The aim of life can be seen as the fulfillment of three duties: a duty to God, a duty to other people and the surroundings, and a duty to yourself. The majority of religions follows these three aims; the East tends to emphasise duty to God and to yourself, whereas the West tends to emphasise duty to other people.
I think it is insufficient to follow a set of moral rules in life; morality tends to tell you what not to do rather than what to do. Compare the conscience of an "ordinary Christian" to that of a "saint": in the ordinary Christian it either forbids certain actions or informs him when he has "done wrong" (accompanied by guilt feelings), but in a saint it tells him what to do and he is, I hope, guided by divine will (a dangerous word, if used as a cover for self-will or complacency). Morality must not merely be one of prohibition but also one of positive action. In this respect, Christ formulated two positive commandments which characterise Christian morality: "Love God with all that you are, all that you own and all that you do" and "Love everyone you meet as yourself" (I hope you will forgive the rephrasing). Christianity is unique in that Christ is the single Divine Incarnation, and on account of this to be Christian means to follow Christ: "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life" and "I am the Light". Notice Christ spoke of "light", a guiding principle rather than a beacon which flashes red when anything is forbidden.
When too much emphasis is placed on prohibitive morality, people can become so preoccupied with not doing things that they forget about positive action and lose their perspective. Moral rules are not gods and should not be worshipped to the letter so that right action degenerates into semantic disputes; the reality and individuality of a situation (both of which are not necessarily capable of verbal expression) need to be taken into account. The more particular a moral rule, the more it is subject to exception and change. Perhaps, a system of moral values, interpreted with common sense and discrimination, would be a better guide than a system of moral rules.
Too much emphasis on sin can lead to self-pity, possibly masochism and the destructive distortion of self-denial. The distinction between self-pity and humility can be recognised functionally in that self-pity incapacitates, whereas humility leads to action in spite of what one is and to faith in a Universal, usually God; self-pity and humility can be recognised inwardly by their "taste". From my own experience and observation, it seems that to every emotion (humility is more than an emotion) there is a false counterpart.
I think that there is a right self-love and a wrong self-love. Wrong self-love comes from a feeling of one's own importance which one then tries to impose on other people; a lack of right self-love leads to intolerance; because certain people are unable to accept that they have a certain negative trait, they are intolerant of other people with this same trait, which acts as a reminder. Perhaps, right self-love is self-acceptance and self-forgiveness, and wrong self-love is a combination of inflating one's own ego and therefore wanting others to inflate it.
In any action, motivation is of importance. Nietzsche's gift in some of his work is in the criticism of the motives of some so-called good works. People are able to perform many acts of apparent external goodness, even though they have wrong motivation. Functionally, their acts of charity are restricted to certain fields and certain times, and the acts often end when they achieve what it is they really wanted from their acts; inwardly, they are filled with expectation and craving. Virtue is its own reward, true love is without any expectation of reward, and in its highest expression is natural and self-forgetful. Love is. It does not have an aim; it is a response to God's love. We can see God's love in his creation. To see His love is to be able to love. Love is born of sensitivity; to be sensitive one must have a quiet mind and not be preoccupied (that is, self-centred, unaware of the surroundings). Sensitivity is born of looking around and observing (with no object in mind but that of just seeing) without condemning or judging. Awareness is given an important place in Eastern religions for this reason.
I think a more important place in religion should be given to the unity of mankind. The division of people into Christians and non-Christians is harmful, if by these tags the two sets are unable to co-operate. Religions need to co-operate. It is strange that people see only the conflict in a situation. Religions may not have a unity in creed, but they do in purpose: to serve God, to serve others, to serve themselves. Christians and Buddhists should see what they have in common and co-operate. They both "share an interest" in charity, and I would like to see them side by side, working together.
Co-operation is not a uniquely Christian virtue. If Christians could only co-operate with Christians, co-operation would be meaningless. I am not advocating compromise, but wholehearted exploration of common ground. I believe there is common ground, because God's Son died for all human beings, not just the Christians. The Eastern religions are already influencing Christian books on prayer and meditation. This is visible in the writings of such authors as John Main, William Johnston, Anthony de Mello and Thomas Merton. Thomas Merton had a profound respect for Buddhism; in his work he refers to the empirical self, the true self and non-attachment. One big obstacle between East and West is the attitude to earthly existence; to the East it is evil, but to the West it is vital.
Perhaps a section on pleasure and pain would be useful here. Pleasure and pain are neither intrinsically evil nor intrinsically good; they are only so evil as they deflect one from being good. Pleasure is like an attractive magnet and pain like a repulsive magnet. In being Christian one will experience both pleasure and pain; the pursuit of, and enslavery by, pleasure is evil. To reach God, a certain indifference to pleasure and pain is required; to be Puritanical, and reject all pleasure as evil, would be wrong.
The kind of reform I think I would like to see within the Church: primary emphasis on Christ as the Way and his two commandments (which to me to summarize all morality); less emphasis on prohibitive morality and sin; more emphasis on understanding what love is, and a greater emphasis on dialogue with other religions, psychology and science.
Keith Mathewson