Should the “Golden Rule” be our standard of morality?
Many
people adopt it in place of more specific rules of biblical morality
like the Ten Commandments, seeing them as too restrictive or confining.
The Golden Rule – “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” –
is affirmed by Jesus but is actually quoted from Leviticus 19:18 “‘Do
not seek revenge or bear a grudge against anyone among your people, but
love your neighbor as yourself. I am the Lord.”
Jesus included
this scriptural reference as part of his “Sermon on the Mount” – an
outline of many principles of morality from the Old Testament. He
framed it as a summary of the “Law and the Prophets”, not as a
replacement. It was meant to be an easily remembered maxim rather than
an entire moral code. Its power comes not from the standard itself but
from the authority of the giver of that standard. In the Old Testament
it was quickly followed by the reminder of that authority – “I am the
Lord”.
And in Jesus’ sermon, it was presented with that same
authority, for he spoke – “…as one who had authority, and not as their
teachers of the law.” (Matt 7:29) He didn’t say “Moses taught…” like
the Pharisees did, or even “Thus says the Lord” like a prophet did. He
said “I say…” – a very presumptuous statement at the time, setting
himself up as equal with God.
So without that authority and without being seen simply as a summary, I wonder whether it is wise to adopt the “Golden Rule” for one’s moral code as so many people I talk with have done, including Nate, a young man I initiated a Gospel conversation with recently at the grocery store.
Nate said he has moved on from the Catholic religion he grew up in to pantheistic belief that God and creation are one and the same. I asked who, then, establishes a standard of morality, and he pointed to the Golden Rule.
But as a moral code, the Golden Rule leaves a lot to be desired. If my treatment of others is to be based on what I want for myself, then I am simply imposing my will on others. If I look past the literal meaning and just assume that it means one should be cognizant of the feelings of others, well, it still requires me to either read their minds or assume I know what is best for them. If they tell me what they truly want, I must assume they will want what is best for them. Either way, it puts man in the position of determining morality.
Jesus’ version, however, when taken in context of the rest of his teaching, puts God’s law in the position of authority and the standard by which morality is determined. It summarizes the last six of the Ten Commandments, all of which are concerned with our relationship with our fellow man. Elsewhere it is presented as second to His first command – “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ which had to do with the first four commandments, all of which are concerned with our relationship with God.
The “Golden Rule” as presented by Jesus needs God’s authority to make sense – for He is our Maker and the only one who truly knows what is best for us and one another. For those such as Nate who are attracted to the pantheistic notion of being part of “god” themselves, without the context of God’s authority, it might just offer that sense of authority and self-justifying behavior they are looking for.
Thanks, Nate, for allowing me to record our conversation! It can be see at https://youtu.be/IOj8CW8_0mk on my YouTube channel.
No comments:
Post a Comment