I think I missed the mark on my post about Quantifying Character. In that post, I essentially rank actions as positive or negative, with having inaction labeled as zero. But I don’t think that’s quite right.
See neglect is inaction, and it’s negative. The opposite of neglect is kindness. But since Paul tells us that love is kind. Love is the opposite of neglect. Love is action. Neglect is inaction.
It’s similar to a sin of omission. I think most people can agree that lying is wrong. And telling the truth is right. But when it comes to omitting an important part of the truth, while still telling the truth, it’s wrong. The devil’s lies are full of bits of truth.
I’ve personally struggled with neglect, thinking that since I wasn’t doing anything, I wasn’t doing anything wrong. Well, I was wrong.
One thought on “Love is kind”
[…] recently wrote about love being kind, and what I think that means. There was an interesting application when you take that and apply it […]