Posts tagged with: Parable of the Good Samaritan

I opened my recent Patheos piece on Christians and the “Occupy” protests by noting the proclivity for some leaders to seek cultural relevance by uncritically embracing political movements and trends. This shows that it is a common temptation to allow worldly perspectives and ideologies to determine the shape of our faith rather than the other way around.

A good example of this uncritical stance toward the Occupy movement appears in a Marketplace report from last week, “Preaching the Occupy gospel — or not.” As Mitchell Hartman introduces Rev. Chuck Currie, “Forgive me for what is quite possibly blaspheming, but to hear some preachers from the pulpit these days, you’d think the arrival of Occupy Wall Street is tantamount to the Second Coming.” Currie goes on to, in Harman’s words, draw “a direct scriptural line from the Old Testament… to Occupy.” (One of the commenters on my Patheos piece likewise draws a direct line from the parable of the Good Samaritan to a moral obligation for Christians to engage in Occupy protests.)

For more on the chaplains of the protest movement, check out this NYT piece.

In the meantime, you should also read this more measured response to the Occupy movement at RELEVANT magazine by Alex Marshall. Alex outlines two important ways the church can act positively in engaging the Occupiers, including recognizing that “the Church has the opportunity to act as a ‘laboratory’ for experimenting in solutions to society’s problems.”

Or as Jesus puts it, “By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”

Even though Ron Paul clarified himself at the Tea Party debate, and explained that he doesn’t think those who can’t afford medical care should be laid out on the curb to die, the Left went about painting his answer as morally abominable. Before we deal with their abuse of Christian doctrine, let’s see what Paul said:

I practiced medicine before we had Medicaid, in the early 1960s, when I got out of medical school. I practiced at Santa Rosa Hospital in San Antonio, and the churches took care of them. We never turned anybody away from the hospitals. And we’ve given up on this whole concept that we might take care of ourselves and assume responsibility for ourselves, our neighbors, our friends, our churches—would do it.

A great answer, it seems to me, and thoroughly Christian, unless you take the United Nations as an instantiation of the Gospel command to “love thy neighbor as thyself.” Liberals latch onto the Good Samaritan aspect of the commandment and think, if my neighbor, then why not the fellow two counties over, two states over, or two countries over?

Newsflash: prudence is a part of moral calculations.

The Good Samaritan was passing by the man who had been beaten and robbed, and was in a position to help him. But while residents of Alaska and Florida are each others’ neighbors in one sense, they cannot be of service to each other in the same way that they can those on their own streets. Moral considerations involve not only intention but also acts themselves, and whether they are likely to succeed (cf. Catholic just war principles).

Furthermore, the federal government might be practically able to assume some of the responsibilities of the Good Samaritan, but no one on the Christian Left has provided an argument why it should—why it would be better for two neighbors to love each other through the government, in some sort of progressive trinity. Otherwise, isn’t it best to let people practice love of neighbor themselves, so that they can store up treasure in Heaven?

Finally, most of the people making these arguments don’t think Congress should pass some sort of Obamacare law for the entire world, but that’s exactly where their thinking leads. Really why not preemptively cover any Martians without access to dental care and free contraception? Well because that would cost too much.