Heidi, for the record, I love that little comment. Oh, and by the way, this little response comes from a guy who is depraved, beaten down, sinful, and lost without Jesus.

My whole point in my original comment was not to instruct Charlie on dining rituals or manners in a public forum. I was trying to suggest that we lose focus of the BIG PICTURE! We get caught up in our little world of the “Christ-Life” and we have no eyes for the hurt in the everyday people we are in contact with. When we find ourselves angry with people who have no clue what God is about, I think we need to check ourselves if we claim to be Christ followers.

First. Consider the source. We know Charlie. He wants to be more like Christ and he loves people including those who are yet to become believers in Christ, those hurting, and everyone God brings.

Second. This story has a point. Did you miss the point because you were so busy being irritated by something about the story that was NOT the point?

Third. This same real life example could also be used to wonder about the the lives of those who are hurting. But, today, Charlie used it to drive a different point.

Fourth. What should Charlie have done differently? Should he hop behind the counter and give them a hug? How about show them how to do their job? How about sit them each down for a little heart to heart? Seriously. I think being pleasant and courteous to these folks was exactly what he should have done! Again, back to point one: We know Charlie. If one of these folks made eye contact and had a bit of openness, Charlie would have engaged the person and possibly had a pastoring moment. There was no spiritual moment to be had!

And, this little comment comes from a gal whose heart beats fast, prayers lifted up, and feet move for the poor and hurting people in our world.

1. “It was not my usual local hangout and will not come here again.”

and

2. “You are not too good, too special to do even the smallest of tasks. God has called each of us to be servants.”

However, such is the nature of communication that there are many possible interpretations. First of all, Charlie was commenting as a ‘fly on the wall’ about the lack of manners and working environment of the place. Second, by choosing not to go to the same restaurant, this doesn’t necessarily indicate an attitude of superiority or a situation of missed opportunity (to be a servant) in the future. If a service is poor, then why continue to use that service? Some people go out to eat for the meal. Others go out to eat just to be waited upon (i..e for the service). Still others go out to eat for the experience of both. For myself, it’s all about the food. So, unless the waiter starts yelling at me, I’m good if the food is good. But, for others, the serving of the food and the food itself are all wrapped up together. If so, then maybe Charlie is just saying that the restaurant isn’t really doing it’s job. If it isn’t, then all things being equal, why not go somewhere else that is doing its job?

I think the only real (or the most important) question is whether a person would be ‘willing’ to continue to go to a place like that and serve them or perhaps be an example to them, to help change things. Clearly, I cannot imagine that Charlie would NOT be. In fact, he seems to indicate this above. Almost any situation could present itself as an opportunity to tough it out and be a good model for others. But, even the Bible tells us not to throw our pearls to swine. So, we have to choose our “battles” (in the good sense of the word, if there is one).

I am reminded of some stuff Jesus said that is recorded in Matthew 23..there are even some specific comments about treatment “in the marketplace” (NIV). Pretty sobering and convicting stuff for receptive believers.

Back to Luke 10…as someone who has found himself left for dead on the side of the road more than once, I am thankful for the Samaritans. Their logic is, at times, more compassionate and practical than many a church-goer’s willingness or initiative or response. To me, it’s pretty scary to consider that apathy seems to be a real issue the “saved” will struggle with…hmmm.

As for the scenerio Charlie narrated…I’ve been in the shoes of each person he mentioned in his story. Seems to me, in that scene, only one person had an answer that would address the silent roar of nonverbal questions. If Thoreau – “MOST (emphasis mine) lead lives of silent desperation” – was even halfway right, then shouldn’t disciples be accustomed to engaging people in despair?

May we never be too caught up in ourselves that we are deaf, dumb or numb to the cries of others. Sorry, Charlie.

However, I do reserve the right to observe life around me and use them as teachable moments, even if the life that I observe around me is a negative example. I would never intentionally throw someone or business under the bus by calling them out by name, but I don’t have a problem with using bad examples from true life, like Jesus did with the Pharisees, or in made up stories (parables) like the priests from the Good Samaritan.

The other question that was raised here is now that I have gotten terrible service at a restaurant that was not clean and with spotty internet service, am I now obligated to go back there under the heading of ministry? Or am I free to say that was not a great environment for me to work in the mornings, I’ll go somewhere else? Thoughts…