Sunday Reflection: The Good Samaritan Part 1

I’ve been attending the “Adult Formation Class” at my church.  Those with other church experiences may think of it as “Sunday School” for grown ups.  One of the things I’ve appreciated in this group is the open format that invites dialogue rather than one person expounding on the Bible.

This last Sunday's class was based on the parable of “The Good Samaritan”.  I’ve often pondered this story of Jesus because I find it challenging about what Jesus says about the “weightier matters of the law” and how we should look at people we consider “not one of us”.

We didn’t get very far, just the first few verses that set the scene because of going through the cultural context.  But just that much was thought provoking.

While I had some awareness of the class distinctions during that time period (men and women, Israelites and foreigners) I really wasn’t aware that it was structured to a far greater degree.  As Fr. Richard explained that there was a definite societal hierarchy.  The center of power was Jerusalem and the temple complex and power spread out and down from there.  At the top were the Priests, then Levites (who could be but were not all priests), then the “pure” Hebrews, the mixed races and then foreigners.  Within each stratum were rankings and you could move up or down within your own class but very rarely move up and out of it.

At the heart of social interaction was the concept of shame and honor.  Right social actions brought you honor, wrong brought you shame.  This was above and beyond simple moral behavior.  A person did not shame himself by socializing with a social inferior because it tainted him by association.  Inferiors were expected to treat their superiors with respect and not address them with any kind of familiarity.

Before Jesus offers the parable, he is approached by “an expert in the law” who asks him what he needs to do in order to inherit eternal life.  Rather than giving him a straight answer, Jesus asks a question in return.  According the cultural norms of the day, this was all part of the dance of social exchange.  The man approaches Jesus with a question as an equal but is doing so to feel him out.  Jesus in return isn’t going to give anything away that easily so he asks the man how he interprets the law.

When the man gives the canned answer, Jesus gives him a metaphorical “good job” pat on the back but the guy decides to push it just a bit more with a slightly more debatable point.  As a learned person, this guy knew his first question was a simple one that anyone who claimed to be a teacher should know.  That was the test to see where Jesus stood in the hierarchy, but now he’s going to up the ante a little to see if Jesus stands a bit higher than himself.

So we got this far in the class and the questions that came out as discussion points were:

First the simple one:  Who is your neighbor? 

Then the tougher one:  Who do you love? 

It’s natural to differentiate between those that “belong to us” and those who don’t

Then (for me) the hardest one:  Who do you let love you?

The thing that struck me during this discussion was that it seems that the society into which Jesus was born had a set up an expectation that life was about an exchange of obligations.  If someone did something to or for you, you had to do something of equal or greater value to preserve your position.

But the parable of the Good Samaritan is an unequal exchange.  Further more, the person offering the greater deed was someone lower in the social hierarchy.

This is hard for me.  Somehow, I bought into the need to keep exchanges equal or come out as the greater giver.  I think my parents meant well but I was trained to deny my own desires, wishes, and sometimes needs in order to be “unselfish”.  I sometimes feel inferior if someone does or give more to me than I for them.  Somehow I have to repay or I’ve been selfish.  And by default “inferior” as a person.

It’s a rather poisonous way of being because it forestalls others being able to act out their better natures and cuts me off from just simply feeling loved without having to worry about feeling as though I deserve it.

Thanks to my best friend who has put up with all these little twisty bits inside my head and challenges me on them, I think I’ve been getting better about it.  But it was a little unpleasant to find that I can still be brought up short by the question.  Yet it is also oddly comforting to know that if I need to be corrected still, it can be done in such a kindly and gentle way.

UCG and Looking Back.

I started this blogspot in a heated moment about 5 years ago but didn't have any object or reason for continuing it.

But the recent crisis in the United Church of God has made me stop and think about my own experience with the turmoil that seems to dog the COGdome scene and how much my heart goes out to the people who are hurting.

Precision with dates and times has never been a strong attribute of mine so I hope anyone reading might forgive my vagueness, but about 6-7 years ago I exited the Worldwide Church of God (WWCG). 

I stuck with it through "the changes" and really tried to make a go of it.  Wanting to believe that God had performed a miracle of transformation and actually believing it to the degree expected are two different things.

While I found I agreed with much of the changes in doctrine, I became very disillusioned from the behaviors I saw.   From people who left, from people who stayed, from people who were leaders.

Overtime, I’ve come to believe that the there were many things wrong in the denomination and that doctrines had only been part of it. 

Besides doctrines, one of the many issues involved was a system of governance that was unstable and micromanaged the faiths of the individual.  The instability was in large part due to the “top down” leadership enforced by the founder, Herbert Armstrong.  Because of his complete control, the direction of the church could change quickly based on his desires or whims (usually reported as “new truth” from God).  And it did from time to time.  For those who remember, divorce and remarriage, make-up, the day of Pentecost.

After the passing of Herbert Armstrong, this pattern of behavior had not been properly addressed by those who inherited his church during "the changes".  To be fair, there were attempts but they fell short.  Those who were there might remember the “shepherds not sheriffs” catchphrase.  

While UCG tried to address this with the establishment of elected church officials and rule by consensus there doesn’t seem to have been a change in the individuals who learned their patterns of behavior from the old regime either.  It also seems to me that anyone stepping into the leadership role couldn’t truly lead but only be a guardian of the teachings of Herbert Armstrong. Which can be a bit of a moving target because they shifted over the years. 

Standing on Mr. Armstrong’s teaching might give the appearance of stability, but while you can codify a person’s teaching, you can’t so easily codify the person.  And people who believed in what he taught had different views on his teaching and behaviors from “he can do no wrong”, to “he made some mistakes but like David was a man after God’s own heart”.

In hearing about the dreadful turmoil happening in UCG, my heart aches for those who have already been bruised and battered by the previous schism that created the UCG.

Once again, there are lines in the sand being drawn and it is becoming a matter of eternal salvation as to the side you stand.  But no matter which side you are on, as long as you play the game, there will be an ever diminishing return and no-one wins.

I pray for those who are struggling with this situation.   That they will find the solution they need.  This is my reason for writing again.  To express my heartfelt sympathy and hopes for their recovery from yet another devastating blow.