Thoughts on Romans 13:8-14: Love Fulfills the Law - Part One

I have to warn you on this two part post series that it is going to wax somewhat philosophical. But stay with me and see if it finishes well:

Is it any wonder that Paul, on the one hand, talks about civil government and on the other, in chapter 14, discusses not judging the weaker brother? Sandwiched between these two topics Paul brings in the binding agent which stands in as the mediator making sure all of our actions are derived from God's love. Whether we are discussing our attitudes about civil government (if federal and state laws have not gone through the necessary legitimate channels, are we still obligated to obey?) or the freedom we have in Christ (to enjoy our freedoms to their fullest extent even when there are those around who cannot handle some of the things we enjoy, like drinking a mug of beer in public) are our actions based on God's agape love? The Libertarians confuse the scripture on both of these points. Their views on civil government and their socially liberal stand on morality, in general, cannot hold a candle to Christ's command to love your neighbor as yourself as we shall see momentarily.

We read in verse 10 that since love does no harm to its neighbor it is, therefore, the fulfillment of the intent of the law. I say intent, because Jesus has pointed this out time after time, that the purpose of the law was to reveal that the heart was not right before the Lord. It shows us our sin, in order that, we might repent and throw ourselves on the mercy of a holy, omnipotent God. This summary of the law: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself", in verse 9, is quite different from John Stuart Mills social contract theorem: 'everything is permissible as long as it does no harm to another'. Mills, writes in Utilitarianism, published in 1863, that he considered Christ's Golden Rule, as I have stated it above, as "the ideal perfection of utilitarian morality." But there is a fundamental difference between what Christ stated and how Mills interpreted Christ's meaning. They both come at it from opposite sides. We can understand Jesus' meaning simply as a swallowing up of one's self for the sake of others. Mills' "Harm Principle" is complete self-indulgence and stops only when another person just about gets run down. In other words, a person who takes the Harm Principle as his rule of moral conduct is not thinking of others first; he is seeking his own pleasures and his seeking is checked only as it infringes upon (or collides with) someone else's right to the same. When Paul discusses here in Romans about love (agape love) being the only thing we owe to one another, he is not thinking about how far we can go in our freedom in Christ without hurting our brother. He is saying that we will not do what we have the freedom to do for the sake of our weaker brother. We are not entertaining how we might indulge ourselves; we are always entertaining how we might serve one another.

But to do justice to Mills' theorem, Mills'harm Principle is incorporated in a more general utilitarian principle that determines morality on the basis of the amount of happiness something brings to someone. He states that, "actions are right in proportion as they tend to produce happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness". He calls this the "Greatest Happiness Principle" which he outlines for us in Utilitarianism. But so we might approach the "ideal" of Jesus' Golden Rule, he puts in a disclaimer that this principle is not individualistic; that is, that it is not interested primarily with the welfare of one person, but with many. he states, "The standard of what is right in conduct is not the agent's own happiness but that of all concerned." He goes on to explain the details. My argument to this defense is simply that one cannot equate love (which is the primary focus in the Golden Rule) with the Happiness Principle. The reason is self-evident and already explained above. Love is self-less which is why Mills calls it an "ideal". There is an obvious implied admission on his part; that all men are inherently selfish and you cannot change this fact. It is self-evident truth. So what you do, as Mills has done, is work around these facts by formulating human standards that aid in managing the facts in their drive to reach their natural negative conclusions. But as Christians, we are called to give selflessly without regard for our own measure of happiness. Love does not factor our own measure of happiness into its equation. It is ideal because it cannot be satisfied by any human convention and that is the difference between the divine originated Golden Rule and the lowly, failed human standard of utility.