Lawful Love

Jesus said “loving your neighbor” fulfills your obligation to God regarding His Creation (Mark 12:28-34).

The context of the discussion was very much a matter of law and Law. God had revealed His standards in a rather extensive suzerain-vassal treaty with the Nation of Israel, but the point of discussion was whether that could be summed up in simple statements. It could. The most basic requirement was giving God His due respect. The second was a similar respect for your fellow humans. To observe these two principles would easily sum up all the other written revelation from God.

The whole point was to think expansively, not narrowly. Western Civilization, via philosophical assumptions, does a very poor job extending an idea beyond its semantic boundaries. Ancient Near Eastern Civilization tended to use words as symbols of much bigger ideas, ideas hard to express in any human tongue. The point is: People who respect God and His revelation tend to act according to the principle of love. But not according our modern use of the term “love.” We have almost nothing in our cultural matrix to account for the meaning Jesus gave the term.

He would probably accept this definition for love: Seeking the welfare of another person. That is, extending your ego boundaries to include other people, such that you realize their needs are your needs, and vice versa. This is what Jesus meant was lying under the Covenant of Noah, as well. If within your ability to decide how to act (your “will”) you include a reckoning of what is in the best interest of others you touch, you will tend to act lawfully. The whole Old Testament structure of Law and laws regarding your duty to God for His Creation would be satisfied with putting humans first, and giving them all equal weight in deciding what’s good behavior. Thus defined, love is the satisfaction of the law.

That almost everyone fails this is manifestly obvious. That is, no one of us ever really succeeds in keeping this principle at all times. God made plain, speaking as the ultimate Eastern Potentate of All Things, He would accept a certain amount of failure. He offered a vast array of means for restoring us to His good graces, largely based on the concept of apologizing, of confessing it was a mistake. Indeed, it’s pretty much a confession we are worthless at it, but wish we weren’t so powerless to do good. He made it clear it wasn’t a matter of performance, but of desire. This does not repair all the damage we do, but it does keep us in the clear from God’s perspective of active enforcement. That we willingly seek to clean up the mess is on-going proof of our confession we aren’t perfect.

But some of that perfection is well within our reach.

Why do we find ourselves so easily turning to oppressive governments? Why do we not learn the lessons of history generation upon generation? Even if we set aside the very obvious fact certain “powers that be” do their best to prevent us knowing the real story, and when some of us actually get our hands on the real story, we still have a problem with this basic principle of love=law. It’s not just the occasional error here and there, but a false orientation. There will always be bullies seeking an excuse to walk on others, and we will never get rid of them while the world remains fallen. We provide them the perfect excuse when we fail to observe the law of love.

We allow the behavior of bullies to become the target of our anger. That’s okay, because a part of God’s requirements in the Covenant of Noah is any government and laws must be just according to His standards, and there is an implied duty to reject a government which rejects God’s standards. So rising up against the bullies of this world is not a sin in itself, because they can be murderous, and deserve to die for their crimes, as God commanded Noah must happen. The burden of executing that justice falls on the entire human race. Such a high standard is extrapolated into the basic commandments Jesus discussed with that fellow that day. But when we allow that anger to affect how we treat others, we are in danger of our own judgment.

Carrying a gun is not a risk to other people unless you handle your gun poorly. Safe gun handling is a bigger threat to bullies than to anyone else. Refusing to pay taxes is a risk only to bullies. That they do some good things with that money does not excuse confiscation of property for all the other purposes which are unloving. The state apparatus which protects only itself and its prerogatives is evil by definition. But running a stop sign is a risk to everyone. Some actions are not merely defiance of the bullies; they defy the principle of love itself.

The burden upon you and I is to evaluate each day, sometimes every step of the way, whether our actions constitute love. When the demands are competing, we cannot simply favor ourselves willy-nilly, we have to decide what really matters. If we never think about it in the first place, we have already failed to love. Failure to love is a blanket failure of all laws. That means the bullies have won. We have no moral standing to oppose them. If you are going to rise up on moral grounds, on the love=law principle, you have to show some good faith effort to observe it yourself.

Very often, your recalcitrant observation of that principle is itself the ultimate act of rebellion against tyrants.