The Rule of St. Benedict: Chapter 4 pt. 1
Numbers 10-13 in this chapter about the tools for good works:
To deny oneself in order to follow Christ.
To chastise the body.
Not to become attached to pleasures.
To love fasting.
provide a fascinating perspective from which to view number 9:
And not to do to another what one would not have done to oneself.
Our culture generally conceives of the golden rule with regard to simple pleasure or pain: "I don't want to feel pain, so I won't cause it in others," but our Father Benedict prescribes a treatment of oneself that is difficult and unpleasant in the service of transformation.
So perhaps I should ask myself the question, "which me does not want to be treated in such and such a way," when considering my actions towards others. Is it the me that wants to be transformed and is willing to suffer difficulty and unpleasantness in order to change? Or is it the me that simply wants to feel pleasure and not pain?
Jesus practiced the deeper golden rule when he did not hesitate to rebuke Peter in the moments after Peter's confession of Jesus as the Christ. Peter had let pride arise in the moments after Jesus had praised him for speaking God's words, and when he spoke again, this time to contradict the call of God upon the Christ, Jesus calls the place from which Peter spoke "Satan." The golden rule can seem harsh at times in the service of transformation, but it is always good.
Br. Chad
So those who follow the Golden Rule aren't mere Hedonists, you're saying?
ReplyDeleteI find it interesting (and maybe this is the result of your role in our community) that you write here about how one's treatment of others can sometimes feel harsh to those others (in your example, Jesus' treatment of/response to Peter). In my roles right now, I'm not in a position of enough consequence for any "harshness" to be a regular part of my practice of the golden rule. That seems to be a difficulty reserved primarily for those in visible positions of leadership and guidance.
I'm trying to think of instances where I've had a "Get behind me, Satan" moment with someone, and I can think of very, very few. And in those few instances, things didn't end well. How does one lift up (raise up, bring to glory, resurrect) another with that sort of approach without simply killing them (or killing whatever relationship you had with them)? People are fragile.
I suppose in Peter's case, he didn't turn away in anger because he had given over absolute trust to Jesus. Which then begs the question of whether a leader giving a loving but "harsh" rebuke merits that sort of all-encompassing trust. If one is to be the sort of leader who can offer a loving rebuke in the spirit of the golden rule, what sort of person must she be in order to merit the trust of others?
Something I'll ponder. Thanks for the food for thought.
Thanks for this, Kate. I want to be clear that I don't think "harshness" to be a value that a leader ought to seek out, but rather a possibility that the Golden Rule does not preclude, as modeled by Jesus' rebuke of Peter. The relational dynamics of trust and vulnerability you point out are spot on, and any harsh words must always be predicated upon profound relational health if they are to be a true practice of the Golden Rule.
DeleteTruly!
ReplyDeleteI think maybe Jesus was in a bit of a time crunch to get Peter in line. Peter made the most daunting committment I can think of. If Jesus was a bit snippy, well, we already know he was miffed at Mary and Joseph's reaction when they finally caught up with him after he went missing for three days, so his response to Peter doesn't alarm me. Tradition says Jesus is perfect, but he was born of a woman for a reason. A savoir both perfect ansd nippy? I'm down with that LOL
ReplyDelete*savior
ReplyDelete