Selflessness Part of Who We Are?  

Google Image
When I was a reporter, I did a story about Ed, a man in his 80s who took round-the-clock care of his demented wife. Alzheimer’s disease had already attacked her motor skills. She could make noises but couldn’t form words; she could barely move her limbs and spent most of her time standing or sitting still, seemingly staring into emptiness.

Ed bathed her, took her to the bathroom and fed her. He wore an old tweed sport coat, one pocket bulging with a wind-up alarm clock which he set to go off every four hours. It had a loud, irritating ring, but it signaled when she took medication and he never missed giving it to her exactly on time, day and night.

Even though Ed had been doing this for 10 years, I never heard a complaint from him. On the contrary, he took it all as the normal thing to do when someone, especially a loved one, needs help. And she was the love of his life.

The Power of Love

I was deeply moved by his dedication, impressed by the lengths to which human beings often take care of each other. And I was reminded of the power of love, capable of moving us to incredible acts of selflessness.

I know, some social scientists don’t see this kind of dedication as selfless, maintaining that it’s really a way for us to feel good about ourselves. A certain profane word signifying bovine excrement comes to mind here, but instead I’ll use a less offensive British term, “Bollocks!” 

The kind of behavior exhibited by Ed isn’t all that uncommon, in fact. From the small kindnesses to the extreme of giving one’s life for another, it seems to be an important part of who we are, or at least who we are meant to be.

I thought of Ed when I decided to write about the primacy of love for people searching for God. Love is undoubtedly the most commonly written and sung about word and the most universally and consistently ignored.

Google Image
It gets obscured by all kinds of other human feelings and viewpoints, sometimes confused with political correctness, sometimes used as a weapon in the culture wars, sometimes traded in for cheap imitations.     

For my money, no better description of the kind of love that people searching for God should have can be found than in Paul’s First Letter to the Corinthians in the Christian Bible.



As you may recall, it goes, “If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to move mountains, but have not love….”

The writer isn’t against speaking in tongues, prophetic powers or “all faith;” just saying that they are important and useful only if love is present. You might say that love is the catalyst for the life that should be lived by a person seeking God, a sine qua non.

Substitutions

But it’s so easy to substitute other things – ideas, attitudes, behaviors – for love. We’re easily thrown off track by political or social views, confusing them with love. And we believe that religious practices or acts of charity – which can be motivated by something other than love - can replace it.  

Maybe we need a modern version of the tract from Corinthians, something that goes like this:  

If I go to church regularly but don’t have love….
If I have the minister, priest or rabbi over for dinner but don’t have love…
If I serve meals to the homeless but don’t have love…
If I tithe faithfully but don’t have love…
If I’m faithful to a political party that opposes abortion but don’t have love…
If I’m faithful to a political party that tolerates abortion but don’t have love…
If I’m cool, prosperous and “with it” but don’t have love….

Ed himself was a quiet guy but he spoke volumes about the primacy of love by the selfless way he lived. His would be an antonymous verse in the language of Corinthians.

If I love selflessly, giving of myself generously and wholly to others, I’m very close to God.








Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Gospel of The Little Prince

Image
  Attention all those concerned only with “matters of great consequence:” Is it possible that you’ve become someone you didn’t want to be, having strayed far from the innocence and simplicity of childhood? That’s the main question asked in The Little Prince, which Netflix, the streaming video service, has added to its repertoire of movies and TV shows. Though not a big fan of animated flicks, I was a big fan of the book, The Little Prince, back in the 1970s when it became extremely popular in the U.S. It was first published in French and English in New York in 1943 as a novella by French aristocrat, writer, poet, and pioneering aviator Antoine de Saint-Exupery , who disappeared while piloting a Free French Army plane the following year over the Mediterranean Sea. Nearly Two Million Copies “The novella is the fourth most-translated book in the world and was voted the best book of the 20th century in France,” says Wikipedia. “Translated into more than 250 language...
Read more

‘Spiritual but Not Religious,’ Revisited

Image
Google Image I’ve expressed several times in these blogs my skepticism about declarations by some of our contemporaries that they are “spiritual but not religious.” Much of the skepticism results from the false dichotomy this entails, as if the spiritual and religious are mutually exclusive. Spirituality, after all, is the whole point of being religious. With the exception of some forms of Buddhism, all the major religions aim to bring people closer to God, who is “spiritual.” St. Paul, among the earliest leaders of Christianity, wrote that he is imparting a teaching “not taught by human wisdom but taught by the spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who possess the Spirit.” But Daniel Horan, Franciscan priest, theologian and author, wrote in a recent edition of the National Catholic Reporter: “What if our starting point in thinking about what it means to be a person in communion with God, oneself and the world was not reduced to external expressions of institutional belo...
Read more

Clinging to Archie Bunker's God

Image
Google Image Archie Bunker, the character masterfully played by the late Carroll O’Conner in the 1970s TV comedy “All in the Family,” had his own take on the traditional Christian doctrine of the inerrancy of the Bible. “God don’t make no mistakes,” declared Archie. “That’s how he got to be God.” For those too young to remember Archie, who in 2005 was listed as number 1 on Bravo's 100 Greatest TV Characters, Wikipedia says Bunker was characterized by his bigotry towards “… blacks, Hispanics, "Commies," gays, hippies, Jews, Asians, Catholics, "women's libbers," and Polish-Americans….” Bunker was presented as a Christian, however, and “… often misquotes the Bible. He takes pride in being religious, although he rarely attends church services ….” An Anonymous Contributor Sister Mary Matilda, my eighth grade teacher, would accuse me of being uncharitable but I imagine that an anonymous contributor to a recent newspaper column is an “Archie Bunke...
Read more