Christians and Gun Control

Guns need a license to bear Chuck Norris

I recently heard (or read) a lady say that she would like to hear more Christian voices on the topic of gun control. Apparently after searching online for Christian views on gun control it only yielded voices of those who want to protect their rights to own weapons. Since I was already planning on making some of my upcoming posts about restorative-justice, I thought gun control might actually be a great intro to that series, though they may not seem congruent at first. Nevertheless, here it goes. 

If we are honest about the Christian gun control view that this search revealed we are actually seeing the Republican political stance to protect the American Amendments which is not inherently a discussion on “Christian” views toward gun control.  Before I offer any critiques on the political conservatives, however, I would like to point out that I do agree with part of their argument. 

As most of this debate has stemmed from the US’s mass shootings, one evident aspect in many of these cases is that the situations have less to do with weapons of choice and more to do with mental health and our lack of healthcare towards it. Most of our mass shootings were committed by mentally ill people so to only focus on guns misses the deeper problem and I could not agree more. Now I have yet to see many Republicans go beyond using it as an argumentative tool (for keeping weapons) and actually work toward or even propose ideas to better our mental healthcare, but as far as I am concerned peoples and communities with a vested interest need not wait for them.

 

With that said the other popular argument from Republicans for keeping weapons is centered on the misnomer that the only way to stop a “bad guy” with a gun is to make sure the “good guy” has a gun.  Aside from the fact that they just reduced many mentally ill from the first part of their argument to that of a wild-west villain, now they are personal arbiters of who the good vs bad gunslingers are. 

My critique is that neither part of the argument is based on the interest of needs (though many will try and say it is) so much as just keeping weapons available in major part for financial gain. It is nearly a $15 billion dollar industry that American citizens contribute a large percentage to.[1]  Of course the average citizen is convinced they will have personal security and hold all the cards during moments of surprise, but I’m not sure they understand how surprise tactics work. You will almost never be in total control of the situation even with weapon in hand.  My bigger point is when people see mass shootings they are understandably struck by fear and the reflexive action is toward self-protection. But, guns seem like the logical response because, I think, we just don’t know what else to do.  We are caught in the binary (either/or) trap of kill or be killed.

Perhaps we do not know what else to do simply because it is never encouraged or brought to our attention that we can practice other responses.  My logic is this, if somebody wants to be good at war, or mirror the offensive action of a shooter in an equally devastating manner, then you put in a lot of time, energy and money into becoming good weapon owners.  Case and point, US military has a $601 billion budget[2] and puts in lots of time, training and expertise into violating privacy and making war.  It is more than they do for hunger ($167.5 billion dollar problem)[3] and it shows. We have sustained a war for the last 14 years and there are still unfed people in the US. 

Christians, however, are not called to vengeance or violence (Rom.12:14-21), that is the beast’s job (Rev. 13:5-7), but we are called to make shalom (Matt, 5:9).  We should invest a large amount of time and energy into learning how to do that.  Wendell Berry made a similar point when he suggested this: “What leads to peace is not violence but peaceableness, which is not passivity, but an alert, informed, practiced, and active state of being. We should recognize that while we have extravagantly subsidized the means of war, we have almost totally neglected the ways of peaceableness… And here we have an inescapable duty to notice also that war is profitable, whereas the means of peaceableness, being cheap or free, make no money.”[4]   Therefore, it is up to those who see past illusions of wealth to create rhythms and investments that actually build something of worth.

What does that look like? As I said before, it is a vision of building shalom and also creating sanctuary, so it will look like faithfulness with what does matter: you, me, the other and creation.  Whether guns are legal, the real question is will owning one contribute to this? I don’t believe Christians can say yes.  Certainly we will have to consider responses to unintended brazen attacks especially when we take killing responses off the table (and I will propose more concrete ideas in a coming post about it). Nevertheless, this decision will be best formed by each community. If you want to search out for yourself what can be done, look up all the work that has been done in the areas of conflict transformation and de-escalation, strategic peacebuilding and restorative justice, just to name a few.  

It still stands that the Church is to be a people who clothe ourselves in compassion, kindness, gentleness and patience (Col. 3:12) and realize no one is disposable.  We carry the responsibility to create healthy communities with seriousness. This is a community that:

1. Actively pursues peace processes amid initial conflict (not only after escalation);

2. Invests in the development of others now (not arming up for when our failure takes its toll);

3. Creates broad social plans that reinforce community (within the social, educational, business, judicial, medical and so on).

We will also need to address areas of discontent of those who have existed on the fringes of communities and require their voice back.  From my standpoint gun ownership at best must be reserved  for those who just like shooting at targets or who hunt out of pure necessity. This certainly is not good Republican thinking, or Democratic thinking, or American thinking, but it is the thinking of someone who wants to follow Jesus.  

[1] Catey Hill 10 Things the gun industry won’t tell you Retrieved From http://www.marketwatch.com/story/10-things-the-gun-industry-wont-tell-you-2014-03-07

[2] Gould &Bender  http://www.businessinsider.com/how-the-us-military-spends-its-billions-2015-8

[3] CFAP. Hunger in America Retrieved From https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/poverty/report/2011/10/05/10504/hunger-in-america/

[4] Wendell Berry. Thoughts in the Presence of Fear Retrieved From https://orionmagazine.org/article/thoughts-in-the-presence-of-fear/

Anxiety, Panic Attacks & Suffering Well

I recently heard a quote by Carl Jung saying that neurosis is caused by the avoidance of legitimate suffering and he is right.  For those who don’t know neurosis is a mental disorder that appears from stress. It can come out as depression, anxiety, o.c.d. or hypochondria because for some reason one’s ability to cope with stress is damaged.  As I personally have dealt with anxiety/panic disorder for most of my life, and for many years have been debilitated by it, this got me thinking.  I don’t suffer well and I’ll bet neither does most of my culture, which may be clear in the rise of neurosis cases.

At the core of our consumer mentality are a people who prescribe for themselves “happiness” as a distraction from the things we cannot control.  This is not meant to tear down genuine happiness, but when we ignore everything else for the sake of self-fulfilled pleasure it creates more problems.  Look at what thrives; lots of distractions in the form of entertainment, social media, food, drugs (both pharmaceutical and recreational) and listening to health & wealth televangelists and/or positive thinking gurus. Then we hold this as the high-ideal for happiness, but it’s all shallow and vapid at best.

As a side note, I believe it has also crossed over into how we comfort one another when somebody is genuinely hurting from depression, grief, relational issues and so forth.  We go right for the comfort/hope without addressing the damage. Distractive words of cheer and happiness are offered far quicker than helpful notes of truth, solidarity and a willingness to allow them to go, and ourselves to go with them, into the pain and tears.  We need to be allowed to feel the pain and the loss before we can adequately accept it and transform it into something healthier.  So, despite common belief it is okay to say it is not okay.  That is not a lack of faith.  

  

            As for anxiety and panic attacks, the reality is (like grief, conflict, and most discomforts out of our control) avoidance and quick-fixes only make it worse and stop us from moving forward.  When we can begin to enter into the situations that trigger such panic-ridden thoughts and feelings (and may I recommend small steps, don’t set-up for failure) we can finally begin to face it and suffer well. We let those thoughts and feelings come and pass, and they do pass.  More to the amazement is when they diminish and not because you have found a new distraction, but because you stopped avoiding the component of fear and created a new pattern where the scary “what if” thoughts no longer hold the power. 

With this said, over the years I have heard a lot of fellow Christians dwell on the fear aspect of it and say that fear is not from God so it is the Devil tormenting you and by your faith God will deliver you from this.  Let me say I do believe that fear is not from God and I do believe that God is the best person to be a part of your overcoming process and I believe this is not the way things are supposed to be. But, blaming the Devil alone only detracts from the fact that it is we (in the moment when our brain triggers a false “fight or flight” feeling from stress) take the bait and run from it. In neurosis our part in it is evident and what is worse is no real threat is at hand.

However, as you work through this in a healthy manner of accepting the feelings, lack of control and continuing forward, I cannot help but think you will also develop the God-given tools to face legitimate suffering and even one’s own finiteness.  The good news is God also has no intention of our staying in such a place either but only asks that we be willing to confront its existence by accepting the anguish because from that place he can bring a new beginning (Lk. 1:78-79).  So in retrospect God will deliver us, but it will not be from it so much as through it. 

Predestined for Freewill Prt. 2

Well it only took a couple of weeks, but I finally got around to finishing the last part to this.  So rather than looking at many scriptures, I want to focus on the most common rebuttal (from Christians) to my freewill case and that comes at the expense of Romans 9.  This chapter is usually pivotal in the Calvinistic argument.  However, I believe if we can see that it cannot be read deterministically it will show that we will also need to give fresh interpretations to other “seemingly” deterministic verses.  This is especially true given that each Biblical book carries its own genre, themes and outworking of its issues.    

With that said when the average person arrives at deterministic resolutions for this chapter I am not entirely surprised because the imagery the text creates can feel like an outworking of the deterministic language Western philosophy has interjected into our social thought.  We will naturally then give it a straightforward modern reading, but there is a good possibility Paul was not thinking in such philosophical terms (in fact I’m convinced of it).  I will go further and say most first-century Jews were probably not entertaining the Stoic’s philosophical ideas (deterministic or otherwise) except to challenge it. Nevertheless, here is the bulk of this contentious chapter to see what I mean:

Romans 9

Rom. 9:9, For this is what the promise said, “About this time I will return and Sarah shall have a son.” 10 Nor is that all; something similar happened to Rebecca when she had conceived children by one husband, our ancestor Isaac. 11 Even before they had been born or had done anything good or bad (so that God’s purpose of election might continue, 12 not by works but by his call) she was told, “The elder shall serve the younger.” 13 As it is written.“I have loved Jacob, but I have hated Esau.” 14 What then are we to say? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! 15 For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”16 So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I raised you up, to demonstrate My power in you, and that My name might be proclaimed throughout the whole earth.” 18 So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires.

19. You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?” 20. On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, “Why did you make me like this,” will it? 21. Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? 22. What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? 23. And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, 24. even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles (NRSV).

Well, this would seem to complicate the persuasion of my last post, except that Romans 8:29 shows Paul saying salvation is for everyone.  So did Paul contradict himself?  The simple answer is no, but here’s why. 

            Divine-determinism might be the case if Romans 9 was Paul directly responding to a question about individual salvation (specifically how God chooses who he is going to save or not save), but he is not.  He is actually answering the question did God make a blunder by “choosing” Israel as his people (Rom. 9:6)?  Paul is helping the Jewish sect of his Roman audience come to a better understanding of their identity since he just lamented over the Jewish rejection of the Messiah (9:1-3) and had already made the points that Israel had failed her task, yet God’s promised faithfulness was not reliant on Jewish nationality or obedience to the Torah (Rom. 2-3).  Salvation was inclusive for all nations on the basis of faith (Rom. 3-4), so where does that leave the Jews to whom adoption, covenants, giving of the law and promises had belonged (Rom. 9:1-5)?  Suddenly we have moved from questions of determinism to more difficult and dangerous questions which have been used to justify the spread anti-Semitism. 

            However, contrary to misinterpretations Paul does in fact affirm God’s choosing the Jews and that Jesus is both Israel’s Messiah and the pinnacle of God’s promises (Note that the veracity of the Messiah depends on the Jews having been chosen in the first place). To add to this picture, Tom Wright says:

The whole letter (Romans) is about the way God is fulfilling his ancient promises in and through Jesus, and what this will mean in practice… The Messiah is from the Jewish people ‘according to the flesh’ in his flesh-and-blood identity. But he is also the Lord of all: the incarnate God who claims the allegiance of people of every race and nation. That is the point of tension, the fault line which Paul’s argument will now straddle. The Jews really are the people of the Messiah, but they are that ‘according to the flesh’. The Messiah really does belong to them, but only in the ‘fleshly’ sense; and he also belongs to the whole world as its rightful Lord.[1]

 It takes Paul every bit of chapters 9, 10 and 11 to draw this out, thus chapter 9 is only the beginning of that answer (also meaning that I will not be answering it in full).  I will attempt to offer a sound and succinct explanation of chapter 9 though. 

Setting Interpretive Scenes

We must go into it knowing a couple of things: first, no matter what nation God chose for the task of defeating evil (Rom. 10:4) he could only select a group of people who were (themselves) part of the problem (Rom. 3:23).  So “moral-champion” was not a criterion for God’s selective process (in fact a manipulative backstabbing guy like Jacob proves this, Gen. 27). 

Second, when Paul says God loved Jacob but hated Esau that was hyperbolic language meaning to prefer one over the other.  In this case it was to prefer to continue down One Jewish bloodline over the other (as they were both Isaac’s children). Perhaps Jacob had a tenacity that Esau did not, but whatever the reason it was because God had everybody’s interest at heart in how to continue forward.  Moreover, this forward progression is for the eventuality of the Messiah who will, as Paul suggests, carry the faithfulness of an entire nation all by himself. 

            Now, let’s talk about potters and their clay.  Most people take the potter/clay reference to mean that God is the potter and we are lifeless lumps of clay just here to be molded into whatever God decides.   Yet, all it takes is watching a potter working with clay to see that the potter spends just as much time responding to what the clay is doing as the clay does to what the potter is doing.  Paul’s point is similar here.  He is referencing the Hebrew Scriptures that critiqued Israel’s behavior (Isa. 29:16; 45:9).  To quote Wright again, these prophets “tell of a stage in Israel’s history when God was struggling with a rebellious Israel, like a potter working with clay that simply wouldn’t go into the right shape.  The image of potter and clay was not designed to speak in general terms about human beings as lifeless lumps of clay… it was designed speak very specifically about God’s purpose in choosing and calling Israel and what would happen if Israel, like a lump of clay, failed to respond to the gentle moulding of his hands.”[2] 

            This meaning that God was going to have to move forward in some way, but the question was would it be with his original plan or would it mean throwing out the misshapen clay?  As Jeremiah suggests, and Paul reiterates, God can and will reshape the clay (Jeremiah 18:1-6), but it will take wilderness/exile to do it.  More to Paul’s point, God will be faithful to his original plan even when humans are not.  Hence the Exodus 33 reference when Pharaoh (the anti-creational force) opposes God’s choosing Israel for the vocational task of moving creation forward even in the face of opposition (and even when the rebellion came from Israel herself making golden calves) God will still move forward. This is also the point behind Paul’s contentious “what if” questions (Rom. 9:22-24).  They are hypothetical, but aim to make the point that it is God’s right and his choice to choose who he wants to choose. He drastically shows it by calling the Gentiles to share as full and equal members in this.  Now both Jew and Gentile are to be vessels of mercy in the sense that we are agents of mercy rather than mere receivers of it.[3]

Now Pull it Together

In conclusion, Paul will reinforce this as he continues with his use of Hosea and Isaiah to show that even while they were not acting as “God’s beloved people” God promised he would bring them through times of judgment and yet again call them “his people” (9:25-29).  Once more God’s faithfulness is the focal point in Paul’s thinking. 

            Now that we are completely off track of determinism (and for good reason) we can see that Paul needs to be allowed to speak for Paul and Romans 9 stands at a far distance from our contemporary debates.  By the end, the theological doctrine gleaned is not that God has orchestrated a predetermined creation, but rather that God is always faithful to his promises to the Jews, the Gentiles and to all of creation.  Any failure in God’s thwarted work thus only belongs to unfaithful agents responsible in helping to carry it forward (i.e. us). Yet, God thankfully does not give up, but makes a way to carry it all forward.   Notice the correlation between an exiled Israel and our Messiah exiled to the cross.  Now we too can enter into the exile of the cross (Matt. 16:24) in faithful response to our Potter who responds gently and faithfully to us.

[1] N.T. Wright. Paul for Everyone: Romans Part 2 (Louisville, KY: John Knox Press 2004), 5.

[2] Ibid, 13.

[3] Ibid, 16.

Predestined for Free Will

I want to confront the idea of divine-determinism.  This topic recently arose among friends of mine and it got me thinking about how I might articulate why I disagree with determinism and if it provokes dialogue or rebuttal, well that is also welcome.      

  

Before continuing, however, know that I am fully aware of the neuroscience-world’s discovery that determinism and freewill may be moot points because we do not make decisions like we think we do, or possibly at all (That’s right, my wife is so wrong about me).  While I fully believe they have shown us to be severely restrained by our genetics, neurons, physical limitations and emotional baggage, I have trouble believing that we can definitively prove we are completely incapable of choice and moral responsibility. The fact that we can distinguishably desire right and feel wronged and consciously influence situations one way or another seems to point to something deeper happening, but right now I am presupposing this not proving it (See Malcolm Jeeves Minds, Brains, Souls and Gods or Bill Newsome’s work at www.testoffaith.com for more on this topic). 

    

TULIP… No, not the flower

One of Christianity’s main advocates for divine-determinism was John Calvin who believed God was micromanaging/orchestrating everything good and bad. This can be seen in his “five point” T.U.L.I.P. doctrine:

1. Total Depravity (Humanity is so sinful that we are incapable of desiring, thinking, doing, or being good. Only God’s will can accomplish that. Hmm not sure this is consistent with the Atheists, Buddhists, or other non-Christians who have an intrinsic desire for good, but it might be might be more arguable if you give up the next doctrine);

2. Unconditional Election (God elects those of his own choosing for good and salvation while others are created for evil and hell. Wow that sounds more like a demented tormentor than a God who loves his creation);

3. Limited Atonement (Jesus only died for the elect.  Was Jesus aware of this in Jn. 3:16-17?);

4. Irresistible Grace (Those elected cannot resist God’s grace as it irresistibly/forcefully draws only them to himself.  Didn’t Jafar try something similar in Aladdin? That didn’t turn out well);

5. Perseverance of the Saints (You cannot lose your salvation, also known as once saved always saved.  Honestly I wish this one was true, but unfortunately I cannot scripturally defend it).

Despite my snarky attitude against Calvin’s heresies, my bigger point is that his view did not stem from a right understanding of God’s sovereignty and providence, but rather Calvin might be guilty of proof-texting the Bible (that is, isolating verses out of context that seemingly offer an absolute resolution to what are complex issues.      

God is out of Control

Before looking at the seemingly “deterministic” scriptures (in the next post), it must first be said that deterministic thinking in which God preplans good alongside pain, evil and suffering to somehow show off his glory paints a picture of God that is incompatible with good, love and God’s other character-revelations in scripture.  God entered into our pain, evil and suffering and through it decisively defeated it and inaugurated the vanquishing process of those things, but it was not what he intended for any of us.[1]  So, am I saying that God is not in total control of the situation?  In point of fact I am!  This can be seen throughout the Bible from God’s response to the fall, to the prophets and on to the Messiah.

Sin

First, the very fact that God is not happy about Adam and Eve’s disobedience leads me to think he did not plan it (Gen.3:11-19).  It is as simple as that.  How could he be that angry toward them or Sodom and Gomorrah (or any other sinner) for behaving the way he created them to?

Prophets

Second, the prophets consistently come with words of warning for the people to turn from their wickedness so that calamity and exile does not occur (like Jonah and Nineveh or any of the pre-exilic prophets).  God has seemingly taken the risk of relinquishing control and giving us choice and freedom, but as moral agents we are participants in God’s creative activity which has the same potential for good as it does for evil. 

This could not be any clearer than in Jeremiah.  He constructs many “if” and “if not” statements revealing an undetermined/open future. Much of dialogue between God and Jeremiah indicates that there are actions that are good and lead to life, but there are also ways that are harmful toward creation and carry weighty consequences that God does not wish for Israel or their enemies (Jer. 12:14-17; 17:24-27; 21:8-10; 22:1-5; 38:17-18).  As Terence Fretheim puts it:

the people are given choices that will shape their future, which in turn will shape the future of all other creatures as-well-as the future of God (God will do different things depending on what the creatures do)…  God “plants” the people, but it is they who take root, grow and bring forth fruit (Jer. 12:2).  What creatures “grow up into” and the fruit they bear makes a difference both for themselves and for their world, for good or for ill… pleasant portion or a desolate wilderness (12:10).[2]

If this is the way the way in which the Creator relates to his creatures within the world, then determinism and micromanaging is not the “system” God set forth.

            Jesus

            Last to this are Jesus and even his followers.  If we are to actually believe that Jesus is the visible image of God (Col. 1:15) and God’s determinism is the governing factor, then those who talked about Jesus got him wrong.  Jesus’ language should have been different.  For example, instead of saying that God sent him so that whoever believes in him can have eternal life, he should have said those who I am irresistible to (or some similar clause) will have eternal life, but  because the Father did not make everyone for good purposes it is not all inclusive (Jn. 3:15-17). 

Then Paul could have avoided those embarrassing statements such as “we” (in a general sense) are God’s workmanship created for good works (Eph. 2:10) and that those who God foreknew (which is everyone who had the potential of being born) he chosen to become like Christ. And Peter could have gotten it right and said that God wishes for some (instead of no one) to parish (2 Pet. 3:9) and apparently a lot considering the salvation road is narrow and the destructive path is wide (Matt. 7:13).  So also, it makes little sense for us to love our enemies and pray for those who curse us (Matt. 5:45) or even pray for anyone at all because the course is set and it cannot deviate (Gen. 10:12-14; Phil. 1:19; Eph. 6:18).

The point is Jesus never made people’s salvation about predetermined-election. Read each Gospel in its entirety and it is clear that God had good news for everyone, those elected were chosen to bear the responsibility of the other nations knowing that good news, but were never sole recipients of it (Isa. 49:6).  More importantly, God’s love and relational essence with his creation is evident, but determinism only opposes such a God. It is, however, consistent with preprogrammed machines.  (Stay tuned for prt. 2)  

           

[1] I cringe at the thought that any parent has ever been told the loss of their child was because of God’s “love” and/or greater plan.  Not your sick child, not the Sandy Hook massacre, not one act of terrorism, not the Hiroshima/Nagasaki atrocity, not the earthquake of Haiti was God’s “greater” plan at work.  Pain and loss was never part of God’s plan. It was the result of a broken creation and the creation’s enslavement to sin (1 Jn. 5:19-20).   It doesn’t mean that we are not more inclined to listen to God and become teachable in vulnerable situations. It also does not mean that God won’t bring good out of bad, but it was not planned for the greater purpose. God’s plan has always worked toward life and good and when bad comes apart from his will. What’s more is he rarely delivers us from it, but actually delivers us through it, even when death is the final result.

           

[2] Terence Fretheim. God and World in the Old Testament: A Relational Theology of Creation (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2005), 172.

Quote of the Week

This week’s quote comes from a prominent Rabbi and while this work of his was published sixty years ago I feel it still resonates with the Church’s situation: 

“It is customary to blame secular science and anti-religious philosophy for the eclipse of religion in modern society. It would be more honest to blame religion for its own defeats. Religion declined not because it was refuted, but because it became irrelevant, dull, oppressive, insipid. When faith is completely replaced by creed, worship by discipline, love by habit; when the crisis of today is ignored because of the splendor of the past; when faith becomes an heirloom rather than a living fountain; when religion speaks only in the name of authority rather than with the voice of compassion--its message becomes meaningless.” –Abraham Joshua Heschel God in Search of Man (p. 3)

If the church is to move and work toward a new future, I can't help but feel like it will have to begin with the setting aside of discrimination complexes and doing some housekeeping in the form of reflective truth telling.

Be Fed

Van Gogh's Worn Out

I have not had the chance to sit down and write lately (due to some of the minor inconveniences of life) and I am not sure when in the next month or two I am going to.  However, until I can get back to writing I thought I might post quotes periodically for all you contemplative junkies out there, and also so I can feel like I am doing something.  So, to kick it off here is something from Rohr that is nothing short of profound:   

"Only love can know love, only mercy can know mercy, only the endless mystery I am to myself is ready for God’s Infinite Mystery.

When I can stand in mystery (not knowing and not needing to know and being dazzled by such freedom), when I don’t need to split, to hate, to dismiss, to compartmentalize what I cannot explain or understand, when I can radically accept that “I am what I am what I am,” then I am beginning to stand in divine freedom (Galatians 5:1).

We do not know how to stand there on our own. Someone Else needs to sustain us in such a deep and spacious place. This is what the saints mean by our emptiness, our poverty and our nothingness. They are not being negative or self-effacing, but just utterly honest about their inner experience.

God alone can sustain me in knowing and accepting that I am not a saint, not at all perfect, not very loving at all—and in that very recognition I can fall into the perfect love of God."   -Richard Rohr

Disgusted by a Good Samaritan

Ferdinand Hodler's Good Samaritan

So in the name of “full disclosure” I personally was not disgusted by a Good Samaritan, but I think somebody else was. We tend to think that Jesus’ parable about the Good Samaritan was a story of how to treat others kindly (as good as that may be) as if the Samaritan is our role model, but Jesus wasn’t actually answering the question of how to treat others kindly.  He was answering the question “who is my neighbor?” and he goes about answering it in a radically significant way.

Anatomy of Disgust

There is an aspect in the science of human behavior to help us understand what Jesus was doing especially since the stigma he exposes is ever-present.  Though the psychology of disgust was not a developed theory in first-century Palestine, Jesus managed to addresses it very well. Richard Beck actually presents this idea in his book Unclean in relation to other sayings and parables Jesus infuriated others with, but it also applies to the Samaritan. Beck’s definition of disgust is that it is a psychological boundary that marks objects, ideas, or persons as exterior, alien and therefore unclean.[1]

            He helps us to understand this idea through something called the “Dixie Cup” test.  The test is to imagine being asked to spit into a Dixie cup and then asked to drink the spit.  How would that make you feel?  Most people are automatically disgusted by the thought of drinking their own spit even though it was not so bothersome when it was saliva in their mouth, but as soon as it is outside one’s mouth it gets a new name and the feeling of uncleanness and disgust arise.[2]  We might have similar feelings occur when we find a hair in our food or are asked to consume a foreign dish containing bugs or worms, both healthy alternatives to processed foods, yet some become disgusted.

The expulsive aspect of disgust, however, does not begin and end with oral issues or food but extends itself to the stimuli of gore, deformity, hygiene as-well-as sociomoral disgusts like moral offenses and particular social groups.  Some of these boundaries can become problematic and worrisome. “Whenever disgust regulates our experience of holiness or purity we will find this expulsive element… The worry, obviously, comes when people are the object of expulsion, when social groups (religious or political) seek purity by purging themselves through social scapegoating.”[3]

The Parable

With this in mind, Jesus then tells the “Good Samaritan” story to a Jewish lawyer who wants to know who he should consider his neighbor.  Jesus tells about a man who had been robbed, beaten up and left for dead on the road (Lk. 10:25-37).  As he tells about the Jewish Priest and Levite purposely avoiding the man in the road, this lawyer would have probably made excuses for them.  He identified with them and knew the Jewish law and vows they were bound to as it was considered unclean to touch someone who might be dead… or pagan.  However, when the Samaritan passed by and stopped to help, much racist tension would have probably arisen within the lawyer because the two groups had a long-standing feud and disgust toward one another.  Now the lawyer has put himself in the place of the man in the road.  His thought process might have look liked him seeing the Samaritan as a dirty, long-nosed, sub-human, pagan that has no business breathing the same air as him let alone touching him, even if it was to save his life. This was an unacceptable gesture.  Suddenly, this Jewish lawyer has to face the idea that this ethnic group he and his country-men are at odds with is his neighbor. This social class his religious leaders had taught him were unclean he is now commanded to love. 

However, this would not have only been limited to the Jewish lawyer, but would have crossed the sensitive boundaries of disgust for most of Jesus’ listeners who thought of Samaritans as unclean and alien.  The previous goal was to set them on the outside marginalizing them, not call them neighbor and interact with them on a personal level.  A scandal for sure!   

When we answer this question in our personal spheres we might be disgusted to think that we too have Samaritans Jesus is calling our neighbor and are worthy of our love. Common tensions to consider might be U.S. citizens and illegal Mexicans, blacks and police, or even right-winged Evangelicals and the LGBTQ community.  Outside the US it could be Israel and Palestine, Russia and Ukraine and on it goes. Or, perhaps it’s less radical than these and it is a person you are critical of or a person who disagrees with you. The point is that we should walk away from the Good Samaritan asking ourselves what Samaritans have we drawn boundaries of disgust with?  Then consciously remove those boundaries because they are our neighbor.   

[1] Richard Beck. Unclean: Meditations on Purity, Hospitality and Mortality (Eugene, OR: Cascade Books 2011), 2.

[2] Ibid, 1.

[3] Ibid, 16.