The Terrain of Shame

I think the most effective way to understand the Gospels is in terms of John first, followed in order by Mark, Matthew, and Luke.  I also realize that for certain reasons some Bible teachers have described John as uniquely unsuited as a Gospel starting-point.  I maintain, however that the most important thing about beginning to understand the Gospels is to have a starting-stance, rather than a starting-point.

What I maintain to be the best starting-stance is an explicit statement of the most basic elements of the Gospels.  Which of the Gospels is the source of this starting-stance description is irrelevant.  I choose Luke's recounting of the story of Lazarus and the Rich Man.

The story of Lazarus and the Rich Man speaks of earthly life and un-earthly (or "New Earth-ly," if that is preferred) judgment.  Suffering leads to comfort, and indulgence leads to torment--that is all that the Abraham-figure states about the two individuals' afterlife existence.  The story gives the intimation that the Rich Man was deficient in not sharing his pleasurable wealth with others, as well as the intimation that Lazarus' plight was not of his own doing.  (Lazarus, we might imagine, could have occupied the same position in his life as in the story, and have been a cauldron of impious rage, but it is the Rich Man's disposition that is in focus in the story.  The story would not have had the same impact if the Rich Man had woken up from death to find Lazarus tormented along with him.)

The story speaks of people being prodded to repentance by listening to "Moses and the prophets," but the actions of the persons in the story, or indeed in the rest of the world, cannot on their face be found to be in violation of those sources.  In fact, one of the prompts for Jesus to describe how everything is possible with God, is the question of how the wealthy can be saved.  There is no necessary interpretation of "Moses and the prophets" to the effect that those who live in pleasurable wealth will be tormented, even if legions of those deprived Lazarus-like exist in the land.

The story of Lazarus and the Rich Man is to be taken in its raw form, even as it is presented in the fewest-possible of unvarnished elements.  The raw form of the proper motivation assignable to humanity (as represented by the characters) is not to be found in Judaism or its rules, nor in recognition-of-the-God-of-the-Bible and that recognition's ostensible rules.  The raw form of the proper motivation assignable to humanity is shame.

There is God, and there is not-God.  Lazarus, in a universe in which there is God, might possibly have petitioned the heavens for the sustenance he craved--if Lazarus failed to do so, or if his petitions were denied unaccountably by God, is immaterial to the story, and is between him and God.  Lazarus did not act contrary to the proddings of shame (or the story makes no sense.)

The Rich Man either trampled over his own shame (as, let's face it, the story has him effectively trampling over Lazarus), or the Rich Man had cultivated an ignorance of his own shame--these two possibilities are implicit in his belated hope that his similarly-destined brothers will "repent."

What we see in the story of Lazarus and the Rich Man is the terrain of shame.  The Gospels require no more framework than this in order to be relevant, and it is within this sparse framework that we get a helpful introduction to the Creation story--with its minimalist presentation of great ideas--that prefaces the Gospel of John.