Entering into Holy Week with the Good Samaritan

At this point in my spring course on the parables of Jesus we have just explored the parable of the Good Samaritan. This is always a rewarding and challenging week as we consider the parable in its original context and also its implications for today: What does having mercy mean today? Who is my neighbor? Who are the wounded on the side of the road today? Will I allow myself to see them, really see them, and respond?

This week in the class also marks an interesting moment where we encounter a concept which is new to most students: anti-Judaism. Students know about anti-Semitism, but anti-Judaism is a new one for most. In an article I published last year I included a short section discussing anti-Judaism and the parable of the Good Samaritan. Here is a paragraph from it:

The fact that the characters who pass by on the other side of the road and do not show mercy are Jewish religious leaders has given rise to anti-Jewish readings of the parable. In this context anti-Judaism takes shape in an interpretation which, intentionally or unintentionally, promotes Christianity as superior and Judaism as inferior. (Note: It is useful here to consider the distinction between anti-Judaism, which denigrates Jewish religion, and anti-Semitism, a racist ideology. For a good overview of anti-Jewish interpretation of the parables, see Amy-Jill Levine, Short Stories by Jesus: The Enigmatic Parables of a Controversial Rabbi [New York: HarperOne, 2014], 23-25.)

A standard anti-Jewish view of this parable assumes that Judaism is legalistic and heartless and that the priest and the Levite choose to observe Jewish law rather than help a fellow human being. By contrast, such a view claims that Christianity focuses on love and compassion and this parable shows that Jesus came to introduce a message of compassion which is, if not foreign to Jewish thought, at least only minimally present in it. One flaw in this line of interpretation is that Jesus was not introducing a new teaching but rather drawing attention to what Judaism already taught: the obligation to have compassion on one’s neighbor and someone in need (cf. Lev. 19:18). The Hebrew Scriptures are rich with teaching about God’s concern for the poor, the widow, the orphan, the alien, and of the obligation of God’s people to care for them. Jesus, as a Jew speaking to Jews, was not denouncing Judaism with his parables, but reminding listeners of truths they already knew. In light of its history of interpretation, this parable presents an opportunity for all of us to begin to grapple with anti-Judaism and become aware of the subtle ways in which anti-Judaism has influenced biblical interpretation. (Gordley, "Parables and the Principle of Mercy," Journal of Catholic Higher Education 39 [2020]: 15-36)

Consideration of this matter is particularly important in the 2020’s when anti-Semitism is—sadly—on the rise. Addressing anti-Semitism derived from the New Testament is not a minor issue. It is 2021 current headline news:

From Forbes: "Hate Crimes Against Jewish Students Are At An All-Time High." 

And in Iowa: "Iowans reported four anti-Semitic incidents in 2020, three of them involving public vandalism. Most recently, on the first day of Hanukkah in December, someone used red spray paint to scrawl the New Testament biblical citation “John 8:44” at an entrance of Davenport's Temple Emanuel." (From the DesMoines Register)

And of course we all witnessed the anti-Semitic symbols on display on January 6 at the insurrection and attack on our nation’s Capitol.

In the article of mine that I quoted from above, I also add this:

From anti-Jewish biblical interpretation to destructive action is not a big step. Biblical scholar Dominic Crossan observes, 'The trajectory of human violence escalates almost inevitably from the ideological through the rhetorical to the physical' (Power of Parable, 247). Interpreting the parables in anti-Jewish or other ways that dehumanize, whether intentionally or unintentionally, is a first step on this trajectory of human violence. It is incumbent on anyone who wishes to interpret the parables of Jesus to be mindful of this reality. It is now documented that the shooter at the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh justified his actions through the misinterpretation of the New Testament. See Aamer Madhani et al., “Pittsburgh Synagogue Rampage Spotlights Rising Anti-Semitism in America,” USA Today, October 28, 2018.

As Christians enter into Holy Week, we need to recognize that anti-Judaism and anti-Semitism are a real part of Christian history—a part that must be faced honestly and confronted.

It is important that we consider the vast differences between the historical and cultural context of the first century and the cultural context of the present day, and what this means for the language we use when speaking about the Bible. For example, when the gospel writers or the Apostle Paul speak of “the Jews” they are not speaking of an entire grouping of people throughout history but specific Jews who rejected what became the Christian perspective. Further, Jesus and Paul themselves were both Jewish, and so it is important to emphasize that disputes with “the Jews” were originally internal disputes over understanding the meaning of the kingdom of God in a Jewish context.

As we reflect on the crucifixion this week we might take occasion to reflect on how the Bible actually emphasizes that the crucifixion is ultimately understood by Christians to have been for all humanity. It was not only the Jewish religious leaders who played a role (notably, not “the Jews” as a whole). Consider that according to the New Testament, this was God’s doing (it was God who “gave his one and only son”, according to John 3:16), Jesus himself had a key role (he predicted his death and went willingly toward it, Mark 10:45; John 18:11), and his followers (who abandoned him), and certainly the Roman rulers who were the only ones with the authority to put Jesus to death. And if Jesus came into the world to save sinners, isn’t everyone responsible then in a way, according to Christian teaching (1 Tim 1:15)? Sadly, as the Christian message was embraced in a Roman context, the tradition developed in such a way as to minimize the Roman role while placing blame on the Jews as a whole. This unfortunate development has been mirrored throughout history with disastrous results for the Jewish people and Christian mistreatment of them.

And with this, we have come a long way from our Good Samaritan. Nevertheless, the parable is a call to us again to have eyes and hearts open to those in need—our neighbors—and to be willing to respond with compassion. And it is important to recognize that this call comes to us from Jesus, from the heart of Judaism, from the heart of God.

SOME RESOURCES FOR FURTHER READING:

For an overview of anti-Semitism, see this short video produced by the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum.

See article, "The Crucifixion of Jesus and the Jews," for a brief, scholarly treatment for non-specialists that helps clarify the historical reality about the crucifixion and the way the tradition developed to minimize Roman responsibility and blame the Jews: 

A very helpful and concise overview of the larger issue by a leading New Testament scholar is found here: “Is the New Testament Anti-Jewish?” by Amy-Jill Levine. 

The Unique Contributions of Luke's Gospel

Today is the feast day of St. Luke and thus a fitting day to recognize some of the remarkable contributions of Luke’s Gospel to our understanding of Jesus and his message.

First, as is well known, the Gospel of Luke has a clear emphasis on the good news being for the poor, the sick, and those on the margins of society: the gospel is “good news” for all people, not just those who outwardly appear to be favored by God. (See Luke 4:16-21)

Second, Luke alone includes some of the best known parables of Jesus. Without Luke we would not know of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37) or the Prodigal Son (Luke 15:11-32). The parable of the Good Samaritan is itself a powerful illustration of mercy and compassion for those in need, and a reminder that all people are our neighbors. It thus ties in directly with the first point above about Luke’s emphasis on the good news being for all people.

Third, Luke preserves some very early songs from the first century. These are particularly to be found in the birth narrative. In the first two chapters of the Gospel of Luke, four different characters respond to news of God’s salvation with joyful song that sounds very much like the psalmody of the Jewish Scriptures and the words of the prophets. Like characters in biblical narratives and other Jewish texts, they respond to good news with a psalm of praise. These four psalms are commonly referred to by their Latin names. Mary’s song is the Magnificat (1:46–55), Zechariah’s is the Benedictus (1:68–79), the angels’ song of praise is the Gloria in excelsis (2:14), and Simeon’s is the Nunc Dimittis (2:29–32). By quoting these four songs or parts of songs, Luke has preserved for us a rich treasure and gives us a glimpse into some of the earliest ways in which the advent of Jesus was celebrated through song and poetry in the early church.

For our vision of Jesus and the events and significance of his life, we owe much to Luke and his careful historical and literary work. We also can be thankful today that he had an ear for songs and hymns, and that he chose to include them in his Gospel for the benefit of all of his readers.

For more on Luke, see this reflection from the FaithND website.

For more specifically on the hymns in Luke's Gospel, see chapter six of my latest book.

Not Your Usual Commencement Address

Father Gregory Boyle, founder of Homeboy Industries, Inc., a non-profit that provides work opportunities to former gang members in Los Angeles, delivered an incredibly challenging address at Carlow University's 2018 commencement ceremony last weekend. He also delivered the homily at the baccalaureate mass earlier that morning and spoke on the parable of the good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37). I can’t do justice to the simple yet profound thoughts that he shared, but I thought I’d highlight a few things he spoke about.

From his years of working with individuals at the margins he had some very rich insights into the parable of the good Samaritan and into the nature of mercy. One particular insight which I had not heard before was one idea that he kept repeating as a theme of his homily: We don’t go to the margins to rescue people; if we do, then it becomes about us. And it is not about us. Instead, we go to the margins because that is where transformation occurs. Father Boyle kept returning to Jeremiah 33:10-11 where Jeremiah says, “In this place of which you say it is a waste, there will be heard again the voice of mirth and the voice of gladness, the voices of those who sing.” In the place of waste and desolation God envisions a transformed community. And we can each be changed by a genuine human encounter with our fellow human beings who are at the margins. He illustrated this with some examples from his ministry. And finally, he suggested that the good Samaritan in the parable was changed through his encounter with the victim on the road. Yes, he took action that did result in the wounded victim being changed for the better; but that action arose from an encounter in which the Samaritan was changed as he encountered the wounded victim and was moved with compassion. The good Samaritan did not set out on his journey hoping to reach someone or change someone. But as he encountered a fellow human being in need, his own plans and priorities changed. This idea connects really closely with what I shared in my last blog post about the concept of theology as interruption.

In some of his writings, Father Boyle has put it this way: “We do not rescue anyone at the margins. But go figure, if we stand at the margins, we are all rescued. No mistake about it.” In his commencement address he raised a couple of other related points. Specifically, the kinship of all people; the “exquisite mutuality” and inter-connectedness of all people. In addition, he pointed out that when those of us in privileged positions choose to go the margins and be present at the margins, it actually erases the margins. He pointed out that “God’s own dream for us, that we be one, just happens to be our own deepest longing for ourselves.” He added that, related to Jeremiah’s vision of social transformation, “the widow orphan and stranger will be your trustworthy guides since they know what it is to be cutoff.” Rather than go simply to rescue those at the margins, we can learn from those at the margins.

His final challenge to the graduates was to “Go forth to create a community of kinship such that God might recognize it” and to make those voices, the voices of the marginalized, heard. Though he made his point with powerful examples of gang members he had worked with, his message was simple: Treat all people like human beings. Honor the dignity of each person we encounter.

That is something we all can do. And in our current contentious and potentially dehumanizing cultural context, this is something we must do.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

For more on Father Gregory Boyle, see his biography here.

Carlow University posted the commencement ceremony and you can watch Father Boyle’s address by clicking here and selecting “on demand” and then “commencement.” His talk begins at about the 1-hour mark immediately after his receiving anhonorary doctorate and continues to the 1-hour and 13 minute mark.

Finally, Father Gregory gave a similar talk at Notre Dame’s commencement in 2017 where he received the Laetare Award. You can read the transcript or see the video here.

Mercy in a Culture of Indifference

“Living Mercy in an Age of Indifference” was the subject of a talk this week by Dr. Johann Vento who is a Professor of Religious Studies and Theology at Georgian Court University. This very timely presentation was given at Carlow’s “Common Hour”—a space and time set aside on the first Tuesday of each month for faculty and staff to come together to have dialogue and discussion about a topic of importance to the community. Here are a few points that I noted that really resonated with me.

Dr. Vento began with a review of mercy in the Psalms, showing that mercy is a theme that infuses the prayers and praises of the people of God. She pointed to one of my favorites, Ps 103: “The LORD is merciful and gracious, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love” (Psalm 103:8). Dr. Vento pointed out that the biblical theme of mercy, and mercy in the Psalms in particular, was a thread that runs through the writings of Pope Francis. His 2015 “The Face of Mercy” announced 2016 as the year of mercy, building on this scriptural foundation. When you note that the Psalms are the most cited book in the NT, it is not surprising that mercy themes infuse the New Testament as well.

As Dr. Vento moved on to an open discussion with the group about mercy in our world today, a few themes in our own culture were noted. One is the high level of distress in our culture, and particularly among students; there is a palpable hunger and thirst for mercy. Second, our contemporary culture actually teaches us not to be merciful, with its individualistic and judgmental tendencies. In other words, “we” tend to think we are doing well because of our effort and hard work; “they” are in need because of their own faults and failures. Third, she pointed to a “closed-off and privatized form of Christianity” which is poorly equipped to be present to suffering. The effect of these dynamics, intended or not, is that we have a tendency to isolate and insulate ourselves from the suffering of others. The extreme customization of our own personalized “news feeds” in social media potentially only serves to exacerbate this insulation from the suffering of others who are not like us.

Dr. Vento then turned to several theologians who have helped her consider mercy, not just from an individual religious perspective, but in terms of mercy as “a passion to end injustice.” In particular, she drew from the work of Walter Kasper, Johannes Metz, and John Sobrino, theologians who have reflected deeply on the gospel teachings about mercy and their connection to contemporary issues in society.

A few concepts in this part of her presentation were particularly striking. One that resonated with me was Johannes Metz’s notion of “theology as interruption.” In the cultural context described above, theology can serve to jar us and awaken us from a pre-occupation with ourselves and our own comfort and our own successes or small sufferings. A biblical theology of mercy grounded in the mercy of God as seen in the Psalms and the NT requires us to be attentive to the suffering of others, and to be “moved with compassion” as the Samaritan was in the parable of Jesus that is commonly known as “the Good Samaritan” (Luke 10). Notably, Metz did much of his writing and thinking in the wake of the Holocaust as he sought to understand how the Christian church in Nazi Germany not only had no ability to generate a robust, counter-cultural Christian response to the Nazi atrocities, but was actually largely silent about it. As history shows, many Christians were complicit simply by not taking action or speaking up about what was happening to the marginalized in their society when they could have and should have. In response, Metz proposes a theology that emphasizes solidarity with those who suffer, based on the actual reality of the inter-connectedness of all people, including the most vulnerable. To me this is an insightful and compelling application of the teaching of Jesus in Luke 10:25-37.

Finally, Dr. Vento ended up discussing the work of John Sobrino, a Jesuit from Nicaragua who has been on my reading list for some time (but whom I have not yet gotten to!). According to Sobrino, to be truly human is to respond to suffering and to be moved by it. Moved to act. This involves “making someone else’s pain our very own” (Principle of Mercy, p. 11). Again, an embodiment of the compassion and care toward one’s neighbor as seen in the teaching of Jesus.

For me the entire conversation was an embodiment of “theology as interruption.” I have my own priorities, stressors, and daily sufferings, not to mention my to-do list each day. The theology of mercy calls me to be ready and open to look up from my screen, to see human need and be open to be moved. And in that moment of being moved, to act.

“But a Samaritan, as he journeyed, came to where he was, and when he saw him, he had compassion. He went to him and bound up his wounds” (Luke 10:33-34)