Even if you are not a
student of the Bible, you will have heard of the "Good Samaritan"
parable in
Luke
10:25-37. On the
road from Jerusalem down to Jericho, a certain man lay half dead, having
been beaten and robbed by thieves. When a priest happened by, he noticed
the man in need, but gave no help. Later a Levite came along. Not
wanting to get involved either, he "passed by on the other side" just
like the priest. But when a despised Samaritan came to the scene, he did
what was needed, at considerable inconvenience and expense. Jesus said
he "showed mercy," and the Good Samaritan now stands as a symbol for
anyone who actively serves the needs of his fellow man.
But I wonder about the
priest and the Levite. Weren’t they "good" men? It seems not unlikely
that their next-door neighbors would have described them as "decent,
clean, upstanding folks." They both had steady jobs. They were probably
friendly when you saw them, but also minded their own business. Likely
they kept their lawn up so as not to be an embarrassment to the
neighborhood. They didn’t let their teenagers get drunk and hot rod up
and down the street at two in the morning, etc., etc. Surely they were
"good, moral people" weren’t they?
Well, the priest and the
Levite were good in exactly the sense that many of us think of ourselves
as being good: they did not murder, did not commit adultery, did not
lie, etc. They perhaps secretly congratulated themselves for being above
average morally because they would not stoop to engage in the despicable
things they frowned on in others. The strength of their own morality was
measured by the intensity of their negative feelings about the
immorality of other people. They were "good" because they had a long
list of practices they felt strongly against. In other words,
righteousness for them meant scrupulously avoiding un-righteousness.
We shouldn’t minimize the
importance of fleeing evil, obviously. But there is more to being truly
moral than looking down on immorality in others. One of my favorite
quotations is a line from Roy Masters which says: "Loving what is right
is different from hating what is wrong and feeling right about it." This
means that we don’t truly qualify as being on the side of truth and
goodness if all we do is criticize the sin we see around us. There is,
of course, no lack of things in the world that are wrong, and we ought
to feel a genuine revulsion for these sins. But neither ought we to
confuse this revolting feeling with a true love for what is good.
It is also a mistake to
confuse a merely intellectual appreciation of goodness with genuine love
for what is right. Really loving what is right goes beyond abstract
appreciation. Many years ago, Charles Finney made this observation:
"Moral agents are so constituted, that they necessarily approve of moral
worth or excellence; and when even sinners behold right character, or
moral goodness, they are compelled to respect and approve it, by a law
of their intelligence. This they not infrequently regard as evidence of
goodness in themselves. But this is doubtless just as common in hell as
it is on earth. The veriest sinners on earth or in hell, have, by the
unalterable constitution of their nature, the necessity imposed upon
them, of paying intellectual homage to moral excellence." And neither is
an eagerness to debate issues of right and wrong proof that we love the
good. As Adlai Stevenson remarked, "It is often easier to fight for our
principles than to live up to them." No, truly loving what is good
requires actively doing what is good!
A part of our problem
here is that we tend to judge others by their actual performance, while
we judge ourselves by our ideals. We think of ourselves as being fairly
"good" because we know that our goals and intentions are good. We may
not be doing much about our goals, but we render a favorable verdict on
ourselves anyway, because we know what we are capable of doing, what we
are going to do in the future, etc. But the person who truly loves what
is right is not merely the person with high ideals and positive
potential — he is the actual doer of good. When there is mercy to be
shown, Jesus’ commendation falls upon the person who loves mercy enough
to show it, making a personal sacrifice if necessary in order to do so.
Talk is cheap, as the
saying goes. So, in a certain sense, are our intentions. Can do and have
done don’t even live in the same neighborhood. "To him who knows to do
good and does not do it, to him it is sin"
(Jas.
4:17). Loving what
is right demands that we do more than complain about the world going to
the dogs while we watch the evening news from the comfort of a recliner.
Other Articles
Just Wad It Up and Start Over
The Blessing and Danger of Humor
So You're Going to College This Fall
Would you like
others to read this article?
Please share!