{Love Of and For [continued (3)]}[20th September 1988]

[Redbook5:357][19880920:1235]{Love Of and For [continued (3)]}[20th September 1988]

19880920.1235

This idea* that a sense of duty is basically selfish, or at least self-centred, may come as a surprise to those aware of the assistance given to (for example) the poor since Victorian times which appear to arise out of a sense of public (and Christian) duty. ** But we are concerned not with results, nor even with actions, but with qualities of mind. And, after all, we cannot be certain what motivates public benefactors – particularly those of a century ago.

Christian duty is not to be confused with Christian Love, not can it be claimed that the former is inspired by the latter. Duty has a resistance to overcome: the conflicting desires of the Self, with which it must compete on their own terms. Love*** knows no inner resistance, but proceeds straight to the action. Love inspires Men and their Actions:**** not {their} duties. Duties are burdensome: pure Love, never.

On a mundane level, I feel a sense of duty or obligation to maintain my house and garden, and earn money. The primary motivation for this, in my own case, is what my neighbours will think of me.# But Love draws me to reveal the Spirit.

*[See last previous entry but one, [Redbook5:355-357][19880919:1722]{Love Of and For}[19th September 1988]]

**Or is this just a secular interpretation? <891011>

***(I mean pure, and self-less, Love)

****The Actions may also fulfil legal or other duties, of course; but that is not their purpose.

[See main fn to last previous entry]

#[Oh!]

[PostedBlogger24042019]