Showing posts with label Luke 10. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Luke 10. Show all posts

Sunday, July 20, 2025

Sermon: "Am I Lord or Not?"

Lectionary: Proper 11(C)

Text: Luke 10:38-42

https://diglib.library.vanderbilt.edu/act-imagelink.pl?RC=55622
Martha reproving her sister Mary
Gentileschi, Orazio, 1563-1638?
We continue in Luke’s gospel account where Jesus is on his journey up to Jerusalem. Jesus comes to a village. But before we continue, we are looking back to the beginning of Luke chapter 10, where Jesus sent out seventy disciples.

Jesus gave instructions to those that were sent out. Part of the instructions included, “5 Whenever you enter a house, first say, ‘May peace be on this house.’ 6 If anyone there shares God’s peace, then your peace will rest on that person. If not, your blessing will return to you. 7 Remain in this house, eating and drinking whatever they set before you, for workers deserve their pay. Don’t move from house to house.” (Luke 10:5-7 CEB)

Returning to where we took a detour, Jesus enters a village, and he is welcomed by a woman named Martha. She invites him to her home and offers him hospitality. So far, the narrative is going according to Jesus’ instructions for his own disciples and how to identify people who are willing to support his ministry.

We learn next that Martha has a sister named Mary. In Luke’s gospel account, this is their only appearance. John’s gospel names two sisters Martha and Mary who appear together with a brother, Lazarus, in a village named Bethany. These two sets of siblings are probably the same, and most biblical scholars agree.

Therefore, it is worth pausing here to note that in Luke’s account, Lazarus is not mentioned. In fact, the home to where Jesus is invited is identified as “home of Martha”. It is also worth noting that neither Martha or Mary is identified as a widow nor are their parents mentioned. Since most women in the ancient Middle East were expected to live under either a father or a husband, it is no small thing that Martha owns a home. One of the only ways such a thing could happen is if they were sufficiently wealthy so that they could be independent and probably run their own business.

This goes along with whom Luke identifies as major financial sponsors of Jesus’ ministry. At the beginning of chapter 8, Luke writes, “1 Soon afterward, Jesus traveled through the cities and villages, preaching and proclaiming the good news of God’s kingdom. The Twelve were with him, 2 along with some women who had been healed of evil spirits and sicknesses. Among them were Mary Magdalene (from whom seven demons had been thrown out), 3 Joanna (the wife of Herod’s servant Chuza), Susanna, and many others who provided for them out of their resources.” (Luke 8:1-3)

I should point out that Mary, the Greek form of Miriam, was a very common name. So there is little reason to equate Mary of Bethany with Mary Magdalene, although there is also no evidence that they couldn’t be the same. The real point here is that women of means were vital to supporting Jesus’ ministry.

Returning to today’s narrative, we encounter trouble when Martha sees Mary, “who sat at the Lord’s feet and listened to his message. 40 By contrast, Martha was preoccupied with getting everything ready for their meal. So Martha came to him and said, ‘Lord, don’t you care that my sister has left me to prepare the table all by myself? Tell her to help me.’” (Luke 10:39b-40)

Hearing this Jesus answered, “Martha, Martha, you are worried and distracted by many things. 42 One thing is necessary. Mary has chosen the better part. It won’t be taken away from her.” (Luke 10:41-42)

There are many interpretations given as to what Jesus meant by this and why Luke included it. Some are better than others and a few are simply bad.

One of the worst is where this episode is interpreted to mean that women are welcome to spiritual learning as long as they sit quietly and keep quiet.

Another poor interpretation is one that can be made only by ignoring the rest of the New Testament. This interpretation prioritizes the life on contemplation as better than the life of service. After all, doesn’t Jesus rebuke Martha for trying to be hospitable and serve while praising Mary for sitting quietly and learning?

There are several reasons why this line of interpretation cannot be sustained. First, Jesus himself says that he came to serve. A second reason is that looking back to the sending out of the seventy, it was expected that recipients of ministry would reciprocate through service. And the third reason is that in Luke’s next volume, the Acts of the Apostles, one of the first things the group of believers do is appoint deacons so that service work can be delegated to them while the apostles could continue the preaching and teaching ministry. Both ministries are equally vital and valued in that episode.

A related point to note here is that “to serve” is diakoinen in Greek. Our English word deacon comes from this Greek term. It should also be noted that in Acts, it is not just women who serve, but men serve and are called deacons. Tasks which culturally likely belonged to women, in the Christian community, were shared regardless of gender.

A better interpretation keys in on the word “distracted.” Martha was distracted. In order to be distracted, she has to be distracted from something, and in this case, it seems to be Jesus himself. Martha seems to be so busy making sure the work of hospitality is done perfectly she has no time for the guest.

However, this too, faces some problems. If everyone sat down to listen, what would happen to the hospitality. Now it could be said that the hospitality Jesus wants isn’t about food and drink but sitting with him and learning from him. Or it could be that Jesus is saying, “Martha, you’ve already done enough. It doesn’t have to be ‘perfect’ as you want to see it.”

It is true that many of us can become so focused on doing things to maintain the structures of ministry that we have no time for listening to Christ. Our liturgy for this morning emphasizes this line of interpretation.

This interpretation isn’t bad or wrong, but there is another alternative that I think makes even more sense.

When Mary sits down at the feet of Jesus, Luke is describing the posture of a disciple learning from their master.

When Luke notes disciples and the women accompanying Jesus in chapter 8, the women are described as supporting and serving him. But they don’t seem to have the role of disciples at that point. James F. McGrath, in What Jesus Learned from Women, suggests that when Mary sits at the feet of Jesus, it is the very first time that a woman has taken the position of a disciple. It is not only unprecedented but also catches Jesus by surprise.[1] How Jesus responds will make all the difference. Jesus may not have even noticed Mary there until Martha points it out.

What is Martha’s real complaint and question? Would Mary have been so imperceptive to leave Martha with all the household work? What if Mary could see that Martha had everything under control? What if Mary recalled how Jesus talked about women in prior months and thought maybe she could be allowed to learn from him, too?

The complaint from Martha then becomes not of immediate need, but a veiled accusation against both Jesus and Mary of violating cultural traditions and demanding that Jesus do something about it.[2] Martha may have been worried about how the impropriety of Mary filling the role of a man might reflect on them. How could Mary find a husband when she was usurping a man’s role? What might the talk of the village be? Perhaps she was worried about what people might say about Jesus for permitting a woman to be one of his disciples. Jesus was already ruffling powerful feathers. Perhaps Martha had a desire to protect Jesus.

Are these things the “distractions” Jesus is thinking about when he responds to Martha? If so, it fits better with the overall progression of Luke’s narrative.

First, Jesus is defending Mary’s right to become his disciple. Just as the separation of Jew and Samaritan was erased in the parable of the merciful Samaritan, here Jesus erases gender boundaries that kept men and women in their separate spheres. As I mentioned a few minutes ago, the early Christians allowed ministry roles to anyone who was gifted to do the necessary work, and men learned that serving was not beneath them.

Second, Jesus may be noting to Martha an irony in her words, “Martha, you called me ‘Lord,’ but you are now demanding that I do something. Am I ‘Lord’ or am I not?”

Is Jesus asking the same questions of us today? “What are you worried about and distracting you?”

Yes, we worry about being seen as respectable in our families and communities. We worry about how far to push the boundaries of change vs. tradition. We worry about maintaining the physical and social structures of church and denomination. We are worried about how our personal politics might offend a friend or a neighbor. We are worried that if we drop our facades to reveal our true selves, we will be rejected. We are worried about how things outside of our control might impact us. We are distracted by all these things.

“Am I Lord or not?”

We confess you as Lord, but too often we invoke your name wanting you to bless our own desires and plans. We too often place you in boxes and boundaries that make us feel comfortable.

Jesus says, “Turn your ears and eyes toward me. Let go of your worries and distractions. Instead, focus on my teachings and my doings. Do mercy to whomever I send you to.”

In the name of God who is boundless,

In the name of God who broke boundaries,

And in the name of God who discomforts our boundary-making, Amen.

References

Bailey, K. E. (2008). Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes: Cultural Studies in the Gospels. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

Jarvis, C. A., & Johnson, E. E. (2014). Feasting on the Gospels: Luke, Volume 1 (Chapter 1-11). Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press.

McGrath, J. F. (2021). What Jesus Learned from Women. Eugene, OR: Cascade Books.

 

 



[1] (McGrath, 2021)

[2] (Bailey, 2008)


Monday, July 14, 2025

Sermon: Doing Mercy

Lectionary: Proper 10(C)

Text: Luke 10:25-37

[This sermon is based on insights found in “Chapter 2: The Good Samaritan” in Short Stories by Jesus: The Enigmatic Parables of a Controversial Rabbi, by Amy-Jill Levine.]

The parable of the Good Samaritan is probably close in familiarity to the stories of Christmas and Easter. There are organizations and institutions named after it. There are laws by that name that afford liability protection when one stops to help. Those who unexpectedly come to the aid of another are called “Good Samaritans”.

Its familiarity poses a problem for preachers, because what more can be said about it? We all just heard it read and I’m sure all of us recall sermons that we’ve heard and text that has been written on it. Most interpretations and applications run along the lines of “Don’t be like the priest and Levite but instead be like the Good Samaritan.”

There is nothing wrong with this interpretation. But perhaps it only touches the surface and there is much more that is provocative and subversive if we allow the text to speak to us.

We should keep in mind that this is part of Luke’s “travel document” where Jesus is portrayed going up to Jerusalem where he will be lifted up through crucifixion and resurrection. These texts contain teachings about what it means to have his perspective on the world and continue his work. It also describes some of the reasons why Jesus was rejected and killed.

The text today begins with a lawyer standing up to test Jesus. In our culture the stereotype of lawyers is generally negative. In Luke’s gospel, lawyers are depicted negatively. But to Jesus’ audience and in much of the New Testament, lawyers would have been seen in a positive light. They were considered righteous. They were the rulers of the nation and interpreters of the Torah.

The question the lawyer poses is also a problem. There is no way to answer the question because one cannot do something to inherit something. The Jews were already considered to be among the saved, so the question itself makes little sense other than to try to trap Jesus into saying something wrong and thereby discrediting him. The lawyer also asks the question in such a way that doing something is a one-time action. He thinks of eternal life as a commodity that can be acquired.

Jesus does not answer the question but asks a question of his own. He asks the lawyer, “What is written in the Law (Torah), and how to you read (interpret) it?”

The lawyer responds as would be expected, quoting from Deuteronomy 6 and Leviticus 19, “Love God and love your neighbor.” In Christian interpretation, this has often come to mean that these two replace the Torah and all other laws, especially when reading some of the later New Testament writings.

However, this would have been the furthest from Jesus’ mind. Recall that in Matthew’s gospel, Jesus says, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill.” Matthew 5:17 (NRSVue) Jesus and his fellow Jews would have understood the great command to love God and love neighbors as the lens through which all other laws and actions should be interpreted and assessed. In other words, all other laws are relativized to the two commands to love. If we took this approach, how different might Christianity engage with the world around us?

The lawyer gives the correct answer, for Jesus responds, “Do this, and you will live.” What is key to realize here is that Jesus’ “do” is not the same as the “what must I do” asked by the lawyer. Where the lawyer’s “do” indicate a one-time action, Jesus’ “do” is a ongoing, continuous activity. Eternal life is not a commodity to be acquired, but a lifestyle that must be lived continuously.

The lawyer could have stopped there, but instead he asks, “And who is my neighbor?” That question if it stood alone could be interpreted as a genuine inquiry, but Luke offers a motive, that is the lawyer wanted to “justify himself.” The lawyer wanted to look good in front of the audience around him. He wanted Jesus to list all the categories of neighbors so that he could answer affirmatively, gaining honor and respect.

But in another sense, the question is misguided because asking “who is my neighbor” is inferring that some are not neighbors and don’t deserve or need to be loved. “Whom can I hate?” is the unspoken question.

Here, what becomes relevant is a question asked earlier by Jesus, “How do you read (it)?” Levine writes, “In Hebrew the words ‘neighbor’ and ‘evil’ share the same consonants (resh ayin); they differ only in the vowels—but ancient Hebrew texts do no have vowels… Both words are written identically.”[1]

When Jesus asks, “How do you read?” he is asking the lawyer, can you see “in the very words of the Torah, the equation of enemy with neighbor and thus the command to love both?”[2]

At this point, Jesus launches into a parable. A man is robbed, beaten, and left for dead. This is the character with whom the audience is invited to identify and probably does. This man is oppressed and nearly killed, something with which Jesus’ listeners would have been all too familiar. The question raised is, “Who will help this man?”

A priest then a Levite pass by, but both, seeing the man, intentionally pass by on the other side. Interpreters have attempted to offer various reasons for why, including Jewish religious practices, but these explanations have problems. From the text what can be seen most plainly is that they simply didn’t care and didn’t want to be bothered. They didn’t have compassion.

After this a third individual appears. We are familiar with tropes of three: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; mind, body, soul; Curly, Larry, and Moe, etc. Jesus’ listeners were also familiar with the trope beginning with a priest and a Levite. The expected third was Israel. It would be natural and expected for a fellow Jew to come to the aid of this man.

But Jesus breaks the pattern and introduces a Samaritan. You are probably quite aware of the hatred between the Jews and Samaritans. Their history is one of violence against one another. When the Samaritan sees the man left for dead, he experiences compassion for the man, something that the first two did not. He approaches and gives aid. Not only that but he takes the man to safety and offers the innkeeper funds to care for the man, promising to make up any difference if the need continues.

At this point the listener is forced to consider that the one they have labeled as the enemy might be capable of doing good. They must contemplate the possibility that the one they have been taught to hate might be their only source of help.

Levine suggests that this parable might be rooted in an incident recorded in Israel’s history, in 2 Chronicles 28:1-15. Ahaz became king of the southern kingdom of Judah, but he did not reign righteously, and so it is written that God allowed enemies to defeat him, conquer his land, have many of his people killed and the rest taken captive. One of those victorious over Ahaz was the northern kingdom of Israel. The northern kingdom took two hundred thousand of their defeated cousins as captives and their possessions as spoils, leading them to Samaria. It is here that we will read from the biblical text:

9 One of the LORD’s prophets named Oded lived in Samaria. When the army arrived there, he went to meet them and said, “Don’t you see that the LORD God of your ancestors was angry with Judah and let you defeat them? But look what you’ve done! Your merciless slaughter of them stinks to high heaven! 10 And now you think you can enslave the men and women of Judah and Jerusalem? What about your own guilt before the LORD your God? 11 Listen to me! Send back the captives you took from your relatives, because the LORD is furious with you.”

12 At this, some of the Ephraimite leaders—Johanan’s son Azariah, Meshillemoth’s son Berechiah, Shallum’s son Jehizkiah, and Hadlai’s son Amasa—confronted those returning from battle. 13 “Don’t bring the captives here,” they told them. “Your plan will only add to our sin and guilt before the LORD. We’re already guilty enough, and great anger is already directed at Israel.”

Then we read what might be echoes found in the parable Jesus told.

14 So the warriors released the captives and brought the loot before the officers and the whole assembly. 15 Then people named for this task took charge of the captives and dressed everyone who was naked with items taken from the loot. They gave them clothing, sandals, food and drink, and bandaged their wounds. Everyone who couldn’t walk they placed on donkeys, and they brought them to Jericho, Palm City, near their Judean relatives. Then they returned to Samaria. (2 Chronicles 28:9-15 CEB)

A prophet was brave enough to confront the actions of the king, his military, and all the people who saw the southern kingdom as enemies and their oppressors. They had plans to dehumanize them—their own kin—as slaves. The prophet said, “No.” That courage and reasoning allowed a few other leaders of the northern kingdom to rise and confront their own people and lead them away from violence and oppression that they were about to commit. For the people of the southern kingdom taken captive, salvation came from an unexpected source: the ones that a few moments ago were their enemy.

Returning to Jesus, after finishing telling the parable he asks the lawyer, “Which of these three was a neighbor to the one who fell among the robbers?”

The lawyer responds, “The one who did mercy.” Even though he cannot get himself to say the hated term “Samaritan,” he gets the point of the parable. What is also interesting is that the lawyer goes beyond simply saying, “The one who showed compassion.” The neighbor is the one who shows compassion and responds in mercy.

It is not enough to have compassionate “thoughts and prayers.” In the Sermon on the Plain, Jesus tells his disciples, “35 Instead, love your enemies, do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return. Your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High, for he himself is kind to the ungrateful and the wicked. 36 Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.” (Luke 6:35-36 NRSVue)

As I wrap up this message, consider who each of us might consider our “enemies.” Who are the people and groups we fear and maybe hate? Who are those whom society, politicians, tradition, and some religious teachings say we ought to hate, ignore, send away, cause them to suffer, and delight in their suffering?

In Jesus’ reading of the Torah, there is no distinction between neighbor and enemy. All humanity is one. When we claim the name of Christ as our identity, we are agreeing with Jesus. If we think of anyone as not deserving of mercy, we cannot be truly Christian. If we elevate any law above the lens of the command to love God and neighbor, we should question our sincerity in following Christ. And may God give us the courage to speak out for compassion, the courage to do mercy, and the courage to confront hate, fear, and oppression.

In the name of God who is Compassion,

In the name of God who is Mercy,

And in the of God who discomforts our selective love, Amen.

Bibliography

Bailey, K. E. (1976, 1980). Poet & Peasant and Through Peasant Eyes (Combined Edition). Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans.

Levine, A.-J. (2014). Short Stories by Jesus: The Enigmatic Parables of a Controversial Rabbi. New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers, Inc.

Levine, A.-J., & Brettler, M. Z. (2011, 2017). The Jewish Annotated New Testament, 2nd ed. Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press.

 

 



[1] (Levine, Short Stories by Jesus: The Enigmatic Parables of a Controversial Rabbi, 2014)

[2] (Levine, Short Stories by Jesus: The Enigmatic Parables of a Controversial Rabbi, 2014)


Sunday, February 02, 2025

Sermon: "Who Is My Neighbor?"

Lectionary: Epiphany 4(C)
Texts: 1 Corinthians 13; (Luke 10:25-37)[1]

https://diglib.library.vanderbilt.edu/act-imagelink.pl?RC=56412
Jesus Mural of Faith, Hope, Love, and Peace: This mural places Jesus centerstage with arms outstretched, welcoming all people to him. Incorporated into the figure of Jesus is a mosaic quality that undoubtedly represents his multifaceted nature as well as the ability for all peoples to claim him as their own. Surrounding him is a diverse group holding hands in unity. One of the scripture passages listed for this image gives us the second greatest commandment: “to love one’s neighbor as oneself.” In loving one another, we stimulate peace, faith, and hope for the war-torn and unjust world in which we live. This painting reminds us that it is in our love for one another—a love that seeks equality and justice for all—that we show true, deep, and abiding love for God as well.

Introduction

Like any good lawyer, the teacher of the Law who came to question Jesus already knew the answer to his question. He didn’t like the answer he knew to be correct and perhaps wanted to find out if Jesus might come up with a loophole.

When we hear “teacher of the Law” we might assume a kind of a lawyer or legal expert. And that is true, but only to a point. When the text reads, “the Law”, we are to understand that this is the Torah, the entirety of the codes and principles that guide the life of a Jewish person. This individual is not merely versed in legal codes, but in theology, religious practices, social and cultural traditions, and politics. We need to understand that neither the lawyer or Jesus are limiting their questions and responses to the spiritual and theological realm but includes the entirety of the world, life, and being.

In response to the lawyer’s question, “Who is my neighbor?”, Jesus offers a parable – one that we often refer to as The Good Samaritan parable.

But first, I would like to examine what love means, since the heart of the lawyer’s question and Jesus’ response revolves around loving God and loving one’s neighbor.

Paul’s Description of Love

1 Corinthians 13 is often read at weddings, to explain and exhort the wedded couple to the idealized love that is found in Christ. While not a wrong application, to limit what Paul wrote to the Corinthians to individual couples and marital love is to miss the point of Paul’s words. The description of love that Paul provides in this letter is the ultimate social practice that is to be practiced and lived out by all who claim allegiance to Jesus Christ. Love is the practice that holds Christ’s community together. It is the foundation upon which all of Christianity rests.[2]

The first three verses of 1 Corinthians 13 tell us that no activity, however virtuous and good they may be, is worthless if they are not founded in love and motivated through love. A commentary explains,

These words on the primacy of love can help the church in conflict understand that there are some things more important than being right or powerful or honored. If those within the church do not do what they do in a spirit of love, then all religious talk, knowledge, piety, and sacrificial giving add up to nothing… Those who think they have gained everything by standing on principle, dominating others, or by being right, have lost it all.[3]

The final six verses (8-13) tell us that nothing of this world will remain past the end of time, except for love. A commentary explains, “All that will be left, all that will be necessary, will be the completeness (to teleion, v. 10) of relation, human and divine, which is love.”[4]

The center of the chapter describes the characteristics of God-like love that is to be developed and manifested in all who follow Christ.

4 Love is patient, love is kind, it isn’t jealous, it doesn’t brag, it isn’t arrogant, 5 it isn’t rude, it doesn’t seek its own advantage, it isn’t irritable, it doesn’t keep a record of complaints, 6 it isn’t happy with injustice, but it is happy with the truth. 7 Love puts up with all things, trusts in all things, hopes for all things, endures all things. (1 Corinthians 13:4-7 CEB)

Paul wrote to a church in Corinth that was experiencing severe conflicts and differences among different factions within it. Each of the attributes of love he notes is related to some conflict that is described elsewhere in the letter and is offered as a response and solution to mitigating conflicts.

For Paul, our capacity to flourish as human beings is realized to the extent that we can live in the love of God revealed in the cross of Jesus Christ. The concrete reality of this divine love is present in our lives as described in verses 4 through 7 [above], where love is the subject, actively expressing itself in patience and kindness, rejoicing in the truth, and bearing, and believing, hoping, and enduring all things. This love is not envious, boastful, arrogant, rude, irritable, or resentful, nor does it insist on its own way.[5]

This is the measure that Christians are to use to judge every thought, action, word, and decision, their own and those outside of them. For Christians, all human laws, political ideologies, religious traditions, social customs, and everything else is secondary to the standard of God’s love.

None of us are yet perfected, as Paul admits in this same chapter, but we can judge on a continuum from clearly against God’s standard of love to striving toward God’s ideal vision of love.

Parable of the Good Samaritan

We now return to the parable Jesus told, the parable of the Good Samaritan.

When this parable is taught and preached, the focus is frequently on the two that passed by the wounded and naked man or the Samaritan who stopped to help. Today though, I would like to spend some time thinking about the man who was beaten and left for dead and think about how he ended up there.

Who or What is the “Thieves”?

The text reads, “A man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho. He encountered thieves, who stripped him naked, beat him up, and left him near death.” (Luke 10:30 CEB) Now this could describe someone who is literally injured and those who are metaphorically hurt, suffering loss, in need, helpless, and so on. But how did that happen? It was the work of “thieves”. So who or what might be the “thieves” indicated in this text?

I think I am safe to assume that we understand that “thieves” does not mean literal thieves and literal stealing. I think we understand that the word is a metaphor for something else. In John’s gospel, Jesus speaks of himself as “the gate”:

7 So Jesus spoke again, “I assure you that I am the gate of the sheep. 8 All who came before me were thieves and outlaws, but the sheep didn’t listen to them. 9 I am the gate. Whoever enters through me will be saved. They will come in and go out and find pasture. 10 The thief enters only to steal, kill, and destroy. I came so that they could have life—indeed, so that they could live life to the fullest. (John 10:7-10 CEB)

Taking this text into account together with who Jesus was addressing, “thieves” can mean civil, political, and religious authorities and powers. It can be rules, laws, policies, traditions, beliefs, etc. that ultimately accrue benefits to the authorities and powers who are imposing laws and policies, collateral damage to anyone else be damned in their minds.

Identifying the Thieves

We are living in a time when ruling powers and authorities, corporations and those who run them, and even leaders of churches and religious groups are acting like the “thieves” alluded to by Jesus. Through policies, laws, economic actions, and even through religious appeals, they hurt and harm, they take lives and livelihoods, and using lies and fear they seek to confuse and control.

For most of our lifetimes, the moral and ethical divide between the broader society, government, and religion vs. the way of God’s love has not been quite so wide. But today, the differences are stark. We cannot have it both ways anymore. We must make a choice: the world’s way or God’s way. Do we choose to maintain self-interest, go along with what the powers and authorities of the world demand, do we acquiesce to them? Or do we stand up for the way of God’s self-sacrificing love?

Do we define “neighbor” narrowly as the law expert wanted to do? Do we limit “neighbor” to those with a specific nationality, ethnicity, immigration status, gender, socioeconomic status, political affiliation, religion, and beliefs?

Or do we accept and believe what Jesus taught and courageously accept everyone as our “neighbor”? Do we accept and treat those unlike us as neighbors? How about those that hold opposite views and ideologies from us? Or how about those that the laws and policies of the land declare as “not belonging”? And how about those whose words and actions don’t show any signs of love and mercy? How about those that we think don’t deserve love or mercy?

Power and Primacy of Love

Love got Jesus crucified. Are we courageous enough to let the persuasive and sacrificing power of love do its work? It may take time beyond our own lifetimes. Yet simultaneously, are we willing to love one’s neighbor by doing work now to protect those that are targets of scapegoating, prejudice and hate, unjust policies and laws, intolerance, bigotry, discrimination, and resentment? Are we willing to set aside our own interests and our own security to do work to stop and change actions, official or otherwise, that cause harm, injury, and loss to someone, whether that harm and loss is physical, relational, or emotional?

In a post on the site Whosoever, Candace Chellew writes, “We either believe that love is stronger than hate, or we don’t. We can’t waffle on this issue…”, and “we must double down on our inner work of rooting out hatred and fear from our own hearts and minds.”[6]

“Who is my neighbor?” is perhaps a misdirected question.

Returning to one of the commentaries from earlier, the author writes,

The lawyer had wanted to know, “Who is my neighbor?” The question seeks definition. Where are the limits of one’s legal responsibility to love another as oneself? Is “neighbor” a geographical term? Is it an ethnic or tribal term? To answer the question of limits is also necessarily to comment on who exists beyond the definition. Maybe that is why Jesus does not answer the question asked by the lawyer. In the parable Jesus tells, he defines “neighbor” not as someone worthy to receive love but as someone able to offer it. Jesus leads the lawyer to the conclusion that neighbors are those who act in love toward others.[7]

Jesus told the lawyer and by extension, us, “Go and do likewise.” (Luke 10:37b CEB)

Offering your love, mercy, and compassion to your neighbor was an act of dissent then as it is now. It is a sign that Christians do not acquiesce to unjust leaders, laws, and demands.

In the name of God who Creates,

In the name of God who Loves,

And in the name of God who comforts the discomforted and discomforts the comfortable, Amen.

Works Cited

Bartlett, D. L., & Taylor, B. B. (2009). Feasting on the Word: Year C, Volume 1 (Preaching the Revised Common Lectionary). Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press.

Chellew, C. (2025, January 25). Be the Change... Within. Retrieved from Whosoever.: https://whosoever.org/be-the-change-within/

Dunn, J. D., & Rogerson, J. W. (2003). Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.

Jarvis, C. A., & Johnson, E. E. (2014). Feasting on the Gospels: Luke, Volume 1, Chapter 1-11. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press.

Smith, E. (2025, January 29). What would a federal freeze mean? Retrieved from Friendly Neighbor Epidemiologist: https://emilysmith.substack.com/p/what-would-a-federal-freeze-mean

 

 



[1] I modified the readings and sermon topic after reading “A Note to Clergy” at the end of (Smith, 2025).

[2] Let us recall 1 John where God is described as love itself.

[3] (Bartlett & Taylor, 2009)

[4] (Dunn & Rogerson, 2003)

[5] (Bartlett & Taylor, 2009)

[6] (Chellew, 2025)

[7] (Jarvis & Johnson, 2014)