Who is my neighbor? That question is put to Jesus by a lawyer, or teacher of the law, in Luke 10:29. Jesus’ answer is remembered as perhaps the most famous of Jesus’ parables, the parable of the “good Samaritan”. The parable is given in Luke 10:25-37, specifically verses 30-36.
Twice this week, I have noticed this parable being aptly applied to the current abortion debates. Matthew P. Ristuccia, a pastor in Princeton, NJ, wrote a guest column in World Magazine (Jan. 21, 2006 edition), with the title “Who is my neighbor?” and the subtitle “Consider the unborn, the near-dead, and the easily forgotten” (read the whole article here). He states, “Today we might ask, ‘Is that shape on the ultrasound my neighbor?’ I would say that the shape on the ultrasound is our most defenseless, vulnerable, and innocent neighbor. Then comes a follow-up question: ‘Shall I do for my unborn neighbor what I would have wanted done for me?‘” The answer to this second question makes this parable’s application to the abortion issue especially poignant and meaningful to us all.
But before I read Pastor Ristuccia’s column this week, I heard my pastor John Piper preach a message from this same passage entitled, “Love Your Unborn Neighbor”. Pastor Piper labored to communicate “one crucial thing” from this passage; namely that “Jesus tells a story that changes the question from What kind of person is my neighbor? to What kind of person am I? He changes the question from What status of people are worthy of my love? to How can I become the kind of person whose compassion disregards status?”
Let me allow Piper to develop his own point here by quoting a few paragraphs from his sermon (the full copy of which is available here).
“Let’s make sure we see this and then apply it. A lawyer asks in verse 25 about how to inherit eternal life. He is not sincere. It says he is testing Jesus. Jesus puts the question back to him in verse 26 to reveal the duplicity. What does the Law say? He answers in verse 27 that we should love God will all our heart and our neighbor as ourselves. Jesus exposes him by saying in effect: So you already know the answer. He sees that he has been exposed and needs to cover up his hypocrisy and so verse 29 says, “Desiring to justify himself, said to Jesus, “˜And who is my neighbor?'” In other words, it’s not so easy, Jesus. Life is complicated””like, which kind of people do we have to love? Who qualifies for being a neighbor in the command, “Love your neighbor” ? Every race? Every age. The unborn?
Now how will Jesus answer? He does not like this question. Carving humanity up into groups some of whom are worthy of our love and others are not. Jesus does not answer the question, “Who is my neighbor?” He tells a parable that changes the question.
Between Jerusalem and Jericho a man falls among robbers and verse 30 says they “stripped him and beat him and departed, leaving him half dead.” The first two people to pass by are a priest and a Levite””the most religious folks””and they both pass by on the other side (vv. 31, 32). Then came a Samaritan, not even a Jew, and the key phrase about this man is at the end of verse 33: “he had compassion.”
You see how the focus has shifted. The question about what kind of man is dying is not even in the story any more. The whole focus is now on the kind of people who are walking by. The first two felt no compassion. The Samaritan was a different kind of person. So when you get to the end, what’s the question Jesus asks? Was it, “So was the wounded man a neighbor?” No. That is not the question. Jesus asked the lawyer (v. 36), “Which of these three do you think proved to be a neighbor to the man who fell among the robbers?” The lawyer said in verse 37, “The one who showed him mercy.” And Jesus said to him, “You go, and do likewise.”
No answer to his question: Who is my neighbor? Instead: Go become a new kind of person. Go get a compassionate heart. This is exactly what Jesus died for….”[Read the entire sermon here]
The point of this parable strongly weighs in on our own personal involvement in the abortion issue. Are we such a loving kind of person, that we would seek to be involved in preventing the brutal murder of countless unborn neighbors? Are we so loving that if there is even a chance that the “shape on the ultrasound” (to borrow Ristuccia’s phrase) is human and thus is being mercilessly killed, that we would lovingly stand up against the practice of abortion?
Piper brings this point home in this way, “When all of the arguments are said and done about the status of pre-born human life and whether the unborn qualify for our compassion along with mommy and daddy and grandma and granddadd–when we are done trying to establish, ‘Is this my neighbor?’–the decisive issue of love remains: What kind of person am I? Does compassion rise in my heart for both mommy and daddy and grandma and graddaddy and this unborn baby? Or do I just get another coke and change the channel?”
In this issue as in many others, let us determine to plead for God’s grace that we might become loving, merciful, even compassionate people–the kind of people who will risk their reputation and their money in helping the poor and oppressed, and standing up for the life of the unborn.
∼striving for the unity of the faith for the glory of God∼ Eph. 4:3,13 “¢ Rom. 15:5-7
Exellent observations, Bob. Your application of Christ’s parable is, I believe, thoroughly fitting and appropriate. How can we stand idly by when another evil and egregious holocaust is being carried out in our midst? One thing I have lately noticed, as we have been studying the prophets in our institute classes, is that a refusal to help the poor and needy is continually given a more strong and thorough condemnation and promise of judgment than almost any other sin. I know I need to take this to heart, and I think all of us who are Christians would do well to consider these truths.
Jesus said, When you have done this to the least of these my brethren, you have done it to me.
I believe that also includes our unborn brothers and sisters in Christ. Great post.
Hey Bob, I endorse the idea that believers are responsible for Scripturally opposing murder in our land, lest we be partakers through our silence. This is why the last two years we have participated in passing out thousands of anti-abortion evangelistics tracts, probably in the realm of 6,000 during the San Francisco pro-life rally. By the way, we didn’t pass out a list of standards for them to keep, and I didn’t remind anyone that if they come to an independent Baptist church, no criticism of the Pastor must occur.
I just pulled out your Christmas card of 03, almost exactly two years ago. You said this: “You and Pastor Sutton were very instrumental in my salvation (2 Tim. 2:24-26). . . .Also, thank you for the humility it takes to be “critiqued” by me and for sharing your insight in many things with me. . . .I couldn’t ask for a better Pastor, a church, to model in the ministry God may have for me someday.” This stands in stark contrast to many parts of your story. I didn’t want to keep typing more, or I would have put everything else, which even backed more up. There is a major contradiction here that either speaks of someone intentionally deceiving or something else. Thomas Ross has added his answer to your story as well, and I’m attempting to include a link to it.
My emails and Thomas’ post finish my communications with you. Everyone should know that in light of this quest of Bob to find the truth, he never once called the person that by his own admission (1) most influenced his personal salvation, (2) was the best pastor he could ask for, and (3) patiently took all of his “critiques.” You may wonder why he says, “critiques.” I stood carefully and silently listening to a barrage of pointed and often challenging questions and answered them all for Bob. Before you left, I predicted that you would (1) Go to Pipers and (2) Harangue the pastor of the church you would attend. You said definitely not. My prediction was exactly true. Your words were not. You have asked me for Scriptural refutation in your email. Thomas has taken the time, so I haven’t needed to. As you know, he and I don’t agree based on some conspiracy. He thinks on his own. It’s not like you didn’t have your opportunity when you were here. You met in my house with me regularly for third year Greek (for free) and you sat through every sermon, usually having questions after every sermon. Do you get the same attention from Piper?
Bob, we’ve always about God’s best for you. I would not have chased you down like this, if you hadn’t decided with this new knowledge to use it to attempt publically to discredit a whole group. I’m not stupid, Bob. It’s easy to see you have done that with the name of your blog, its purpose, etc., treating IFB like a cult or addiction for which you are the self-help group. You don’t deserve to be a spokesman for this “cause.” You should quietly go about your business instead of making a big public show of it. If you did that, I wouldn’t have gotten involved any more than Thomas’ letter.
Alright, that’s it. I dust my feet of you.
The contradiction of which you speak does not exist. My letter posted on this blog (here) makes clear that I have since come to some different positions than I had then. That letter also displays no animosity to you or your church, but rather I point out how I came to accept some differing positions. I clearly explain both my motivation and process involved in coming to those positions. It is plain for all to see.
I have no vendetta against you and your church. I do sincerely thank God for many things I learned while there, and for the way in which you instructed and dealt with me. I have since come to doubt my conclusions then about my “conversion” experience. I do thank you though for how you dealt with that situation. However, I remain unconvinced that my departure from independent Baptist fundamentalism was wrong.
I wish you God’s blessing in your ministry. I hope you will wish God’s best for me, even if we continue to hold contradictory positions in some points. I will stand up for my beliefs, and I am sure anyone can check out your blog and church ministry and find you are standing up for yours.
One more thing, because I attempted to reply to your assumption on the following page which someone informed me about. You shouldn’t assume anything Bob, especially in public. By doing so, you purposefully attempt to stain my reputation. Second, you are fine to share anything you want with your brother, David, in the way of my private email to you, but that doesn’t ethically open it up to anyone else. Third, for the sake of anonymous, what’s the point of attempting to guess if the point of anonymity is not knowing? Why have an anonymous function on your blog if you think it will make any difference in the discussion. Everyone who speaks with anonymity should know that you might attempt to “out” them.
Know this though, many, many things I know about you I choose not share with those who don’t already know about it. Your story presents you as a hero, which would lose a whole lot if people really knew you. They should know these things about you, even for the sake of people who had to keep an eye on you to help keep you from doing some of the things you did. I’m not saying you don’t have potential. You have loads, but I would recommend to anyone like you to wait before he starts opening his mouth publically, but you can’t stop. People who have done what you have done normally are not very quickly put into positions in legitimate institutions to tell other people what to do. “Lay hands on no man suddenly.” I refuse to comment on anything else. I’m determined this is it, unless someone chooses to say something slanderous.
Let me clarify a few things here, to give my point of view.
I do not resent the fact that Pastor Brandenburg does not agree with my positions. And I will not divulge publicly the content of his private correspondence to me.
As far as critiquing goes, Pastor Brandenburg referred to it as “shop talk”. He was noticeably at ease with these conversations, actually enjoying them. A few (few not many) times I may have overstepped my ground and a few times was corrected in this regard.
Pastor Brandenburg mentions that he predicted my joining with Piper. He did. I denied his question at the time (something like “are you sure you aren’t moving so that you can go join Piper?”) and honestly did not intend to do so. I contend God directed me later to do this, and even after I left the church I first attended in MN I was loathe to actually think of joining Piper’s church, still wanting to remain connected to the IFB movement, or remain aloof from anything like mainstream evangelicalism.
As far as “haranguing” the pastor at the church I went to, Pastor Brandenburg did caution me about doing that, or about coming across in a way that I did not mean to come across (that is, critical rather than desiring to learn). My wife attests that I did not critique or harrangue the pastor of the church we attended in MN. I was very conscientious to avoid that.
As far as not seeking out Pastor Brandenburg’s advice in my decisions, this works both ways. Pastor Brandenburg said as we parted that we could maintain communication. We did not. We both are to blame, obviously. But after several months of no contact, it becomes more difficult for me to envision initiating contact again with the kinds of concerns I had. I had heard many of his arguments for his positions and sincerely felt I understood what he would say. I may have been wrong not to at least discuss this with him. But after he found out about this change of ours, he never contacted me at all, until he found out about my blog.
I understand his letting Thomas deal with me doctrinally, and I have interracted with Thomas. (Thomas’s posted letter is obviously only one side of the correspondence. I plan on posting about that interchange soon.) But I still feel he should have initiated at least some correspondence with me personally, soon after he heard of our departure.
I understand that Pastor Brandenburg feels I should not host this blog. I also understand his reasoning for being so against my positions. However, I believe this blog has helped me and might help others, and by blogging I am not attempting to set myself in a position of authority. I am merely sharing what I have learned and passing on what I think are helpful resources. Any reader of this blog has the right and responsibility to read it discerningly.
Once again, I intend to harbor no ill will against Pastor Brandenburg and the people of his church. I pray they will faithfully seek Christ’s approval in all they do and do all they can to advance His honor, glory, and kingdom. I will attempt to do the same. I do not desire to break off all communications with them, and still believe we could have profitable unity in at least some regards. But I can understand if Pastor Brandenburg wants to just drop any continued conversation. I can respect that.
In Christ,
Bob Hayton
The correspondance from Pastor Brandenburg is typical of fundalmentalists of all stripes. They are so bent on the ‘letter of the Law’ they forget the more important teaching on loving one another while differing on theological issues. They seem to be quite busy removing the splinter from everyone else’s eye and forgetting the log jam in their own! May we all examine ourselves…….