|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Is evangelism actually part of "loving one's neighbour"?
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
I've started this off in Purg, as it concerns a general issue, but it's based on an interpretation of a particular Bible passage. So perhaps Kerygmania? Anyway, I've been thinking about the "Parable of the Good Samaritan", and something struck me that I hadn't really noticed before.
As we know, the second commandment is "Love your neighbour as yourself". When a "lawyer" asked about this commandment, Jesus gave his answer in the form of this parable.
The second commandment is, of course, the most important commandment as concerns human relationships, and Matthew 22:40 gives the impression that the first two commandments are really all we need. Therefore it is not unreasonable to conclude that the above mentioned parable contains implications that define what God actually really requires of us as far as human interaction is concerned. Jesus uses the parable to urge his hearers to go and show mercy as the Samaritan had shown mercy to the injured man. "Go and do likewise" indicates that this parable represents a model of loving one's neighbour.
Now I can't see any place in this parable for the idea of evangelism (i.e. trying to persuade another person to accept your ideology, otherwise some punishment will come upon him or her). The concept seems to have no place at all in the command to "love one's neighbour". And this is not just an argument from silence, but a logical implication of the parable. In fact, the parable, by implication, positively discourages any form of proselytising.
There is no way that Jesus could have been suggesting that evangelism would have been part of the Samaritan's act of "loving his neighbour", considering that Jesus did not fully approve of Samaritan theology. In Jesus' conversation with the Samaritan woman in John 4, it is clear that Samaritan theology was somewhat defective: "You worship what you do not know; we know what we worship, for salvation is of the Jews" (verse 22). In the light of this, it is inconceivable that Jesus would have approved of the Samaritan attempting to convert the injured man (presumably a Jew). John 4:22 indicates that, according to Jesus, the Samaritans were "theistic agnostics" (they believed in God, but didn't really "know" God).
Now perhaps there are those who may say that I am trying to read too much into a parable, and that Jesus was simply making a point about the fact that we should love all people, irrespective of race and ideology. But if that were the case, then Jesus could have made the Samaritan the one who was in need and not the "hero" of the story. Furthermore, he could have just answered the lawyer's question by saying "everyone in the world". The command to "go and do likewise" clearly underlines that this is a model of obedience to the all-important second commandment - obedience in which any form of proselytising is an absurdity.
Any thoughts about this?
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
There is no way that Jesus could have been suggesting that evangelism would have been part of the Samaritan's act of "loving his neighbour", considering that Jesus did not fully approve of Samaritan theology. In Jesus' conversation with the Samaritan woman in John 4, it is clear that Samaritan theology was somewhat defective: "You worship what you do not know; we know what we worship, for salvation is of the Jews" (verse 22). In the light of this, it is inconceivable that Jesus would have approved of the Samaritan attempting to convert the injured man (presumably a Jew). John 4:22 indicates that, according to Jesus, the Samaritans were "theistic agnostics" (they believed in God, but didn't really "know" God).
Generally speaking, I tend to think that there was no need for the Samaritan to explain to the injured man that he loved him nor the reason. Indeed, the story seems to suggest that the Samaritan was in a hurry, so did what he could and left the injured man to recover.
As to your characterisation of Jesus' views on Samaritan theology, I guess I've always been more charitable than you. I tend to think that Jesus was saying 'wow, you guys are culturally very different to me and my people, and yet you are being far more honest (and therefore more spiritual) than the 'correct' people I know..'
It would be a bit strange for Jesus to suggest that people praying on a hill were somehow doing things wrong, in my opinion, given he did a lot of praying on hills himself and seemed to believe that there were no special places to pray.
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
I don't do evangelism myself (yeah I know, going to burn in Hell for that), but I do believe evangelism can be a part of loving your neighbour. But it would depend very much on how it's done. For example nstead of making one's case in a heated way that this is the truth, having an attitude of invitation, of sharing, of listening to the other.
In my view, a big part of the story of the Good Samaritan is a commentary on piety. Jesus condemns the 'pious' priest and Levite who did nothing and just walked by, contrasting them with the 'impious' foreigner who offered help.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
sabine
Shipmate
# 3861
|
Posted
As a member of an "evangelism-lite" religion and also the recipient of evangelistic attempts on the part of others, I also notice the difference between heavy-handed judgmental attempts to pull me from my evil evil ways and heartfelt attempts to make sure that my soul is not in peril.
Of course, both are predicated on the the assumption that there is no grace where I am. I think both may also be predicated on love for me and wanting the best for me.
I try to see things from the other person's POV. I have friends and know people who are fundamentalists and who really do have a concern for my salvation. What I love best about these people are the times that they let their lives speak rather than any debates or criticisms they might offer.
I attend a Mennonite Church now and then. [eta: These Mennonites are not fundamentalists.] They have, by action not words, done more to allow me to see that evangelism isn't always an annoying thing than anyone who has tried to press me into changing.
There is something beautiful in knowing that people love God and want to be God's helpers in this life. But that beauty gets distorted when people fail to let God provide them with the opportunity and the inspiration to be Grace-filled when they see the opportunity.
One poignant example of evangelism comes to mind. There was a national youth convention going on in my city (don't remember the denom). Young people were sent out onto the streets to save souls. I was asked by one (reading from a paper) if I was "saved." I always answer this question in the affirmative because I don't want to get into discussions of teeny-tiny differences of dogma.
Unfortunately, the young woman had been told that she needed to go through a list of questions, and when I suggested that we didn't actually need to verify my salvation through those questions, she immediately began praying for me.
Part of me thought all of this was unnecessary; another part felt sorry that the young woman had not been mentored into a different way of saving souls. I think she meant well. . .
. . .and I always accept prayers that are said for me (who am I to know if I don't actually need massive amounts of prayers? ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) ). But in the end, I think she felt she had failed in her duty. That felt a bit sad to me.
sabine
[ 23. May 2012, 12:33: Message edited by: sabine ]
--------------------
"Hunger looks like the man that hunger is killing." Eduardo Galeano
Posts: 5887 | From: the US Heartland | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
There is a negativity associated with the term evangelism (some of it, quite correctly, caused by the kind of "are you saved" story sabine told, which is symptomatic of some approaches. And "outreach" is going the same way.
At the heart of it is the notion that being saved is about giving assent to certain propositional statements. Say the right stuff and get this eternal insurance policy. A kind of privatised approach to faith, where personal self-interest is the key.
The interesting thing about the Samaritan story, in this context, is that Jesus makes it clear that obeying the second commandment can be exactly the opposite of personal self-interest, indeed it's about putting someone else's interests first. And what's more, such behaviour is to be celebrated and followed, no matter who is providing the example. Go and do likewise.
Actually, in our culture, where strangers telling you what's what and what you need are automatically viewed with suspicion (like door to door sales operatives and cold callers), I think there is much greater mileage in regarding loving your neighbour, Samaritan style, as the primary form of evangelism. Always be ready to give a reason for the hope that is in you. But best if you've got some kind of relationship with the other person, sufficient to stimulate someone into actually asking a question.
Go and make disciples is much more comprehensive than go and do verbal evangelism to strangers.
[ 23. May 2012, 12:58: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
It very much depends on your presuppositions about the nature of salvation.
If you don't believe that your non-Christian friends need saving from anything, then you have no reason to tell them about Jesus, and your reasoning is valid.
If however you do believe that they need saving, and that trusting in Jesus is the only way for them to be saved, then of course you tell them if you love them.
(I'd want to add that we observe that the Apostles were awfully keen on telling people about Jesus, and hence we can conclude that they did believe in a need for salvation and so on. If you want to disagree with them on that, that's your choice I guess.)
--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.
Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
The second commandment is, of course, the most important commandment as concerns human relationships, and Matthew 22:40 gives the impression that the first two commandments are really all we need. Therefore it is not unreasonable to conclude that the above mentioned parable contains implications that define what God actually really requires of us as far as human interaction is concerned.
This is a truly strange assertion. All the Gospels include the Great Commission. Why would one say, "Sure, but it isn't in the parable of the good Samaritan?" I really don't understand the idea you are pushing here. It is reasonable to ask how we might best make disciples for Christ, but the notion that Christians are not called to do that is beyond the pale AFAICS.
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Custard:I'd want to add that we observe that the Apostles were awfully keen on telling people about Jesus, and hence we can conclude that they did believe in a need for salvation and so on.
No, that's not a logical conclusion. They could have been keen on telling people about Jesus for many reasons. For example, because they were really impressed and inspired and flabbergasted by Him.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Now I can't see any place in this parable for the idea of evangelism (i.e. trying to persuade another person to accept your ideology, otherwise some punishment will come upon him or her).
That's not what the word "evangelism" means. It means telling people good news. In this context the good news of Jesus Christ. So yes, it is part of loving your neighbour.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
LutheranChik
Shipmate
# 9826
|
Posted
I find myself increasingly alienated from the whole salvation="going to heaven when you die" idea, as well as the idea that most of humanity is going to hell for the "sin" of not assenting to certain propositions about God. If someone's evangelism efforts are grounded in those ideas, then while I'm sure that s/he thinks s/he is "loving my neighbor," from where I sit it's more like diminishing/pulling rank on/annoying one's neighbor.
On the other hand, if understanding Jesus' salvation to be about having a transformed, harmonious, love- rather than fear-based relationship with God and with one's fellow human beings, and if one's evangelism is a matter of modeling that love in ways that matter, and sharing one's own story as a person of faith, without the frantic assumption that the other person needs to be persuaded "or else" -- then okay; I can get behind that.
--------------------
Simul iustus et peccator
http://www.lutheranchiklworddiary.blogspot.com
Posts: 6462 | From: rural Michigan, USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
To the point of not being an evangelist: in fact, all Christians are evangelists in one form or another, perhaps at different levels. Your life is testimony to what you believe in and value. People will learn about your Christianity by the way you live.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lothiriel
Shipmate
# 15561
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Now perhaps there are those who may say that I am trying to read too much into a parable, and that Jesus was simply making a point about the fact that we should love all people, irrespective of race and ideology. But if that were the case, then Jesus could have made the Samaritan the one who was in need and not the "hero" of the story.
I think the Samaritan has to be the hero in order for Jesus to make one of the points he's trying to get across. His listeners would expect that the priest and the Levite would be better behaved than the Samaritan, and that being a Jew is all that is needed to merit God's favour. But Jesus turns this expectation on its head, by having the Samaritan do the good deed while the priest and the Levite ignore the man in need. In a modern context, the characters might be a priest, a deacon, and an agnostic.
The lawyer came to Jesus asking questions about the law, and was able to quote the law and show understanding of it. But Jesus is saying it's not enough to know the law; you have to live it. So he has the character who is outside of the law and the covenant do the good deed and thus actually carry out the law.
I think, since the story is about the right attitude toward the law, to try to relate the story to evangelism is a category error.
--------------------
If you want to build a ship, don't drum up the men to gather wood, divide the work and give orders. Instead, teach them to yearn for the vast and endless sea. St-Exupery
my blog
Posts: 538 | From: Toronto, Canada | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Now perhaps there are those who may say that I am trying to read too much into a parable, and that Jesus was simply making a point about the fact that we should love all people, irrespective of race and ideology.
Yes, you're reading to much into the parable. The parable addresses the question "who is my neighbour?", to which the answer from the parable is "everyone, especially those who hate us".
The parable doesn't answer the question "how do I love my neighbour" except in one example of providing practical care. So, you can certainly state from the parable that loving neighbours includes providing practical care to those in need, I can't see anyway that the parable can exclude other acts as being examples of loving neighbours.
And, to address the question in the title. I believe that to have the greatest joy and fulfillment in this life, to live life fully, then one needs a living, loving, genuine relationship with God and others. And, the only way I know of being sure of such a relationship is found in the Christian faith through Jesus Christ. If I fail to communicate that then surely I am potentially denying others of the good I partake in. How can that be loving towards others? Therefore, loving our neighbours must include evangelism - though how you evangelise is a different question.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
A church minister I knew once quoted, approvingly to my surprise, the dictum of a well-known evangelist, who will be familiar to many on these boards but who I won't name now ... , to the effect of:
'Why lend your neighbour your lawnmower if you don't tell him why you're doing it?'
ie. 'I'm a Christian so I'm lending you my lawnmower in order to impress you to the extent that you'll start asking questions about my faith and then I can attempt to convert you ...'
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Heck, just lend the bloke your lawnmower, he's your neighbour for goodness sake ...
And yes, evangelism can be a way of loving one's neighbour. It just depends on how it's done. I'm with Sabine on this one.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Now I can't see any place in this parable for the idea of evangelism (i.e. trying to persuade another person to accept your ideology, otherwise some punishment will come upon him or her). The concept seems to have no place at all in the command to "love one's neighbour". And this is not just an argument from silence, but a logical implication of the parable. In fact, the parable, by implication, positively discourages any form of proselytising.
And Jesus only told that one parable and never said anything else to his disciples. Jesus never said anything that subsequently lead his disciples to go about trying to covert others. They just did anyway. It's also the typical Evangelical opinion that you should accept their ideology or be punished simply because it's their ideology. Can't have anything to do with love. Evangelicals can't possibly be trying to show others the way to avoid eternal torment. Evangelicals can't possibly believe Christianity is truth and out of love want to convince others of the truth.
I'm not an Evangelical anymore. I don't preach hellfire and brimstone. However, I thought we mainline Christians didn't want to leave our brains at the door. An intelligent 8 year old Evangelical could have answered the OP.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
malik3000
Shipmate
# 11437
|
Posted
Firstly, any evangelism i do will certainly NOT be motivated by the fear that if i don't share Jesus with someone, they will go to hell or even necessarily be unhappy (depending on what state they are in at the present time). Of course part of this is because I have close Godly, loving family members who are Muslim.
I most certainly am a Christian. Call me a wishy-washy liberal relativistic Episcopalian if you want. But the one thing I am absolutist about is my allegiance to the One God as exemplified in the Sh'ma -- the Two Great Commandments. Everything else I believe flows from that -- my Christianity: my belief in Jesus' saving death and resurrection -- my views on social justice: my belief that God is a God of the oppressed -- and more, indeed all of my beliefs, "religious" and "societal" flow from my belief in and my experience of the One God, the One Love.
For those who are not professed Christians I will attest my belief in the above. Not because they are going to be miserable if they fail to profess Christianity, but rather perhaps because they will,,even if they are already have the joy and love of God in their hearts will find even more joy. Of course for those whose lives are joyless that they will find the joy I have been lucky enough to have been given.
I must add that the above is what I profess. How well I carry it out in practice is a different story.
[ 23. May 2012, 16:39: Message edited by: malik3000 ]
--------------------
God = love.
Otherwise, things are not just black or white.
Posts: 3149 | From: North America | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
I find myself increasingly alienated from the whole salvation="going to heaven when you die" idea, as well as the idea that most of humanity is going to hell for the "sin" of not assenting to certain propositions about God. If someone's evangelism efforts are grounded in those ideas, then while I'm sure that s/he thinks s/he is "loving my neighbor," from where I sit it's more like diminishing/pulling rank on/annoying one's neighbor.
On the other hand, if understanding Jesus' salvation to be about having a transformed, harmonious, love- rather than fear-based relationship with God and with one's fellow human beings, and if one's evangelism is a matter of modeling that love in ways that matter, and sharing one's own story as a person of faith, without the frantic assumption that the other person needs to be persuaded "or else" -- then okay; I can get behind that.
Bingo.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
And if you believed in the immanent second coming of Christ like a thief in the night?
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger
As to your characterisation of Jesus' views on Samaritan theology, I guess I've always been more charitable than you.
I don't think I was being uncharitable. I was simply making the point that Jesus regarded the theology of the Samaritans as deficient (or perhaps "incomplete" would be a better word), in the sense that they did not have a doctrinal position that could form the basis of an evangelistic message. After all, what sort of evangelism is it possible to do when "you worship the one whom you do not know"?
This is no criticism of the Samaritan at all. In fact, I think it is perfectly legitimate for someone to "obey God in their spirit", even if not in their mind. God looks at the heart.
So the fact that Jesus made a Samaritan an example of "love for one's neighbour" in action indicates that God is more concerned about the morality of our actions than any kind of doctrinal correctness.
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc
...I do believe evangelism can be a part of loving your neighbour. But it would depend very much on how it's done. For example nstead of making one's case in a heated way that this is the truth, having an attitude of invitation, of sharing, of listening to the other.
Exactly. The Samaritan helped the injured man by using what resources he had, and in the same way we should use whatever intellectual resources we have to help those in need. If that is what authentic evangelism is, then fine. But the point I am making is that Jesus did not consider evangelism (i.e. trying to convert people to a position necessarily involving the acceptance of certain doctrines) to be an instrinsic part of obedience to the second commandment. If he did, then he would have required the Samaritan to evangelise, given that this parable is clearly a model example of what obedience to the second commandment looks like - hence "Go and do likewise".
I find this enormously liberating. Hell may await those who reject the love of God (I actually believe that "hell" is actually the reality of the love of God in the experience of those who are unrepentantly evil), but hell cannot be the punishment for those who have not been too keen on proselytising.
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62
Actually, in our culture, where strangers telling you what's what and what you need are automatically viewed with suspicion (like door to door sales operatives and cold callers), I think there is much greater mileage in regarding loving your neighbour, Samaritan style, as the primary form of evangelism.
I agree.
quote:
Originally posted by Custard
(I'd want to add that we observe that the Apostles were awfully keen on telling people about Jesus, and hence we can conclude that they did believe in a need for salvation and so on. If you want to disagree with them on that, that's your choice I guess.)
I am not a gnostic, therefore I do not believe that salvation is dependent on a certain package of knowledge, as if heaven and hell can be reduced to a mind game. God is much bigger than that. Truth matters of course (if I didn't believe that then I would not be trying to reason with people), but only insofar as it affects spiritual and moral reality.
Do you believe the Samaritan in the parable was "saved"? If so, on what basis? If not, then why did Jesus use him as an example of true and authentic godly living?
quote:
Originally posted by tclune
It is reasonable to ask how we might best make disciples for Christ, but the notion that Christians are not called to do that is beyond the pale AFAICS.
You're misrepresenting what I wrote. I am not saying that Christians are not called to make disciples for Christ. All the law and the prophets hang on the two commandments, which concern love. Therefore we are indeed called to proclaim truth: the truth of what it means to live in the love of God. Nothing to do with the "mind games" concept of evangelism, which I rather think is "beyond the pale" (see Matthew 23:15).
It is clear that the whole notion of authentic evangelism is driven by a concern for whether people are living in the love of God. Nothing else.
quote:
Originally posted by ken
That's not what the word "evangelism" means. It means telling people good news. In this context the good news of Jesus Christ. So yes, it is part of loving your neighbour.
Exactly. Pity that hasn't got through to large sections of the church.
Also, "the good news" is a message that can be lived even by those who are doctrinally unorthodox - or even ignorant (hence the Samaritan).
quote:
Originally posted by Lothiriel
I think, since the story is about the right attitude toward the law, to try to relate the story to evangelism is a category error.
If so, then refute my point, and show me how the Samaritan was expected to evangelise. Or don't you accept that parables can have multiple meanings?
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Creswell
Yes, you're reading to much into the parable.
OK. So on what basis, and with what evidence, do you define the limit of the interpretation of a parable?
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar
However, I thought we mainline Christians didn't want to leave our brains at the door. An intelligent 8 year old Evangelical could have answered the OP.
Good for the 8 year old! As someone who regards children as highly intelligent beings (unlike some in some sections of society, including the church), I have no problem with that. I am certainly no advocate of "leaving one's brain at the door"!
So I am sure you will agree that we should apply our minds to what Jesus actually said. I don't consider your "frequency hermeneutic" particularly intelligent (i.e. the importance of a message is based on how often it is communicated). This parable is highly important given that Jesus expressly stated that all the law and the prophets hang on the two great commandments. This parable is an example of the second commandment. Therefore it has hermeneutical signficance. We should therefore understand the meaning of evangelism in its light.
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Drewthealexander
Shipmate
# 16660
|
Posted
Perhaps it would be more helpful to start with the question of how, as people motivated (however imperfectly) by Christ's love, we express that love. Helping people in physical need is an end in itself - it is an expression of love. Sharing our faith is similarly an end in itself (we cannot guarantee the outcome). We do both because we see a need which Christ's love can address.
Part of the point of the parable is, I think, to provoke. If a heretic Samaritan can demonstrate God's love in action, how much more the true worshippers of YHWH.
Posts: 499 | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lothiriel
Shipmate
# 15561
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical: quote:
Originally posted by Lothiriel
I think, since the story is about the right attitude toward the law, to try to relate the story to evangelism is a category error.
If so, then refute my point, and show me how the Samaritan was expected to evangelise. Or don't you accept that parables can have multiple meanings?
I do accept that parables can have multiple meanings, but that doesn't mean that evangelism has to be included in this particular one.
I don't think the Samaritan was expected to evangelize at all, in the sense of telling someone the gospel. How could he? He had never heard it. All he was doing was serving as an illustration of someone who showed love to their neighbour.
I'm not clear on what point of yours you're suggesting I refute. I thought I was agreeing with you, when you said in the OP:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Now I can't see any place in this parable for the idea of evangelism ...
--------------------
If you want to build a ship, don't drum up the men to gather wood, divide the work and give orders. Instead, teach them to yearn for the vast and endless sea. St-Exupery
my blog
Posts: 538 | From: Toronto, Canada | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
Seems to me that there are plenty of bad reasons for attempting evangelism - some of them to do with feeling a need to be right, or the desire to demonstrate the superiority of one's own subculture.
Sharing something good that one has found - like recommending a favourite author - seems like a good reason. But I guess it will apply more to those who are fully comfortable in whatever corner of the church they find themselves.
I'd always thought the driver for evangelism should be the other person's need of God. When that starts to show - when someone's starting to see that hedonism isn't quite all it's cracked up to be - that's when they'd really appreciate a gentle hint that perhaps there are other ways of going about life and this is how one might go about finding out more about them...
The man who was set upon by robbers had other problems - at the particular time that the GS came across him - so it probably wasn't the right moment for sharing philosophies of life.
Best wishes,
Russ
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Also, "the good news" is a message that can be lived even by those who are doctrinally unorthodox - or even ignorant (hence the Samaritan).
As others have pointed out - there are so many category errors in your thinking that it is hard to know where to start.
1. The gospel is a declaration of what God has done (in Christ Jesus). Like the heralding of a victorious battle so the 'good news' is that God's kingdom has broken into the world through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. How we live is crucially related to that announcement but your comment above is muddled.
2. As Alan says this parable is an answer to a question. You are taking it as an answer to a completely different question.
3. Jesus uses a common Rabbinic style of teaching which tells a story to illustrate an application of the Torah. In such stories the protagonist is a positive example. The sting in this parable is that the man the story starts with (and the one his listeners identify) suddenly switches from the being the one who demonstrates neighbour love to the one who receives it. I don't want to push this to far but there is a case for saying that the person who loves their neighbour is the one who has first received grace. This also subverts all your categories of evangelism and social action.
4. The story is about the second commandment. There is a first one. If the gospel is a declaration of what God has done then I'm lost as to how anyone can love God (with all their heart, mind etc.) and not tell anyone about what he has done.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by JohnnyS.:
As others have pointed out - there are so many category errors in your thinking that it is hard to know where to start.
If you can't beat em, join em.
Should you see a person bleeding and dying on the side of the road, mend their wounds as best you can and then check them into a bed and breakfast. Don't call an ambulance to take the injured person to the hospital. After all, the Good Samaritan didn't call an ambulance now did he. Why wouldn't he have called an ambulance if loving your neighbor meant calling an ambulance? We don't really need to worry much about loving our neighbor at all. When asked about loving our neighbor, Jesus told this parable about finding a man on the side of the road. How often do we see people bleeding and dying on the side of the road? Not very often. You see people on the side of the road but not because they were attacked by bandits. Most of us could go our entire lives and never have to worry about loving our neighbors (which of course means mending their wounds as best we can and checking them into a bed and breakfast). ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Creswell
Yes, you're reading to much into the parable.
OK. So on what basis, and with what evidence, do you define the limit of the interpretation of a parable?
Many parables are presented with a context. Where that is the case the interpretation should be limited by the context. Interpretation beyond the context is potentially beneficial, but should be more cautious. The same would be the case for most of Scripture, a parable or otherwise.
In the case here, the context is a question. The parable is about 'who', not 'how'. If you want to know what it means to love our neighbour a much better place to look is the life of Christ himself. And, he did a lot of talking as well as doing.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
4. The story is about the second commandment. There is a first one. If the gospel is a declaration of what God has done then I'm lost as to how anyone can love God (with all their heart, mind etc.) and not tell anyone about what he has done.
I'm not really convinced it is possible to love God without loving the neighbour. This idea that one's whole meaning in life is to love God outwith above loving the neighbour is baloney.
Moreover, Jesus seems to suggest that in loving our neighbour we are actually loving God.
In that context, it seems to me that the modern ideas of evangelism are entirely facile. Unless we have a deep love and appreciation of our neighbour, we're not going to know anything about them, never mind try to come to their aid when they're in trouble. And if we are not intimate enough to understand and seek their best interests, we're hardly in a position to try to impart a theological truth.
Long term costly service is the way to save people. In that, there may be opportunities to discuss the love of God - but even if there isn't, that is not any less an act of love for God.
[ 24. May 2012, 07:13: Message edited by: the long ranger ]
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S
As others have pointed out - there are so many category errors in your thinking that it is hard to know where to start.
Category errors, eh?
So Jesus said "Go and do likewise", which means follow the example of the model of obedience in the parable. Agreed? Or is it a "category error" to make that point - in your esteemed opinion?
Jesus was asked a question about the identity of "my neighbour". Jesus defined "neighbour" in terms of the active party (although one would have expected the answer to refer to the recipient of love) - and the quality of his action defined by "mercy".
So the Samaritan is the answer to the specific question. And, of course, this character stands in contrast to the priest and the Levite who passed by on the other side.
How can it be a "category error" to draw out the obvious logical implication of what Jesus actually said? Here is a model of obedience to the second commandment, and Jesus deliberately gives the Samaritan the role of the one who is to be commended, while, on the other hand, religious leaders are those in rebellion.
Is it a "category error" to ask why Jesus chose to describe the true nature of obedience through the agency of a Samaritan? Of course not!
As we know, from John 4, Jesus affirmed that "salvation is of the Jews" and not "of the Samaritans". They were "theistic agnostics". Is it a "category error" to refer to Jesus' statement in John 4? Errm... no, I don't think so.
Perhaps it's a "category error" to cross-reference from John 4 to Luke 10? If so, then perhaps we should accept that the words of Jesus are full of contradiction, and therefore we can say nothing at all about our Lord's thinking. Clearly this is not a category error for anyone who claims any kind of profession of Christian belief!
So, according to the words of Jesus (and not the words of EE or Johnny S), the Samaritan was someone without an "evangelistic message". Is it a "category error" to point that out? The priest and the Levite would have had a lot to say for themselves, but they were examples of disobedience to the second commandment.
I think the message of the parable is quite obvious. While, of course, we should speak the truth and seek to meet people's needs through the truth (as is appropriate in the situation), the communication of an evangelistic message cannot be an intrinsic and necessary part of "loving one's neighbour".
You can call this a "category error" to your heart's content, but I prefer to follow through on the logical implications of what Jesus actually said, rather then feel intimidated by your rather emotional outburst (which I suspect is more to do with the simple fact that you disagree with my conclusion rather than any concern for logic!).
Therefore a mission like Gospel for Asia (for example) is in error, when they slam the social gospel that is undertaken without telling people they're all going to scream in hideous agony for all eternity for daring to commit the crime of having wrong information in their minds (as if God really gives a damn about thought crime and mind games). There is a whole chapter in K.P. Yohannan's book "Revolution in World Missions" (Good Works and the Gospel) dedicated to this thesis.
By the way... it's also worth pointing out (at the risk of being accused of indulging in yet another "category error") that the Samaritan in his obedience was manifesting the character of God. And yet when he "saved" the injured man, there is no indication that the victim had to "make the right confession" or "believe in the correct identity of his rescuer" in order to be helped. In fact, it's quite possible that the injured man may have been unconscious anyway. Is it a "category error" to point this out?
When fundie "Christianity" contradicts a logically coherent understanding of Scripture, guess what I prefer to believe?
And if this practice involves committing what some commentators decide to call "category errors", do I really care? What do you think my answer is?
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Well, I suppose that leaves you with some choices. Not exhaustive, but here are some thoughts.
1. Regard loving your neighbour as the real evangelism.
2. Do something to clean up what currently passes for evangelism.
3. Regard what currently passes for evangelism as separate from the 2nd commandment altogether, but keep on doing it anyway, because it's commanded elsewhere.
Personally, I think that what often passes, currently, for evangelism is a kind of hopping on one leg. The gospel has two dimensions.
a) the good news of salvation
b) the good news of the kingdom
As an illustration of someone who was supporting "Your kingdom come", the Samaritan is a rather challenging one, don't you think? His behaviour speaks of kingdom values, doesn't it, in some contrast to the self-preservation of a couple of others on the scene? Who happened to be "religious".
Christianity is good news. Both kingdom and salvation. Jesus spent a lot of time teaching about the kingdom. Stuff the poor heard gladly. A kind of "topsy turvey" place where the last were first, the proud were humbled and the lowly lifted up.
That's good news isn't it. Nothing wrong with talking about that. A lot. But a lot wrong with forgetting that when we think we're preaching the gospel of salvation and, instead, making the whole thing about personal self-interest. Selfishness is not a kingdom value. If you want to save your life, you'll lose it.
So I'm a choice 2 person, from the list above. And living out loving my neighbour.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Sharing something good that one has found - like recommending a favourite author - seems like a good reason.
Yes. But if I tell a friend about what a great author I think Tolkien is and they say they're not that interested in his work, I don't keep on and on and on at them for the rest of my life in the hope that one day they'll accept him as the greatest author that ever lived.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I'm lost as to how anyone can love God (with all their heart, mind etc.) and not tell anyone about what he has done.
I love my wife, but I don't go shouting to everyone in the street about how good she is at her job.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
footwasher
Shipmate
# 15599
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Category errors, eh?
category mistake n
(Philosophy / Logic) Philosophy Logic
a sentence that says of something in one category what can only intelligibly be said of something in another, as when speaking of the mind located in space.
You are saying something of the action of the Samaritan ( correct/ incorrect) what can only intelligibly be said of the action of the scribe (his directing of his love to his co-religionists).
John 10:16"I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will hear My voice; and they will become one flock with one shepherd.
John 13:35 By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.
If a Muslim helps a fallen person, he is more a neighbor to him than a ”Christian ” who avoids helping. We do right to love him and not the latter.
Rom 10:14 For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, 15 in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, 16 on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.
--------------------
Ship's crimp
Posts: 927 | From: pearl o' the orient | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Marvin the Martian: But if I tell a friend about what a great author I think Tolkien is and they say they're not that interested in his work, I don't keep on and on and on at them for the rest of my life in the hope that one day they'll accept him as the greatest author that ever lived.
But, but... the Lord of the Ring has orcs...
I agree with you. To me, part of "it depends on how you do it" is knowing when to stop. Jesus said something about shaking the dust off your feet.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S
As others have pointed out - there are so many category errors in your thinking that it is hard to know where to start.
Category errors, eh?
So Jesus said "Go and do likewise", which means follow the example of the model of obedience in the parable. Agreed? Or is it a "category error" to make that point - in your esteemed opinion?
I would put the category error in your assertion that "go and do likewise" being follow the example of helping people in need (which, don't get me wrong, is a good thing to do). The point of the parable is that "go and do likewise" means love those who you would consider to be enemies, or at least "not our sort of people". It is to follow the example of the Samaritan in loving someone who he'd be expected to hate.
Neighbours are not just those we share lots in common with (live in the same town, have the same religion etc) but the strangers and aliens, those we have little in common with.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stejjie
Shipmate
# 13941
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
So, according to the words of Jesus (and not the words of EE or Johnny S), the Samaritan was someone without an "evangelistic message". Is it a "category error" to point that out? The priest and the Levite would have had a lot to say for themselves, but they were examples of disobedience to the second commandment.
I think the message of the parable is quite obvious. While, of course, we should speak the truth and seek to meet people's needs through the truth (as is appropriate in the situation), the communication of an evangelistic message cannot be an intrinsic and necessary part of "loving one's neighbour".
Up to this point, I could sort of see what you meant. But I'm lost completely here. Firstly, Jesus says nothing at all about an "evangelistic message" - nada, zip, nowt, not a bean. He doesn't the Samaritan had one, He doesn't say the Samaritan didn't have one. The parable, as Alan pointed out above, is nothing to do with "evangelistic messages"; it's prompted by the question "who is my neighbour", which Jesus answers by saying "everyone" (although part of me thinks His real answer is "what kind of a stupid question is that? Who isn't your neighbour?".) To bring evangelism into this is to drag something that Jesus simply didn't talk about, one way or another.
Secondly, even if there was something here about evangelism, why should we take this parable as Jesus' overriding statement about it? Why does this parable get elevated over anything else Jesus says on the subject of evangelism? I could point out that in John 15:26-27, Jesus states that the disciples must testify when the Spirit comes. I could point out (as others have done) that in the Great Commission, Jesus tells His disciples to make disciples and teach them, which must include some form of telling. Or that, on the Day of Pentecost, the very first thing the disciples did was speak, in many languages/tongues. There's surely a case for proclamation/speaking as part of evangelism in these passages - why does the Good Samaritan (which doesn't even talk about evangelism) get priority over them?
--------------------
A not particularly-alt-worshippy, fairly mainstream, mildly evangelical, vaguely post-modern-ish Baptist
Posts: 1117 | From: Urmston, Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I think the message of the parable is quite obvious. While, of course, we should speak the truth and seek to meet people's needs through the truth (as is appropriate in the situation), the communication of an evangelistic message cannot be an intrinsic and necessary part of "loving one's neighbour".
There we go. That's where you fall off the wagon.
As many, many other shipmates have pointed out, for your interpretation to be correct you have to narrow down the only application of loving my neighbour to taking mugging victims to hospital.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stejjie
Shipmate
# 13941
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
To bring evangelism into this is to drag something that Jesus simply didn't talk about, one way or another.
Sorry, just to clarify that this sentence should've read: "To bring evangelism into this is to drag something that Jesus simply didn't talk about in this parable, one way or another."
--------------------
A not particularly-alt-worshippy, fairly mainstream, mildly evangelical, vaguely post-modern-ish Baptist
Posts: 1117 | From: Urmston, Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I love my wife, but I don't go shouting to everyone in the street about how good she is at her job.
I'm going to go out on a limb here Marvin but that could be because not everyone in the street was created for a relationship with your wife.
Just sayin'.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie
Up to this point, I could sort of see what you meant. But I'm lost completely here. Firstly, Jesus says nothing at all about an "evangelistic message" - nada, zip, nowt, not a bean. He doesn't the Samaritan had one, He doesn't say the Samaritan didn't have one. The parable, as Alan pointed out above, is nothing to do with "evangelistic messages"; ...
But do we need everything explicitly spelt out in the Bible? Can we not arrive at conclusions through following the logical implications of explicit statements? Are there not truths which are implicit? The doctrine of the trinity is one such example.
Jesus actually made clear that the parables contained implicit and not explicit teaching - see Mark 4:10-12. And, of course, Jesus makes it even easier for us to understand this point by telling a parable and then explaining it, so we can see how this works (i.e. the Parable of the Sower). So I am rather surprised that you should expect a parable to contain explicit teaching.
quote:
...it's prompted by the question "who is my neighbour", which Jesus answers by saying "everyone" (although part of me thinks His real answer is "what kind of a stupid question is that? Who isn't your neighbour?".)
Although it's true that the answer is "everyone", it's clearly not quite as simple as that. Why did Jesus not put the Samaritan in the role of the victim, the injured man? Surely this would teach his Jewish hearer that he and his fellow Jews were to reach out to all people, not only with practical care but, by implication, with "the oracles of God", with which they had been entrusted (see Romans 3:2). But in fact Jesus is responding to the lawyer by saying: "Pretend you are a Samaritan (i.e. with your religious and doctrinal position put to one side), and you happen to find an injured man by the side of the road..."
Now why do you think Jesus took this approach, when the other approach was a more direct answer to the specific question?
It is clear that obedience to the second commandment is not the sole preserve of those who have been entrusted with "the oracles of God" or "the gospel message" or "the correct doctrinal position". The active love of God transcends religion and all that goes with religion, including proselytising.
I don't see this interpretation as eisegesis, but the logical implication that flows from an attempt to understand why Jesus answered the lawyer's question in the way that He did.
quote:
Secondly, even if there was something here about evangelism, why should we take this parable as Jesus' overriding statement about it? Why does this parable get elevated over anything else Jesus says on the subject of evangelism?
We shouldn't and it doesn't.
Where have I suggested that this is Jesus' overriding statement about evangelism? This parable concerns the way we should obey the all-important second commandment. Therefore it speaks into how we should understand the totality of the Christian life, including how we should proclaim the truth. I don't see any contradiction between this and anything else Jesus (or Paul etc) taught.
What it means, however, is that we can pursue works of compassion without feeling obliged to give a tract or try to convert someone. The practical love of God is an end in itself.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
EtymologicalEvangelical: Why did Jesus not put the Samaritan in the role of the victim, the injured man?
We discussed this parable some weeks ago in Kerygmania, and Jesus seems to have put a couple of twists and turns into it. Just when you begin to understand where He's going with the parable, He takes an unexpected turn. And just when you understand that, He takes another one...
I like it when He does that.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
It was the atheist Penn Jillette who said something to the effect that if you really believe Christianity to be true, then it is the most unloving thing to not tell people about it.
Clip here.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S
That's where you fall off the wagon.
My bad.
I'll just have to lie here and wait for a compassionate and loving heretic to stop and give me a hand, now that the "oh so correct" proselytisers have passed by on the other side.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
footwasher
Shipmate
# 15599
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
EtymologicalEvangelical: Why did Jesus not put the Samaritan in the role of the victim, the injured man?
We discussed this parable some weeks ago in Kerygmania, and Jesus seems to have put a couple of twists and turns into it. Just when you begin to understand where He's going with the parable, He takes an unexpected turn. And just when you understand that, He takes another one...
I like it when He does that.
Absolutely. Jesus play on words creates confusion in many, Nicodemus, the woman at the well...
The scribe would have spent endless nights without sleeping
Go and do likewise.
The point is that Jesus identified the Samaritan as THE neighbor, and commanded the scribe to love the Samaritan.
Neighbors are those who share the same ”position”, the original text was ” a priest, a Levite, and an Israelite,"
c Peter Rhea Jones, Studying the Parables of Jesus , Smyth & Helwys, 1999, ISBN 1-57312-167-3, p. 294.
1b) any other person, and where two are concerned, the other (thy fellow man, thy neighbour), according to the Jews, any member of the Hebrew nation and commonwealth
http://classic.net.bible.org/strong.php?id=4139
Jesus redefined neighbor as one who is one of God's People. Marked by those who followed the Law, love God with all your being and love those who love God's justice, mercy and love. Not by circumcision:
Romans 2:23 You
who boast in the Law, through your breaking the Law, do you dishonor God? 24 For “THE NAME OF GOD IS BLASPHEMED AMONG THE GENTILES BECAUSE OF YOU,” just as it is written.
25 For indeed circumcision is of value if you practice the Law; but if you are a transgressor of the Law, your circumcision has become uncircumcision. 26 So if the uncircumcised man keeps the requirements of the Law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? 27 And he who is physically uncircumcised, if he keeps the Law, will he not judge you who though having the letter of the Law and circumcision are a transgressor of the Law? 28 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. 29 But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God.
--------------------
Ship's crimp
Posts: 927 | From: pearl o' the orient | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
If you love someone, you love them as they are. You don't try to change them.
Loving your neighbour, therefore, is not trying to change their religious opinions.
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
footwasher: The scribe would have spent endless nights without sleeping
I really like it when Jesus finishes the parable and asks: "Who do you think was his neighbour?" and the scribe answers "The one who helped him." As if he couldn't get "The Samaritan" over his lips. I can imagine the scene vividly.
To me, the biggest twist Jesus put into the story is when He's asked "Who is my neighbour whom I should help?", His answer seems to be: "That's the wrong question. The most important thing is to be a neighbour to everyone."
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
If you love someone, you love them as they are. You don't try to change them.
I'm sure that looks profound on a greeting card, but it's complete swill.
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
If you love someone, you love them as they are. You don't try to change them.
Loving your neighbour, therefore, is not trying to change their religious opinions.
Hmmm...doesn't sound very loving to me!
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stejjie
Shipmate
# 13941
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
But do we need everything explicitly spelt out in the Bible? Can we not arrive at conclusions through following the logical implications of explicit statements? Are there not truths which are implicit? The doctrine of the trinity is one such example.
Jesus actually made clear that the parables contained implicit and not explicit teaching - see Mark 4:10-12. And, of course, Jesus makes it even easier for us to understand this point by telling a parable and then explaining it, so we can see how this works (i.e. the Parable of the Sower). So I am rather surprised that you should expect a parable to contain explicit teaching.
Agree entirely that many of the parables are far from explicit in their teaching - that's what gives them a lot of their power. But there's a difference between "implicit teaching" and "dragging something entirely unrelated in to the parable, which is what (IMHO) you seem to be doing here. On what grounds do you see this parable, implicitly or otherwise, as teaching about evangelism?
quote:
Where have I suggested that this is Jesus' overriding statement about evangelism?
These, from the OP, for a start:
quote:
Therefore it is not unreasonable to conclude that the above mentioned parable contains implications that define what God actually really requires of us as far as human interaction is concerned.
quote:
The command to "go and do likewise" clearly underlines that this is a model of obedience to the all-important second commandment - obedience in which any form of proselytising is an absurdity.
You then said this:
quote:
But the point I am making is that Jesus did not consider evangelism (i.e. trying to convert people to a position necessarily involving the acceptance of certain doctrines) to be an instrinsic part of obedience to the second commandment. If he did, then he would have required the Samaritan to evangelise, given that this parable is clearly a model example of what obedience to the second commandment looks like - hence "Go and do likewise".
calling the parable a "model" and suggesting our behaviour, including our attitude to evangelism should be based on it.
(Why would Jesus have needed to have the Samaritan evangelise in order for it to be part of how we love others? Unless you do think this is the last word on the subject, then there can be room for other things that aren't mentioned here, can't there?)
Then you stated this:
quote:
I think the message of the parable is quite obvious. While, of course, we should speak the truth and seek to meet people's needs through the truth (as is appropriate in the situation), the communication of an evangelistic message cannot be an intrinsic and necessary part of "loving one's neighbour".
Sorry for such lengthy quotations, but ISTM that you are using this parable, in this thread at least, as a normative model.
Now I agree that evangelism on its own is not loving and that aggressive evangelism can be the opposite of love. And if our talk is not at least matched, if not exceeded by the love we show others, then our words are in vain and we might as well shut up.
So, in fact, love for others should be our only motivation for evangelism - the love that wants to see those we love find what we have found in Christ, the love that caused God to send His Son and seek us out and save us (however we understand that) in the first place. Evangelism without love is meaningless, empty and quite possibly abusive as well.
Just because it isn't mentioned in the Good Samaritan, doesn't mean it isn't so.
--------------------
A not particularly-alt-worshippy, fairly mainstream, mildly evangelical, vaguely post-modern-ish Baptist
Posts: 1117 | From: Urmston, Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
But do we need everything explicitly spelt out in the Bible?
Oc course not. It just so happens that Jesus commanding us to evangelise is one of those things that IS explicitly spelt out in the Bible, whether you like it or not. So if we want to do as Jeus commands, we have to do it.
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
If you love someone, you love them as they are. You don't try to change them.
Loving your neighbour, therefore, is not trying to change their religious opinions.
No. Obvioulsy not. I susect that you didn't really mean that when you said it. Becuase its so, just, obviously wrong.
Some of my neighbours are racists. Some of my relatives are. Some of them are violent drunks. Some of them are drug addicts. A young man who lives in our street went to prison for trying to murder his mother. An old man who lives two doors down from me sometimes stands in the street with a plastic bag full of beer cans and screams at passers-by. Once or twice he's got so drunk he collapsed in the road. Another neighbour was arrested for threatening his wife and child (I was one of those who called the police on hiom when I heard them screaming)
Do you suggest that we ought not to love those people? Or that if we do love them we ought not to want them to change the way they live? Because if you meant what you just wrote it has to be one or the other.
Or maybe you didn't really mean it?
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
...as well as the idea that most of humanity is going to hell for the "sin" of not assenting to certain propositions about God.
I am thankful that when I first fell among Christians, they were Calvinistically-inclined evangelicals. And so they didn't fall for that particular heresy, believing,as proper Calvinists do, that we are saved because God loves us, not because of what be happen to believe about God.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
footwasher
Shipmate
# 15599
|
Posted
Think of it this way.
The scribe is adamant that he should love only Jews.
But Jesus is saying, love your brother, the one who shows people what God us like. Not the priest, not the Levite, but the Samaritan!
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
footwasher: The scribe would have spent endless nights without sleeping
I really like it when Jesus finishes the parable and asks: "Who do you think was his neighbour?" and the scribe answers "The one who helped him." As if he couldn't get "The Samaritan" over his lips. I can imagine the scene vividly.
To me, the biggest twist Jesus put into the story is when He's asked "Who is my neighbour whom I should help?", His answer seems to be: "That's the wrong question. The most important thing is to be a neighbour to everyone."
--------------------
Ship's crimp
Posts: 927 | From: pearl o' the orient | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken
Oc course not. It just so happens that Jesus commanding us to evangelise is one of those things that IS explicitly spelt out in the Bible, whether you like it or not. So if we want to do as Jeus commands, we have to do it.
Well, given that "God is at work in us to will and to do" (Phil. 2:13), then I rather think the "like it or not" idea is irrelevant. I can't imagine that the good news would come across as particularly "good" if it is communicated by people whose hearts are not in it (not a great advert for the life of joy, freedom and peace, is it?). Which probably explains why the so-called "good news" doesn't really sound very good at all most of the time from the lips of guilt-burdened evangelicals!
Perhaps if such Christians focused more on actually loving people instead of using others to assuage their own sense of guilt (and building up the requisite Brownie points at their fellowship), then God might give them genuine opportunites to share the truth in a way that demonstrates that it is actually "good".
Frankly, I can't see how rabid street preachers are emulating the Samaritan!
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
