misses the point of grace, misses the point of sacrifice (worthy sacrifices are of legitimate goods and needs, not optional extras), and will bring the justice-apart-from-grace consequences on your marriage, i.e. death.
Yes, you should continually call your wife to repentance as Christ does to his people, including pointing out your wife’s lack of love (later when things are calmer, if you are wise).
But ‘loving a wife expecting something in return’ sounds manipulative. What are you expecting? Why? What if you don’t get it?
There is an art to loving your wife well, to helping her understand your love is from grace while still maintaining it requires reciprocal love. Similarly, Christ first loved us before we loved him, but requires our love and good works not as a pre-requisite to his love and justification, but as a post-requisite. Sanctification is not justification, but always follows.
February 18th, 2010 | 2:44 pm | #14
Sorry for all my typos in #12.
February 18th, 2010 | 3:19 pm | #15
I understand the constant need to correct any sheer “moralism” and bring all of our needs before the cross. Yes, we are all worthless sinners and need to get our needs met from the Lord. But God did create us for relationship and He Himself IS relationship–as the Triune God…Therefore, I find the constant critiquing of simple, practical habits as Gary Chapman teaches rather disconcerting in that they miss the entire point of his advice–the practical day-to-day application of love…particularly in “Love as a Way of Life”–Jesus met NEEDS–which is what drew people to Him. If He’d only preached on the mountaintops about getting all of our soul’s desires and physical and emotional needs met through “spiritualism”, He would have deterred the masses, not endeared himself to them. Love is every bit ACTION toward one another and not just the philosophical approach that many Christians get stuck in. I for one, have learned much about the simple forms of love and these have been far more useful in my treatment of others than the ramblings of Christian philosophy.
February 18th, 2010 | 6:29 pm | #16
Fantastic observations, and I do not regard them to be at all unfair to the “Love Language” franchise.
Thanks, Justin, for drawing this to our attention.
February 18th, 2010 | 8:55 pm | #17
Even though I hate to admit it, the concepts and ideas behind the Five Love Languages have been extremely helpful in my marriage. They have given me very practical and tangible ways to self-sacrificially love my wife.
In the begininng of our marriage I was constantly trying to “preach the gospel” to her and discuss the glories of Christ etc. in very philosophical and theological language. Most of the time, this left her feeling unloved, unheard, and frustrated. She would constantly ask, “So what does all of that theology mean for us practically?” She wanted to see and feel and experience being loved, not just with words or ideas, but with actions.
Ultimately, I have learned to use the 5LL without getting super deep or theological about it and, to my surprise, it has helped in ways that “theology” hasn’t.
February 18th, 2010 | 9:08 pm | #18
“Part of considering the interests of others is to do them tangible good. But then to really love them, you usually need to help them see their itch as idolatrous, and to awaken in them a far more serious itch! That’s basic Christianity.”
I find this statement troublesome, because not all “itches” are idolatrous. Such suggestion can indeed bring guilt or even self-loathing upon the insecure…not that it should, but why be cruel to those who are already weak? Besides, Paul would not acknowledge the legitimacy of pleasing one’s spouse in I Cor. 7 if such pleasing were inherently indulgent. Nor would he exhort married couples not to deprive one another sexually. Can you imagine a wife saying to her husband, “Not tonight, honey, you’re being idolatrous. I’d like to awaken in you a far more serious itch!” !!! (And consider the Song of Solomon: plenty of both longing and tank-filling going on there.)
I do agree that one should not wait for his or her “love tank” to be filled *by other people* before doing right by them. But neither do we have the right to deny someone in our care a legitimate desire that is well within our capacity to fulfill, in the name of “awakening a more serious itch.” This is not love, but meanness, and perhaps also excuse-making or evasion of responsibility. Not that we are obligated to fulfill lusts. But most lusts (as Powlinson refers to them) are simply legitimate loves perverted, or made idols. For example, a husband’s lust for kinky sex does not negate his legitimate desire for sexual gratification.
We should seek to fill others’ tanks as much as possible, legitimately, for their own sake, not so that they’ll fill ours in return.
February 18th, 2010 | 9:50 pm | #19
I am grateful for this insightful critique. I sensed something deep in my mind that did not =jive with the 5LL but could not quite pin it down. I think David Powlison has done it.
“I’m reformed, and I’m grateful for the reformed guys. But sometimes, I just wish we could take something for what it is, appreciate its contribution and move on.”
The above quote is understandable and I hear this kind of thing all the time, even in politics where they say we need to be bipartisan. The problem is that whenever we accept a compromise or slight miscalculation in presentation or understanding, it always leads to greater error. The dialectic process is always to the greater. I personally thank David again for his insight.
February 19th, 2010 | 3:59 pm | #20
Really!!! What do you “reformed” guys approve of? Since going it alone in church after our first daughter’s death in 1982, I can honestly say I would appreciate any understanding my husband would glean from a book like this. We have been married for 33 years and he is yet to acknowledge that I even have needs!! Bravo, Joeschmoe #7, most men just need simple steps to just start learning what their wives need!! Many of these comments just make me angry!
February 19th, 2010 | 10:14 pm | #21
[...] The Lordship of the Five Love Languages… H/T: Challies 20 February 2010 No Comment http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/2010/02/the-lordship-of-the-five-love-languages/ [...]
February 20th, 2010 | 12:21 am | #22
I would encourage those who are troubled by these portions of Powlison’s critique to go back and read the entire article, which can be accessed by the link in the article above. By reading it in its entirety I think you’ll find that he fully acknowledges the benefits of the 5LL including the ways they can help knuckle-headed men gain a better awareness of how to communicate love to their wives. He is not a crotchety reformed guy looking to blast everything about the 5LL. Rather I think he is writing to address what’s missing from the book–namely a clear redemptive focus–and some of the pitfalls that can lead to. You don’t have to get heady or complicated to put Jesus at the center of a book on marriage communication. Ephesians 5 would suggest that we shouldn’t dwell on marriage too long, without making our way to the cross.
No one (including Powlison) disputes the value of having a better understanding of the psychological make-up of your spouse. But starting points and presuppositions lead somewhere. To define the root problem as empty love tanks, rather than heart-idolatry, and the solution as learning love languages rather than repentance and faith, will ultimately lead somewhere short of true gospel-change.
February 20th, 2010 | 9:04 am | #23
Well put Brian.
February 20th, 2010 | 10:00 am | #24
Brian,
Just a quick comment. I agree you need to look at the article in its entirety, and yes he does give 5LL acknowledgement, but the truth is, sometimes the root issue is an empty love tank. Now that sounds anti gospel at the start, but if you think about it we can’t assume that EVERYONE has idolatrous motives when it comes to this. MANY are simply just not good at understanding God given inherent needs of the opposite sex, and have hearts that are right before God.
The problem I have with Powlison and others comments on this site is that they seem to assume Chapman or others view 5LL as ultimate authority on marital issues and leaves out the idea of sin/idolatry being the root problem purposefully in an effort to discount its significance. In my mind that’s judgemental. Why can’t 5LL be considered a book for the next level? Why aren’t we assuming Chapman assumes a Christian reading his book is aware that if there is sin, that has to be taken care of first and foremost? It seems alot of the reformed guys are getting alot from what Chapman doesn’t say and assume the negative. I realize we can only go by what Chapman’s work says but to be critical of it for what it does not say creates division in the body. Lets remember, it does not address idolatry and the “deeper issues” as Powlison calls them but it also does not make any claims to be the whole story. If it did, then it would merit Powlison’s and Taylor’s critique. A friend of mine wrote the following and I think it speaks to what some people in these posts are feeling.
Reformed folks have, by necessity, developed a strong tradition of apologetics and we have a tendency to see ourselves as unique and counter-cultural within the wider Christian and evangelical communities. We tend to love controversy and because we see ourselves as a minority, our arguments tend toward the polemic. We have our own version of “Friends, Romans, Countrymen…” (although we’d prefer to be compared to Paul at Mars Hilll) where we start out with the positive, move to pointing out the error and/or danger in the work under review, and then often close out the argument with the rhetorical version of a victory lap where we all but hyper extend our arms to pat ourselves on the back for being so much more correct and clever than the writer of the other work being critiqued
February 20th, 2010 | 10:22 pm | #25
J.W.,
I appreciate the creativity and insight of your last paragraph. The problem with generalizations, through, is that they can seem brilliant until they are applied to individuals. There is no disputing that some reformed guys get their pleasure through offering crushing critiques, while attempting to sound winsome. But after sitting through more than 35 hours of lectures with Dr. Powlison, I am confident he is not one of those guys. He is a counselor through and through, even when developing an argument. Even his writing style is more poetic than polemic. I would encourage folks to take what he says, process it, and either agree or disagree without portraying him as one of the Grand Inquisitors of broad evangelicalism.
Regarding root problems, I believe Powlison (and those who take a similar view) has a sincere philosophical difference with Chapman, with no judgmental intentions. I believe that people are not ultimately empty love tanks but active worshipers. EVERY word, thought, and action flows from a heart that is either loving and worshiping Christ or loving and worshiping self. To overlook how quickly love languages can turn idolatrous seems to be a major underestimation of the pervasiveness of sin.
Let me use a personal example. One of the ways I receive love from my wife is through words of affirmation. There is nothing wrong with wanting my wife to speak appropriate affirming words, but more often than not I find myself desiring affirmation too much or for the wrong reasons. It is a good thing that goes wrong almost every day. My wife has learned that sometimes the most loving thing she can do is not to speak my love language, but instead pray for me and point me to Christ. If she always spoke affirming words then she would be feeding my idol, which is in fact very unloving. If situations like this were rare exceptions then it would be okay for Chapman to overlook that dimension in his book. But since they are part and parcel of this deceitful thing called the human heart, I believe it is a major oversight (understandable given his starting point, but dangerous none-the-less).
If a man commits adultery, the root causes are the sinful desires of his heart. The fact that his wife didn’t fill his love tank might be a contributing factor, but the ultimate cause runs much deeper.
Sometimes it is okay to tell half the story. But, in this case, half the story seems to leave us with some dangerous ramifications.
February 20th, 2010 | 10:30 pm | #26
I have only skimmed parts of Chapman’s book, long ago at that, so cannot comment on his presentation. But I can respond to Powlison’s article, which I have read in full. Describing the root of a person’s sin problem as an empty love tank that *other people* must fill to pull him out of his sin is indeed in error. However, it seems that many persons cannot understand redemptive love unless it is demonstrated through another flesh-and-blood person(s). Ultimately, yes, everything we do for another ought point them, in one way or another, to the ultimate solution to their empty love tank, which is the love of God demonstrated in His Creation, Law, and Christ. My objection to Powlison’s comments is that he paints *all* desire as idolatrous. It is not, and somehow I can’t believe that he really believes that, or means it as he wrote in the statement I quoted above (#18).
By filling someone’s tank *legitimately* (i.e., not indulging an idolatrous or lustful desire), we are not encouraging them in idolatry, but expressing true respect and appreciation (kinds of love) for them in an area in which God designed them, in His image. Powlison describes this as “blessing,” but what does that mean? How can “common grace” and “loving wisely” truly “do genuine good in this world” (p. 4) if indulging others’ individual “love languages” merely serves their baser nature?
Powlison doesn’t explain how this blessing, and the 5LLs, are beneficial *in the context which he sets forth*, which is that all desire is idolatrous, and that an empty love tank can only be filled by the gospel. I believe the latter is true, but to take it as far as Powlison does creates a false dichotomy (secular vs. spiritual) in terms of what it means to be filled, and how it happens. What is the value of having “a better understanding of the psychological make-up of your spouse,” or communicating love (per Brian), if it does nothing for one’s spouse spiritually? The two types of blessing should not be set against one another. The real distinction lies in discerning whether a desire is legitimate, and whether serving it at a particular time will truly bless someone or not. We can fulfill others’ legitimate desires as appropriate *along with* ministering to them spiritually in other ways (as Jesus did), and showing “tough love” when necessary.
God works directly in the heart but also through the flesh-and-blood actions of others. We minister spiritually through *all* the good things we do for each other, which does have the effect of filling love tanks (although I don’t like putting it that way!) We do not minister through the unhelpful or sinful things we do, though God can and does use these to fill tanks in another way. But neither way is more spiritual than the other.
February 22nd, 2010 | 1:03 am | #27
[...] The Lordship of the Five Love Languages [...]
February 23rd, 2010 | 11:03 am | #28
[...] the entire article here. Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)You Fight For What You LoveGod Still Loves Me [...]
February 23rd, 2010 | 1:14 pm | #29
I am not smart enough to be involved in this argument, but the 5LL was a radical, and I mean radical help to me 13 years ago, after I had only been married 1.5 years.
I was finishing up my bachelors degree in theology, and pastoring my first church (ridiculous at 22). And I was a stunningly selfish person. It almost killed my marriage. After some solid counsel, someone put the 5LL in my hands, and my wife and I read it together. It was not the only fix, but it was an amazing help. I needed deep gospel medicine, and while the 5LL is not on the level of Keller fixes, it was huge for us.
It is not the whole story, and I don’t think Chapman ever pretends that it is, but it can be the start of growth that takes us to deeper places with our spouses.
15 years into a marriage that is a perpetual fountain of grace to me and I owe a debt to Chapman’s work in the 5LL.
I love picking at stuff, as I am reformed as well, but I can’t critique the life-line that God threw me when I was drowning in myself those years ago.
February 23rd, 2010 | 1:51 pm | #30
[...] Pat sent me an article this morning in which Justin Taylor cites David Powlison (buy everything he writes!) on this very [...]
February 23rd, 2010 | 11:03 pm | #31
[...] the Five Love Languages really exalt the lordship of Christ? David Powlison explains: Like all secular interpretations of human psychology (even when [...]
February 26th, 2010 | 11:49 am | #32
[...] “The Five Love Languages” which can be found here. (PDF) Additionally, there’s an introduction to the article as well as a response from Powlison to people who were not happy with his analysis. [...]
March 5th, 2010 | 3:44 pm | #33
[...] I also don’t like when a good idea becomes an excuse to pump out product after product. [...]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact