By John Hancock
“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
It seems self-serving to imagine that good behavior from others must fit our own definition.
Compassion asks us to step outside our own wants, and see through another’s eyes. Feel from their heart. Walk a mile in their shoes, not ours.
I think we should be kind to our neighbor without expecting any change in his behavior. Otherwise, the Golden Rule transactional approach sets us up to be disappointed in his performance, or question the practicality of our own belief.
Perhaps the Golden Rule translation fails the original intent. I hope so. It’s a good concept, but not ideal in a world of diversity.
My neighbor hasn’t yet stopped shooting his guns on Sunday morning in response to my modeling peace and solitude.
Have you ever purchased what you thought was the ideal Christmas gift, but which turned out to be of no interest to the recipient? To select something another person will sincerely appreciate, we need considerable acquaintance with them, good listening skills, and the generosity to buy something we wouldn’t care to have ourselves.
Say my neighbor asks what he can bring to the neighborhood potluck, and I reply “how about a bucket of fried chicken?” I like fried chicken, it fits the imagined menu, one can eat it standing up, and the leftovers taste great. He asked what I wanted, and I gave an honest reply. But what if he’s a vegetarian (like most Seventh-day Adventists and many others)? Or doesn’t like fast food or fried food as a dietary practice? Or has celiac disease? It’s not a good way towards a happy picnic, and I’m clueless that I did anything wrong.
If I know that neighbor well enough, (or love him enough) then I can say, “bring anything you like” (and be sure to eat some of whatever it turns out to be) or suggest something I can name that he serves at his own house, because I’ve been there.
In a monoculture where all others are like me, we’d be living a uniform set of wants and ways. In that case, my idea of what others want could be pretty accurate. But in our world of tremendous diversity of tradition and motivations, my own desires often turn out to be misunderstood or demeaned by others. Or my pursuit of happiness (and I tip my hat here to the Founders) destabilizes someone else’s.
If my helping intent is actually rooted in self-service, I’ve made myself the center of importance for all I meet. There may be some value on the surface, but I’ve squandered the energy I could have used in compassionate service to the actual interests of needful others.
I also like the “pay it forward” concept because it predicts a viral spread of kindness in the population, rather than reciprocal giving/getting from individuals. We can project care and concern far and wide, with no limit other than our energy. Indiscriminately, if you will. That’s a good kind kind of seed-sowing. Many will root and flower. That’s the way nature works, and I think it’s a fine plan.
If relationship is the goal, maybe we could amend (or newly-translate) the rule to “Do unto others what they say they need, and stick around long enough to see how it works.”
