Life in the Kingdom Blog

Impartial Love

If you love those loving you, what reward do you have? Do not even tax collectors do the same? And if you lend to those from whom you hope to receive, what reward do you have? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? (Q 6:32, 34)

This is the next saying in our journey through the Sermon in the Sayings Gospel Q. I never cease to be bowled over by this saying. I remember reading it as a teen and feeling quite threatened by it. Its simplicity belies just how radical it is, just how much it rocks the ground beneath our feet.

There’s no getting around its meaning: If you love only those who love you back, if you give only to those who are guaranteed to give back, how virtuous is that? Everyone does that, even the people you consider unrighteous (we might say “unspiritual”).

It doesn’t take much thought to see where this leads us. It leads us to the idea that our loving and giving should not be tethered to how people treat us. Even when they treat us really badly, we should still love, we should still give. This, of course, brings us right back around to where we started—to loving our enemies. The Critical Edition of Q titles this saying “impartial love,” which is perfectly accurate. Can you imagine having impartial love? Can you imagine loving everyone with complete impartiality?

I had an interesting coincidence around this idea the other day. I was writing a commentary on a section in A Course in Miracles called “Judgment and the Authority Problem.” I started out by talking about how selective our perception is, how it favors some and ignores others:

In order to make sense of what we see, we have to select the items that we consider meaningful and desirable, and reject the others. For example, my son Michael had a pancake race at his school, where each child races against others while flipping a pancake in a pan. Only Michael’s class was racing, but the whole school was watching, along with quite a few parents. As I looked at that scene, my perception was highly selective. What mainly mattered was Michael and his pancake. My perception simply dismissed almost everyone else.

I think we can all probably accept this basic feature of perception, but the next stage is to appreciate just how much rejection is involved in this. As I said, my perception rejected almost everyone there. That’s a lot of rejection. And that rejection is anything but inconsequential. When people are considered unimportant or undesirable, there are always consequences. Can we accept that our perception involves massive, ongoing rejection?

I then ended my commentary by talking about the alternative to this selective perception, in which we respond to everyone exactly the same:

As we look out at our world, we can rest from all the judging, sorting, selecting, and rejecting. We can relax because Someone Else is the author of reality. Yes, we’ll still need to figure out, for instance, how close a car is to us. But in relation to the things that are truly real—the minds—we can disable the judgment function, uninstall all the filters, and greet everyone with pure and total acceptance.

Shortly after finishing this, I read a post by the spiritual writer David Spangler that seemed uncannily similar. In the latest piece in his series “David’s Desk,” he relates how, when he used to do a lot of traveling, he enjoyed driving through the various states in the US. However, the need to spend time with his family then forced him to fly rather than drive, so that now the states he used to drive through, he merely flew over.

This leads to a discussion of “Flyover States,” which is the title of his piece:

I don’t know when the term originated or started to become popular, but I became aware of it last year during the Presidential Election: “Flyover States.” These are the States in the middle of the country that air flights between the large urban centers of the East and West coasts regularly fly over. To be a Flyover State is at one level a simple description of a fact of life as more and more people live on the East and West coasts and take non-stop flights back and forth. But especially last year, the phrase took on additional meaning. Flyover States were the homes of the “forgotten Americans,” the ones whose opinions and activities were not as important when compared to what goes on in places like New York, Washington, Boston, Los Angeles, and San Francisco, the large metropolises on either side of America.

To be a “Flyover State” carried connotations of being ignored, overlooked, not seen, or even disdained as being of lesser importance.

Indeed, if you look up “Flyover States” online, you find that many commentators saw the 2016 election as being “the revenge of the flyover states.” Those states had been ignored, dismissed, and belittled long enough, and so they rose up and took control.

Spangler then sees this phenomenon as reflective of a state of mind—a “flyover state”—that has serious consequences on the interpersonal level:

However, when I think of Flyover States, it conjures up an entirely different image for me. It seems to me that one of the many challenges facing us in this country, and for that matter in the world at large, is how easy it is to step into a “flyover state.” Such a state is not a place but an attitude that can arise when we encounter someone who is different from us. This difference could be political, religious, ethnic, racial, economic, or something as trivial as a difference in hairstyles or clothing. Unless we are compelled for some reason to engage with this person, we can “flyover” them in our minds and hearts. We can fail to encounter the territory of their life; we can fail to make connection.

Spangler then ends by saying that our hope lies in overcoming this flyover mentality:

At this time, our country is embroiled in problems caused by our various differences. If we hope to solve them, we must work to connect and live in our hearts and minds in united states, not flyover ones.

I was immediately struck by the similarities with my commentary. In both cases, the writer talks about the everyday pattern of focusing on some things and overlooking others. He begins with a personal story that presents an innocuous example of this pattern. But then he applies the pattern to our interpersonal relationships, where it is clearly deleterious, because it means overlooking and dismissing various people. He ends by saying that we need to step outside this state of mind and be inclusive of everyone.

If you know me, you know I consider these kinds of striking coincidences to be messages from a higher place. Something is telling me that I need to work harder on stepping outside my own “flyover state.”

If you put those two pieces—mine and Spangler’s—together and then set them both next to Jesus’ saying on impartial love, you see an interesting thing. Jesus’ simple saying ends up looking like an umbrella that, despite its simplicity, embryonically contains some weighty and highly relevant truths. It looks less like an ancient relic and more like a timeless truth.

First, the saying implies a retraining of our perceptual patterns of attention, which constantly favor certain people and ignore others. Impartial love necessarily entails a complete lack of our normal psychological dismissal of everyone but our favored few.

Second, the saying implies a diagnosis of what has happened in our country and a prescription for how it can heal. We don’t even need to go as far as impartial love, which on a mass level would change our country beyond recognition. Even merely less-partial love carries the prospect of uniting us interpersonally and healing our nation.

Jesus’ words have never been more relevant than they are right now.

E-mail me when people leave their comments –

Robert Perry

You need to be a member of Mustard Seed Venture Network to add comments!

Join Mustard Seed Venture Network


  • Greg, I think it's an almost unbelievably lofty challenge to spend every day with someone and still truly feel that they are no more worthy of love than anyone else.

    Ken, I get the feeling that you are really taking this on the chin. I like your Camelot image--losing your dream of living in Camelot for the sake of a more real Camelot. Interesting. As someone who's always wanted to live in a Camelot (at least my version of it), I think you've got a very good point.
  • I've been continuing to think about this. Robert, I kind of figured you would agree about the "certain people occupy key positions" thing. I think that's really true. But it's a challenging thing for me, because in my experience it's easy for a "this is a key person in my life" stance to actually be a "this person is inherently more worthy of love" stance in disguise. I think it will take a lot of discernment and a lot of practice for me to sort this out. Well, no one said it was easy!
  • There is something refreshing and healing in your post as well as deeply challenging and even disturbing to my status quo. I definitely feel the desire to flyover those very states, in this case, states of mind that I consider that have acted out contrary to the good of the commonwealth. And yet, I know of no other solution than to take them in account and even to love them. Whenever I think rejection is the answer I still come up wanting. Something feels amiss when I surround myself with just those who share my attitudes, even if those attitudes are more in line with the kingdom, such as compassion and inclusion. The irony is apparent even to me because I am definitely not standing for compassion or inclusion when, I myself, reject those who I perceive as opposed to these values. Not very loving on my part.

    I do notice something in me wanting to squirm my way out of really embracing this teaching. Yet, with the previous posts on the Golden Rule still working on my mind, and this one following, I am realizing more and more I am going to have to take a deep breath and say "here I go" and then reach my hand across the proverbial aisle. In one way, I feel like I am losing my dream of living in Camelot but at the same time I feel like I might be gaining a more real Camelot. Yet, I can still feel this voice in me saying "not yet, not yet." This is where I need to take that breath.
  • Greg, as I suspect you know, I completely agree with where it sounds like you're coming from. One can have impartial love for everyone, yet one cannot give equal attention to everyone. If you gave one second of full attention to each person on the planet, you'd have to live over 200 years to get through them all. So yes, I completely agree that we need to honor the fact that certain people are meant to occupy key positions in our lives. Wouldn't it be something to spend every day with a particular person, yet love that person exactly the same as you love everyone else?
  • You have this down AAA, Robert. Now we just have to practice, practice, practice this Q teaching. I am beginning to understand how that "chance meeting in the elevator; the little child bumping into the adult etc." is our opportunity to maintain the smile and not form a frown.
  • This is very powerful, Robert. I'm going to remember that "flyover state" thing for a long time. It's such a powerful way to convey our attitude of overlooking certain people.

    I hope I'm not bringing this up as a sneaky way of wriggling out of the teaching (I probably am to a certain extent), but I can't help but wonder how this impartial love idea dovetails with the fact that we really do have to give more of our time and attention to some people than others. For instance, with the Michael example, since he is your child, it seems that even if you were loving everyone impartially, he would still get the lion's share of your time and attention, since you have a special responsibility to him that you don't have to others.

    What I'm imagining is that in the state of truly impartial love (obviously an amazingly high state), you would have total love for everyone, and yet at the same time be guided by God to appropriately give more time and attention to those whom He has brought into your life as relationship partners of any kind. I think of someone like the Dalai Lama, who (people say) has a remarkable ability to communicate deep love to a complete stranger in a brief encounter, yet (like the rest of us) also has specific people who, at least on a form level, are a more central part of his life. Surely the same was true for Jesus and his disciples.

    Anyway, I'd love to hear your thoughts on this.
This reply was deleted.