The Prodigal Son

I recently wrote a Narrative Criticism for my Rhetorical Criticism class based on the Parable of the Prodigal Son.  Check it out and let me know what you think.  I appreciate any feedback, whether it be praise or constructive criticism.

 Reshaping the Definition of Justice and the Meaning of Mercy

A Narrative Analysis of The Parable of the Prodigal Son

Introduction and Background

            Christianity is a religion centered on the gospel of Jesus Christ, and the gospel consists of three main components.  First, God sent his only son, Jesus Christ, to Earth in order to redeem humanity.  The idea of the trinity, that God exists as one being in three forms (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit), was and still is an unprecedented idea.  Jesus needed to fulfill the old covenantal law in its entirety; he had to live a perfect life.  Jesus, being fully God and fully human, gave himself up to a hostile people as a sacrificial offering.  The death curse of humanity and the power of sin was lost when Jesus took his final breath of life, in which at that time all the consequences of human rebellion was placed upon the God-man, Jesus Christ.  The redemptive power of the Savior is evident in the third and final component.  Jesus lived a perfect life in thought and deed, gave himself up for an unworthy people, and then came back to life in order to show the world that he had power over sin and death.  The fact that Jesus rose from the grave solidifies his teachings and parables; without the revival of life over death, his words and lessons are meaningless. 

            Though Christianity might be popular among Western cultures and nations, this brief overview of the religion probably seems completely absurd to many, even to those within the church.  Also, Jesus' teachings, presently found within the New Testament, were counter-cultural.  Jesus lived amongst Jews during a time period in the Middle East that highly valued justice.  Exodus 21: 24 in the Hebrew Bible states, "But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise."  However, Jesus brought a completely new idea of mercy and forgiveness to this region and the rest of the world.  The Parable of the Prodigal Son is an important artifact because millions of people all across the world use this teaching daily when dealing with individuals.  Moreover, this parable continues to be a radical idea when compared to other major world religions. 

Research Question and Thesis           

            The research question this article seeks to answer is, "How did this parable reshape the way individuals approached issues of justice and mercy?"  This essay claims that The Parable of the Prodigal Son taught an unprecedented lesson in which people should lend mercy in an occasion where justice should be given. 

Methodology           

            Narrative Criticism will be used in order to analyze this parable.  Sonja Foss states, "By creating stories out of the raw material of our experience, we not only establish coherence for ourselves but create meaningful discursive structures that may be communicated and shared" (Foss 307).  Jesus used his divine experience to present numerous moral lessons on life that could then be shared and spread by others.

           

Parable Summary

            The Parable of the Prodigal Son begins by stating that a man has two sons, and the younger son takes his inheritance early but squanders all of his possessions while away in a far country.  After losing everything, the younger son decides to try to return home because he was in dire need.  Realizing that his father might be extremely upset upon his return, he decides that he will ask for forgiveness.  As the son approaches his old home, the father sees his son far off and runs out excitedly to greet him.  The father states at the end, "It was fitting to be glad, for this brother was dead, and is alive; he was lost, and is found."  Within this statement from the father is the new idea of mercy and forgiveness introduced by Jesus. 

New Values

            The first items of interest are the new values of mercy and forgiveness that are embedded in the narrative.  It has already been stated by scripture that Jewish culture valued the idea of justice.  In this case, many Jewish individuals during this time period would have expressed severe frustration with the son's actions and allowed him to suffer the consequences of wasting away his father's money.  The son also expresses the idea that he should receive punishment for his actions when he states, "I am no longer worthy to be called your son.  Treat me as one of your hired servants" (Luke 15:19).  However, this narrative introduces a new idea to the culture: the father gave mercy when the son should have been given justice for his actions.  Not only does the son receive mercy, but he also receives a celebration hosted by the one man who he betrayed.  If one were to hear this story but not be aware of the son's outcome after he squandered his inheritance, many would probably state that the son deserved to be punished for his actions, directly or indirectly.  Yet here is a man claiming to be God who exhorts his listeners to forgive.

Cultural Resonance           

            The forgiveness offered by the father in the parable created dissonance with the individuals of the contextual culture.  However, by speaking this parable, Jesus revealed an element of morality of a new radical Christian lifestyle.  In a world dominantly ran by justice, Jesus offers a new instruction to forgive those who have wronged you, even in the worst-case scenarios.  There exists no "eye for an eye," and "tooth for a tooth" any longer for the disciples of Christianity.  One must go outside this parable in order to understand the importance of this lesson.  Jesus states that if an individual is indeed a disciple and a follower, then she or he must obey what he commands; Jesus commands mercy and forgiveness.  This lesson creates resonance throughout the world because the culture is based on ideologies, not only geographic location.

Character

            The younger son can represent those who live outside of God's law who desire to come "home."  The story tells the audience that this man squandered his money away on prostitutes, an action that can leave any person feeling extremely guilty.  The beauty of the story lies in the mercy that the father shows his son, and this can resonate with individuals who have experienced sexual promiscuity that want to enter into a Christian life.  Not only will the younger son be forgiven, but also there is no guilt given by the father within the story. 

            The father essentially represents God the Father, and Jesus wants the listener to understand that God acts in the same manner.  The younger son develops a statement to give upon arrival, but his father cuts him short.  The father not only forgives him immediately, but also offers him the best robe.  Jesus wants the people to know that the Father desires for them to come back to him.

           

Parable Construction

            The end of the parable describes a frustrated and bitter older brother who is upset that his father accepted the younger son's apology; this represents what the majority of people would feel. The father is opening new doors for individuals who do not deserve mercy.  By giving the older brother's account, Jesus is showing his culture that this new teaching will be difficult to grasp.

Conclusion

            Lessons on life are easier spoken than learned and acted.  Some lessons exist only to guide a specific individual; perhaps an audience of one will only hear it.  That one must be responsible for his or her actions is a moral code by which most modern humans live.  Christianity has introduced numerous new teachings that continue to challenge societal moralities.  Jesus uses The Parable of the Prodigal Son to show that God values mercy and forgiveness when justice should be served, given that the individual is turning to God.  A new culture arises from these teachings, and the fact that the radical counter-cultural lessons are given by Jesus displays his own divinity.  This analysis contributes to rhetorical theory because it helps show, in part, the radical ideological belief that Christians possess.

Gender Distortions

The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood is a group of Christians who "Proclaims God's Glorious Design for Men and Women," and Steven Tracy writes a solid article concerning distorted gender roles that are "backed" by the Bible.

Check out the article here

Tracy states,

Biblical headship patterned after the Trinity is the most powerful biblical corrective to the abuse of male power. The Father's headship over the Son involves: loving, sharing, and honoring.

Studying Women's Studies in College opened my mind to issues that I did not know existed.  Even if one is not interested in the debate, the issue will not go away and it is important to have some sort of grounded opinion.

Reformation's Issue of Disunity

I read an article by Stanley Hauerwas tonight and it struck me deeply because never before have I approached pondering the Reformation as an issue with the Church Catholic.

Check out the article here, I believe that it will challenge the body of Christ to approach the issues of disunity differently.

We know, after all, that the prophecy of Joel has been fulfilled. The portents of heaven, the blood and fire, the darkness of the sun, the bloody moon have come to pass in the cross of our Savior Jesus Christ. Now all who call on that name will be saved. We believe that we who stand in the Reformation churches are survivors. But to survive we need to recover the unity that God has given us as survivors. So on this Reformation Sunday long for, pray for, our ability to remember the Reformation – not as a celebratory moment, not as a blow for freedom, but as the sin of the church. Pray for God to heal our disunity, not the disunity simply between Protestant and Catholic, but the disunity in our midst between classes, between races, between nations. Pray that on Reformation Sunday we may as tax collectors confess our sin and ask God to make us a new people joined together in one might prayer that the world may be saved from its divisions. 

Marriage Proposal

This is the latest paper I have written for Women's Studies.  In a nutshell, I believe that a separation of church and state on the issue of marriage would be the best bet for the church in general.  This would allow for respectful discourse to be made between the religious and secular, and it would also protect the church from being tainted by secular thought.  Give it a look, I would greatly appreciate it.  I wanted to write a lot more, and word limits are lame.  

The Marriage State: Governance for the Individual, Not the Religion

The trouble with many definitions for any given object or idea is the subjective nature of every individual who performs the defining; each human has a different experience.  Marriage is a suitable example.  An arranged marriage forced by parents can seem like a nightmare to a young girl who has no desire to become attached to a partner for a lifetime.  In many modern Western societies, marriage can be viewed by some individuals as an ultimate goal in the pursuit of happiness and fulfillment.  To turn a blind eye away from the truth that marriage has undergone numerous definitional shifts would hinder the possibility for a progression of marriage and a more egalitarian society.   Constant work has to be done in order to respect contradicting viewpoints.  This essay proposes that religious implications on the institution of marriage should be clearly and definitely detached from secular individuals and politics in order to promote an equal governmental system and respectful discourse.

            First, a brief history of marriage will be given.  The author of Marriage, a History, Stephanie Coontz, is the director of Research and Public Education at the Council on Contemporary Families.  She spends several hundred pages revealing a basic history on marriage while exposing some misleading ideologies.  Prehistorically, Coontz states, “hunting and gathering societies throughout history have emphasized sharing and reciprocity” (39).  Before marriage became a specialized partnership that benefited personal interests, individuals who coupled had a necessary commitment to the group as a whole.  Marriage then shifted to a political tool where governmental ties and international relationships could be established.  However, Christianity brought a new perspective.  Marriage became secondary to preparing oneself for the coming of God.  During the Medieval Ages in Europe, Coontz states, “The importance of marriage in creating a viable household economic unit meant that free peasants…were very anxious to get properly married” (111).  Marriages during this time were primarily for economic purposes, not for love and fulfillment.  The Catholic Church infused marital norms onto the general public, and public scolding happened to anyone who rejected them.  Until the seventeenth century, families were seen as a small-scale monarchy with the husband acting as king.  Next, men were ultimately seen as the breadwinner of the family, and the women were seen as the housekeepers.  Coontz states, “Women who were unable to be full-time wives and mothers were often labeled moral degenerates” (169).  Victorian marriage brought a new radical perspective towards marriage, one that focused on personal satisfaction, romantic love, and obligations.  There was then a shift “from sentimental to sexual marriage,” but too much sex was seen as immoral by society during the early twentieth century (196).  The 1950’s brought a unique perspective where men and women had the opportunity to court their own mates more than ever before.  Coontz declares, “The cultural consensus that everyone should marry and form a male breadwinner was like a steamroller that crushed every alternative view” (229).  This period is from where the term “traditional marriage” modernly originates.  A backlash from women due to suppressive and demeaning ideologies led to the demise of this era.  This current era has been continually trying to collectively find what marriage is and who can enter into a marital relationship.  A high divorce rate has been an issue in modern marriages with a national divorce rate of “9.2 divorces per 1,000 men and 9.7 divorces per 1,000 women” (Samuel 3).

            Moving along, the first feminist perspective will be from Margaret Denike in an article entitled “Religion, Rights and Relationships: The Dream of Relational Equality.”  Denike states, “Conservative rhetoric over the marriage question has given rise to debates that construe a mythic conflict between competing rights…as if individuals’ freedom of conscience collided with others’ entitlement to marry” (73).

The “mythic conflict” Denike mentions is the idea of many conservatives that their right to marry, or the marriage definition, will be compromised if the state extends legality to non-religious groups, especially to homosexuals.  However, equality rights backed by the Constitution will be widely accepted by members of society because it legally outlaws prejudices.

            The second feminist perspective is from an article entitled, “The Unhappy Marriage of Religion and Politics,” written by Shahra Razavi and Anne Jenichen.  The authors state,

“The relationship [between religion and politics] needs to be viewed through the lens of individual rights and needs, rather than assuming that individuals’ interests are simply represented by…religious as well as political leaders and spokespersons” (835).

This quote is tremendously important for the argument of freedom of choice in marriage because it displays the necessary relationship between church and state.  By letting religious individuals be religious and letting the non-religious be secular, respectful discourse can be made without coercing one side to behave in a certain manner. 

            The third and final feminist perspective derives from an article written by Ms. Magazine blogger David Dismore.  Dismore declares,

“The once-radical idea of ‘equal marriage’ between husbands and wives in considered ‘traditional’ because that’s what many assume was always the case.  But it was a feminist idea about equality…that forced this substantial redefinition of marriage” (13).

Dismore stresses the fact that past conflicts for equality usually evolve into the modern societal norms.  “Traditionalists” are holding onto an ideology that builds walls between fellow citizens and prohibits understanding and progression for a civil society.

            Marriage history and accounts given from reputable sources agree with a proposal for a separation between religion and state in regards to marriage laws.  The United States government is not a theocracy, so the laws that are put in place should not reflect one religion exclusively.  A complete separation between the church and state will benefit the society as a whole.  Allowing civil unions between non-religious individuals will not take away freedoms from religious institutions.  Marriage doesn’t have to be completely redefined because a new definition can be added for a different group of citizens. 

            When specific values are forced from one side to the other, disagreements arise and deep harm can be done.  The way to reach respectful dialogue about certain beliefs can be found through an acceptance of a person’s own free will.  Biblical scholar and Anglican bishop N.T. Wright states in an article,

“Jewish, Christian, and Muslim teachers have always insisted that lifelong man-plus-woman marriage is the proper context for sexual intercourse…Paganism ancient and modern has always found this ethic ridiculous and incredible” (5).

Wright realizes that certain requirements held by religious institutions have always been seen as illogical to the rest of the world.  Living a religious lifestyle is difficult enough for individuals who claim the faith, so it is unreasonable to force those requisites to outsiders.  From a religious perspective, a separation from church and state would protect religious institutions from becoming tainted with secular thought.  Holy elements can become quickly perverted when religious requirements and interpretations are implemented into politics, and vice versa. 

            Sexual sin is a blatant sin, one that is obvious to religious individuals.  However, those same individuals can sit behind a curtain of greed and pride while seeking to punish any person that does not abide by their own people-pleasing tactics.  The present “traditional” marriage ideology is not rooted deep in history.  Feminists, scholars, and average citizens view a separation between religion and state as a genuine opportunity for individuals to make personal choices on marriage, which will ultimately lead to greater equality for all.