Researchers of ESL, teaching English as a Second (or Foreign) Language, sometimes point to the observation that more than 3/4 of the meaning in language comes from context (place, time, non-verbal cues). Another large portion comes from prosodics (that part that is not vocabulary and grammar): tone of voice, pace, accent, rise and fall, and so on. Relatively minor in the grand scheme of things is the contribution made from word choice and correct conjugation and punctuation. These insights can be applied to the phrase, "out of love," when speaking of how one Christian reaches out to another -- indeed reaches out to a fellow human, regardless of affiliation with a spiritual tradition.
One interpretation is OUT of love; that is, the interaction should be built upon a foundation of love for one's neighbor equal to love for self.
One interpretation is OUT OF Love; that is, the medium in which the interaction is composed should integrate loving manner and meaning.
One interpretation is out of LOVE; that is, commonplace secular "love" should be ejected so that Agape Love can fill that void.
Based on the passage in which the original text (in ancient Greek) is used, the dominant meaning should be identifiable - one of these examples, or something altogether different. And yet, by the logic of "word play," even when the speaker or writer intends just one dominant significance for a phrase, since the overthinking mind can use mental gymnastics to conjure other possible meanings, perhaps the phrase can be both: it can carry the speaker's main purpose at that time in addressing a particular recipient of the message. But the meaning can also support these latter-day interpretations at the same time. The original use is the melody and the echoes of alternate interpretations are harmonic or overtone waves of expression that come with the phrase. In that case of sympathetic, passive reverberations, then "out of love" can carry along all these meanings.
A different kind of word play comes from scrutinizing the instruction to "be nice" to others. Of course, Christians are not the only ones who can do a good turn to strangers and friends; act, speak, or think charitably of others; or turn the other cheek and return kindness when hit with meanness. But somehow the self-identity of church goes involves demonstrating to self and others that one can "be nice." It is not only fellow believers and one's own self that needs to witness this way of approaching the world, but also in the eyes of people of other religions or of no religious affiliation that "being nice" must be demonstrated. But in one's mind, words, and actions is "being Christian" and "being nice" largely the same thing?
Curiously, "nice" is a word that has traveled from one extreme to the other in linguistic history. Four or five hundred years ago to be "nice" meant to be ordinary, common, not refined or elevated in any way. The connotation was bad, something like the archaic usage, "he is so common in his tastes for music" (meaning low-brow, mean or low). Gradually the word "nice" shifted from pejorative to neutral and now to its positive connotation as something desirable and approved of. So when people alive today use the expression, they fully intend a sort of halo effect or positive glow for the person or thing being judged as "nice." And yet there is the legacy of that earlier, low-down and negative meaning (fighting words). Like anybody else, Christians can exhibit both senses of this "nice" trajectory: mean or well-favored.
Returning to the question - is "being nice" an accurate way to characterize what Christians are/do/speak - is seems like "being nice" is a throw-away term. On the surface it seems benign and normal and positive. It is like the response, "I'm fine," to the automatic and often unthinking greeting, "how're you doing"? The banter of "all ok?" and "fine, sure" operates at the surface, not probing the depths and the roots. So, too, the description of what Christians are: "oh, they are nice people" or " who we are is nice people." Here, again, the meaning is simple and on the surface, not digging down to learn more. In some situations to dig around feels invasive or unwarranted; in other cases, such unrelenting engagement is what is valued most. So it is less about being nosy and more a matter of one's attitude (caring enough to inquire) and (self-) awareness (that skimming the surface is a danger to watch out for).
On the outside, from the spectator's seats, what the Christians do, say, and what is internal may superficially be no different that any old person "being nice," the similarity may well diverge, since the Christian will be reminded of Jesus' example; of the idea of grace undeserved; and of mercy to others and for oneself. The non-Christian may or may not touch on some of these other things, in a fragmented way, or by chance as a bundle of meanings that connect closely. At the receiving end of "being nice" perhaps all this discussion is "distinction without difference" and the end result is about the same. But at the giving end of the "being nice," certainly, the experience of engaging with another Child of God will have particular meaning different to a non-Christian. In the end, doing right things in a right way and with a right heart is not exclusive to Christians. But for the Christian who is taking part there will be specific and resonant meaning the hearkens to Bible, to Jesus' example, and to a foretaste of what may be expected of heaven as on Earth.
