Rector's Reflection—7 Pentecost, Proper 10
July 11, 2010

I have, over time, become a bit of a biblical literalist—I'm sure much to the horror of my seminary professors. That is not to say that I think there are no contextual considerations (e.g. Paul's admonishments about women in church) or hyperbole to make a point (e.g. cutting off a hand that causes you to sin)—but factoring in these considerations does not (repeat, DOES NOT) permit us to dismiss or discount those passages or any other passages that upset or unnerve or shock us.

Today's parable of the Good Samaritan is shocking, although its shock value has been diluted over the years, an occurrence that could be filed under the title "familiarity breeds not so much contempt but uber-simplification." Yeah, yeah... we know: "Be nice like the Good Samaritan and not nasty like the clergy."

Actually, the early church fathers didn't suffer from this reductionism. In fact, some were over the top in allegorization. Origen said that the man who was going down to Jericho is Adam. Jerusalem is paradise, and Jericho is the world. The robbers are hostile powers. The priest is the Law, the Levite is the prophets, and the Samaritan is Christ. The wounds are disobedience, the beast is the Lord's body, the inn, which accepts all who wish to enter, is the Church. The manager of the inn is the head of the Church, to whom its care has been entrusted. And the fact that the Samaritan promises he will return represents Christ's second coming.

Augustine and others had a bit of a different take. Yes, the man is Adam, but Jerusalem is the heavenly city and Jericho is the moon—the symbol of immortality. The thieves are the devil and his angels, who strip the man of immortality by persuading him to sin and so leave him spiritually half dead. The priest and Levite represent the Old Testament, the Samaritan represents Christ, and the animal is his flesh which he assumed at the Incarnation. The inn is the church, the innkeeper is the apostle Paul, and the two coins are the two sacraments. The interpretations go on to this day.

Now I am not suggesting that the formulators of any of these interpretations—early or late—are trying to escape a Christian imperative, but a simple story can be so over-analyzed that even Jesus wouldn't recognize it... or as John Calvin noted, "we ought to have a deeper reverence for Scripture than to reckon ourselves at liberty to disguise its natural meaning. And, indeed, anyone may see that the curiosity of certain men has led them to contrive these speculations, contrary to the intention of Christ."

This is where my neo-literalism kicks in. There's an assault victim in a ditch. Two religious men, probably grossed out by his appearance, avoid him for justifiable reasons. A Samaritan, a foreigner despised by the religious men, and probably just as grossed out, is the one who stops to help. When Jesus asks the lawyer who was a 'neighbor' to the man, there can be no other answer than "the one who showed mercy."

Mercy, a.k.a. kindness, a.k.a. charity. Kindness is the true mark of a neighbor which makes kindness the true mark of a Christian. The parable is that simple, but it is not simplistic. This parable is so 'today' because kindness is pretty much absent from the life of our world. Of course we can point to greed and competition as places where kindness is lacking, but kindness is also often MIA in ethically-grounded endeavors that end up more about being right than being righteous.

The hymn says, "They'll know we are Christians by our love." They also need to know us by our kindness.

Susan+