While driving (I get to do a lot of driving) I recently listened to a sermon by Alistair Begg concerning the Prodigal Son as recorded in
Luke 15. This prompted some thoughts so I stopped to record them. The thoughts have to do with the reaction of the father toward the son.

I am struck by the phrase, “while a long way off.” Jesus is telling us that the father did not wait for the son to come, the father ran to greet the wayward son. One of the right things about the missional movement is a recognition that the church cannot sit back and wait for people to come to hear the message. Christians must take the message to those who most desperately need to hear it. When we do this, we are emulating the Father that Jesus described to us.
The second observation is that when the Father did contact the son, there was no condemnation or criticism expressed. He was happy to have the relationship restored. The only emotion expressed by the Father is rejoicing at the return. Why then do so many who are outside of the church feel condemned by the church? We should be the very group of people who are most welcoming and most happy to see a relationship restored. Were we to do so, we would be emulating Jesus who left glory to come rescue us.

The third observation is that people matter than material things. By claiming his inheritance before the father’s death, the wild son put his father at a material disadvantage. Assets had to be liquidated to fulfill the request. All that was given to the son was wasted in excessive living.

Would the father be justified in requiring the son to work himself back into the father’s good grace? Would it be reasonable to make the son work to pay back what he wasted? From a human perspective, he would be completely justified in doing so. Yet this is not what the father does. The riches that were wasted seem to be nothing compared to the restored relationship.

This is a challenge to us as to how we view our posessions. I have been in churches where a spilled cup of coffee put leaders in a tizzy to make up rules about food and drink in the “sanctuary.” Are we more concerned about the beauty of our church campus than we are about the people around us? Are we willing to use our resources to reach out to those who need our love and message?

There is so much more that can be gleaned from this story. Jesus presents God as an unembarassed Father who exhibits a shocking devotion to his son. He displayed this behavior while looking to be restored to his son. He is a father that is willing to endure public ridicule for the sake of restoration with the lost son.

Should we not seek to emulate this father in this?

Some books are worth reading multiple times. One such book it Creed or Chaos? by Dorothy L. Sayers, a book from which I have previously published several quotes.

A recent reading of the book brought to mind her discussion on the seven deadly sins and how the church has been selective in her renunciation of these sins. As listed in the book, the sins are:

Luxuria or Lust,
Ira or Wrath,
Gula or Gluttony,
Avaritia or Covetousness,
Invidia or Envy,
Acedia or Sloth,
Superbia or Pride

The average church has done much in denouncing the first sin but has a spotty record in working against the others. Rather than rehash Dorothy’s essay on the sins, I’ll let you go get a copy of the book (if you can find one) and read it for yourself. It would be worth the effort for you to do so.

What came to mind following a reading of this list is that we don’t have a sin problem as much as we have a worship problem.

When Jesus was asked to name the great command, he named love (and worship) of God as that command (Matthew 22:36-40). The second one is to love our neighbor. Since God loves our neighbor, it could be argued that the fulfillment of the second command is in response to the first command. Therefore, loving our neighbor is an aspect of our worship of God. It seems to me that if we did even a mediocre job of fulfilling these two commands, the seven deadly sins would not be an issue.

For example, lust is a desire to have something that I don’t currently have but think I really need. In our sexually charged culture, we think of lust primarily in terms of sexual attraction, but lust can be a desire for anything. If our desires are subjugated to our worship of God, then it seems that desire for other things would be diminished.

It would be difficult to exercise wrath when I am loving my neighbor as myself. A desire for a close relationship with God would displace food or drink or any other form of physical satisfaction as a proper goal for life. Avarice is the opposite of  loving my neighbor; if I am loving my neighbor, I can’t be cheating him. If I am in worship of God, it is difficult to be envious of my neighbor. A proper concept of worship of God would motivate me to be a good steward of the resources that God provides to me. Being a good steward would prevent me from sloth in any aspect of my life. Finally, a right understanding of God’s righteousness and his provision on my behalf in Jesus Christ should mitigate my pride.

I hope that you get the picture from this very brief overview.

Proper worship of God is the foundation for the conquest of sin. Why is this the case? All seven of these sins result from man (me) pretending that his is in charge of his own destiny. All seven of these sins are acts of open rebellion against God.

But if I am worshiping God, if I am acknowledging my dependence upon him, then, and only then, I have the perspective to see these sins for what they are. They are ugly, no matter how much the culture around me (both church and state) seek to justify them or make them palatable.

In the story of Peter walking on the water, Matthew records Jesus’ response when Peter became frightened and started to sink. Jesus said, “You of little faith, why did you doubt?” (Matthew 14:31)

This phrase has often been interpreted as a rebuke of all doubt. The understanding is that Jesus is telling Peter that it was wrong to doubt, the inference being that all doubt is wrong. When this passage is preached in this way, the implication is that we should have complete control over our thought process and that all doubt can and should be removed from our minds. I have heard some preachers say that all doubt is sin.

Scripture does not support this assertion. I wonder if the preachers who make these claims have ever read the Psalms. David and the other psalmists ask lots of hard questions and reveal their doubts about God and frustrations with God. They are brutally honest about their struggles.

I also point to Jesus response to Thomas’ doubt. Jesus did not rebuke Thomas for his doubt; rather than a rebuke, Jesus offered evidence to Thomas (John 20:27). Jesus offered his battle scars to Thomas as proof of his identity.

If Jesus’ words to Peter are not a rebuke of all doubt, then what is the point of the question?

Perhaps we should understand the functional word to be “why.” Understood this way, Jesus is asking “what is at the core of doubt?” What is behind your doubt?

In defense of Peter, the fact that prior to that moment, no-one had ever walked on water would have been significant. The physical properties of water and the human body support the doubt. On the other hand, at this point in Jesus’ ministry, Peter had been exposed to previous suspensions of the laws of nature to know that Jesus was not limited by them.

Why did Peter doubt? The most obvious answer to this is that Peter focused on the seeming impossibility rather than upon the command of Jesus to come to him.

The efficacy of faith is determined by the reliability of the object of faith. Would it be unreasonable to supply the word “me” in Jesus’ question to Peter? Could the meaning of that question be properly interpreted as “why did you doubt me given the fact that you had seen me do so many incredible things before and I asked you to do this?”

In some cases doubt is driven by a desire for more evidence (as in the case of Thomas). The proper response to this form of doubt is to do additional investigation. But there is a point in our investigation of the facts about Jesus where we have to make a choice. The why question gets behind the evidence to expose what is at the core of how we interpret the evidence. We have to act on the evidence that is available, even as we continue our search for truth.

The why question that Jesus poses does not allow us to be content to remain in doubt. Agnosticism may be a legitimate layover point, but it is not a legitimate destination. As Geddy Lee points out, “If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.”

“Why” is the functional question.