Less is More: Sacrificing Your Religion

Last spring I began a sermon on Galatians 6:11-18 by asking the question:

Which is better: a bad Christian or a good non-Christian?

The consensus (and orthodox) answer I got was what I expected to hear: "It is better to have prayed to be saved and be a poor excuse for a Christian than to never have asked to be saved and life an otherwise good life apart from Jesus." Would it surprise you to know that someone worshipping with us last spring left this congregation because of precisely this response?

I don’t blame that person for being upset. Paul’s point in that passage was bad religion counts for nothing. More to the point, being in the "insider" group or the "outcast" group counts for nothing; the only thing that matters is becoming a new creation through Jesus Christ (Gal. 6:15).

Bad religion counts for nothing. Not everyone who calls Jesus "Lord" will be saved (Matt. 7:21-23); action that changes how we live counts for more than mere words (Matt. 21:28-32); the power of Christ can be at work even in those whom we (in our arrogance) call outsiders (Mark 9:38-41). Nowhere is the contrast between a bad believer and a good non-believer more pronounced than in today’s story.

Luke 10

Commentary

The context for this story is curious. In Luke 10:1-24, Jesus sends 72 disciples of for "field ed." They go out as evangelists and return with great success stories. Is it possible that there is more to serving God than that?

v25 Curiously, Jesus is asked this question on another occasion (Luke 18:18). In each case Jesus points them to Torah, but he gives each a different answer! Could it be that the act of going to God for the answer is more important than the answer itself? Could it be that what God asks of you depends on where you are in your walk and, therefore, what he asks of you will be different that what he asks of another?

v29 The word "justify" here means "make righteous." OT scholar Bruce Waltke says righteousness is "the willingness to be disadvantaged for the sake of another." Who in these verses is justified/righteous?

v30 Most likely the road from Jerusalem to Jericho was in a wadi: a gully or dry riverbed. It was probably narrow, with sharp bends and crevices, making it an ideal place for bandits.

v31-32 A priest or Levite encountering the half-dead man in a wadi would have difficulty ignoring or avoiding him. "Passing by on the other side" might have involved something as ridiculous as scaling the sides of the gully.

v33 The compassion the Samaritan feels is the same word as the compassion Jesus is feels for those in need (Matt. 9:36, 14:14, 15:32, 20:34; Mark 1:41; Luke 15:20).

The Samaritan does not merely do what is required; he is merciful because he goes over and above the law.

Application

Jesus does not elaborate about the motivation of the priest or the Levite. Certainly there are all sorts of rules about ceremonial cleanliness which pertain to touching dead bodies (e.g. Leviticus 21:10-12; Numbers 19:11-22). However, the parable’s main points are:

your neighbor is whomever God puts in your path, and

religiosity is no predictor of mercy; the only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love (Gal. 5:6).

In 1970, sociologists John Darley and Daniel Batson ran an experiment based on the parable of the good Samaritan ("From Jerusalem to Jericho: A Study of ... Helping Behavior"). As part of the experiment, Princeton seminary students were asked to walk across campus and give a speech about the parable of the good Samaritan. On the way to the speech they encountered a "victim" in shabby clothes who appeared drunk, possibly dangerous, and in physical discomfort. Most of the students ignored, or walked around, the victim without offering any immediate assistance. How ironic, to be preparing to give a speech about the good Samaritan, but to play the part of the priest or the Levite!

In Darley and Batson’s experiment, three results emerged:

the students who were behind schedule were least likely to offer help ("... ethics becomes a luxury as the speed of our lives increases"),

the students who were the most likely to offer substantial help were the least sensitive to the victim’s descriptions of his needs (i.e. they were likely to minister in certain ways—taking the victim to the cafeteria, or witnessing to him—irrespective of what help the victim asked for), and

the students who were most likely to offer help were the ones most concerned with finding meaning in life (however they often did not render the most help—the theory is that they responded to the perceived needs of the victim).

Americans are driven by two idols (at least): the clock, and a simplistic view of holiness. Most of us try to cram too many activities into too little time. Our sacrifices to our clock idol are those things for which we have no time. We take on commitments with the best of intentions, but later we are forced to sacrifice those commitments in the service of limited time (and more important commitments!). One of the sacrifices we make we may not even notice: our awareness of our own surroundings. The busier we become, the less we notice trouble around us; psychologist Edward Tolman called this "the narrowing of the cognitive map." The busier we are—the smaller our cognitive map is—the less we are able to make moral judgments. We want our moral decisions—our pursuit of holiness—to be black or white, yes or no, stay or go. However, a simplistic holiness is frequently insensitive to the needs of those to whom we wish to minister! We forget that holiness comes from the power of God at work in our lives.

Best guess is that the priest and the Levite were either too busy or too obsessed with their view of holiness to deal with the victim as a person. They forgot what God requires most: justice, mercy, and humility (Micah 6:8). They struck out on all counts (oh no, a baseball metaphor!). If they had sacrificed their time or their sense of holiness, in the eyes of their peers they would have been a pariah like the Samaritan, but they would have done what God required. That would have been righteousness.

Points to Ponder

Where do you worship a clock idol? What sacrifices do you make to it? Do you sacrifice your devotional time before it? Do you sacrifice time with those your care about before it? What needs to change in your life for you to stop being driven by a clock?

Where do you worship holiness or religiosity? Are you more concerned with justice (for others!), mercy (for others!) and humility (yours, before God) or maintaining your own righteousness? If righteousness, as Waltke says, is to be disadvantaged for the sake of another, where have you been willing to be disadvantaged, inconvenienced, or even taken advantage of?

Who are the people that don’t belong at church? What would have to change for you to befriend and minister to them? (Hint: if the answer doesn’t involve you having to change, think again.)

What if God called you to a ministry that made you look like a "Samaritan" to your Christian friends? What if you had to give up your notions of religion & holiness to follow God? Could you do it? Why or why not?

"What do you think? There was a man who had two sons. He went to the first and said, 'Son, go and work today in the vineyard.' 'I will not,' he answered, but
later he changed his mind and went. Then the father went to the other son and said the same thing. He answered, 'I will, sir,' but he did not go. Which of the two did what his father wanted?"

"The first," they answered.

Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you. For John came to you to show you the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes did. And even after you saw this, you did not repent and believe him. (Matthew 21:28-32)