An Activist Faith Week 3: In Defense of Altruism, or "What Will Happen to Them?"
Reflections on "On Being a Good Neighbor"
Luke 10:29-37 (NRSVUE):
29 But wanting to vindicate himself, he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?” 30 Jesus replied, “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho and fell into the hands of robbers, who stripped him, beat him, and took off, leaving him half dead. 31 Now by chance a priest was going down that road, and when he saw him he passed by on the other side. 32 So likewise a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33 But a Samaritan while traveling came upon him, and when he saw him he was moved with compassion. 34 He went to him and bandaged his wounds, treating them with oil and wine. Then he put him on his own animal, brought him to an inn, and took care of him. 35 The next day he took out two denarii, gave them to the innkeeper, and said, ‘Take care of him, and when I come back I will repay you whatever more you spend.’ 36 Which of these three, do you think, was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of the robbers?” 37 He said, “The one who showed him mercy.” Jesus said to him, “Go and do likewise.”
King, “On Being a Good Neighbor:” “‘I imagine that the first question which the priest and the Levite asked was: “If I stop to help this man, what will happen to me?’ But by the very nature of his concern, the good Samaritan reversed the question: ‘If I do not stop to help this man, what will happen to him?’”
Despite considering myself a committed Christian, I will admit that I sometimes (okay, maybe often) raise an eyebrow when reading takes by other Christians on social issues. We all encounter situations where worldviews collide with reality, but I often shake my head when I see fellow siblings in Christ continue to hold on to worldview over reality in what strikes me as being more obstinate than realistic. For example, I’ve run across theological arguments that empathy is sinful but compassion is entirely different (because Jesus displays compassion). From what I understand, they define empathy as going further than compassion, risking endorsing people’s sinful behavior by feeling what they feel whereas Jesus, while supportive of people, never supported their sins.
To me, though, that entirely feels like splitting hairs. I’m not a theologian, so I don’t trust myself to dismantle these claims on religious grounds, though it’s by no means settled doctrine (counterargument here; defense here). People’s worldviews are their own, and I’m not much of a philosopher/will readily admit that I can lose my footing in theoretical discussions. However, my take is that Christians often don’t care enough about others rather than too much about them; and I myself find myself regretting the times I displayed too little care/concern and rarely the times I displayed too much concern.
And the negative takes surrounding empathy feel related to what I’ve run into in regards to dismissing altruism (and there’s of course some connection with Ayn Rand). In short, this take emphasizes that we’re to ultimately glorify God, so do good in that vein. While not nearly as sophisticated, I grew up thinking that altruism was antithetical to faith, elevating self/desire for good deeds over faithful living. Of course, this doesn’t actually lead to much practical difference: churches still sought to do food drives, just with the added tagline of “for Christ;” much like even empathy-deniers will still readily purport the values of compassion (which is why I say it feels like splitting hairs).
Which brings us to the Parable of the Good Samaritan and King’s sermon. Offhand, I think this sermon is one of King’s most exegetical ones (and I totally had to look up how to convey exegesis as an adjective). If I had to deliver a King sermon in a church setting I was unfamiliar with and I didn't want to risk upsetting people, I’d probably pivot to this one because here it’s pretty dense with Scripture and reflections on the parable (regardless of compassion/empathy or worship/altruism, the text extols good deeds for strangers without monetary benefit).
And I’d start this message by breaking down how the Good Samaritan demonstrates what King calls “universal,” “dangerous,” and “excessive” altruism. Altruism, according to King, must extend beyond the people we know to cover others from different backgrounds, worldviews, and view them as “molded in the same divine image.” In a cultural faith where things like biological sex, political leanings, and (though less loudly) race continue to have an impact, King’s basic message is that we’re to continue to seek connecting points rather than let ourselves be walled off by differences: to sincerely seek the other’s good rather than build them as, well, “Other” and to fear how they could destabilize our status quo.
And when it comes to danger, reading King’s sermon is where I first had this passage come to life in full force. King, drawing on his own seminary training, points out that the Jericho Road is basically the Bible-times equivalent of the dark alley in dangerous neighborhood setting: so the travelers are likely traveling with their guards up. King points out that it’s not just being inconvenienced for the Priest and the Levite and that they’re likely afraid: maybe robbers are nearby, maybe the beaten man is faking his injuries. And, according to King, those are justifiable fears that fuel the idea that “what could happen to me?” Yet the Samaritan simply flips the equation around: “If I do not stop to help this man, what will happen to him?”
And I really appreciate that formulation because it brings home the actual challenge in the passage: in theoretical roleplays where danger is minimal, we can always purport to do the right thing, but when the rubber hits the road end up taking the expedient path that leads to little fuss or trouble. I think it’s fair, and even good, to note that taking a step of faith to help someone else can lead to sacrifice of cost, reputation, even safety: things that are valuable and precious.
Which leads to the last point about “excessive” altruism: the Samaritan goes above and beyond in providing for the injured. King makes the point here that the Samaritan doesn’t merely “pity” the merchant, but that he “sympathizes,” noting that he went himself to bind up the man’s wounds. King also notes that “money devoid of love is like salt devoid of savor, good for nothing.”
Oftentimes I think of this in terms of food insecurity: I’ve never (thankfully) had pushback when I bring up the point in a church (it’s a very biblical idea to feed the hungry), and actually every church I’ve been a part of has done concrete things like food drives. But my empathy (there’s that word again) about this, I think, only came online through actual exposure and volunteering, thanks to church mentors who challenged sheltered high school/college me to view the world outside: seeing the people who actually come and use these services. And in Santa Clara County, where one in six people are food insecure, I’ll admit sometimes I’m taken aback when, for example, I see a Lexus be in line for food. However, it makes me realize only that fortunes can change for the seemingly-upwardly mobile, and that there’s a lot a lot of people around here scraping to make ends meet. Rather than judge who’s “deserving” and who’s “undeserving” of my assistance, I think the idea here is to sympathize even with those who were, perhaps, just one bad break away from enjoying a much more affluent lifestyle than I have.
And finally, I’d offer the disclaimer that King also had issues with altruism, but they’re from the other side where altruistic good deeds sometimes prevent actual policy solutions. A month before the Montgomery bus boycott, King preached “The One-Sided Approach of the Good Samaritan,” observing: “Jesus told the story for one purpose only, and we are not to take it as a total description of our social responsibility.” We should, according to not-yet-famous King, be mindful to “to tear down unjust conditions and build anew instead of patching things up,” clearing the “road of its robbers as well as caring for the victims of robbery.” Going back to King the historical figure, he didn’t just pal around with white people and fix racism through individual conversion: he went to jail dozens of times, was away from his family like over half the year, and constantly courted danger because he sought structural solutions and overturning the status quo. And food insecurity today isn’t going to be solved by spending a few hours over the weekend or donating small amounts of money to food banks isn’t going to address the cost of living around here, despite what one crank running for national office says to the candidate who’s actually been unhoused: policy and activism matter too.
But to end with returning to more theologically conservative takes, I don’t think King’s take on altruism has much to disagree with: King’s encouragement of altruism, after all, is really about maximizing the part about good deeds for others rather than the philosophical point about whether it’s about stoking your own ego or in defense of God’s glory or truly for others’ benefit. And I’d argue, as the non-philosophically minded person in the room, regardless of whether it’s compassion/empathy or worship/altruism, the general goal should be to generate more of it, whatever it is. And that’s hard enough that maybe the focus should be on encouraging it instead of these navel-gazing exercises.