|
* * *
A scripture speaks of this in the Christian Gospels, within what is called the Sermon on the Mount, wherein Jesus is depicted as speaking to this holy indifference. This graciousness is compared with rainfall and sunshine, for rain and sunshine do not arise from anyone, even 'God,' deciding for them to fall on some and not others, even as a result of the prayers a people might offer. No one receives rainfall or sunlight as a special favor from nature or 'God.' To pray for a personal favor, regardless of how it does or does not fit within the good for everyone, is a denial of the graciousness of Grace.
You have heard that it used to be said, "You shall love your neighbor," and "hate your enemy"; but I tell you, "Love your enemies, and pray for those who mistreat you, so that you may be sons and daughters of your Heavenly Father. For this One makes the sunshine descend on evil persons as well as good one, and He sends His rain upon honest and dishonest persons alike.
*Gospel of Matthew 5.43-45
Here, we see inclusive love being linked with being "sons and daughters" of the "Heavenly Father." Why, then, so much exclusive teaching and expectation of favorable treatment from that "Heavenly Father" by many who claim to be those "sons and daughters"? Exclusive love appears to be the official teaching of much, possibly most, religion. And, in my country, prideful nationalism is rampant, while one of its favorite sayings is, "One Nation Under God," another, "In God We Trust." Yet, if "under God" and trusting 'God,' does that not call me away from the petty preferences of conventional exclusion to a postconventional inclusion? While I may never be free of all prejudice, am I not to aspire to the being free of all prejudice? Is not that aspiration the most important step to being in Love with everyone and all nature? And, as to nation, am I not more patriotic in humbly including all nations in embrace, rather than holding my own apart as superior and deserving of special treatment? even special blessing by 'God'?
* * *
And does this nonpreference have implications as to treatment of nonhuman creatures and nature generally? Love, indeed, is here portrayed as purely inclusive. Yet, can preference arise within this wall-less embrace, wherein humans exclude nonhumans from it? We will return to that in another writing. For now, we affirm that Love has no preference and, hence, all preferential images of a divine Being arise from the preferential tendencies of the peoples who shape their images of the imageless One. 'God,' then, becomes the big Ego of the little egos that create the big Ego. 'God,' rather, signifies that which transforms the power of ego into the power of Love; otherwise, 'God' is not 'God.' A 'God' of our image, we do not need, a 'God' to be manipulated by superstitious religiosity to serve our personal or nationalistic wishes, is not possible, that god not being 'God' at all.
Continued... |
