The Older Brother

Timothy Keller is fairly hard on the older brother (The Prodigal God). He believes the older brother is lost. His self-righteousness blinds him to the need for grace, therefore, he's not living in a relationship of joy and love with the father. Is Timothy Keller correct in his assessment? Or is he being too hard on the older brother?

I'm still thinking about it. But this is where I stand right now: the older brother's response is understandable but not necessarily excusable--it's not something we should endorse. After all, he is bitter and angry. He doesn't believe the celebration is fair; his father's passionate love has deeply offended him. So he refuses to participate in this feast of love and forgiveness, clinging to his own morality, refusing to participate in the kingdom of grace. At the end of the day, he's not too sure he wants to be a part of a family where rebellious sons are loved and embraced without restitution, without paying for their mistakes.

In light of the context--Jesus speaking to the Pharisees--this is a legitimate interpretation, I feel, of the older brother. Remember, many of the Pharisees were scandalized by Jesus because of his message of grace. They were constantly on the outside looking in. They did not see their need to repent of their self-righteousness to become a part of God's new creation.

The older brother is like that. The father is pleading with him to come in--to enter into the kingdom of love, forgiveness, and transforming grace. But he refuses.

Such an interpretation pushes us toward the heart of the gospel. The gospel is not fundamentally about morality, nor is it about immorality. Rather the gospel is first and foremost about living abundantly in Christ. It's about being a part of God's new creation, about becoming a new creature in Christ--all of which comes from God's gracious activity in our lives. The gospel is not I obey, therefore, God must accept me. Such an approach is a prison because the question becomes, "How much obedience do I owe?" The gospel instead is, I'm accepted, therefore, I obey. The life I live, I now live in Christ. This is the only stance that truly enables us to love, forgive, and bless our enemies because it recognizes that all is from grace. Perhaps that's what the older brother forgot, he forgot that it's all a gift; it all comes from grace.

I'm thinking of Paul. If anyone lived a moral life according to the law, it was Paul: "as to righteousness under the law, blameless" (Phil. 3). But he continues: "Yet whatever gains I had, these I have come to regard as loss because of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things, and I regard them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but one that comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God based on faith" (Phil. 3).

What matters, even for a former Pharisee like Paul, is new life in Christ and his kingdom.

Peace.

The Threat of Justice?

Glenn Beck has caused quite stir among Christians lately. On his March 2 radio show, Beck told his listeners: "I beg you, look for the words 'social justice' or 'economic justice' on your church Web site. If you find it, run as fast as you can. Social justice and economic justice, they are code words. Now am I advising people to leave their church? . . . Yes! Leave your church." Beck went on to state that "social justice" was the common rallying cry of both Nazis and Communists.

Questions naturally abound: Are those the words that come to mind when you think about Hitler and Stalin--social justice? Does Beck understand the biblical tradition? He says social justice is the forced redistribution of wealth--Does he honestly believe that's what Christians mean by social justice? (No church tradition I know of supports this.) How many Christians will follow Beck's advice? What does it mean that a conservative is threatened by Christ and the teachings of His church? These are some of the questions that I have rolling around in the back of my mind.

Regardless, there are two points that must be emphasized: First, to be a Christian is to be concerned with the left out and the left behind, the lost and the last. This is an undeniable truth. If you eliminate all of the references to caring for the poor (some 3,000 verses), you'd have a much thinner bible. Furthermore, you can't escape the call in scripture to be passionate about justice. Israel's prophets and Israel's messiah both addressed justice on a regular basis (cf. Amos 5.24; Micah 6.6-8; Luke 4.14-19--Jesus' inaugural sermon).

Secondly, for the church, there is something that takes precedence before the state. We're not called to serve God and empire. Instead we're called to pledge allegiance to Jesus and his way. At times this stance will turn us into both friends and enemies, depending on the situation and context, to the political agendas of our world. We must always remember, we are called to seek first God's kingdom and his justice (Matthew 6--justice is implied in the biblical word righteousness).

On that note, I'm starting to wonder if there isn't something much deeper at stake in this conflict--who or what will ultimately shape our allegiances? More on that later . . .

Peace.