In a age of increasing fatherlessness and post-church prodigals, the parable of the Father and the Two Sons is as relevant as ever, especially as it blows apart certain aspects of people’s views of God.

From Mark Stibbe’s book “The Father You’ve Been Waiting for: Portrait of a Perfect Dad” and his work on the subject of spiritual adoption (see, “From Orphans to Heirs: Celebrating Our Spiritual Adoption“) to Jack Frost and the ’sharing the Father’s love’ movement typified by the ‘Father’s love letter‘ and Rob Parsons’ “Bringing Home the Prodigals” Luke 15 seems to popping up again and again across the church in the UK and abroad as a text which is being preached with evangelistic passion and pastoral impact. A great example would be Michael Ramsden’s two excellent sermons with real evangelistic punch and tenderness on Luke 15 (The Good Shepherd and A Father And Two Sons) as part of four sermons in one day (!). Further, Tim Keller is interviewed here about his new book “The Prodigal God: Recovering the Heart of the Christian Faith“.

Wonderful, we might think, the Bible being expounded, the gospel preached and I am certainly very glad about that. Yet even accounting for the ‘one gospel in all its forms‘ it is really important to ask where is Christ and the Cross in Luke 15?

Luke 15: An atonement-less gospel?

We see the Father and forgiveness, but is Luke 15 atonement-less? Is Luke 15, Trinity-less? Are the Muslims right to say that “the message of Jesus has been perverted by Christians” and that Luke 15 shows the true nature of things?

“Their case can be state thus: In this parable the Father obviously represents God while the younger son represents humankind. The son leaves home, gets into trouble and finally decides to return to his Father. He “yistaghfir Allah” (he seeks the forgiveness of God). On arrival the Father welcomes the son and thus demonstrates that he, the father, is “rahman wa rahim” (merciful and compassionate). There is no cross and no incarnation, no “son of God” and “no saviour”, no “word that becomes flesh” and no “way of salvation”, no death and no resurrection, no mediator and no mediation. The son needs no help to return home. The result is obvious. Jesus is a good Muslim who in this parable affirms Muslim theology. The heart of the Christian faith is thus denied by the very prophet Christianity claims to follow. Islam with neither a cross nor a saviour preserves the true message of the prophet Jesus”.
The Cross and the Prodigal, p15

This is a significant question, not just for those working in Muslim contexts but for all Christians in our preaching and our thinking. In addition, does some of the pernicious discomfort about God as Judge and the atoning Cross of Christ, make Luke 15 very attractive to the post-modern and/or liberal mind? Do we in fact preach Luke 15 and preach an “Islamic Christianity“?

True, many preachers have not spoken consistently about Christ’ mission of revealing and leading us to the Father. Others, introduced to God the Judge have never yet understood God as our Father and their spiritual adoption. Yet in the corrective how do we ensure that we preach about God, as He has revealed Himself in Christ and through Christ? That we preach Christ and him crucified?

Preaching Christ from the New Testament?

I will leave a tentative answer until later (UPDATE: see here) and for now let the question hang, but in the mean time I’ll point you to the works that have greatly influenced many of those above, namely the very readable scholarship of Kenneth E. Bailey (Stibbe and Ramsden both credit him). In particular, “The Cross & the Prodigal: Luke 15 Through the Eyes of Middle Eastern Peasants“, “Finding the Lost: Cultural Keys to Luke 15” and for the extra keen the weightier “Poet and Peasant: Literary-cultural Approach to the Parables in Luke“.

To conclude with the punchline rather than these questions, I’d like to end with a quote from Marcus Honeysett’s recent sermon on Luke 15:11-32, HT Dave Bish

“So there are two kinds of sinners in this story, two kinds of rebels against the love of God. The riotous worldly kind and the dutiful religious kind. Jesus is saying there are three possible ways we can live our lives:

• Live for the world and without the father
• Live for dutiful religion and without the father
• Live in the lavish grace of God to the undeserving and come into the party

Don’t think that the second is better than the first. They both replace a relationship with a loving father with something they falsely believe is better…
He is entreating all of us. Don’t stay in the far country. Don’t stay in the dark outside the house when inside is a feast with a fattened calf and the lavish grace of God for undeserving sinners.”

>>> On to the second post in this series