An Elitist Mentality Part 3
Scripture: Luke 10:25-37
In September I stood before you and shared with you part two of my series titled “An Elitist Mentality.” This morning I want to conclude this series by showing you an extremely clear example of how this mentality can show up in a Christian and through that same example, show you how it should show up within a Christian. As a reminder, an elitist is “a person or class of persons considered superior by others or by themselves, as in intellect, talent, power, wealth, or position in society.” I will once again ask you to focus on that part of the definition “considered superior by themselves.” Please turn with me to Luke chapter ten which tells the story of the Good Samaritan.
“And a lawyer stood up and put Him to the test, saying, ‘Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?’ And He said to him, ‘What is written in the Law? How does it read to you?’ And he answered, ‘YOU SHALL 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 YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.’ And He said to him, ‘You have answered correctly; DO THIS AND YOU WILL LIVE.’ (Vss. 25-28)
This story opens with a lawyer asking Jesus the question pertaining to eternal life. The lawyer's first question was intended to ‘tempt’ Jesus, to determine either His Jewish beliefs and/or practices and Jesus walks calmly through the snare, as if not seeing it. His answer is unquestionably orthodox and suggested that the question was needless, since one (the lawyer) so learned in the law knew well enough what were the conditions of inheriting life contained within it. The lawyer knew the Law too well to be at a loss as to what to answer was. The lawyer’s reply was the same response that Jesus had actually given to the Pharisees when He had argued with them earlier (Matthew 22; Mark 12.) When the lawyer gave his reply Jesus told him he had gotten the answer correct. Jesus’ reply has a marked tone of authority which puts the lawyer in his right place. While his answer is commended, his actual practice is implicitly condemned by one who knows and has a right to judge. When Jesus told him “Do this and you will live” the lawyer knew that Jesus knew he was not doing this currently. The lawyer might have loved God but that other piece about loving your neighbor as yourself caused him to rethink his position. Let’s continue.
But wishing to justify himself, he said to Jesus, ‘And who is my neighbor?’ (Vs. 29) The lawyer feels the prick and as is his practice, he seeks to ‘justify’ his lifestyle – which we all so often do. He did not think that his love of God needed any further justification as he had fully done his duty there so he asks another question about who is his neighbor. Just like a lawyer he focuses on a question about the meaning of the word “neighbor.” Jesus answers with the lovely story of the Good Samaritan. In the Lawyer’s mind a neighbor was someone you knew and loved. Jesus gave him a deeper insight according to how God sees the relationship. The main purpose in the story Jesus tells him is to show how far off men may be and yet still be neighbors. The lawyer's question, ‘Who is my neighbor?’ is turned round the other way in Christ’s form of it at the close. It is better to ask ‘Whose neighbor am I?’ versus ‘Who is my neighbor?’ The lawyer wanted to know how far his obligation extended (which he had no intention of going an inch farther than he was obligated.) When you look at the lawyer’s question in reverse: “Whose neighbor am I?” we find that it really speaks to proactive actions versus reactive actions. If I consider myself to be everyone’s neighbor, I put myself out there to help before I am asked. However, if I pick and choose who “my” neighbors are, then in that process I pick and choose who I will help when called upon. Do you see the difference that Jesus was making with this lawyer?
He probably had in his thought the Rabbinical limitations which made it as much duty to ‘hate thine enemy’ as to ‘love thy neighbor.’ Probably, too, he accepted the national limitations, which refused to see any neighbors outside the Jewish people. As I stated earlier, ‘neighborhood,’ in his judgment, implied ‘nearness,’ and he wished to know how far off the boundaries of the region was included in this command. There are many people today who think just as this lawyer did that our obligation to others is a matter of geography, and that love can be bound by distance. But Christ’s way of putting the question sweeps all such limitations aside. Let’s read the example that Jesus told the lawyer in respond to his question as to who was his neighbor. Let’s continue with verse thirty.
“Jesus replied and said, ‘A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among robbers, and they stripped him and beat him, and went away leaving him half dead. And by chance a priest was going down on that road, and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. Likewise a Levite also, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan, who was on a journey, came upon him; and when he saw him, he felt compassion, and came to him and bandaged up his wounds, pouring oil and wine on them; and he put him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn and took care of him. On the next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper and said, 'Take care of him; and whatever more you spend, when I return I will repay you.' Which of these three do you think proved to be a neighbor to the man who fell into the robbers’ hands?’ And he said, ‘The one who showed mercy toward him.’ Then Jesus said to him, ‘Go and do the same.” (Vss. 10:30-37)
The story that Jesus tells the man is an illustration of the answer the lawyer was seeking and Jesus wanted the message to be convicting and as well as clearly understood. Every detail is adapted to bring out the lesson that the obligation of neighborly affection has nothing to do with nearness, race or religion, but is as wide as humanity. The wounded man was probably a Jew, but it is significant that his nationality is not mentioned. He is ‘a certain man,’ that is all. The first to come upon the injured man is a priest and a Levite. The divorce between religion and neighborliness was clearly shown in the conduct of the priest and Levite. Jericho was one of the priestly cities so there would be frequent travelers on priestly errands. The priest was ‘going down’ (that is from Jerusalem), so he could not claim to be on a ‘pressing public engagement’ at the Temple. The verbal repetition of the description of the conduct of both him and the Levite serves to suggest its commonness. They two did exactly the same thing and so would twenty or two hundred other ordinary passersby. They saw the man lying in a pool of blood and they made a wide circuit to avoid coming into contact with the man. Even though they clearly saw that he had been injured, in the face of such a sight they went on their way. Their mentality and response is one that an elitist would have – an elitist would not get involved in the situations of others who were beneath them. An elitist thinks that if someone is in need it’s probably their own fault and therefore they need to find their “own” way to fix their problem. This was clearly not the case with this man who had been robbed and beaten. We see that they were heartless but they did not see it. They viewed their actions as normal. Some of us do the same thing ourselves and again we do not see that we are doing it. Some of us have witnessed a few miseries which we could have done something about but left untouched because our hearts were unaffected or we viewed the situation as none of our business or not within our control. Think about how the world would be a changed place if every Christian attended to the sorrows that are plain before him. What we see in the response of the priest and Levite towards the injured man is the response that someone with an elitist mentality would have. What is important to see is that in this part of the story both the priest and the Levite actually had an obligation to help the man because he was one of them (a Jew) and yet they chose to ignore him. Let me tell you about the response of the Samaritan who had no obligation to help the man.
First notice that the Samaritan did not ask where the man was born before he helped him. He saw the man as a brother regardless of his nationality. In this story Christ teaches us that sorrow and need and sympathy and help are of no nationality. That lesson is still more strongly taught by making the helper a Samaritan. So that we can really understand the point Jesus was making, let’s say Jesus was speaking in the deep south of the United States in 1875 and He made the Samaritan a freed black man tending to the needs of a white slave owner who was traveling to the northern states when he was beaten and robbed. Can you see how one helping the other would seem too much for either to comprehend? The point I am making is that the person who helped the man by society’s standard should have been the last one to do so. It was a daring stroke on the part of Jesus to bring the despised name of ‘Samaritan’ into the story, and we can easily see how hard a morsel it was for the lawyer to swallow, by his unwillingness to name him when Jesus asked him pointedly who was the one who was the “true” neighbor of the injured man. We have not learned the deep, simple truth of this parable. It absolutely forbids all limitations of mercy and help. It makes every man the neighbor of every man. ‘Humanity’ is a purely Christian word, and a conception that was never dreamed of before Christ had showed us the unity of mankind. When Jesus asked the lawyer ‘Who became neighbor to the wounded man?’ he replied ‘He who showed mercy on him.’ The lawyer was unwilling to name the Samaritan – to even mention the name. By his very reluctance to say the name he proved the point which Jesus wished to bring out. We are not to love because we are neighbors in any geographical sense, but we become neighbors to the man farthest from us when we love and help him. The relationship has nothing to do with proximity. If we prove ourselves neighbors to any man by exercising love to him, then the relationship intended by the word is as wide as humanity.
Another aspect of the story is its lesson as to the true manifestations of neighborliness. The detailed account of the Samaritan's care for the half-dead man is not only graphic, but carries large lessons. Compassionate sentiments are very well. They must come first. The help that is given as a matter of duty, and not from the heart, will be worth little and will soon cease to flow. Also, our emotion that does not drive us to action and set to work to address the sorrows of others is worth still less. Our hearts continues to harden when our unexpressed feelings do not lead to action. The less we respond to the needs of others the harder it becomes to do so. Consider the fact that if the priest and Levite had gone up to the man, and said, “Ah, poor fellow, poor fellow, we are very sorry for you! Somebody ought to come and help you!” and then walked away without helping him, they would have been worse than they are painted as being in how they responded. In this case they would have acknowledged the man’s sorrows while also letting him know they were not going to do anything about it. What they did though was ignore the man and act like they did not see him. As a footnote to the priest and Levite’s responses, James 4:17 says when we know the right thing to do (action to take) and choose not do, for us that is sin.
The various acts of the Samaritan demonstrate the true love of caring for a neighbor. In the story we see the swift, cool-headed skillfulness of the man, his having at hand what he immediately needs to bandage the man’s injuries, the business-like way in which he goes about his kindness, his readiness to expend his wine and oil, his willingness to do the surgeon's work, his cheerful giving up of his 'own beast,' while he walked along on foot, steadying the wounded man on his beast; his care for him at the inn; his generosity, and in addition to his prudence in not leaving a great sum in the host's hands, but just enough to tide over a day or two, and his wise hint that he would audit the accounts when he came back. This man's quick compassion was blended with plenty of shrewdness, and was as practical as the hardest, least compassionate man could have been. What Jesus illustrates to us is that there is a need for organization, faculty, and common sense in the work of loving our neighbors. It causes great sadness and shame when our Christian charity is divorced from our Christian common-sense. The two work hand in hand together as was demonstrated in the story of the Good Samaritan. The Samaritan was a man of business, and he did his compassion in a business-like fashion, as we should try to do.
If we examine the actions of the priest, Levite and the Samaritan only one of them exhibited the attitude necessary for eternal life and he was not the one any of that time would have chosen. The priest and the Levite had both a moral and religious responsibility to help the man because he was a Jew and their brother. That was one of the significant points with Jesus adding in the Samaritan. The priest and the Levite were probably held in high esteem within their society and therefore although this beaten, robbed man was a brother, he was not really worth their time. Maybe they were scared, but that is not the impression that Jesus gave in the story. The impression that I walk away with is that they did not believe that they had any responsibility whatsoever to help this man even though they considered themselves children of God. This is an elitist mentality being demonstrated in its fullness. A person with this mentality will always evaluate the opportunity and if there was a way for it to benefit them. You see this when people give large donations to a church or charity with the condition that something is named after them or a plague is hung letting others know what they had done. Jesus says that those who do those types of things receive their rewards here on earth but not in heaven. (Matthew 6:2) Someone with an elitist mentality will struggle helping someone who is considered less then themselves.
The Good Samaritan, however, demonstrates Jesus’ desire for us. He had a moral responsibility but not necessarily a religious one because he was viewed by the Jews as an outcast. The Samaritan not only saw the man as a brother and in need of help, he stepped in and helped him. He transported him to a place where he could recuperate and then paid for whatever was needed to take care of the man in his absence. Today that would equate to taking a person to a hospital or clinic and then paying the bill for the person’s treatment. This is the example that Jesus gave us with this story – helping someone regardless of the relationship we might think we have with them. When you study the relationship between the Jews and the Samaritans you will find that the hatred between the two could rival some of the worst racist acts known today. Jesus gave the Jewish lawyer the worst imaginable thought – the thought of being helped by a Samaritan or being the one to help a Samaritan. When Jesus asked the man who was the man’s true neighbor the lawyer could not even say the word Samaritan which further showed what was in his heart. This lesson was not lost on the lawyer nor anyone else witnessing the interaction.
I want to close with this. The greatest commandment says “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength and all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself.” (Vs. 27) The word “and” joins these two great commandments together – loving God and loving your neighbor. They cannot be separated! What God hath joined let not man put asunder. That simple “and” which couples the two great commandments, expresses their indissoluble connection. We cannot do one without doing the other. When we finally find Jesus and truly accept Him as our Lord and Savior and receive the pity and the healing which we need, we are then able go forth into the world with love as wide as His. I want to make this very personal this morning. When you think about how you are living your lives and utilizing the resources God has placed within your control, what percentage of your resources are you using for His kingdom? I am not talking about what you give to the Church, but in all of your “charitable” activities, what percent of your resources are you using for him? If you stood before God today and He asked you to give an account of the resources he had placed within your control for His work, would you be embarrassed. Would it embarrass you if God told you that during your lifetime you had made $900,000 ($30,000 x 30 years) and you only utilized $18000 for Him (2%). This includes what you give to the church and your other charitable activities. Now you may ask, what does this matter? If you have an elitist mentality your resources support your mentality and you gather more resources to further this image. The priest and the Levite had the means to help the man but they chose not to utilize their resources in that fashion. They had a lifestyle and image to maintain. How you utilize your resources speak volumes about what is in your heart. Do you have an elitist mentality? Are you the priest, Levite or the Good Samaritan?
