questions from "The Orthodox Heretic"

Here are some of the questions that I draw from the story of "The Orthodox Heretic".

The first point the town leaders bring up is that they need to return the man to the government he escaped from so that the rest of the town is not endangered. They know that this man will be punished by the authorities, but they believe that it has to be done or the entire town will suffer. In their view, the good of many outweighs the good of one. The caretaker, however, is more concerned with the needs of this man he has rescued. His view is not a selfish one of "my good is higher than the good of all", but is completely unselfish in that he is willing to suffer to protect this criminal. He believes that as a community, the needs of the most vulnerable should be the concern of the entire town, and that nobody in the town is okay if even one member is not okay.

"The good of the many outweighs the good of the few" is a very dominant philosophy in the US, especially when it comes to the systems our country is built on. But these assumptions are currently under heavy discussion, from government to business to military to foreign aid. How does the circumstance of the few affect the many? What are alternative understandings of the relationship between the many and the few? As Christians, how do we find our position impacted by the Bible, both specific instances but also the larger story arcs of Scripture?

Another question that I find in this parable has to do with "truth" and "love". The town leaders seem to have political truth, Scriptural truth, and even God's audible voice on their side, but the caretaker appears to be completely motivated by love for this stranger, even at the cost of his own life. Now I'm not trying to create an artificial division between truth and love, but I can sure think of times where I've been stuck in a position similar to this. Is it better to have truth or love? Is there ever a time they can or should put placed "against" each other? Is it possible that both positions in this story (and in some of our daily stories) are "right"?

Finally, I think it asks the question of how to respond to people with completely different world views, especially when those world views can be backed up with the Bible. I am increasingly aware that anybody can make the Bible say anything they want, and I'm sure most of us have seen plenty of evidence for that too. Many people leave behind Scripture at this point, because they think it doesn't have anything solid or true to say and can too easily be abused or manipulated, or they cling to one interpretation of Scripture at the exclusion of any differing understanding. Take a look at the 20th century phenomenon known as "liberalism vs. fundamentalism" to prove my point. Both of these ideologies tend to be reactionary, angry, and violent (not physically (at least in the USA), but emotionally and verbally). I don't think either approach is sufficient or helpful for moving forward, and this parable forces us to address this roadblock head on.

The parable gives value to, and even supports, BOTH viewpoints, while leaving us with the awkward feeling that both parties are simultaneously right AND wrong. We can see the reason behind why each group acts the way they do, while not being completely satisfied with either group's choices. And this dis-satisfaction leaves us humble, looking for another way, open to new ideas from God, because we realize that even with the best theology and best actions, we desperately need God's help to understand and obey him.