In reply Jesus said: "A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he fell into the hands of robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, took him to an inn and took care of him. The next day he took out two silver coins and gave them to the innkeeper. 'Look after him,' he said, 'and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.'In this parable, why didn't Jesus have the Samaritan go forthwith into the nearest city and form an inter-governmental agency for distributing social welfare? Why was this parable and all others focused on personal action instead of collective action?
Pages
▼
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
A Biblical Conundrum About How We Treat the Poor
Here's the parable of the Good Samaritan.
"Why was this parable and all others focused on personal action instead of collective action?"
ReplyDeleteIt looks to me like this parable did have some focus on "collective action" - the priest and the Levite were basically tax-supported public servants. I think one of Jesus' points was that the people whose job it was to look after people, weren't doing it. A modern version of this parable would probably have the people passing by be a social worker and a congressman.
The economic/social role of the first two were not the main point and I don't think that "collective action" is addressed at all. The broader context of the parable was to answer the question "who was a 'neighbor' to the injured man?" The specificity in their identity was a subtext really - part of Jesus' running battle with the powers-that-were and their hypocrisy.
ReplyDeleteI could (and have already done so) write a long essay on this topic - suffice it to say the idea that Christians should support the welfare state in obedience to the command to help the poor is not just misguided, but WRONG.
Tim, I never looked at it tha way. You and Jeff have hit one something I didn't consider. I just saw it as another example of personal responsibility for our fellow man.
ReplyDeleteAs to Jeff's point, I think that Milton Friedman's argument that freedom and capitalism have been shown to be the best ways to help the poor strongly supports it.
I think it's also important to remember, in this parable, that the Jews despised the Samaritans.
ReplyDeleteSo, two respected members of Jewish society passed on the beaten man leaving it to a declasse member of that society to perform this act of grace and charity.
At least, that's what I remember from Sunday School 35 yrs. ago.
Chalk up another everything-I-ever-needed-to-know-I-learned-in-kindergarten moment.
To add to the "who is my neighbor" angle, Jesus was saying that those who come into your lives are your neighbors, even if they are of a different religion or race. Note also that he doesn't say that everyone in the whole world is your neighbor.
ReplyDeleteDean, that's the lesson I recall, too. B-Daddy, I never thought of the "not everyone in the world" angle before. That reinforces the personal angle, too.
ReplyDeleteGood comments, all, on Jesus' parable. My thoughts: Compassion goes out the window with the removal of personal connection. People in America tend to be a generous people because they have more means, however some of the most generous people are those with little means. People are robbed of the joy of caring and giving when we defer to the welfare state!
ReplyDelete