Category Archives: study

Here’s a fascinating take on the current mini-wave of atheist literature (by Dawkins, et al) that’s come out recently. The author describes a series of challenges of atheism to theism – and shows how these can be used to strengthen a theist’s position, and faith. For example:

Virtuous atheists actually have a stronger claim to real goodness than virtuous Christians, Jews, or Muslims, because there can be no taint of cupboard love in their obedience to the moral law. They do not believe in a reward for goodness, and thus must love goodness for its own sake. The challenge to religious people is that they ought to do the good as if there were no afterlife, no heaven, no reward. God does not get a reward for all the good things he does, and if we are supposed to become as much the image of God as we can, as we are told in the scriptures, then we should seek out that life of love and service that is its own reward.

The author of the piece is also the author of a book called Natural Religion. It looks a little far-out, and I have not read it, but the description sounds like an interesting insight into the different ways truth is manifest.

I was reading a [post](http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/archives/001286.html) over at [Evangelical Outpost](http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/) that notes an [interpretation](http://prosthesis.blogspot.com/2004/01/new-for-me-view-of-good-samaritan.html) of the good Samaritan story. Joe asks an open question of whether this is an accurate interpretation. I want to answer that question, and provide what I think is a more complete interpretation.

This quote from the original post summarizes the viewpoint under examination:

>Jesus is the man by the road. He was on the road to Jerusalem. He was beaten and bloody. Robbers stripped him of his clothes and beat him and left him for dead. And the only person who could be close to Christ at all was the Samaritan because he was free from the law. And because he was free from the law, he was able to lower himself and go down by the side of the road with Him.

>And in that way, Jesus shows the expert of the law that he can keep all the laws in the world, but that won’t allow him to earn eternal life. In fact, in order to gain eternal life, the expert of the law has to stop admiring the priest and start admiring the Samaritan (who he really wouldn’t admire at all). So, what must the expert do? He has to completely change the way he looks at things. He can’t be the priest, he can’t be the Levite. He has to be the Samaritan. And that requires recognizing that the law can do nothing. And, in fact, his only hope is to have a relationship with the bloodied, beaten man by the side of the road.

Is this an accurate interpretation? My short answer is “not really”. I will spend a little time here trying to back that up. The interpretation presented has elements of truth, but it misses quite completely what I believe to have been the primary point of Jesus telling this parable.

First of all, I want to affirm the basic sentiment that we can’t earn salvation. But here’s the first twist. This was not news to the people of the first century. Salvation by the grace of God alone has always been a part of Judaism–then and now. This is the subject of another essay though, so I won’t delve deeper into it here. Taking what I’ve asserted as true, and I know some will not believe this without further information, it seems unlikely that Jesus would have been simply repeating something so obvious. So what was he saying?

To begin to answer this, we have to look more closely at the preceding verses. As the referenced article did, I will use the text [Luke 10:25-37](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=LUKE+10:25-37&version=31;) as the starting point. Consider the first verse:

>On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”

So the first question is, who or what is an “expert in the law”? This person is not a lawyer in the Western sense. An expert in the law refers to someone who was an expert in–almost certainly had memorized–the entire Torah, the first five books of the Bible. So this guy was no slouch.

His first question is, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?” Jesus answers with a question, very rabbinic in style, thus prompting the man to answer his own question. For Jews in that time period the concept of eternal life was not other-worldly, but rather was more like “living in harmony with God.” So we can rephrase his question as, “What must I do to live in harmony with God?”

All the kids standing around knew the answer to this question. Keep the commandments! For Jesus’s day, this was common knowledge. But the answer that the man gives is still very interesting, because it introduces one of two ‘big’ theological debates of that time that Jesus confronts in this passage.

The man’s answer to Jesus’s question is:

>‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’

Here, he is quoting [Deuteronomy 6:4-5](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=deuteronomy%206:4-5;&version=31;) and [Leviticus 19:18](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2019:18;&version=31;). By saying this he stakes out a position in a theological debate. Jesus then affirms this position, showing that he is on this same side of the debate.

What debate is this? It is a debate of priority of commandments. In the Torah, sometimes commandments are mutually exclusive in a certain circumstance. The Jews recognized this, and set up a series of priorities in the commands. Of course, the debate then became the order of the list. In Jesus’s day, there was a major split between traditionalists and progressives on this issue. Everyone agreed that Deuteronomy 6 was the greatest command:

>Hear O Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord alone. Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your might.

The debate started with #2. The traditionalists prioritized keeping the Sabbath, ritual cleanliness, and other commands ahead of “love your neighbor”. The progressives, however, put only “love God” ahead of love your neighbor. So both Jesus and the man questioning him are affirming the progressive position on this debate.

The man realizes this was a bit of a novice-level question, and tries to “justify himself” as the text says–he’s trying to save face.

Part 2 will look at his second question, “And who is my neighbor?” and will dig into the absolutely brilliant nature of Jesus’s answer.

This long post is a submission for the [Evangelical Outpost](http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com) blog symposium entitled ["Judeo-Christian Morality in an Ethically Pluralistic Society"](http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/archives/001265.html). The list of entries can be found [here](http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/archives/001267.html).

I’ve been interested for a while in the concept of Hellenism as understood in the first century, and the way it affected the people of Jesus’s time. I’m deriving my definition of Hellenism largely from the work of [Ray VanderLaan](http://www.followtherabbi.com), in particular his essay ["Center of the Universe"](http://community.gospelcom.net/Brix?pageID=2744) and many audio recordings of his that I’ve listened to.

Hellenism began to spread across the world due to the conquests of Alexander the Great. Alexander wanted to spread Greek culture and beliefs, because he thought that they represented the best way of living. To encourage the spread of Hellenism, he used the institutions of the theater (arts), the stadium (sports), the gymnasium (physical and mental education), and the temple (worship). These were the forums for indoctrinating the peoples that he conquered in the philosophy of Hellenism. What is this philosophy? First and formost, it is a philosophy of self. It’s major characteristic is that it is centered on the individual, the human being, as the ultimate arbiter of what is good and what is beautiful. According to VanderLaan,

>Hellenism as a worldview is based on a belief that human beings are the ultimate source of truth and authority in the universe. “Man is the measure of all things of what is and what is not,” said the Greek philosopher Protagoras (481-411 BC). This philosophy provided the foundation for a culture devoted to the supremacy of human beings and human accomplishment…

This philosophy posed major problems for the Jewish people in that time period. At first, under Alexander, the Hellenistic ideas were offered as an alternative, not a forced replacement. Later, though, after [Antiochus Epiphanes](http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=1589&letter=A) came to power, the Hellenization became deadly, as he attempted to exterminate the Jewish religion and force the uptake of Hellenistic practices. This led the rise of the [Maccabees](http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=17&letter=M) and their revolution.

Despite the victory of the Jews under the Maccabees, the tension between the Hellenistic viewpoint, where man is preeminent, and the Judaic viewpoint, where God is preeminent, did not subside. This is the context that Jesus lived and taught in. It’s also the world that the disciples moved into the heart of after Jesus’s death and resurrection. I would argue that it also describes the world that we live in today.

In our modern world, we don’t have to deal with Greek gods and sacrificing things to idols; however, the philosophy underpinning Hellenism, that of man being the ultimate repository of Truth, is alive and well in our culture. In fact, it is the defining philosophy of secularism, and I would argue that secularism is the subtext that governs how most Americans lead their lives. VanderLaan goes on in his essay to further describe Hellenism and its effects:

>Since the human being was the “measure of all” people believed that human wisdom is the greatest wisdom. What cannot be understood or explained by people must [not] be true. Human accomplishments in athletics, the arts, and architecture became the motivating drive of society. The human body was considered the ultimate in beauty so nudity in art, in the baths, and in sports was acceptable and even expected. Accumulation of the greatest of material things to provide luxury and comfort for ones self–the ultimate in the universe after all–was considered the normal pursuit of ones life. Anything to improve the quality of human life. Since humans are the ultimate reality, the ultimate human was the greatest of all. To be the best, better than all others at any pursuit was life’s great goal. What could be more natural than to get the most out of life for one’s self?

If you take out the nudity in sports part, this describes American life today incredibly well. Hellenism, stripped of its more overt religious overtones, is the dominant philosophy of our age. If we look at the people who make the most money in our society, they are the actors, the sports players, and the entrepreneurs. Now, I don’t think that there is anything inherently wrong with any of these occupations. I just find it interesting that they exactly fit the ideals of Hellenism.

So, is the primary tension in our society one of Judeo-Christian ethics vs. a pluralistic society, of which secularism is only one of many facets? I would actually argue “no”. The real tension is between a dominant secular, Hellenistic, ethos and a true Judeo-Christian ethos. This is not the battle that most Christians are fighting. Most professed Christians go about their daily lives functionally indistinguishable from non-Christians in the world at large. The common conception of supporting Judeo-Christian ethics in our society usually means complaining that other people don’t live like we think they should, or trying to oppose perceived threats to things that we believe. The issue is not whether we are right or not. We may be right, it may be that they are living in a personally and communally destructive way. But that’s missing the bigger point. We may win some small battles, but we’re like Japanese soldiers stuck on a little island who never got the message that World War II was over. Hellenism dominates our society.

What has our clamoring in that last 25 years for a more moral, ethical society gotten us so far? Church attendance is [down](http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_tren.htm). It’s down dramatically in some of the old mainline denominations, but overall the trend has been a slow decline. Even in the growing suburban mega churches, the emphasis in many cases is on how the church can meet every need of the individual in every conceivable situation–a kind of Hellenism, light. In the societies of Europe further down the road to secularism the trend is more obvious: traditional Christian religion there is dying.

John Derbyshire has a recent [article](http://www.nationalreview.com/derbyshire/derbyshire200504071043.asp) that discusses the legacy of the pope in terms of this general trend away from religion in Western cultures. >Looking back across the past few decades, it’s hard not to think that post-industrial modernism is headed all one way, everywhere it has taken a firm grip. Pleasure-giving gadgets and drugs are ever cheaper and more accessible. The distresses of life, especially physical sickness and pain, are gradually being pushed to the margins. As scientists probe deeper into the human genome, the human nervous system, and the biology of human social arrangements, that divine spark of person-hood that we all feel to be the essence of ourselves is being chased along narrower and darker passageways of the brain and the tribal folkways. Happiness itself, it seems, is [genetic](http://www.forbes.com/technology/sciences/2004/09/23/cx_mh_0923happiness.html).

He thinks that this is heading towards a *Brave New World* type of situation.

>…it seems to me highly probable that the world of 50 or 100 years from now will bear a close resemblance to Huxley’s dystopia — a world without pain, grief, sickness or war, but also without family, religion, sacrifice, or nobility of spirit.

Jim Hoagland in the [Washington Post](http://www.washingtonpost.com) has an [article](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32734-2005Apr6.html) along a similar vein, but with a different conclusion.

>The world has never had more communication and yet produced so little understanding and wisdom. In advanced manufacturing societies, [historian John] Lukacs notes, “the production of consumption has become more important than the production of goods.” While “constitutions and courts have extended lawfulness to private acts of all kinds . . . fewer and fewer people appreciate or are able to cultivate privacy.” [2002 essay "At the End of an Age."]

Why is this happening? Why, with a large majority of people who still consider themselves Christian in this country do we seem to be losing our soul? America is the creator of the technology and lifestyle that has made the world, at least our world, a better place. Yet it is also the world’s leader in consumption of just about everything, at just about every level.

Evangelicals in America need to re-evaluate what it means to have a Judeo-Christian ethic in our culture. We need to figure out first of all how to live a life that is centered on God, and then how to live that life in a world interested in everything *except* God.

Is it acceptable to live a life that explicitly or implicitly endorses the core principles of Hellenism? Is a 10:1 ratio of the time each day I pursue wealth, hobbies, or pleasure to the time I pursue God acceptable? I can make a strong argument that Jesus memorized the entirety of the the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) by the time he was 15. What kind of devotion is that? Do we even have language to describe it?

I propose that we can’t make a difference in this world if we simple play by the same rules, living lives functionally indistinguishable from a ‘typical’ member of our society.

The whole question of how Judeo-Christian morals and ethics compete in our society is the wrong question. We have to compete, if we’re doing our jobs right. The twelve disciples and their disciples converted the most pagan part of the Roman Empire in less than a century, and they were not so popular with the powers-that-be. They certainly weren’t imposing their ethical framework on society. They were *living* their ethical framework *in* society. And living it in an effective way, so that they were different. Different not separate. Different so that they were noticed, and people wanted what they had. We need to build communities that are beacons to the world around them. We need to be radically different from what our culture expects, so people look at us and say, “That’s amazing. That’s real. That’s what I want.”

P.S. As the disciples moved into Asia Minor, by the year 200 it was largely Christian. Then the Christians started to build big, beautiful buildings, and take on the trappings of the what the culture thought a dominant religion should look like. They bought into Hellenism. In 150 years, many of the churches were empty and the bishops were telling the pastors to keep holding services even though no one was attending. [(VanderLaan: From Galilee to Asia)](http://community.gospelcom.net/Brix?pageID=2726)