Countryside Community Church - Joy Luke Club

Someone asked me the other day about Luke’s biases.  Specifically, they wanted to know what biases might “color” Luke’s depiction in a way that might reflect more on Luke’s particular background than that of Jesus.

Indeed, Luke does have biases.  One of his less obvious  biases is that he’s somewhat of a perfectionist when it comes to language.  Luke speaks the most “literary” Greek of the gospels.  We detect Luke’s literary biases regularly when he “corrects” Mark’s Greek (Mark’s gospel was one of the historical sources used by both Luke and Matthew).  To take an example based on modern English usage, if Jesus were to talk into a room and ask, “What’s happening?” Mark would likely have Jesus asking, “Whaddup?”  Luke would depict Jesus as saying,”What is going on?”

Another of Luke’s biases – again less obvious, and minor – is that he uses greater precision when it comes to describing medical conditions and body parts.  Many scholars believe this attention to medical detail confirms the hypothesis that Luke was a physician (Paul refers to someone named Luke as a “beloved physician” in Colossians 4:14.  While we don’t know for sure that this was the same Luke, it is definitely both possible and plausible that Luke the gospel writer and Luke the “beloved physician” are the same.).

Luke’s largest bias, however, stems from his heritage.  Of all the New Testament writers, it appears that Luke is the only Gentile.  The rest are Jewish Christians.  As a Gentile, Luke often reflects in his narrative the perspective of the Outsider.  He knows what is is like to have people consider him unworthy of participating in the full life of the Christian community (Remember: The greatest argument of the 1st C Christian church was whether or not to let Gentiles like [most of] us into the church.).  So, combined with the fact that Luke is writing his Gospel to and for a Gentile reader (Theophilus, named in Luke 1:3), it is not at all surprising that Luke tends to pay more attention to stories that either depict Gentiles in a positive light or imply that Jesus’ mission and ministry was to more than Jews alone.

Yet Luke’s bias toward Outsiders is not restricted to Gentiles.  He also shows more sensitivity and interest in women.  I do not mean to imply that Luke or anyone else in his era was a champion of feminism, but in Luke’s gospel we get more information about women, and the prominent roles they played in Jesus’ ministry, than in any other gospel.

Luke also pays a lot more attention to the poor.  In fact, it seems that in Luke’s view, the Good News of Jesus was greatest for the poor.  A famous example of Luke’s bias toward the poor is found in the comparison between Jesus’ “Sermon on the Mount” in Matthew (Matthew 5-7) and Luke’s version of it (Luke 6).  First, Luke’s version doesn’t take place on a “mount” at all.  Instead of standing at the top of a hill looking down at the gathered crowd, as reported in Matthew’s version, Luke has Jesus standing at the bottom of the hill, looking up to the crowd (“… and Jesus went down with the disciples from the mountain and stood on a level place …”.  This is why Luke’s version is technically called the “Sermon on the Plain.”).  Second, where Matthew has Jesus saying, “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven,” Luke’s Jesus says simply, “Blessed are the poor, for theirs is the kingdom of God.” There is no “in spirit” in Luke’s Gospel.  While this difference could be as reflective of Matthew’s bias as Luke’s, it does provide one of many examples where Luke’s gospel tends to focus more strongly on the implications of Jesus’ ministry for the poor (Incidentally, we’ll find another example at Christmas time, where Luke has the baby Jesus being visited by poor shepherds, whereas Matthew makes no mention of shepherds and instead calls attention to the visitation by [wealthy] Magi, of whom Luke makes no mention).  This is not to suggest that other gospel writers were unconcerned for the poor, or that they fail to show Jesus’ concern.  It is only to note that the poor factor most prominently in Luke’s gospel.

Finally, when considering Luke’s biases and how they might color his version of Jesus’ story, I find it just as interesting – if not more so – to consider how firmly Luke seems committed to conveying details of Jesus’ story that may appear unflattering, particularly if one were trying to convince a reader that Jesus is the Messiah.

At Countryside, our Joy Luke Club groups have just encountered one significant example of this tendency toward brutal honesty.  Namely in Luke 4′s account of Jesus’ visit to his hometown of Nazareth.  In this account, which is Luke’s first story concerning Jesus’ public ministry, Jesus not only picks a fight with his audience but ends up angering them so greatly that they try to throw him over a cliff.  If Luke were simply a propagandist trying to gain acceptance for Jesus despite “the facts” of his story, it seems like this story would be the LAST one he would want to write about.  Or, if he reported it at all, he would certainly want to perform a major modification: “And Jesus preached in his hometown and they all cheered and marveled and said, ‘We always knew he was special’!  Then, they carried him on their shoulders to the edge of town where they sent him on his way by showering him with gifts and pledging their undying support.”

As you continue to read through Luke’s gospel, you may want to make note of stories that you wouldn’t expect Luke to tell, or that you’d expect him to alter significantly if all he was interested in doing was supporting his own bias that Jesus is the Messiah.  Something gives Luke a high degree of confidence that he can report not only on “the good,” but also “the bad and the ugly” and still persuade his readers to place their trust in Jesus.  It leads one to wonder, what gives Luke that confidence … ?

Here’s a question about the existence of Satan, which comes from one of the the 20 groups currently studying Luke’s gospel at Countryside Community Church.  While it was posted in the Comments section of a previous entry, I’m responding to it here.  The question is:

Chapter 4: We love our irreverent small group, so bear with us on this one! We spent a good deal of time this week discussing the barrier the personified “Satan” references in [Bruce Van Blair's commentary,] The Believer’s Road erected for us. Even though we know we can find meaning and experience growth by considering the lessons of archetypal figures and exploring our own (internal) “accuser” voices, many of us hear television evangelists screaming about Satan and sin around every corner when we confront this language. And then we shut down.

Before we can address this question properly, we must first address the barrier.  You refer to “the barrier the personified ‘Satan’ references in The Believer’s Road erected for us,” yet it sounds more like the barrier comes more from something prior.  Namely, prior experience of hearing “television evangelists screaming about Satan and sin around every corner.”  Let me encourage you to “shut down” to the television evangelist messages about Satan, while “turning up” what Van Blair has to say on the subject.  I suspect that prior televangelistic experience may be coloring your response to Van Blair, as you will definitely not find him “screaming about Satan and sin around every corner.”  However, what you will find in Van Blair is one of the few modern, “progressive” theologians who acknowledges that evil may have more than just cultural, systemic roots.

Frankly, Van Blair and I disagree on certain aspects regarding the identity of Satan (more on this below).  Yet I find that, compared to what I hear and read on the subject of evil from 90% of “progressive” theologians, Van Blair makes them seem like naive bumpkins and Pollyannas.  Most “progressives” focus almost exclusively of evil as a systemic issue.  They tend to think that we could rid the world of evil if we just created progressively better systems in which to live – political, economic, religious, cultural.  While I would never want to downplay the role that systemic evil plays in the world, I think that a profound understanding of evil demands much more than what progressives usually give us (and much less than what fundamentalists give us!).

Let me address some differences I have with Van Blair before developing this further.  My problem is that I am uncomfortable with any concept of a deity-like power that could exist independently from God, that is fundamentally opposed to God.  I tend to side fairly strongly with Augustine who, in the 4th Century asserted, “What ever is, is good.”  That is to say, whatever has authentic existence is purely good and cannot be evil.  Underlying Augustine’s assertion was an assumption, which I share, that there is only one God, that this God is is all-powerful, and that God is only loving.  (These are large assumptions, to be sure, and subject to debate, which I acknowledge).  So if this one God is all-powerful and only loving, then anything that has real existence must, by definition, be good.  That which is evil cannot exist in any real sense.

So does this mean that I don’t believe in such a thing as evil?  Not at all!  That would truly be naive.  To claim that evil has no real existence is not the same as claiming that evil has no effect on our world.  It certainly does have an effect – an enormous one.  So how does evil, impact us without actually existing as an independent power?   As 20th C theologian Karl Barth asserted, evil could be called the “No” of God. The created order could be called God’s “Yes.”  The “No” only has existence in so far as it has been negated by the “Yes.”  An example will help clarify this rather difficult concept:

If I say “Yes” to loving my wife, Melanie, my “Yes” intrinsically carries with it a whole slate of “No’s.”  To say “Yes” to loving her is to say “No” to beating her, to degrading her, etc., etc..  In this respect, my “No” behaviors only exist insofar as they have been negated by my “Yes.”  So the only power or existence the “No” has in any real sense is as a shadow of the “Yes” – as a perversion or diminishment of it.   You may notice, for instance, that everything which we label as “evil” has to do with the negation or degradation of something good (Something God has said “Yes” to).  Murder is the negation of LIFE.  Lying is a perversion of TRUTH.  Hatred and apathy are negations of LOVE.  And so on.  There would be no murder without LIFE.  There would be no falsehood without TRUTH.  There would be no … you get the point.

How does this understanding apply to Satan?  If Satan “exists,” he/she/it only “exists” only as a negation of existence.  So I don’t personally understand Satan as having any kind of power independent of God (Actually, I don’t think Van Blair does, either).  This tends to lead me, in contrast to Van Blair, to understand Satan more as a principle than a personality.

I am not entirely comfortable with my understanding, however.  Why?  Two reasons: (a) Jesus is smarter and more “in tune” with spiritual issues than I am, and he seems to have believed in Satan.  While it is possible that he simply spoke about Satan in a conceptual language that was accessible to people in his day rather than believing in the figure of Satan, it is also possible that Augustinian theology cannot adequately describe the nature of existence (!) and that Jesus believed in what he spoke of; (b) In my experience, and I suspect in yours, evil seems to be intelligent.  There is an insidiousness to evil that does not seem adequately explained by evil being a mere “principle” or even a generalized “energy.”  Frankly, evil seems a lot more intelligent than I am.  It seems to be able to outwit me regularly, even as it does tend to follow some familiar (boringly familiar!) patterns.

To draw on the influence of Carl Jung, I have preferred to account for evil’s apparent intelligence by understanding evil, or Satan, to be a part of humanity’s “collective unconscious” It is that part of of our “collective unconscious” that touches the Void, or non-reality, or the “power” of nothingness/negation.  Satan is not a deity, therefore.  Yet that which we call Satan is highly intelligent because we, as human beings, are collectively highly intelligent.

This, in a nutshell, is my understanding of Satan.  It’s a bit complicated (I would distrust any theory that is too simple when it comes to Satan!).  And realistically, I find it helpful to simply to go with the personification sometimes, if for no other reason than it is easer to consider an “intelligent power” in anthropocentric terms.  Many people react against any form of anthropocentrism when it comes to spirituality, but I don’t.  After all, we’re human beings (anthropos).  It is difficult to speak meaningfully about anything important to us without breaking into anthropomorphic analogies.

Back to Luke 4:

I find Luke’s description of Jesus’ encounter with Satan (whoever Satan is!) tremendously helpful.  As was discussed in worship on Sunday, Satan tempts Jesus with GOOD things, not overtly EVIL things (feeding the world; holding all political power; proving his identity to everyone through miracles).  The temptation lies in the fact that they are not the good things Jesus is specifically called to do.  While he does, in fact, feed people, influence the political system, and perform miracles, he does not base his ministry on any of these.  To have done so would have been to divert or negate his CALLING or MISSION.

What the narrative has to say to you and me is that, realistically, most of our temptations in life will not be related to choosing between good vs. overt evil.  Rather, the most difficult temptations will be related to choosing between good and good.  Or more precisely, choosing between the good we are CALLED to do and the good we have no business doing.  That which we are CALLED to do corresponds to how we are uniquely created by God.  We sense it when what we are doing opens up a deep sense of peace or joy, even if we are being CALLED to do something terribly difficult.  It lights us up inside.  Acting on it brings us more fully alive in this world.  It is energizing even if it gets us working quite hard.

The good we are NOT called to do is exhausting, deflating, and leads to despair – even if that same good leads others in the opposite direction.  For instance, some people are CALLED to spend their lives working to end hunger, locally or worldwide.  Others have no business whatsoever being involved with ending hunger on any level.  Those who are CALLED, love their work (though they may complain on some days!).  Those who are NOT CALLED find their work to be drudgery and burden.  They are not following their “Yes” and are stuck in a pattern where their souls are continually saying, “No!”  Given that we are CALLED to few things and NOT CALLED to do many things, following our CALLING has as much or more to do with adding our “No” to God’s “No” as it does saying “Yes” to God’s “Yes.”  The big message of Jesus’ wilderness temptations in Luke 4 is, “Know thyself!  Get to know the person God has created you to be.  Then cling to that person mightily (by clinging to that which regularly leads you to peace/joy), for you WILL be tempted.  Regularly and powerfully.”  Happily, we have Jesus as a profound example of someone who did just this.  As you continue through Luke, you will find the story throwing you all kinds of clues about how to respond to, and live by, your deepest connection with God and self.

According to Luke, as soon as Jesus is baptized in the Jordan River, the Holy Spirit sends him out into the wilderness for 40 days where he is “tempted by the devil.”  Isn’t it interesting that after the “spiritual high” of Jesus’ experience at the Jordan, he is immediately thrust into the depths of spiritual wilderness and challenge?  Jesus’ story is not unlike ours!  Often the spiritual highs in our lives are quickly followed by a period of darkness and challenge.  Many of us take this as a sign of weakness, or that our experience was inauthentic. Yet Luke’s gospel suggests that this plunge into the depths is natural and should be expected.  In fact, the challenge of the wilderness was meant to serve as a tremendous resource – provided we meet the challenge as Jesus did.

In worship this weekend, we’ll ask, “Who is this ‘devil’ we meet in the wilderness, and what is the nature of his temptations?” and “How do we discern the difference between a dead-end path and our true path?”  The answers to these questions may not only surprise you, but may help you deal more effectively with challenges in your everyday life.

If you’re looking ahead to Luke 4 already, here’s our “Roadside Conversations” Video Commentary on it.