Comments on: and lo, at the Outback they rejoiced

By: The Financial Blogger | Financial ramblings

The Financial Blogger | Financial ramblings — Sat, 26 Jan 2008 11:00:56 +0000

[...] Prodigal Son Finance by Brip [...]

By: An Interview and the Carnivals | beingfrugal.net

An Interview and the Carnivals | beingfrugal.net — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 20:51:51 +0000

[...] a hint. I submitted my post about my tax kicker refund. Also be sure to read about the naughty boy at Brip Blap. I’m sure you’ll recognize the story that post was taken from before [...]

By: carnival of money stories: bedtime story edition : plonkee money

carnival of money stories: bedtime story edition : plonkee money — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 12:02:58 +0000

[...] upon a time, there was a very little naughty boy, and his name was George. George didn’t like to do important things, and he didn’t [...]

By: JHS

JHS — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 18:33:09 +0000

Thanks for participating in this week's Carnival of Family Life, hosted by Karen at Write from Karen! Your post is a great contribution. Be sure to stop by tomorrow and check out all the other wonderful submissions for this week -- we have a wonderful selection of articles from some very talented writers. Considered hosting the Carnival? You can review the schedule at Colloquium and then drop me a note indicating the week you are interesting in hosting!

By: Steve (Brip Blap)

Steve (Brip Blap) — Sat, 12 Jan 2008 17:33:45 +0000

@Randall: True, I haven’t ever really isolated that one point – why doesn’t the father go round up the elder son and bring him to the celebration? Why does he have to find out about it secondhand? I suppose if the father told the elder son to take the day off and come with him to celebrate his brother’s return, it would have seemed less harsh. Good point.

By: Randall

Randall — Sat, 12 Jan 2008 14:30:47 +0000

I could never quite fathom this parable either.
True, the lost son comes back, but the father could have INCLUDED the responsible son in the celebration from the beginning, letting him know why he was celebrating, rather than ‘assuming’ that he would feel the same way.

The father was happy his lost son came back, the brother only saw that his irresponsible brother was back in town.

I think the father did appear to be playing favorites as well. If I were the dutiful son, I might be more inclined to act more like the lost son to get some attention.

By: Steve (Brip Blap)

Steve (Brip Blap) — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 11:31:45 +0000

@Steward: Very good point – in a sense, the father’s celebration for his younger son might be sending the wrong message to the younger son. Complete rejection would be sending the wrong message, too, though. Finding the balance would of course be one of those terribly difficult things that spring up from time to time during our lives…

By: Steward

Steward — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 05:52:02 +0000

I think I agree with Ruth and Steve in that in continuing the parable we would find the younger son working for an honest wage, just like anybody else would. But I think that I may disagree slightly in that I would see it as an expression of complete forgiveness and as the most loving thing that the Father could have done for his son. What would it have profited the prodigal if the Father does not use the circumstances to cure his boy of his waywardness? It would be a terribly unloving Father who would overlook his child’s fatal errors – so I think that both love and complete forgiveness are very consistent with the idea that the prodigal will have to work and work hard once he is restored to his father.

By: Emily

Emily — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 03:39:00 +0000

“Human history would be much simpler if everyone offered complete and unconditional forgiveness for all errors, wouldn’t it? ”

It sure would!

By: Steve (Brip Blap)

Steve (Brip Blap) — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 03:18:36 +0000

Actually, plonkee, I think the opposite – “nonrighteous” indignation is the myth. Everyone tends to feel righteous when they feel indignified. Boy, if that wasn’t a string of made-up words…

I don’t think the parable is attempting to show “familial” love per se. It’s attempting to show religious love – i.e. God’s love for all, regardless of past history of sin, forgiveness is granted equally and fully. That’s a religious interpretation that is not really up for debate. The bigger question is if you apply a secular lens to the question. I say a parent has an obligation to the elder son TO show favoritism. Otherwise people go insane, the system breaks down and things get hairy. I think the elder son is right to be angry, in the secular interpretation. I think the parable has to continue – as Ruth said – with the father slamming the younger son into the mail room to work for peanuts paying room and board for his bedroom. I really couldn’t imagine complete forgiveness in this case (again, from a secular point of view).

It’s really a fascinating story the more you think about it. Human history would be much simpler if everyone offered complete and unconditional forgiveness for all errors, wouldn’t it? If you need an example, look at the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in South Africa. A horrible bloody civil war never happened there. It’s a simple, clear concept that it seldom put into action – and that’s a pity. I am not sure if it’s lack of capability for forgiveness or simply too much horror to be forgiven sometimes…