Here’s what I said yesterday in the pulpit…
There’s no getting away from it. Sooner or later we do have to think about hell. That’s the message from this morning’s gospel reading and I don’t think that there is any choice but to deal with it head on and allow ourselves the chance to ask ourselves what we believe about it.
I must confess to groaning a little as I turned up the readings for today. Having just returned from a lovely holiday in what seemed like paradise (warm sun, clear sea, beautiful scenery, good food) I flicked through the lectionary to check out the gospel reading for this morning to see what I would be preaching about.
The rich man and lazarus stared me straight in the face. An uncompromising, difficult parable.
A rich man and a poor man (who has lain by the rich man’s gate) both die and the parable goes on to relate various discussions between Abraham and the rich man about their respective fates. Lazarus has gone to his reward which is represented as being with Abraham. Meanwhile, the rich man has gone to something altogether more fiery where he is tormented. A place which culturally we refer to as hell, though that’s not the word used in the story itself. We hear the rich man’s appeals for cooling water to refresh him. An act of mercy is requested. The answer is no.
We then hear him ask Abraham to send someone to warn his relatives so that they might not suffer the same fate as he has done. An act of compassion. The answer is no.
And there it ends.
I remember worshipping in a community once where the custom was to say, at the end of a reading from Scripture, “This is the word of the Lord†to which everyone replied, “Thanks be to Godâ€.
One day a friend of mine was reading a passage, I can’t remember whether it was this one or something quite like it. You could feel a sense of depression, misery and incredulity growing as he read it and then at the end simply looked around and asked instead, “is this the word of the Lord?â€
I find this passage a little depressing myself, so must dig a little harder than usual to find something to say about it which is encouraging and uplifting.
The first thing to say is that you can still find people, plenty of people, who believe that that if you die in sin you will go to hell and it will be fiery and nasty and horrid.
That’s not the kind of religion which does anything for me. If you want, I’ll happily point you towards churches which proclaim such grim teachings. However, even in the face of this morning’s gospel, I’m not remotely tempted to go down that path myself.
I don’t believe that it is in the character of the God I know to condemn people to a fiery hell. I believe that God loves us with a passion that burns away any of our own sins and leaves God relating to the person whom we long to be. Whole. Integrated. Free. Loved.
Hell just doesn’t come into it.
So let me just try to grasp hold of a few interesting things about this parable for us to latch onto.
The first thing to note is that this is not Jesus’s story. It exists in Egyptian stories and from other rabbis. Its a formula – a rich man and a poor man die and this is what happens in the afterlife.
Its a formula. You know how jokes have certain formulas. (Knock knock. Or A man walks into a bar. Or there was and Englishman, and Irishman and a Scotsman). Its that kind of story. The hearers would have known that it was a teaching story. They would have known the basics about the two men dying but htey would have listened out for Jesus’s own take on the story.
First thing to note is that the rich and the poor are divided only by their financial status. This is not a story about sin.
It is a story which seems to indicate that God is on the side of the poor rather than the rich.
Second thing to note is that they appear to have equal dignity and integrity. The rich man does not appear to oppress the poor man. Neither does Lazarus beg. They are simply rich and poor. And God seems to be on the side of the poor.
Third thing to note from Jesus is that we are supposed to work this truth out for ourselves. We won’t get messengers, angels or miracles. We simply have the world around us and the testimony of Moses, the prophets and so many religious figures from the ages saying simply – God is on the side of the poor, the disadvantaged, the underdog, the oppressed and the troubled.
It is these things that Jesus seems to be trying to convey to us through this parable, which only Luke reports – the gospel writer who emphasises God’s preference for the poor more than any other Biblical writer.
This parable is a storytelling way of proclaiming what Luke proclaimed in Mary’s song at the start of his gospel:
He has cast down the mighty from their thrones,
and has lifted up the lowly.
He has filled the hungry with good things,
and the rich he has sent away empty.
It just may be that Jesus is talking economics rather than theology. It just may be that he is subverting old stories about heaven and hell to speak about daily politics, politics which are still with us today.
I must confess myself to be not a little puzzled by current politics in the UK. I used to think that I understood which parties represented the values that I care about most.
I can’t say that I do now. The jury is out on who can bring about mainstream prosperity and wellbeing which I think most people of goodwill long for.
However, I do know that the questions raised by any political debate are spiritual ones as well as economic ones for politics is a spiritual discipline as well as an act of persuasion.
Politics, economics, theology and spirituality all seem to me to be interrelated questions. Many people seem surprised by that these days though that might be one of the things which was at the heart of what the Pope was talking about in his recent visit to this great city.
But whatever I think, or whatever the Pope thinks, there is some evidence for thinking that this wee parable which seemed at first a little on the depressing side and all about hell may in fact be about finding strategies for building God’s kingdom on earth. With a God who seems to be on the side of the poor and disadvantaged, it matters little whether the starting point for change is prayer or politics.
And when I think about that, I find myself not depressed at all by the gospel reading this morning but rather more uplifted.
Indeed, my soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my Saviour.
In the name of God who made us, saves us and inspires us.
Amen.
Dear Kevin:
That a particular idea in religion, Scripture or even nature may do nothing for you or me at the present moment has absolutely nothing to do with its objective truth or validity.
I used to be sure that spinach did nothing for me and ice cream was all the nutrient needed…a long time ago. Gravity does nothing for me, I wish I could fly…!
Though I respect your thoughts on the passage, you have not dealt with the consecuences of poor choices at all, in this life or in the next! That is something which our very loving God says a lot about!
Poverty and misery stared the rich man in his face everyday and he seems to have chosen to live as if a great chasm separated Lazarus’s world from his, he saw lack, injustice and illness and did nothing to aleviate it…he made choices which in plain reading of the passage have consecuences.
It does not make us feel warm and fuzzy because it is not supposed to…maybe it is there to stir us into action, to make us aware of blind spots in our piety and remind us that actions or lack thereof have consecuences for us and for others.
Respectfully
seraph
Hi Kelvin.
I hope you don’t mind me responding to this sermon which you published.
I appreciate your honesty in acknowledging how difficult you find passages like this one, but your subsequent interpretation strikes me as intellectual contortionism. It feels like someone doing a crossword, and getting disheartened that, having filled in a number of the answers, the remaining ones don’t work.
‘I know the answer is “umbrella”, but the intersecting words only allow me to write “ambielpa”. Therefore, there must be a device called an ambielpa which people unfold to keep the rain off them.That must be what the author of the crossword is trying to teach us’.
I think this is what happens when we insist that scripture be conformed to our own worldview which we are attempting to establish and promote, and I think this is what you are doing here.
Is it possible that we, who are sinful and tainted by sin, might be far less capable of deciding what is morally right and wrong than God is? Who has the ultimate authority on what is real and what is not? God or man? Is it at all possible that some of your beliefs about the reality of hell need to be rethought, in the light of scriptures like this?
If some of our answers in the crossword are wrong, we have to be willing to acknowledge our need for correction, even at the most fundamental of levels. Otherwise, we are engaged on a largely futile exercise.
So much better to seek to wear lenses that bring every aspect of scripture into clear focus, that we might be
“an instrument for noble purposes, made holy, useful to the Master and prepared to do any good work.”
(2 Timothy 2)
in love
Greg
Hi Beat
Yes – its possible, and I’d say that represented a view that I once held. However, I didn’t find that it fitted with either scripture or experience terribly well either.
I’d say that we are tainted by glory rather than believing that we are tainted with sin.
Ultimate authority for knowing what’s real must lie with human beings. They are mere automata otherwise, living lives under judgement.
On a purely linguistic point, Beat, don’t you think that Luke would have used the word “tartarus” rather than Hades if he was trying to convey the kind of vision of hell that seems to sustain you?
Dear Kelvin
I also share your dis-ease with this passage. In a sense it is a mark of “orthodoxy” to engage with such difficult passages rather than dismiss them outright. Engagement with a particular position/tradition implies a respect for that position/tradition.
The problem as I see it is that both Scripture and tradition (strongly) support the traditional stance, that there is a “hell” which may or may not involve conscious punishment but which, at the least, may amount to a permanent separation from God.
The idea of permanent separation (whether conscious or unconscious, in body or in soul) is something that we are called to take seriously and I believe your discomfort with this passage – indicates that you do so.
That is not to say that we can get to a place where we can “explain away” this damnable doctrine. We are mortal, finite creatures. We have, on either side of this debate, no clue whatsoever as to what happens to us after death. Where then did such a doctrine come from? Well, just as we are tainted with glory, we are able to articulate something of what God is. We therefore love, because God loves (albeit in a poor imitation of that love). We also feel great (and sometimes even justified) anger at injustice, cruelty and evil. I believe that such emotions are also “of God” and reflect our maker’s mark.
Whether or not this squares with the idea of an impassable and eternal chasm betwixt God and “unsaved” mankind is another matter. Eternity is a hell of a long time. And perhaps this idea, where it is held, ought to be held provisionally and not dogmatically. Hell ought not to be, in that sense, a “salvation issue”.
Perhaps such views ought to be balanced by the broader context of scripture. The early Fathers seemed to be split on the issue (Clement, Origen, Gregory vs Augustine) and so we ought not to be too surprised that there remains division today. There is certainly an argument to be made for Christian universalism, see the helpful scripture listed here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Universalist
Anyway, it is difficult, and we are called to wrestle with this and also to challenge one another, in love, and to humbly continue in the faith, letting God be Judge – knowing that we have both an advocate and saviour in Jesus Christ and, contrary to the rules of procedural fairness, our Father is on the bench.
Yours
Steven
Hi Kelvin, I appreciate your replies.
Regarding your comment “tainted by glory/sin”… The purpose of this comment seems to be a rejection of a theoretical standpoint that takes perverse pleasure in the idea of a fallen mankind. Thus, the remedy for these people (as you might see it) is to be positive thinkers rather than pessimists. See the good, not the evil. Of course, there is much to be said for setting our minds on “whatever is good, noble…etc” I do not think that God intends for Christians to be preoccupied with Hell, and neither do I think that being saved from Hell is necessarily the primary reason for being a Christian.
Some people calling themselves Christians DO take wrongful delight in the downfall of others, not in reverence for God’s fearsome justice, but with pernicious glee that such was not their own end.(And what a risk they run!)
Nevertheless, I think that a correct understanding of hell, justice, wrath, and punishment is vital for a Christian. These things are dramatic and shocking, and recurring subjects throughout Scripture.
We must cultivate a robust and comprehensive theological understanding of the nature of hell, judgement, justice…etc… because when presented with them, we need strong assurance that we have recourse to escape them. So when Christ himself talks about hell, the burning place of wailing and gnashing of teeth, then we better be 100% sure of what he’s actually referring to, and also how we might escape it (if indeed, he’s not just talking sheer metaphorical fantasy)
The rich man and Lazarus is not a story of massive subtlety. The rich man ignores suffering right at his gate, evincing a refusal to believe in the consequences of such sin. He believes he is entitled to the good things he has, and that Lazarus is not. The God of justice takes pity on Lazarus and is pleased to redress the balance for him. The rich man equally feels God’s justice, not because he was rich, but because he acted as though he was accountable only to himself. He knew his lack of charity was wrong. (if he didn’t, why should he be punished?)
Implied in the story is that when the rich man had been told about hell, he refused to believe in it. When he finally begs for his descendants to be warned, he is told that they would refuse to believe it too.
So that’s why I’m worried when I hear teaching in the church that (dare I say?) obfuscates over minor linguistic details and encourages us not to believe the threat of a literal hell, no matter how many times these subjects come up in the bible?
If this parable is about hell, then it is not “depressing”. It is a frightening wake-up call. A genuine cause for alarm. It is only depressing if you are reading it and thinking “oh well. It seems the bible has got the emphasis wrong again.” Or, it could be suicidally depressing if we did not know about the gospel of Jesus Christ, the grace of God that means our sins can be forgiven. For the Christian who knows this in his heart, stories of Hell can only spur us on to pursue greater delight in the gospel of grace. To know what we have escaped, through Christ, and to be in a position to learn from it before it was too late…how can we respond except with awe, and reverence and gratitude?
it feels like your desire is to remove this parable from Jesus’ lips, and instead subtly attribute it to Luke, and from there opt for a more generalised, sociological interpretation that deals loosely with rich and poor. God does care for the poor, yes, but because he has a sense of justice, and one which transcends the temporal, sociological sphere and extends into eternity. This parable is about God first, just as Christ’s ministry was about revealing God first.
My aim is not to criticize you for the sake of giving you a hard time, (I certainly don’t enjoy being so challenging)Rather, my aim is to ask you to be prepared to reconsider some of those views you may have held once, and engage with them again.
I propose that the reality of the true gospel of salvation is far greater than any pleasure you might receive from the prospect of socio-political reform. And for that to take root, I believe that your theology of hell needs to be reconsidered, in order that your understanding of salvation might become something which overflows with the glory and power of God.
SDG
Greg
To be honest, I think my understanding of salvation does overflow with the glory and power of God, but I don’t agree with you, stand humbly at the tail end of an honoured line of God’s saints through the ages who wouldn’t agree with you either and am pretty much untroubled by the fact that I do.
As I said in the sermon, there are plenty of churches preaching this kind of thing and I’m happy to help people to find that if that’s what they are looking for.
“It is a frightening wake-up call. A genuine cause for alarm.” Sounds like your Jesus is speaking of an ogre.
Thanks for the clarification of what you think about the parable though. The rich man in your interpretation could have been saved by what? Works or thoughts?
No separation from the glory and power of God would have to mean that God would gift to people the likeness and nature of Christ whether they wanted it or not. Why wait until the “Day of Judgement” to do this instead of immediately after the resurrection of Christ. Why allow evil to continue if mankind is unable to refuse or resist Salvation. Could it be that we are able to resist the Holy Spirit and that the man in the story had come to the cut off point. His asking for water could be seen as him asking for the Holy Spirit.
Stephen:
“You stiff-necked people, with uncircumcised hearts and ears! You are just like your fathers: You always resist the Holy Spirit! Acts 7:51.
I also believe that God does not send anyone to hell but that it is possible for people to find “their own way” to a place of separation from God.
Good works only smacks of the ‘Palagian’ heresy. Are we saying that Lazarus doing good works only is not enough? Is this what is being claimed? Somehow I think not
Kelvin:
It is not “churches preaching this kind of thing”. It is a passage which St. Luke’s gospel put on the lips of Jesus himself. I think most readers of this passage would take the plain admonishment it presents more seriously.
That you should think man is the final authority on truth is concerning given our very limited understanding of the universe we live in. Man discovers truth often by trial and erroe, but he is not the final arbiter nor decider of it….for Christians that role is God’s alone.
Unless I misunderstood you, it seems then there are no real consecuenses for lack of charity of the type exibited by the rich man in this parable. That is not something I have encountered in my reading of saints past and present. Christ certainly seemed to believe in consecuences and this parable alludes to some. Though we not consider the possibility of a literal eternal “hell” , which this does not necesarily reference, there is cause for concern in this passage for those who would close their eyes to the plight of their neighbours.
I wonder why read Scripture at all if we are going to have to play mental gymnastics with everything which does not fit into our particular worldview? Lets just read literature or poetry we like at services and be done with it!
Blessings
seraph
“Lets just read literature or poetry we like at services and be done with it!”
We do. The Bible is full of both. Some of it is good quality too.
I think I am the only person who can decide what I think is true.
Why choose our readings mostly from the Bible if that is all it is then? I can think of contemporary poets more to my taste than David and plenty of spiritual teachers that would not mention hell at all.
However, if we read the Bible because it is in some sense to us “The Word of God”, then brushing off what does not make us happy at the moment is probably not a good idea.
It is correct that you are the only person who can decide what you think is true! It is also very true that what you decide may have no bearing at all on reality. Many people do just that about the world they live in, about their health, about math….but in the end; it is what it is! What we think about it relevant only if true!
Blessings