Monthly Archives: March 2026

Is it a Sin to be Weird?

Insights, Others' stuff, Ministry, Asperger's/Autism
A Classic Illustration of Sin Obsession.
And its cure.

This was a post in a social media group for autistic Christians. Most of the Christians whose posts I read in that group are Evangelicals, and the discussion is very often about ‘sin’. What is a sin, what is not a sin, what is forgiven, when is it not forgiven, what about the ‘unforgivable sin’, all that sort of thing.

In some ways, this is a typical absolutist autistic comment in a faith already recognised for its black-and-white thinking and attitudes, and which is probably not helped by the group being autistic people; one common trait among autistic people is that of black-and-white thinking, which doevetails nicely with culty Evangelical thinking. But still the principle holds: sin-obsession, even to the point of being worried that an aspect of one’s personality is in and of itself a ‘sin’, sin-obsession itself is a very real problem and is a major trip hazard for neurodivergent and neurotypical people alike when it comes to their faith walk. And so, even neurotypicals among my readership may gain some benefit from considering this question with me today.

Nevertheless, the post was genuine, and reflected to me the heart cry of a person who is struggling with ‘sin’ and also struggling with his uniqueness in his autism. As autistic, neurodivergent people, we are different – different from non-autistic (neurotypical (NT) people) – but we are also different from each other. No two autistic people have the same wiring in their brains, despite them both being autistic. To be autistic is, in many ways, to be alone with your uniqueness. Personally, I actually like being like that, but many autistic people struggle with it. And I get that. But, in short, we are all weird; each of us uniquely so.

Of course, there are no Bible verses about ‘weirdness’, nor about it being a ‘sin’. In fact, the Bible is actually strangely non-specific about ‘sin’ in its pages; rarely is a particular action or behaviour identified as ‘sinful’, and in fact the whole concept of ‘sin’ is not clearly explained at all.

But anyway, I saw here an opportunity to encourage the original poster (the ‘OP’), as did others in the group. All of the answers that expressed an opinion said that ‘No’, it is not a ‘sin’ to be weird. I especially liked a comment where the person said,

“No Bible verse, but I’m coming here to say that “weird” is needed to be a space for other “weird” people to be welcoming and connected to as they embrace one another as brothers and sisters in Christ. We are a spectrum of humanity, and I think God loves that! And when Jesus came here, he was beyond “weird” in terms of not conforming to what was expected of Him at the time. It got Him crucified. So weird in itself, no not a sin as long as your weird isn’t to sin”.

And so that person kind of turned it around, from it being a sin to be weird, to saying that the only sin would be if your weirdness made you sin. Or something like that. And also, more importantly, gave it a positive feel by giving it a context of humanity. Very nicely done!

But, naturally, I, with of course my own brand of autism, noted that the emphasis in people’s comments was, while rightly being on the question itself, was also quite heavily on ‘sin’ too[1], which, as we know, is pretty typical for sin-obsessed Christians. And so I thought I’d put in my two penn’orth, with an emphasis on freedom from the worry of sin and the benefit of that mindset. Unlike my normal practice, I also gave quite a few Scripture references[2]. This was because a) the OP asked for Bible verses; and b) I was fully aware that my audience would comprise many people who would need Scripture verses for every. damn. thing. else they wouldn’t listen. Plus, the teaching I gave was the sort of thing that is hard for many Christians to accept (e.g. Jn 6:60; 2Pet 3:16), and so, the more I could back it up with Scripture, the more they’d benefit from it. I also phrased it to make it clear that although I have some solid ideas, I too am on a learning journey. At least, I hope that’s how it came across, anyway. Here’s what I wrote:

Is it a Sin to be Weird? 

No. It’s not. And there doesn’t need to be a Bible verse for that!

However, let me give you, as a Bible verse, a possible interpretation of Hebrews 12:1, ‘Let us throw off the sin that so easily entangles…’.

I now interpret that to mean that it’s not the sin itself that entangles, like addiction or compulsive behaviour or similar. That is part of it, yes. But my current understanding of that passage – which understanding may not be for everyone, I appreciate – is that it is the obsession with sin itself that is the entanglement. (There is actually a modern translation – the Mirror Translation – that translates it like this: “As with an athlete who is determined to win, it would be silly to carry any baggage of the old law-system that would weigh one down. Make sure you do not get your feet clogged up with sin-consciousness.”)[3] And by this, I mean that if we are sin-conscious all the time, then there is no room in our hearts for the ‘focus your thoughts on things above’ (Col 3:2), nor for the ‘Whatever is true, noble…think on these things’ (Phil 4:8).

Focusing on these higher things, especially according to the Colossians verse (Col 3:2) is our privilege and indeed our right, resulting as it does from our position as people raised up in Christ and seated with Him in heavenly places. Being sin-conscious – being constantly fretting about whether we are sinning or not in any particular situation – is one of the main things that cripples Christians from walking in the Spirit; such people are so sin-conscious that there is no room for them to be Christ-conscious. The verse ‘consider yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus’ (Rom 6:11) is referring to exactly that. We were made to walk free in the forgiveness of the Cross: all sin, past, present and future is forgiven. That’s what ‘It is finished!’ (John 19:30) means, and it’s also what ‘I will remember their sin no more’ (Heb 8:12) means too.

So the question is not so much, ‘Is [insert action of choice] a sin?’, but more ‘Where are we going together today, Jesus?’. One is a set of rules. The other is a way of life. I know which way I’d rather go.

Actually, on further consideration, there actually are a couple of Bible verses for you, on the back of what I wrote above. The first is the classic Romans 8:1, that “…there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus”. If you are in Christ Jesus – and remember that it is God Who has placed you in Christ (2Cor 1:21), not you, so that’s a relief! – then there is no condemnation for you. So whether ‘being weird’ is a sin or not, that’s not the point any more; the point is that no matter what, if you are in Christ then there’s no condemnation. The second verse is in Romans 14:17, that the Kingdom of God is not about food or drink, but about righteousness, peace and joy in the Spirit.

Again, as I said above, being part of the Kingdom is not about following rules – “do not handle! do not taste! Do not touch!” (Col 2:21) but about what we already have in Christ. All that a sin preoccupation does is to distract from, and dilute, who we are in Christ!

Do you see the contrast? Rules about unclean food and things are the old wineskin; freedom in Christ is about realising the righteousness we already have in Christ, the peace that He gives, and the joy of the Holy Spirit. It’s life in a different dimension; rather than living to please the Law and follow its rules, we leave all that behind and just live for Him. And that’s why the old wineskin will burst; it cannot contain a freedom as huge as that!

People sometimes ask me (usually in an accusatory tone!), ‘So then, do you still sin?’ And my answer is invariably, ‘I don’t know! It’s been a while since I looked!’ I’m too caught up with following Jesus to worry about that. That’s why He set me free from it, so I could follow Him without having to worry about things like that. That’s what ‘freedom from sin’ actually means. If God has forgotten my sins (Jer 31:34, Heb 8:12), then why should I dredge them back up again?

And by walking in the Spirit, not thinking about sin or being concerned by it, that means that I do not fulfill the desires of the flesh (Gal 5:16). Walking in the freedom of the children of God (Rom 8:21) means that sin is no longer a problem because I am dead to it; conversely, I am however alive to God in Christ Jesus (Rom 6:11), hallelujah! It is Grace that teaches us to say no to ungodly desires (Titus 2:11-12) and by walking in that Grace which includes the free gift of God’s perpetual forgiveness (Jude 24), sin is no longer our natural way of life. A new heart He has given us! (Ez 36:26; 2Cor 5:17)

Well, that’s what I said. So far, no-one has reacted in any way to the post, but as usual I am not discouraged by this! The people who needed to see it; those who needed to hear its message, will have done so and will have been blessed. In fact, I would estimate that some people are afraid to react positively in public to that sort of teaching, because it’s not exactly mainstream with regards to the belief structures of the group as a whole. And that’s ok. It is nevertheless a viewpoint that is fuly supported by Scripture, and, for those who have the ears to hear, it will be a source of great blessing.

And, of course, there’s you, my readers, seeing this here today. Only when I stand before Him will I know how many people have been helped by what I shared with the autistic brother that day, and by my re-sharing it on here.

Grace and Peace to you all!

I haven’t included this article in the series, ‘The Problems of Evangelicalism‘, because ‘sin-fixation’ isn’t a problem which is confined only to that branch of Christianity. It features heavily in it, of course, but it’s pretty widespread in the faith as a whole. So I thought I’d leave it more open than just saying this is an Evangelical quirk; it’s not.

Footnotes

Footnotes
⇧1 Yes, I do realise that ‘sin’ was part of the question and therefore valid for comment!
⇧2 Hopefully, that wasn’t proof-texting, because I wasn’t trying to prove things, just to support. Proof texting is where someone rips a verse out of context in order to force a point of view; this was much more gentle than that. But I’ll let you be the judge!
⇧3 Hence my use of an athlete sprinting, as my header picture!

Spring Forward, Fall Back

Personal, Humour
By the time you read this, it might be too late!

If you went to church this morning, you may well have noticed some regular congregants sneaking in at the back about an hour after they would normally have arrived. They’ll have been looking quite sheepish, I’d have thought.

In fact, you may even have been one of those sheepish people yourself; you’ll know by now why this happened, and this post is indeed too late for you!

My apologies for being completely unhelpful. 😉

Last night, (or, more accurately, this morning at 02:00), daylight saving time came into effect here in the UK; the clocks went forwards by an hour. This means that everyone who forgot about this annual event[1] will have been running an hour late today until they realised what was going on. Spring Forward, Fall Back. In the Spring, you move the clocks forwards an hour. In Fall (autumn) you move them back an hour. Nice and simple, or so you’d have thought!

When I led Sunday worship on a weekly basis, at my old church in Leeds, on that last weekend in March there were always some people who came in an hour late. Always! I was usually strongly tempted to welcome them by name, as they tried to sneak in unobserved at the back[2], and even maybe invite them to come and sit at the front like naughty schoolchildren 🤣 Believe me, the temptation was almost irresistible![3]

Despite the ‘lost’ hour, depleting our precious weekend by sixty irreplaceable minutes (you’ll see why they were ‘irreplaceable’ in a minute!), we were never once treated to an hour’s shorter sermon[4] on one of these Spring Forward weekends. Or even no sermon at all! But of course that never happened either.

And what makes it even funnier is what happened at the other end of the year, in the autumn, (usually the last weekend in October) when the clocks go back an hour so you get to spend an extra hour in bed if that’s what you want to do. Or, maybe you might want to take things a little easier on the Sunday because, if you think about it, you’ll actually be going to bed an hour later that evening and you’ll be wondering why you feel tired!

But not with our church. Oh, no. In our church, on the ‘Fall Back’ weekend, we were ‘invited’ to turn up an hour early for church, so as to be able to engage in an hour-long prayer meeting before the main service. The idea was to ‘redeem the hour in the Name of the Lord’, for goodness’ sake[5]. You’ve got an extra hour to spare (a huge assumption at the best of times!), so, then, why not come and join our prayer meeting!

Now in some ways that would be fair enough. Spend an hour in the presence of God, in the company of fellow believers, and all that.[6]

But my problem with it was that yes, let’s spend that hour in a prayer meeting, but then why not return the favour in six months’ time by, as I said above, reducing or even removing the sermon so as to pay us back? Now there’s an idea! That really appealed to my sense of fair play, if I’m honest; at least, it would have done had they actually done it. But they didn’t, of course! 😂This is Religion we are talking about here! Novel, inventive or original thought is not, generally, a feature of the Religious mindset.

Still, at least in a sermon of over an hour’s duration, and considering that we’d all had one hour’s less sleep on the previous night, we still might have got the chance to recover that lost extra hour’s sleep that we’d forfeited those six months previously….

As long as the beady-eyed pastor doesn’t spot you, anyway! 🤣

Grace and Peace to you!

 

Footnotes

Footnotes
⇧1 Some might argue it’s a biannual event, but it’s not; I’m only talking there about the clocks going forwards in the Spring!
⇧2 Of course, as the meeting leader I was always facing towards the back, so I spotted them coming in even if no-one else did!
⇧3 There was a dear couple in that church, with whom I am still in regular contact, and they were notorious for never being on time for anything. They were reliable in terms of attendance, in that they rarely missed a meeting, but they were always late. For everything. And they still are. They are very dear to me, and they often come down to Devon on holiday, so we invariably arrange to meet up. And they are always at least 20 minutes late at our pre-arranged rendezvous. For us, if someone in the church asked us before a meeting, “Are [the couple’s names] coming today?, my reply would usually be, “Yes; if they haven’t arrived yet, that means they’re coming!”
⇧4 Anyone who has been to an Evangelical church on a regular basis will know that in some instances, sermons can last over an hour. It’s enough to make one believe in Hell 😉
⇧5 As if God lives to a strict timetable…
⇧6 And to be really fair, I actually enjoyed prayer meetings; the sense of God’s presence was really strong there – as it should be! – and in fact I used to go to a weekly early-morning prayer meeting at 0600 on a Monday morning in Otley, a town a few miles from my house (I got a lift there with another church member  who went there regularly too). At a certain point in the meeting, I would get up and leave in order to go to the bus station, which was just around the corner, to get the first bus into Leeds City Centre where I worked.

Thinking In The Box – Reblog

Insights, Humour
This entry is part 23 of 25 in the series The Problems of Evangelicalism

Eight years ago, I published this essay about how Evangelical Christians can’t seem to ‘think outside the box’. Because I have an upcoming essay on how Evangelical Christian leaders seem unable to answer perfectly reasonable questions[1], I thought that, in preparation for the publication of that essay (in a couple of weeks’ time), I would whet your appetite with this little gem. Enjoy!

About twenty years ago, my lovely wife Fiona was making enquiries about going to a Bible week[2] – can’t remember whether it was Stoneleigh or New Wine, or even something else – and she was going to go with her friend Yvonne. In the end, they didn’t go, for whatever reason.

Anyway, as part of the ‘registration’ process, there was a couple of pages of Rules. Like, please keep quiet after 10:00pm, no cars allowed on site after initial unloading, no alcohol, please don’t block the toilets, that sort of thing.

One of the Rules, though, was a bit of a Legalism thing. Bearing in mind that, at the time, I had just begun my major detoxification-from-Fundagelicalism event which lasted fifteen years, so it was a bit of a trigger…

This particular Rule was that no unmarried, mixed couples were allowed to share a tent.

So, I guess if you’d wanted to go along with your fiancé/fiancée, forget it: it’s separate tents or no dice.

Quite who was going to police this Rule (and how they were going to do it) was not specified 😉

Anyway, I simply couldn’t resist it. I wrote to their admin people and asked if it was alright if I and my gay partner were allowed to share a tent, despite not being married (I don’t think gay marriage/civil partnerships were even a thing back then!) pointing out that given the Rules as written, we would still be ok as we were a same-sex couple/unmarried, rather than a mixed couple/unmarried..

No reply was forthcoming.

And so I wrote to them again expressing disappointment that my question had not been taken seriously/answered, and emphasising that because we were not a mixed couple, we would be abiding by the Rules and therefore where’s the problem?

Still no response.

I wonder why.

Maybe those religious people were in a ‘box’, perchance?

Still, that lack of any response was a great help for me in my deconstruction, illustrating that not only were such Rules ‘doctrines made by men’ (Mt 15:9) but also that, when it really came down to it, nobody in those religious groups ever think things through to their logical conclusions, probably because they’re not allowed to.

I still laugh about it now, of course. And it makes an excellent after-dinner joke amongst like-minded believers 😉

Here’s a link to New Wine’s website. At the time of the publication of my original essay eight years ago, thir camping events were called ‘United’, and I doubt it bore any reference to any football team. It’s more likely to mean that you had to fit in in order to be allowed to go 😉

Footnotes

Footnotes
⇧1 As I write this, that essay is in draft, and I am performing an experiment and narrating it in real time. So the essay can’t be published until the experiment is concluded! All will be made clear in a couple of weeks!
⇧2 For those who don’t know, a Bible Week is a sort of Christian rally where thousands of Evangelical (usually) Christians have like a camping week, usually at an agricultural showground (because of good space and facilities). It’s usually in the summer, and it usually rains. The program normally goes something like this. Mornings: workshops and/or seminars where people can attend teaching sessions or learn basket-making. Or how to lead worship or write songs, as if people can do that without the proper gifting… Usually the workshops are quite arty-farty things and very rarely anything scientific (of course), although one I went to in 1984 (Festival ’84) at Staffordshire County Showground did, uniquely, have a workshop on Amateur Radio, which led me on to eventually qualifying as a Radio Amateur; Afternoons: Free to roam the surrounding area just like normal tourists; Evenings: An extended worship and sermon session (very much like a long Charismatic church service, which is not normally as bad as it sounds. In fact, they were good fun (although the sermons were usually boring) and we always used to learn lots of great new songs there. Then, after a week of that, its pack up your tent and join the traffic jam to get off the site. That’s a Bible week.

Twisting the Scripture

Insights, Others' stuff
This entry is part 22 of 25 in the series The Problems of Evangelicalism
How Evangelicalism twists Scripture in order to support its most evil doctrine

One of the favourite things that modern-day Pharisees, the hard-hearted religious types, love to do is to trot out various Scripture passages that apparently justify their hard-line viewpoints, while at the same time belittling those they have a beef with by claiming that their victims’ faith is somehow ‘wrong’.

Scriptures like ‘…the whole counsel of God’ (Acts 20:27), ‘Many will say to Me, ‘Lord, Lord…’ ‘ (Mt 7:22), and, ironically, ‘Preaching another Gospel’ (Gal 1:8)[1] and, specifically for this present essay, ‘Twisting the Scripture to their own destruction’ (2Pet 3:16). These ‘Pharisees'[2] love to accuse people, with whom they have Biblical disagreements[3], of ‘twisting the Scripture'[4]. I mean, who’s to say who is twisting it? Who’s to say who’s ‘right’, if indeed anyone is? Anyone could twist any Scripture, and to accuse someone else of doing it means the assumption that a) there is a ‘right’ way of reading a Scripture, and b) that person doing the ‘twisting’ accusation is assuming that they have the (only) correct interpretation! Well there are methods for exegeting (determining the meaning of) Scripture verses, and context is one of the main tools used by serious Bible readers to determine that exegesis.

When misused by these Pharisees, most of those oft-misused Scripture verses mentioned above are not only twisted out of their contexts but are also simply quoted by rote, by NPCs,[5] without any regard for their context, their relevance, and without any useful explanation for their use.[6] And, in any case, no-one – myself included – has the right to accuse anyone else of not believing ‘the right thing’. When it comes to the things of God, we are all of us on a learning journey and, while I am sure many of us have some good insight, none of us really knows anything for sure – at least not to the extent that our beliefs give us the right to impose our beliefs on others, nor the right to accuse others of believing ‘another gospel’ or other such nonsense. And accusations of incorrect exegesis are simply another way in which the modern Pharisees misuse the Bible to harm others.

The reason that this essay is included in my series on the Problems of Evangelicalism is that this sort of thing is rife within the ranks of Evangelicalism. And so, I am here giving an example of how a Scripture passage can be twisted and then accepted without any thought by other believers, and used to create and support Evangelicalism’s most evil doctrine – the diabolical concept of humans suffering everlasting, conscious fiery torture in Hell if they die without ‘coming to Jesus’. This doctrine is known as the doctrine of ‘Eternal Conscious Torment’ and I will abbreviate it to ECT for the purposes of this essay[7]. I have written reams on this subject before; suffice it to say that I do not believe in such a place nor in such a fate for most of humanity – or indeed for any of it.

The Scripture passage in question, then, is the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus[8], found in Luke 16:19-31[9]. And the reason I chose that passage is because that is probably the main Scripture that supposedly informs and supports the ECT doctrine. There are others, but that’s the main one. This Scripture really has to be twisted in order to generate the ECT doctrine from that parable – and how they excuse their twisting is that they claim that it’s not actually a parable, but is a true story. Believe it or not, that’s what they do! The reason for this is that they acknowledge that a parable should not be taken literally, so in order to accept the Rich Man and Lazarus passage as being literal, they have to claim that it’s not actually a parable. Makes sense in a way. And, in doing this, they have indeed ‘twisted the Scripture to their own destruction’ as well as, diabolically, the destruction of others as well.

And so, in response to all this, I would like to give you a few reasons – evidence if you like – why it is plain, to me at least, that this passage of Scripture is indeed a parable, and from that evidence you can then decide for yourself if it should be taken literally or not, and therefore whether or not they are twisting that Scripture in order to make it fit into their proofs for the ECT doctrine. I hope that makes sense.

The first argument for this passage being a parable is from Scripture itself. In Matthew 13:10-13, it says, “The disciples came to him and asked, “Why do you speak to the people in parables?” [Jesus] replied, “Because the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. Whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them. This is why I speak to them in parables:

‘Though seeing, they do not see;
though hearing, they do not hear or understand’ “.

In the entire context of the Rich Man and Lazarus story, in Luke chapters 14 to 16, Jesus is teaching a mixed audience; crowds comprised both of His disciples, and of people who were not His disciples. Even though, then, the ‘Parable of the shrewd manager’ at the start of Luke 16 begins with the words, ‘Jesus told His disciples…’, there were also Pharisees present (and likely others too) who were also listening to the story (Lk 16:14) – and Jesus knew they were listening[10]. And this therefore strongly suggests that He was speaking in parables at that point, because His disciples were not the only people who were listening. Even just looking at the mode of speech that Jesus was using there is evidence that the stories He was telling were used figuratively – parables – in that section of Scripture. And there is no contextual reason to suppose that all of a sudden, by the time we reach the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus, that Jesus had ‘switched mode’ and was suddenly telling a factual story and not a parable. This is a section of mixed teachings including parables and non-parables; even Evangelical hardliners agree that the story parts of the written account are all parables, except for when it comes to the Rich Man and Lazarus story, simply because they don’t want to admit that it is a parable.

That’s the first point.

Secondly, I recently read an excellent piece by my online friend Andy May, where he looks at the Rich Man and Lazarus story and explains why it cannot be a story which is meant to be taken literally – i.e. it’s a parable. Here’s what he wrote:

Why the Rich Man and Lazarus Cannot Be Literal

If you insist that the story of the rich man and Lazarus is literal history rather than a parable, you inherit a set of theological conclusions that contradict the rest of Scripture, the character of God, and even basic moral reasoning.

Here’s why the literal reading collapses under its own weight.

1. A literal reading teaches salvation by socioeconomic status, not by faith.

In the story:
– The rich man is never described as wicked.
– Lazarus is never described as righteous.

If literal, the message becomes:
– Rich → hell
– Poor → heaven

This is not Christianity.

It’s fatalistic classism.

It contradicts Abraham, Job, Joseph of Arimathea, and every biblical teaching on salvation[11].

If your interpretation makes Abraham—the wealthy patriarch—someone who would be damned under his own system, your interpretation is broken.

2. Abraham becomes cold, unmerciful, and unrecognizable.

In the literal reading, Abraham refuses to give the rich man even a drop of water.
That means:
– Abraham shows no compassion
– Abraham denies mercy
– Abraham refuses even minimal relief
– Abraham endorses eternal suffering

This is not the Abraham of Scripture.

It is not the God of Scripture.

It is not the gospel.

If your interpretation requires Abraham to behave like a villain, the interpretation—not Abraham—is the problem.

3. The saved must watch the damned suffer forever.

In the literal reading, Lazarus and Abraham can see and hear the rich man’s agony.
That means heaven includes:
– Watching people burn
– Hearing their screams
– Feeling nothing about it

This is not a biblical picture of heaven.

It is a moral nightmare.

If your doctrine requires the righteous to enjoy the sight of eternal torture, your doctrine is not coming from Jesus.

4. The story uses impossible imagery, proving it is symbolic.

Literalists must explain:
– How people in heaven and hell converse across a cosmic canyon
– How souls have tongues, fingers, and bodies before the resurrection
– How Lazarus is physically carried by angels
– Why the damned can request errands from the saved

These are narrative devices, not metaphysics.

Jesus also speaks of:
– Logs in eyes
– Camels through needles
– Trees thrown into fire
– People swallowing camels

No one insists those are literal.

Why insist this one is?

5. The story fits perfectly into Jesus’ parable pattern and Luke’s themes.

It begins like a parable.

It uses reversal imagery like a parable.

It uses symbolic names like a parable.

It delivers a moral warning like a parable.

The only reason to deny it’s a parable is to protect a doctrine—ECT—that the story itself does not actually teach.

6. A literal reading destroys the moral message.

If literal, the message becomes:
– You had comfort in life, so now you burn forever.
– You had suffering in life, so now you’re rewarded.
– And no one will help you because you deserve it.

That is not justice.

That is not mercy.

That is not the gospel.

That is not Jesus.

The parable makes sense only as a warning about indifference, not as a map of the afterlife.

Conclusion

If you insist the story is literal, you must accept that:
– Wealth damns
– Poverty saves
– Abraham is cruel
– Heaven includes watching torture
– No mercy exists
– No repentance is possible
– No relief is allowed
– God endorses eternal suffering without compassion

If that is the theology you want to defend, then you are not defending Scripture—you are defending a doctrine at the expense of Scripture.

The parable reading is the only one that preserves:
– the character of God
– the integrity of Jesus’ teaching
– the coherence of the gospel
– and the moral logic of the story

 – Andy May, shared with his kind permission

I would also like to add these follow-on thoughts too. Literalists would also need to explain how the story can be read as if it were intended to be true, when Jewish thought at the time was that the dead go to ‘rest with their fathers’ (e.g. 2Chr 33:20, 1Ki 16:28), in the place called Sheol (e.g. Ps 16:10) – the abode of the dead; the grave or the ‘pit’ – which was thought of as the shadowy world of nothingness where the dead await the final Resurrection. The whole idea of Hell as a place of torment[12] was not an accepted part of Jewish thought at the time. Here’s my essay on why this is apparent from Scripture. And how would Jesus have been able to say with any authority what happens to people when they die, given that at this time He was still subject to human limitations and not all-knowing despite being God in the flesh? (e.g. Mt 24:36) Given that His listeners did not know anything about Jesus’s true nature, they would never in any way have expected Him to talk about any afterlife ideas, as if they were truth, with any real credibility. They would have had no reason to imagine that He’d do that. And even if they did think that He was telling them ‘what really happens after death’, then why did His listeners not question Him about this; after all, everyone wants to know what happens when you die! If this hadn’t been a parable, they would have questioned Him as to where He got His facts from, as well as asking after the source of all that knowledge about after-death experiences! No, this was never intended to be taken as a true story, and the listeners at the time knew that full well. This argument is a great example of what is known as ‘cultural and historical context’, where factors outside the actual written text are taken into account[13].

Another time, I wrote a short piece to try to explain to a sincere questioner about this parable, where he was asking why Luke 16 should not be used as a proof-text for the existence of a literal, fiery Hell. Here’s what I wrote:

[My friend], I think the thing with this passage in Luke 16:19-31 is that it has always been used as a ‘proof-text’ for Hell, because of the vivid description of the fiery fate that happened to the Rich Man.

The problem with proof-texting, amongst others, is that it generally ignores the context and is simply a set of ‘magic words’ that people use to deny others’ arguments.

With this in mind, then, it is well worth looking at the context of the entire adventure in which Jesus gave this parable. Firstly, there’s the parables of the lost coin, the lost sheep, and the Prodigal son. Then, the ‘shrewd manager’. Then a couple of bits about adultery and whatnot. Does the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus connect with the adultery teaching and the other parables? It’s not clear; however, what is clear is that Jesus has been talking in parables for the last chapter at least. Therefore it is a very reasonable assumption that this too is a parable. (My opinion is that it is more about the way in which the Jews had been keeping their religion and God to themselves, rather than giving it to those who needed it).

Of course, the thing about parables is that the very last thing we should do with them is to take them literally. They are not meant for that, and to do so does them an injustice; rather than contemplating the parable and getting all the richness out of it, it is easier, and lazier, but far less fruitful, to simply accept what it says at face value. Could you imagine taking the Parable of the Sower at face value? We’d all be out in the fields throwing seeds all over the place.

It’s also worth noting that the idea of an eternal furnace of torture was not in the Pharisees’ minds at any time during Jesus’s ministry. If they had believed in Hell, they would have threatened Jesus with it at every opportunity. For today’s equivalent of the ancient Pharisees – judgmental Christians who hate everyone who doesn’t agree with them – it’s always their first weapon of choice when someone says something they don’t like. But they didn’t. Therefore if this parable was about Hell, then it would have gone completely over their heads.

I also consider that the context of the Lost Coin, Lost Sheep and the Prodigal son are included before the Rich Man/Lazarus story because the writer wanted to set the scene of God being loving and willing to rescue even the one who ran away and/or was lost. For those who would say ‘Well yes, so Jesus was saying what would happen if people *didn’t* respond to God’s love’, that’s not what this is about at all. There is no storyline link (except for the context) between the loving/searching/returning parables and the Rich Man/Lazarus parable; nothing saying that if that lost coin refused to be found, then it’s off to Hell. If anything, the Prodigal story is more about the response of the ‘obedient’ son, who thought of the Father as a tight-fisted taskmaster rather than a generous giver.

And finally, remember that the Rich Man/Lazarus parable has a number of differences from current Evangelical theology as to how to avoid the Rich Man’s terrible fate. Firstly, Lazarus just died and went straight to ‘Abraham’s bosom’. There was no Sinner’s Prayer, no forgiveness of sins needed; nothing. And Abraham is not the Father; he’s not Father God. The word Jesus used for ‘Hell’ is Hades, which simply means the ‘grave’ or ‘the pit’; it is the Greek word meaning the same concept as the Hebrew word ‘Sheol’, which is a dark shadowy place of restless spirits; not a flaming torture chamber. The Old Testament – which is what Jesus’s theology would have been founded upon, as well as that of his listeners – does not refer to Sheol/Hades as being like that. I don’t know why Jesus added in the torment detail for Sheol; maybe it was added later by the church? No, Lazarus’s ‘salvation’ is nothing at all like how evangelists today would describe it. Whatever he received in Abraham’s bosom, it likely wasn’t ‘Heaven’ and the converse, missing out on Abraham’s bosom and ending up in fiery Hades, is therefore also not the point of the story. Jesus wasn’t saying ‘If you die righteous (or very poor) you go to Abraham’s bosom; if you die rich you get burned. Also it doesn’t say that the fiery torment lasted forever either.

So you see there’s so much wrong with the Luke 16 passage being used as a proof for Hell, because in so many ways it just doesn’t fit with its use as a proof-text.

Hope that helps. Sorry it was so long.

In short, if you’re going to use Luke 16 as a proof-text for Hell, then you also have to accept that the standard Evangelical ‘salvation model’ of saying the ‘sinners’ prayer’ is not relevant to whether or not a person ‘goes to Heaven’.

Well, I think that’s enough for us to be able to draw some conclusions on whether or not this passage has been twisted to make it fit in with Evangelical doctrine. Of course, if it has indeed been twisted, then it raises the question of what other Scriptures they have twisted in order to form and/or support other key doctrines? And it also makes me ask whether or not these people actually look into the Scriptural basis of any of their doctrines in any great depth? Personally, I think that those who do so enquire are few and far between. I think they generally just believe what they are told, without questioning it. And then regurgitate it to order when challenged, giving out the standard line on any issue without actually owning their answers. Because only when you have thought things through can you say Yes, this is my belief; this is what I really think, and not just what someone else thinks recited parrot-fashion.

So there we are. Yet another Problem of Evangelicalism – the twisting of Scripture in order to make it say not only what it doesn’t really say, but even to make it say anything that we want it to say. If you know your Bible well enough, you can quote a Scripture verse to back up any assertion you want!

Jesus said in John 16:12 that He had so much more He wanted to tell His disciples, but that they weren’t ready for it just yet. He then said that He’d send the Spirit of Truth in order to lead His people into all truth; that the Spirit would take from what belongs to Jesus and make it ours too. (Jn 16:14)

Listening to the Holy Spirit, then, is far and away the best way to form any ideas about God and His ways.

And She does not twist the Scripture – She doesn’t need to. Anything beyond that is ‘doctrines taught by men’ (Mt 15:9), and Jesus had no time for that sort of thing. None whatsoever!

Grace and Peace to you!

Header image shows a tornado storm system; a ‘Twister’, probably one of the most locally destructive, eerie and terrifying forces of nature in existence. And the deliberate twisting of Bible verses can have a similarly catastrophically destructive effect on people’s spirits, hence my use of the picture here.

Footnotes

Footnotes
⇧1 The irony here is that usually the people using that Scripture are legalists; those who think that righteousness before God is based on our behaviour instead of on the free gift of God’s Grace – and the letter to the Galatians is all about Grace and not about Law. In that letter, St. Paul is writing specifically against the ‘other gospel’ of legalism – hence the irony of legalists using that verse against people who are living free from religion and its hidebound, legalistic rules.
⇧2 I put ‘Pharisees’ in inverted commas because they are of course not, strictly speaking, members of that very specific ancient Judaic sect, but they are of the same spirit!
⇧3 Which, let’s be honest, is probably just about everyone outside their own particular group!
⇧4 A word of explanation: ‘Twisting the Scripture’ is the concept where a Bible verse can be claimed to mean something different from the meaning held by the person making the ‘twisting’ accusation, i.e. they’re accusing someone else of ‘twisting’ it. This is a bit rich, given that anyone familiar with Bible reading and interpretation knows – and indeed expects, for themselves at least – that God can speak different things to different people through the same Scripture verse. It is generally wielded as an accusation by those who habitually see the Bible as a book of cast-iron Rules, dos and don’ts, ‘sins’ and prohibitions; those who take it literally and prefer the ‘plain reading’ method of interpreting Scripture; and those who are not willing to learn anything new.
⇧5 Non-player characters; people who just recite programmed scripts as if they are bots in a video game. See this article for more on this idea.
⇧6 Scripture-bombing, the weaponization of Scripture for the harm of others, would be a good case in point here!
⇧7 It’s actually known as ECT in general theological terminology anyway; I’m using the abbreviation here because it is a well-established concept for discussion.
⇧8 Also known as ‘Dives and Lazarus’, it’s always mispronounced by people who do not know any Latin. You see, the Latin word ‘dives’ means ‘riches’, hence the ‘rich man’. And it’s pronounced ‘dee-ways’, not ‘dyevs’ (rhyming with ‘chives’). If people are going to try to show off their supposed knowledge of classical languages, they should at least learn the correct pronunciation! 🤣🤣
⇧9 Here is the link to the full passage in case you’d like to read it.
⇧10 At that time in the ministry of Jesus, people just couldn’t get enough of His words: the general crowds because His teaching was blessing them so much; the Pharisees for quite different reasons.
⇧11 All these three men were described in the Bible as being wealthy.
⇧12 In the Rich Man and Lazarus story, Jesus referred to the place where the Rich Man was as ‘Hades’; the Greek word equivalent to Sheol, so He was referring to Sheol – which I have already explained above.
⇧13 Many Fundamentalists discredit this type of context, notably in cases where they disagree with conclusions reached using this method; in cases where they agree, they will accept its arguments. They do the same with science and also with anything else they sometimes agree with, and sometimes disagree with. We agree with science; science good! We disagree with science; science bad! Typical unsurprising religious double standards! 😂