Article May 30, 1903 Issue

Love and Self-Assertion

FLEISCHER

Boston Transcript

THE one great social question, particularly in a democracy, presents itself under three aspects: How shall I make the most of myself and still serve others? How far shall I develop my individuality along with the general development? How can I insist upon myself and yet not antagonize others? We are here concerned only with the religious aspect of these questions; or, I should say, with their application to the subject of correct relationship between religionists.

Manifestly it is no very encouraging evidence of growth in good-will if I can only love my fellows in faith. I must prove myself capable of including within the circle of my love those who, from my point of view, are dis senters and disbelievers—"infidels and heretics, Jews and Turks," if you will. On the other hand, it is merely suggestive of what I like to call (inelegantly, I fear) a sweet wishy-washyness, for men to make light of grave differences to the extent of ignoring facts, all for the sake of expressing kindliness and good-will. My own opinion is that this latter is a sure symptom of a dangerous spiritual condition, the lapsing of the sentiment of love into sheer sentimentalism, the degeneration of the possibly robust good-will into mere emotionalism. Almost I would prefer uncompromising bigotry to compromising inclusiveness. But neither of these alternatives needs to be chosen, since fraternal relations and self-insisting freedom are quite compatible. Indeed, Emerson got at the heart of this matter when he said that we must be "very two before we can be very one." To love another, whom I feel or believe to be like myself, is only the extension of egotism. But to love another, whom I know to be different, is the very triumph of strong, self-respecting altruism.

"The same heart beats in every human breast," yet since it beats more loudly in one than in another, more quickly in one than in another, the outward expression of the inner man, is likely to be different. Let us agree wherein we can, but let us frankly, freely, and fraternally differ wherein we must. The underlying purpose of all good persons, I doubt not, is the same or similar, though our ways of achieving it may differ. And even if these purposes themselves do vary, yet let us not weakly, emotionally attempt to gloss over these differences, but recognize and express them in loving competition and with robust goodwill.

Send a comment to the editors

NEXT IN THIS ISSUE

Article

Utilizing Nature's Energy