I was able to dodge the bullet of talking about the "Shrewd Steward" last week, but I have to say that looking at the parable of "Poor Lazarus" feels overly safe. I'm left a bit uninspired is my meaning.
Where I have the most trouble is that this parable feels like one that we are too familiar with, and I worry that anything new or insightful could be offered at this point. My fear is that I'll wind myself up with discussing the perspectives of life after death that Jesus would have been working with in the First Century CE and never really get at any real "take home" lesson for people.
Truth to tell, I'm not all that thrilled about the other readings either. There isn't the kind of spark I like to get that leads me to getting my 'bite' and building a reasonable sermon. And that, I suppose, is why I'm here now. I'm hoping that this process will be something of a free-writing exercise to get me primed for developing a sermon that isn't wretched. However, I probably need to get all of the dross out of the system before really committing to developing a decent sermon. So, here I go...
As I intuited earlier, the parable seems to indicate what some of the popular beliefs of afterlife might have been in the First Century. However, I think it infers such belief rather than proscribes any particular belief. I would equate this to how today we tell jokes about post mortem experiences which lead to either eccentricities about the rules of the afterlife, or how profoundly ridiculous one's understanding of the afterlife could be...
I'm reminded of a number of jokes when reading this passage, but one in particular seems to fit best.
Three men die in an accident and stand at the pearly gates. St. Peter, looking at his book, realizes that these men weren't particularly bad, and given the tragic circumstances, Peter decided to give each of them a chance.
Setting the bar relatively low, St. Peter asked each man in turn if they knew the story of Easter. If they could simply tell him the story of Jesus' resurrection, Peter felt that he could get them into Heaven.
The first man said something about the Easter bunny bringing baskets to children, and Peter stopped him short. Shaking his head, Peter moved to the second man.
This man said that he was familiar with the Easter bunny and baskets, but he was pretty sure that there was also something to do with the beginning of summer and fertility. Peter, scratching his head sighed, and moved to the final man.
Crestfallen, Peter didn't allow himself to get to hopeful. However, the man started uncertainly after a pregnant moment. He said, "Oh yeah! I remember this! This is the story of the man Jesus who had been crucified, and died. They didn't have any money to bury him, and so a rich guy gave a tomb for Jesus to be buried..." Peter became animated, and urged that man to continue, but the man seemed to be stuck, but the man finally continued. "And after three days...let me think...Jesus came back to life!" At this point Peter was elated and jumped up and down, but the man had not finished. The man continued, "so, after Jesus came back to life, he came out of the tomb, saw his shadow and ran back in, and it meant six more weeks of winter."
It's a pretty terrible joke. However, like Jesus' parable about Poor Lazarus, the theology is not meant to be sophisticated as much as a vehicle to make his point. That being said, the parable does refer to what would be a familiar or popular understanding about the afterlife. So, like the above joke, which makes reference to "pearly gates." "St. Peter," a book of names, et cetera; the parable of Jesus is tapping into pop theology rather than a strict form of belief.
But before I follow too many other rabbit trails, it's helpful to put this passage into some context. There is a section omitted in the chapter which connects this parable to the previous lesson about the "Shrewd Steward" (or however you might title that parable). Jesus is calling out the hypocrisy of the pharisees and other religious authorities. Not only does he encourage shrewdness in his disciples, but he says that the religious authorities are only concerned with money and power. He says that there are some (pharisees, Jesus is looking your way) who want to take the Kingdom of God by force. Jesus even goes so far as to say that these very things that the elitists favor, God abhors. He tells them that it's easier for Heaven and earth to pass away than it is for a stroke of a letter in the law to be dropped. This point he concludes by referencing that anyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery--this, given the context appears to be inferring that the religious authorities have all but abandoned God, and are committing adultery with the promises of worldliness...
I happen to really enjoy reggae. The culture which shaped reggae is steeped in Rastafarianism, and an even deeper kind of liberation theology. The temptations of ambition, power, wealth, and fleshly desires are all considered part of the spirit of Babylon. This is a motif that is regularly used in Hebrew Scripture, and comes through reggae as a reminder that our home, for the time being, is far away, and we dwell presently in Exile--an exile like that of Israel in Babylon. In fact, this idea has informed the title of this blog. That and The Fugees.
Anyway, this belief that the way of God's Kingdom is under siege is an old one. In the reformation Jesus was bringing about there was a focus on how dangerous complacency was for religious people. Further, Jesus railed against the idea that legalism gave a pass to religious people to behave unjustly, unfairly, or to live as if they were a higher class of people. This sense of self-importance that the religious elite held gave them the impression that they ought to be judge of other people, and used their influence and prestige to control and rule over people as arbiters of God's Law and God's people. Jesus gainsaid this by pointing out that what happened in the hearts of these people, and many of their behaviors denied their claim of authority by purity.
This brings me finally to the parable of Poor Lazarus. Lazarus is a guy who is poor, and he sits outside the house of a rich man. The rich man, as culture understands, has 'got his own' and owes no one anything. He must be blessed by God. Lazarus on the other hand is poor and diseased. No one pities him except the dogs who come by and do what little they can to try to comfort Lazarus. The rich man, who has the means to help simply doesn't.
It's in the afterlife that we get the clearest view of these two men. Lazarus who is justified rests with Abraham, whereas the rich man is left in eternal torment. In this situation the religious pietism of the rich man comes through. He begs Abraham to command Lazarus to bring him a drop of water... Once again, Lazarus is not someone to be noticed, he is an entity without worth or agency of his own. Abraham denies the request, and after the rich man begs for Lazarus to be sent back (again Lazarus is never addressed) to warn his brothers, Abraham settles the issue. He states, they have Moses and the Prophets, if their words are not enough to convince them, even the resurrected dead couldn't have a chance.
It's a pretty tough lesson to learn for the rich man. What's more, when I read the parable, I'm almost inclined to want mercy for the rich man and his brothers. There is even part of me that feels like if Lazarus did show up, resurrected, the rich man's brothers would respond and change their ways. I mean, how could they ignore an undead guy? And yet...I wouldn't doubt they would ignore it. More than likely, they would rationalize it away like Scrooge tried to do in "A Christmas Carol". Sure, we're told that all of Nineveh (capitol city of Israel's oppressors) repented when Jonah finally told them to... Absolutely, Israel made a covenant with God which promised terrible recompense if they mistreated people, or were unjust in their dealings. And yet, it would seem the story of Israel's dysfunctional marriage to God is rife with exactly this type of unjust behavior. In fact, the sad reality is that we have had a messenger who has returned from the dead, and he has reiterated the imperative of doing justly, loving mercy and walking humbly before our God...and still. Still, within the Church we find this same kind of dangerous, poisonous, destructive complacency in people of faith. Truthfully, it's the secret we all know, but do we see it, and allow for it because we can't find our way to speak the truth? Do we feel the freedom--or even conviction--to speak out against the complacency, and the self-allowances that we know are rampant within the Church? Well...I don't know. But, I hope that for the sake of the Church we can find the courage to do it.
No comments:
Post a Comment