No good deed

A customer had not one but two units shipped to him which were, unfortunately, defective. The base plates were not properly machined out on either one. Consequently, I picked them up to make corrections. So it goes; all things made by human hands are subject to issues. It's part of the job.

He had repacked the units into the shipping cartons so that I had to unpack them at the Shop. No big deal: it only takes an extra thirty seconds to remove them. I start with one, replacing the defective part. But rather than repack again I thought I'd just assemble the machines for the customer. It would save him time and be good customer service. And, why repack, right? I proceeded to completely assemble unit one.

That done, I unpacked unit two. I discovered that the hardware, the nuts and bolts and clips and what not which are necessary to put the thing together, were not there. Either they hadn't came from the factory or, more likely, the customer had inadvertently not included them in his repackaging of the machine.

What's a fellow to do? I wasn't about to disassemble the first one because I couldn't more easily assemble the second. I went to my own supplies for the various items and put unit two together. All the while giggling that no good deed goes unpunished.

First World problems, eh?

Love which celebrates fault is not love

We are often told that we are expected to love others unconditionally. Understood properly, it is a good and charitable approach to our relationships with God and man. But what does it really mean? How are we expected to use such a doctrine in our daily lives?

For starters, it surely means that we are to love everyone without reservation. We are called to love everyone as though they were ourselves, to paraphrase a great moral teacher. It is a difficult ideal; loving our enemies is not easy, and sometimes loving our friends and family is a challenge which can actually be much harder. Still, we are expected to overcome this obstacle, and find a way to open our hearts to all.

But there is a great misunderstanding about unconditional love, an error in its application which is at least arguably worse than failing to love generally everyone around us. Many people believe that unconditional love means loving others up to and including their faults. We are, according to this, meant to love others including their faults, and indeed often embracing those flaws.

This cannot be a good and true interpretation of the standard. It cannot be a useful approach towards dealing with others. We can accept that we must love racists and sexists and criminals; but to love their faults? This is insanity on its face. Do we not want to see people become better people? Do we not want to see our children grow into mature adults? Then we should be instructing and cajoling and beseeching those around us, as they should towards us, to do better than they do, and to be better than they are, no matter how they may happen to feel about this or that issue they find themselves battling.

When our children become drug addicts or alcoholics, we do what we can to change them. When our neighbors rob and injure others, we enforce laws to stop them. We can and should still love them, but that does not mean we are obliged to tolerate their errant thoughts and actions.

It is more correct to say that unconditional love calls us to love those around us despite their faults. Real love does not embrace error' it may embrace the person but it cannot embrace their faults. It understands it as a part of us which ought to be altered, and wants to see us move away from the lesser aspects of our being and into better men, women, and children. If it does not want that, it is not love. It is then something which facilitates bad behavior; it is in fact a cancer of character.