Is the simplest explanation the right one? Usually. Except when the answer that seems simple actually isn’t.
Episode 36 of the Make Saints podcast: “Simple”
the episode script
A couple of weeks ago I received an email from someone who took issue with an article I wrote several years ago about that strange moment in the gospel of Luke when Jesus suddenly encourages his followers to go buy swords, only to find out that they brought a couple along.
It is a weird passage that feels totally out of place and would also be totally forgettable if I didn’t live in the United States where any excuse to defend guns becomes its own gospel. So it is pretty obvious from jump why this story is read in really different ways depending what you think of open carry.
What this person objected to, however, was not what I argued. They argued that my response sounded complicated. And Jesus is simple.
The Problem
If we take every word in the gospels as prescriptive of our behavior, then we’re stuck in a paradox. Jesus says to get rid of weapons everywhere else. But here, he says to go get them. So we either listen to Jesus in one place and reject the other or we attempt to make two conflicting prescriptions into a unitary meaning that isn’t present in the text at all.
The reasoning goes: Jesus is encouraging the disciples to buy weapons so that they might use weapons so therefore using weapons is what disciples do so therefore we should go buy guns in case we ever need to use them. This is doing a ton of extrapolating a prescription from the text. Yet none of that is actually in the text.
But what is in the text?
Jesus telling them to not be violent. Not defend themselves. Ditch weapons and possessions. To trust neighbors. All of his teachings argue that there is neither need for weapons nor goodness in owning them.
The text also tells us why they are to buy these weapons (while implying they shouldn’t have any): to be seen by the Romans as terrorists.
This “complex” view is more consistent. And quite simple.
I get where this person is coming from. I totally do. And I’m not dunking on them.
The reason I’m sharing this with you rather than a private email in response is that the point isn’t who is right. Or which idea is more simple.
This story helps get at an idea that we aren’t really conscious of.
The hidden cost of simplicity.
We probably find it easy to code this exchange as a difference in opinions. There are two ways to see this moment. Two sides and two positions. That’s a pretty simple narrative.
But it’s incomplete. By design.
These aren’t simply two positions. Though we may essentially reduce them to two positions. But to do so, we strip the very meaning we need in order to make a more honest assessment.
The emailer wanted a simple vision of Jesus that made Jesus’s words translate directly into their actions. But to view this story in that lens, he would need to ignore the rest of the gospel. And he would need to make up a lot of suppositions not in the gospel.
To achieve simplicity we’re willing to cheat.
The journalist Johnny Harris recently came under fire for a video that stretched the truth too much for the sake of a good story. He has since apologized.
This is the real challenge with our desire to receive something as simple. It leads to shortcuts and missed information.
The emailer was convinced that the solution had to be more simple than the one I offered. But I assure you it isn’t. AND my argument is pretty simple. No, Jesus doesn’t encourage you to buy guns for self-protection in Luke 22. He’s setting up a prophecy.
But to prove that, I needed to show my work. Which makes it seem complicated.
People shouldn’t lie. And don’t encourage us to.
Life is complicated. And we think we can simplify it like it’s math and we’re working with fractions and yet sometimes we’re stuck with like 41 over 143 and you’re like, there’s gotta be a way to reduce that further.
But shortcuts always come at a cost. And when we pressure our leaders to take shortcuts because we expect easy answers…none of us will find the truth.