“And the younger of them said to his father, ‘Father, give me the share of property that is coming to me.’ And he divided his property between them.” (Luke 15:12)
When I read that verse I think about the space between those two sentences. Dad give me my inheritance…………dad gives inheritance. What happened in that gap? Think of all the ways in which the father could have responded.
For one, this request is deeply offensive. This is a rejection of the family. He’s walking away from all the family stood for, all that he had been taught. He is taking his Proverbs 6:20-21 necklace and throwing it in the weeds. Does the father bring out the guilt card in an attempt to get the son to fall into order?
It is also evident that this son is acting in foolishness. Does the father raise his voice and point out the ignorance of not only the son’s request but also his inevitable actions? Does the father sternly warn him of his coming demise—reminding him of all the Proverbs and Sirach 33 and what the elders would think of such a thing? Will he use his power and position as a father to keep the son?
Perhaps the father could be passive aggressive. “Fine, if this is what you want then this is what I’ll give you. But this is not going to go well for you and don’t come running back when you run out of money, because I won’t have any.” I suppose the father could also try to shame the younger son by comparing him to his well-behaved older brother. “Why can’t you be like your brother…”
The biblical text gives us nothing in which to fill that gap. Or does it? Can we not learn something from the father’s response to the son returning? He clearly loved his son. Would any of the above options fit the character that we see from this father? Clearly, not. The silence of that gap is intentional. The father took the risk of letting his son have his rumspringa—a time of ‘running around’. And it seems he did in silence.
I believe the silence of that gap is what encouraged the son to return. Do prodigals return to an “I told you so” father? If they are won back by anger and control are they actually won back?
The Gap and Deconstruction
If you aren’t yet familiar with the term “deconstruction” you soon will be. I could try to define it philosophically and quote people like Derrida—but that’d be nerdy and you’d get just as lost as I do when trying to understand philosophers. Besides, the philosophical concept isn’t what people mean these days when they use the term. It’s basically that a whole generation, because of various scandals, abuses, and political wrangling have begun to question whether the faith they were taught is actually believed by those who taught it. How much of this thing we call “faith” is just excess and how much of it actually has to do with Jesus?
Many are trying to untangle a ton of knots and are doing it in the context of a ton of pain. It may not be entirely accurate to call them prodigals—because many aren’t leaving their father’s home in order to party in the far country. To be a bit more accurate many are exploring the far country because the father who taught them all about the faith didn’t seem to believe it himself. They are often leaving the far country on the search for Jesus. In the parable the father’s house is rightly positioned as the place of truth and love. It wouldn’t be accurate to slide evangelicalism neatly into that spot.
Using this parable may not be exactly a one-to-one correspondence, but I do believe there is much to learn. I think we can learn from the older brother as well as the father. Many of the responses I outlined earlier are typical of how someone might respond to a person asking for the inheritance and leaving the home of evangelicalism. And those responses, I would argue, have more in common with the older brother than they do the father. The father is the one we need to learn from in this parable. And I see two actions the father makes which can help us as we navigate this season of deconstruction.
Lessons From the Father
Again, I do not want to imply that evangelicalism has the truth market cornered. There are excesses and a type of deconstruction does need to happen. We aren’t consistent. In the parable there is nothing but pig slop in the far country. It’d fit well with our typical arrogance to neatly position ourselves as the father’s house but we evangelicals need to acknowledge that we have pig slop on our own farms and there might be more of Jesus out in the far country.
Having said that I do think there is some correlation here to the prodigal. There are some things being picked up in the far country that do not belong in the father’s house. You’ll notice in the text that though the father clearly loved the son he did not turn his home into the far country in order to keep him.
The Father will always remain true to Himself. He doesn’t have a wax nose that shifts with whatever our fallen inclinations are treasuring in the moment. He remains the treasure. He must remain our standard of truth. And we must remain steadfast to the truth as we see it in Jesus.
But we also need to prepare the soil for the prodigals return. There is famine and pig slop out there. Just as an evangelical obsession with power is collapsing, so also other worldviews seeking to fill that void will inevitably collapse. They too will experience famine.
I think this is why that gap is silent. The father knew it would eventually collapse and he wanted the road on which the prodigal would return to be void of roadblocks. He wanted his love to be the last thing the prodigal remembered as he walked out the door and into the far country.
Conclusion
Truthfully, if our community looks more like the elder brother in the story then the prodigal probably isn’t going to return. And that isn’t a bad thing. The elder brother remains in the house but he’s just as far off from the father as the prodigal was. Tim Keller is correct:
“If, like the elder brother, you seek to control God through your obedience, then all your morality is just a way to use God to make him give you the things in life you really want.” (Keller, 39)
Filling that gap with elder brother responses isn’t going to bring back the prodigal, nor do you even gain much if you convinced him to stay. You’d just further encase his heart to the “far country” even if he stays in your house.
I also write this as an encouragement. I believe if you do have communities that are marked by the father—lovingly preparing soil for their return while remaining steadfast in truth, then there is a day coming soon when you’ll likely see a busy highway of returning prodigals.
But this is where we need to acknowledge that not a one of us is actually the father in this parable. It’s not our mud houses that we want people to return to, it’s the Father.
—
Photo source: here
