It’s the difference between the correct answer and the beautiful answer.

great pic!

If our goal is love then we’ll probably end up loving.
if our goal is being right we may well end up self-righteous.
1 Cor 13:2 If I [...] have not love I am nothing.

Why not aim for both? Is there any reason trying to be right about the truth and trying to be loving should be mutual exclusive pursuits? Then we can have an answer that is both beautiful and correct.

Dave, I would offer that in love we are correct.

I would agree, as things are typed here. It seems implicit that the correct answer is not beautiful and the opposite.
The correct answer [love] is beautiful; but there was nothing beautiful about the Cross, humanly speaking. I believe we fall short on both accounts, because unlike Christ, we refuse to “die to self” on both accounts. We are either dogmatically correct or politically correct. “I” am still the focus of my reasoning in each case.

Dave,
Isn’t one of the points of the parable that the priest and the Levite were right – obeying the law, following the truth? And yet in their “rightness” they were in the wrong.
If in “being right” we fail to treat others with mercy and love, we are wrong …
It is possible to be loving
It is possible to be right and loving
It is not possible to be right without being loving

And as I consider the vast ethnic backgrounds of these people, and the cultural leaps that were made in order to love as the samaritan should, i am so bored with our current & benign definition of “love your neighbor”. We don’t even know what a neighbor is anymore, and as a result I wonder if we are growing farther from this practice that Jesus prescribed.

Did you mean “wash your hands _off_ a person” ? (Just trying to learn English)

RJS,
I agree that one of the points of the parable is that the priest and the levite were “right” in the sense of keeping the law but failed to love their neighbor. However, I think you’d agree that Jesus is not implying that there is no place for being right, obedience, etc. I think we need to be careful to seek both truth and love. In so doing we will best fulfill both parts of the great commandment.
Jonathan,
“I would offer that in love we are correct.” This sounds real good but how am I to love? Certainly there are things that I may think are loving that you may not. Who gets to decide what is loving and what isn’t?

I think the key word is “goal.”
There’s a reason why the phrase “speak the truth” always must be conditioned by the phrase “in love.”
If your primary aim is to be right, regardless of loving and affirming the dignity of the other, then you can accomplish that goal and immediately rid yourself of the burden of the other without failing.
When you aim at love, truth will come naturally. But it’s a truth that’s bigger and truer than just being right. And you can’t just move on to someone else if the other doesn’t accept the truth you show them, because true love doesn’t quit.

Kyle,
Yes, not an either-or but a partial vs. fullness response.

Scot,
I would go further than you I think. I think that Jesus is teaching that it is not possible to be right without being loving.
So loving is partial response
Truth or right plus loving is full response
Truth or right without love isn’t even partial – it is wrong. There is but one group in Gospels for whom Jesus has harsh words – those who think that it is possible, as an even partial response, to have truth or right without love.

RJS,
“I would go further than you I think. I think that Jesus is teaching that it is not possible to be right without being loving.”
Yes…on this we’re agreed as I said above. But is it not equally wrong to say that one is given to love with no regard for truth?
There MUST be both or love is not really love.

Good point, RJS and Dave. The unloving right thing is never the right thing.

Dave,
I think that we must aspire to both. As to whether we must have truth – that depends on what you mean by truth.
The verses immediately preceding this parable – leading into it say:

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.”But wishing to justify himself, he said to Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”

So Jesus is clearly affirming the necessity of a love of God – love for others without love of God is a problem. And love of God requires belief in God. So if by truth we mean belief in God the Maker of heaven and earth and in Jesus Christ who was was crucified, dead, and buried and rose again from the dead on the third day and in the Holy Spirit. I agree, we need truth.
Beyond this? Love springing from imperfect theology does little damage and much good.
Perfect theology without true love is not perfect theology, because it has missed the point.

My comments of course are general – without a specific example to provide a context to work through what this actually means in practice. And that is often the rub.

Yes. I have witnessed the attitude (or so I thought) that life is all about being RIGHT. And those engaged in it were only selectively loving. But if you brought up LOVE, that would always be the pushbutton in their minds that you are watering down truth, or not seeing all in black and white.
So I saw clearly some time back that to be right includes being loving- as in loving God and others (the Jesus Creed)- or one is not right at all.

“Perfect theology without true love is not perfect theology, because it has missed the point.”
Well said.
“Love springing from imperfect theology does little damage and much good.”
I think the NT writers take imperfect theology pretty seriously. God may use the love shown by an imperfect theologian to accomplish His good purposes. But I think that the NT is clear that I am accountable for what I believe regardless of what I my best intentions.
I guess I would say that I should not be so quick to judge the motives of others whose theology I may deem insufficient. But personally before God I’d better hold myself to a high standard before God for the things I believe and teach even as I do things that I deem loving. My love is no excuse for ignoring what God has revealed.

I confess, I haven’t even read the post yet. Where did you find that picture? I love it! Okay to post it on my blog?

-
-
If your goal is being right, then you can’t wash your hands of someone. If you do, you are not right. If you are not loving, you are not right

If you love God and want to help man you cannot walk away. God wants us to be each others keepers. We all talk about doing the right thing but so few actually do it.

The Samaritan had the Jesus Creed flowing through his veins.

Dave #19 “I think the NT writers take imperfect theology pretty seriously…” You’re in good company here Dave. Many agree with you, I’m pretty sure. However, read Jesus’s answer to the lawyer again. There’s no mention of perfect or imperfect theology, only love of God and love of one’s fellow man. “Imperfect theology” has been and is the perfect reason to justify man’s inhumanity to man of every description for those who have found the idol of perfect theology.
Doug

I don’t have a full understanding of the story of Good Samaritan
before i read this blog but now i fully understand now.This is LukeJohn7 declaring that I too is a Good Samaritan in the full sense
of the word,i don’t want to relate my story by the times i ve been
a good samaritan and will die as one for God is good all the time
an it shall be manifested!Everyone have chance to be good samaritan and it will take an open heart to be called as one.thank you and i hope everyone is clarified by my view of being a good samaritan.sometimes,it is hard to extend a helping hand to someone
not opening his mouth to ask for help,i can easily figure out if someone really needs my help by looking inside my heart though so
i am glad that i bear the seal of being AGSW(agoodsamaritanwoman…)

I believe that everyone in this world is broken in one way, shape, or form whether it be physically, financially, mentally, or emotionally. It’s up to those who are less broken to take care of those who are more broken. We are all brothers and sisters in Christ and it is our job to help each-other through this journey on earth to get to our final destination, to be with Jesus. It should not be for “brownie points” or credit or recognition or favor. It should be because we are God’s family and it is our responsibility! Our salvation cannot be bought; Jesus already paid the price for it. It is a free gift to us when we believe in our hearts and confess with our mouth. So we do what we do out of love and give God the glory!

i think part of the challenge is jesus wants us to be the heretic. samaritans were historical and religious enemies of the jews. they were even considered unclean by the jews. jesus is saying that we should not be so quick to save our theology or reputations (if the priest or levite would have touched the man they would have been deemed as dirty or unclean; lost their reputation in the community), but that compassion allows us to break the rules. interestingly enough god breaks his own rules a lot in scripture. again, it is too easy to become slaves to the shadow of what was to come and not surrender to the real thing. who is my neighbour would is something we should continue asking in light of the current upheaval worldwide…