The law of gravity was first, scientifically identified, by Sir Isaac Newton. He using a string of fancy words like “…directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the separation between the two objects,” but what Sir Isaac knew was what has been known since the beginning of time --  “What goes up… must come down!”[1] For scientists, since that apple fell on his head, Newton’s Law of Gravity has been accepted as “Gospel” truth, throughout the entire universe.

            That is, until recently.

            In the world of the very, very distant, and of the very, very small, apparently Newton’s universal law just might not be so universal.[2] I don’t understand this science, but when I read this latest hypothesis in the world of quantum quackery, I thought of John Locke, whose ideas of liberty spawned revolutions in government and economics – revolutions that have largely influenced the American way of life and our worldview.

There are fundamental truths,” said Locke, “the basis upon which a great many others rest, and in which they have their consistency… Such is the admirable discovery of Mr. Newton that all bodies gravitate to one another… Our Savior’s great rule, that ‘we should love our neighbours as ourselves,’ is such a fundamental truth for the regulating human society… These and such as these are the truths we should endeavour to find out, and store our minds with.”[3]

            Since I paraphrased the complicated Law of Gravitation, let me do so now for Mr. Locke (with a little preacher’s license, please): “Gravity and the Golden Rule are the two fundamental laws of the universe.” So when I read that gravity is, ironically, falling from its state of universal grace, I smiled a bit. The little bit of evangelist that remains in me sensed victory – Ah! The final law of the universe, “Do to others as you would have them do to you”… belongs to Jesus![4]

            There was an ethic known in Jesus’ day. It was the radical thinking, no doubt, the idealism of some liberal theological thinker. This ethic was extreme for a world torn by violence and the desire for retribution and revenge. That idealistic notion was expressed in a sound bite, that went like this: “Do not do to anyone else, what you would not want them to do to you.”

            If you would not want a neighboring tribe to raid your village, unprovoked. To plunder your property. To take your wives…. Do not invoke such preemptive violence upon them. Though we have advanced so far in a few thousand years, we might even think of a contemporary example for this ancient ethic, like … If you would not want someone to terminate your job, after you had served for thirty loyal years in the company, with no advance notice and no severance pay… Do not instigate such heartless practices in your own company, even if the almighty “bottom line” would rejoice in your so doing.

            This radical advice was good advice. It probably changed the world. It was good advice, which is, sadly, too-radical still for many individuals and companies and nations. But such a standard pales in comparison to the ethic of Jesus. “Do not do to anyone else…” implies that even in keeping “the letter of this law,” we might still bring tragic harm upon our neighbor by shutting them out, by alienating them in apathy, contempt, even in hatred. A starving neighbor, you see, would not be inflicting any harm upon you, by simply starving. So according to this ethic, even if you had ample stores of food, you were not compelled to help. Only to not harm directly.

            I suppose I do not have to tell you that this ethic is also universal. For all around the world, children are dying of malnutrition, of abuse, of violence, of the neglect of neighbors who have done nothing wrong. The ethic may be universal. It is not truth.

            Then came Jesus, and the stakes got much higher. For in Jesus’ ethic, we are bound to the neighbor, even to the neighbor who is our enemy, to do something… If you were starving, and your neighbor had food, surely you would want your children fed? And if you have the food (or the money to buy the food), then in Jesus’ ethic, you are required to provide the food for the children. Call it generosity. Call it welfare. Call it taxing my hard earned money… Jesus called it the only way to survival for six billion children, whose family will nearly double before all of their grandparents are laid to rest. (If you think we have trouble getting along now, just wait until you see the terrorists when there are 11 billion mouths at the table!)

            In the old, maybe-not-so-radical-way-of-thinking-after-all, starving children were the result of doing the right thing (that is, keeping the letter of the law) for the wrong reason (that is, because it was “the law”). In Jesus’ ethic, there are no starving children, for people who are bound by the Final Law of the Universe will always be required to do the wrong thing (that is, giving up what is rightfully theirs), but for the right reason (that is, because where there is love, there are no laws, and no children we call enemies).

            Gustavo Gutierrez, a South American theologian, who surely knows of starving children, has said,

“It is not enough to say that love of God is inseparable from the love of one’s neighbor. It must be added that love of God is unavoidably expressed through love of one’s neighbor… conversion to (God) implies conversion to the neighbor.”[5]

            “The Final Law of the Universe,” belongs to Jesus. Yes, but let this preacher now come clean. In his commentary on this scripture, Fred Craddock acknowledges that the “Golden Rule” is not unique to Jesus. It is found “in Homer and Seneca, in Tobit and II Enoch, in Philo,” and in philosophies and religions all over the world.[6] And here is the point: The Golden Rule is universal truth, but it is not so because Jesus said it. Jesus said, “Do to others as you would have them do to you,” because it is universal truth.

What Jesus knew is this: the Golden Rule just makes sense. For Christians: Do to others as you would have them do to you. For Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus: Do to others as you would have them do to you. For secularists and atheists, for communists and capitalists, even for Democrats and Republicans alike: Do to others as you would have them do to you. The Golden Rule just makes sense. So leave religion out of it if you must. Push God aside if you are unable to believe.

But living against the Golden Rule is like trying to keep the rain from falling down.

Individual philosophies. Religious systems. Political platforms. Economic theories. Must all be built on the Golden Rule, “for the world is now too dangerous for anything but truth, and too small for anything but love.”

There is a massive Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence underway on our planet. SETI is using the world’s largest radio telescope to listen for intelligent messages being broadcast from across the universe. From SETI’s homepage, you can even download a little program to your computer which runs as a screen saver and uses the processing power of your PC to evaluate the huge chunks of data streaming in from outer space each day. What will we find? Here’s what I think…

 If extraterrestrial life is ever found, whether they be little green men or ET’s of another form, I believe that we will find at the center advance of their culture a truth more powerful than the tug of gravity, a law more consistent in its expression. I believe The Golden Rule is necessary, even for aliens! And if there is no other life “out there?” Well, if we survive as a human race, it will only be because we finally find intelligent life, here at home!

And… there is hope. This intelligence is springing up all over. Just last night, across the table, eating pizza, my little friend, Ala Bengel, expressed it this way: “Be treated ju wanted be treated…”

May it be so!