The Sunday of the Prodigal Son
Scripture: Luke 15:11-32
Because many of our laws, mores, and culture have been shaped by Christianity, one would think that being an American and following Christ are one and the same. But are they? I’m not so sure.
As we’ve seen over the last few weeks (see here for example), Christianity actually challenges many of our American values.
Case in point: the values of acquisition, upward mobility, and competition—which all seem like good things to an American—are challenged when the Gospel tells us to give away our shirt when someone steals our coat, humble ourselves instead of promoting ourselves, and give without expectation of return.
And, when we’re wronged, we’re ready to sue for justice. But that’s hard to do when, instead, the Gospel ask us to turn the other cheek.
There’s a clash between these two different worlds. Our American way of life isn’t the Way that’s spelled out for us by Christ.
Perhaps there’s no better example of this clash than the Civil Rights movement.
When the Rev. Fred L. Shuttlesworth, an African-American pastor, tried to enroll his two kids in a white southern school in 1957, he was beaten to within an inch of his life.
When asked what he was working for, he responded,
“For the day when the man who beat me and my family with chains at Phillips High School can sit down with us as a friend.”
Instead of seeking revenge and justice, he valued the Gospel command to “love your enemy.”
I’m sure those Americans who beat Shuttlesworth also identified as Christian. Yet, their values weren’t the same as his or the Gospel’s. Despite believing that they were following Christ, they really served a different master.
Truly living by the values of Christ isn’t easy. As Shuttlesworth understood all too well, it may get us beaten up, and it will definitely put us at odds with our American culture.
This is what today’s Gospel is about: the clash between God’s Way and humanity’s way.
When the younger son asked his father for his inheritance, it was an insult. The son was, effectively, telling his father that he wished he were dead.
Not only did the son’s request alienate father and son, but also would have alienated the family from the community.
First-century Middle-Eastern communities were “group” oriented, and they would have viewed anything that didn’t conform with tradition—such as the younger son’s request—as a dangerous precedent. Perhaps their sons will wish them dead too.
Additionally, the community would have expected the older son to protest his brother’s request. But he didn’t. This also threatened the community. They longer trusted this family with the welfare of the community.
As we know, the younger son got his inheritance, and he quickly squandered it. Eventually, he decided that it was better to be a hired servant in his father’s house than to be starving in a foreign country. So, he returned home.
As the younger son approached his father’s house, his father saw him and ran out to greet him. Today, we hear this part of the story, and we get tears in our eyes. It’s a homecoming—father and son finally reunited.
But, first-century hearers would have understood this scene very differently.
Firstly, it was disgraceful for a father to run. But why did he run? Because the younger son was in danger. He had disgraced the community, and they would not be happy with his return. The father had to get to his son in order to protect him from community. They would have beat him to within an inch of his life.
But, not only did the father run out to greet his son, he wrapped him in a coat, placed a ring on his finger, put sandals on his feet, and threw a party. This was a sign to everyone that the father saw the son as a part of the family. It was a father’s way of protecting his son.
And the party? It was an attempt to get back into the good grace’s of the community.
The father didn’t live by the values of his community. Instead, he lived by God’s values. He lived by mercy and love. Even when his son wished him dead, the father lived in hope of reconciliation.
But the older brother would have none of this.
His temper flared, and he refused to attend the party. This would have signaled to the community that the father couldn’t be trusted. It would have proven that the father was foolish to live by the value of love. The older brother sided with the community.
Just like Shuttlesworth, the father’s actions ran contrary to the values of his day. What he did wasn’t cool, and it probably put him in danger. Yet, the father was willing to risk the wrath of the community and his older son.
This story does two things.
First it shows us the love that God has for us. Even if we act like the younger son, our Heavenly Father will buck tradition to welcome us home.
But, this story also shows us that God’s Way isn’t easy.
Sometimes we have to go against the grain. We have to be willing to risk our reputations, and, in the case of Shuttlesworth, our lives. Walking the Way isn’t easy, but it’s necessary. In order to have a more just society, we have to learn to pick up our crosses and follow Christ, even if it means crucifixion.
The question is: are we willing to live by Christ’s values and risk being at odds with our community?