June 25, 1998

To the Editor of the Wesleyan Christian Advocate:

I think that I have perceived in recent letters to the editor a doubt as to the sufficiency of the Golden Rule as it is presented in Matthew 7:12, namely that it is the law and the prophets, i.e., that it is all that God requires. I get the sense that many United Methodists truly do not believe this, nor do they believe Genesis 3:22 where scripture indicates that we know good and evil, and indeed in this regard are even like God.

Let's test this thinking by the following hypothesis: let us say that all good and evil is learned through scripture, and without scripture there is no such knowledge and thus no such difference.

If this were true, then murder and long hair would be in the same boat. And then by what basis could we think to rationalize away the commandment on long hair or on veils (1 Cor. 11) and not that on murder? For if we are willing to seek to dispense with the long hair commandment (where long hair, like homosexuality, is stated to be unnatural), saying it were culturally based, we would with the _identical justification_ be able to think to ourselves: "I wonder why Paul speaks out against murder? Is murder really prohibited, or is this some cultural matter where people thought it were bad manners?"

If the Golden Rule (or, what is the same thing for humans, Kant's moral law) were not presupposed (which is the plain sense of Genesis 3:22 and Matthew 7:12 considered together), then how would we differentiate among actions which are required (or prohibited)? We would become moral zombies and quit taking blood transfusions, and start cropping men's hair closely, and we would applaud whenever some Israel fanatic happens to kill some one, even an infant or an animal, in the present city of Jericho!! How curious! How bizarre!

But the reason that this is bizarre is because the hypothesis is false, and because we in fact _do_ know the difference between good and evil already in advance; and this becomes clear to us when we begin to make principles of actions for ourselves (about the age of puberty, I suppose), and we see that some principles that we would like to use are not suitable for a community, i.e., if others used these principles the ensuing actions would be detrimental to us, e.g., any one may lie or steal when it is profitable and safe. Then we see that the Golden Rule is the only principle which could be shared by all members of a community (and indeed by a world). And so those who seek to deprecate this uncanny and marvelous rule and to append other stipulations, e.g., males must wear short hair, or males must not kiss males in a romantic way, or even: murder is wrong, etc., do a great disservice to our faith and a dishonor to our Lord [as though he did not know whereof he spoke and needed some correction and/or "amplification" in this situation (Sermon on the Mount) where he is knowingly speaking to the multitudes, i.e., to the world, i.e., where plain speech is needful].

By the way, I do not mean to suggest that sincere intentions regarding the Golden Rule end the matter; for I certainly believe in the Wesleyan dynamic and, in this case, that if a person will seriously seek to live by the Golden Rule, then eventually, if life be long enough, she or he will experience (and recognize) the touch of God in the Person of the Holy Spirit and will come to love and adore the Abba of Christ as a matter of course, whereby then the First Commandment is complied with, but now in spirit and in truth. For our God is eventful and redemptive and marvelous . . . and even surprising! for He requires compliance with the Second Commandment (making things right with our brother) before that of the First, e.g., before accepting our gifts of praise and thanksgiving (Matthew 5:23-24). And thus indeed does the Golden Rule encompass all, precisely as indicated by our Lord.