LUKE 10:25-37
AN OLD FAMILIAR STORY.
IT'S EVEN GIVEN OUR LANGUAGE A PHRASE, “GOOD SAMARITAN” TO
DESCRIBE ANYONE WHO GOES OUT OF HIS WAY TO HELP SOMEONE IN NEED.
WHEN I LOOK OVER SERMONS WHICH HAVE BEEN WRITTEN ABOUT THIS GOSPEL,
MANY OF THEM TRY TO IMAGINE THE STORY IN MODERN TERMS – A HOMELESS
PERSON HELPING OUT SOMEONE WHO WAS MUGGED; A PALESTINIAN MUSLIM
COMING TO THE AID OF AN ISRAELI SOLDIER WHO WAS WOUNDED. IT SEEMS AS
THOUGH WHEN WE TRY TO RE-IMAGINE THIS STORY, WE CONCENTRATE ON THE
FACT THAT THE SAMARITAN WAS FROM A MINORITY WHICH WAS LOOKED DOWN
UPON. BUT WHAT DOES THAT TELL US? THAT WE SHOULD LOOK TO HOMELESS
PEOPLE OR PEOPLE FROM OPPRESSED MINORITY GROUPS TO BE THERE FOR US
WHEN WE ARE IN TROUBLE? NOT LIKELY. OR DOES IT MEAN THAT BECAUSE
THE SAMARITAN IN THE STORY HELPED OUT THE TRAVELER, WE SHOULD
RECIPROCATE BY HELPING OUT PEOPLE WHO ARE AT THE EDGE OF OUR SOCIETY,
THE POOR, THE HOMELESS, THE ADDICTED, THE FOREIGNER IN OUR MIDST?
THAT DOESN'T SEEM TO BE THE POINT OF THE STORY EITHER.
I THINK IT'S INTERESTING
THAT WHENEVER WE USE THE TERM “GOOD SAMARITAN” WE THROW IN A WORD
THAT JESUS NEVER USED WHEN HE TOLD THE STORY. WHEN WE THROW IN THE
WORD “GOOD” WE CHANGE OUR PERCEPTION AS WELL; WE SEE THE
SAMARITAN IN CONTRAST TO THE PRIEST AND LEVITE, NOT JUST BECAUSE HE
STOPPED TO HELP, BUT BECAUSE WE INTERPRET WHAT HE DID AS GOOD, IN
CONTRAST TO WHAT THE PRIEST AND LEVITE DID; WE SAY THAT NOT STOPPING
TO HELP IS A BAD THING.
AND THE LAST POINT IS
THAT THE WORD “NEIGHBOR” FOR US ENGLISH SPEAKERS MEANS THE PERSON
NEXT DOOR, OR THE PERSON WHO LIVES IN OUR TOWN. IT'S A STRETCH TO
SAY THAT THE HOMELESS PERSON DOWN ON MAIN STREET IS NEIGHBOR, OR THAT
SOMEONE IN HAITI IS NEIGHBOR. IF WE INCLUDE THE WHOLE HUMAN RACE IN
THE TERM “NEIGHBOR” THE WORD CEASES TO HAVE MEANING.
THE GREEK WORD THAT IS
TRANSLATED INTO “NEIGHBOR” MEANS “NEAR ONE” – AND SO DOES
THE ARAMAIC WORD WHICH WE PRESUME JESUS AND THE LAWYER MUST HAVE
USED. SO WE CAN IMAGINE THE LAWYER ASKING “WHO IS THE NEAR ONE FOR
ME?” AND THEN THE STORY OF THE SAMARITAN TAKES ON A DIFFERENT
SHADE. THE PRIEST AND THE LEVITE MAY HAVE VERY GOOD REASONS FOR
AVOIDING THE STRICKEN TRAVELER. IT WAS, AFTER ALL, A POTENTIAL TRAP,
WHERE SOMEONE WOULD PRETEND TO BE INJURED AND WHEN SOMEONE STOPPED TO
HELP, BANDITS WOULD POP OUT OF THE BUSHES AND ROB THE HELPER. THAT'S
THE PLOT LINE IN MANY TV DRAMAS. OR IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN THAT THE
PRIEST, WHO HAD TO BE RITUALLY CLEAN FOR HIS WORK, COULDN'T STOP AND
TOUCH SOMEONE WHO WAS BLEEDING AND MAY EVEN BE DEAD. WE CAN'T
IDENTIFY WITH HIS THINKING, BUT IN THE OLD TESTAMENT WE SEE HOW
IMPORTANT THIS WAS TO THE PEOPLE OF THAT TIME. AND LEVITES WERE
ENTRUSTED WITH MONEY FROM THE TEMPLE TREASURY USED TO HELP THE POOR;
THE LEVITE'S FIRST RESPONSIBILITY WAS TO MAKE SURE THE MONEY GOT TO
WHERE IT WAS SUPPOSED TO GO. IT MAY HAVE BEEN THAT THE PEOPLE
LISTENING TO JESUS DIDN'T SEE THE PRIEST AND THE LEVITE AS DOING
ANYTHING WRONG; ON THE OTHER HAND, JESUS PAINTS A PICTURE OF THIS
SAMARITAN REALLY GOING OUT OF HIS WAY TO HELP THE STRANGER – ALMOST
TO THE POINT OF BEING LAUGHABLE –BINDING UP WOUNDS, CARRYING HIM TO
THE NEAREST TOWN, DROPPING HIM OFF IN A MOTEL, TELLING THE INKEEPER
TO KEEP A TAB ON EXPENSES, AND PROMISING TO PAY HIM WHATEVER IT COST
WHEN HE GETS BACK – I MIGHT HAVE GIVEN FIRST AID AND BROUGHT THE
MAN TO THE NEAREST POLICE STATION OR HOSPITAL EMERGENCY ROOM, BUT
PROBABLY WOULDN'T HAVE OFFERED TO PAY HIS BILLS.
SO THE LAWYER ASKS JESUS,
“WHO IS MY NEIGHBOR? WHO IS THE ONE NEAR TO ME THAT I AM SUPPOSED
TO LOVE?” AND JESUS TELLS THE STORY, AND ASKS, “WHO WAS THE ONE
NEAR TO THE PERSON WHO WAS ROBBED?” AND THE LAWYER NOW UNDERSTANDS
– “THE ONE WHO SHOWED MERCY!” BECAUSE AFTER ALL, THE PRIEST
AND THE LEVITE HAD ALSO BEEN NEAR THE MAN WHO HAD BEEN ROBBED; THE
DIFFERENCE WAS IN THE ACTION, NOT THE FACT OF PROXIMITY, NOT IN THE
FACT THAT TWO JEWISH OFFICIALS HAD NOT STOPPED TO HELP A FELLOW JEW;
A PERSON BECOMES NEIGHBOR WHEN HE OR SHE SHOWS MERCY, WHEN HE OR SHE
ACTS OUT OF MERCY. WE CAN ALL CLAIM THAT WE LOVE OUR NEIGHBOR, BUT
THOSE ARE JUST WORDS; LOVING OUR NEIGHBOR, JESUS IS SAYING, MEANS
ACTION; MEANS TO ATTEND TO THE NEEDS OF THE PERSON RIGHT HERE, RIGHT
NOW.
MOTHER THERESA WAS ONCE
INVITED TO A CONFERENCE IN INDIA ABOUT DEVELOPING POLICY FOR DEALING
WITH THE HOMELESS PEOPLE IN THE LARGE CITIES. ACTIVISTS AND
GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS AND RELIGIOUS LEADERS FILED IN TO THE AUDITORIUM
– ALL GOOD, CONCERNED PEOPLE WHO WANTED TO HELP. BUT MOTHER
THERESA NEVER GOT TO SPEAK. AS SHE AND HER COMPANIONS APPROACHED THE
ENTRANCE THEY SAW SEVERAL STREET PEOPLE BEGGING; SO THEY STOPPED AND
TENDED TO THEM. THE SICK ONES WERE BROUGHT BACK TO THE HOSPICE; THE
HUNGRY ONES WERE FED; THE NAKED ONES WERE OFFERED CLOTHING. DID THIS
MAKE A DIFFERENCE FOR THE POOR PEOPLE OF INDIA? NOT A BIT. THE
PEOPLE IN THE AUDITORIUM WERE HOPING THAT THE POLICIES AND PLANS THEY
WERE DEVELOPING WOULD MAKE A DIFFERENCE. THAT WASN'T A BAD THING, IN
FACT, IT WAS A VERY GOOD THING, BECAUSE SEVERAL OF THEIR SUGGESTIONS
WERE ADOPTED BY THE GOVERNMENT, AND A DENT IS BEING MADE IN THE
PROBLEM; MAYBE MOTHER THERESA WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO OFFER EVEN MORE
GOOD IDEAS.
BUT WHEN WE ASK THE
QUESTION, WHO IS OUR NEIGHBOR THAT WE ARE TO LOVE AS OURSELVES, WE
ASK, HOW DO WE LOVE OURSELVES? WE SEE THAT WE ARE FED, CLOTHED,
SHELTERED, ENTERTAINED, LOVED AND EDUCATED. WE SEE THAT WE HAVE
THINGS – CARS, COMPUTERS, HOMES, FURNITURE, MONEY – AND WE PLAN
TO GET MORE STUFF, JUST WAIT. AND WHEN WE SEE SOMEONE WHO DOESN'T
HAVE WHAT WE HAVE, AND WE ADDRESS THAT PERSON'S NEEDS JUST AS WE
ADDRESS OUR OWN, THEN AND ONLY THEN ARE WE FULFILLING THE COMMANDMENT
TO LOVE OUR NEIGHBOR AS OURSELVES.
THE JEWS, NOW AND IN THE
TIME OF JESUS, DO NOT CONSIDER GIVING MONEY TO THE POOR AS AN ACT OF
CHARITY – IT'S AN ACT OF JUSTICE. AND WHEN WE SUPPORT OUR FAVORITE
CAUSES WITH OUR TIME AND OUR MONEY, IT'S NOT QUITE THE SAME THING AS
LOVING OUR NEIGHBOR AS OURSELVES. THIS WEEK LET US ALL MEDITATE ON
WHAT IT MEANS, AND WHETHER WE ARE BEING NEIGHBOR.
