Home
/
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
/
The Opposite of Love
The Opposite of Love
Jan 30, 2026 6:36 PM
mon lesson that many of us were taught in grammar school was what defined an ‘opposite.’ As children we learn that hot and cold are antonyms; as are bad and good, living and dead, love and hate. One statement that I recently heard challenged a childhood preconception of mine. It declared that the opposite of love is not hate, but indifference.

If we think about what indifference is, we soon see that it is in stark opposition to love. To be neither hot nor cold toward a person in need is quite a horrific thing. It involves a lackadaisical attitude where we fail to see human beings as individual persons made in the image and likeness of God. If I have a neighbor down the street and do not care if his family is treated unjustly I am acting in an egocentric way. I am being indifferent and not – loving my neighbor as myself.

This idea troubled me and I began to wonder what ways I was acting indifferently toward others. My first thoughts were about homeless men and women whom I had ignored on the street. This notion shifted once again as I began to think not about whom I had ignored, but the reason behind why I had ignored them. I found two reasons.

The first had to do with my resources. I am a recent graduate of James Madison University in Harrisonburg, Virginia and an intern at the Acton Institute who has more debt than money to his name. Since I am not able to fully provide for myself I can only offer a bit of pocket money or volunteer from time to time. Because my resources are limited, my ability to help is limited.

The second reason, I am ashamed to say, is that I do not always take beggars at their word. I find that I am more likely to believe a man who is asking for gas money than a man who is looking to buy food. This may seem judgmental at first, however I do find that there is a logical reason behind my rationale.

On a federal level, our government provides food stamps, housing benefits, medical care, and material welfare that the marginalized and impoverished of society can easily obtain. On a local level many towns and counties have various outreach programs in place. These programs are also funded by taxes, but are more personal than federal aid. On a private level: churches, consignment shops, soup kitchens, food banks, and personal charity can help those in need. The fact that aid to the poor simply exists on a large scale is the answer to my original question. I am more likely to believe a man who is asking me for gas money because there is no such thing as a gas relief program.

When seeing a man asking for food money I may say to myself, “Why should I or anyone bother to help a man on the street who is hungry? He can always go get food stamps, or go to a soup kitchen; a church will take him in.”

It is so easy for me to ignore this man because of the relief programs that are in place. Lo and behold I find myself not engaging in some Samaritan’s dilemma by giving a dollar or two; I simply walk away from him. I am planting a seed of indifference.

I am not advocating for the abolition of government safety nets or private charity. However, the simple fact remains that if less assistance were available I would also be more likely to believe the hungry man. I would also be less likely to judge him and fall into stereotypes which cause me to question his sobriety, mental state, or work ethic. It is only natural that the further I am away from a particular problem, the more I will likely begin to view it as someone else’s problem instead of my own.

We can cultivate a society of indifference by the kinds of laws and relief programs we have in place. The more dependent we e on the government or the assistance of others, the less we are able to control the es of our own lives. When we petition for relief, rather than provide for each other, we e self-centered and not self-reliant. If we are not free to make a difference, charity es impossible.

If we want to avoid indifference we need to cultivate a culture of love. To love someone can mean a variety of things. However, there is a definition that I heard recently which suits. Love, simply put, is ‘to will someone the best’. When looking at how safety nets and charity are done, prudence should be used to determine the best way of helping others. We should avoid throwing more money at our problems and further delaying solutions. A moral decision is one that involves thinking with your mind as well as feeling with your heart.

A simple point about love is that you cannot separate it from a voluntary choice. Legal institutions such as the government, non-profits, and welfare programs are not able to love others. It is people who are capable of love. It is people who are made in God’s likeness that can passion.

Should we continue to deprive ourselves of the opportunity to voluntarily engage in charity, we will inevitably fall into a culture of indifference. Free society and prudent charity provide the framework for love and prosperity.

Comments
Welcome to mreligion comments! Please keep conversations courteous and on-topic. To fosterproductive and respectful conversations, you may see comments from our Community Managers.
Sign up to post
Sort by
Show More Comments
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
DCI John Luther: Secular Authority
John Luther is pierced for Jenny's transgressions.An essay of mine on the wonderful and difficult BBC series “Luther” is up over at the Comment magazine website, “Get Your Hands Dirty: The Vocational Theology of Luther.” In this piece I reflect on DCI John Luther’s “overriding need to protect other people from injustice and harm, and even sometimes the consequences of their own sin and guilt,” and how that fits in with the Christian (and particularly Lutheran) doctrine of vocation. Indeed,...
How Junk Bonds Killed the Three Martini Lunch
A recent editorial in the New York Times claims that during the 1980s leveraged buyouts “contributed significantly to the growth of the e gap, moving wealth from the middle class to the top end.” First Things editor R.R. Reno explains why the real story is plicated, more interesting, and explains much more than e inequality: The upper middle class world responded to the leveraged buyout revolution by upping mitments to education and economically oriented self-discipline. The old white-collar social contract...
Samuel Gregg: A Necessary Symbiosis
Acton Research Director Samuel Gregg reviews America’s Spiritual Capital by Nicholas Capaldi and T. R. Malloch (St Augustine’s Press, 2012) for The University Bookman. … Capaldi and Malloch are—refreshingly—unabashed American exceptionalists. One of this book’s strengths is the way that it brings to light a critical element of that exceptionalism through the medium of spiritual capital. Part of the American experiment is mitment to modernity—but a modernity several times removed from that pioneered by the likes of the French revolutionaries,...
The Dangers of Democratic Tyranny
In the context mentary on protests like those in Quebec and the Occupy movement more broadly, it’s worth reflecting on the dangers of democratic tyranny. The “people” can be tyrannical just as an individual sovereign or an oligarchy might. That’s why Aristotle considered democracy a defective form of government, because it too easily enshrines the will of the majority into an insuperable law. As Lord Acton put it, “It is bad to be oppressed by a minority, but it is...
Samuel Gregg: Why Austerity Isn’t Enough
Writing on The American Spectator website, Acton Research Director Samuel Gregg looks at the strange notion of European fiscal “austerity” even as more old continent economies veer toward the abyss. Is America far behind? Needless to say, Greece is Europe’s poster child for reform-failure. Throughout 2011, the Greek parliament passed reforms that diminished regulations that applied to many professions in the economy’s service sector. But as two Wall Street Journal journalists demonstrated one year later, “despite the change in the...
Samuel Gregg: Unions and the Path to Irrelevancy
On National Review Online, Acton Research Director Samuel Gregg demolishes the left’s knee-jerk explanation for labor union decline, which blames “the machinations of conservative intellectuals, free-market-inclined governments, and businesses who, over time, have successfully worked to diminish organized labor, thereby crushing the proverbial ‘little guy.'” Gregg writes: “The truth, however, is rather plex. One factor at work is economic globalization. Businesses fed up with unions who think that their industry should be immune petition are now in a position to...
Wong and Rae on How and When to Fire Someone
Donald Trump's tagline: "You're fired."Last week I raised the question of whether being a Christian businessperson means you do some things differently, and particularly whether some of these things that are done differently have to do with terminating an employee. Here’s a snip of what Kenman Wong and Scott Rae say in their recent book, Business for the Common Good: Although panies may take on certain employees as an act of benevolence, it is not the norm. Employees are bound...
Report: Dire situation for Syrian Christians
A roundup at Notes on Arab Orthodoxy paints a grim picture for Christians — and clashing Islamic sects — in Syria. It’s a gut-wrenching account of kidnappings, torture and beheadings. One report begins with this line: “Over 40 young men (including a couple of doctors) from the Wadi area, were killed by the bearded men who are eager to give us democracy.” The article also links to a report in Agenzia Fides, which interviewed a Greek-Catholic bishop: The picture for...
30 Years Ago Today: Reagan’s Westminster Address
The Washington Post’s editorial page reminds us that today is the 30th anniversary of Ronald Reagan’s address at Westminster Hall, London. The speech, famous for its “ash heap of history line,” was Reagan’s challenge to the Soviet Union’s very legitimacy and pointed to its hollow core. Reagan’s great strength was not just America’s military posture against the Soviets, but that he truly made the Cold War a battle of moral ideas. It was a decisive pivot away from America’s policy...
Review: Can One Kill ‘For Greater Glory’?
Immediately after watching For Greater Glory, I found myself struggling to appreciate the myriad good intentions, talents and the $40 million that went into making it. Unlike the Cristeros who fought against the Mexican government, however, my efforts ultimately were unsuccessful. The film opened on a relatively limited 757 screens this past weekend, grossing $1.8 million and earning the No. 10 position of all films currently in theatrical release. Additionally, the film reportedly has been doing boffo at the Mexican...
Related Classification
Copyright 2023-2026 - www.mreligion.com All Rights Reserved