Love, the Law of Life

In the life of society there are cases when an ethics not centering in wealth is possible. For example, the problem of sexual desire presents such cases. This problem cannot be clearly divided according to wealth or poverty. Many people desire property, but there are also those who voluntarily marry poor persons or persons of lower social position. Moreover, sex does not differentiate between kings or paupers. Is it true that the well-to-do are generally inclined to sexual excess? And if so, are the poor free from it? It is quite impossible to make general assertions. In this connection, however, many authorities in sex problems declare that without the help of religion the problems of sex are unsolvable. And these problems look absolutely in vain for solution to the socialistic ethics.

Socialistic thinkers, in their study of the problems of life, fix their attention primarily upon the actual status in some limited sphere of life. They therefore fall into various errors. As long as they continue in their belief that every problem can be solved by expressing it ina simple equation, e. g., Specie—goods—specie, as Marx does, clashes between the classes will occur and men will retain their materialistic point of view. But as soon as they mount up from this to the next higher level, the Marxian method of reasoning in simple equations brings failure. It is not, of course, the Marxian materialism alone that causes the failure. Capitalism and power as well, when systematized by the simple equation method, both collapse. Power to rise up to a new level, ideals, the inner wisdom of selection—all defy solution by simple equations. Within them, in these changing relations, there is latent a changeless vitality, which is life and love.

Social morality has undergone marked changes in modern times. Wherefore, multitudes are now doubting the existence of any standard of morality. As long as social institutions were relatively fixed, this question never arose; but as a result of the mechanical changes in modern life the old fixed moral standards have gotten out of gear. Hence the vast number of people who think that there is no standard of morality. There are even those who believe that force can supply the final decision in morality, that there is no other standard than might. One type of imperialists and one class of violent socialists resemble each other in that each looks to might to make them possessors of the final power of decision. Bait

But true morality is no such blind thing. Life is forever developing; it must always possess this power tochange. It ceaselessly grows. Hence it is that those who grow most are looked up to as the greatest. In other words, those who have much are regarded greater than those who have nothing. This is true when selectivity toward the purpose of life is not taken into account. But in life there is operative a great mode of movement which demands that life itself be absolute. For life to be absolute means that it must be free, like God. This Godlike freedom signifies the possession of a fermentative quality which when life’s highest powers are exerted—all its powers of change, of growth, of selection—propels the self forward toward the final goal that involves life’s ultimation and insures the removal of all chance of futility.

This absolute quality of the inner life rejects all superficial, mechanical, accidental, insincere conduct. A restless personality originates when the divided self living in a relative order and advancing on toward the absolute, is caught on the way (by some accident) and begins to deviate from its normal development.

“Kill not; steal not; commit no adultery; lie not; covet not’’—this morality is universally observed, even among such peoples as the aborigines of Formosa. However, today, civilized nations appear to have completely altered their attitude toward these fundamentals of morality. In opposition to the command against murder there is the World War; in violation of the law against stealing there is the occupation of the domains of other countries; in conflict with the command against adultery there are the excessive numbers of divorces and the unlawful “free marriages”’; lying is forbidden, but there are the unabashed lies of diplomats and lawyers; in contravention of the command against covetousness there is the fierce greed of capitalism. Thus the old morality seems to be practically discarded; but those who think deeply about the essence of life hold no doubts whatever regarding it.

That the World War, in which whole nations were butchered, could take place in the face of the teaching against murder, was of course a flagrant paradox. But there has not yet arisen a morality which approves of the annihilation of all life. Although the lives of individuals or even the lives of other races may be sacrificed in order to maintain a superior national life, no morality has yet considered it right to sacrifice the totality of life.

While agreeing that adultery must not be committed, some insist that unlicensed marriage and divorces are permissible. Yet no one regards it right to make the selection of life carelessly, or to seek satisfaction from choiceless illicit intercourse. The higher a people ascends, the more rigid must be the standard of selection, in order that superiority of race be maintained.

Stealing is a wastage of life, and coveting impedes the development of life. Lying transgresses the laws of life. Thus, in order that life may attain its ultimate end, it enfolds within the varying miliew an unchanging nucleus. When we think superficially, we mistake completely the ultimate aim of absolute life. To help us reach this goal the germination of love takes place.

The man who loves does not kill. The loving one ~ does not steal. The lover is not lewd. Love lies not, nor covets.

Love unfailingly chooses the right part.

Love has in itself selectivity, power to grow, to vary.

Love is ever adventurous. The lover swims even the Hellespont.

Love, to beget ultimate freedom, sacrifices its present physical life. |

Love is the motive power of life. Love is the only morality that possesses life.

Love is the absolute, the unchanging, the life-bearing morality.

Love has, in its power of growth, a changeless essence which springs up as sacrifice. It has, in its power of variation, a unifying force. And in its selective faculty, it awakens as redemptive love, which would save all the castaways in the processes of selection.

Love is life’s motive power.

Love is a.marvelous thing: it includes within itself ~ end and means and motive.

Love’s single stroke does double duty. When one has said, ‘‘I love him,’ one has helped not only oneself but one’s fellow as well.

Love has a binding power. Physical love, in its intensity, says this most eloquently. The distinction between physical love and spiritual love has already been made. Our love must develop from the physical to the love of the Cross, able to love even through pain.

The structure of love is an unparalleled mystery.“ It is not we who love, but first God loves us.’’! Our love is the mainspring that God has wound up. Love may also be considered to be a deep design previously contrived, which fulfils itself. This was Paul’s idea when he declared that love originates as an organic entity. In I Corinthians 12:12-27 Paul argues thus:

As the human body is one and has many members, all the members of the body forming one body for all their number, so is it with Christ. For by one Spirit we have all been baptized into one Body, Jews or Greeks, slaves or freemen; we have all been imbued with one Spirit. Why, even the body

consists not of one member but of many. If the foot were to say, ““Because I am not the hand, I do not belong to the body,” that does not make it no part of the body. If the ear were to say, “‘Because I am not the eye, I do not belong to the body,” that does not make it no part of the body. If the body were all eye, where would hearing be? If the body were all ear, where would smell be? As it is, God has set the members in the body, each as it pleased him. If they all made up one member, what would become of the body? As it is, there are many members and one body. The eye cannot say to the hand, “‘I have no need of you,” nor again the head to the feet, ‘“‘I have no need of you.” Quite the contrary. We cannot do without those very members of the body which are considered rather delicate, just as the parts we consider rather dishonourable are the very parts we invest with special honour; our indecorous parts get a special care and attention which does not need to be paid to our more decorous parts. Yes, God has tempered the body together, with a special dignity for the inferior parts, so that there may be no disunion in the body, but that the various members should have a common concern for one another. Thus if one member suffers, all the members share its suffering; if one member is honoured, all the members share its honour. Now you are Christ’s Body, and severally members of it.

Paul derived this material from an ancient Roman parable. In the Rome of old, when the distinction was set up between the proletariat and the property owning class, the proletariat retreated from the city. Thereupon a wise man went to them and used this parable to show how impossible it was for the people to split into two factions. Paul here alludes to the incident, quoting this parable. We who hear this parable will also fall if we do not leave off stupidly biting each other, and work for unity.

Love does not originate by our merely resolving to love by main force; but, on the contrary, acertain design is projected previously, and this slowly rises as an impulse from within. That is, it is thinkable that before we love there is some part, something within us that has been loved.

“ Ask, and the gift will be yours”’ will not be assented to by the man who has no belief in God; but to the man who believes and lives by love this word is not at all mysterious. The unbelieving man, like the lover whose love is unrequited, does not believe he will receive if he asks. He accordingly does not love others, and this in turn becomes the reason why he does not receive. But to the man who believes in God and endeavors to live by love—since he himself sets about loving others first—comes an efficacious response. Nay, it is not; the ego which loves others; love is rather the motion resulting from the prior winding up of the mainspring.

There is always a response to love. Through the belief that there is infallibly a response to love, the life’ of love acquires a new directivity and convertibility in any direction. When a boy reaches adolescence, for some mysterious reason he begins to notice that in the society by which he is surrounded there are many of the other sex. In other words, when the impulse of love appears, already, in other directions are found realities which act upon it inductively, forming what Schopenhauer termed “the mysterious realm of life.”! At the starting point, then, of blind love there is this previous preparation in a separate sphere, and to a certain degree

1“The evolution of sex is nothing but the unconscious Will of the Universe developing sexual consciousness and growing into a new atmosphere.” —T. Kagawa.

the provision for satisfying this love is completed. If this be no mystery, where then can mystery exist?

The realization just described is a spatial relation; but there is also a similar temporal relation. While we make the effort to grow, we actually become larger. When we have the desire to sleep, we are able to sleep. If we wish even to die, we can accomplish that also. The desire to love is similar. If we start out to love, to a certain degree we can love. That is because love is, as Paul says, the action of an organic system. Yet let me offer the caution here that the word “‘organic”’ does not signify anything mechanical: it is, rather, a living system bound by an inner purpose, advancing with full consciousness of its aim.

When folk set out definitely to love, however, they frequently become too reserved, for they are concerned about the feelings of others. A Christian is one who is boldest in this endeavor. Paul wrote to the believers in the church at Corinth, “‘My heart is wide open for you. ‘Restraint’?—that lies with you, not me.... And for your souls I will gladly spend my all and be spent myself.’’?

Paul had experienced this kind of love. He believed that when love worked in human society there was the previous design by God which assured the fulfilment of love. With this faith it was possible for him to conclude that he would ask, assured that he would receive.

Love is the fuel of the social system. It is love that warms the world’s heart. Will the earth actually become hotter if I cast coals into its interior? In other words, will the world become better or not through my love? Many people thus question the efficacy of love; but if we may take Paul’s word for it, though time may be required, love will infallibly come to a successful issue. The time eventually comes when the mate answers to the wooing of love. Let us, then, anchor our hope within love.