The Greatest Thing In The World: The Contrast
Posted in Books, Greatest Thing, Religion on | 4 minutes | 8 Comments →
This book has given me some valuable insights. I hope it will do the same for somebody else.
*The following is reprinted from the complete, unabridged version of “The Greatest Thing In The World” by Henry Drummond, p.18-21, Spire Books, ISBN unknown
Paul begins by contrasting Love with other things that men in those days thought much of. I shall not attempt to go over those things in detail. Their inferiority is already obvious.
He contrasts it with eloquence. And what a noble gift it is, the power of playing upon the souls and wills of men, and rousing them to lofty purposes and holy deeds. Paul says, “If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not love, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.” And we all know why. We have all felt the brazenness of words without emotion, the hollowness, the unaccountable unpersuasiveness, of eloquence behind which lies no Love.
He contrasts it with prophecy. He contrasts it with mysteries. He contrasts it with faith. He contrasts it with charity. Why is Love greater than faith? Because the end is greater than the means. And why is it greater than charity? Because the whole is greater than the part. Love is greater than faith, because the end is greater than the means. What is the use of having faith? It is to connect the soul with God. And what is the object of connecting man with God? That he may become like God. But God is Love. Hence Faith, the means, is in order to Love, the end. Love, therefore, obviously is greater than faith. It is greater than charity, again, because the whole is greater than a part. Charity is only a little bit of Love, one of the innumerable avenues of Love, and there may even be, and there is, a great deal of charity without Love. It is a very easy thing to toss a copper to a beggar on the street; it is generally an easier thing than not to do it. Yet Love is just as often in the withholding. We purchase relief from the sympathetic feelings roused by the spectacle of misery, at the copper’s cost. It is too cheap–too cheap for us, and often too dear for the beggar. If we really loved him we would either do more for him, or less.
Then Paul contrasts it with sacrifice and martyrdom. And I beg the little band of would-be missionaries and I have the honour to call some of you by this name for the first time–to remember that though you give your bodies to be burned, and have not Love, it profits nothing–nothing! You can take nothing greater to the heathen world than the impress and reflection of the Love of God upon your own character. That is the universal language. It will take you years to speak in Chinese, or in the dialects of India. From the day you land, that language of Love, understood by all, will be pouring forth its unconscious eloquence. It is the man who is the missionary, it is not his words. His character is his message. In the heart of Africa, among the great Lakes, I have come across black men and women who remembered the only white man they ever saw before–David Livingstone; and as you cross his footsteps in that dark continent, men’s faces light up as they speak of the kind Doctor who passed there years ago. They could not understand him; but they felt the Love that beat in his heart. Take into your new sphere of labour, where you also mean to lay down your life, that simple charm, and your lifework must succeed. You can take nothing greater, you need take nothing less. It is-not worth while going if you take anything less. You may take every accomplishment; you may be braced for every sacrifice; but if you give your body to be burned, and have not Love, it will profit you and the cause of Christ nothing.
dale dreiling
says...Yes, God IS Love, though what that means to God may not be what we as humans are capable of fully comprehending at this point in our spiritual development. The debates over an “all good” God and a “let evil happen/non-present/uncaring/vengeful/evil” God seem to illustrate this.
The Sermon on the Mount was Jesus Christ’s eloquent sermon on just this. To love your friends, neighbors and enemies alike. That is true evolution in the sense that it does not really make sense to a natural survival minded human.
What I worry about, is that someone could walk away from this feeling that faith is now less important, that it’s more charitable to pass by the poor vs trying to help. Couldn’t that lead to backsliding into a justification of dog eat dog. lesser of two evils living? I think Newt Gingrich has said that not helping people IS helping people, but that’s another rant.
Also, didn’t Jesus say that the kingdom of God is inside every one of us, and that in the next life, we can aspire to be as God. If we put two and two together, one could say that we will be Gods of Love in heaven if we follow the teachings of Jesus.
But how do we get there? By faith in His teachings. The only way to the Father is through the Son. These are Jesus’ words, and many have tried in the past to reach this point in other ways, but all other ways have perpetually failed. There is no human made utopia now, in the past, or, I dare say, in the future. Sorry to bum anyone out, but I just don’t see it right around the bend. And, we need it that quickly.
Knowing the flawed and sinful nature of humans, God in his loving wisdom, has given us the sacrifice of Jesus to reconcile our wrong ways, so that we may become like Him, beings of love. In order to get to that point we have to believe in what he said, let alone that he did exist and that he performed the supernatural miracles that his Messiahship is cornerstoned upon. We can only do this with faith, as none of us have seen the true face of the Father.
I feel that the point of this entry is to make people realize that empty deeds do no one any good, charity or faith without love do not lead to Love. But, like a child who needs their hand held to be able to learn to walk, I would not expect a loving parent to withhold their hand so that their child may truly understand what it means to walk.
It’s an accomplishment in and of itself for them to do this. Would a parent tell their little baby, who is just trying to balance when standing up, that it’s not so much that they need to walk, but that they need to be able to walk to school, so that they can get an education, so that they can walk to an interview so that they can get a job, so that they can walk up to the real estate office to buy a house, so that they can have a home in which to marry their loved one. so that they can walk into a nursery to teach their baby how to walk.
Faith IS a baby step to God Love. But faith is not Faith. It is not a thing in and of itself of ultimate value. Deed done for deeds sake have never impressed God or Jesus. Jesus rebuked the Pharisees to no end, though they were the most pious and legalistic of all Jews.
Does any of this make sense? I do like this post.
cl
says...Dale Dreiling,
I think so. It seems you’re asking something along the lines of, “How can love be greater than faith if faith is required for salvation?” Would that be a good paraphrase of what you’re thinking?
L.W. Dickel
says...“Faith: No one word personifies the absolute worst and most wicked policies of religion better than that. Faith is mind-rot — it’s a poison that destroys critical thinking, undermines evidence, and leads people into lives dedicated to absurdity. It’s a parasite that’s regarded as a virtue. I speak as a representative of the scientific faction of atheism here — it’s one thing we simply cannot compromise on. Faith is wrong, and at the same time faith is a central tenet of just about every religion on the planet. We can’t ignore that — that’s the thing we are interested in fighting.”–P.Z. Myers
cl
says...Do Paul Zachary’s ramblings result from peer-reviewed scientific findings, or does he ironically expect the reader to take his word on faith?
Stephen R. Diamond
says...Why characterize them as “ramblings.” They are perfectly coherent–far more coherent than your postings, which are generally incoherent, as posters have demonstrated in other threads.
Why would you expect scientific findings to be cited defending a broad statement of position? They would be completely inappropriate here. Are there scientific findings supporting this proposition? Well, this hardly seems the place to ask, were you actually interested.
The point is, I disagree with Myers. What’s more corrosive to the intellect than “faith” is the kind of demagogy you practice, these hyper-emotional reactions masquerading as intellectual or even philosophical endeavor. Your “fallacies,” which are nothing more than mindless sloganeering, presuming to be serious argument.
Your site is malodorous with this kind of fecal matter.
Stephen R. Diamond
says...Regarding the nature of demagogy, see:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/6pt9eq5
cl
says...Huh. I post about love, and atheists spew malice. Sad. So sad.
dale
says...RE: “Faith: No one word personifies the absolute worst and most wicked policies of religion better than that. Faith is mind-rot — it’s a poison that destroys critical thinking, undermines evidence, and leads people into lives dedicated to absurdity. It’s a parasite that’s regarded as a virtue. I speak as a representative of the scientific faction of atheism here — it’s one thing we simply cannot compromise on. Faith is wrong, and at the same time faith is a central tenet of just about every religion on the planet. We can’t ignore that — that’s the thing we are interested in fighting.”–P.Z. Myers
Faith as a policy of religion, meaning when in context of religion alone? If that’s the case, if someone has a prejudice against religion, their road to understanding it is an uphill battle. Eyes wide shut.
If faith can be agreed upon as something that is not necessarily a qualifier or aspect of religion alone, then this statement that p.z. makes…well, it makes no sense. Especially from a scientist or scientific atheist
Science and scientists can stand upon their collection of laws as they are now understood and feel proud. Really, they should. It takes quite a mind to grasp at the intangible and produce an explanation that makes it clear and understandable to the world at large.
But, until that idea becomes a law, isn’t first a theory, and before that, a hypothesis? And for a scientist to go through the ranks of proof, would this said scientist need something like, if not in and of itself, faith? If not in a god, but faith in himself? Faith in science? Faith in human reason and observation? Even, faith that they are right and the next lab coat won’t topple their brave idea.