A Good Samaritan... With A Gun?

Following (another) tragic mass shooting in Indiana that killed 3 people and injured more over the weekend, local and national media outlets are hailing the “Good Samaritan” that shot the gunman and prevented more fatalities.  

This loss of life is tragic, and we can certainly be grateful for an intervention that prevented a higher casualty list. I don’t mean to diminish the significance of this bystander’s role in saving lives; especially not when there have been more than 350 mass shootings in the U.S. so far this year. But sometimes, the casual use of the term “Samaritan” in American media is as problematic as its casual relationship with biblical imagery. Both practices amount to cultural appropriation at best; and at worst, contribute to underlying issues of racism, violence, and imperialism in our broader culture. Here are a few ways that twisting scripture for a grabby headline can be a problem. 

1. For starters, “Samaritan” is not an adjective, it is a racial and ethnic designation. As in, "one from Samaria." Which is still a thing. And “Good Samaritan” was not Jesus’ title for the parable, that’s just the one that has been handed down to us by way of translators and interpreters. That the descriptor ‘good’ is needed at all tells us something powerful about how Samaritans, broadly speaking, were understood universally as ‘bad' in Jesus' time. The characterization reflects the racist worldview of the story’s context– much like the one we live in today, in which privilege may tempt white people (the privileged group) to divide people of color into the ‘good’ kind, and…all the rest. Ignoring the type of privileged distinction that is at work in biblical stories is theologically problematic and also perpetuates an imperialistic mindset. (Well, and so does the second amendment, so there you go). 
2. Not only is ‘Samaritan’ a racial and cultural identity–-in Jesus’ world, he would have been a social pariah, persona non grata, public enemy #1. The irony that he played the hero was the whole point of Jesus’ story. Without that cultural context, the term becomes meaningless. Yes, Elisjsha Dicken acted in heroic fashion in the mall shooting; but at least on the surface, he does not appear to be an 'outsider' in our cultural context. For our time, an undocumented immigrant might claim that particular ground. Or a Muslim after 9/11; a gay man in Florida; or a transgender woman in Texas. Without the dynamic of the hero being an outsider, rejected by the mainstream, the story doesn’t track. So neither do allusions to it. 
3. Furthermore, there's the whole matter of we have a savior complex; which is the whole reason guns are so pervasive and why “mall shootings” are even a thing around here. I’ve written about our Hero Problems before, and it is no less true: collectively, we would rather elevate a savior or ‘hero’ in any given tragedy than make any systemic changes that would keep us all safer to begin with. Devotees of the 2nd amendment devotees will celebrate this outcome, the power of  “Good Guy with Gun” proven again. But we're ignoring the fact that the first 3 people didn’t have to die to begin with. We need not normalize “mall shootings,” “hospital shootings,” “school shootings,” or “theater shootings” at all. The more we elevate heroes ("it could have been so much worse!) the more we forget that we don’t have to live like this. (Did I mention? 350+ mass shootings this year. So far). 
4. It’s particularly ironic that the parable of the Good Samaritan was last week’s lectionary text, which means Christian worshipers all over the world just heard sermons on this very story. So perhaps it is top of mind for those who do the commenting and the headline picking… but that also means the crux of the story is fresh for people of faith. And the moral of the story is that the Samaritan showed mercy to his neighbor. I suppose in a certain view of scripture, the young man in Greenwood showed mercy to those whose lives were spared when he took down the shooter. But I struggle with the idea that shooting anyone, for any reason, is the biblical definition of ‘mercy’ that Jesus was going for. Not to mention, Dicken--who is young and has his whole life ahead of him-- now carries the trauma, not just of witnessing a mass killing, but of taking another human life. Justified or not, that is a heavy burden to bear. 

Here’s the trouble with parables: for many of us, they are so familiar, we’ve watered them down to generic, secularized stories of good/bad, right/wrong.  When in fact, these stories of Jesus were radical, meant to connect with people’s memories and deeply held beliefs; and somehow transform those attachments into something new. Over time, the versions that have trickled down to us are colored by our own culture and context, our own comforts and privileges. Even though there are timeless truths at work within their layers, we’ve somehow diminished their impact by seeking an easy one-line resolution that isn’t really there. For the sin and sickness of gun violence in America, there is no easy answer. Not even when there’s a good guy with a gun. 

I can think of so many better headlines... Perhaps "Young Man Shows Courage in Tragic Situation" would be appropriate; or "350+ U.S. Shootings in 2022: This One Could Have Been Worse." But maybe the most apt title of all would be simply to say: "We Don't Have To Live Like This." 
How would you change the headline? And how do we flip the script? 

---