I’m catching up late with the Gospel readings for the last
two Sundays and am newly struck by the fact that roughly the same story comes
up three times in Luke 15 and 16. At least the basic shape is the same. I’m catching up with the challenge they
present which seems to go much further than I really want to go.
The Bible Study bit is easy.
First, read two Sundays ago, Jesus eats with tax-collectors
and sinners, and the religious authorities of the day disapprove (so Jesus then
tells two stories about seeking out what has been lost).
Second, read in Lent so skipped over in our Sunday readings
this month, there is the Parable of the Prodigal Son.
Third, read last Sunday, there is the Parable of the Corrupt
Steward (the one who is sacked and who immediately falsifies his master’s
accounts to build favour with the master’s clients).
All three have a figure who is God: Jesus, the Prodigal’s father,
and the Steward’s master.
All three have figures who are wastrels: the tax-collectors
and sinners with whom Jesus eats, the Prodigal himself and the Corrupt Steward himself;
it is possible that some of the sinners with whom Jesus eats are repentant, and
the Prodigal does become so, but this isn’t the common theme
In all three cases the God figure celebrates the wastrel
figure: eating with tax-collectors and sinners, slaughtering the fatted calf to
throw a feast for the returned Prodigal, and commending the shrewdness of the
Corrupt Manager.
In all three cases there are voices of incredulity from the
respectable: the religious authorities of the day grumble at Jesus choice of eating
companions, the Prodigal’s older brother is angry and resentful, and (I’m stretching
a point here, but go with me) almost every preacher agonises, twists and turns to
avoid joining Jesus in commending the actions of the Corrupt Manager.
And that is the point.
It shouldn’t be difficult to preach about the last of the three passages
if one has just read the first two.
The first two say that the great banquet (of which we catch
the foretaste now, and to which we are promised full participation soon) will
be chock full of bankers and wastrels and people not unlike me a lot of the
time and worse. That is how God is. It is hardly surprising news.
So how can any reader be puzzled in any way by the third
story? As we stand ready to pronounce judgement
on the corruption we see in it, we hear God say ‘you’ve got to admire his
chaputz, his imagination, his sheer financial agility, haven’t you?’.
Perhaps it simply sets a standard for our inclusivity. If there isn’t someone out there – or a something
inside me – screaming ‘how on earth
could you include them?’ then I probably haven’t gone far enough. Certainly not as far as loving my enemies and
praying for my persecutors.
But how far should this take me?
From resisting the humiliation of convicted criminals (as St
Nicolas’ was doing in 2008 - something I was remembering this week) right up to
giving medical treatment to a bomber (not something commended by every candidate
for high office – as we were all observing this week) we may only really
playing at it.
Please God, may the abuse, bombing, corruption, deception, exploitation
and fraud around us be exposed and ended, punished and prevented, and may the
victims' needs never be forgotten, minimized or neglected.
Let justice prevail. But even
then, give us your longing for the lost perpetrators - however hard our inner
being calls out against this prayer.
4 comments:
"The first two say that the great banquet (of which we catch the foretaste now, and to which we are promised full participation soon) will be chock full of bankers and wastrels and people not unlike me a lot of the time and worse. That is how God is. It is hardly surprising news"............................. ONLY IF they repent of their sins and are born again as Jesus instructs all sinners to do.
You've combined two (or possibly three) things there, Joy. Luke does indeed refer to the need for repentance (he does so explicitly just three chapters earlier, although the word he uses is about radical reorientation of life and may not be quite what later Evangelical scholarship expands or narrows into a phrase like 'repent of your sins'), and John 3 does say that rebirth by water and the Spirit is needed to enter the Kingdom of God (although this reads much more like allowing the action of God than achieving reorientation by one's own efforts). The strange thing about the three stories at which I was looking is the plain fact that the feasting, embracing and praising isn't presented as conditional in any of them - it is almost as if God's seeking out includes and that reorientation of life and rebirth by God's work is the possibility opened up by this. Of course we all know both the constant challenge to 'sin no more' and also that if a particular form of self-aware acknowledgement of each sin was a requirement then none of us would be going to the final feast at all - both mainstream Christian teachings. Meanwhile, I hope you are well re-settled at your old Baptist church and being well fed there by less exploratory thoughts than mine like this!
Apologies for having a simple Biblical faith Peter. Your exploratory thoughts are always appreciated for what they are.
Am happily re settled at GBC, the teaching is not quite so esoteric as yours but more in line with biblical truths.
WE each have our own personal walk with faith.
Thanks - I hope that there are very few of us whose faith is not simple (a radical trust that God in Christ can deal with the limiting nature of my sin, my mind and my works) while seeking biblical truth (attending closely to it all the time).
Post a Comment