circularthoughts

an old fashioned foot-washing...

I preached on foot-washing from John 13:1-20 yesterday. This is the passage where Jesus washed the feet of his disciples. I focused on three main points (don’t all preachers make three main points?) from the 20 verses.

1. Jesus washed Judas’ feet knowing that he would be the betrayer. I told the story of how I had someone betray me once and while I was working through my forgiveness of this person I read what Jesus did with Judas in this passage. It was a major push in helping me reach a point of being willing to forgive this person.
2. Peter’s shenanigans in verses 6-9 was evidence that the disciples still did not understand the nature of the kingdom that Jesus was initiating. They were still thinking of a kingdom from an earthly perspective, i.e., it is only the servants who wash feet. To have Jesus, as their leader and teacher, stoop to wash their feet was outside the paradigm of power they were living under. I love Peter’s response! If that’s the way it is, then wash all of me! What a great picture of repentance (turning or changing of mind) in how Peter responded.
3. I then concluded by talking about how there seems to be two main paths that the church has taken in response to Jesus’ suggestion of how we ought to follow his example (verses 14-15). One group, the larger of the two, has symbolized this act and emphasized Jesus’ modeling of servant leadership. By following Jesus’ example in this way we are following the oughtness of his suggestion. The other group has taken Jesus literal and incorporated washing feet into their regular form of worship. I suggested that somehow there was an synthesis between these two extremes. Yes, Jesus was modeling servant leadership. But, the act of washing someone’s feet is an incredible picture of the reversal of structure and hierarchy of the kingdom of God. It is something that we all need to experience.

What do you think? Have you ever taken part in a foot-washing service? If not, why not?

call me an atheist...

My current course at Fuller is called The Art of Evangelism. This week, for the course, I am reading Evangelism in the Early Church, by Michael Green. I have about 80 pages left to read.

One of the many things I’ve picked up from this read is how the early Christians were considered to be atheists by the Gentiles. The Gentiles (read for the most part as citizens of the Roman Empire) were confused by the refusal of the early Christians to pay homage to the gods of the empire. In other words, since the early Christians rejected the gods of the empire by saying there was only one true God, they must be atheists.

Clearly this was a confrontation between polytheism and monotheism. The empire and its citizens were polytheistic, having a god for everything that must be honored and respected if things were going to continue to go smoothly. By not paying homage to the gods of the empire the early Christians were thought to be seeking to undermine the empire and thus were seen as dangerous to the state.

It was also a conflict between a human made empire and the kingdom of God. 

I’m wondering if we still have this kind of conflict today?

I’m wondering if the gods of the empire could have morphed into what today we would call nationalism?

That may be a bit of a stretch, but, just in case, call me an atheist...

 

Alleviating poverty, one loan at a time...

Have you heard about Kiva? This non-profit organization is one of my favorite ways to give. 

Kiva’s mission is “to connect people through lending to alleviate poverty.”

Kiva lets you join in micro lending to some of the world’s poorest people. The minimum loan that you make is $25.00. Your loan gets combined with those of other folks and the combined amount is used to fund a micro loan for an individual or a group of individuals in numerous places around the world. It is a great setup, easy to do and the results have been phenomenal. 

From the Kiva website, since Kiva was founded in 2005:

596,151 people have made loans through Kiva

$224 million in loans have been funded

98.79% repayment rate on these loans

As a former banker, I can say that the repayment rate is amazing!

May family has made 78 loans over the years. We chose to loan only to women. This is one of the ways we have chosen to flesh out our love for our neighbor.

Check it out here. This is my official invitation to you to join Kiva.

If you want to know more about micro lending and the work to alleviate poverty I would suggest the following books:

UnPoverty: Rich Lessons from the Working Poor

When Helping Hurts: Alleviating Poverty Without Hurting the Poor. . .and Yourself

Sympathetic reading...

I like to read. I read a lot. In fact, I’ve read twenty books in the last sixty days. Assuming an average book is two hundred pages long, that means I’ve read four thousand pages in sixty days. 

I say this not to boast. You see, reading for me is essential to my mental and spiritual growth. In all reality, it probably hampers my physical situation as instead of exercising I read. Anyway, if I’m not reading, I’m not growing.

I mostly read books on theology and missiology. I currently have nine books on my desk, four of which I’ve started and the rest of which I plan to start in the next couple of weeks. In addition, I have at least eight books on my Kindle app on my iPad that I’m either currently reading or plan to start reading in the next couple of weeks. Almost all of these are on theology or missiology.

One of my favorite ways of reading is what some call sympathetic reading. This happens when I read something I don’t agree with, something that challenges my current thinking. I have found that this way of reading is crucial for my spiritual and mental growth.

Sympathetic reading helps me to understand the point of view of the author; what is driving his or her thinking. In seeking to understand a different point of view I often find that weaknesses in my own understanding are revealed. I also often find where my own way of thinking, and those who think it with me, may have contributed to the reaction of the author I’m reading. 

Sympathetic reading is not reading for the sake of tearing apart an author’s argument. Instead, it is for seeking to understand in the hopes that you might learn something, either about the subject of the read or yourself.

Try it sometime. It can be very enlightening...

Evangelism as initiation...

Yesterday, I began reading the second book for my Art of Evangelism course at Fuller. The book is called The Logic of Evangelism and was written by William J. Abraham. 

The main thesis of the book is that evangelism should be understood as the primary initiation into the kingdom of God, as opposed to simple proclamation of the good news or as a means for church growth. To throw a spark on this idea, Abraham suggests:

any vision of evangelism that ignores the kingdom of God, or relegates it to a position of secondary importance, or fails to wrestle thoroughly with its content is destined at the outset to fail. This is so because the kingdom of God is absolutely central to the ministry of Jesus and to the mission of the disciples that launched the Christian movement into history. (17)

I have always been taught that evangelism is the way we go about letting others know of their need for salvation. We tell them the good news that Jesus has died for their sins and that he rose again, from the dead, conquering death so that we might have eternal life. If we have been well trained we say that eternal life begins here and now, but, most of us focus on the afterlife part of eternal life. In other words, evangelism, I have always been taught, is the process of telling others how to get to heaven.

In recent years, my problem with the above is that it really offers nothing for the here and now. This, I think, is what Abraham is talking about when he suggests that evangelism is the primary initiation into the kingdom of God.

If the kingdom of God is seen as the reign and rule of God, in and through Jesus, both now and in the future, then, evangelism should be seen as the process of leading others into such reign. It is the process of helping others see that there is a different way to live in the here and now. This way of living has less to do with our performance or compliance with a list of rules. Instead, it is centered in our pursuit of God’s will, here on earth, of heaven in the here and now.

So, yes, evangelism is about the cross and what Jesus accomplished on such. But, it is about so much more.

I think I’m going to enjoy this course!

Bonhoeffer on Christian formation...

In his book Ethics, Bonhoeffer discusses the concept of Jesus being the true human being, the ultimate and only true example of what a human being is. Therefore, for right Christian formation to happen we must begin with a proper understanding of Jesus.

Bonhoeffer refers to Jesus as Ecce homo – the man. This is taken, of course, from Pilate’s words in the gospels as he presents the beaten and ready to be crucified Jesus to the crowds. What Pilate surely meant as sarcasm is meant as reality for Bonhoeffer. In the crucified and resurrected Jesus, Bonhoeffer sees the true human, made new and presented as the one through whom humanity is measured and revealed.

Christian formation, for Bonhoeffer, is the process of being conformed to Christ. This is possible because of the humanity of Jesus, because he is the true and ultimate human and in his life and death and resurrection we have the ability to experience such. Christian formation, in this case, is not so much a path or even a set of beliefs and behaviors to be mastered. Instead, it is the process of Jesus taking form in us, which is really a matter of faith. The work has been done in the life of Jesus. We must now walk forward in faith in the reality of such.

 

Conversion: Fast Food or Fine Dining?

My current course at Fuller is called The Art of Evangelism. The first book we are reading is called Conversion in the New Testament: Paul and the Twelve, by Richard V. Peace, who just so happens to be the course Professor. In this book, Peace compares the dramatic, single-point-in-time conversion of Paul to the slow, progressive and even fuzzy (when it comes to when it happened) conversion of the Twelve. In doing such he is asking the question of which one is the norm. 

In Western Evangelicalism, the norm seems to have always been that of Paul. I was taught that I needed to be able to identify the specific point in time that I prayed to receive (trust) Christ. Failure to be able to do this was seen as a potential weakness in my own testimony that might cause doubts as to my actual salvation at some point in the future. Thus, our western evangelism is designed to fit this paradigm, in that we push for a decision.

Peace suggests that the conversion experience of the Twelve was more like a pilgrimage. It was a progressive revelation in which they first saw Jesus as a Teacher, followed by a Prophet, on to Messiah and then to God incarnate. In other words, he argues that the Twelve would have been hard pressed to pick out the specific point in time when the actually trusted Christ, but, their conversion was just as valid as that of Paul’s.

I’m intrigued with this idea of progressive revelation and progressive trust. I think that this “both/and” understanding of conversion might open the door to a more gentle, less confrontational/polemical form of evangelism, which would be a good thing, especially for those on the receiving end.

Bonhoeffer on cheap grace...

For Bonhoeffer, “cheap grace means grace as doctrine, as principle, as system” (Discipleship, 43). Cheap grace is that which requires no true repentance or change. It is grace without transformation. It is grace without discipleship. Costly grace, on the other hand, is that which causes us to be transformed, discipled and to follow Jesus. It is a grace that costs us our lives. It is a grace that was also costly for God because of his incarnation and his death.

Discipleship is commitment to Jesus Christ. It is not the study of any system or doctrine or way of belief. It is, instead, the following of the God-human and the life he lived and will live in us. It is more than an increasing of head knowledge; it is instead an increasing in heart knowledge, an obedience that comes from belief and a praxis that reflects the life of Jesus Christ.

The root and foundation of discipleship is found in the Sermon on the Mount. At the center of the Sermon is, of course, Jesus. However, love is the summation of the entire Sermon. Disciples are those who are allowing Jesus to mold in them his way of undivided love, the love that was reflected in the cross and the love that is reflected in the sending of rain on both the righteous and unrighteous.

Quotation taken from this book...

Bonhoeffer on judging...

For Bonhoeffer, “judging is the forbidden evaluation of other persons. It corrodes simple love” (Discipleship, 171). When we judge others we are doing so by establishing a standard in Jesus. On the surface this appears to be acceptable, at least having the standard of Jesus. However, Jesus is not a standard, he is the judge. He has judged me and that gives me no right to judge others. We hold others to a standard that we have not been able to measure up to. This is judging and forbidden and the opposite of love. Instead, we must learn to “reverse the I and the You” (Discipleship, 174) in our relationships with others. We must be able to see them as we see ourselves and give others the same grace that we give ourselves. We must see that there is no difference between the evil in us and the evil in others. It is only when we do this that we are in right relationship with others. I believe that Bonhoeffer would remind the church in the US to stop judging those who are not a part of the church. He would tell us to stop holding others to a standard that we will never meet. He would tell us to learn to love others and to accept them where they are. After all, this is what Jesus has done with us.

Quotations taken from this book...

Bonhoeffer on community...

I recently completed a course for my seminary work at Fuller called The Ethics of Bonhoeffer. I first read Bonhoeffer’s Cost of Discipleship roughly 10 years ago. It has been a formative book for me. This course introduced me to much of his other works as well.

One of those was a little book called Life Together: Exploration of Faith in Community. This 122 page read is a deep discussion of what true Christian community looks like. Bonhoeffer wrote it while leading an underground seminary during the late 1930’s. The seminary had to be underground because of Nazi efforts to control the German church.

The key to this book is found in Bonhoeffer’s argument that any community founded on anything but Jesus is nothing more than a “wish dream.”

Every human wish dream that is injected into the Christian community is a hindrance to genuine community and must be banished if genuine community is to survive. (27).

I’ve seen this so many times. Churches, ministries and so forth are built around dreams and ideas that are close to Jesus, but, not Jesus. These dreams and ideas can take the form of a particular style of worship, they can be an intense focus on discipleship or even a certain way of preaching. Somehow, in the process, Jesus often gets left out, or minimized, or marginalized. 

I’ve been wondering lately if our pursuit of right doctrine can be one of Bonhoeffer’s “wish dreams” and thus a hinderance to community...

 

Forms and Meanings

Cross-cultural ministry can be a daunting task.  This is especially true if we are unable to differentiate between forms and meanings.  When we assume that our forms, i.e., preaching, baptism, dress code, worship style, meeting time, use of buildings and other church rituals or ceremonies, are sacred in and of themselves we are flirting with idolatry. 

What we must remember is that it is not the form that is important, rather, it is the attached meaning that results from such form.  We, as guests in another culture, have neither the right nor the ability to attach meaning to forms.  Therefore, we must approach the use of forms with great caution because it is highly probable that the receptor culture will attach a meaning to our form that is different from what we intend. 

An example would be monologue preaching.  In the West, great value is placed on monologue preaching.  It is the central point of most church worship gatherings.  Because of this, we have often made the mistake of assuming that monologue preaching is sacred rather than simply being a cultural form of communication.  In reality, monologue preaching is nothing more than a lecture. 

Most cultures are significantly more communal in nature than that of the West.  In such cultures, communication typically happens in the form of communal dialogue rather than monologue.  Lectures are rare and foreign.  When we insist or carry the unquestioned assumption that monologue preaching is sacred, we run the risk of having the receptor culture attach a meaning that we don’t really intend.  Instead, we need to learn how the receiving culture communicates and adapt and adopt their methods.  This will better assure that the proper meaning is attached, and that is what is really important.  This is just one example of many, which is what makes cross-cultural ministry so much fun.

some thoughts on conversion...

I’ve been thinking a lot lately about the term “conversion” and all that goes with it.  I’m wondering if what we mean when we use the word is what is heard by others.  I’m also wondering if we are even sure of what we mean when we talk of conversion.

My thoughts reminded me of a scene in The Princess Bride:

[Vizzini has just cut the rope The Dread Pirate Roberts is climbing up]

Vizzini - “HE DIDN'T FALL? INCONCEIVABLE.”

Inigo Montoya - “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”

The simple idea behind conversion is that of the process that one goes through when he or she changes his or her beliefs, views or faith.  It is a process of making a fundamental shift. 

The problem that I see, however, is twofold.  First, how is the idea of conversion received by those we desire to see follow Jesus.  Second, what is the object of the conversion.

In my experience, most people who are not following Jesus don’t hear what we want them to hear when we use the word conversion.  They hear something more along the lines of “conformism,” which is the idea that one must conform to the ways of a system or certain rules of behavior.  They hear that they must fall in line with an often foreign way of doing things.  They hear that they must leave their culture for a new one. 

I once visited a very remote island in the southern regions of Bangladesh, which is nearly 90% Muslim.  As we walked toward the center of the island and found the local market we were soon surrounded by a mob of curious onlookers.  One of the older men spoke a little English and he immediately asked me if we had come to force them to convert to Christianity.  My response was to quote him a verse from the Qur’an:  “There is no compulsion in religion.  Verily, the Right Path has become distinct from the wrong path.”  (2:256)  I then told him that we were there to share with them what we had learned about the Right Path as well as learn from them what they had learned.  This set them all at ease and we had a couple of days of great ministry before we had to leave to head back home.

Virtually no one wants to change their culture.  I don’t, and, honestly, didn’t when I became a follower of Jesus.  Why is it, then, that others think that what we are looking for when it comes to conversion is a change in culture?

I think it may be because that is exactly what we really mean, whether we have thought about it or not.  Is it possible that the object of the conversion that we desire for others to go through has become Christianity instead of Jesus?  Is there really a difference between a conversion to Christianity and a conversion to Jesus?  I think so and I think that this is the problem behind the word conversion.

Conversion to Christianity is a change in culture.  Christianity, as it has developed over the past two thousand years, is both a religion and a culture.  I don’t think you can truly separate the two.  Too often, when we present Jesus, we present Christianity.  Most of us can’t even differentiate between the two.  However, again, my experience as a missionary has shown that there is a difference.  For example, the western concept of church, which falls under the umbrella of Christianity, is often seen as the “right” way of doing church.  We meet at a set time on a set day for a set period.  We have organized meetings where we know what is going to happen and who is going to do it.  I’m not saying that this understanding of church is necessarily wrong.  However, it is cultural, not biblical.  It is one way of doing church.  There are many cultures around the world where this form of church would never work or be embraced and to expect it to be so is to expect a conversion to our way of doing things, which is simply another way of expecting others to convert to our culture.

Jesus never told us to convert people to a new religion.  He never told us to have people change their culture.  What he did tell us is to make disciples of all nations by going to them, immersing them in the reality of the Trinity and teaching them to obey all that he had commanded.  In other words, Jesus is to be the object of the conversion we seek, not Christianity. 

Instead of the word conversion I have been trying out the concept of a change of allegiance.  The process of making disciples is more like the process of helping someone change their allegiance to Jesus by turning away (repenting) from their allegiance to themselves, their religion, money, power and so on.  I like this so far because it seems to carry far less baggage. 

What do you think?  Does the word conversion have too much baggage?  Are conversion to Christianity and conversion to Jesus always the same thing?  How do you feel about the concept of changing allegiance instead of conversion?  Is it just a play on words or is it a better way of expressing the desired result?

Homebrewed Bishop...

I have been slowly reading through N.T. Wright's latest book, After You Believe: Why Christian Character Matters for several weeks now.  I received a free copy with the condition that I write a blog post within a month of receiving the book.  Well, I was doing just great and then came down with my first case of malaria.  This set me back a bit and I'm still trying to catch up.

Today, I received an email that provided a way to take me off of the hook on posting a review of the book.  I decided to jump on the offer.

There is a new interview of Bishop Wright on Homebrewed Christianity that was posted a few days ago.  Take a listen and see what you think.  You can find the post here.

By the way, the book has been one of my favorites that Bishop Wright has written.  I would suggest you pick it up.

the karma police...

I’ve been taking a course on Hinduism this term.  What a fascinating study.  Hinduism is virtually impossible to define because there are so many different branches and streams and lines of thinking.  I’ve been saying, since starting the course, that Hinduism is post modernism on steroids.  In other words, literally anything goes.

One of the main streams of Hinduism is the concept of karma.  I’ve talked about karma before.  Karma is that belief system centered in the concepts of “reaping what you sow” and “what goes around comes around.”  The more I think about karma the more I am convinced that most of the world is under the control of this way of thinking.

I saw this even today as I read my Bible.  I was reading in Genesis, chapters 42 and 43, the story of Joseph’s brothers traveling to Egypt to get food for the family.  If you haven’t read the Joseph story (Genesis 37-50) in a while you should go read through it as it is full of some amazing stuff.

So, where did I see karma in this story?  Look at Genesis 42:21...

Then they said to one another, “In truth we are guilty concerning our brother, in that we saw the distress of his soul, when he begged us and we did not listen.  That is why this distress has come upon us.”

The distress they were talking about was that Joseph was requiring them to return home to their father and bring back their youngest brother, Benjamin.  They had no idea that Joseph was their long, lost brother.  In other words, they saw their current predicament as payback for what they had done to Joseph when they threw him down a well and then sold him into slavery.  Karma had found them and payback was coming.

Joseph, who had every reason to take advantage of his political power to exact some karmic revenge on his brothers, chose a different path.  He chose the path of grace.  Before his brothers left to go get Benjamin, Joseph arranged to have the money they had used to purchase food placed back in their traveling sacks.  When the brothers discovered this it only added to their distress.  When they returned with Benjamin they told Joseph about the money and his response was one of grace.  His actions and his response show that he had broken free of the karmic stronghold.  We see Joseph’s response in Genesis 43:23...

He replied, “Peace to you, do not be afraid.  Your God and the God of your father has put treasure in your sacks for you.  I received your money.”

Do you see it?  Joseph’s brothers were living a life of fear, one in which karma (can God be thought of as a form of karma?) punishes when we do bad things and rewards when we do good things.  Joseph was living a life of freedom from this kind of fear.  He was walking outside of karma.  He had broken free.  This meant he was able to show grace to his brothers.

What happens when we seek to follow God but do so through a karmic lens?  Do we not end up with a God who punishes us when we do bad things and blesses us only when we do good things?  Do we not end up with a performance based religion that is driven by fear?  I’m not saying that there aren’t consequences in life.  Clearly there are.  However, consequences and punishment are not always the same thing.

Jesus broke the karmic cycle.  His path is one that walks outside of karma.  That’s the path I want to be on.  What about you?

Loving Muslims...

I saw the following on a friend's blog.  Thought you might enjoy it...

Christian approaches to Muslims

If we see Muslims as …
Enemies
Our approach will be …
Attack!/Defend!
Our heart attitude will be ..
Hate

If we see Muslims as …
Foreigners
Our approach will be …
Separate Coexistence
Our heart attitude will be ..
Indifference

If we see Muslims as …
Poor, uncivilized, uncultured
Our approach will be …
Invite them to be like us (join us)
Our heart attitude will be ..
Pharisaic/condescending

If we see Muslims as …
Rivals
Our approach will be …
Polemic debate
Our heart attitude will be ..
Proud

If we see Muslims as …
Human beings
Our approach will be …
Respectful dialogue
Our heart attitude will be ..
Listen and learn

If we see Muslims as …
Unresponsive
Our approach will be …
Resigned to do nothing
Our heart attitude will be ..
Hopeless

If we see Muslims as …
Lost people Jesus died for
Our approach will be …
Salt/light (demonstrate love)
Preach the Gospel (speak truth)
Pray for their needs (show power)
Become all things to all people (Pauline)
Our heart attitude will be ..
Love

To confront or not...

I received the following email from a circularthoughts.com reader yesterday:

My friends and my girlfriend, even my father, all whom I hold very dear to me, take the Lord's name in vain all the time, and it really bothers me.  I don't do it. But I wonder if I'm sinning too by not correcting them. This is such a hard issue for me.  It plagues me. Please help.

This was my reply:

Thanks for your question.  I can understand your concern.  I once had a boss who did the same.  It was like he couldn't say one sentence without doing it.

I have a question for you?  Are your friends, your girlfriend and your father believers in Jesus?  I think whether they are or not determines whether or not you need to confront.

My understanding of Scripture, when it comes to confrontation of sin, is that we are not to confront the non-believer.  To do so, in my experience, does nothing but push them further from the real Jesus.  However, we are encouraged to confront believers in matters of sin.  Of course, we are encouraged to do so in humility and love.

When we look at Jesus, we see this very pattern played out.  He never confronted those who were considered to be sinners.  He spent time with them, had meals with them, even drank with them.  The Pharisees, who were supposedly the "good" people, on the other hand, is who he confronted.  He confronted them on many occasions for not loving those who were considered sinners and for making it hard on them.  I think this is the pattern I would suggest you take with your friends, girlfriend and father.  In other words, if they are not followers of Jesus, then I think you need to not say anything about their language.  Instead, let your light shine and love them to Jesus.  If they are believers, then I think you can have a discussion with them and tell them why this bothers you.  Don't be judgmental in approaching them, just share why it bothers you.  In addition, you need to pray that the Holy Spirit will lead you to the right time and the right words to say.  Make sense?

I hope and trust this helps, at least just a little.  I'm more than willing to talk about this further if you would like.  Thanks again for asking and thanks for reading the blog.

Blessings,

Eric

The reader replied as follows:

When you say let your light shine and love them to Jesus, you mean lead by example and pray for them, rather than confronting them thus pushing them away right?  I want to say thank you so much for your expedient and thoughtful reply.  It really means a lot.  I look forward to future correspondences in matters of faith.  May Christ keep you and walk with you on a righteous path.  

---

Confrontation is a tough call, I think. It does seem to be the default for many Christians, meaning, let's confront first and love second.  I'm just sharing from my own experience, on both sides.  I have both confronted and been confronted when I shouldn't.  So, here are my questions for you?

Where do we draw the line?  Do we confront those who don't claim to be following Jesus?  When do we confront our brothers and sisters?  What horror stories do you have?

Thoughts on the parable of the lost sons - Context...

con-text

- noun

1.  the parts of a written or spoken statement that precede or follow a specific word or passage, usually influencing its meaning or effect: You have misinterpreted my remark because you took it out of context.

2.  the set of circumstances or facts that surround a particular event, situation, etc

---

When we want to go deeper in our understanding of Scripture one of the most important steps is to study the context.  Failure to do so can result in at best a limited understanding of what is being taught and at worst a complete misunderstanding.  It is important to try and understand what has been said both before and after the passage we are studying.  It is also important to know as much as we can about both the historical and literary context of the passage in question.  In this post, I hope to answer some of the questions of context when it comes to the parable of the lost sons.

When I read this parable the first thing I want to know is to whom Jesus is telling the parable.  This seems to be a fairly important question as there could be two or three different emphases to the parable depending on how this is answered.  In Luke 15:1 & 2 there are two groups of people mentioned; the tax collectors and sinners, and the Pharisees and the scribes.  If we come to the conclusion that Jesus is speaking to the tax collectors and sinners then we will most likely focus on the younger son and assume that Jesus is teaching the tax collectors and sinners about the grace and mercy of God the Father.  When we do this we will typically not know what to do with the elder son and just think his part of the story is either an afterthought or secondary.  On the other hand, if we come to the conclusion that Jesus is speaking to the Pharisees and the scribes we will more likely focus on the elder son.  We will do this because we will see that Jesus is telling the Pharisees and the scribes that they are like the elder son in that they cannot extend grace and mercy to the younger son who represents the tax collectors and sinners.  A third option would be that Jesus is speaking to both the tax collectors and the sinners and the Pharisees and the scribes.  If we come to this conclusion we would assume that Jesus has a message for both groups in the stories of the younger and elder sons.  So, which is it?

I think the key can be found in one word in Luke 15:2; the word grumbled.  The Pharisees and the scribes were grumbling about the fact that Jesus was defiling himself by hanging out and eating with the tax collectors and sinners.  In Luke 15:3 we see that Jesus told "them" a parable, well actually three parables.  Jesus had heard the grumblings of the Pharisees and the scribes and he answered them with the parables. We can also see evidence that Jesus was addressing the Pharisees and the scribes in Luke 16:14, which says that the Pharisees "heard all these things, and they ridiculed him."  In other words, the parable of the two lost sons, along with several other parables surrounding such, is sandwiched between the Pharisees grumbling and their ridiculing Jesus.  This should provide more than enough evidence to convince us that Jesus was speaking directly to the Pharisees and the scribes when he told the parable of the lost sons. 

Why is this important?  I think it adds weight to the argument that these parables were more of a warning than stories of what the Father is like.  I'll get into this more in future posts.

Another contextual issue that I think is important is that of the societal structure during the time of Jesus.  We who live in the Western world live very individualistic lives.  We don't really understand the communal nature of most of the rest of the world.  When we read this story through this individualistic lens we are going to miss much of what Jesus was saying.  The family dynamics during that time were such that in the story both sons brought shame to the Father.  This is an important factor that adds to the significance of the warning I spoke of above.  I'll go into details of this factor more in future posts.

The final contextual issue that I think is important to understanding this story is the significance of the two parables that precede the parable of the lost sons; that is the parable of the lost sheep and the parable of the lost coin.  There is a strong connection between these three parables.  In all three, something was lost.  In all three, that which was lost is found.  In the first two parables, someone went to find and recover that which was lost.  This did not happen in the third parable and this is a very important factor, one that adds strength to my argument that these parables are more of a warning than they are stories of God's goodness and grace.  But, I'll save that for future posts...

Thoughts on the parable of the lost sons - Introduction...

I've been spending a lot of time thinking about and studying the parable of the lost sons over the past month or so.  This parable, which is usually referred to as the parable of the prodigal son, is found in Luke 15.  It has been called the gospel within the gospel and has been used countless times to paint a picture of grace for those of us who have ever gone astray.  It is a beautiful story.

My study, however, has helped me to see that the typical understanding and presentation of this story, while beautiful, falls short of what Jesus was intending to communicate.  I have now come to see that this story is as much of a warning as it is a story of grace.

I plan to take the next few posts and share some of the things I have learned.  Most of what I will be sharing has come from a book by Kenneth E. Bailey called The Cross & the Prodigal: Luke 15 Through the Eyes of Middle Eastern Peasants.  I've owned this book for some time but have just now read it.  A second book that I will draw from is called The Prodigal God: Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith, by Timothy Keller.   I also listened to a sermon series by Keller called The Prodigal God.  This sermon series tracks with the book.

My plan is to do five posts, including this introductory post.  The second post will be a discussion of the context of the story.  The third post will look at what we know about and learn from the younger son.  The fourth post will be a discussion of what we know about the father and what that teaches us about God.  The fifth and final post will look at the elder son, who is really the key to understanding what Jesus was saying.

I look forward to writing these posts and to our discussion as well.