Is the Golden Rule an Example of Moral Relativism?

Is Jesus’ admonition “In everything, do to others what you would have them do to you” (Matt. 7:12) an example of moral relativism?

Jesus’ Golden Rule seems easy to caricature. I would like each of my neighbors to give me $20. Does this mean I must give each of my neighbors $20? I would like to be free to make my own life choices without interference from others. Does this mean I should avoid all criticism of others, no matter how morally heinous or destructive their actions are?

These examples suggest the absurdity of making ethics relative to one’s desires, beliefs, or practices apart from any higher standard of what is good. Jesus himself offers a clear standard for what is good: “If you love me, keep my commands,” he tells his disciples in John 14:15. “As I have loved you, so you must love one another” (John 13:34). “Whoever wants to be my disciple must … take up their cross and follow me” (Matt. 16:24). Jesus’ commandments and conduct, not our preferences or desires, are the standard of Christian ethics, even when they result in our suffering.

What, then, are we to make of the Golden Rule? We must interpret it in context. In Matthew 7:9-12, Jesus is talking about giving good gifts to others: “If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him! So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you.”

The key here, as implied by the word ‘so,’ is the example of the Father. Just as I gratefully receive God’s good gifts to me, so I should do what is good for others. I must make their good a priority equal to my own good. The purpose of the Golden Rule is thus not to make me the arbiter of what is good. It is to remind me that I am not more worthy of God’s good gifts than anyone else. I want others to do good to me, so I should do good to others.