And who is my neighbor?" asked the scholar of the law, and received this for his answer:
A man fell victim to robbers as he went down from Jerusalem to Jericho. They stripped and beat him and went off leaving him half-dead. A priest happened to be going down that road, but when he saw him, he passed by on the opposite side. Likewise a Levite came to the place, and when he saw him, he passed by on the opposite side. But a Samaritan traveler who came upon him was moved with compassion at the sight. He approached the victim, poured oil and wine over his wounds and bandaged them. Then he lifted him up on his own animal, took him to an inn and cared for him. The next day he took out two silver coins and gave them to the innkeeper with the instruction, "Take care of him. If you spend more than what I have given you, I shall repay you on my way back." Which of these three, in your opinion, was neighbor to the robbers' victim?
Just about everyone knows this story: Luke 10:30-36. (The version above is from the New American Bible.) When I was younger, I was admittedly more impressed by the form than by the content: Jesus had answered a question by a question of his own, a rhetorical device I thought was incredibly spiffy. Besides, I was just a kid, not in a position to help out anybody in need.
With age, though, comes, if not necessarily wisdom, at least the capacity to look back at the ideas and ideals of youth, and amend them as necessary. I got in the habit of stopping for stranded motorists. (And I'm hardly alone in this practice.) Things I didn't need sometimes things I did need but could spare for the moment, like surplus food in the pantry would be earmarked for organizations dedicated to helping those who needed but didn't have.
Still, I questioned my own motives. I was a major Mark Twain fan as a teenager, and I read, not only all the novels, but as many essays as I could get my hands on, and one that I read several dozen times over the years was "What Is Man?" It's a long piece, set up entirely as a dialogue between two men, one young and idealistic, the other old and (maybe) cynical. A pertinent passage:
Y.M. Well, then, for instance. Take the case in the book here. The man lives three miles up-town. It is bitter cold, snowing hard, midnight. He is about to enter the horse-car when a gray and ragged old woman, a touching picture of misery, puts out her lean hand and begs for rescue from hunger and death. The man finds that he has a quarter in his pocket, but he does not hesitate: he gives it her and trudges home through the storm. There it is noble, it is beautiful; its grace is marred by no fleck or blemish or suggestion of self-interest.
I hadn't thought about this passage for several years, until this week, when what I thought was a gentle rebuke to a California kid turned into a veritable scream-fest before my very eyes. I won't quote the particulars here; you can read them for yourself, or you can ignore them. But the arguments shaped up very similarly to those I'd remembered from Twain.
Except that, despite appearances, Twain's Old Man wasn't actually disdainful of charity. He questioned its motivation, of course:
Duties are not performed for duty's SAKE, but because their NEGLECT would make the man UNCOMFORTABLE. A man performs but ONE duty the duty of contenting his spirit, the duty of making himself agreeable to himself. If he can most satisfyingly perform this sole and only duty by HELPING his neighbor, he will do it; if he can most satisfyingly perform it by SWINDLING his neighbor, he will do it.
Y.M. If you were going to condense into an admonition your plan for the general betterment of the race's condition, how would you word it?
We've already seen a definition of "neighbor." Jesus had said, just before that, that you shall love "your neighbor as yourself." It occurs to me that neglecting to do so makes some of us uncomfortable, while others couldn't care less. And apparently it was always such.
| Vent menu |
Copyright © 2009 by Charles G. Hill