Wednesday, October 14, 2009

What if we didn't need a Good Samaritan?

As the weather gets cold (premature, I might add, as my kiddos actually played in the snow on their off day yesterday!) and the holidays beckon, there will be much more ink and press on non profits and churches seeking to make a difference in terms of compassion: winter gear, food, shelter, etc. We'll hear stories about ood Samaritan people and Good Samaritan organizations and be moved to act as the Samaritan did in Jesus' famous parable. And Hillcrest will certainly play its part in these essential acts of compassion.

But a recent teaching from Bill Hybels and the Willow Creeks folks reframed this issue for me. While speaking of the Good Samaritan, they certainly agreed that we are called to act as the Samaritan did (there's no out for ministries of compassion), but they posed the question: what's being done about the conditions of the road in which the man was beat up on? Who's fixing the lighting? Who's tackling the crime? Who's working at a safer route 'from Jericho'? In other words, what's being done
  • to correct the system(s)
  • that led to the problems
  • that beat up the man
  • that required a Good Samaritan in the first place?

While acts of a compassionate Good Samaritan are good, they have little impact if bands of Samriatans don't also address the systems that create the problems in the first place.

2 comments:

  1. These are indeed interesting questions to consider - particularly in our present cultural climate. In a time when government involvement is being heavily discussed, while the church (and others) are often supporting the continued seperation between gov. and church. I bring this up because some would say: road issues are the govs job, lighting is city government, crime is police, safer route development is for politicians and city planners. But this reads as a list of excuses to many, and likely is. Some would then say that to correct these systems one must necessarily become heavily involved in government, politics, etc. - more than just voting. Is this really the only option though? One thought I have - what if there would have been a way for the man traveling on the road to have been able to meet up with the Good Samaritan before beginning the journey and travel together? Would he have been as likely to be attacked, beaten, robbed, and left for dead if he had not been alone? If this had been the case the Samaritan likely wouldn't been lifted up with his "good" label, but might it not have had a bigger effect? Might such more long-term relational efforts not only benefit at prsent, but also help to correct systems? Less opportunity for thieves on the Jerusalem Road would likely lead to less issues, which would likely lead to more traffic, which would likely lead to improvements of the road, lighting, route development, etc. And over time might it not raise possibilities for the thieves to be helped too, for I would guess most 'thieves' don't do it simply for the pleasure of it but for some more deeply rooted reason. Just some thoughts as we all consider how to be a "Good Samaritan."

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks Pete for the insights. I agree that crime is probably often motivated out of a sense of things not going well either.

    ReplyDelete