The Golden Rule

If you’d like to stir the pot, tell folks that the “Golden Rule” doesn’t apply to everyone.

If you’d really like to stir the pot, say the same thing about the entire sermon encompassing the Golden Rule (Matthew 5-7, the “Sermon on the Mount”).

Lest one think my dispensational convictions have carried me too far, listen to another, who was definitely not a dispensationalist:

The fact is that the ethics of the discourse, taken by itself, will not work at all. The Golden Rule furnishes an example. “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”—is that rule a rule of universal application, will it really solve all the problems of society? A little experience shows that such is not the case. Help a drunkard to get rid of his evil habit, and you will soon come to distrust the modern interpretation of the Golden rule. The trouble is that the drunkard’s companions apply the rule only too well; They do unto him exactly what they would have him do unto them—by buying him a drink. The Golden Rule becomes a powerful obstacle in the way of moral advance. But the trouble does not lie in the rule itself; it lies in the modern interpretation of the rule. The error consists in supposing that the Golden Rule, with the rest of the sermon on the Mount, is addressed to the whole world. As a matter of fact the whole discourse is expressly addressed to Jesus’ disciples; and from them the great world outside is distinguished in the plainest possible way. The persons to whom the Golden rule is addressed are persons in whom a great change has been wrought—a change which fits them for entrance into the Kingdom of God. Such persons will have pure desires; they, and they only, can safely do unto others as they would have others do unto them, for the things that they would have others do unto them are high and pure (J. Gresham Machen, Christianity and Liberalism, pp. 37–38).