It All Boils Down To This

IT ALL BOILS DOWN TO THIS
There’s a poster on the wall of my office that I’ve loved since the day I first saw it.
In the centre is a picture of a globe with the words “The Golden Rule” imposed over it.
Around the edges of the poster are the symbols of 13 of the world’s great religions, along with words from those faith traditions that affirm the basic notion of the Golden Rule – which Christians identify as Jesus’ words which we read from Matthew’s gospel – “Do to others what you would have them do to you.”
I have kept this poster close at hand because of the way in which it echoes my own understanding of a basic commonality that exists in all faith traditions;
a recognition of both a vertical and horizontal relationship –
A vertical relationship between humans and the Divine;
And a horizontal relationship among human beings.
It is the horizontal relationship that this poster specifically addresses – the ways in which people are to be in relationship with one another – and yet the ethic of each of these commands is surely grounded in an understanding that this is the way the Divine would have the human act – or not act – towards one another.
And for years, I have celebrated the common call of all faith traditions to honour one another, to live in peace, to seek justice, to treat each other as we would want to be treated, to abstain from harming one another.
But a closer look at the poster helped me to see that there are two distinct ways in which the Golden Rule is expressed – positively, and negatively.
Christianity – Do to others as you would have them do to you.
Islam – Not one of you truly believes until you wish for others what you wish for yourself.
Taoism – Regard your neighbour’s gain as your own gain and your neighbour’s loss as your own loss.
Jainism – One should treat all creatures as one would like to be treated – this one extending the command beyond humans, to include all creatures.
In contrast, Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism and Baha’I – all state their commands in the negative.
Do not do to others whatever in injurious to yourself.
What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbour.
This is the sum of duty: do not do to others what would cause pain if done to you.
Treat not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful.
One word which sums up the basis of all good conduct – loving-kindness. Do not do to others what you do not want done to yourself.
Lay not on any soul a load that you would not wish to be laid upon you, and desire not for anyone the things you would not desire for yourself.
One could conclude that the differences don’t really matter – and in many ways, they don’t – but in another way, they do.
The “Do to others what you would have them do to you” commands, call for intentional action.
They ask that we take the lead in reaching out, in making a difference, in taking the initiative to DO something that will make someone’s life better, easier, more enjoyable, brighter, safer.
The commands to “Not do to others what we would not have them do to us” fall short because they fail to call for action.
Those commands leave room for a passive stance in a world full of need and suffering.
They would suggest that as long as we are not adding to the suffering of others, that is enough – when in truth, it is far from enough.
The “DO to others” commands leave no such room for inaction.
It has been said, that “The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is that good people do nothing.”
Noticing all of the protests that are occurring globally would suggest that people have come to understand the truth of that statement.
It’s not enough for good people to do nothing.
Good people MUST DO SOMETHING.
And they are, as witnessed in the thousands upon thousands of protesters who are standing up and stepping out and putting themselves on the line to protest the evil and wrong-doing that they see being perpetrated by governments and systems of domination that are operating from a stance of injustice and greed, inequality and discrimination.
I remember one episode from the long-gone television show “Touched by an Angel”, in which an alt-right group was mobilizing in a small town in the southern United States.
They targeted the office of a newly opened medical centre that was being operated by a Jewish doctor.
Rocks were thrown through the front windows, and signs and slogans of hatred were spray-painted on the doors and walls of the building.
And the man who lived next door was seen drawing his curtains – closing himself off – pretending not to see what was happening – as if, in NOT seeing, he could ignore what was happening – perhaps pretend that it was not happening – and thereby not have any responsibility to address the evil that was clearly occurring right under his eyes.
It is not enough to do no harm.
It is not enough to stand by and watch – or turn away – or pretend to ignore – the hungry, the homeless, the impoverished, the refugee, the lonely, the needy in whatever their need is.
Jesus would have us understand that the whole teachings of the Law and the Prophets are summed up in his directive – in everything, DO to others what you would have them do to you.
Faith in Jesus must be actualized in our behaviour.
It is not enough for us to believe in Jesus.
It is not enough for us to rest comfortably in an assurance of forgiven sins.
Faith in Jesus must lead us to action.
And it is not that we are to behave towards others SO THAT they will behave similarly toward us.
Reciprocity is not to be in any way a motivating factor.
It is not a matter of – dare I say it – quid pro quo.
The command to treat others in the way we want to be treated is not SO THAT they will treat us similarly – but simply because IT IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO.
While I have drawn attention to the differences between the Golden Rule as expressed in negative and positive terms – and suggested that the positively framed ones are preferable to the negative – Douglas Hare, in his commentary on Matthew’s gospel would disagree with me.
Here is what he writes: (Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching – Matthew; by Douglas R. A. Hare – John Knox Press. p.79ff)
It is now widely acknowledged that the Golden Rule was not original to Jesus.
With slight variations it is found in many authors, Jewish and non-Jewish…
Hillel, a contemporary of Jesus, is reported to have said to a Gentile inquirer, “What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbour: that is the whole Torah, all the rest is commentary…
The formulation attributed to Jesus is positive rather than negative, but no great emphasis should be placed on this difference, since each formulation implies the other when applied to specific situations.
“If it is hateful for you to starve, do not act in such a way that your neighbour will starve” is not materially different from “If you wish that your neighbour would keep you from starving, you must feed your starving neighbour.”
There is probably little difference in the way the two formulations function in the practical, everyday ethics of the followers of Hillel and the followers of Jesus.
(A serious challenge) is that the (Golden) Rule is secular rather than religious, that is, that it is grounded in human wisdom rather than in God’s relation to humans.
Its detractors claim that it is anthropocentric (human-centred) –
and based on “naïve egoism”;
the individual is allowed to direct his or her ethical behaviour on the basis of a private world of feelings.
For this reason, the Golden Rule is “golden” only when interpreted in light of its Christian context…that is, as a summary of Jesus’ interpretation of the law and the prophets…
The ground of obligation is not prudent self-interest, but the boundless grace of God, whose magnanimity we are to imitate.
So, as I see it, it all boils down to this – In everything – do to others as you would have them do to you; for this is the law and the prophets – as spoken to us by Jesus.
How, then, can we do otherwise?