“Why should we cherish “objectivity”, as if ideas were innocent, as if they don’t serve one interest or another? Surely, we want to be objective if that means telling the truth as we see it, not concealing information that may be embarrassing to our point of view. But we don’t want to be objective if it means pretending that ideas don’t play a part in the social struggles of our time, that we don’t take sides in those struggles.

Indeed, it is impossible to be neutral. In a world already moving in certain directions, where wealth and power are already distributed in certain ways, neutrality means accepting the way things are now. It is a world of clashing interests – war against peace, nationalism against internationalism, equality against greed, and democracy against elitism – and it seems to me both impossible and undesirable to be neutral in those conflicts.”

— Howard Zinn

That’s My King! from Albert Martin on Vimeo.

Luke 10:38-42
As Jesus and his disciples were on their way, he came to a village where a woman named Martha opened her home to him. She had a sister called Mary, who sat at the Lord’s feet listening to what he said. But Martha was distracted by all the preparations that had to be made. She came to him and asked, “Lord, don’t you care that my sister has left me to do the work by myself? Tell her to help me!” “Martha, Martha,” the Lord answered, “you are worried and upset about many things, but only one thing is needed. Mary has chosen what is better, and it will not be taken away from her.”

“…anti-intellectualism is worldliness not godliness.”

John Stott, Your Mind Matters

“…godliness with contentment is great gain.”

- St. Paul, 1 Timothy 6:6

Godliness is not about acquiring better and more material things; it is instead an active life of faith, a living out of covenant faithfulness in relation to God, that finds sufficiency and contentment in Christ alone whatever one’s outward circumstances might be.

- Philip Towner, The letter to Timothy and Titus, p. 399

I wanna open up a cross-dresser store, and call it “Susan B. Anthony”.

I have a lot of growing up to do. I realized that the other day inside my fort.

My New Year’s resolution was to stop saying “you go girl” to myself.

In Luke’s Gospel, Luke was writing after carefully researching the ministry of Jesus of Nazareth for the explicit purpose providing a consecutive order of events so that Theophilus would know the “exact truth” of the things he was taught; this goal is clearly stated in the prologue (Luke 1:1-4 NASB). In his writing, Luke recorded many parables, which are extended similes that are easy to remember. Of these, perhaps one of the most renowned is the parable of the Good Samaritan, which is located in Luke 10 just after the sending out and joyful return of the 72.

It is imperative to be considerate of the immediate context of the parable; v25-37 records Jesus communicating to an expert in the Law who, “stood up and put Him to the test, saying, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?’ (NASB, v25).” Interestingly, after being questioned by Jesus, the lawyer gives a correct answer; he appropriately responds to his own question with scripture (Deut 6:5; Lev 19:18). Darrell Bock comments, “The lawyer is confused, even though his answer is correct, because he still thinks that eternal life is earned rather than received in the context of a love relationship with God.” However, as we soon learn, just because the Pharisee transmitted the right reply didn’t mean that his heart and life had been transformed to be right before God. (Luke, 197)

In His brilliance, Jesus exposed a profound dimension of the heart by telling the famous parable. Grant R. Osborne discusses the provocative dynamic of this teaching device by noting that parables communicate in such a way that is, “indirect and demands that the hearer react. It does not appeal to the mind as much as the whole person.” (Hermeneutical Spiral, 293)
The heart of the parable could be in part postured towards the corrupt religious establishment who were rejecting the person and ministry of Christ. Luke indicates that is not only is Jesus being questioned, but by an expert in the law who already has the “right” answer, thus showing his curiosity wasn’t necessarily genuine. When the question is refined, we see the lawyer want to know what the bare minimum is to be neighborly and still be accepted by God. Bock comments further, “In fact, the parable turns the whole question around. The lawyer asks who his neighbor is in the hope that some people are not. Jesus replies, ‘Just be a neighbor whenever you are needed, and realize that neighbors can come from surprising places.’” (Luke, 197)

Jesus then goes on to tell a story casting a priest and Levite in a negative light. The two that would be expected to be compassionate refused to help (perhaps to avoid being ritualistically unclean) failed morally. By questioning His questioner and offering a counter story that would implicitly critique vague representatives of His opponents; Jesus was effectively establishing His teaching and silencing His antagonists.

What is more remarkable is that the character in the story who reflects a kingdom-centered heart is a lowly and despised Samaritan. Once again, Bock explains, “To love God means to show mercy to those in need. An authentic life is found in serving God and caring for others. This is a central tenet of discipleship. Here human beings fulfill their created role-to love God and be a neighbor to others by meeting their needs. Neighbors are not determined by race, creed or gender; neighbors consist of anyone in need made in the image of God.” (Luke, 199)

Telling this example story would’ve surely been a “reversal of expectations” or “an unexpected turn,” something Osborne signifies as common marks of parables (The Hermeneutical Spiral, 297). This disruption of widespread thinking patterns would be first of all surprising, it would secondly reveal what it practically looks like to love God, and finally it would imply even the esteemed teachers of the law were not truly righteous before God. By conveying these insights in a parable Jesus was able to be both understandable and indirect at the same time. Ergo, it was the content of His message that would confront His audience as they drew their conclusions while Jesus’ wise method enabled Him to be less abrasive and immune to the criticism of His enemies.

In short, the parable to the Good Samaritan is more than an impersonal and moralistic snippet intended to compel us to vague expressions of charity. In context, Jesus confronted the pride leaders of His day and taught about true discipleship. He implicitly, but effectively, showed how one who is knowledgeable can be puffed up (1 Cor. 8:1) instead of truly loving, that deeds removed from fully loving God are mere rags (Is 64:6), and that those with the right answers desperately need repentance, forgiveness, and humility.

With a historical viewpoint that is mindful of the literary genre, a modern reader can begin to grasp the challenging implications of the Parable of the Good Samaritan.

- Luke. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1994. Print.
-The Hermeneutical Spiral. 2nd Edition. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2006. Print.