Something, I'll not say what, got me to thinking about hate today.
I've done it myself - and I'm sure you have too - said, "I hate [pick a name] !" - sometimes decribing the offense or characteristic that sparked the response, sometimes not, depending on how familiar the audience was with the relationship between the speaker and the object of scorn.
I think, though, that it isn't usually real hate we feel when we do that. Most often, those words happen when we feel offended by that person. The offense may have been an unkind word, or an emotional or physical injury, or perhaps just a lack of consideration for others. It may have been deliberate or unintentional. It may have been a single event, or a consistent, persistent pattern of events. It may have been obvious to casual observers, or subtle and invisible. Everybody has different hotspots and tripwires. Usually you feel upset about whatever happened, for a short while, then you get on with life.
Real hate, however, sits and festers in your heart. It means that you despise the person so much that you feel they are a blight on the universe. It means that you want to remove them from existence, and that you are ready and willing to do so whenever the opportunity arises. Failing that, you are willing (and perhaps you search for opportunities) to assassinate that person's character, and cause them finanical, emotional, or physical injury with little or no further provocation.
Why do we say we hate someone, when all we really mean is that they cause us upset, and we don't want to have anything to do with them? We all know the difference, and we all know that others know the difference. What kind of sense does it make to say that you hate someone - that you want to destroy them - when all you really want is for them to leave you alone? When you say that, you give them and everyone else a false message: a message which can create real hate - their hate for you! Is it really a good idea to go around creating, even inadvertently, enemies who want to destroy you? I don't think so.
I have been thinking about this and several related ideas for some time. Some of them I alluded to in prior posts. One in particular is the Golden Rule.
Too often I hear people say terrible things about others, or I hear about unkind things that some do to others, and all too infrequently, I challenge them. "Is this the kind of behavior meant by the Golden Rule?" or "You call yourself Christian. Is this what Christ would do?"
Invariably, my target is offended by these questions. The responses I get aren't so much affirmative, as they are attempts at justification: "That's the kind of treatment they deserve to get!"
If asked whether he or she would want to be treated that way, I rarely get any kind of answer to the question. Instead my target opines that if they were the same kind of person, they would deserve the same treatment. It may be true, I suppose, but it isn't an answer, and it isn't Christ-like.
The Golden Rule isn't so much about giving people the kind of treatment they deserve, as it is about giving them the kind of treatment you want for yourself. The neighbor that Jesus referred to inthe parable of the Good Samaritan wasn't just anybody. He was the kind of person who actually did treat people the way he wanted to be treated: thus the parable was a lesson on determining who really is your neighbor.
Cutting to the chase, that person, or those persons, who adhere to the Golden Rule are the real neighbors whom you are commanded to love as you love yourself. We are human, and only God, as evidenced through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, is capable of loving the rest of humanity.
In a way, the charge of the Golden Rule is more stringent than the charge to love your neighbor. The Rule says that you have to behave like the Good Samaritan, while His commandment is to love people who treat you well.
Race, as we use the term, had little or nothing to do with Jesus' intent in telling the parable of the Good Samaritan, but he chose to make the neighbor in his parable a Samaritan, because the Jews considered them to be an inferior race. He did this, knowing that it would offend the sensibilities of some in his audience, in order to make the point that anybody who behaved in this manner was a neighbor whom you should love as you love yourself.
In the ancient world, race was a geo-political issue. If you were a citizen of one city, then you considered citizens of any other city to be of a different race. It wasn't a matter of skin color or folds over the eyes, but rather where you lived and who lived with or near you. If you were a woman, and married a man who lived in another city, your race changed. If you were a child, and were adopted by a family that lived in another city your race changed. The connection between phenotypic factors and race is a product of the evolution of language, and the influence of scientific classification schemes (based on phenotypes) upon that process.
Samaritans were the poor illegitimate cousins of the Jews. My understanding is that they worshiped the same God , but were not considered fit company for any self-respecting Jew, for social, historical, and economic reasons. Phenotypically, they were Semitic, as were the Jews, so race, as we use the word today, was not an issue; nonetheless, the Jews considered them to be an different race, because they were geopolitically separate, and inferior, since they were not Jews, and therefore were not God's Chosen.
I believe to be the true meaning of the parable to be this: The Golden Rule, and the edict to love your neighbor are two sides of the same coin. On the one side you are charged to love those who are kind to you, on the other, you are charged to become a neighbor - someone that God wants everyone to love.
Of course, in the Sermon on the Mount, He points out that if you really want to be Christ-like, you have to also love those who don't treat you well. Thankfully, He knows that perfection is beyond our innate capabilities...
No comments:
Post a Comment