I'm not sure what I think about this piece. On the one hand, if this was written from a more progressive point of view and was intended to be hip and edgy, people would love it. But it's not, so I suspect that it'll piss off a lot of progressive christians. My problem is that my lived experience tells me that there are a lot of rich people who are good people and who fund a lot of really good causes and a lot of good things. I also see and experience quite a few poor people who are clearly not good people. Right now, I'm in a place where this is making me question the simplistic "poor=good, rich=bad" dynamic that we hear from so many people. This is long, and has a lot of graphics, but I wanted to copy/paste the whole thing. I'm not sure I endorse this entirely, and I'm not sure I'd condemn it entirely. About the only thing I am reasonably sure of is that this is a thought provoking piece and is worth sharing here.
https://matsumoto.substack.com/p/my-lazarus
JMJ
I have a lot of issues with Christianity and, one of them, is that The Poor are mostly bad people.
Unpopular to say maybe. Que sera sera.
In Jesus’ time perhaps it was different. I don’t know. I wasn’t there. Back then, maybe it really was the case that lots of good, otherwise normal people were brutally oppressed by the social structures of their day, kept down and economically destitute and dependent through no fault of their own.
Maybe.
Today though, that’s mostly not the case, and if you don’t believe me I encourage you to go and try it. Go on. The Poor aren’t hypotheticals. They exist. They are real, flesh and blood people and you can go and interact with them. Strangely though, most middle-class people don’t do this and only ever seem to know The Poor academically. From a distance. Through news articles, statistics, and books. They’ve never gotten down and dirty with The Poor. They’ve never tried to befriend an actual poor person.
I have.
Others have.
Dorothy Day did, going to the trouble of making a whole institution dedicated to The Poor which has, over the last 30 years, accomplished basically nothing and maybe made things worse. They hand out coats I guess. That’s good. Someone should hand out coats. The Problems they exist to deal with are never solved though. Very seldom do any of The Poor get better. They just come back around next year, needing another coat, every one of them with some wild, bullshit story about how they lost their last one through totally foreseeable circumstances. Boyfriend stole it. Kid left it on the stove and it caught fire. It was mauled and torn up by the neighborhood dog, or their cousin manipulated them into giving it away, or they had to sell it to cover a night of gambling gone bad. Stuff like that. Thing is, most times they’re not even lying. Their lives really are just that dysfunctional and insane. The on the ground lived reality with The Poor is much, much different than the stories we tell ourselves about them. The Poor are very different than Sunday School led you to believe.
For one, The Poor rape kids a lot.
Like… a lot, a lot.
Listen, I get it. I know we’re not supposed to say this. Our culture believes in only attacking safe targets. “Don’t punch down,” as they say, and so on. Every burglar on T.V. is a white guy, for example. The guys who beat up Joker on the train were finance bros. It’s safe to depict things like that on television because it’s all so disconnected from reality that it can’t offend anyone. Everyone knows its fake. You can’t make a commercial with a black guy breaking into a house because everybody knows that black guys are the ones most likely to actually do that. Similarly, you have to pretend that society’s violent thugs are somehow also employees of Wayne Enterprises, precisely because we all understand that that’s who real thugs least resemble. In the same way, our society has spent a lot of time and energy trying to convince itself that The Real Rapists are frat bros on college campuses, or corporate executives, or other people in positions of wealth and power.
They’re not though.
The real rapists are The Poor.
The people in the ghettos. In the trailer parks. The people in the favelas. The people on Skid Row.
It’s Poor People.
“The Global Poor” are the rapists.
Look, the age of consent in Mexico is 12.
Here are countries that don’t recognize “Marital Rape.”
Here’s some data about the violence against women in West Africa, one of the poorest places on Earth, and, bear in mind, this is just for those over the age of puberty!
Every “poor place” is actually kind of a rape dungeon. The Poor aren’t good people.
In the same vein, here, back home in America, a lot of digital ink has been spilled trying to work out what, exactly, causes the black crime rate to be so high. “Socioeconomic Factors” is a common answer. “Systemic Racism” is another. The farther-right elements of our society like to claim it’s due to “Lower IQ” and the farther-left due to “Capitalism.”
Okay.
But… couldn’t it also be because black boys in the inner city are raped a lot?
Cause, they are.
I mean, doesn’t that make as much sense as any other explanation? Wouldn’t it be natural for abused children to grow into young adults desperate to re-assert their masculinity and dominance because they were made to feel weak as kids?
Did you not know?
This is where the “He disrespected me!” culture comes from. It’s why “disrespect” is seen as justification to pull a gun.
Because they were raped.
They’re reacting against the fact that they were raped.

Raped not just by strangers or “friends” mind you. No. By relatives. Male ones, yes, but female ones too. Data on this is hard to come by, for numerous and rather obvious reasons, but a lot of black men who grew up poor seem to report early sexual encounters with an aunt, cousin, or even a grandma, and this is stuff that our society can’t even begin to address because doing so would insinuate that The Poor can be bad.
Can’t do that.
Nope.
The Poor are only holy angels.
One of modern society’s last remaining taboos is ascribing evil to The Poor.
Likewise, go to a trailer park.
I know most of you haven’t.
What you will find if you do though is that, just like the “inner city”, the trailer park is actually not a bastion of down-on-their luck saints with hearts of gold. Sorry! I don’t know what to tell you. It just isn’t. On the contrary, it’s actually just a place where the police get called a lot. It’s a place where Childhood Protective Services spends a disproportionate amount of time.

Our misperceptions on these issues are, of course, Jesus’s fault.
I don’t know how else to see it.
He’s the one that taught us, over and over again, that The Poor were blessed and particularly beloved, while The Rich were evil and, unless they sold all they had, likely destined for a Devil’s hell. I grant you that The West is no longer, in any institutional sense, “Christian”, but the shadow of its former faith and moral assumptions nonetheless looms large, and it is from Christ himself that our culture gets such a reflexive deference to those without money. We insist, along with Jesus, that The Poor are secretly the best among us, and The Rich obviously the worst. I mean, the word “Billionaire” has practically become a slur. As Super Mario’s brother demonstrated not so long ago, you can just up and kill someone in cold blood to great public applause if you want to… provided he’s a rich person. Provided that he has a title like “CEO” or something attached to his name. God help you if you accidently use too much force when arresting a poor guy though. A guy fighting back. A guy maybe even trying to stab you, or run you over with his car.
Is this fair?
Is this warranted?
I mean, how would our society function without Bankers?
Legitimately asking.
Tax The Rich. Eat The Rich. Kill The Rich.
Okay… but how are people supposed to afford homes or cars without a rich person being there to offer them a loan? Where do businesses get their start-up cash? How many times have you specifically been saved by the ability to use a credit card? In a similar vein, The Gospel writers seemed to have fucking hated Tax Collectors. Well, are IRS employees bad? Truly, how do you expect a state to function without collecting taxes? Jesus Economics sound nice and all but we have a Welfare System and $88 trillion in unfunded entitlements. Also… bridges. Roads. We need $920 billion for Medicaid. I did the math. Nobody else did. When Brian Thompson was killed, United Healthcare was making, on average, around two to four hundred dollars a year in profit off every customer. How much lower should it have been? Can’t be zero. “Government should pay for it!” K. But it doesn’t. And to fill that niche, Thompson’s company provided a cheaper Health Insurance alternative that told you up front, in the writing, what it would and wouldn’t cover, and I know because I used to have it. They never cheated anybody. They always stuck to the stated agreements. Unfortunately, Brian’s customer base was largely poor people, and most of them can’t read. Are you going to sit there and seriously try to tell me that Jeff Bezos hasn’t provided value to your life? That he forced you to start using Amazon Prime? Having the ability to order almost anything and have it come directly to your door in a matter of days is revolutionary. I don’t have to go out shopping anymore! Incredible. Think of all the gas saved. All those hours and hours of time. Are you likewise going to try and tell me that Musk hasn’t provided the world with a lot of genuine benefit? That making electric cars that work isn’t a big deal? And who do you think’s done more for The Third World and its poor? Christian charities, or Starlink, the service enabling even a random goat farmer in Botswana to have access to banking? I’m not saying that rich people are de facto innocent, or that they never abuse their power, or that there aren’t legitimate concerns. No. I’m just saying that it’s by no means clear that they’re de facto guilty either, and the Christian impulse to valorize The Poor over The Rich seems misguided when you realize The Rich tend to rape less.
And they do.
Listen, part of the reason people are so enamored with Jeffrey Epstein is because it puts the problem of child abuse on Rich Guys, “correct” targets that it’s socially acceptable to hate. It also puts it far away, on an island in the Caribbean, a distance where everyone can get Big Mad about it without ever needing to take any sort of action to fix the problem.
Little Saint James island?
Brother… you ain’t got to go that far.
Auntie Pearl’s right over there… chillin’ on Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard.
…
.
Of course,
Then you’d actually have to do something.
It’s easy to get mad at Evil far away.
Because of the legacy of Jesus, we’ve been taught to assume that Crime and Poverty go together only because Crime follows Poverty. That The Poor are only doing what they do because they’re desperate and lashing out. They have no other option you see. Riots are the language of the unheard.
But…
Think about what that says for a moment.
What’s the claim being made here, exactly?
Are we saying that all of us are just a few missed paychecks away from stealing? That if the number in our bank accounts gets too low, we’ll suddenly start wanting to murder, or start selling drugs? If your house burned down tomorrow and you had to live on the street, do you think you’d suddenly develop a taste for sexual assault? If you lost your job and burned through your savings, do you really think you’d become a crime lord? Turn into Walter White?
…
I don’t think you would, actually.
I just don’t buy that narrative.
From what I can tell, most of you are more or less decent people and I’m not persuaded that losing your income would cause many of you to also lose your morals.
So what if Crime doesn’t follow Poverty?
What if Poverty follows Crime?
What if Poverty follows Evil?
Listen.
I didn’t grow up in a favela, or a ghetto, but neither do I speak from a place of total ignorance on the subject. In purely economic terms, I have been “poor” for long stretches of my life… at least according to how most of the affluent on Substack would understand the term. I am not from a wealthy background. I was born into a situation that didn’t have a ton of money. My mother came from a family who lived in a literal shack in Louisiana. Like, the kind a guy in overalls hunts gators out of. My father grew up in rural Alabama. My own childhood occurred in a house in the middle of a cow pasture, surrounded on every side, 360 degrees, by horns and manure and tails swatting at flies. My mom didn’t work. To make ends meet, My dad sold used cars. Our local economy was a place called “Lu-Lu’s Tanning Bed and Chainsaw Repair” and an old 76 gas station that also sold groceries. Every year, we’d have a tractor pull. That was the entertainment. Rednecks competing to see whose custom modifications could make their farm equipment pull weight the fastest. We had a 1983 Ford Thunderbird that we kept parked on the lawn beneath a tree to keep the interior from melting in the sun, and the only real connection to the wider world was a freight train that passed by four times a day, including at about six in the morning, when it woke up all the chickens.
It wasn’t Beverly Hills.
Now, I’m not trying to make it out like we were destitute. Not at all. In fact, I never even felt poor because, unlike my best friend, my parents could afford to take me to the dentist and we didn’t have to cut our grape juice with water to make it last longer. I’m just saying that, objectively, by the standards of the time and, especially today, we were nowhere close to “upper class” and I was not unacquainted with The Poor.
I can say therefore, with some confidence, that many poor people are just shitty.
As people.
Not all of them. No. Of course not.
A lot though.
Again… 30% of the inner city before turning 13. That’s… that’s a lot.
My own parents were great. Exemplarily even. Over the course of my life I watched them more or less do the boomer thing of pulling themselves up by their own bootstraps and I would argue that this was only possible because they, unlike so many others around them, had strong moral compasses. They worked hard. They went to church. They stayed away from drugs, alcohol, gambling, and didn’t get divorced. They never did anything violent. Neither ever cheated on the other and they did their best to do right by their kids. And now, in retirement, they have a beautiful house on a beautiful lake, one built in no small part by their own hands. Today they spend their time sitting up there, watching the water and cruising around on the boat, or sitting by the fireplace in the winter listening to the hooting of the owls.
Great.
The American Dream.
It works.
But… a lot of other people in our community didn’t turn out so great. Lot of people in our own family. And you know, for some, yes. For some it really was just plain old bad luck. Disease. Accident or illness. Some tragedy or other that couldn’t have been prevented. One bright young fella got in a car accident during senior year and lost both his legs. That’ll set you back. Another’s husband got early onset dementia. He was the primary earner. That’s though. Hard to power through. For most of the people from our town for whom life didn’t work out though, you can pretty well pinpoint exactly how and when they, personally, threw their own lives in the toilet. How they made one or two… not just bad… but evil choices which derailed their whole future. I had a cousin who did time for running an eBay scam, for example. Another who died in his early twenties being drunk on a borrowed jetski and driving it full speed into a bridge. Deacon at the church we went to molested his own granddaughter. He was a poor fella. Prideful about it too. One of those “I’m just as good as any rich man” types.
He wasn’t though.
None of the “rich men” he was comparing himself to molested minors.
Is what it is.
My grandfather held my mom at gunpoint once and took her puppy, put it in a bag, and slammed it against the wall in front of her until it died. She was like seven.
That’s why he lived in a shack, see?
Not because of “socioeconomic factors”, but because he was a bad person.
People rightfully don’t like giving jobs to guys like that. Banks correctly see them as too risky to trust with a mortgage. Are you going to say they’re wrong in that? Would you give rape deacon insurance coverage? Do you think it’d be wise to sponsor eBay scam guy through college?
“EVERYONE DESERVES A CHANCE!”
… …
… Do they?
And so what if Africa is poor, not because of colonialism, or historical oppression, but because Africans are bad?
Is this not worth considering?
What if Latin America is run by violent drug cartels, not because of the economic policies dictated by the median U.S. voter, but because a large number of Hispanics are just sadistic and evil?
What then?


…
What then?
As I said, one of the consistent messages of The Bible seems to be that The Poor are Holy Victims and The Rich are Unjust Oppressors and, I gotta’ be honest with you, I just don’t see it. In fact, my real life experience has shown me exactly the opposite, so much so that I’m fairly confident that yours has too, if you can find the courage to admit it. Everyone I’ve ever met that lives in a gated community has been exceedingly generous and kind, and people in upscale neighborhoods are simply not that prone to stabbing. Most everyone in The Hamptons are big fans of consent. Dads from the rich suburbs of Atlanta generally aren’t hiding pistols in their waistbands, waiting to draw on you if they feel disrespected. Our entire society appears to be living in an exact inversion of reality, where the nicest people are Bad and the worse amongst us inherently and unquestionably Good simply by virtue of the fact that they’ve kind of failed.
I mean… what?
Are the poor not also obsessed with money?
Of course they are.
They’re not poor voluntarily. It’s not a choice. They’d snatch it all up in a moment if they could… they just don’t know how. They’re certainly not keep down by an excess of sharing!
But, our Lord told a parable.
It goes like this:
There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores and longing to eat what fell from the rich man’s table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores. “The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried. In Hades, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.’
“But Abraham replied, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been set in place, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.’
“He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my family, for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’
“Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’
“‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’
“He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’”
…
.
The rich man is evil.
The poor man, worthy of Heaven and eternal bliss… apparently just for being poor.
…
… …
Numerous problems with this of course, the first and most obvious being that it just reads as petty jealousy. Is no one bothered by the fact that, when the tables are turned, Lazarus and Abraham appear to be every bit as unconcerned with the suffering of others as The Rich Man was in life? In fact, they are arguably far more so since, you know, The Rich Man is now literally in hell, and they seem completely okay with that. Are we to imagine that the people in Heaven, The Blessed, are the sort of people who could enjoy Eternal Bliss even while staring across a chasm at others forever burning alive? Can we really call such people Righteous? Again, is that sort of indifference not exactly what The Rich Man was condemned for? Further, are Heaven and Hell, as Abraham here implies, nothing but a sort of Cosmic Irony Machine? Just flipping the script of whatever existed in life such that the last are first and the first, last? A ghost rising from the dead and warning people of Hell isn’t going to have any affect? Really? And what about Lazarus himself? I mean, was he paralyzed? Dogs? Bro… I get having dogs lick your wounds would be awful but couldn’t you have swatted them away or something? “So lazy he wouldn’t hit a lick at a snake”… old saying we used to have in The South.
We could go on. This is but one of the many places in The Gospels where Jesus’s teachings seem morally problematic.
None of that is the main issue I have with that parable though.
The main issue I have… is the fact that the poor man in my life, My Lazarus, just isn’t some humble, righteous man down on his luck and suffering for no good reason.
He’s just not.
On the contrary, my Lazarus is a guy who pulls his dick out in public.
My Lazarus is shitting in a public stairwell.
My Lazarus is a guy screaming on the subway, daring people to say something so he has some semblance of an excuse to stab them.
My Lazarus walks around shirtless, being intentionally threatening to men and harassing women and children.
The city advises me to leave me car unlocked so my Lazarus doesn’t have to break the windows when he wants to steal my stuff.
My Lazarus leaves bloody needles on the children’s playground.
My Lazarus just doesn’t seem like a good guy.
…
… … …
So why is domestic (and international) policy so hellbent on pretending that he is? Why do we continue to insist that The Poor are just one small act of kindness away from getting off heroin, going to college, becoming upstanding members of the community and no longer masturbating in the public park?
Is it because Jesus said so?
If it is, then, frankly, it just seems like Jesus was wrong.
I hear you.
“Yoshi,” you say to me, “if you feel this way, why are you still Christian?”
Well, I guess because I view religion like marriage. Indissoluble and all that. ‘Till death do us part” and, hopefully, not even then. I suppose that the conceit of Faith is this idea that you trust that it all makes sense somehow, even if you can’t see how it does in the moment, and I’ve worked through enough similar issues in the past to understand how such might be possible here. A marriage has rough patches, and look, maybe your wife will just never learn to hang up her towels. Whatever. So be it. You see it through. You trust somehow that it’s all how it’s supposed to be and that, one day, if you are patient and mediate and pray, the answers will come.
That’s my faith. Not to be cliche, but I do see it as more of a relationship than a religion.
Marriage is a two way street though, and if God asks me to give an account of myself then I must also do the same of him. Jesus seems wrong here, and I’m okay saying it, because I cannot call what seems to me Black, White, or White, Black. That would be lying and relationships can survive disagreement… but they can’t survive deceit.
So.
Maybe the answer will come.
When and if it does, I’ll tell you about it.
In the meantime though, much of the public, including many politicians and most of the clergy, appear to be operating off of Christian-inspired moral intuitions that just seem plainly false if you live with your eyes open. The Poor have become something of an idol for many of them. An abstraction. To hear them talk, The Poor are the source and summit of all Good, Righteousness, and Virtue. The Poor are, in fact, a god, and one which cannot be spoken against. I mean this literally, by the way. For such people, The Poor are Jesus, they are God.
And of course they must be.
Jesus himself said they were.
Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’ — Jesus, Gospel of Matthew
“In the poorest of the poor Christ continues to suffer and rise again… it is in them that the Church rediscovers her call to show her most authentic self." — Pope Leo
But, you know… is this Jesus?
Is this Jesus?
How about this?
Or this?
These are what a lot of actual poor people are like.
Again, not all. But, a lot.
So, if The Poor are de facto God in our society then maybe we have a problem.
Because that means we’re all worshiping Dysfunction, and so it makes no sense to start acting all surprised when things around us start breaking down.
I mean, if The Poor are righteous just for being poor, and the rich evil just for being rich, then…
How can we be surprised when a majority of Christian countries look like this:
…
How can we be surprised that America and the rest of “The West” is increasingly tending that same way?
See, the thing is, Trads are correct.
The e-Caths, the Ortho Bros… none of them luxuriate in the thought of 8th century peasant life for no reason. Living under a thatched roof with some sheep and a trad-wife in a sundress. Historically, for all the very obvious reasons described above, Christianity and Poverty have gone hand-in-hand, and, as a place gets more wealthy, it tends to have less faith. When folks like Paul Kingsnorth or Jay Dyer or whoever else say that the policies and economics of Western, Protestant countries are less Christian than those of Latin America, or Eastern Europe, or even Africa, they are correct. Absolutely correct. It is in fact very hard to find a justification for laissez faire capitalism in the gospels. One just doesn’t encounter a lot of rugged individualism in The New Testament. In the Bible, you will not find Ben Franklin’s assertion that “The Lord helps those who help themselves,” but rather almost the exact opposite, that the Lord helps the helpless and that each of us has a moral duty to not own more than one coat. The Church in The Book of Acts was basically a commune for goodness sakes. I don’t think it’s fair to call Jesus a Socialist… there’s a lot in that definition that probably wouldn’t apply to him, but he’s closer to that than he is to, say, a Libertarian, or a whatever economic system was preferred by Rush Limbaugh. The problem is though…
We’ve tried all that.
The countries with economics more faithfully informed by Christian ethics suck and it sucks to live there.
Catering endlessly (my God… can they talk about anything else??) to The Poor and “The Common Good” simply does not make a place prosperous. The data is in. We’ve ran the experiment and we can say that definitively. For all its faults, Usurious Capitalist America with its Puritan Roots totally untethered from Christian tradition is where much of the world is desperate to move and, if you’re going to bring religion into politics and let it shape your moral assumptions and your worldview…
You have to do something about that.
You have to somehow square Jesus being wrong.
The easy out, of course, and the one which I suspect many will try to take, is to simply pivot and claim that Jesus’s teachings are for The World to Come, and not for this one, and that materialistic concerns and outcomes are of no account.
Great.
Try selling that to the public though. Be honest. Say, “We’re going to implement Christian informed economics and, yes, that’s going to mean a lot less material prosperity but, trust us, it’s better for your souls.”
See how that goes.
‘Cause, the favela isn’t optional actually. People don’t want a thatched roof. They like going to the dentist. They like having clean water and plenty of food and cars and a T.V.
You simply can’t have it both ways. Either Christ’s teachings are only about preparation for The World to Come, and have no relevance for how we govern The World Now, meaning, we should not use them to inform our governance, OR they were intended for This World and we have to deal with the fact that The Fruit that they produce when implemented just isn’t very good. The Christian position today is really rather tenuous. They’re trying to stand there and scream “Usury Bad!” amidst the most prosperous era the world has ever known. One funded almost entirely by banks and loans. For nineteen centuries The Church went on endlessly about our duty to the starving poor. It was only the 20th century’s godless capitalism which cared to actually grow enough food to feed them.
And so, as I see it, The West is arguably destroying itself trying to adhere to Christian morality.
To Welcome the Foreigner.
To Give to all Who have Need.
To Have Mercy on the Criminal, and Be Lenient and Forgiving of All Crime.
And we have to ask ourselves if we really want that because, listen, maybe destroying yourself is the point. Christianity is a religion about dying and being resurrected after all. Have you forgotten that? The whole premise is that you die to self and, in so doing, find a life more true.
It’s just no longer obvious that that’s actually a good idea though. Not on a political level at any rate.
Seems like all its causing us to do is to pretend that the schizophrenic with a knife on the streets of San Francisco is somehow more holy and good than the suburban mom in her house peacefully watching Bluey with her kids and, I gotta’ be honest, that sounds insane. That assumption is simply false, and building public policy around it probably isn’t a good idea. See, everyone is terrified of being The Rich Man and going to Hell, and therefore we find ourselves catering endlessly to the whims and decrees and desires of every Lazarus.
But, unfortunately, Lazarus is kind of a shit.
He’s kind of a problem.
We’ve hung out with him for a while now and we’ve realized that maybe there was a reason he was homeless to begin with and it’s maybe because nobody could stand to work with him because he was a deeply immoral, selfish, and insane. If The Rich Man had let Lazarus into his house Lazarus would have immediately turned into a giant, scary, problem. Everybody knows it. That’s why you don’t let your Lazarus into yours now.
So I dunno.
My Lazarus seems different that Jesus’s.
As I say, me and God are in a discussion about it.
In the future, I’ll let you know what he says.



















35 comments:
First of all, this is just bad, self-centered, shallow-thinking, self-indulgent, monotonous ranting/rambling/writing that you're quoting. It's not a coherent presentation of facts or even of opinions. it's a one note rant. As a person with a journalism background, I can't imagine that you could possibly disagree with this assessment. Were you ever an editor? Would THIS have ever passed your editor's desk? I was an editor and, no. Just, no. Not even in a community college newspaper.
But more on that later. I'll deal with your introduction first.
Craig:
But it's not, so I suspect that it'll piss off a lot of progressive christians.
If by "piss off," you mean, it will BORE progressive christians with it's inane emptiness, yes. Otherwise, no. It just seems written from a place of monotonously boring ignorance.
My problem is that my lived experience tells me that there are a lot of rich people who are good people and who fund a lot of really good causes and a lot of good things.
Do you think that progressive Christians disagree with that notion, as far as it goes?
I also see and experience quite a few poor people who are clearly not good people.
What? You mean, BAD poor people exist?? !!! But, HOW is that possible? NO one could actually believe such a lie, right??
Please, don't be obtuse. Tell me, though: Do you think the MAJORITY of poor folks are somehow less moral than the average wealthy person? If so, do you have data to support that theory? (that's rhetorical, of course, you don't).
Right now, I'm in a place where this is making me question the simplistic "poor=good, rich=bad" dynamic that we hear from so many people.
WHO says "poor=good, rich-=bad"? Is THAT what you think I've said? Because, go back, read my words. That isn't anything I've said. It's nothing that any progressive I know has said.
What WE say is that people are people, fallible, prone to making mistakes, with good, moral moments and bad, less-moral moments. Because, of course that's just the reality of it all.
I almost suspect that's something you could agree with (since, you know, it's reality and shit).
I suspect you're operating from a place of not understanding progressive positions. Of course.
Okay, moving on to deal with some of the low-grade "points" this author tries to make, with no proof beyond his claims. Re: Parable of the rich man and Lazarus.
The rich man is evil.
The poor man, worthy of Heaven and eternal bliss… apparently just for being poor.
That is not the point of this parable. The poor man is not worthy of Heaven and bliss simply because he's poor. The text does not say that, reason does not demand it. Given the rest of Christ-ian teachings (ie, the teachings of Jesus), the poor man is with God because of God's grace and that God is not willing that any should perish.
The rich man, on the other hand, is apart from God because the rich man CHOSE to live apart from God. He loved/relied upon/desired money, NOT to be with God. He had no compassion for God as evidenced by his cruelty towards the poor (as evidenced by just ignoring them unto death).
And on that point, the author cited the Sheep and the Goats parable and concluded:
The Poor are Jesus, they are God.
And in so doing, he suffers the malady common to many more conservative folks: He fails to understand poetry and metaphor.
What Jesus said:
‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’
But he wasn't indicating Poor Pete sleeping on a bench down the street from me was literally Jesus H Christ, barJoseph, the first century Palestinian Jew. That's the metaphor. He was saying (as we see throughout all of Scripture) that God IDENTIFIES with the poor, God ALLIES with the poor and marginalized, God WELCOMES the poor, the marginalized, the outcast, the foreigners, those who are destitute and lacking in love.
And thus, as we see in Sodom and Gomorrah, as we see in Micah's and Isaiah's Jerusalem, as we see in the poor community of the early church, we see a God welcoming and identifying with the poor, NOT because the poor are perfect saintly human beings, or because they ARE God (or Jesus) but simply because they are beloved by God, as is all of humanity.
Metaphor.
In short, this guy is not understanding the text and thus, misrepresenting Jesus and other biblical teachings that consistently have God identifying with and siding with specifically the poor and marginalized, NOT because they are saints but because they are God's beloved.
AND we further see a God that welcomes the rich and powerful and even the abusers and oppressors to surrender their oppression, sell their oppressive shit and join the Beloved Community of God, as evidenced by their welcome and embrace of the poor and marginalized.
Or at least that's what progressive Christians are saying, contrary to what this guy suggests in his grade school evaluation.
more...
Finally, for now, I'll just point out the error of much of his 1 inch deep "reasoning," regarding how "bad" the poor literally are, how "they" are rapists, thieves, molesters, etc.
He repeatedly makes unsupported, daft claims like,
The real rapists are The Poor.
The people in the ghettos. In the trailer parks. The people in the favelas. The people on Skid Row.
It’s Poor People.
“The Global Poor” are the rapists.
And he cites some barely there statistics regarding how the poor are more often convicted of crimes like rape. What he doesn't even TRY to address is the lack of ANY proof that the poor are actually more immoral than wealthier, more privileged people.
Yes, it is a given that poor people are CONVICTED more often of crimes. But as we see with this felonious, criminal president, merely NOT being convicted is not evidence that "the rich" and more privileged are more "moral" or less likely to rape than the poor. It's just that the poor do not have the legal privileges broken systems extend to the rich that they don't extend to the poor.
He offers NO support for this claim that "the poor" are uniquely "more immoral" than anyone else.
For rationally-thinking adults, that's a rather shallow argument.
Also, keep in mind, when it comes to "stealing," IF a system unduly rewards the rich with more riches JUST for being rich in a way that it does NOT reward the poor, doesn't mean that the rich are morally better. It just means they are privileged by a system that promotes the wealthy and privileged and penalizes the poor and marginalized.
I would hope you're aware of the studies and research about how very expensive it is to be poor and how very easy it is for the wealthy to remain wealthy and retain wealth? If not, look it up.
In short, this "opinion" piece is a low-grade middle school rant, not a serious discussion of the problems of both wealth and poverty. With apologies to middle schoolers.
I will say this: This author ("Yoshi Matsumoto," if that's who they are) DOES a tremendous job of indicting conservative religionists as it relates to the actual teachings of Jesus (even given that he's not well-understanding the teachings of Jesus).
the policies and economics of Western, Protestant countries are less Christian than those of Latin America, or Eastern Europe, or even Africa, they are correct. Absolutely correct. It is in fact very hard to find a justification for laissez faire capitalism in the gospels. One just doesn’t encounter a lot of rugged individualism in The New Testament. In the Bible, you will not find Ben Franklin’s assertion that “The Lord helps those who help themselves,” but rather almost the exact opposite, that the Lord helps the helpless and that each of us has a moral duty to not own more than one coat. The Church in The Book of Acts was basically a commune for goodness sakes.
I'm guessing they're neither seriously conservative nor progressive nor Christian in any sense of Jesus' teachings, and more of an adolescent wannabe provocateur.
Oh, one more. Where they say (speaking of Christian teachings...)
To Have Mercy on the Criminal, and Be Lenient and Forgiving of All Crime.
That needs to come with some caveats. Have mercy on criminals? Sure. Forgiving of all crime? To some degree, yes.
BUT, we must recognize that having mercy and being forgiving means "impose no consequences..." The rapist (whether a poor teen or a wealthy president) SHOULD be held accountable for their crimes. Their crimes NEED to be recognized as an assault on humanity and an assault on the God who loves humanity. The survivor of such assaults may choose to forgive them, but that would not mean there'd by no consequences.
The oppressors, the abusers, the molesters, the rapists... those who misuse and oppress the poor and marginalized AND who also enrich themselves off such crimes, there need to be consequences for these actions. We may still have mercy and perhaps even offer forgiveness (that would be up to the survivors of the abuse), but consequences still are there in the Christian worldview (ie, the worldview and Way, as taught by Jesus).
I don’t have the time, or inclination, to dig too deeply into the comments in moderation right at the moment. But I do want to address two things from the first comment.
First, Dan claims that his response to this particular post was not to be pissed off, but that he was bored by it this may be true, although I can’t imagine personally, that I would invest the time and effort to make five lengthy comments on a post that I found boring.
Second, Dan seems either intentionally or unintentionally confused by this post. He seems to want to apply some level or expectation that this piece be held to some standard of journalism when it clearly is not intended to be journalism. The entire notion that this piece should be evaluated as if it was journalism simply because Dan says so, seems crazy to me.
Given this less than auspicious beginning to Dan’s extensive response, I will have to decide how much time and effort I plan to put into dealing with Dan’s complaints.
But that’ll probably happen tomorrow.
FWIW, I won’t be shocked if Dan manages to take this post which he finds boring and add several additional comments to be moderated before I have a chance to address this any further.
One last note before I pass Dan‘s comments. If Dan‘s previous behavior is any guide, most of his problems will be addressed to the actual author of the peace, but will be presented as Dan demanding that I answer questions about what the author said or meant. To the extent that this is what I find, I will make the following suggestion. There is a link to the actual original piece in my post. That piece contains a provision for comments. It would probably be much more fruitful for Dan to go there in search of illumination rather than expecting me to provide what I suspect he will demand.
One can note, "This writing is rubbish" and still think it worthwhile to say, "and here's why..."
The reason I think it's worthy of responding to (in spite of the poor writing, reasoning or lack thereof) is because people like you appear to find it somehow compelling or, at the least, worth sharing.
I've spent a good portion of my post-conservative life talking with, to and about "conservative" "arguments" and theories. To the degree that many conservatives might find this silliness, "compelling," or even worth posting, I find it worthwhile to take a minute to address it.
Consider it my penance for holding such views as a young adult.
as to your second comment, this person doesn't appear to be readily identifiable as a known entity, just some random person on the internet, I can't really address the writer much, can I.
And, as always, I'm not going to ask you what the author meant. If you can't understand me when I repeatedly clarify my points which you've misunderstood, why would I think you understand this person (or the Biblical authors)?
What I might do is what I regularly do: Ask you, "What do YOU think about this?"
Is that not reasonable and fair?
Dan
One more point on this writer's unsupported, rather projecting theories...
everyone is terrified of being The Rich Man and going to Hell, and therefore we find ourselves catering endlessly to the whims and decrees and desires of every Lazarus.
But, unfortunately, Lazarus is kind of a shit.
He’s kind of a problem.
We’ve hung out with him for a while now and we’ve realized that maybe there was a reason he was homeless to begin with and it’s maybe because nobody could stand to work with him because he was a deeply immoral, selfish, and insane. If The Rich Man had let Lazarus into his house Lazarus would have immediately turned into a giant, scary, problem. Everybody knows it. That’s why you don’t let your Lazarus into yours now.
So I dunno.
My Lazarus seems different that Jesus’s.
Of course, the text supports none of this. Truly, this writer is talking about HIS "Lazarus," and not the Lazarus in the bible. By reimagining Lazarus as the worst possible human, someone to fear and demonize, he's going beyond the text AND beyond the evidence. ARE there poor people who are morally bad or potentially dangerous (and sometimes for a wide variety of reasons?) Yes, of course, just as there are middle class and rich people who are morally bad and potentially dangerous.
But are the poor MORE likely to be objectively immoral or potentially dangerous? The data does not support that, it's just an empty claim.
This person is clearly afraid of and hateful towards "the poor" as a class. He's projecting his fears and bigotries on to the rest of us and to the poor... or at least he's trying to do so.
Rational people will recognize the slander and fearmongering for just what it is.
Look, if you want to respond so extensively to something you consider boring and horribly written, that’s your choice. That your choice undercuts your reason is your problem.
Maybe you missed the link that I included in the post, maybe you don’t know how links work, maybe you don’t know how to search things, or maybe I made a mistake with the link. In any case, the link that I included will take you to the original, which has a comment section.
You regularly demand that I speak for Art, Glenn, and others as well as demand that I answer questions about what people mean. Your recent demands that I tell you how Talarico defined words and what he meant is an example of you doing this.
You’ll ask, I’ll answer, and you’ll bitch that I didn’t answer. Some things don’t change.
It's amazing Dan still tries to insist that was once conservative, while never failing to prove he has absolutely no idea what conservatism is or what actual conservative people think and why they think what they think. Dan's perception of conservatism is cartoonish.cartoonist. I've little doubt his response to this post will be as well. Dan's not the deep thinker he likes to believe he is.
As for me, being on the road,I've only skimmed this lengthy piece but aside from his references to Jesus, I've not found anything too terribly amiss with the author's perspective. I intended to give it more attention in the next day or so.
"Were you ever an editor?"
No, I had no interest in being an editor when I got my BS.
"Would THIS have ever passed your editor's desk?"
This isn't journalism, it's not pretending to be journalism, and if it did show up in a newspaper it would be an op/ed.
"I was an editor and, no. Just, no. Not even in a community college newspaper."
Who cares about you boasting about being an "editor" in JUCO. That's not really a flex.
"If by "piss off," you mean, it will BORE progressive christians with it's inane emptiness, yes. Otherwise, no. It just seems written from a place of monotonously boring ignorance."
Yet is has clearly done more than bore you. It's safe to say that it's pissed you off just a little given the fact that you rushed to post 5 comments and added a sixth. People who are bored, don't waste time on something that bores them.
"Do you think that progressive Christians disagree with that notion, as far as it goes?"
As noted repeatedly elsewhere, I don't speak for anyone but myself. Based on your comments over an extended period of time, I have never heard you say anything positive about anyone who could be considered "rich" or commend anyone "rich" for anything. I've never seen you refer to or proof text anything not negative about the "rich". But that's just my experience with you and what you've said.
"Please, don't be obtuse. Tell me, though: Do you think the MAJORITY of poor folks are somehow less moral than the average wealthy person?"
You, of all people, should know the answer to this question. I will say that the data cited in the piece does suggest at least a strong correlation between poverty and certain behaviors.
"WHO says "poor=good, rich-=bad"? Is THAT what you think I've said?"
Well, it's a slightly exaggerated, hyperbolic, sarcastic simple rendering of what you appear to be suggesting on a regular basis.
It is always so refreshing when you decide that you get to speak for others, the arrogance is cute.
"That is not the point of this parable."
Is it actually a parable?
"The poor man is not worthy of Heaven and bliss simply because he's poor."
Given that the only piece of information that we have about this guy is that he is poor, why would you conclude that his poverty is not a significant factor? Why is he worthy of heaven?
"...the poor man is with God because of God's grace and that God is not willing that any should perish."
Yet, YHWH is "willing" that the rich man and his family perish as the text makes clear. Why does any exclude them?
As an aside, it's always hilarious to hear you arguing that some people deserve hell.
"He fails to understand poetry and metaphor."
So, now Matt 25 is "poetry and metaphor", gotcha. Yet somehow you understand this poetry and metaphor and can tease out the real meaning from the poetry and metaphor. Are you suggesting that "As you do to the least of these..." is not a literal commentary on how we treat the "marginalized"?
I'm not wasting time with the paragraphs of Dan making claims which he cannot prove based on his eisegesus.
"In short, this guy is not understanding the text and thus, misrepresenting Jesus..."
While Dan does understand the text and is perfectly representing Jesus. That makes total sense. Because Dan has more than a "grade school" grasp if what YHWH really wants and occasionally condescends to instruct those of us who lack his deep knowledge.
Thank goodness, Dan's response is no more substantive than "Nyah, Nyah, Nyah, no it's not.". I saves me time and effort. Had he actually provided a counter to the statistics in the piece, and offered evidence I'd have had to take the time to deal with it.
Strangely enough, Dan has upgraded this piece from "grade school" to "middle school" for some reason. Dan's criticism seems to be mostly ad hom attacks, and insistence that Dan trying to speak for both YHWH and "progressive christians".
Coming from someone who regularly goes beyond the text, the evidence, and presents Scripture in ways that support his preconceptions, it's hilarious to hear you bitch about this.
I went through all 84 comments on the original, and saw nothing that gave any evidence of being from Dan so it seems clear that he isn't willing to take his complaints to the source, but to merely bitch and moan here.
"I think our relationship with the poor reflects Christ’s relationship with us.
We think we are so righteous in our own eyes, but in the eyes of Christ we were a wretched, slum-dwelling, angry, knife-wielding indigent."
This comment, however, did catch my eye.
Craig, once again missing the point:
"Would THIS have ever passed your editor's desk?"
This isn't journalism, it's not pretending to be journalism, and if it did show up in a newspaper it would be an op/ed.
You see, a good (or even moderately okay) editor would recognize that many things get edited, not just journalistic stories or op eds. All writing, as a rule, SHOULD be edited by someone, if only the author.
This piece would not survive a good editor's cut even as an op-ed in a junior college newspaper. It's just poorly rationalized and expressed and slanderous, to boot. It's dim-witted outrage masquerading as a philosophical treatise.
I'm not, and have never claimed to be, an editor. How I work here, at my blog, is that I almost never edit things. I don't edit you, I don't edit, Art, I don't edit Glenn, and I don't edit things that I post. I want as much context as possible, and I don't want to impose my bias on something through editing.
That you have your own biased hunches based on your preconceptions and worldview about this piece is incredibly irrelevant. That you have some need to continue these personal insults as opposed to dealing with substance is telling. It's obvious that this piece pisses you off and that you'd like to edit it until it conforms to something inoffensive to you. Who cares? Why bother? Why not just say that it bored you and you don't agree and move on? Why these continual put downs and attempts to elevate yourself?
The biggest question is why don't you take this to the comments section on the actual post instead of continuing these attacks here?
But keep up with the incantations. It's a great tactic and emphasizes your lack of originality as well as your arrogance.
This whole editor nonsense and the fact that it’s what Dan is obsessed with is bizarre.
When I was getting my Bachelor’s degree I was focused on and interested in reporting the news. I had absolutely no interest in correcting the work of others. Yet, I think we can see how Dan is absolutely wired to judge what others do and to impose his superior intellect on others.
Not surprised at all.
I think we can see how Dan is absolutely wired to judge what others do and to impose his superior intellect on others.
1. You routinely misspell words and have typos and otherwise make editorial mistakes. I rarely comment on that.
2. But I DO (and adults are obliged to) dissect the reasoning when it comes to public policy commentary IF it is being actively promoted as a good policy or philosophical view, ESPECIALLY if the "reasoning" is based on idiotic and hateful presumptions, conspiracy theories and fearmongering.
3. Your source wrote a bad opinion piece, based on all manner of false claims and slanderous charges. Again, this is just some random blogger out there engaging in his/her right to write nonsense. And I'm engaging in my right to criticize the nonsense which IS objectively nonsense. That some random poor writer expresses an opinion (no matter how bad) is meaningless. That many in today's political environment (especially the "maga" "conservatives") take such ideas seriously is deeply problematic.
It's all the more reason we rational adults need to take a stand against dangerous idiot positions, before it becomes accepted as okay and normal.
See Hegseth, your president and the rest of this idiot administration. That these people hold crazy, unsupported ideas is nothing. That they get taken seriously is dangerous.
“Stupidity is a more dangerous enemy of the good than malice. One may protest against evil; it can be exposed and, if need be, prevented by use of force. Evil always carries within itself the germ of its own subversion in that it leaves behind in human beings at least a sense of unease.
Against stupidity we are defenseless.
Neither protests nor the use of force accomplish anything here; reasons fall on deaf ears; facts that contradict one’s prejudgment simply need not be believed – in such moments the stupid person even becomes critical – and when facts are irrefutable they are just pushed aside as inconsequential, as incidental. In all this the stupid person, in contrast to the malicious one, is utterly self satisfied and, being easily irritated, becomes dangerous by going on the attack.
For that reason, greater caution is called for when dealing with a stupid person than with a malicious one. Never again will we try to persuade the stupid person with reasons, for it is senseless and dangerous.”
~Bonhoeffer
Here, I'm not trying to persuade stupid people of the stupidity and banal evil of their claims. I'm just taking a stand to note for all RATIONAL moral adults the danger of the stupidity.
Editing the source you quoted:
I have a lot of issues with Christianity and, one of them, is that The Poor are mostly bad people.
Today though, that’s mostly not the case, and if you don’t believe me I encourage you to go and try it. Go on. The Poor aren’t hypotheticals. They exist. They are real, flesh and blood people and you can go and interact with them.
Strangely though, most middle-class people don’t do this and only ever seem to know The Poor academically. From a distance. Through news articles, statistics, and books. They’ve never gotten down and dirty with The Poor. They’ve never tried to befriend an actual poor person.
Like that. I could go on and on. This is not cogent thinking or reasoning. I'm not deploying the Editor voice because I think he's engaged in bad writing. I'm doing so because it's bad, stupid, ill-informed and unsupported reasoning. He's off-putting in his arrogance which, again, can be ignored. Maybe this is someone with some mental reasoning delays or deficits. No harm, no foul on THE WRITER.
However, another rational adult passing it on as if there might be some sort of legitimate point in this squalid pablum... THAT is a problem.
You have the capacity to think and reason like an adult. Don't be impressed or find yourself (even remotely) compelled by half-regurgitated nonsense.
1. Yet here you are making it a thing. Of course, you do as well and I don’t point yours out to you either. What’s hilarious is that pretty much everyone who blogs or comments stopped making a big deal about typos over a decade ago because everyone does it and making an issue of it is both stupid and a waste of time. But you probably forgot that.
2. This isn’t “public policy commentary”, but I appreciate you making up a new category to justify your criticism. The problem is that most of your attacks are on the author and your perception of their ability, not the content or substance.
3. You are making a claim which you have not even begun to attempt to prove. Until proven otherwise, your claim is false.
That you’ve turned this into some bizarre MAGA/Hegseth conspiracy makes me wonder why you believe yourself competent to make the unsupported claims you’re making.
But yeah, you should try to reign in the stupidity you demonstrate and that of the DFL/DSA candidates before you take it on yourself to make demands of others.
But keep the unsupported claims coming, they’re cute.
I get it, you’d rather demonstrate your ability to criticize and bitch here instead of in the comments section of the original post. How brave, arrogant and superior you are.
By all means though, keep making shit up and attributing it to me as if you have magical knowledge.
To answer some questions to show you how it's done...
Craig:
Is it actually a parable?
Most Christian (and other) scholars would say it is a parable or otherwise a figurative story, NOT that Jesus had watched and was re-telling a story about an actual event about an rich man in an actual "hell" who was watching an actual Lazarus in an actual heaven being held in the actual bosom of Abraham and holds an actual conversation with God bartering for a drop of water while he's burning in an actual "hell."
It reads like parable/imagery, NOT like an actual historic event.
Also, for those of us who reject any "real Hell" in the Dantean sense do not believe that such a mythic place exists, so there's that problem.
Why? Do YOU think this is a literal history of the death of Dives?
Craig:
Given that the only piece of information that we have about this guy is that he is poor, why would you conclude that his poverty is not a significant factor?
Why WOULD we? That's not how reasoning works. If you hear a story about a guy and you learned his wife was shot, do you assume he shot her if that was all the information you had? There's nothing in the story to suggest that specifically. Along those lines:
Why is he worthy of heaven?
He's worthy of grace, according to all of us who believe in a loving and just God who loves all of humanity and wants the best for us. IF we're going to concede a "heaven" with God's select in it, why wouldn't we assume it's just because that's how a grace-full God works?
And along those lines:
YHWH is "willing" that the rich man and his family perish as the text makes clear. Why does any exclude them?
Which gets us back to the notion that this is a parable, not a bit of Jesus reporting on some heaven and hell news.
Jesus is doing what he does throughout his ministry: Teaching about the dangers and abuses of wealth and that God identifies with the poor and marginalized.
This is an earthly AND "afterlife-ly" story with a heavenly message and that message is: Do not self-select yourself out of God's grace and God's ways. Start with embracing and welcoming all, including the poor and marginalized. THIS is the way of God, the way of grace, the way of welcome and inclusion. One can CHOOSE to be abusive towards or even careless about the poor and thus reject God and God's ways, but why in the hell would one do that?
In other words, God isn't excluding him. The rich man excluded himself.
Don't. That's the message Jesus is telling here, not some specific report about what Dives is up to today.
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhh, Dan sees some advantage in answering a few questions so he can brag about it for months. Big deal.
Based on the first “answer” (which doesn’t answer the question asked, is a vague appeal to anonymous authority) the tactic seems clear. “Answer one question as a pretext to ask 2 or 3.
What a joke. Still no substantive takedown of the post, just BS.
Craig's question, once again:
Why is he [Lazarus] worthy of heaven?
It's that sort of presumption and arrogance, I'd suggest, that is most of the point of this parable. By way of reminder: the parable:
There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and
lived in luxury every day.
At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores
and longing to eat what fell from the rich man’s table.
Even the dogs came and licked his sores.
Note: This is an exceedingly wealthy man who lived in his privilege, either not knowing or not caring (or knowing and not caring) about Lazarus and his misery.
BUT, God loved Lazarus.
Continuing:
“The time came when the beggar died and
the angels carried him to Abraham’s side.
Why? Because God loves us all and that begins with the poor and marginalized. God is the great welcome-r and grace-giver to humanity, and especially the poor and marginalized.
The rich man also died and was buried.
In Hades, where he was in torment,
he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side.
So he called to him,
‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and
send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water
and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.’
The rich man, in his presumption, ONLY thinks of Lazarus as someone who could be ordered around. He didn't care about Lazarus (or about God, if you take Jesus' teachings seriously) in life and he still didn't care about Lazarus even in his deathly precarious, painful position. Lazarus is a tool, nothing else.
WHY is Lazarus "worthy" of heaven is missing the point entirely. Of course, Lazarus is included in the great welcoming arms of God and the beloved community of Jesus. That's just a given, for Jesus, throughout his teachings.
The point then is, Why DIDN'T Dives consider Lazarus worthy of grace and welcome or even simple respect?
It's an attitude of rejecting the Beloved Community of God - and that attitude is a deliberate choice to separate one's self from God because, as Jesus makes clear, God is found in the beloved community. You can't love God if you don't love, tend for, ally with, befriend, welcome Lazarus and the other poor and marginalized. Taken with the Sheep and the Goats and in the context of the One who came to proclaim good news to the poor and marginalized, it's rather hard to miss that point or fail to reach that conclusion.
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhh, Dan sees some advantage in answering a few questions so he can brag about it for months. Big deal.
“Why?”
Because I’ve seen some convincing arguments that it’s not a parable, and because you made a definitive claim about it which you clearly cannot prove.
No, I asked a question related to a claim you made. Am I not allowed to challenge your claims?
Again, not an answer. You kind of suck at this.
Third question, third non answer.
Why, because you insist on moving the goal posts, is he worthy of grace?
I’m assuming that’s a rhetorical question. But if you think grace is deserved, I don’t know what to say.
Again, not an answer to the question asked, wrapped up in a bunch of unproven claims.
Who knows why. But multiple possibilities exist.
That’s some creative, inventive, storytelling there. Unfortunately not really any answers or proof.
Cute story, very creative and not really containing anything new or actual proof of your claims.
Craig:
But if you think grace is deserved, I don’t know what to say.
I think that grace is GIVEN, not deserved. If you read my actual words, I've been quite consistent on that point. That is, I'm not saying and never have said that "grace is deserved." It's just a given that it's given. God loves us and what does a loving One do? Extends grace, extends welcome, extends forgiveness.
Do you, even a poor imperfect mortal like you, NOT extend love, welcome and grace to your beloved ones? Of course, you do. And here's the deal: God is even better at this than even you!
Now of course, legalists may want to jump to a question like "Why is grace deserved?" but that's more a function of their legalism and all the more reason to embrace grace, which is freely given, just as an act of love. NOT "purchased with a blood payment" that someone else had to pay - that's not justice or grace - it's a crude business deal.
Craig:
Cute story, very creative and not really containing anything new or actual proof of your claims.
Which one? You mean JESUS' story of Lazarus and the rich man? I'd call it more sad and pathetic (for the rich man and those who identify with him) than sweet. Although, Jesus' grace IS quite sweet, but the point (for Jesus) is always that grace, HERE, NOW, not pie in the sky by and by.
And that's the point of THIS story.
It's the point of Mary's magnificat.
It's the point of Jesus' telling us he'd come to bring good news to the poor and marginalized.
For that matter, it's the point that Isaiah made first.
And it's the point of the story of the Good Samaritan (or at least part of the point).
And it's the point of the parable of the sheep and the goats.
And it's the point of the widow's mite
and it's the story of overturning the moneychangers' tables
and it's the point of James 2 and 5
and it's the point of Acts 2 and 4.
And it's the point the prophets and the psalmists repeatedly make.
And on and on I could go. And these repeated references to Jesus' actual stories and lessons ARE evidence of what Jesus taught because it's right there in the literal words. And my citing the words of Jesus repeating the same point over and over is evidence for why many reasonable people throughout the centuries have drawn the same conclusions I've reached.
Can either of us objectively prove Jesus' intentions? No. But as even your source here admits, it's not hard to understand what Jesus is teaching. He just rejects these clear consistent messages as a wise teaching.
What's wrong with my understanding? At the very least, can you acknowledge that it's built very solidly upon the teachings of Jesus that have caused many people of good faith to reach such conclusions?
Craig:
Still no substantive takedown of the post, just BS.
? What is there to take down? He offered crazy, unsupported opinions. I pointed out that they are crazy and unsupported.
He made claims about the biblical texts that literally are not in the texts.
He drew conclusions from the biblical texts that are not well thought out.
He made broad sweeping claims about the poor ("they're rapists" "they're bad...") that are just stupid when you make such sweeping claims.
He pointed to SOME stories that point out that poor people are convicted more often of some stuff... but that's just a data point about convictions and poverty (and, itself, an indictment of our system) but not proof about the poor.
What is there to take down?
I'm wondering: Do YOU (not him, but YOU, personally in your own little head) think that it's in any way rational to suggest or claim outright that the poor are MORE immoral than everyone else? I can't believe you'd be so bigoted but feel free to clarify for yourself.
If you don't, then what value do you see in this inept post?
Dan
If there’s nothing worthy of you, why keep commenting? You’ve merely made assertions about the alleged failings of the piece, not demonstrated that your dismissal is based on objective Truth.
But if continuing to repeat yourself and bash the author here makes you feel superior. Who am I to diminish your self esteem?
Not Jesus’ story. Just all the claims and embellishments that you added. Unless you want me to believe that you have some special ability to speak for Jesus.
If Grace is given, why not to the rich man or his brothers? Did YHWH not love them?
Post a Comment