I agree that love is certainly a better place to begin than avoidance of harm. However, I note than in your response you end up back at avoidance of harm as your primary expression of love, and that continues to be a weak approach, because it leads directly to moral relativism.
Consider: God has commanded us avoid worshipping idols. You agree? So let’s say I was told that if I worshipped an idol, King Nebuchadnezzar would not throw me in the fiery furnace. Would you have me worship that idol to save my life? If not, why not? Wouldn’t the loving thing to do be to save my own skin so I can go back to taking care of my family? They do need me. Or I could also go back to teaching people how wonderful God is. After I worshipped an idol?
What did Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego do? They rejected the pressure to disobey God, even if it meant the end of their own earthly lives. Apparently, the consequence they feared the most was displeasing God. Is what they did immoral? Based on your analysis so far, it is.
Now change the problem. Let’s say Nebuchadnezzar tells you your whole family will be thrown into the fiery furnace if you do not bow down low and worship his idol. Harder problem, isn’t it. The love you have for your family, if you are like me, is greater than the love you have for your own life. And if the harm would be so great, wouldn’t love predict you would bow down to that idol? To save your own family?
Or would love do something different. If the objective of a godly man is to see to the salvation of his family, is that primarily a physical salvation, or a spiritual salvation? Is it really “moral” to sin so that good may come of it? The Apostle Paul teaches us explicitly not to use that logic. We are not allowed to sin so that good may come of it. By so doing we commit an act of gross hubris, making ourselves more wise than God Himself. When confronted with such a choice, we must always obey God and trust him for the outcome.
Then the problem becomes, not what harm can I avoid if I do this sinful thing, but will I choose to trust in God, or will I cave to the fear of man?
One of my favorite stories in this regard comes from Corrie Ten Boom. She and her family in German-occupied Holland were giving refuge to escaping Jews. They were hiding them in the floor. One day the Germans came to their home and demanded to know of them whether they were hiding Jews.
Using your system of moral analysis, it would seem the right thing to do was to lie to the Germans. But Bessie, Corrie’s sister, did the most unusual thing. Taking on a bizarre, comical manner, she told the Germans the truth. They didn’t believe her. They probably thought she was crazy. But Bessie held to her conscience, which did not permit her to lie, even if grave consequences would come from telling the truth. She trusted God, and God vindicated her.
But your system says what she did was immoral. The “loving” thing to do would have been to lie, right? Lives saved, happy endings for all (well, except the Germans, of course). Yet she did what was right, out of a sense of unalterable duty to God. It is very hard, no, it is impossible, for me to judge that as immoral.
In fact, that story, among so many other stories of the people of God remaining true to God even when it made them the object of ridicule and violence, has served as a reminder to me that we have not yet paid the ultimate price for our sense of duty to God. We have brothers and sisters in Christ in China, Darfur, and elsewhere, who daily confront the prospect of prison or execution, for failing to sign on to the state-sponsored orthodoxy. What we are going through is child’s play by comparison.
I have to go somewhere. I have enjoyed the conversation. I hope it has been beneficial to you as well. Peace.
I’ve enjoyed the conversation as well. And I think we end on notes that we both agree on.
I would on add short points that I believe are corrective in terms of my position here.
We’ve gone off from the political into the spiritual and I was staying in context of political. We both advocate limited government and here I think a position of “do the least harm” makes sense.
Government should not be in the proactive mode in terms of the citizens spiritual health.
So, I agree with you in terms of love and morals and spiritual; but I’m not applying these to my political choice here. I believe it a moral action, in itself, to remove harmful regimes.
May God bless you and yours..