For reasons I'd rather not go into detail about, I still attend Church. Today's lesson was the Good Samaritan. I very nearly accidentally outed myself when I corrected the person giving the lesson.

The Gospel Doctrine teacher was reading the following parable of the Good Samaritan (skip the next paragraph if you already know it):

"A certain man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he fell among robbers, who both stripped him and beat him, and departed, leaving him half dead. By chance a certain priest was going down that way. When he saw him, he passed by on the other side. In the same way a Levite also, when he came to the place, and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a certain Samaritan, as he traveled, came where he was. When he saw him, he was moved with compassion, came to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. He set him on his own animal, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him. On the next day, when he departed, he took out two denarii, and gave them to the host, and said to him, 'Take care of him. Whatever you spend beyond that, I will repay you when I return.' Now which of these three do you think seemed to be a neighbor to him who fell among the robbers?"

He said, "He who showed mercy on him."

The Gospel Doctrine teacher elaborates, "Who is who is this story?" (No response).

"Ok I'll help you," he says. The beaten man represents Christ. The people who passed him by represents the world. The world today ignores Christ and leaves him for dead. Of course we do not. We teach of Christ. We hope in Christ."

Lots of nodding.

He goes on, "Who are we in this story?" (more silence). We, brothers and sisters, are the innkeeper. It is our duty to take Christ in. We play the role of the innkeeper when we accept the Gospel into our lives."

He then goes of on a tangent about the nativity story and there being no room at the inn.

He concludes with, "who was the Samaritan?" This time a hand goes up.

"Yes?" He calls on the woman whose hand is up.

"The Samaritan is all who accept the truth of the Gospel."

"Correct!" He replies.

This is the part where I very nearly out myself. I raise my hand and say, "Actually, I think this kind of overlooks what this parable is about." All eyes turn toward me.

I continue, "Yes, I think that Christ is making a different point entirely."

"What do you mean brother Black."

"Christ was not establishing a church. He was criticizing one. In fact what he was saying was probably quite offensive to most who heard it."

"I don't think it would have been offensive. He was just encouraging people to come to him," replies our now somewhat confused teacher.

"Yes, you're right, he was. All people. I think this parable would have been offensive to the Jews and their leaders. Allow me to retell this story as it would have sounded to a Jew at the time."

I read and change a few words. "A certain man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he fell among robbers, who both stripped him and beat him, and departed, leaving him half dead. By chance the Bishop was going down that way. When he saw him, he passed by on the other side. In the same way an Elder's Quorum President also, when he came to the place, and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a certain non-member, as he traveled, came where he was. When he saw him, he was moved with compassion, came to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. He set him on his own animal, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him. On the next day, when he departed, he took out his credit card, and gave them to the host, and said to him, 'Take care of him. Whatever you spend beyond that, I will repay you when I return.' Now which of these three do you think seemed to be a neighbor to him who fell among the robbers?"

A few in the room look shocked, but some are nodding in agreement.

I continue, "I think the point Christ was making in this parable was this; your title doesn't mean anything. I think what the parable was saying is that religion has less to do with what your social status is, and a lot more to do with how you treat those around you. I think Christ was saying that righteousness isn't defined by rank or title. It's defined by action."

Several nods. Some glares.

I stopped short of saying, "what Christ is saying was the Samaritan, the non-member, the unclean one, the one outside of the covenant, was a better neighbor than the high-ranking people within it."

I think a few inferred that part anyway. What is surprising is how many agree with me.

I make no claim that what I said today was an original idea by me. I'm sure it wasn't. I seem to recall reading it somewhere. In fact, that's probably why I was able to say it.

If I keep this up (and continue to drink coffee in public), a future post will no doubt be my exit story. Perhaps I can take a few with me.

Hopefully your comments will make them realize the interpretations vary.

This is why I'm not a fan of parables. They can be made to mean anything to anyone.

All they do is validate whatever "interpretation" someone wants to give them, and they think the Bible is agreeing with them.

Well done. At least you gave them something to think about.

I'm always astounded how creative people get with scriptures making them fit whatever people want to justify.

dagny Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hopefully your comments will make them realize the
> interpretations vary.
>
> This is why I'm not a fan of parables. They can be
> made to mean anything to anyone.
>
> All they do is validate whatever "interpretation"
> someone wants to give them, and they think the
> Bible is agreeing with them.
>
> Well done. At least you gave them something to
> think about.
>
> I'm always astounded how creative people get with
> scriptures making them fit whatever people want to
> justify.

I think the point of parables is exactly what you don't like-that there can be varied interpretations. The point is to make you think. However, I do think the interpretation given in the OP's post is a bit of a stretch. However, thinking and discussing is good and I suspect that is what Jesus had in mind. Otherwise, he would have used a different method of instruction.

...the Mormon version of the good Samaritan story a few weeks or months ago. Perhaps others have done it before me. What most people don't realize is that the Samaritans were the despised people of Jesus's day.

My story was based on the work of theologian John Dominic Crossan. It's been many years since I read his work, but in his book, "The Dark Interval" he talks about how many people tend to think of Jesus's parables as comfortable little stories. But instead, Crossan makes the argument that the parables were meant to be very UNcomfortable stories that challenged listeners' most deeply held beliefs.

You did a great job! :-)

The Man in Black Wrote:

>
> A few in the room look shocked, but some are
> nodding in agreement.
>
> I continue, "I think the point Christ was making
> in this parable was this; your title doesn't mean
> anything. I think what the parable was saying is
> that religion has less to do with what your social
> status is, and a lot more to do with how you treat
> those around you. I think Christ was saying that
> righteousness isn't defined by rank or title. It's
> defined by action."
>
> This is straight Catholic (Christian) theology! While we do believe Christ founded a church, it wasn't during the telling of a parable. The parables were the tools Jesus used to teach his followers (and us, two thousand years later) how to behave and about the nature of God and heaven.

Which means you scored a bullseye. And that people agree with you means they recognize truth. For Christians, it is a direct reference to the Golden Rule--'Do unto others. . . ' And even an atheist can agree: belief in God and religion aside, how you treat others matters.

Keep teaching those teachers! Isn't is a saying that teachers have, they're always taught more by their students than they teach them????

And spot on as well.

The parable was clearly about those thinking they are righteous being unrighteous and those assumed to be unrighteous being righteous.

Even as a nonbeliever (of a deity) I still like that story because it's about making your actions ethical and avoiding preconceptions of another's worth.

:)

I have always interpreted that parable the way you did... that it was more of a warning for church leaders and members to be charitable and not caught up in church hierarchy.

I just looked it up in the Talmage's "old school" Jesus the Christ, and I see no reference to "the church" being the good and honorable guy, either. In fact, Talmage criticizes the pious, church-going people.

Regardless, good for you. Mormons are way too quick to take credit for things not attributed to them.

Ditto.

MIB, I think it's cool how you grounded the conversation back to a more provocative, meaningful message.

I appreciate your interpretation of the parable. I agree with nwmcare that you are closer to basic Christian theology than the class teacher!

A little of my own understanding. The man left for dead didn’t need religion or status as represented by the priest and the Levite. He couldn’t save himself. Religious observance couldn’t save him. Status and position in society couldn’t save him. He needed a savior, who came in the most unexpected form – a despised Samaritan who gave mercy the dying man had not earned and could not repay. The Samaritan represents Christ.

The inn keeper represents the local church to whom Christ has entrusted those he saves until his return. The local church is charged with fostering the dying man’s healing and continuing to nurture the man’s resurrected life. But the local is church is never to take credit for saving the dying man's life, that belongs to Christ.

The teacher completely changed the meaning. Good thing you were there to set the record straight!

The point of the parable is as The Man in Black says: "...religion has less to do with what your social status is, and a lot more to do with how you treat those around you... righteousness isn't defined by rank or title. It's defined by action."

You will find it harder and harder to go to church I think.

I started doing the same thing as you, correcting the, "Aren't moromons the greatest" comments in class.

When I'd be getting lessons on how awful, ___ fill in the blank with a group that isn't mormon enough, people are... I'd be the one saying something about wasn't Christ inclusive, didn't he hang out with prostitutes? The lesson would screech to a halt, and take a minute to get back on track.

The more I brought my own attention to it, the more difficult it became to just sit through it; it happens so often when you start noticing it.

You will probably become so attuned to it that it will be torture to keep going and be quiet.

The last time my wife and I went to church, it wasn't planned to be the last time. I spoke up again in class, and she grabbed my leg in a "shut up" way. It embarrasses her enough that she didn't want to go back for a little bit. A bit became a long time, and eventually she caught up with me and didn't want to go back either.

It's been hard to go for a long time. Ultimately what drove me from the Church is that I'm sharp-witted and very smart. I don't mean that arrogantly there are certainly smarter people than me out there, some on this board. I'm just unable to double-think anymore.

DW is teetering I can see it. She makes comments about the lessons like, "who wrote this crap" and, "I hate young women's." Once she comes around fully I'll have no more ties to this stuff. I'll post my (and I hope her) exit story and likely change my moniker to my real name. Even then, I will still wear black :-).

It is also worth pointing out that the priests were not necessarily too proud to help.

There are purification laws against touching a dead person. While the priests did in fact pass by on the other side, they also may have been forbidden to touch the body, had it been dead and they would have been unable to perform their temple rites for many days.

Nevertheless, the Samaritan did go beyond the religious men and did wait upon and rescue a man in need.

You did right to rescue the lesson and to teach correct principles.

JoD3:360 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It is also worth pointing out that the priests
> were not necessarily too proud to help.
>
> There are purification laws against touching a
> dead person. While the priests did in fact pass by
> on the other side, they also may have been
> forbidden to touch the body, had it been dead and
> they would have been unable to perform their
> temple rites for many days.

This is precisely why Jesus made his fellow Jews so uncomfortable! Here he was, pointing out that they were more worried about the following works of the Law to the letter than living God's Word.

Jesus was addressing the Pharisees, the priestly class who were more worried about doing it right than was everyone (whom they were supposed to be serving) doing okay. Sounds a lot like WoW and keeping your tithing up to date doesn't it?

Theologically speaking, there is a whole lot going on in that parable--and none of it has anything to do with what was originally heard! Again I say good for the Man in Black!

Man in Black - well done thy good and faithful servant, well done.

Anyone have the teacher's lesson manual handy?? I would be curious to know if TSCC has actually co-opted a main-stream christian bible story for its own purposes IN PRINT. Yup, like to see a copy of that. The meaning of the Samaritan story is not in question. To twist this story is about as offensive as saying that the whole point of the crucifixion is to show how one gives his life for his membership in the TSCC.

Back when I was attending occasionally I would ask an uncomfortable question. There would be grave silence- letting me know the seriousness of my faux pas- then moving on as if I had not spoken. Of course, I am a woman so my failure to understand these great mysteries was understood.

For example, "Isn't it wonderful how tscc is redoing the scriptures again, to keep them more in line with each other and even better." Allwhowander, "But they are the most perfect books in the world, why do they need to be changed?" (Incidentally this was exactly the issue that started my progress out. No one could answer that question. And I asked it of many. Of course now I know why!)

But I never followed up in the meetings and went on the way you did. I just bowed my head and said "Baaaa" the way I was supposed to. Excellent job! You make us proud!