I like the comic above because it reminds me of Jesus talking to the rich young ruler.
Now a certain ruler asked Him, saying, “Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?”
So Jesus said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One,that is, God. You know the commandments: ‘Do not commit adultery,’ ‘Do not murder,’ ‘Do not steal,’ ‘Do not bear false witness,’ ‘Honor your father and your mother.’ ”
And he said, “All these things I have kept from my youth.”
So when Jesus heard these things, He said to him, “You still lack one thing. Sell all that you have and distribute to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.”
All too many of us are like the rich young ruler. We want to inherit eternal life by simply avoiding doing evil things. I hear people in church all the time saying that they do not do this or do not do that, as though that, by itself, is sufficient to ensure eternal life. As the comic above says, “… is it the absence of bad behavior that makes someone good …”. That does appear to be the way that most who call themselves Christians would answer. There is, of course, a problem here in that if this is true, then there would be many people who would not need Jesus.
Protestants/Evangelicals try to solve this by over-emphasizing the evil that is in all of us. Thus, there are sermons that go into great lengths to show how all that we do is tainted by sin. Actually, at times Evangelicals place themselves in the dangerous position of arguing intentions. I say dangerous because utilitarian philosophers do the same thing. They will look at the Parable of the Good Samaritan and argue that the Samaritan must have derived pleasure out of helping the traveler, and thus this is not a truly selfless act.
In the same way, all too many Evangelicals go so deep into psychological/utilitarian arguments to prove that all our actions are tainted and useless, that they effectually destroy the concept of good works. It is not uncommon to hear someone say that a work is good only because God accepts it, and God will only accept a work from one of his children because he sees his child through the blood of Christ. This, of course, is a way of invalidating any and every work and making a good work nothing more than a pat on the head from a Heavenly Father who simply overlooks that it is not a good work, out of his love for Jesus Christ whose blood you now wear. But, when one reads Scripture that is certainly not the way in which the concept is handled.
In answering the rich young ruler, Jesus dealt with the question of what it means to be good. In essence his answer was, “… the presence of good behavior.” If you look at the Parable of the Good Samaritan, it becomes even more obvious that merely the absence of bad behavior is not sufficient to make one good. Both the priest and the Levite have gone down in history as being bad rather than good. Their failure to take action was interpreted as evidence that they were not good. Their attitude was like that of Cain, “… am I my brother’s keeper?” Neither the priest nor the Levite did anything wrong. They did not beat the traveler. They did not laugh at the traveler. In fact, they simply and deliberately did not get involved with the traveler. This is the perfect example of the absence of evil. I am sure that on the Sabbath they went to the synagogue or the Temple and stood there in the complete conviction that they had not committed any evil. And, they would have been correct.
To use more modern secular terminology, the priest and the Levite would have argued that they only had a negative duty. That is, there was no requirement to become involved, and there might even have been a requirement to not become involved so as not to become unclean by touching the blood of a person (see Leviticus). Neither priest nor Levite could have served at the Temple if they became ritually unclean, particularly if they handled the blood of someone who soon died. Their only duty was to avoid evil behavior.
But, Jesus argued that in order to understand the Law correctly (for both the parable and the encounter were asked and answered in the context of the Law) we have a positive duty towards people. That is, we have an obligation to do an act, to act, on behalf of others. The rich young ruler ended up not being considered good, because he failed to act. The priest and the Levite were not considered good, because they failed to act. Only the Good Samaritan is considered good, because he acted. It seems odd to me that Jesus appears to consider this a good work, and never argues in his ministry that we cannot do a good work. Rather, he seems to consistently encourage deliberate acts of love, deliberate good works. I would argue that Saint Paul’s statements on works need to be evaluated in the light of Jesus’ statements about works and practice of works. This is why Saint James issues the warning in his epistle to not depreciate works.
But, the bottom line is that all too many in our churches consider themselves to be complying with the Gospel demands simply because they commit no evil. That may be true, but if they also commit no good, then they are not in compliance with the Gospel, as Jesus preached it. Jesus more than once made it clear that we have a positive duty. This means that we are expected to commit acts of good. Absence of evil is not proof of good. Rather, the presence of good works is the proof of good.
Mike A says
This reminds me of a conversation I had with my mother (a rather short one) about my lack of religion and whether or not I was a good person. The main topic was about me being atheist. She had mentioned that she should have raised me different. I asked her if I was or was not a decent human being. Her answer of course was that I was a decent person. So I still don’t understand why she would ask that. It made me wonder why my lack of religion would make her question how or how well she raised me.
Do my beliefs directly reflect whether I am good or bad? I believe it is the actions or lack thereof that define a person. I don’t go out of my way to be a great samaritan, but I don’t go out of my way to be a bad one. Have I made mistakes? Sure I have. Do I regret those? Of course. Maybe it is our intentions that define us. Or maybe the ends justify the means. In my case there really isn’t much inbetween. I either intend to be a decent person or the result of my actions define that.
My personality type doesn’t really help my cause any. If there is a choice (and there is usually is) of whether to go out and do some good or stay at home and not be a bad person, I will choose staying inside and out of the way 100% of the time.
I probably did a bit of rambling there and those thoughts may be incoherent. Hopefully it makes a little bit of sense. Felt like sharing that after reading your blog.
Fr. Ernesto Obregon says
Perhaps I can reword it in a different way. Can a non-Christian be good? Well, according to Jesus, the answer is, “yes.”
I already quoted the Parable of the Good Samaritan. But, the Samaritans were not Jewish and had their own Temple in Samaria that was not the official one in Jerusalem. Yet, Jesus uses the Good Samaritan as an example of good behavior and uses the Jerusalem based priest and Levite as an example of incorrect behavior.
In Matthew 8, Jesus says of a centurion that, “I have not found such great faith, not even in Israel!”
In Mark 15 he says of a non-Jewish woman in Tyre and Sidon, “O woman, great is your faith! Let it be to you as you desire.”
There are actually more Gospel passages that show Jesus commending the faith of people who are not Jewish. So, yes, you can be good and not be Christian, Jewish, Muslim, etc.
But, if God is real, that should not be surprising. The Jewish/Christian claim is that we are made in the image of God. If so, even if we are not all we should be, there should still be that in us that reflects God. Our intentions and our attempts to carry them out are part of what defines us. I have added “our attempts to carry them out,” because we can have the best of intentions yet fail in the execution of them. I know that I have apologized to my daughters (after they became adults) for those things in which I know that I failed them. I had too much of a temper. I frequently did not listen to them as I should have, etc. My intentions were good. My execution was sometimes good and sometimes bad.
Yet, our beliefs do sometimes indicate whether we are good or bad. Obviously, if you are a Nazi, you are bad. If your idea of behavior is to burn crosses to intimidate blacks, then you are bad. The other side is equally true. A Mother Theresa may make mistakes, but it is hard to think of her as anything but good. Yet, the reality is that most of us are neither KKK nor Mother Theresa.
Yet, to change to a different subject, being good and knowing God are two different (but related) concepts. Being good, and the fact that so many parts of the world define being good in similar ways, should call us to consider whether there is a god. The similarity of ethical beliefs (groups like ISIS excluded) points us to the possibility of there being a God. More than that, if we are created in the image of God, then our good works (good actions) should cause us, and call us, to consider whether there is a God.
But, I will stop here. Otherwise, I will keep writing ad infinitum.
Deb Sargent Collins says
Great article!!!