|
Alan's
Lenten Reflection...
|
|||||||||||||
|
LENT 2007... ![]() From the other side of the Pacific, and taking a break from growing grass in a more isolated part of Texas, Alan Simpson, is joining us with a series of gentle reflections on the Sunday readings during Lent... An old story in a new skin.... A certain man had two sons. The younger son said, "Father, there has to be more to life than this! I've heard a world exists beyond the outer fence, a world of things other than plowing, planting, and harvesting. I want to experience that world." So the father liquidated some assets and set up a fund for his son. A few days later the son departed for a distant land, called University1. On arrival he became so excited that he matriculated and began studying the usual subjects. These included Comparative Anatomy, Effect and Metabolism of C2H5OH2, Psychology of Riotous Living, and Asset Dissipation 101. The years went by and he acquired a Degree of some competence, but most of the money was gone. Unwilling to give up the lifestyle he enrolled in graduate school and became a Teaching Assistant, casting pearls of wisdom before undergraduates. This paid little and soon, destitute, he decided to return home and beg his father for a job as a stable boy3. Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the older son was developing a good case of resentment. His workload had doubled when his younger brother left. Dawn to dusk every day mucking out stalls, milking sheep, shearing goats, pulling calves, digging dirt. All the while never was heard an encouraging word from his father, who talked only of the other brother. Still, he did his duty to meet all the obligations as a faithful son, expecting that someday it would all be his. One day while loading hay in the field he heard a big ruckus up at the house and headed in to investigate. One of the hands told him that his brother was back. The boss was throwing a BBQ for everyone to celebrate. Then he heard the bad news: his brother would be the Foreman now, because he was educated. The elder brother got mad and went to the chicken house to sulk. A familiar tale... Re-telling the story in a contemporary format doesn't make much improvement, does it? We still have a familiar tale of a youngster leaving home, losing everything, and coming back expecting the worst to become one of the hired hands only to be welcomed back as a beloved part of the family. Often the parable is interpreted to paint the wandering son in a bad light. He's seen as rebellious, headstrong, prideful. He rejects his father and the teachings of his youth. He's a bad boy who winds up on skid row, so worthless that he doesn't deserve the crumbs that fall off his father's table. He is ashamed of himself and darn well should be! The stay-at-home brother then becomes the epitome of virtue. He works hard, obeys his father, never questions or talks back. He fulfils all the obligations, obeys all the rules, doesn't drink or chase women, shows up at the right times and does the right thing. Such a good son!
I don't believe we should think badly of the younger son. Look at the context of the parable. Pharisees and scribes were complaining that Jesus "welcomes sinners and eats with them." Consider that the father did not refuse, or even object, when the son asked for his early inheritance. Instead of dwelling on the son's failures, Jesus emphasizes the events leading up to and surrounding his homecoming. Think about how the brother reacted. The younger son truly did do some 'bad' things, none of them so horrible that they could overcome his father's love. He thought he would have to start over again, earning forgiveness by 'works' as the most menial servant. He even had a speech all ready. What a surprise it must have been to be met with hugs and kisses, absolute and unconditional love and acceptance! His father didn't care what he had done forget the past or what he would do to earn forgiveness. Just being there, home and alive, was cause enough for celebration. And the other son, the one who already had everything? He was angry. He refused to join the celebration. He whined about never getting a party for his faithfulness. His father tried to reason with him, but we don't know if it did any good. So which son rejected his father with headstrong rebelliousness and pride? Some random thoughts in conclusion:
Today's readings can be found at www.usccb.org/nab/031807a.shtml Alan Simpson Footnotes: ![]()
What are your thoughts on Alan's reflection? |
|||||||||||||