Tag Politics

The Priorities of the Good Samaritan

Todd R 1 Comment

The parable of the Good Samaritan is well-known, even by those who aren’t Christian.  Briefly, it goes like this: a man is robbed, beaten, and left for dead on the side of a road.  First a priest, and then a Levite, passed him by, offering no help at all.  But a Samaritan, a member of a group despised by many Jews, stopped and helped the man, even bringing him to further help and paying the necessary expenses.

There is a lesson in the story about priorities – what this Good Samaritan put first, and what he didn’t.  But before covering his #1 priority, here are some things he did not prioritize, even though these aren’t necessarily bad things:

His first priority was not to fight for stricter laws against robbers.  What the robbers did was probably already illegal, and definitely not morally right.  We don’t know the fate of the robbers in the story, but they might have gotten away with this near murder.  In modern times, if criminals are getting away with bad behavior, a movement sometimes grows to make something that is already illegal “more illegal.”  If robbing is against the law, some might lobby to make the punishment harsher, or to focus laws on particular victims or perpetrators, but if they’re getting away with it now, how will these changes help?  The Good Samaritan couldn’t do much about this immediately, so it wasn’t his first priority.

His first priority also was not to raise public awareness of violence along the highways.  He didn’t create posters and social media hashtags (I write as if those things existed then).  Such a campaign can have benefits.  It could help people be more careful when traveling, it might encourage the government to allocate more of its limited resources toward highway safety, but it will never completely solve the problem. The Good Samaritan couldn’t do much about this immediately, so it wasn’t his first priority either.

Photo by youssef naddam on Unsplash

So, what was the Good Samaritan’s priority?  He focused on what he could control, and any other concerns came later.  He focused on the problem right in front of him – a man beat up and near death on the side of the road.  Sometimes we can focus so much on advocating, that we lose sight of doing.  (I worry about that for myself as someone who spends so much time blogging.)  But the Good Samaritan “proved to be a neighbor”[1] by taking care of the neighbor right in front of him.

We can also be deluded into thinking that our government and other institutions should be able to solve all of our problems if only we fight hard enough for it.  However, they never will be enough, because any and all institutions are made up of people who too often deny their own responsibility for the problems of the world. Especially on social media, we often get the illusion that we can offload our responsibility for the world to others, and that what’s happening somewhere else is more important than what’s right in front of us.

While advocacy can be a good and necessary thing, God wants us to prioritize doing, which is what everyone in heaven will do!  In heaven, everyone will be like the Good Samaritan (and like Jesus), and therefore we won’t need better laws, awareness campaigns powered by advertising and hashtags, or stricter enforcement of laws.  The bloody victim by the roadside won’t exist.  And that is something to look forward to!

In the meantime:
“I think each village was meant to feel pity for its own sick and poor whom it can help and I doubt if it is the duty of any private person to fix his mind on ills which he cannot help. This may even become an escape from the works of charity we really can do to those we know. God may call any one of us to respond to some far away problem or support those who have been so called. But we are finite and he will not call us everywhere or to support every worthy cause. And real needs are not far from us.” – C.S. Lewis

[1] Luke 10:36

The Love of a Good Samaritan

Todd R 3 Comments

The parable of the Good Samaritan is well-known, even by those who aren’t Christian.  Briefly, it goes like this: a man is robbed, beaten, and left for dead on the side of a road.  First a priest, and then a Levite, passed him by.  But a Samaritan, a member of a group despised by many Jews, stopped and helped the man, getting him to help and paying the necessary expenses.

Jesus told the parable in response to a man who said to inherit eternal life, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself.”[1]  But then “desiring to justify himself,” he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”  He was looking for loopholes, for people he did not need to love.

Now, there are multiple words in New Testament Greek that translate as “love” in our English Bibles, and the love being discussed in this parable is agape love.  This love is a self-sacrificial love that puts the interests of others above the interests of self, even if those others don’t love you.  Agape motivates acts of benevolence or charity and is epitomized by the cross.

So, why did the priest and the Levite not love the man left on the side of the road?  These men were very religious and should have been interested in doing the right thing according to God.

It could have been that if the man actually looked dead, or would be soon, they didn’t want to risk becoming ceremonially “unclean.”  Numbers 19:11-13 says:

“Whoever touches the dead body of any person shall be unclean seven days.  He shall cleanse himself with the water on the third day and on the seventh day, and so be clean. But if he does not cleanse himself on the third day and on the seventh day, he will not become clean.  Whoever touches a dead person, the body of anyone who has died, and does not cleanse himself, defiles the tabernacle of the LORD, and that person shall be cut off from Israel; because the water for impurity was not thrown on him, he shall be unclean. His uncleanness is still on him.”

The last thing they may have wanted to do was defile the Temple, or to be kept away from worship for seven whole days.  They had to keep up appearances after all.

It might have been that they just didn’t consider the man to be their neighbor, or a member of their “tribe”.  Tribalism was alive and well in ancient Israel, and neither Samaritans nor near-dead men in need of help belonged.

In either case, they passed by the person because they had rules that told them it was ok to desert him.  These rules may have been faulty applications of Scripture, or just cultural rules, but the rules resulted in situations where it was preferred to not love someone, even in very desperate need.

A lesson Jesus wanted us to take from the parable is that the person who loves whoever needs love, even if they are a Samaritan or from a different “tribe” than ours, is the one who will inherit eternal life.  We don’t get to decide who is our neighbor, and therefore who to love.

American culture is increasingly condemning any rules restricting who we should have erotic love (Greek eros) for, but it is also increasingly welcoming of rules limiting who we should have sacrificial love (agape) for.  American culture is increasingly permissive of hate toward people in other political parties or those who don’t think the same way about issues.  We are getting better at identifying our enemies, while getting worse at loving them.

However, from the story of the Good Samaritan, Jesus makes clear that any rules that tell us when it is ok to ignore agape love are bad rules.  In true righteousness, Jesus would rather die on the cross than leave a man stranded on the side of the road to follow some rule.  Jesus was the only one who could live a perfect life of live, but He also said, “Whoever does not bear his own cross and come after me cannot be my disciple.”[2] Therefore, show agape love to your neighbor, no matter who they are.  Be the good neighbor.  And when (not if) you can’t, trust in God’s mercy and his love for you, which never fails.

[1] Luke 10:27
[2] Luke 14:27

Let Justice Roll: History for Today

Todd R 3 Comments

On January 15, 1929, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was born in Atlanta, Georgia.  A leader in the U.S. civil rights movement in the 1950’s and 60’s, he is the only non-president to have a national holiday in his name, celebrated on the 3rd Monday of every January. During this holiday, many will cite positives and negatives from King’s life and legacy, and here I will focus on one, specific positive.

His father and maternal grandfather had both been pastors of Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, and he carried this religious heritage into his own studies and activism.  In pastor Tim Keller’s book “Making Sense of God” he writes that the strength of King’s arguments comes from his knowledge “that human rights have no power if they are simply created by a majority or imposed by judicial fiat. They have power only if they are really ‘there,’ existing on their own, dependent only on the fact that the wronged person before you making the claim against you is a human being.”[1]

King applied the teaching that “God created man in His own image” from Genesis 1:26-27 to argue that this image gives every person: “a uniqueness, it gives him worth, it gives him a dignity. And we must never forget this as a nation: there are no gradations in the image of God. Every man from a treble white to a bass black is significant on God’s keyboard, precisely because every man is made in the image of God.”[2]

A mighty stream. Photo by Daniel J. Schwarz on Unsplash

In one of my favorite quotes from King, he cites the American institutions of democracy and its founding documents, but knows that even these must be rooted in religious truth to be effective: “One day the South will know that when these dis­in­her­ited chil­dren of God sat down at lunch coun­ters, they were in re­al­ity stand­ing up for what is best in the Amer­i­can dream and for the most sa­cred val­ues in our Ju­deo-Chris­t­ian her­itage, thereby bring­ing our na­tion back to those great wells of democ­racy which were dug deep by the found­ing fa­thers in their for­mu­la­tion of the Con­sti­tu­tion and the De­c­la­ra­tion of In­de­pen­dence.”[3]

Keller continues in his chapter titled “A Justice That Does Not Create Oppressors” that “Martin Luther King Jr. did not ask white America to make African Americans free to pursue rational self-interest, their own individual definitions of a fulfilling life. Rather, quoting Amos 5:24, he called them to not be satisfied until ‘justice rolls down like waters, and righteousness like a mighty stream.’”[4]  God provides, and demands, more than “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

While His justice and righteousness will only be made fully manifest in eternity, when we bring a bit of it into this world, we provide something available no other way to our neighbors, communities and beyond.  We should not be satisfied with anything less.

[1] Keller, Timothy.  Making Sense of God (2016).  P. 199.
[2] From a sermon King preached at Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, Georgia on July 4, 1965.  Cited in Making Sense of God, P. 199.
[3] From “Letter from Birmingham Jail”, dated April 16, 1963.
[4] From King’s “I Have a Dream” speech in Washington, DC on August 28, 1963.  Cited in Making Sense of God, P. 199.

A Kingdom of Gentleness and Respect

Todd R Leave a comment

After the election in the United States, half of the country finds itself disappointed with the result.  However, as David wrote in Psalm 3 when he had been pushed out of power by his son Absalom, all American Christians should declare “salvation belongs to the LORD.”[1]  This is an inherently political statement, declaring that salvation does not come from any government.  But this is a message Christians need to deliver in a way that obeys God in approach and tone.  What does that mean?  1 Peter 4:15-16 says:  “in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect, having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame.”  This means it is not as simple as just yelling the right story from the rooftops, or in my case, on a blog.  “Gentleness and respect” matter.

Jesus is never on the ballot, but flawed candidates of many types are.  Some are more like David, and some more like Absalom.  David, even as God’s appointed king of Israel, knew that not every problem was in his power to solve.  David was at peace with his limits in this imperfect world, knowing that his salvation (and everyone else’s) came from God alone.  But Absalom hated David’s inability, or unwillingness, to solve every problem.  Absalom harbored angry resentment against David for years before violently overthrowing him.  During this rebellion, David was calm and able to sleep because the kingdom of God was real to him, even when it didn’t look like it.  Then he wrote Psalm 3 to let us know about it.

This conflict between David and Absalom echoes in competing narratives told throughout history: 1) we can and should perfect ourselves, or 2) we are dependent on God to save us.[2]

In the 1 Peter quote above, he says that we defend our eternal hope in God to save us with “gentleness and respect.,” meaning that those who trust God should use not only their words, but also their attitudes and very lives.  The story must be real to us to be convincing to others, and those who hope in God’s kingdom should show obedience to that kingdom.  Easier said than done.

Fortunately, when we truly believe, experience, and stand for God’s salvation, our brokenness and failure is part of the testimony.  When we know God’s salvation is the only solution, we can approach people with different worldviews with our common need for salvation, in “gentleness and respect,” instead of fighting over solutions we know are imperfect.  David was able to sleep at night even when chased out of Jerusalem by his own son, because he had “a good conscience,” showing gentleness and respect toward Absalom.  The kingdom of God was real in his heart, and he believed God would prevail no matter what.  Circumstances could not shake his faith, and God ultimately delivered and restored him.

If, on the other hand, our brokenness and God’s solution for it is not part of our story, we may be left defending an imperfect political solution to those who demand perfection and will gladly poke holes in our story.  In David’s case, he may have insisted that God was unjust in allowing Absalom to succeed.  After all, he could argue, he was a humble king after God’s own heart, while Absalom was bitter and unreasonable.  If David had done this, it may have ironically helped Absalom’s case for tyranny.  In addition, David would not have been able to find peace and sleep at night until Absalom was overthrown.  However, if the starting point of discussion is that weakness is common to all of mankind, then the imperfection of the system is both part of the “reason for the hope” and a reason for even the unbeliever to resist tyranny.  In this case, imperfection is not hypocrisy, but a condition common to mankind.

Declaring “salvation belongs to the LORD” with actions, along with words, gives evidence that worldly utopia is not the answer.  But when words or actions fall short, we can still point to the One who is perfect since we aren’t trying to prove worldly utopia is possible.  The two lessons from Absalom’s rebellion are reconciled in a life lived with “gentleness and respect.”  Because God does not rely on political systems to work His salvation, tyranny is just a temporary and provincial authority subject to the greater authority of God.  We can have a clear conscience based on the sacrifice of Christ and not on worldly success.

A life lived in hope for the eternal kingdom of God is one lived in love for those left behind by all the imperfect systems of this world, but also one that testifies that all systems, including our own individual wills, are not perfectible by human effort.  Peter wrote that those who hope in God will be slandered, but also that those who live humble lives based on hope in God and not themselves will ultimately be proved right.  Until then, by their example as they follow Christ, they can show the futility of tyranny.  By God’s grace, His people will inherit a real utopia by learning to love those who hope in a false one with gentleness and respect.

Our failure is part of our testimony as we drive toward morning, and “Seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you.” – Matthew 6:33

[1] Psalm 3:8
[2] There’s also a third common story: “If the dead are not raised, ‘Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.’” (1 Corinthians 15:32) Today, we focus on the first two.

When Our Seeds Only Grow Thorns

Todd R 2 Comments

Sometimes we feel like we’re putting in a lot of effort but getting no results from it.  We’re sowing good seeds but not reaping any harvest.  At times, it seems disappointment is our only reward.  Often this can just be the way things are at the time – we’re doing nothing wrong but it’s just not obvious what God is doing at that time.  We don’t need to change anything.  But there may be times where we’re not reaping good things because we’re deceived that what we’re sowing is what we’re supposed to be sowing.

According to the prophet Jeremiah, the nation of Judah had this problem and as a result they ended up in exile.  In the first half of Jeremiah 12:13, the prophet says of Judah:

“They have sown wheat and have reaped thorns;
            they have tired themselves out but profit nothing.”

The nation of Judah thought they were sowing good seeds, but they weren’t and there are several examples in Jeremiah’s book.

First, Judah thought they were on the right side politically, with powerful friends and therefore secure.

The nation of Judah allied itself alternately with Egypt and Assyria, who they thought could protect them from Babylon.  Surely these powerful nations could keep Judah from doom at Babylon’s hands.  However, in Jeremiah 3:36 the prophet says:

“How much you go about,
            changing your way!
You shall be put to shame by Egypt
            as you were put to shame by Assyria.”

Because Judah had trusted these nations, other than God, for their salvation God would put them to shame by His own hand, from which there is no escape.  While there are many good ways to work with others, we should never trust anyone with the help that only God can provide.

Next, Judah thought they had the right cultural heritage.

The people of Judah wouldn’t listen to Jeremiah’s prophesies of doom for the nation because they thought God wouldn’t destroy what they saw as His own nation.  Israel had been taken into captivity by Assyria, but Judah thought it could never happen to them because they were the heirs of Jewish culture.  The people would repeat the phrase, “This is the temple of the LORD, the temple of the LORD, the temple of the LORD,” to remind themselves that they were special because they had the temple, but Jeremiah says in Jeremiah 7:4,

“Do not trust in these deceptive words: ‘This is the temple of the LORD, the temple of the LORD, the temple of the LORD.’”

The temple was provided as a way to approach God, but Judah thought of it like a magical talisman that would keep God happy so they could do their own thing.  However, God doesn’t want us to follow a checklist – He wants us.  All cultural and political institutions – including ones provided by God – are useless outside of God’s purpose for them.  What He provides He can take away if we abuse it.  When Judah was taken into captivity by Babylon, the temple was torn down and burned.

Last, Judah thought they had the right religion and were diligently practicing it

Judah’s religious leaders and people were diligent in observing the practices laid out in God’s ceremonial law.  They faithfully made the morning and evening sacrifices, observed the three main Jewish festivals, and followed many other ordinances, but in Jeremiah 7:22-23, the prophet said:

“For in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, I did not speak to your fathers or command them concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices.  But this command I gave them: ‘Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and you shall be my people. And walk in all the way that I command you, that it may be well with you.’”

Because Judah was putting observance above obedience to God, He would therefore discipline them.  The sacrifices were not the objective – the relationship was the objective, but the people made their religion about the sacrifices themselves, not the relationship they were designed to restore.

Do we sometimes practice similar things in the modern church?  Of course we do.

The modern-day equivalent of Judah’s first mistake is when we expect from a political party what only God can give.  Our expectations of them become idolatrous, and we become more likely to compromise God’s principles to support them.  We commit the second mistake when we are convinced our denomination has it all right – the right history, traditions and doctrine – and therefore God will always favor us.  The last mistake happens when we put external religious observances ahead of internal devotion to God.  We may be executing the acts and rituals our religion requires of us, and our peers expect from us, but not giving ourselves fully to God.  We may go to church, but when we leave the church building we don’t take Jesus with us.

Sometimes we think through our political, cultural, and religious activities we should reap wheat, but what is happening when we keep reaping thorns?  Sometimes we need to check that we aren’t repeating Judah’s mistakes.

“They have sown wheat and have reaped thorns;
            they have tired themselves out but profit nothing.
They shall be ashamed of their harvests
            because of the fierce anger of the LORD.”