July 15, 2007
7th After Pentecost
Luke 10:25-27 and Amos 7:7-17
The Rev. Dr. George Hermanson
In our times of terrorists and wars, where we read about those who seek our ill-will we have this challenging parable of Jesus. On first reading it seems to tell us that we are to love one another as we love ourselves. It seems to be a variation on the golden rule. But as my friend James Murray has called it, this is the Platinum rule -it goes beyond what is demanded and sets a standard that asks much of us.
It starts out some what innocently. Luke has Jesus engaged in a advance seminar about the law. A good question is asked about what is the most crucial thing we can do with our life- what is the most basic attitude we must have to have a fulfilled life? Jesus responds with the summary of the what was considered to be the law. It is said that Rabbi Hershel said the law must be said standing on one foot, and here it is: Love God. Love self. Love the neighbor.
Like any good student, the lawyer presses Jesus and asks that most basic question who is my neighbour? An honest question in times of dislocation and opposing ideas. A good question for are there limits to neighbourliness? Especially when some of our neighbors want to cause us harm.
Luke then offers the story that is now part of our societies ethical formation - The Good Samaritan. It seems straight forward. Yet it is the most domesticated and misused of all of Jesus’ parables. We make it a moral tale rather than an astonishing call to rethink every social and religious value one has. To get at this let us dig deeper into the parable and Luke’s editorial comments.
Luke, like all good preachers, brings together two good but completely unrelated stores to create a programmatic life style for the early church. He turns the parable into an example, as in, “go and do likewise.” He has turned the parable into a story for a pattern of action. The phrase Good Samaritan has become part of the language, as a cipher for concerned assistance. Now that is good as far as it goes. However, leaving it there losses the real power of the story as way of living. When it was first uttered it was like a square circle, an oxymoron. It would have made no sense, in fact, would have deeply challenged the listeners.
So let us forget everything we have been taught. Ignore Luke's editorials at the beginning and at the end of the passage. Even forget it comes from Jesus to get is full force.
A parable is to provoke. In the prophetic tradition, like the Amos passage, one encounters the presence of God. In hearing the parable, in the action of the prophet one encounters the aim of God. As you hear, God happens, is here, not in the future but in the present. Through a paradoxical experience we are open to the spirit of God. For the parable challenges all conventional wisdom. It lays us bare, naked in our imagination so the moral imagination of God can be centered in us. We are left without pretensions and satisfaction in our own wisdom or the conceit of our society, so the wisdom of God will be at our center - to love God with all of our heart.
Of course there is truth to Luke’s point that being a good Jew or a good Christian or a good citizen means caring for and loving the neighbor. It would be good if we cared deeply for our environment and those who people it.
Now if Jesus wanted to make this point he would have made the hero of the story a Jewish person going to the aid of the Samaritan. It would be the hearers enemy - the outsider - in the ditch, robbed and stripped. The action would be the listener - us - going to the outsider’s aid, not vice versa. It would be us going to the aid of those with whom we are out of harmony. It does not read that way, The Samaritans were the enemy of those who were listening. To retell it would be Al Qeada who comes to our aid. We are in the ditch and our enemy comes to our rescue. What we have is, those we have understood to be outside our concern aid us, help comes from unexpected quarters.
The parable would have astonished and shook the listeners. The parable shatters how we picture the world and makes us rethink everything we thought about how the world ought to be organized. The good guy is the enemy. It makes us think from God’s side of how the world ought to be. It is to let kingdom values inform us so we create better ways of living as family, friends, society, and as an individual.
When we understand that God’s Grace comes from unexpected places we will approach differences and pluralism differently. By understanding that the enemy comes to our rescue, the possibility of another social world has come into view. As a metaphorical tale the parable redraws both the social and the sacred world.
This is hard to get our heads around. How do we understand the enemy? To put it into context many of us have been deeply hurt by the actions of others in personal situation. Society experiences bombings. We have experience families and friends who have betrayed our trust. We have real enemies. What in this story is good news for us?
It is about a deep reversal in our psyche and the values of our society. It challenges us about those we have consigned as unworthy, those we think deserve nothing but our contempt, those we have consigned to hell. It challenges us when we believe there are limits to love and tolerance. It calls us to discern evil and rejecting evil without becoming what we reject. It moves us beyond tolerance based on the idea of that all ideas are relative, to a critical stance about ideas so we can see how they aid or inhibit negative outcomes. We can make judgements about ideas without destroying the other, calling some ideas good and others bad.
We live in a time of profound disagreements about ideas. The disagreements are real and at times seem unbridgeable. In such situation we are faced with two options when we disagree. The first is to hate the other. If we cannot see that even the enemy can offer something to us, then we can treat all neighbours with disregard and use them as pawns in our agenda. If we cannot expect there to be some of God in those with whom we disagree, than we can trample over them.
The other option in a disagreement is know we disagree and know the disagreement is profound. In response we don't internalize the hatred but respond in compassion. Often the abuser wins because we internalize the abuse and become what we hate, untrustworthy and fearful. By clearly identifying the enemy as enemy we now know what belongs to them ... their abuse - their ill-will.
It is even more difficult when our enemies actually want our destruction. Again there are two different responses. If we demonize the other than we allow ourselves to treat them in ways that removes all their rights and protections. One of the great insights that comes out of the enemy as a location of God’s surprise is we have created methods of dealing with the enemy that reflect values of justice and compassion rather than vengeance. When we see the other as part of God then our methods of response will be those that offer protection when they are defeated rather than death. We will actively seek their well-being. That may include the knowing there is a profound differences and still pray for their healing. It will offer the protection of the rule of law that we enjoy.
By understanding that enemy as capable of good actions we structure our interior landscape. We can disagree. We can seek restorative justice. We desire justice without vengeance. Where there is justice without compassion there will be anger, violence and murder. When justice has compassion we restructure our ideas and methods of dealing with those we are in conflict with. We break the ties of hatred and that begins to create a new society of care for us and others. As the Psalm put it, we are to be like the God of justice and compassion.
George Hermanson
