The Prodigal Sons

I just read Carolyn Arends' piece on Luke 15 and the unfortunate title given to this story, "The Prodigal Son." I agree with her assessment that the main point of this parable addresses "the other prodigal son," the 'older brother', in that it is a group of 'older brothers' to whom Jesus is addressing...his usual foil, the infamous Pharisees, et. al. (see 15:2). They play the 'older brother' role perfectly...and we, the evangelical establishment, follow well in their wake.

There are three points I would like to add. The first relates to my reference above "this parable." Often the parable known as "the prodigal son" is presented as a story that stands alone. However, note that in verse 3 Jesus says, "Then Jesus told them this parable...". Was it just the one about the lost sheep? No, the whole chapter is the parable. There are three vignettes within one parable, each building on the other. In my Bible, each vignette is titled as a separate parable, but this was not Jesus' intention.

Secondly, having noted that each vignette contributes to the flow of this parable, we see there is a pattern in these three segments--something lost (sheep-coin-son), something found, then great rejoicing. Right? Yes, but, I left out a critical piece...in the first two scenes there is another key element...one which is missing in the third scene, an extensive search. Who was supposed to be looking for the lost son?

Note that how the older brother learns of the celebration party, the other servants tell him in verse 27, "your brother has come." When disrespecting his father by complaining about his treatment, the older brother says, "this son of yours," (verse 30) we see that the older brother is so incensed that he cannot bring himself to acknowledge he has a brother. But, his father says in verse 32, "this brother of yours was dead and is alive again...". Who was supposed to be looking for the lost son? His older brother! (In my years in Africa I learned how the eldest brother was the leader of the siblings, the one responsible for them before their father...an Eastern cultural characteristic which is still widely common.)

Thirdly, note how the parable ends without resolution. One lost son has been found, the other is still outside the celebration. This is a clear reference to us older brothers who suppose ourselves to be so tight with our God...when, in reality, we are mostly far from celebrating that which our Father celebrates. Instead, like the older brother, we want to dictate what honors us and pick the friends with whom we want to celebrate...instead of looking for our lost brothers.

So, the older brother is outside the celebration...but, what will it take for him to join the celebration? Clearly, it would mean repentance and reconciliation with his father...but, that is not all. The older brother cannot join the celebration without acknowledging his younger brother, humbling himself and reconciling with him as well. Not only do we not recognize that we are largely estranged from the party...thinking, like the Pharisees, that we are insiders when we are actually outsiders, but, do we also recognize the degree to which we are estranged from those who are actually celebrating with our Father?

Not only are we not looking for our lost brothers...we don't care that they are lost, let alone desiring to be in intimate kingdom fellowship with them. As our Lord said, "The first will be last, and the last will be first."

Today I listened to the full length as Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. delivered "I Have a Dream." It is unquestionably one of the most stirring speeches of all time, given August 28, 1963 on the Washington Mall.

At the time, most evangelical churches were, sadly, indifferent; many, tragically, were vehemently militant. A great opportunity to give glory to Christ & Gospel was lost. What of today? Have we learned? It seems that we evangelicals are once again populating the sidelines of indifference while immigration reform languishes...

Recently, I had the opportunity to engage in a progressive dialogue about whether or not multicultural churches are a biblical mandate or recommendation. Here is a summary of my perspective:

I believe the best starting point is to focus upon shaping our understanding of ‘kingdom character’ and its implications. The foundation of ‘kingdom character’ is “love one another.” This is a restoration narrative as the body of Christ lives into the character which God intended for humanity from the outset…joining a restoration of all things which culminates in God’s stated goal to “bring all things in heaven and on earth together under one head, even Christ.” (Eph 1:10) In Christ, we are not only new creatures, but also a new type of humanity. (Eph 2:15) We are not the same as we once were. We have a new identity, a new role. Just as Christ is the 2nd/last Adam, the realization of what a human was to be, we, in and through Christ’s body, collectively, represent true human community as it was intended to be.

What does it mean, then, to “love one another?” Are there any limitations to this mandate? Any who are not included? What is the rationale for not pursuing relationship with each other in Christ? (too hard, impractical, wastes time, too idealistic, we prefer not to, etc.—deep down, we know these are not sufficient responses) The bottom line is that our Lord prayed that we would be one, that we would be together (John 17). Thus, unless we are continually moving toward each other, then we are falling short of that which God intended for us. But, why?

The whole point of the metaphor of the body is to emphasize how much we need each other…not just our functions as edifying contributions, but our personness as well. All that we each embody (personality, ethnicity, culture, age, gifting, history, joys, sufferings, etc.) is part of this contribution; and each culture has the contributive role as well, for the edification of the entire body. In my observation and experience, this is the fundamental disconnect—realizing and embracing the biblical reality that we need each other, that we are incomplete without each other.

This disconnect is driven by human nature. We don’t naturally believe that we need those who are unlike us (however we would define this). The progressive among us can be curious, appreciating the mosaic of diversity, kind, welcoming, polite and accommodating of difference…but still not believe that we need what people from other cultures (ethnicities, generations, gender, economic status, etc.) can contribute. It is why ‘inclusion’ is not enough… the new humanity in Christ is about kenosis, emptying ourselves, submitting one to another, confessing our sins one to another… that is, living in full mutuality—the image of the Father, Son and Spirit.

Given this reality, what are the implications? How is this new type of humanity in Christ supposed to live in this diverse, fractured, antagonistic, selfishly sinful, lost-without-Christ world? In such a way that “all men will know” that we are his disciples, that “the world will know” that Jesus is from God… that’s all.  We are to be living out a divine, restoration narrative to the glory of God. What do this look like? Perhaps it is better to ask, what does it feel like? I would propose this… when there is no longer a “them,” just an “us.” …when we can gaze upon our co-followers of Christ, and all our humankind ‘neighbors’, as our Lord does, gushing with compassion, love and humility, saying, “what do you want me to do for you?”

We are on a journey to understand and apply that which God has revealed and entrusted to us. We are sinful and imperfect, thus, our models are flawed and compromised, but we press on.

I fully realize that much of what I have shared is rather ethereal. But, I defend it as a way of clarifying biblical outcomes. If our understanding of outcome is incomplete, by default, the process will also be incomplete. We tend to be limited by what we believe to be possible. Since most of us, if not all, have issued from Christian churches and contexts that were (are?) primarily homogenous, we often do not have a track record of experience which provides an alternative perspective of what is possible. An example: when we first went to Niger as church planters we had already had twelve years of church planting on two other fields in W. Africa. In our experience, we had enjoyed good, edifying relationships between mission and church. However, upon arrival in Niger, we discovered that relations between church and mission were chronically strained and tense. Hence, discussions among the missionaries were negative and generally hopeless as far as the church was concerned. The vast majority of these colleagues had never lived and worked on any other field, so their experience was shading their conception of what was possible…

What if intercultural mutuality was the normative experience of every believer? How would the Christian landscape be different? Such has been my experience… of the five churches that I have had the privilege to see born, in five different cultural contexts, each one has been a diverse community of multiple tribal identities coming together in Christ. For me, this became normal. I didn’t start out that way… I had to learn it. They taught me. They lived it. Were they perfect pictures of grace and harmony? No, but they were trying to navigate this new humanity in a hostile environment. (Three of these churches were in Islamic contexts.) I am trying to communicate in the North American context what I have seen and experienced here, in Europe and in Africa…

Where did we get the idea that church is about what we like?

We didn't get it from the Bible. Our Lord commands us to "love one another." This is infinitely more than 'juice and coffee' at church and trading pulpits once a year... Christ told us the standard, "As the Father has loved me, I have loved you" . . . then, "as I have loved you, so you must love one another." This is incarnational, kenotic (emptying ourselves and becoming that which we are not) love which comes from above. The discussion about integration in the body of Christ begins with LOVE, not demographics; we are called to submission, one to another, in mutual, interdependent RELATIONSHIP. Unless we are in relationship with one another, integration is dead in the water. Of course, the demographics play a part, but we must proceed from a biblical framework. If we follow through with the process, to 'love one another', the outcome will then be unity (John 17), a visible unity which will be supernaturally remarkable to the watching world.

The Intent of Intercultural Unity in the Body of Christ

By definition, unity itself has no meaning apart from diversity. Likewise, biblical oneness has no meaning without visibility. How are all people to know that we are his disciples if they do not see us in loving relationship? (John 13) We are one in Christ, but it has no visible meaning apart from real, diverse relationship. The foundation of discipleship involves incorporating—living out—the life and example of Christ which began with kenotic incarnation, emptying oneself to become that which is ‘other’. This is the expected path of kingdom discipleship for all Christian believers everywhere. Engaging, accepting, embracing and loving other peoples and cultures is a mark of Christian maturity. Ethnic exclusiveness works cross current to biblical oneness. While there is necessarily a time and place for ethnic-specific mission and fellowship we must never forget that such situations are a waypoint on the kingdom journey, not a destination.

Mono-cultural assumptions, attitudes and actions hinder intercultural unity in the kingdom of God. Insisting upon ethnic exclusiveness without an evolutionary expectation toward intercultural unity reflects an incomplete conception of kingdom outcomes. Intercultural unity is not an option; it is the high calling of Christ and a testimony of his identity (John 17).

Okay, I've finally started a blog. I wanted to call it "Mind the Gap" because I was thinking about this ubiquitous warning so popularized by the London Underground to guard against unwary passengers slipping into the gap between platform and train. Sadly, that name wasn't available.

Why "With Other Eyes"? Because it is my desire to cast a gaze upon American culture, and American Christianity in particular, 'with other eyes'. While I grew up in the USA, I had the great privilege to spend most of my adult life in West Africa where, with the passage of a couple decades, I began to see my life, and culture in general, 'with other eyes'.

Most specifically, I will attempt to paint a different perspective on the nature and life of the church in the USA in hopes of encouraging and stimulating a hunger and passion for intercultural relationships.

More later...