Thursday, October 15, 2009
Hey! Can I Hitch A Ride to Heaven?
Sorry! As much as I might want to, I cannot get you into heaven. As much as you might want to get me there, you cannot make me go. I think of these thoughts when I reflect on the command to Love My Neighbor. How should I do that? And perhaps more importantly: why?
Is it for his sake that I am to love him? Well, certainly from an earthly point of view, yes. For his earthly needs, I give him love in the form of food, shelter, and clothing – his “basic needs”. These are on Maslov’s hierarchy of human needs, but Maslov doesn’t include heaven on his chart. Heaven is a spiritual need; I cannot “give” it to anyone. It is not mine to give. So, on the more important spiritual level, why do I love my neighbor?
The primary reason I choose to love my neighbor is, for most of us, for me. It is part of my working out my way to heaven, following the commandment to love my neighbor. “My working”, those are key words. I can’t delegate this task; it is for me to work out. You can’t do it for me. Certainly you can pray for God’s graces and mercy for me, and I for you, and this is a good thing, but you can’t give me heaven, nor I you.
But perhaps you might say, that you know the commandments and for my sake you think you can literally force God to let me into his kingdom. Right after I confess my sins, or do some great deed, what if you choose to kill me – won’t that assure me of dying in good grace and heaven? The answer is no, it won’t. You cannot gain me heaven by any of your actions, and by killing me you might DENY me the possibility of gaining heaven, since I could no longer work to accept this long-awaited gift myself. Despite your good intention, killing me doesn’t satisfy my obligations in this life, and it ends my possibility of fulfilling them. You cannot, by your actions “buy” me into heaven.
This reflection also goes through my mind as I see the current debates about the role of government here in my country. There are many who say: “Look at the poor; look at the weak; look at the untreated sick! Surely the government must help! This is a good thing!” They recognize the government’s money comes from them (or from others “who have too much”), and they want to willingly give it to the government to distribute “to love my neighbor”. Isn’t that a good thing?
I think not. It is trying to buy earthly needs for my neighbor, certainly a good thing, but it will not buy him (or us) heaven. And like the killing of a person to gain him heaven, our forcing of a remote, unloving charity upon him (through government), fulfilling needs that are his (and ours) to work out, may be killing his opportunity to work out his salvation – and perhaps by this “paying of the government to love our neighbor”, perhaps it is killing our heavenly opportunities also.
What should we be striving to use our government for? Would it be an ideal thing if everyone worked and received no wages, but all their wages were used to pay for anything earthly they or others might need? No one hungers; no one needs shelter; no one needs clothing – all is given by the government.
Perhaps you might read something of Catholic teachings in this area: “The principle of subsidiarity is opposed to all forms of collectivism. It sets limits for state intervention. It aims at harmonizing the relationships between individuals and societies.” (CCC 1885)
Or would the ideal be exampled in the streets of Calcutta? The poor dying in the gutters, many starving, having no food or no shelter, and seemingly no one caring?
In my opinion, the example of Calcutta is better for me to get to heaven, and better for the poor and dying, than the example of the government doing all. Jesus commanded that WE love our neighbor, not that we pay someone else to, nor even form some commune in which we would all love and share together. He points to our actions and obligations.
Without a Calcutta example, there would be not Teresa of Calcutta, and her individual sisters. Without the dispossessed lepers of Molokai, there would be no Damien. Without any earthly needs of ourselves or others, how many of us would feel a need for God, or for heaven? We’d think it is here right now.
Heaven is not here, my friends. No matter how well off you are financially, no matter how happy with your job, your marriage, or your children, this is not heaven. You cannot buy it for yourself or others. We each, individually, work our way there, through how we live out our lives. You cannot force me there, nor I you. It is a gift promised to us, if WE accept it.
And regardless how bad our earthly life is for us now, or perhaps even how “heavenly” it is for us now, “eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man conceived, what God has prepared for those who love him.” (2Cor 2:9) Let us show our love for him by OUR actions, not those we bid someone else to do.
I look forward to meeting you there.
Is it for his sake that I am to love him? Well, certainly from an earthly point of view, yes. For his earthly needs, I give him love in the form of food, shelter, and clothing – his “basic needs”. These are on Maslov’s hierarchy of human needs, but Maslov doesn’t include heaven on his chart. Heaven is a spiritual need; I cannot “give” it to anyone. It is not mine to give. So, on the more important spiritual level, why do I love my neighbor?
The primary reason I choose to love my neighbor is, for most of us, for me. It is part of my working out my way to heaven, following the commandment to love my neighbor. “My working”, those are key words. I can’t delegate this task; it is for me to work out. You can’t do it for me. Certainly you can pray for God’s graces and mercy for me, and I for you, and this is a good thing, but you can’t give me heaven, nor I you.
But perhaps you might say, that you know the commandments and for my sake you think you can literally force God to let me into his kingdom. Right after I confess my sins, or do some great deed, what if you choose to kill me – won’t that assure me of dying in good grace and heaven? The answer is no, it won’t. You cannot gain me heaven by any of your actions, and by killing me you might DENY me the possibility of gaining heaven, since I could no longer work to accept this long-awaited gift myself. Despite your good intention, killing me doesn’t satisfy my obligations in this life, and it ends my possibility of fulfilling them. You cannot, by your actions “buy” me into heaven.
This reflection also goes through my mind as I see the current debates about the role of government here in my country. There are many who say: “Look at the poor; look at the weak; look at the untreated sick! Surely the government must help! This is a good thing!” They recognize the government’s money comes from them (or from others “who have too much”), and they want to willingly give it to the government to distribute “to love my neighbor”. Isn’t that a good thing?
I think not. It is trying to buy earthly needs for my neighbor, certainly a good thing, but it will not buy him (or us) heaven. And like the killing of a person to gain him heaven, our forcing of a remote, unloving charity upon him (through government), fulfilling needs that are his (and ours) to work out, may be killing his opportunity to work out his salvation – and perhaps by this “paying of the government to love our neighbor”, perhaps it is killing our heavenly opportunities also.
What should we be striving to use our government for? Would it be an ideal thing if everyone worked and received no wages, but all their wages were used to pay for anything earthly they or others might need? No one hungers; no one needs shelter; no one needs clothing – all is given by the government.
Perhaps you might read something of Catholic teachings in this area: “The principle of subsidiarity is opposed to all forms of collectivism. It sets limits for state intervention. It aims at harmonizing the relationships between individuals and societies.” (CCC 1885)
Or would the ideal be exampled in the streets of Calcutta? The poor dying in the gutters, many starving, having no food or no shelter, and seemingly no one caring?
In my opinion, the example of Calcutta is better for me to get to heaven, and better for the poor and dying, than the example of the government doing all. Jesus commanded that WE love our neighbor, not that we pay someone else to, nor even form some commune in which we would all love and share together. He points to our actions and obligations.
Without a Calcutta example, there would be not Teresa of Calcutta, and her individual sisters. Without the dispossessed lepers of Molokai, there would be no Damien. Without any earthly needs of ourselves or others, how many of us would feel a need for God, or for heaven? We’d think it is here right now.
Heaven is not here, my friends. No matter how well off you are financially, no matter how happy with your job, your marriage, or your children, this is not heaven. You cannot buy it for yourself or others. We each, individually, work our way there, through how we live out our lives. You cannot force me there, nor I you. It is a gift promised to us, if WE accept it.
And regardless how bad our earthly life is for us now, or perhaps even how “heavenly” it is for us now, “eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man conceived, what God has prepared for those who love him.” (2Cor 2:9) Let us show our love for him by OUR actions, not those we bid someone else to do.
I look forward to meeting you there.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment