Two eldest sons, two sickbeds
In a modern non-denominational church led by one man, two members were each the eldest son in his family.
Family Two’s son came back to church, grieving. He heard a sermon that told the story of “two eldest sons” who went to see their sick fathers.
The substance of what was said. One son, the congregation was told, was spiritual. The other led with his money. The spiritual son’s father had a good outcome. The money did not help the other. It was delivered, in the hearer’s words, with some gloating.
Who was listening. Family Two’s son. And his mother, now a widow.
The hearer understood “spiritual” to include, at least in part, that one son had been rebaptized and the other had not, and that one stood inside the inner circle, under the protection of “the man of God.” Neither was said in so many words.
Recounted from the memory of someone who heard the sermon, not from a recording or transcript. It is given here as the substance of what was said, not as a quotation; where the meaning was implied, it is presented as implied. No preacher, church, member, family, place or date is named, and none should be supplied or guessed.
Four lessons no listener could miss
None of these was stated as a rule. All four are carried by the story.
- God rewards the “spiritual” with good outcomes.
- A father’s recovery shows that his son was spiritual. A father’s death shows that his son was not.
- Spending money on a dying father’s care is a mark of trusting money rather than God.
- The pastor can tell which is which, and may announce it from the pulpit.
Each of these is tested below. None survives.
He went to his father, as a good son should, and his father recovered. That is a mercy, and his family is right to thank God for it.
Nothing here criticises him. He did not preach the sermon. In a sense he was used too: his family’s good news was taken from them and turned into a weapon against someone else. A father’s recovery should be a simple joy, not a point scored. He deserved to have it left alone.
Thanking God is right. Comparing was not.
God does heal, and Christians are right to pray for the sick (James 5:14–15). When Epaphroditus recovered, Paul said “God had mercy on him” (Philippians 2:27). Thanking God in public for a recovery is good, and the church should “rejoice with them that do rejoice.” The preacher may say he meant no one in particular. All of that can be granted.
But the verse goes on: “and weep with them that weep” (Romans 12:15). Nothing in Scripture asks a preacher to set one family’s joy against another’s grief. The comparison is what turned thanksgiving into cruelty.
No one becomes “more spiritual” and earns a better outcome
“By grace are ye saved through faith … not of works” (Ephesians 2:8–9). The Augsburg Confession says we are “freely justified for Christ’s sake, through faith.” Luther: “The love of God does not find, but creates, that which is pleasing to it.” God does not look down, pick out the more spiritual son, and pay him with his father’s life. And when Paul calls people “spiritual,” he means those who restore the struggling “in the spirit of meekness” (Galatians 6:1). Gentleness, not superiority.
“If by grace, then is it no more of works” (Romans 11:6).
Is the outcome a verdict?
Jesus was asked whether the people killed when a tower fell were worse sinners than everyone else. “I tell you, Nay” (Luke 13:4–5). “All things come alike to all” (Ecclesiastes 9:2). A man in his eighties has lived the span Psalm 90 describes. And when Job’s friends explained his losses as judgment, God said they had “not spoken of me the thing that is right” (Job 42:7). See Dossier 16.
Eight people in Scripture. Read what is said of their faith, then guess what happened.
0 of 8 revealed
“All things come alike to all” (Ecclesiastes 9:2). “I tell you, Nay” (Luke 13:5).
Paying for a father’s care is obedience
“Honour thy father and thy mother” (Exodus 20:12). Jesus condemned teachers who let religious giving excuse neglect of parents (Mark 7:9–13). “If any provide not for his own … he hath denied the faith” (1 Timothy 5:8). The Good Samaritan paid for the wounded man’s care. King Asa is the text sometimes quoted the other way, but his fault was that “he sought not to the LORD” at all (2 Chronicles 16:12). Family Two’s son prayed and sought care. See Dossier 39.
Calling it “leading with money” turns obedience into a charge.
And if “spiritual” was meant to include being rebaptized, as the hearer understood, the sermon also turned baptism, God’s gift, into a lever for earthly results. The case against rebaptism is in Dossier 76.
The hurt
A son came back from his father’s deathbed. His mother had just been widowed. They heard their grief used as a lesson in whom God favours. Set the texts beside that, and let them speak.
“Weep with them that weep.”Romans 12:15
“None spake a word unto him: for they saw that his grief was very great.”Job 2:13
It was the only thing they got right.
“Jesus wept.”John 11:35
“To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction.”James 1:27
“Ye shall not afflict any widow.”Exodus 22:22
“He that is glad at calamities shall not be unpunished.”Proverbs 17:5
“Sorrow not, even as others which have no hope.”1 Thessalonians 4:13
At a death, the historic Church gathers round the family, prays for them, and commits the departed “in sure and certain hope of the Resurrection to eternal life” (Book of Common Prayer). It does not compare one family with another. See Dossier 47.
His widowed mother was in the congregation.
Manipulation, and God’s name
Is it manipulation? Yes. Whether or not it was planned, it taught the congregation that loyalty (and, it seems, rebaptism) brings God’s favour; it warned them what will be said about them if they do not conform; and it made one man the interpreter of God’s providence in their families. “The secret things belong unto the LORD our God” (Deuteronomy 29:29). See Dossier 80 and 37.
Is it taking God’s name in vain? Yes. Luther’s Small Catechism: we should not “lie, or deceive by His name.” His Large Catechism: “the greatest abuse occurs in spiritual matters … when false preachers rise up and offer their lying vanities as God’s Word.” To say God let one father live because his son was spiritual, and another die because his son was not, is to say what God has not said, in his name. Whether that is also blasphemy, you can judge: it credits God with a cruelty he has not shown, in order to wound one of his children.
“My wrath is kindled … for ye have not spoken of me the thing that is right” (Job 42:7).
Saying in God’s name what God has not said, in order to wound.
What should have been said
“Two of our members went to their fathers’ sickbeds this month. One father has recovered, and we thank God for his mercy. The other, full of years, has gone to be with the Lord. We grieve with his son and with his widow, and we commend him to God in the sure hope of the resurrection. Both families need our love this week.”
Set that beside “one was spiritual, the other led with his money.” Which one sounds like Jesus at Lazarus’ tomb?
To anyone who has heard something like this
Your parent’s death was not a verdict on your faith.
Caring for them, and paying for that care, was obedience, not unbelief. The God of Scripture does not keep a ledger of who is spiritual enough for a good outcome. He wept at a grave, and he has promised to raise the dead.
You do not have to accept anyone’s interpretation of your grief, however confidently it is preached. How to check what you hear: Dossier 79. On the people a pulpit drives away: Dossier 11.
A real account, kept deliberately general. No preacher, church, member, family, place or date is named, and none should be supplied or guessed. The sermon is given as its substance, recounted from memory. This page does not judge any person’s faith, sincerity, salvation or standing before God.
Want the evidence?
The full dossier quotes every text in full, answers the counter-texts, lists where the sources corrected the brief, and publishes the prompt.
Read the full dossier → Simple English →