If any one of you are my friends on Goodreads, you’ve probably noticed that my reading tastes are, shall we say, varied?

From children’s books about 12-year-old deaf girls who write songs for whales to ancient Greek plays, British nihilist manifestos, and abolitionist biographies, I’m kind of all over the place.

However!

A few weeks ago, I dipped my toe into a category I’d never read before and devoured two romantic comedies.

I take my hat off to Jasmine Guillory and Samantha Young because their books were just what I needed.

They were funny, refreshing, had happy endings, and reminded me that reading doesn’t always have to be serious or staid.

Reading for fun is totally okay!

Not to mention that while both books were very lighthearted and fluffy compared to a lot of what I read, they still gave me something to think about over the last few weeks.

Because both stories embraced the belief that love changes everything.

Now, don’t get me wrong–I completely agree!

However, having now spent a lot of time reflecting over the last few weeks, I’ve come to the conclusion that love is misunderstood pretty regularly.

See, to my musings, there are not one–not two–but three! kinds of “love” that frequently appear on the scene.

They are, in brief:

1. Crazy Love
2. Dutiful Love
3. Delighted Love

And out of the three, only one is truly love (at least if you ask me).

So today, I’m hoping to flesh out all three in the hope that you might be able to see the distinctions and consider which kind of love is the one you want to give and receive.

Because, friends.

You best believe that love changes everything.

#1 Crazy Love

Has it ever struck you as weird that the word love is often associated with the word crazy?

Personally, the pairing has always seemed a bit strange to me.

So recently, out of curiosity, I looked up crazy’s etymology and found that it comes from a late 16th-century word which means “to be full of cracks.”

Now, that made the crazy-love pairing make a lot more sense.

Think about it.

I mean, I can’t be the only one who’s ever heard or seen someone profess, hand to chest, something along the lines of…

“I need you.”

“You complete me.”

“I can’t live without you.”

I don’t watch a lot of movies or TV, but I’ve seen enough to know that sentiment is expressed pretty regularly, especially in couple scenes.

As such, we’re meant to take such statements romantically.

However…

I would submit that when people start saying those sorts of things, they have dipped into crazy love territory.

Because if being crazy means being “full of cracks,” being “crazy in love” means you are looking for someone else to fill in all your gaps.

“I need you… You complete me… I can’t live without you…”

I have a big problem with that.

Why?

Two things.

The first is the in practice fact that you will never find someone who can fill in all your cracks.

There has only ever been one perfect human being, and He is unavailable for romantic coupling.

So no matter how great the partner you find might be, they are themselves a flawed and cracked human being.

As such, putting the onus on them to make you complete will set you on a fast track towards misery because your need to be complete is one they simply cannot meet.

My second objection is in principle, and it is this:

Crazy love is incredibly selfish.

“I need you… You complete me… I can’t live without you…”

We have all known people who NEED to be in a relationship.

To them, being single may as well be a death sentence.

I submit it’s because their cracks have become so vast that they feel impelled to latch onto whomever crosses their path.

It’s actually quite sad.

But it is also selfish–there’s no getting around that.

Because in their efforts to be complete, the “crazy in love” are using people to meet their needs, and in doing so, they’re objectifying human beings.

I’ve written on why objectification is bad before, so I won’t go into that today.

Suffice to say it’s not okay.

So in summary, crazy love is deficient because it is both practically impossible and intrinsically selfish.

That’s not what love is.

At least if you ask me…

So let’s continue to option #2: The Big D.

Duty.

#2 Dutiful Love

I was recently re-reading Kant’s Foundations of The Metaphysics of Morals, and something in there really stuck out to me.

Kant writes,

“To be kind where one can is duty, and there are, moreover, many persons so sympathetically constituted that without any motive of vanity or selfishness they find an inner satisfaction in spreading joy and rejoice in the contentment of others which they have made possible.

“But I say that, however dutiful and amiable it may be, that kind of action has no true moral worth. It is on a level with [actions arising from] other inclinations which deserve praise and encouragement but not esteem. For the maxim lacks the moral import of an action done not from inclination but from duty.”

…

I completely disagree.

Sorry, Kantians, but this is where you lose me.

See, what Kant is saying is that what gives something moral significance and/or esteem is when you do not want to do a thing but do it anyways out of “duty.”

I don’t find that at all compelling.

Not generally and certainly not when it comes to characterizing love as it should be.

Why?

Well, simply put, that kind of thinking turns love into misery.

Because dutiful love is driven–not by affection–but by obligation.

It pledges itself to a principle–not a person.

It says,

“I made a commitment to you, so I’ve got to stay even though I want to go.”

That’s dutiful.

It’s also awful.

Truly.

Ask anyone if that’s the kind of love they want to receive, and I can pretty much guarantee they’re going to say “no” immediately.

No one I know wants to be an obligation.

It’s gutting to feel like you’re something to be suffered or put up with in any relationship.

And while the “dutiful” lover might be called honorable for staying when they want to flee, the love they’re offering is not what it should be.

It’s perfunctory.

Cold.

Stingy.

Not to mention that there’s a very good chance they are also in misery.

So you see…

Dutiful love is a two-way miserable street.

It makes one party an obligation and the other resentful and long-suffering.

That’s not at all what love is supposed to be.

At least if you ask me.

So…

At this point, I feel I’ve painted a pretty grim picture of what love can be, and for that, you can blame the romantic comedies 🙂

However!

I also know what love can and should be, and for that, I direct you to option #3.

#3 Delighted Love

A little over a year ago, I heard a talk by Michael Ramsden wherein he said,

“It is the nature of love to delight yourself in the other.”

It lifted the roof off of my head.

Truly, I can count on my hands the number of times I’ve had such a visceral reaction to something I’ve heard or read.

Yes, I thought.

Yes.

That makes total sense.

That is absolutely correct.

And yet, even as I thought, “yes,” there was a sinking feeling in my chest.

Because I knew I’d rarely, if ever, loved like that.

The two types of loves detailed above were much more me.

Selfish. Greedy. Needy.

A function of filial piety.

I loved for me or else because of who someone was to me.

And it was empty.

So very, very empty.

But you see…

I’ve now had a year of seeing love quite differently.

And friends, let me tell you.

It has changed everything.

Because love that delights in the other is unlike any other.

…at least if you ask me.

How?

Well, firstly and importantly, it requires that you be complete.

You simply cannot be “full of cracks” crazy and truly delight in another human being.

Your cracks will be too distracting.

But once you’re no longer preoccupied with your need to be complete, you can truly delight in somebody.

Because now you’re not loving from a place of need–you’re not loving because you have cracks that need filling–you’re loving because you have been made complete.

Now, you are no longer loving for completion but from completion.

Crazy love loves for.

Delighted love loves from.

Not for, but from.

That is delighted love.

It’s more interested in what it can give than what it can receive, and it gives and gives abundantly.

And see that what makes it distinct–not only from crazy love but also from love as duty.

Dutiful love does the bare minimum.

It stays when it wants to go, but it isn’t joyful.

It doesn’t overflow.

It says, “I made a commitment to you, so I’ve got to stay even though I want to go.”

It is, as we have already discussed, awful.

Delighted love is incredible.

It goes above and beyond.

It sees love as an opportunity–not an obligation.

Delighted love says, “There’s nothing I would rather do–there’s no place I’d rather be–there’s no one I’d rather see than you.”

It says, “I’m so glad I get to be with you.”

And that’s the kicker.

Dutiful love says, “I’ve got to.”

Delighted love says, “I get to.”

Not “got to,” but “get to.”

Not for, but from.

That’s love.

That is love.

And…

That’s all for this week!

If you want to support me, please subscribe and share 🙂

It costs nothing, but it’s just nice to know I have readers out there!

P.S.

I’m so sorry I’ve been absent the past two weeks. Work and health stuff have been taking turns walloping me.

“Love is patient. Love is kind. It does not envy. It does not boast. It is not proud. It does not dishonor others. It is not self-seeking. It is not easily angered. It keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails.” 1 Corinthians 13:4-7