A good many things may be had from this observance. The first and clearest is the insult: you high and mighty fellows only do good because you get something from it. But if that's true, then isn't anyone who does good likewise condemned? All good after all either entails the presumption of rightness or the expectation of reward, doesn't it? The pagan or the atheist might well do well simply because of the immediate, shall we say earthly, reward, namely the sanction of their peers. Yet interestingly, they aren't condemned so far as the Christian seems to be. Yet, really, it's the same or very nearly the same thing anyway, isn't it? Given that, why should believing in God make an iota of difference?
True, if you're only doing it for the reward then something is lacking. Yet how many folks are willing to suggest that one ought to do wrong merely on principle? "If you're only being mercenary and being mercenary is automatically wrong then you might as well do evil" is the natural corollary, isn't it? If doing the right thing only to receive reward is by itself wrong then it should be more right to do the wrong thing, uh, right?
Uh, wrong. Doing right for the weakest of reasons nevertheless trumps ever doing the wrong thing. You're still doing the right thing. And that is far better than ever doing the wrong thing isn't it?
Those who condemn Christianity as little more than mercenary speak with forked tongue. Why would you do right except to do right, even when encouraged by nothing more than censure? All people are subjected to that quandary. Why is it that only Christians are condemned by it?
No comments:
Post a Comment