The Rich Man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31)

Here is a tough parable from Jesus. Some doubt it was even spoken by Jesus, but it has that hard edge that sounds like him. However, perhaps those who say that Jesus used an original common story and made his own changes might be right. The use of 'Hades' owes more to Greek mythology; Jesus prefers Gehenna (Matt 5:22; 10:28; Lk 12:5), the pit of refuse perpetually burning outside of Jerusalem in the time of Jesus. Interestingly, in OT times is was the valley where Israel joined itself to the ordinary religions around it and practiced child sacrifice.(2Kings 23:10; Jer 7:31) If Jesus has taken an original story and made changes, then we should be careful not to read too much into the imagery of the 'bosom of Abraham' and 'Hades' as exactly replicating Jesus understanding of the structure of the afterlife. Rather, the our focus might be better directed at the strange inversion of expectations in the plot of the story.

A couple of points to think about:

1. The parable seems to run contrary to all manner of prosperity gospels. The prosperity gospel links earthly fortune to God's favour, which will continue into 'heaven'. In its crassest form the prosperity referred to is wealth, but it can just as easily be converted into moral rectitude, spiritual gifts or faith, etc. My faith is evidence of my salvation in the future, especially if that faith includes healings and other extraordinary experiences! But the parable warns us that earthly circumstances are not a reliable indication of our relationship with God, now or in the future.

2. The prosperity gospel is just one more example of ordinary religion. Ordinary religion (as distinct from from Christian faith), despite any rhetoric to the contrary, bases itself on 'you get what you deserve'. In ordinary religion mercy is absent. Interestingly, in the parable the rich man, who showed no mercy during his life, and perhaps in the original story went to heaven (he deserved it just as he deserved his wealth), cannot be helped by an act of mercy.(16:24) His brothers can save themselves from a similar eternal fate if they repent, that is, seek mercy. (16:30)

3. The problem for the rich man is that he misread what is required of him. His earthly comfort was not an indicator that he was being blessed by God! In his smug trust in his own prosperity he sees no need to seek mercy! So, after death he lives out the god he believed in, the god without mercy, where the scales are weighed and the result permanent. The rich man was found wanting. Perhaps we should prefer the God of mercy!

4. The parable ends with the statement that not even a resurrection will convince some people to repent. (16:31) Exactly. Resurrection without the cross is ordinary religion. Ordinary religion needs a resurrection so that its adherents can make the smug identification between themselves and those deserving of eternal life. But ordinary religion especially needs a resurrection without a crucified-risen messiah.Ordinary religion crucified Jesus.

The parable remains a shocking warning to beware ordinary religion and its prosperity gospel, and jumping from our 'prosperity' to eternal salvation. If we want a 'you get what you deserve' approach from God, then we may well get it. And we might find that we haven't earned what we wanted!!

Forgetting and Forgiveness

Forgiveness is a lot harder than we generally think. Usually, what we forgive, we could have just as easily forgotten. And forgetting in most cases is fine. If someone happens to apologize we can forgive, but we could have just as easily forgotten. But then there are the hurts that we cannot forgive. “I can never forgive …” Well, whatever we might mean by this statement, we are certainly saying that we cannot forget. Forgiveness of a hurtful action that can only be forgiven (rather than forgotten) is hard. And the reason is because real forgiveness is asymmetrical. ‘S/he’ has hurt me, and I am meant to just forgive them? Get real. ‘S/he’ can at least say sorry first, and ‘s/he’ could try to make amends, all of which will start to balance out the asymmetry. But even then, if we have been hurt terribly, maybe not. The asymmetry will most likely remain. We can’t forget; and it seems, we can’t forgive. There are a couple of things we can do at this point though. We can make sure we are remembering the incident correctly by not making it worse than it actually was (remembering rightly). We can also avoid imputing motivations for a wrong doing without hard evidence. It might also help if we ask ourselves questions like, “Have I ever done something similar?” or “Could I imagine doing something similar if my circumstances were different?” None of the above excuses the wrong, but we can cut the wrong back to its true proportion. The asymmetry will remain, but it might not be quite so great. Now comes the hard part. Forgive. This won’t mean forgetting (if we could forget we would have done so before). ‘S/he’ doesn’t deserve to be let off the hook, ‘s/he’ should be for ever sorry, for ever trying to make up for what ‘s/he/ did, shouldn’t ‘s/he’? And right at this point we see clearly the asymmetry and why real forgiveness is hard. Forgiveness is letting all that go without compensation. Like I said at the beginning, forgiveness is a lot harder than we generally think. But it is a lot more liberating than we think too.

The Parable of the Dishonest Manager (Luke 16:1-9)

Like me, have you always wondered about this parable? Why praise a dishonest manager? "Well done for being so dishonestly devious." But what if vs 9 were a Lucan addition? It is vs 9 that skews the interpretation of the parable itself. Without vs 9 the praise of the master becomes explicable, and the parable takes its place as part of the battery of parables he uttered in reference to his ministry of forgiving sins.

The key, I think, is not to let vs 9 make us think that the manager continues to act dishonestly when he writes down the debts owed to his master. He has previously been accused of acting dishonestly. (16:1)  However, maybe in a society of honour, writing down the debts of some of his master's debtors (16:5-7) would bring immense kudos to the master. The master would be seen generally as a generous man, and might even get the best seat in the synagogue! (See Matt 6:2) Those whose debts were remitted aren't aware that the manager is acting without the consent of his master. They think they are receiving the master's generosity. When the master finds out what the manager has done he praises the formerly dishonest manager because he has finally done something worthy of praise!


Isn't this exactly what Jesus did? He remitted the debts of sinners in the name of God. And those forgiven would have spoken highly of the generosity of God. No doubt this compounded the anger and fury of the enemies of Jesus. However, when seen in this light, the parable makes sense and can plausibly be seen as part of the battery of parables Jesus told about forgiveness. (E.g. Luke 15; 18:9-14)

A New Imperialism?

Dr Mouneer Anis

It is hard to know what to make of this. On one level it makes a good deal of sense that Africa, with its burgeoning Christian population and energy, will change Christianity, including the Western Churches. However, as reported it sounds a little too triumphalistic, even imperialistic. The missionary activity of African Churches in other countries will, presumably, be working with the churches in those countries, wouldn't it? Well ... given the actions of some Anglican African dioceses, one could be excused for thinking not. Some might say that it would be poetic justice if the shoe were on the other foot after the centuries of western ecclesial imperialism in Africa. While this is true, it would also be a possible example of the way in which human sin is ingrained across the generations, races and cultures. Original Sin, in other words.

A more nuanced response came from the Archbishop of Canterbury when he says that "God raises up different countries and cultures in different seasons to bear witness to his purpose in a specially marked way, and it may be that this is indeed his will for Africa in the years ahead."