Luke was a physician. A Gentile. A historian. He did not personally know Jesus but came to know him through Paul’s instruction. He chronicled the life of the baby whose birth we celebrate this month in the Gospel of Luke, the longest of the four books in this category and the one that Bible scholar Chuck Swindoll says “reveals in our Lord a man come to minister and show compassion to all people, no matter their station in life.”
The Life Application Study Bible notes that this Gospel writer dedicated his writing to preserving the true accounts of those who were in Jesus’s company, so that “the foundations of Christian belief be transmitted intact to the next generation.”
Accurately. Will today’s current events be recorded in such a way?
• A podcast microphone in the hands of an influencer has more power today than thorough research done by economists and scientists in their fields.
• The once promising opportunity to share truthful information to hundreds of millions on X (formerly known as Twitter) has been squandered, replaced by agendas for profit and power.
• Anyone can author a book on a selfpublishing website.
• Anyone can post on TikTok.
• Anyone can write a column (I should know).
These media forms are incredible innovations. They give us opportunities to teach, inspire, entertain, and persuade.
Unlike with Luke, however, the goal for many today is to manipulate the narrative by a casual approach to truth. State boards of education are micromanaging history curriculums to avoid crucial unpleasant parts of the American story or minimizing the importance of other events. Lies go unchecked and thus easily transition to “truth” that are shared over coffee, then reposted, and worst of all, believed without fact checking. Gaslighting is an entry-level skill into the game of politics, business, and relationships. Say it often enough, and people will believe it. Investigative skills are fading.
What if Luke had omitted the story of the woman with the twelve-year long issue of blood? What if he had changed the ending of the prodigal son parable and put the ring on the faithful son’s finger because that would be more relatable? Maybe teaching the story of the virgin birth was too controversial, so Luke could have altered the narrative to that of a married man and woman finding out they were going to have a baby? What if Luke had never mentioned women in his gospel?
Perhaps because he trained in medicine, Luke paid attention to details when interviewing the eyewitnesses who walked with Jesus. I like to think he used divine inspiration coupled with mental perspiration and professionalism to do his job well.
A good doctor writing accurately about the Great Physician.
Snyder, Texas, native Sue Jane Sullivan is a retired schoolteacher whose thought-provoking commentary appears occasionally in several West Texas newspapers, including The Texas Spur and The Caprock Courier.
