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.
This was cute…I can not vouch for its veracity;
St. John Christotom; “…Hell is paved with the skulls of priests…”
Well, very occasionally we do have readings from contemporary sources – probably not as often as we should do. However, the Bible is something which seems to fascinate Christians and folk in churches like my own read it a lot and wrestle with it a lot.
Presumably no-one really claims to believe that every word is of equal value to one’s ultimate destiny or current well-being, do they?
That means we’ve got choices to make and one of the things that seems to interest people about my preaching is that they an hear me making my choices and outining different possibilities.
I may indeed be deluded. That’s the risk we all take daily.
I looked out Dave Tomlinson’s little book, “Re-enchanting Christianity” and he draws attention to the fact that no less a theologian than Jurgen Moltmann (he of Crucified God fame) rejects the traditional teachings about hell.
Moltmann is quoted:
“Judgement establishes in the world the divine righteousness on which the new creation is to be built. But God’s last word is ‘Behold, I make all things new’ (Rev 21.5). From this no one and nothing is excepted. Love is God’s compassion with the lost. Transforming grace is God’s punishment for sinners.”
Moltmann is neither a theological slouch nor a candy-ass “liberal” – so lets not assume that this kind of thinking must be some vain attempt to make scripture conform to our own thinking.
Thanks Steven – that’s a great quote. Its nice to hear from you again too.
Mind you, I quite enjoyed the one about the skulls of priests too. I’ll remember that for a General Synod debate about local collaborative ministry sometime.
Greg, I wouldn’t call ensuring that the word in the original language means what you think it does ” minor linguistic details”. It’s somewhat ironic that, in this debate, liberal Kelvin is the one focusing on what the text meant in the original (and questioning rather than e.g. egotistically assuming the spirit in which it was meant to be read) whereas you are the one expounding Calvinist (and, so, ‘man-made’ in a not necessarily pejorative but still inescapable sense) doctrines as some kind of self-evident truth. Many is the time that I’ve heard liberal ‘heretics’ point out that words like gehenna might not accord with the Fire and Brimsone pictures of old. Am still waiting for a sensible response from the other side.
Jimmy, it sounds like you think that literal Hellfire is convincing because it means that the stakes are higher. This oft-cited or assumed notion always puzzles me. The idea that the Gift of Salvation is somehow insufficient and a God worth worshipping would necessarily have to torture and punish those who reject it appeals to our very worst instincts. One is reminded of those street preachers who, not being up to the task of convincing people of the glories of the Gospel, instead delight in talking of the cruel and unusual punishment that awaits non-believers for not listening to the preacher (and God). It’s not a good thing if,for some, the best that can be said about the Christian life is that it ‘beats being roasted in the lake of fire!’.
Hi Ryan – nice to hear from you.
I note in passing that its only male voices who have contributed so far and that makes me wonder whether the Christian conversation about hell has been quite a gendered discourse hitherto.
well, I was about to pitch in with: ‘Surely, we need Sartre here’ — but I’m not sure what that does for your theory of gender.
(and now I’ll withdraw to ponder a hazelnut)
Kelvin,
I tend to agree, but have a couple of tweaks to add.
First, “The rich man does not appear to oppress the poor man. Neither does Lazarus beg.”. Two problems with this: the rich man is portrayed as living “ostentatiously” through his sumptuous eating habits. Lazarus “longed to eat”, well, it doesn’t say how loudly he longed or not, but notably, the rich man *does* appear to know Lazarus’s name so he’s obviously meant to have been aware of his predicament in life, and to have ignored it – his inaction is the oppression. It may, therefore, be a “sin of omission” (although I prefer to think of it as a problem of systemic positive selection).
Second, particularly to the literalists commenting (seraph, Beat Attitude): this parable does not mention God; there is no role for some separate God-being stated or even implied in this text at all. It says “Now the poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham’s side”. The rich man’s mode of transit to a state of torment is not described either. So you can just forget any idea of this parable talking about God or judgement, because neither is mentioned. Note, secondly, that Christian tradition is lacking for roles for Abraham in some heaven-place, favouring naming St Peter instead. Note, thirdly, that our scriptures are inconclusive as to the nature of the afterlife: `sheol’ is a place of darkness to which all dead go, whether righteous or not (with no distinction from “heaven”); oblivion. `Hades’, used here in Luke 16:23, has connotations of transience and judgement. Jesus is also reported elsewhere as talking about `Gehenna’, a term which he would have understood to be “a figurative name for the place of spiritual purification for the wicked dead”. So, I see no biblical authority for the view of hell as one term, a unified place to which unrighteous folk go and sizzle forever, because even the folks in and of the time of the bible had no such single concept. Coupled with this, I take Kelvin’s points that the story is a set form[0], using a named figure (Lazarus, also known as Eleazar to the Jews, and a source of myth of his own as well), and putting his own spin on it.
It might be an idea to link it with the other lectionary reading for today, the one with “money is the root of all kinds of evil” in. It doesn’t say that money is intrinsically evil, nor does Jesus’ parable make it clear that merely being well-fed is wrong. It’s what you do with it: the option is open to use one’s wealth well, getting off one’s butt and actively looking to fix wrongs such as the social dislocation/disparity between Jesus’ two characters.
[0] We had this pointed out on Sunday up here too; I hadn’t actually been aware of the Egyptian resonances before but welcome the knowledge gladly – and now I read about related Greek influences (Micyllus and Megapenthes) as well…
And you Kelvin!
Greg :
>>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
>>>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?
Interesting. The customary defence of Hell (and, like everyone else here, I’d stress that disagreeing with a particular doctrine in no way means that I don’t understand it) is that God, being Just, must punish wrongdoers. This is usually conveyed by anthropomorphising images (Judge in the courtroom etc) and pleas to the fact that all us right-thinking humans expect wrongdoers to be violently punished. Does that not suggest you are projecting your own views of how the afterlife should be run on God? Am unsure if you’re excusing yourself from the ‘we’ above, and curious about how fallible-human-you interpreting Scripture warrants a Magisterium-type level of authority that Kelvin, or anyone else who disagrees with you, lacks.
Kimberly – initially I misread that as ‘Surely, we need Satire here’ . Amen! 😉
OK then… I propose that Jesus was using this story just to highlight the foolishness of established mythology. He played on people’s foolish fears of hell, and their hopes for salvation, and told a story about how two people who did not really deserve what they got, got what they didn’t deserve, thus proclaiming that God’s justice is something they shouldn’t even bother trying to understand. Wasn’t Jesus great? Why doesn’t someone take the time to explain to me why that’s an unrealistic interpretation?…
…Is it consistent with the rest of scripture you might ask? Well, not all scripture seems to discuss hell, and some scriptures are extremely vague, or at least allegorical when it comes to describing God’s wrath. Plus, scripture is merely one source which “seems to fascinate” so many Christians. Why should it be so important to reconcile the meaning with other parts of scripture written by different authors? Plus, other bits of scripture are poetry, so why couldn’t Jesus just have been making an artistic statement that needed no justification, but instead was something that stood on its own, and was intended to become whatever people made of it? We can never know what Jesus was truly thinking, so to try and find reliable meaning from anything he taught or did is futile and arrogant.
—-
Being fanciful and casting doubt is not the same as establishing/proposing a robust and consistent interpretation. It is a convenience for the excuse-maker, and fuel for the trouble-maker.