The Side on Which We Ought to Err

It is a point I have made before, but one which, I think, bears repeating; and it came up again in my reading tonight.

"We all know the cringing, fearful way in which a dog shrinks away from our caresses if he has been previously ill-treated by others.  One meets children whose arm goes up to ward off a blow as soon as anyone in authority approaches them.  The same sort of attitude is often found with regard to God.  He is thought of as a hard master, overexacting and meticulous, setting traps for His creatures, and almost only anxious to catch them in wrong-doing.  No true love of God is possible with such a concept in one's mind.  Yet such ideas exist, and we must take care that we are not responsible for their formation.  That is one reason why, if we must err in dealing with our neighbor, we ought to err on the side of mercy and kindness rather than of justice and rigor."--M. Eugene Boylan, This Tremendous Lover.

I should perhaps underscore that this is a statement what is preferable with regard to personal action, and not a remark regarding any religious or political group or subgroup in particular.  One of the sad tendencies of the world, especially perhaps the social media world today, is to forget personal sanctification in favor of top-down solutions.  The top-down stuff won't work, in no small part because most of those who really do want to make the world a better place aren't in a position to exert real power--but also because, even if they were, they would discover themselves hampered by this pesky thing called human free will.  But the little way operates in any political or social sphere, however dismal, degenerate, or dire.