Discernment and Discrimination: A Case for Christian Love

How does the Christian respond to the question of bringing Muslim refugees into the West? Doesn’t love require that we do not discriminate between the deserving and the undeserving? No! Instead, Christian love must be discerning and discriminating. Even when it is applied within the Church, it is discriminating.

For one thing, the Church is mandated to discriminate between the repentant and the unrepentant.

• It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that is not tolerated even among pagans, for a man has his father’s wife… you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord. (1 Corinthians 5:1-5)

The unrepentant were to be excommunicated. Love is discerning. Paul argued that to do nothing would negatively impact the entire church along with the offender. What was the best thing that could be done for the unrepentant offender?  Cast him out in hope that he would repent of his sin!

What is the best thing that we can do for the Muslim refugee? It is certainly not to enable him to impose the oppressive shariah law on the infidel and to kill and rape those who do not go along with his program. Even now, as dependent and needy refugees, they are intimidating Christian refugees to the point where they are forced to flee for their lives. What then will happen once they are established and more confident!

At the very least, Western nations should demand that any Muslim refugees first denounce the various forms of violence and intolerancetaught by their faith. Otherwise, they ought to choose live in countries where shariah is already practiced.

Is it un-Christian to give to some and not to others? Certainly not! Certain people are to be punished, while the innocent protected. And what about those who believe in violence against the infidel?

Tony Blair now admits that even though only a small percentage of Muslims join ISIS, a great percentage of Muslims are supportive. If this is so, such subversives should not be given shelter in the West.

Instead, Christian giving and Christian love must be discriminate and discerning. The Church was not to give to every member. Instead, indiscriminate giving could breed sin:

• As for younger widows, do not put them on such a list. For when their sensual desires overcome their dedication to Christ, they want to marry. Thus they bring judgment on themselves, because they have broken their first pledge. Besides, they get into the habit of being idle and going about from house to house. And not only do they become idlers, but also gossips and busybodies, saying things they ought not to. So I counsel younger widows to marry, to have children, to manage their homes and to give the enemy no opportunity for slander. (1 Tim. 5:11-14)

Would giving Muslims shelter enable them to sin? Well just look at Western Europe with its many Islamic rape gangs. Certainly, it would bring disrepute upon the Church if we were at all instrumental of unleashing such horrors upon our neighbors! Instead, there is nothing wrong with exercising discernment in giving:

• If any woman who is a believer has widows in her family, she should help them and not let the church be burdened with them, so that the church can help those widows who are really in need. (1 Tim. 5:16)

When we give indiscriminately, we violate Scripture:

• For even when we were with you, we would give you this command: If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat. For we hear that some among you walk in idleness, not busy at work, but busybodies. Now such persons we command and encourage in the Lord Jesus Christ to do their work quietly and to earn their own living. (2 Thessalonians 3:10-12)

We also violate Scriptural priorities. Charity must begin with our families and the household of faith:

• So then, as we have opportunity, let us do good to everyone, and especially to those who are of the household of faith. (Galatians 6:10) 

In The Compassionate Conservative, Marvin Olasky argues that discriminate giving has helped the needy to a far greater extent than our indiscriminate entitlement programs:

• A century ago, before the federal government ever became involved, thousands of local, faith-based charitable agencies and churches around the country waged a war on poverty much more successful than our own... faith-based groups a century ago helped millions out of poverty and into homes. Local organizations had the detailed knowledge and flexibility necessary to administer the combination of loving compassion and rigorous discipline that was needed.

A discipline that requires moral responsibility in exchange for charity is loving. A giving that enables slough is unloving. For example, giving should never undermine our responsibility to care for our own families:

• But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever. (1 Timothy 5:8)

Sadly, many Christians have backed away from these teachings, fearful that they will be accused of showing favoritism. However, favoritism is embedded in humanity, let alone in Scripture. We should show favoritism to our families, children, and spouses (Ephesians 5:22-31) and only very cautious giving to our neighbor’s spouse.  

Even Jesus showed favoritism. He elevated His brethren above the rest:

• And he answered them, “To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. For to the one who has, more will be given, and he will have an abundance, but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. Indeed, in their case the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled that says: “‘“You will indeed hear but never understand, and you will indeed see but never perceive.” (Matthew 13:10-14)

He identified so closely with His Brethren that when they suffered, He too suffered:

• “And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’” (Matthew 25:40)

In fact, according to Jesus, we must love one another is a special way, for one thing, because the world will not:

• “This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you… If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you.” (John 15:12, 18-19)

• I am praying for them. I am not praying for the world but for those whom you [Father] have given me, for they are yours. (John 17:9)

This certainly does not mean that we do not love the Muslim. However, we must love them in a way that will not promote violence and the abuse of our neighbors and brethren. We must also bear in mind that Muslims believe that they are called to rule the world, even violently. Ibn Khaldun, the 15th century Tunisian historian, states:

• In the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and the obligation to convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force... The other religious groups did not have a universal mission, and the holy war was not a religious duty for them, save only for purposes of defense... Islam is under obligation to gain power over other nations.

Here’s the Koranic basis for this:

• “Make war on them until idolatry is no more and Allah’s religion (Islam) reigns supreme, (Koran 8:37)

• “When the Sacred Months are over, kill those who ascribe partners [like Jesus] to God wheresoever ye find them; seize them, encompass them, and ambush them; then if they repent and observe prayer and pay the alms, let them go their way’.” (Koran 4:5)

• “…kill the disbelievers wherever we find them” (Koran 2:191) and “murder them and treat them harshly” (Koran 9:123), and “Strike off the heads of the disbelievers” (Koran 8:12, cp. 8:60).

Emigration is also a means of Jihad for the Muslim:

• He who emigrates (from his home) in the Cause of Allah [Jihad], will find on earth many dwelling places and plenty to live by. And whosoever leaves his home as an emigrant unto Allah and His Messenger, and death overtakes him, his reward is then surely incumbent upon Allah. And Allah is Ever Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. And when you (Muslims) travel in the land, there is no sin on you if you shorten your Salat (prayer) if you fear that the disbelievers may attack you, verily, the disbelievers are ever unto you open enemies. (Koran 4:100-101) 

In light of this, giving must be performed with great discretion and wisdom. It must be conducted in a way that doesn’t endanger the innocent. Bringing an extra tens of thousands of Muslims into the USA is a sure prescription for violence and antithetical to Christian love. Instead, our hearts must go out first of all to the Christian refugees - the ones who will make a positive adjustment to the West.

Tim Keller and Making Mercy an Entitlement

In Generous Justice, Pastor Tim Keller fittingly argues that we have a biblical obligation to do justice on behalf of the poor (especially for all the vulnerable and needy). However, in making his case, he wrongly equates justice with mercy and argues that to do justice is to be merciful and to be merciful is to do justice:

• The mishpat, or justness, of a society, according to the Bible, is evaluated by how it treats these [marginalized and vulnerable] groups. Any neglect shown to the needs of the members of this quartet is not called merely at lack of mercy or charity, but a violation of justice, of mishpat. God loves and defends those with the least economic and social power, and so should we. This is what it means to “do justice.” (4-5)

While God requires both justice and mercy from us, these complementary principles are distinct. We are entitled to justice as a human right. Keller rightly cites the fact that there should be one law for both Israelites and alien. God required that both receive equal treatment under the law. The fact that all are created in the image of God makes justice an entitlement.

This might illustrate the distinction between mercy and justice. A judge, constrained by the law to treat everyone justly and equally, is also free to throw a party and discriminate. He could be merciful to some and not to others. He could invite some of the poor but not all of the poor. Those poor who were not invited could not protest, “You have violated our rights by not inviting us.” Instead, the judge is free to invite whomever he so pleases to invite. This is not a matter of justice but of mercy. Therefore, the poor cannot insist that the judge hadn’t been just with them, as he must be in the court.

Jesus told a parable about a landowner who had invited some unemployed to come work for Him. He promised them a denarius. However, later He hired others to work in His vineyard but for a much shorter time. However, at the end of the day, He gave all of His workers the same pay.

The ones who had worked the longest protested that this was not just. However, He explained that He had been just and had given them the exact amount that they had agreed on. Therefore, they had no reason to complain. However, there was also a matter of mercy:

• “I am not being unfair to you, friend. Didn’t you agree to work for a denarius?  Take your pay and go. I want to give the one who was hired last the same as I gave you.  Don’t I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?” (Matthew 20:13-15)

Justice and mercy are two different things. Justice gives a person what they deserve – what they are entitled to. Mercy gives a person what he is not entitled to!

This distinction should be obvious. Justice requires God to destroy all humanity, because this is what we deserve: “The wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life” (Romans 6:23). While justice requires death, mercy gives life. Because mercy is discriminate and not an entitlement, God is free to be merciful to whomever (Romans 9:18). There is nothing that compels Him to save all, but He must be just to all. However, no one can accuse Him of injustice, although they can charge that He hasn’t been even handed in giving mercy.

How then does Keller attempt to eliminate the distinction between mercy and justice, making them both an entitlement? He cites a number of verses where mercy and justice are mentioned side-by-side:

• “If I have denied justice [mishpat] to any of my servants, whether male or female, when they had a grievance against me, what will I do when God confronts me?... If I have denied the desires of the poor or let the eyes of the widow grow weary, if I have kept my bread to myself, not sharing it with the fatherless— but from my youth I reared them as a father would, and from my birth I guided the widow— if I have seen anyone perishing for lack of clothing, or the needy without garments, and their hearts did not bless me for warming them with the fleece from my sheep, if I have raised my hand against the fatherless, knowing that I had influence in court, then let my arm fall from the shoulder, let it be broken off at the joint… then these also would be sins to be judged, for I would have been unfaithful to God on high.” (Job 31:13-28) 

Job correctly recognized a connection between justice and mercy, that both are mandated by God and complementary. However, mentioning justice and mercy together doesn’t mean that they are the same thing.

Keller recognizes that many will object to his thesis:

• Many readers might be asking at this point why we are calling private giving to the poor “justice”… In English, however, the word “charity” conveys a good but optional activity. Charity cannot be a requirement, for then it would not be charity. But this view does not fit in with the strength or balance of the Biblical teaching. (15). 

Keller is correct that charity, in general, is not optional. However, we are free to exercise discernment regarding to whom we will be charitable. Not so with justice! He therefore argues that:

• In Scripture, gifts to the poor are called “acts of righteousness,” as in Matthew 6:1-2.

Here, Keller attempts to equate mercy (“gifts”) with justice (“acts of righteousness”). However, these verses fail to support Keller’s case. Although “acts of righteousness” – giving – is mandated, we are free to exercise discernment and to not give.

Keller also cites several other verses in support (Ezekiel 18:5-8; Deut. 10:18-19; Isaiah 58:6-7). While it is probable that these verses reference the two concepts of mercy and justice together, they do not explicitly say that they are the same thing. Instead, this association seems to show that we must be both just and merciful. (16-17)

Contrary to Keller’s case, there are many verses that reflect the fact that maintaining the poor at a certain material level is not mandated:

• He who gathers crops in summer is a prudent son, but he who sleeps during harvest is a disgraceful son. (Proverbs 10:5)

• Diligent hands will rule, but laziness ends in forced labor. (Proverbs 12:24)

• A sluggard’s appetite is never filled, but the desires of the diligent are fully satisfied. (Proverbs 13:4) 

• One who is slack in his work is brother to one who destroys. (Proverbs 18:9)

None of these verses suggest that the lazy or slothful are entitled to support. In fact, numerous verses instruct against giving support:

• For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: "If a man will not work, he shall not eat." (2 Thes. 3:10)

• As for younger widows, do not put them on such a [support] list. For when their sensual desires overcome their dedication to Christ, they want to marry. Thus they bring judgment on themselves, because they have broken their first pledge. (1 Tim. 5:11-12)

While justice is an entitlement - a human right – mercy is not. While the poor can insist that they are owed justice, they cannot insist that they are owed an income. Instead mercy was to be exercised discriminately, compassionately, and thoughtfully.

This distinction is not merely academic. Violent passions and church divisions ride upon it. The Occupy Movement believes that they are entitled to the money of others. They decry the riches of the “one percent” and even talk violently against them, as if they have committed a great injustice. (Sometimes, it is a matter of injustice. But if this is so, then it must be mediated by the courts or new laws must be passed to protect the poor. However, the Occupiers never seemed able to articulate what the new laws should look like.) However, it seems obvious that their vehemence is not restricted to just these one percent.

From where do their threats come? They have been told that they are entitled to more, and that they have been unjustly cheated by the rich. While poverty is sometimes a matter of justice, it is not always so. It might instead be the product of other causes, including laziness.

It is therefore important to exercise discernment and wisdom. Many entitlement programs have actually hurt those who were supposed to be helped by them, creating dependency and an angry entitlement mentality:

• We hardly need another polemic about the failure of America’s “war on poverty.” After decades of bitter wrangling and torpid inaction, there is at last a broad consensus that the welfare system is a cure no less malignant than the disease it was intended to remedy. Liberals and conservatives, politicians and program administrators, social workers and taxpayers have all been forced to acknowledge that the poor are not best served by our current lumbering and impersonal entitlement bureaucracy. They never have been. They never will be. On this, we now all agree.

• If the poor are to be equipped with the tools of self-reliance and initiative, they must first restore family ties and community connections that have been sundered by privation and irresponsibility. Promiscuous philanthropy does little to solve the long-term dilemmas of social disintegration. It is little surprise then that programs that emphasize personal accountability, family responsibility, and community cooperation are much more likely to succeed than programs that simply dispense aid as sheer entitlements. 

When mercy, like justice, becomes an entitlement, it is no longer mercy!

ADDENDUM

Despite the above critique, Keller makes an excellent case for legalizing additional protections for the marginalized based upon the concern that God shows for them in the Bible. Here are just of few of the safeguards that our Lord has put into place:

1. JUBILEE - The land returns to its original owners after 49 years. This would provide the poor with a means of support.

2. LAW OF THE GLEANER - The poor could harvest the land of the wealthy after the initial harvest.

3. SABBATH YEAR - The slaves go free!

Radical Equality vs. Christian Mercy

Radical equality (RE) and Christian mercy (CM) are different, although both recognize our responsibility for the rest of the human race. While RE disdains distinctions based on race, nationality and even family in favor of a radical human collective, emphasizing the oneness of all humanity, CM requires that mercy begins with and radiates outward from personal, faith and familial relationships. A husband’s primary duty is to his wife and then his children. The son’s primary responsibility is to his parents, to honor and care for them. To provide for other senior citizens, at the expense of one’s own ailing parents, is unacceptable.

I occasionally would counsel others. Sometimes, we find this more gratifying than counseling or comforting our own spouses. However, whenever I would counsel, I would almost hear a voice reminding me not to neglect my own wife. To do so would be hypocritical.

Is this chauvinistic and narrow? I don’t think so. Love for those closest to us – parents, spouses, children, and even neighbors – is a measure of the genuineness of our love. This is a saying that merits some attention: “If you want to know about the character of a person, just ask his maid.”

This speaks volumes. It warns us that there are many who speak magnificent words about helping humanity, but their home life reveals something very different about them.

If charity is real, it must begin at home. Charity that is only exercised at a distance - for those who are not our relations - is not charity at all but a self-centered show of piety. If charity and mercy are real, they must be demonstrated where rubber and road make contact – at home.

Love must start at home and with our spouse. If we love our spouse, we are doing the best thing for our children, providing for them a joyful and loving family life. A neglected wife tends to become a clinging or perhaps bitter mother.

Love is meant to radiate out like a warm bonfire. Loving our children is perhaps the best way to love our neighbor’s children. When we bully our children, they will bully other children. Instead, when we love them, they will pass this love on to other children.

Of course, this is an over-simplification, but I think that it does point out that love and mercy are best produced and expressed through relationship and not through social programs promoting RE. If we want to start a charcoal fire, we do not light the edges. Instead, we concentrate in the center, and once the center catches fire, it will spread to the periphery.

It is also the same among Christians. If Christ is the fire, then He will ignite it in the center - among us. It will then spread to the periphery where others will be attracted to its warmth. Christ suggested that the love – our oneness – we share will positively impact others:

• “My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me.” (John 17:20-21)

When I write against the present genocide against Christians, even Christians recoil. They claim that instead, we have to be concerned about the persecution of all people. Although this is true, it must start at home, among us. If it doesn’t, we make any claims of love suspect and vacuous.

On the ‘Religious Right,’ We Too Have a ‘Blind Side’

By Robert Peters

President of Morality in Media

New York, NY, December 29, 2009

Over the Christmas weekend, my wife and I went to see “The Blind Side,” a film about an affluent white family in Memphis who took  Michael Oher, a homeless African American youth, into their home and made him part of their family.   As a result of the Tuohy family’s out-of-the-ordinary Christian kindness, Oher turned his life around and became a success on the football field and in the classroom.

For those who aren’t football fans, the film is entitled “The Blind Side” because Michael Oher became one the nation’s top left offensive tackles while playing at the University of Mississippi.  It is the job of the left offensive tackle to protect the quarterback’s “blind side” from defensive players whose job it is to get to the quarterback when he drops back to pass.    In a day when quarterbacks drop back to pass frequently, the left offensive tackle position is considered one of the most important; and talented, motivated players are highly prized.

I must say that I was tempted to see the film weeks ago when my wife was out of town on a business trip.   After all, she has never been a football fan!  But we enjoy going to a theater together, and these days we seldom hear about a film we would like to see.  That’s because Hollywood rarely makes a film for adults which has a morally uplifting message and that respects standards of decency.   Furthermore, even though this film is about football, it is told from the perspective of the woman who opened her home to Michael Oher.  It’s a film both guys and gals can enjoy.

If I may brag just a little, at one point in the film Michael Oher’s character lines up against another player during a football practice, while college coaches interested in recruiting Oher watch in anticipation.  My wife asked, “What’s that?”  I said, “It’s a one-on-one drill.”  She then asked, “What’s going to happen?”   I then said, “Watch.”  At which point, Oher’s character fires out of his stance and knocks the defensive player back like he is a standup blocking dummy!

I can relate to that since I played left offensive tackle in high school and college and was better at it than most.  In the interests of full disclosure I must also say that in my day (1963-1970) a good left offensive tackle wasn’t prized as he is today, and Michael Oher is a much better football player than I ever hoped to be!

I didn’t decide to write this brief missive, however, to extol the importance of a great left offensive tackle like Michael Oher.  I am writing because I think there is a message in this film that those of us on the “religious right” need to hear. 

The movement that became known as the “religious right” was launched in the late 1970s in response to the sexual revolution and growing attacks on religious freedom.   In my opinion, the threat to children, to family life, and to religious freedom was real and merited a strong response, both then and now. 

But as I look back, I think that those of us who joined the movement, whether as earnest volunteers or as reluctant draftees, had a “blind spot.”  We saw the evil flooding in from the “right side” of the line (e.g., abortion, amoral sex education in the public schools, “gay rights,” pornography, the decline of standards in the mainstream media, hostility to religion in the courts, etc.), but for one reason or another didn’t see the evil coming at us from the “left side.”

Part of the “evil” on the left side was the result of the devastation that slavery, segregation, discrimination, the sexual revolution and the loss of our nation’s industrial base was having and would have on the Black community.

Part of this “blindness” may have been the result of racism; but from my experience with the “religious right” in New York City, that wasn’t the case.  We welcomed participation from Blacks and Latinos.

Perhaps I am wrong, but I think the “blindness” was primarily the result of two factors.  First, most whites had little day-to-day contact with Blacks, apart from places where people work.  We didn’t know much about the needs of the Black community in general or Black families in particular and apparently didn’t think we had any responsibility to find out.  Second, many were deluded into thinking that the federal government’s “Great Society” initiative, which was launched with fanfare in the 1960s, had solved (or would solve) the “race problem.”  It didn’t.  

Whatever the explanation, in the 1970s and 1980s many “morally conservative” Christians stepped into the political arena to defend moral and family values against growing attacks from the courts, media, schools and “gay activists.”  In my opinion, we were right to do so, but we missed the mark when we failed to see other matters that needed our attention, like chronic unemployment, family breakdown, failing public schools, and crime in Black communities.

What I find particularly disturbing about our failure to “see” the dire needs in many Black communities is that so many African Americans are Christians.  While Christians are called to do good to “all men,” we are called “especially” to do good to those who are of the household of faith.  We are also called to lay down our lives for “the brethren” and to love not just in word but also “in deed.” 

Over the Thanksgiving holiday my wife and I visited a large church in California.  In literature handed out by ushers and during the service, much was made of an effort to assist a small village in a foreign country.   This, of course, was well and good, but why wasn’t the church also partnering with one or more nearby Black or Hispanic churches serving in needy communities?

Towards the end of “The Blind Side” Sandra Bullock’s character talks about young African American males in Memphis whose lives were tragically snuffed out as a result of violent crime.  Similar stories appear in the New York City newspapers, where I live, as they do in many other newspapers across the country. 

As I was thinking about what I might write in this missive, I was reminded of a passage in the Book of Proverbs (24:11-12), which reads in part: “If thou forbear to deliver those who are drawn to death, and those that are ready to be slain.  If thou say, ‘We didn’t know it,’ does not he that ponders the heart consider it?  And he that keeps your soul, does he not know it?”   Of course He does! 

In response to my comment that Christians in the white community need to reach out to Christians in the African American community, a Christian friend responded by saying that Christians avoid doing so because problems in the Black community seem hopeless.   He might have added, “And it can be dangerous too.”

In some cases, perhaps little if anything can be done.  But with God all things are possible, and I think it is better to do whatever good we can than do nothing at all. 

In closing, I would add that “moral and family” issues (the focus of the “religious right”) and “justice” issues (the focus of the “religious left”) are often interrelated.  For example, I first learned about the “vicious cycle of poverty” (a justice issue) when I was in college in the late 1960s.  That cycle is still with us, and one reason it is still with us is the breakdown of morality and family life, which in turn is linked to the corrupting influences of pornography and popular culture.     

Happiness: Do-Good-Feel-Good

While most agree that a greater level of happiness can be obtained by changing the way we live, I think that it requires far more than a change of actions. For instance, psychologist Sonja Lyubomirsky sets forth eight suggestions for better mental health (happiness).  Perhaps the most popular one is to “Practice acts of kindness.” She writes:

• These should be both random (let that harried mom go ahead of you in the checkout line) and systematic (bring Sunday supper to an elderly neighbor). Being kind to others, whether friends or strangers, triggers a cascade of positive effects – it makes you feel generous and capable, gives you a greater sense of connection with others and wins you smiles, approval and reciprocated kindness – all happiness boosters. (Time, January 17, 2005)

She is correct about the payoff. We even derive satisfaction when we give a stranger directions. We can even get the payoff when the stranger doesn’t even have a chance to acknowledge our good deed.

Walking down the street, I saw a driver pulled from his car, about 30 yards in front of me, and repeatedly punched. A crowd was watching the “entertainment.” I screamed repeatedly, “Police – Get down of the ground,” at the top of my feeble voice. The assailant immediately fled, and I resumed walking. No one congratulated me, but I felt good about what I had done.

However, this strategy – do-good-feel-good – has its limitations. For one thing, there is the law of diminishing returns. The pay-off decreases. The “cascade of positive effects” no longer seems to flow as it once had. This strategy might work admirably in the short-run, but eventually, we become weary of well-doing.

I worked for the New York City Department of Probation for 15 years. I signed on for the same reason that many others had. We wanted to help others get back on their feet. But we also wanted to feel good about what we were doing.

However, there are few people who become as jaded as social workers. Why is this so, if we are helping others? Perhaps we are helping them for the wrong reasons. While there is nothing the matter with doing-good-feeling-good, this strategy will produce disappointment if it’s our main motivator.

For one thing, it’s not that easy to help others. If we become a social worker to do-good-fell-good, we are therefore going to be disappointed. For one reason or another, our clients fail to comply with our expectations. They do not noticeably change. In fact, even when we think that we are making progress, they will eventually thoroughly disappoint us, depriving us of our payoff.

Many social workers therefore get burn-out, hate their clients, and perform their jobs with noticeable disgust.

Similarly, atheists often adopt the do-good-feel-good moral code. They don’t believe in an ontological good or bad – moral absolutes that exist independently of human thinking – but they try to act in a “good” manner for the payoff. They might call it “enlightened selfishness” or “pragmatism,” But it comes down to the same thing – do-good-feel-good. However, the diminishing payoff is not substantial enough to support this lifestyle, and it is gradually abandoned.

Besides, if we are only doing good for the payoff, it is not really good. Instead, it’s self-centered. Relationships cannot survive on such flimsy stuff. Commitment to higher principles must provide the necessary glue. We cannot bail out of our commitments when we are not getting the expected payoff, when the “cascade of positive effects” becomes a trickle.

Love says, “I’ll stay beside you even if you break down, even when you are terminally ill.” Biblical love doesn’t depend upon the payoff. It knows that pleasing God is enough of a payoff, even when we hurt. The conviction that I was doing the right thing with my probationers had to be my primary payoff.

I even suspect that our high divorce rate of 50% is largely due to this pay-off philosophy. Consistent with the understanding of do-good-feel-good, many marriage counselors give their couples exercises – performing acts of kindness - to jump start their relationships.

I am not saying that these exercises can’t be used profitably. They can. But if they are used with the expectation that it will always “win you smiles,” you will be greatly disappointed. Your partner will eventually catch-on and realize that you are using these techniques to selfishly get what you want.

If you only bring your wife flowers to obtain certain favors, she will eventually regard your flowers as manipulation and will cringe at your gift. Instead, love is a matter of giving when there is no expectation of getting your payoff.

How then can we live unselfishly? How can we transcend the shallow do-good-feel-good way of life? At this point, I must confess that – naturally speaking - I am a selfish person. Last month a stranger asked me for directions, but before I could open my mouth, another person overheard the request and jumped in, preempting me. I left in a huff. He had deprived me of my satisfaction!

We all want our payoff. How then can we defer gratification and live in an other-centered manner? For me, this only becomes possible if I am convinced that an all-benevolent Savior is looking out for me. I can only begin to forsake immediate gratification because I am convinced that He is my ultimate gratification.