The Iron Rule mentality is a rigid mentality. In this case, one’s interest and presuppositions misuse God’s unchangeable and unquestioned will. It is claimed that God’s will pre-determined everybody’s past, present and future life including one’s socio-financial class and status despite one’s being (at present) and the becoming (in future) (Erasmus 2016). This belief belittled one’s potential talents, initiatives and one’s future’s becoming. The origin of this belief can be traced back in the Stoics philosophy, which teaches that people are to submit themselves to a destiny, which is decreed by impersonal, unknowing, uncaring and unloving nature and/or god of fate. The Stoic’s apathy ethics urge people, especially the vulnerable and the marginalised people to seek no improvement of their position and condition of suffering and poverty, but to view and treat themselves as virtuous people who should not only eliminate passion and emotions as ‘evil’ in their own life but also resigned the pursue of money, riches, honour, reward and recognition, on the one hand, and hence spiritualise (downplay and postpone) their present reality as the afterlife promises, which is a goal of and for life and the only eternal (moral) status worthy to be earned. From such a will. In Colossians 2:16–23, Paul addressed such Stoic saying, ‘pain is good, and pleasure is evil’ and/or Platonic dualism call of freeing the soul from the evil body (Hodges 2010:4). These ideas distort the biblical view of God’s creation (both in nature and humanity) in general and the positions and conditions of the poor and the needy in this world.

One of the strong socialist-led arguments is that the market should not control the resources like money, land, labour, etc., on behalf of the poor majority, but the state is best positioned for the social reforms of the stolen and robbed the poor’s most valuable dignity in the form of their resources (Degenaar 1982:12, 26–27, 30). This argument does not only claim that the capitalist’s centralised and controlled economy is an inherent cause or origin of evils but also propagates the state-centred and controlled market economy as a solution to the moral and social question of the majority who are in need for labour, decent wages, working hours, healthy conditions and security in workplaces, etc. (Degenaar 1982:27; Ver Eecke 1996:7–11). According to this socialist-led arguments, the rich cannot survive without the poor and their resources in general and their labour. The poor are the ones who do the real work and hence keep society going (Erasmus 2016).

One of the strong capitalist-led arguments is that the poor people choose their fate (destiny), due to lack of vision and hence should be blamed for making the irrational choices when they are given the opportunities and resources (Erasmus 2016). In that regard, moved by profit-seeking market, the capitalist’s successes (achievements), from the capitalist’s point of view, is the results of making right chooses, taking their risks and chances and hence working hard (and smart) in managing labour and resources to achieve their financial freedom, to build their history or legacy in this world here and now (Ver Eecke 1996:5f).

Based on Deuteronomy 15:7–8, Calvin (1982:158) argued that those who are privileged with power and resources are to be open-hearted and open-handed to ‘release’ and/or forgive those who are vulnerable, disadvantaged and marginalised. To Calvin, this should be done to maintain the moderate (middle)¹ ground, and hence to avoid the two extremes, namely, on one hand, an immoderate power of few rich elites to have freedom to increase their wealth greedily that they use it to oppress and tyrannise over majority of people who are mostly the poor and, on the other hand, an extreme poverty of the majority of people some of whom die due to lack of basic needs like food, drink, shelter, etc. (Is 58:3f; Sider 2005:178).

According to Calvin, Isaiah (25:6) and David (Psalm 22:26) used the same metaphor to describes Christ’s kingdom, saying, that ‘the poor and the rich will sit down at this feast, and will eat and be satisfied’. Through the GR, equitable justice is applied to promote cohesion of socialist and capitalist ideals. Based on Deuteronomy 15:7–8, Calvin (1982:158) remind us that when the socio-economic injustice and the inequality gap between the rich and the poor are left unchecked, it will not help the current situation (for instance, the Western-International Monetary Fund (IMF)-led neo-liberal practices on the LDC loan), but it will only perpetuate economic oligarchs of the élites to increase their economic interests, businesses and land on the expense of the poor majority (Terreblanche 2012:67). Therefore, in this regard, Calvin’s view is still relevant in a modern context where it is apparent that there is a dominant ‘winner-takes-all’ global economic theory² of the neo-liberalism-led capitalist on the right (Fukuyama 1989:3, 8), which dominates the socialist leftist ideologies as an out-dated and irrelevant ideology (Klein 2007:183, 216).

The common feature of the most, if not all world religions, cultures and/or philosophy is the Silver Rule kind of relationship because they are the pale reciprocity-like maxim (and/or principles) of the Golden Rule (to be discussed later). Some of the earliest recorded sayings of the World Religions, cultures and/or philosophy traced from about 700 A.D. onwards include the following:

These religious and philosophical pragmatic maxims,³ have a motto, saying, ‘I give so that I can be given in return’. This kind of view (attitude) and treatment (behaviour) towards others led many not only to apathy or turning a blind eye on the socio-economic realities in general but also to show an easy way out on the reality of poverty if not the detachment to it. Depending on positive or negative returned action, that is, what they expect others to do or not to do, unto them, people perform positive or negative action. With this maxim, people treat others based on an expectation to receive the same treatment (Van Reken 1992:22). Positive actions, like charity and welfare, are done based on a return treatment (Bruce 1956:132) and/or with some expectation, that is, to be loved, rewarded, praised and/or glorified in return (Jacobus & Gillett 2007:409; Popper 1966:386). In that way, they get their self-righteous satisfaction and fulfilment (King 2008:114).

Paulo Coelho de Souza, who was born in 1947, is the Brazilian lyricist and novelist who was the recipient of numerous international awards. He was one of the best-selling and most influential authors in the world. He sold more than 65 million copies in 59 languages. In Alchemist, one of his best-selling novels, which has been translated into 80 languages, he wrote about a very rich young man who went to see a Rabbi, to ask for his advice about what he should do with his life. The Rabbi led him over to the window and asked him: ‘What can you see through the glass?’ ‘I can see men coming and going and a blind man begging for alms in the street’. Then the Rabbi showed him a large mirror and said to him: ‘Look in this mirror and tell me what you see’. ‘I can see myself’, says the young rich man. After Rabbi indicated the fact that the window and the mirror are made of the same material, glass, but differ in the fact that the mirror has an additional cover of silver, he urges the young rich man to make an analogy. And hence compare himself to these two kinds of glass, saying:

In this regard, Galatians 6:7–8 is often misquoted and/or misread that good is done for return expectation (not for own sake).

After the Second World War in the 1950s and 1960s, the socio-political and economic war, called the Cold War (Ajulu 2001:149; Deist 1984:53) not only produced the two superpower nations and their allies, namely, the capitalist and Christendom nations with democratic rules, principles and practices, led by the United States (US) and the communist and atheist nations with dictatorship rules, principles and practices led by the Soviet Union (USSR) (Ajulu 2001:149; Coetzee & Graaff 1996:139f.). Without going deeper and wider, this article will limit itself to the motive of the Western form of development projects and aids. The United States (US) with their well-articulated Marshall Aid (Plan) among others made developmental intervention by offering foreign aids, which includes industrialisation, modern agriculture techniques, education, etc., to their poor colonised’ countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America that are labelled as traditional, backward, under or less-developed, emergent and developing countries with the motives among others, to benefit themselves and counter and contain the communist principles and practices. With such a mixed bag (package), the Christian missionaries, the charitable (development) agencies, the donor countries, and governments, arrogantly impose their development models as a tailor-made solution by introducing their systems, technologies and ideologies, disregarding the natives and/or indigenous’ socio-political-historical and spiritual situation, solutions, systems, technologies and ideologies, which are distinct from that of the West.

The arrogant, paternalistic and/or condescending attitude with their naïve optimism to their Western technology, knowledge, systems, institutions and cultures is influenced not only by the advantaged (or privileged) oriented assumption that undermines the poor as people who lacked essential knowledge, skills, and resources and hence they are deprived their dignity in that they are neither be involved nor participate meaningfully in combating their poverty but also by the disadvantaged (or under-privileged) oriented assumption that the advantaged have solutions to every problems of the disadvantaged, that they can decide for (not with) them as they are nothing other than the mere beneficiaries, and hence it undermines and dehumanise them that they are not the shapers of their own destiny out of their plight. The imported solutions that were and are still imposed to the poor in an African, Asian and the Latin American context to some extent retard their growth and their self-determination and resourcefulness (Myers 1999:579). The same point was concluded by Ellingsen (1993:28) saying, ‘[t]he result is that underdeveloped nations may compromise their unique social fabric and receive in its stead the maladies of pollution, consumerism, alcohol abuse, and the like’.

This section is a reflection on the failure of Western oriented development agencies to eliminate inequality in the distribution of wealth. According to Goldewijk and Fortman (1999):

The social activists pointed out to the Western missionaries, technocrats, bureaucrats and experts from the Western-oriented development agencies that they failed and are still failing to eliminate poverty and other related (underlying) problems due to the fact that the equitable justice was not used in the past (and even in the present) to address inequality (disparity) relationships of the rich (Northern and Western) and the poor (South and East) (Ajulu 2001:151; De Beer 1998:132; Elliott 1987:89). In this regard, Bosch (1980), said:

It is fallacy to think that by implementing the Western development technology, knowledge and models all the problems of the poor are addressed while ignoring the fact that the poor countries have survived many years without such Western development interventions, which were and are still aimed at economic self-enrichment and advancement on the expense of the poor communities, whose human identity is uprooted and lost in such development process. In this regard, Gittins (1993) said:

It is a fallacy to assume that poverty-stricken African countries could achieve the same development that the Western countries accomplished, while these countries did not and could not go through the same historical processes of development (Ellingsen 1993:28f). According to Ajulu (2001:150), ‘[o]ptimism was still expressed in the possibility of finding shortcuts in the long historical process of development experienced by developed economies, and achieving desired results, especially improved results quickly’. The development of the Western countries was achieved in most cases through a terrible history and legacy of slavery, colonialism, imperialism and/or looting of the African continent’s resources. In pointing out the shortcomings of such development, Bragg (1989), said:

In the words of Barclay (1958):

The parable of the Good Samaritan points to and reflect the Golden Rule of love as a human commission of just and right treatment of others (Jeremias 1972:205). Though the actual phrase, ‘Golden Rule’ does not originate from the Bible or Jesus self, it resonates with the life of Jesus (Mt 7:12b). The phrase ‘Golden Rule’ can be traced back as early as 1604 when it was uttered by Charles Gibbon that its use is detected (Flew 1979:134; Gensler 2013:84) since then, it was widely used between 1620 and 1670 in England and beyond (Metzger 1958:304; Wattles 1996:213ff.).

The Golden Rule is a single (unilateral), simple and easy-to-grasp moral and directive maxim, axiom and/or principle. Such rules or axioms are positive, proactive, provocative, revolutionary and radical maxims (Carson 1984:187). The phrase to just and right kind of actions which are not based on expect merit or return favours, but on the right view and treatment of one’s fellow human beings, including one’s enemy, as who would want to be treated as one does (Mt 5:17; 43f; 22:37–40; Ex 23:4f; King 2008:112). In this regard, a quick survey about the GR sayings, is that it influenced the writing and the teachings of almost all religious sayings, cultural sayings and philosophical ideas around the world. In this regard, it agrees with an English proverb idiom says, ‘a friend in need is a friend indeed’.

In the parable of the Good Samaritan, Jesus urged them to do ‘likewise.’ He points them to the acts or marks of discipleship, namely (Exodus 23):

The Tanakh⁴ and the New Testament teaching have the common (sole) intention, namely, the two sides of love, which is called Jesus’s law of love. Both Old and New Testament teachings not only hang on (or depend) on but also point to two sides of love, that is, to love God and to love others (Lv 19:18,34; 25:44ff.; Dt 6:5; 10;19; Lewis 1952:17ff.). The Golden Rule maxim translates, sums up and fulfils that intended meaning of the two sides of love (Muswubi 2023:4f; 2024:5f). The Golden Rule is a pro-active, practical maxim and wisdom for moral living applied by Christ through his Spirit (Mt 5:17; 22:37–40). It should be noted that Matthew used GR as part of wisdom for moral living as it is used in the Wisdom Literature (Pr 1:7; 31:30; Wattles 1996:42ff.). In this regard, Matthew used the term, ‘wisdom’ more than other gospels combined (Mt 7:12a, 24; 11:25ff.; Deutsch 1996:57ff.).

An empathy as a root of kindness and compassion is to put or imagine yourself in the recipient’s shoes (including slaves and enemies), situation or position and their basic desire namely to be loved (understood, appreciated and treated kindly with love and respect), and hence; do so as a gift to them (Muswubi 2023:3f; 2024:4f). The giver in giving, is more blessed than when receiving (Ac 20:35).

Seek a better life for others as immediate and individual goal: Practicing the Golden Rule opens the opportunity to take care of all people, including our families, relatives, neighbours in and outside the church (in society), without expecting any return. In this regard, Jesus Christ urges his disciples ‘to do likewise’ that is, to do just and right actions including loving all the people including the so-called enemy, the vulnerable (victims of abuse), marginalised (slaves and strangers) and disadvantaged (the poor and needy), etc. (Mt 5:38–48). To cancel debtors’ loan and its interest is the last line of freedom and dignity, and such an act of undeserving mercy is given to the poor who always beg and could not return to reflect God’s gospel of mercy in Christ through his Spirit (Mt 5:38–48; Lk 3:10–14). Their profession of faith (creed) is not only rooted in one’s relationship with God in Christ by his Spirit (Phlp 2:3ff.) but also seen in its external manifestation or fruit of obeying and imitating him and his love in all aspects of life (Lk 6:31, 32–35; 7:12, 15–23).

The mediate and institutional goals – to restore social structural justice: To be created in God’s image gives all people, including enemies, is a basic human right, which is not only serve as a base to seek peace and a better life for other (Pr 31:7; Jn 17:23) including to do what is just and right, namely to respect, promote and protect each other and each other’s moral and jural dignity and right (need and freedom), which include the right to live, to property and to worship (Ro 2:15), but also for the modus operandi (plan of action) for religious, educational and political institutions to share an awareness of justice and spread it to all people. In that regard, to be created in God’s image is also affirmed and expressed in the essence and philosophy of the secular, liberal and humanistic institutions. These institutions not only promote (share) and protect the basic and common human (and natural) rights as the universal virtue (Muswubi 2023:3f; 2024:4f) but also to get involved (and co-operation as partners) in handling the spiritual and socio-economic injustice (instability and inequality) including fighting against all forms of abuse, violence (against women and children) and elevating the condition of poverty, human immunodeficiency virus and acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (HIV/AIDS).

The ultimate and eternal goal – Gods glory: This is evident in Psalm 22:26, stating, ‘the poor and the rich will sit down at this feast and will eat and be satisfied’ (Calvin 1840–57).

Regarding this feast, Murphy (2020:112), concluded that, ‘Both Israel and the nations are at the feast and benefit from Yahweh’s hospitality and generosity. Not only does he provide them with the best food and drink, Yahweh also swallows up the swallower, death, and comforts the nations and takes away the reproach of Israel. This image was no doubt comforting to Isaiah’s original audience and still is a source of comfort for God’s people today. Christians can find comfort and hope in the midst of the chaos as they wait on Yahweh’s salvation in these last days.’

There will be a sphere of Rule, where the rich and poor will be. Jesus tells us to invite at his banquets table those at society’s margins, the outcasts, the least, the needy, the lame, the blind, the poor, the powerless, the crippled, the oppressed, the prostitute, the slaves, etc. to whom one expects no returns (Lk 7:36–50;14:7–14; Jn 13:34f; Ja 4:10; Ringe 1985:69). It points to God’s grace and Rule, which is ‘already’ revealed in Christ’s first coming and yet to be revealed in his second coming. Individual Christians and the corporate church are his agents to extend this gospel to all nations – under his watch and presence. When all is done, people who are caught up into Christ’s sphere state or zone of reign from all cultural, class, tribal and national groups will gather and sit together before him at his communal meal to partake in his generous provision (Ex 23:4f; Rm 8:16, 26f. 34; Calvin 1982). Common goal of human existence and service in all spheres of life is to glorify God (Luther 1929:1:47; 65ff.). Calvin, by Isaiah (25:6) and David in Psalm (22:26), used the same metaphor to describe Christ’s kingdom, saying, that ‘the poor and the rich will sit down at this feast, and will eat and be satisfied’. Through the GR, equitable justice is applied to promote the cohesion of socialist and capitalist ideals. Based on Deuteronomy 15:7–8, Calvin (1982:158) reminds us that when the socio-economic injustice and the inequality gap between the rich and the poor are left unchecked, it will not help the current situation (for instance, the Western-led International Monetary Fund [IMF] and neo-liberal practices on least developed countries [LDC]), but it will only perpetuate economic oligarchs of the élites to increase their economic interests, businesses and land on the expense of the poor majority (Terreblanche 2012:67). Therefore, in this regard, Calvin’s view is still relevant in a modern context where it is apparent that there is a dominant ‘winner-takes-all’ global economic theory of the neo-liberalism-led capitalist on the right (Fukuyama 1989:3, 8), which dominates the socialist leftist ideologies as an out-dated and irrelevant ideology (Klein 2007:183, 216).