Bishop Eaton and the Chicago Sun Times

    Far be it from me to correct a presiding bishop, but recently there has been a story in the news that I have been pondering.  If you know me, you know I can be pretty critical of the ELCA (to say the least). But I know Bishop Elizabeth Eaton, so I was a little surprised when they ran a story in the Chicago Sun Times saying in the headline that Eaton had said, "If hell exists, I think it is empty". Now, I wondered what might cause her to go to the Times with such a heterodox official pronouncement, especially when sensational press releases seemed so out of character for her.  I also wanted to honor what Luther said about the eighth commandment:

The Eighth Commandment:  Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
What does this mean?–Answer:
We should fear and love God that we may not deceitfully belie, betray, slander, or defame our neighbor, but defend him or her, [think and] speak well of him or her, and put the best construction on everything.

     Putting the best construction on a thing means that you don't even bear false witness against your neighbor in your own head. So when someone says something, and you are not entirely sure how to take it, you do your best to take it in the most positive sense until (and if) you learn otherwise.  So, I have waited and pondered how to put the best construction on this story. 

  First of all, the reason I like Elizabeth Eaton personally (even though I hold to a plethora of differing opinions) is that she is a very plainspoken person who is both humble in her demeanor and ordinary, in the best sense.  She does not dissemble and I have never heard her give a "political" answer.  So, I can tell this reporter is really struggling to make this story titillating in any way.  
     To begin with it, was merely a general interview that was more of personality piece...not Elizabeth running to the press to make a statement.  Clearly, Robert Herguth (the reporter) was really trying to find something shocking to say in a headline to make people read this story....Let's face it, the fact that Elizabeth was planning on being a band director before she was called into the ministry hardly was going to be the headline.  He went so far as to subtly misquote her even.  He asked "Is there a hell?"  and she said, "There may be, but I think it’s empty."  The headline on the other hand said that Eaton merely said, "If there is a hell, I think it's empty".  It's a teensy difference, but it is clearly done to make it much more shocking.  In that headline you can't hear Eaton's reasoning: that she believes that Jesus will eventually draw all humanity to himself, even the dead and condemned. 

    OK, let's talk about that.  Do I disagree with her intention?  No. I

certainly hope that she is right. Do I agree with her Biblical interpretation?  No.  Sadly, I think she is wrong.  Don't misunderstand me, I think that God's love is audacious and powerful...I think God longs for nothing so much as to draw all of His lost sheep back to Himself...I think that God's power is limitless...but I don't think that scriptures back up the idea that in the end the gates of Hell will close up and the place will be left empty of all humanity.  To interpret it this way is what theologians and exegetes (people who interpret the Bible) call eisegesis.

Eisegesis: is the process of interpreting a text or portion of text in such a way that the process introduces one's own presuppositions, agendas, or biases into and onto the text. This is commonly referred to as reading into the text.

     You may say, but Pastor Rus, it's a harmless eisegesis, and one that even you hope is true!  Sure, but this isn't about me and no eisegesis is harmless.  The text is, as Liz herself says in the story, "inspired" and "infallible".  This means that while people wrote it down, it was the Holy Spirit that dictated it into existence. As such, it is wholly correct. To do the least bit of violence to it by introducing any sort of eisegesis is to violate that infallibility with human fallibility and potentially unbalance the message.  For this reason interpreters of the scripture must always be on guard against personal bias, as our human nature always seems to pull us toward it. 

    With regard to this very thing, Jesus says, "Matthew 16:6 “Be careful,” Jesus said to them. “Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”  The yeast of the Pharisees and Sadduccees was nothing more than eisegesis.  Their interpretations of the scriptures, which started as harmless and benevolent, like yeast itself, grew out of control.  In the end their message was so skewed that they even failed to recognize the Messiah. 

    So while I certainly criticize the author for sensationalizing an otherwise un-sensational story, I have to say, a measure of fault goes to our well-meaning, but ultimately wrong, bishop.