The other prodigal son.

I tend to fall into the trap of thinking that, after hearing a story a certain number of times, I know all there ever is to know about it. Same with Bible verses. I hear some of them enough times (say, Phil. 4:13), and I don’t let it affect me the way that it should.

I’ve felt that way about the Prodigal Son, which is probably Jesus’ most famous and heartfelt story of God’s forgiveness toward sinners. But there’s something I never noticed until tonight:

But he was angry and refused to go in. His father came out and entreated him

The wayward son leaves the home, squanders his inheritance, gets the trash kicked out of him by life, and returns home to a loving father and a banquet. The older brother refuses to go in, prompting the father to go out and invite him to the party.

Here’s what I’m wondering: Why does the father go after the older brother but not the son?

Yes, the text says that the father saw the younger son when he was a ways off and ran to him, but that’s not the same thing as leaving the house and searching for him. It’s like the father waits for the younger son, but the older son, he needs to be sought after, to be caught. Why?

Here’s a theory of mine (and it’s open for debate): The older son might be the son who was in greater danger and sin.

People who are suffering the consequences of their lives, who have been ostracized by friends and family, I think they won’t have too much trouble believing they’re not perfect. It’s easier to know that you need a change when you’ve hit rock bottom.

But people who are convinced that they have it together, they’re a different and sadder tale. People who realize the house is on fire can try to escape or call for help, increasing the odds of their getting rescued. There is no hope for someone who doesn’t even realize there is a fire.

So maybe, just maybe, that’s why the father runs to the older brother, because that son’s sin would never lead to the kind of bottoming-out that his sibling had experienced. Perhaps it would be just the opposite. The older brother could develop a reputation for being a godly man who doesn’t struggle (although really, his sins are just better hidden). And that will only reinforce the falsehood.

So the father runs to him, pleading with him to not miss the party (and going to this party would obviously mean accepting the younger brother whom he hates and welcoming him back into the family). But the older brother refuses and, although his feet never leave the floor, he’s running away from his father as fast as he can.

So for us “older siblings”, check yourself. Study your life and your actions. Study your heart: Does it love God? Your neighbors and enemies? Do you even realize there’s a problem?

Kicking the cliches out of church.

The real.faith blog has a post on the Top 10 cliches that should be excommunicated from the church.

Of the 10, “quiet time” and “ask Jesus into your heart” are my top two. Here are two more I would add:

11. “It’s not a religion, it’s a relationship” – I’ve elaborated my thoughts here.

12. “a high view of Scripture” – This one can be used against anyone who doesn’t share the same interpretation of a Bible passage as you. For example, I read an argument between a young-earth creationist and someone who doesn’t believe Genesis 1 was meant to be a literal process story of how God created the world with all its abundance. In the course of the argument, the young-earther said he held “a high view of Scripture,” which apparently is why he believed what he believed.

The dangerous result of having this in your arsenal: Aside from coming off as prideful and insulting, you never feel the need to question if you’re reading the Bible correctly. Why would you? You hold the “high view,” remember?

#13 is open for whoever wants to chime in.

Weigh on the Piper v. Wright brawl.

Ok, maybe it’s not so much of a brawl. Maybe it’s just a theological back-and-forth between two popular leaders in the church: John Piper (of his books, I’d recommend Desiring God first) and N.T. Wright, whose Christian Origins and the Question of God series, by the way, is excellent (especially volumes two and three: Jesus and the Victory of God and The Resurrection of the Son of God).

If you’re interested in talking about it or just reading what other people have to say, Open Source Theology has started a discussion and can be a good place for exploring different views.

Enjoy.

Couldn’t say it in church? Try it here.

Think about the things you’ve always wanted to say in church but couldn’t.

Now, go to Anne Jackson’s Web site, submit them, and see if you get into her latest book.

Jackson, who wrote Mad Church Disease and runs the FlowerDust.net blog, is asking people to submit their thoughts for her forthcoming Permission to Speak Freely, which will collect and publish those entries in a creative way in print and on a Web site (similar to PostSecret).

(If you submit something, please note the legal copy toward the bottom of the link.)

Uncle Sam wants YOU … unless you smoke.

The departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs had asked a panel for recommendations on reducing tobacco use in the U.S. military. The panel’s response: Ban smoking.

Raleigh’s News & Observer reports that the military could refuse to admit smokers into the Armed Forces, phasing out smoking within 20 years (which would also give time for our military men and women who smoke to retire from their posts).

From the N&O:

Tobacco-related health problems cut into combat readiness and cost the military $846 million annually in medical care and lost productivity, and cost the VA another $6 billion, the report said.

Clink on the link to read the full article (or support your local newspaper by buying a copy somewhere) and weigh in below.

A Facebook movie? Really?

When I go out to coffee shops, bookstores, and theaters, it’s partly to get me out of the house, off the computer, and (usually) off of Facebook. (Being sociable is another part, by the way.)

Hollywood is now ruining that.

The Facebook movie, officially called “The Social Network,” is starting production this year, according to Mashable. It’s supposed to follow real-life FB founder Mark Zuckerberg, and the script was written by Aaron Sorkin, who I admire for the first three seasons of amazingly witty dialogue on “The West Wing.”

Who knows, maybe this movie will actually be something worth tweeting about. But we’ve got a while to find out if that’s true, and so far, I’m skeptical.

Our Disturbing Scriptures: Bye bye, rebellious children.

A new post on the “Our Disturbing Scriptures” series is long overdue. Part of this was just due to a busy schedule; another part was (and this surprises even me) I couldn’t think of another good example to write about. Considering the contents of the Bible, which can range from dismembered concubines to the mass slaughter of an entire generation of Egyptian children, that’s saying something.

Anyway, during my vacation this past week, a new one came to mind:

“If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and, though they discipline him, will not listen to them, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gate of the place where he lives, and they shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This our son is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.’ Then all the men of the city shall stone him to death with stones. So you shall purge the evil from your midst, and all Israel shall hear, and fear.” (Deuteronomy 21:18-21)

Hear and fear, indeed.

I’ve been in churches most of my life, and I can’t recall when, if ever, I heard someone devote some serious time to unpacking this passage for an audience. Maybe that’s because, like me, they find it too harsh and unsettling to devote time to, and sometimes it’s easier to forget that passages like these even exist.

I understand the need for a child to be disciplined since it can ultimately breed maturity and character. But the death penalty seems to be too much, to say the least.

How were these parents, themselves flawed human beings, able to judge when their child had reached the point of no return?

Would the supposedly rebellious child have a chance to respond to and appeal the charges brought against him?

And if the death penalty had to be pursued, were there not faster ways of killing a person than throwing stones at them? Why drag out the punishment?

This seems like a brutal punishment, as if a crime deserving a spanking is instead being settled with a gun.

I can think of one possible explanation, though it’s not entirely satisfying:

If children didn’t honor their parents when they were young, those parents might not be taken care of when they’re older and in need their children’s support. God, by instituting this punishment, is trying to prevent an entire generation of elderly people from suffering neglect and abuse.

I leave other explanations open to the comments section below. (Also, I’ll try and do a better job of updating this blog.)

Drop your atheism, win a trip.

Here’s a new TV show idea that’s so off the wall, you’re going to be surprised it wasn’t invented by Fox.

The premise of the new show in Turkey, “Penitents Compete,” is simple: A panel of religious leaders will try to convince an atheist to convert to one of their respective faiths. If the atheist converts to one of their belief systems, they’ll win a trip to its holy site.

So, first salvation, then vacation.

My first reaction (and I have nothing else to go on, having never seen this program) is it risks trivializing salvation and puts it on the same level as the prizes on “The Price is Right.” But if there’s any good that could come out of this show, it’s this:

It’ll give believers in God a great chance to see which of their arguments for the existence of the Divine work and which ones may not be so convincing. It could give Christians an example of how to (and how not to) interact with people who completely disagree with them, who think that “theist” is a synonym for “irrational and stupid.”

So if you’re watching the show, what arguments do you think the panel should use? Which arguments should they avoid?

Or, should they avoid participating in the show altogether?

(via Friendly Atheist)

For you church-going gun lovers.

If you’re in the Louisville area anytime soon and you’ve just been dying for a chance to bring your favorite sidearm to church, you’re in luck:

New Bethel Church is holding an “Open Carry Church Service.” The point of the event (which is not a worship service, according to the Time article) is for gun carriers to give thanks for the 2nd Amendment.

The Rev. Ken Pagano says, in the article, that pacifism is optional for Christians, who ought to be ready to defend their families if need be. I understand the feeling, but I after the tragic shooting death of Dr. George Tiller, the last thing we want to do right now is to further associate churches with guns.

(And yes, as a pro-lifer, I think his death was tragic. God loved George Tiller; so should His children.)

One part of the article caught my attention. The church’s insurance carrier has stated it can’t cover this event, and Pagano won’t have open carriers in the service without coverage. His solution: Ask everyone with an open-carry permit to leave their guns inside their cars.

Another idea is to leave your guns at home, but if you insist on bringing them to church, can you at least not advertise to Louisville’s criminals that there might be a cache of weapons in the parking lot that day?

It doesn’t take much to break a car window.

Question on the death of Jesus.

Here’s a question I have regarding the death of Jesus:

How is God able to sacrifice His Son when He specifically forbade Israel from offering human sacrifices?

I’m referring to the prohibition against child sacrifices in the Hebrew Scriptures:

“When you come into the land that the Lord your God is giving you, you shall not learn to follow the abominable practices of those nations. There shall not be found among you anyone who burns his son or his daughter as an offering, anyone who practices divination or tells fortunes or interprets omens, or a sorcerer or a charmer or a medium or a necromancer or one who inquires of the dead, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord. And because of these abominations the Lord your God is driving them out before you.”

(Deuteronomy 18:9-12; bold print mine.)

In Judges 11, Jephthah vows to sacrifice the first thing that walks through his door following a military victory; tragically, it’s his daughter, who ends up paying the price for his rash vow (see note below).

Israel eventually adopted this horrible practice, much to the dismay of her covenant King and the prophets He sent. (Jeremiah, for example, condemns this sacrifice in 7:30-34 of his book.)

I know the text specifies children, but I think I’m safe to assume that adults would have been protected, as well. (Children are probably specified because adults were bigger, stronger, and would have been helping make the sacrifice, anyway.)

So have at it. How is God able to offer Jesus without breaking His own commandment?

**By focusing on the sacrificial aspect of the cross, I don’t mean to ignore or downplay the significance of what else he accomplished, including disarming the powers of darkness and giving an example to be followed by his people. But the church also affirms that Jesus is our Passover (1 Cor. 5:7), the same event in which the blood of the animal was spread on people’s doorposts to save them from God’s punishment on Egypt.

About Jephthah:

Some people might argue that God endorsed the death of Jephthah’s daughter by pointing out that the text says the Spirit of the Lord was on Jephthah when he went to battle and thus, when he made his tragic vow. Two things:

First, it seems that the Spirit was on the man for the military victory. I think it’s a harder case to make that the same Spirit was prodding him to kill his little girl.

Second, Leviticus 5:4-6 provided a way for him to get out of that vow since it would lead to evil. Jephthah could offer a sacrifice for his sin to be forgiven (in this case, the sin of breaking an oath), but it would have been a small price to pay for his daughter’s life.