“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

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.

For additional thoughts and an expanding dialog, please devastate the obvious …

A half truth is a whole lie. ~Yiddish Proverb

If you tell the truth you don’t have to remember anything. ~Mark Twain

Who lies for you will lie against you. ~Bosnian Proverb

No man has a good enough memory to make a successful liar. ~Abraham Lincoln

The least initial deviation from the truth is multiplied later a thousand fold. ~Aristotle

The most dangerous untruths are truths moderately distorted. ~Georg Christoph Lichtenberg

A lie has speed, but truth has endurance. ~Edgar J. Mohn

When you stretch the truth, watch out for the snapback. ~Bill Copeland

A lie may take care of the present, but it has no future. ~Author Unknown

We tell lies when we are afraid… afraid of what we don’t know, afraid of what others will think, afraid of what will be found out about us. But every time we tell a lie, the thing that we fear grows stronger. ~Tad Williams

Truth fears no questions. ~Unknown

Honesty is the first chapter of the book of wisdom. ~Thomas Jefferson

Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened. ~Winston Churchill

If you want to ruin the truth, stretch it. ~Author Unknown

Respect for the truth is an acquired taste. ~Mark Van Doren

When a man lies, he murders some part of the world. ~Rospo Pallenberg and John Boorman

A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to put its pants on. ~Winston Churchill

Beware of the half truth. You may have gotten hold of the wrong half. ~Author Unknown

When truth is divided, errors multiply. ~Eli Siegel

The cruelest lies are often told in silence. ~Adlai Stevenson

The truth is the only thing worth having, and, in a civilized life, like ours, where so many risks are removed, facing it is almost the only courageous thing left to do. ~E.V. Lucas

Some people will not tolerate such emotional honesty in communication. They would rather defend their dishonesty on the grounds that it might hurt others. Therefore, having rationalized their phoniness into nobility, they settle for superficial relationships. ~Author Unknown

“Wrath is the love of justice perverted into the desire for revenge and for the injury of someone else; justice is the proclaimed motive for every manifestation of wrath.”

- Henry Fairlie

“Washing one’s hands [of the struggle] between the powerful and the powerless means to side with the powerful, not to be neutral.”- Paulo Friere

As I eluded to before, it’s not uncommon to see an apathetic/individualistic/fatalistic attitude about solving structural problems, especially when (because) one isn’t directly and negatively affected. So, allow me to prod a little more…and just in case the red scare is still in effect: I affirm that a planned/controlled economy is a disaster for a plethora of reasons.

Disclaimer aside, the market is a fallen entity and pregnant with moral considerations. We mustn’t look at it too simply and miss an entire ethical dimension, that would be like calling a cube a square.In God’s economy, everyone matters, not just profit motive. The CEO’s, those who hold stock, the consumers, those in US, those over “there”, the man, the little guy, and even labor.

Everyone matters.

So, are there additional questions to ask besides, “how can I get goods and services (that I mostly don’t need in the first place) as inexpensively and efficiently as possible?” The following video asserts that to say “no” would be shortsighted and self-oriented, privileging abstract principles over real people.

Those who lean right tend to focus on personal holiness issues. Lefties tend to focus on communal justice issues. We can peg ourselves on one extreme if we a) care about one type and not the other and b) think true morality is simply an ‘either/or’ instead of a ‘both/and’ when dealing with individual & corporate issues. The God of the Bible is portrayed as ‘both/and’, Jesus was ‘both/and’ — so, shouldn’t we be as well?

My experience and reading of culture tells me that evangelicals often have a largely individualistic view of morality & ethics, sometimes reducing the inquiry almost exclusively to matters of personal holiness. What it means to be good or bad usually goes like this: “I don’t cheat on my taxes” or, “I told a lie” or, “I have sex in the correct ways”. I agree, but let me push back…

I know many (Christians) who are deeply (and rightly) grieved by immoral sex or pride or so on. But when it comes to serious structural problems (inequality, hunger…), these same folks are as calm as Hindu cows, saying something like, “God is sovereign in this fallen world. Now the stage is better set for ‘Left Behind’-end-times events to come true…get excited!!!” (Sarcasm) But, does God’s sovereignty change from one issue to another? I mean, doesn’t the scripture seem to grieve about it all, longing to have shalom and a “reconciliation of all things” in addition to a world free of personal sin? Was Jesus serious with, “may your will be done on earth as it is in heaven?” And if so, why are some eager to see the arrival of personal holiness and apathetic about corporate issues of justice; why the disconnect & what are the consequences?

Selfishness & missing reality/scope of God’s will

Could it be that ‘the self’ is at the center of our conscience, as opposed to God and my neighbor being at the center? What if personal righteousness is actually an even broader concept? I’m tempted to riff on “moral proximity”, the parable of the Good Samaritan, James 4:17 & not being in “the know”, but for the sake brevity I’ll refrain.

Missing opportunities to share/show Jesus

We Christians can be part of the effort & dialog shared by those seeking justice. The worldview of non-Christians who feel who the world is broken have a point of intersection with us because we think that too. That common ground of fixing brokenness is priceless.

Also, could it be that in a postmodern-ish paradigm, one of the Christian’s strongest “arguments” to validate the faith, is his or her love of justice? Doesn’t a blessing given with no-strings-attached just smell of Jesus? As an ambassador, articulate precision about what constitutes justice and visible demonstrations of grace are not only a hell of PR campaign for the King, but also a visible way to associate good (b/c every good & perfect gift comes from Him anyway) with His majesty.

In short, if the crux of our lives are informed by what Scot McKnight calls “The Jesus Creed” or what J.R. Woodward calls the Holistic Gospel, instead of the American dream, we’ll be on our way to getting a thick(er) view of ethics.

Bringing someone into a situation/giving them information when they aren’t part of the problem or the solution,

sin,

not going directly to the person(s) in question with your concerns to confront them or ask a question to assess the reality of a situation,

none of your damned business,

spreading a rumor under the guise of ‘asking for advice’ or ‘pray for so-and-so because…’,

behind the back,

often in concert with assumptions,

damaging,

& not without consequence.

CLICK HERE for the an excellent picture/analogy about the nature of gossip.

My friend sent me a link to a NY Times story…hard to imagine:

“Racially segregated proms have been held in Montgomery County — where about two-thirds of the population is white — almost every year since its schools were integrated in 1971. Such proms are, by many accounts, longstanding traditions in towns across the rural South, though in recent years a number of communities have successfully pushed for change. When the actor Morgan Freeman offered to pay for last year’s first-of-its-kind integrated prom at Charleston High School in Mississippi, his home state, the idea was quickly embraced by students — and rejected by a group of white parents, who held a competing “private” prom…”

READ MORE…

I don’t get philosophical too often on my blog because I know it bothers or bores most people…to make up for it, I’ll soon return to short & funny clips. Anyway, I’ve done only a little reading lately (job hunt), but it has none-the-less been excellent. When I came across the following by Christian Smith, I said to myself, “Oh snap! This must be posted”. Modern snobbery seems to be unaware of the fact that rationalism/empiricism (and the things that have been constructed from these) are imperfect and insufficient; absolute and universal knowledge is elusive. In the end we really are dealing with being (un)confident of the things we know in part and hope for.

“For centuries, many Western thinkers have tried to identify a universal and certain foundation for human knowledge. Various movements within the eighteenth- and nineteenth-century “Enlightenment” in particular sought to specify an authoritative foundation of knowledge not based on the revelation, faith, and tradition of Christianity. Instead this project sought to identify a strong foundation for knowledge that would be secular (non theistic), universal (applicable to all people despite their differences), and indubitable (irrefutable and certain). One way to understand philosophical epistemology since Rene Descartes is a story of of repeated unsuccessful attempts to identify this kind of foundation of human knowledge. Like the would-be champions who sought to become the first to be able to draw the fabled sword from the stone and so become king, many philosophers have ventured to identify this prized strong foundation of knowledge on which the rational. universal, modern social order could be build. In each case, however, other philosophers always stepped forward to demonstrate why their attempts at this secular, universal, indubitable epistemology did not work.

As a consequence, what we have come rather decisively to see in recent decades is that this epistemological project itself is fatally flawed and that all such attempts to discover a universal, indubitable foundation of knowledge have failed and necessarily will fail. Strong foundationalism is dead. Its quest has come up empty-handed. There is no secular, universal, indubitable foundation of knowledge available to us humans.

What we have come to see is that, at bottom, we are all really believers. The lives that we live and knowledge we possess are based crucially on sets of basic assumptions and beliefs, about which three characteristics deserve note. First, our elemental assumptions and beliefs themselves cannot be empirically verified or established with certainty. They are starting points, trusted premises, postulated axioms, presuppositions, — “below” which there is no deeper or more final justification, proof, or verification establishing them. In philosophical terms, these beliefs and commitments may be “justified,” but they are not “justifiable”. Rather, they themselves provide the suppositional grounds on which any sense of justification, proof, or verification for a given knowledge system are built.”