The two parables of the Lost and the Lost Silver Piece (Luke 15) only briefly hint at the theme which the tale of the Prodigal Son elaborates in much greater detail. All three stories (p.157) enhance the value of the individual, the unique being, in contrast to the mass or the group. In each case, out of a multiplicity, one sheep out of a flock, one out of ten drachmes, one of two sons and at the same time one from amongst a big family, falls or actively goes out from the initial shelter amongst its equals, pursuing what one could call ‘the path of individuation’, and then comes back to the fold, but no longer as the same! The value of the one that has left the many has increased, there is more joy over it or him than over those who have remained enfolded together. The one who has ventured out has undergone a change, a metanoia; he will no longer fit in amongst his equals as ‘just one of them’. His remaining amongst them now, will no longer be something to which there is no alternative, no longer a compulsion, but something of his own choice. — Erna M. Hoch, Hypocrite or Heretic: To pretend or to protest. Published for The Christian Institute for the Study of Religion and Society, Bangalore, by The Christian Literature Society, Madras, 1983, pp. 157-158
When I read this interpretation about these two parables, I really marvelled at the way Dr Hoch’s obsession with her petty dogma of ‘individualism’ could distort the original meaning of them. Fortunately, the evangelist who wrote is not alive today. Otherwise, he would have regretted even mentioning it in his book. Particularly, I was taken back when she mentions that, ‘The value of the one that has left the many has increased.’ For whom this value has increased? To that individual or to the family or to the father who welcomed back? I don’t know about Western society. I am not sure whether any father or Family would, though welcome back the PRODIGAL SON, consider him now a valuable possession of the family about which they can be proud and brag in public. What is the central message of this Parable? For me it demonstrates the COMPASSION of the Father who is ready to forgive the prodigal son who didn’t listen, disobeyed, and went away with his share of wealth which he wasted away in immoral activities. But see what is the title of this Parable, not ‘THE COMPASSIONATE FATHER’ but the PRODIGAL SON. This is not a valuable title about which even the person who persuaded ‘the path of individuation’ could brag. Of course, when he returns back, he won’t remain one ‘amongst his equals as “just one of them”’ but as a shame to himself, to his father and the family for the rest of his life. This is what this so-called ‘path of individuation’ could do when one chooses by saying, ‘my ways the high way’.
At least in Asian countries, such a Prodigal son will remain as a reference or even the special IDENTITY OF THAT FAMILY. Suppose his name was Ramesh and his father is Sundar Iyer, where several Sunder Iyers were living. When any stranger comes to the village inquiring the address of the family [may be seeking a bridegroom for a girl in his family or even that very same boy who went away] the local person will ask, ‘which Sundar Iyer you ask for’. Is it the one whose son has eloped with a girl with money? [They will add extra spice like eloping with a girl that is not in the story]. Remember the local person won’t say, ‘is it the Sundar Iyer who has generously forgiven the crime of his son and threw away a grand party to welcome back that scoundrel to his home and village with much COMPASSION’. That valuable son will always remain a shameful identity both personally and to the family. Not knowing how the [Asian in which this story happened] society will read the message if someone like Dr Hoch super impose her own pity favourite theme of ‘individualism’ it will expose her own mental health. And we should recommend such a person to go and consult some proper psychiatrist to receive proper counsel or even treatment; however, she remained the best psychiatrist herself in her time. I feel sorry for these kinds of INDIVIDUALISM which give the wrong kind of teaching to the society in general and to the Christian church in particular to which this book was written.
Finally, this parable never promotes ‘the unique being’, in contrast to the mass or the group but to declare that there is no protection and safety outside the group and there will be joy only he repents and decides to return back to THE GROUP where alone he will find his safety and security not to continue to walk in his chose path of individualism. Worse than that when he chose to walk away, he went from the group remaining one ‘amongst his equals as “just one of them”’ but when he returned back, even though forgiven and accepted back in the family and society will no longer remain one ‘amongst his equal as “just one of them”’ but always with a guilty conscience losing his personal respect and honour not only among his equals in the family but even among the slaves and servants in the family permanently earning the PRODIGAL SON. Even though the slaves and servants fearing the wrath of the father in public pretend to give the same old respect to him, in personal encounters with him will respond with a sarcastic smile on their lips which might hurt him more now. Unable to continue to bear such humiliation he might again walk away from the home out of ‘compulsion’ again ‘of his own choice’. This is what any individualism could do both in the East or West.
When my mother becomes upset with me the only word that she uses to rebuke me is ‘the runaway boy’. Yesterday while she was talking with my friend Kannan [who is visiting with his wife in the ashram] she said as she became upset with me, ‘the only mistake that I have done is to receive him back in the home. I should have allowed him to remain the “runaway boy” [Odipponavan in Tamil]’. However, Kannan tries to point out to her that this ‘run away boy’ alone has been taking care of them since he started work from 1973 and taking with him for the past twenty years to take care of her after his father’s death and since 2017 taking care of her 24 x 7 not travelling anywhere. But whatever that I might be doing to her and will continue to serve her, the only title or identity that I earned is ‘the runaway boy’. Fortunately, my mother is not a Christian. Otherwise, she would have called me ‘Prodigal Son’ and not Kumar as she uses now.
This is Indian reality. Any boy or girl elope with other and latter arranged the marriage properly with the consent of both the families still till the end of the life they will remain ‘Odipponaval’ or ‘Odipponavan’ [eloped girl or boy] to their family, particularly in the girl side and to the relatives and society. It might be a different picture in the West but not in Asian countries, particularly in India where she lived, worked, and wrote these papers.
Finally, though I too was wrong to read a different message in this parable by saying that this demonstrates the ‘compassion’ of the father. Whereas Dr. Hoefer points out that, ‘We can enjoy making more of a parable than Jesus intended. However, a parable has only one point and usually it comes at the conclusion. In this case, the real point Jesus was making was a familiar theme, the judgmentalism of the Pharisees (i.e., the older brother). [Personal communication, 24-03-2022]
Swamiji,
I hadn’t thought of the community/family dimension of this parable. The reaction of the elder brother would indeed express the lifelong reaction of the community/family to the runaway boy. In that context, it may indeed happen that he would run away again, and this time never return. He would go to a city where he could try to lose his identity and history.
In a shame-based society, is there such a thing as “forgive and forget”?
God bless.
Herb Hoefer
4-8-2022,
Yes. You are correct. In the shame society the family and community rarely forgive and forget any estranged child. Particularly the sibling rivalry known as ‘pangali sandai’ in Tamil Nadu clearly demonstrates this. When any rivalry takes place among the siblings though most of the time parents don’t take sides, still even if they want to forgive the estranged child, the rest of the siblings will try to keep the issue alive for their advantage. This is what most of the homes in India experience even now.
I too also wrote my comment keeping the social aspect rather than theology. Like most of the parents I too see a compassionate father in this parable. However, like most of the Asian or Indian siblings the elder son remains the same.
Hoch Parable Part Two—More Reflections
After I posted the article ‘Hoch’s parable’ I received two interesting comments from two theologians. Already I quoted the comments of Dr. Hoefer in the article. However, after I posted he added a new sociological perspective to the Parable, which of course is not the intended purpose of the Parable by the Lord. Because according to Muktivedic scholars every parable has only one central theme. And not paying attention to this and if we stretch the parable beyond its limit then it will become an allegorical interpretation in which several Church Fathers were very famous. However, understanding the central theme clearly, in order to read some [contemporary] message to our need in life we can also stretch the parable a bit without distorting the main theme.
Because, as life is not divided in watertight compartments, though the theology is important in interpreting any parable, we need to consider the other contexts that surround the story. In this case, then we can see the drama not in an isolated individual, as Dr. Hoch loves to read, but within the family and community setup. So added to the trio of textual, historical, and theological contexts we can also add a sociological context to understand the parable as it is.
If this is accepted, then we can read more than one message. Or can read a parallel message that goes along with the main message, as pointed out by another theologian [RH]. According to him, ‘in this parable the terrible attitude/behaviour of the older son is directly in contrast with the love of the father, so BOTH are clearly strong emphases of the parable (as is the change of heart of the younger son].’ So, my favourite reading of a compassionate father also finds a place in such interpretation.
However, as an Indian I would question and doubt the ‘change of heart’ of the younger son. This often happens in most Indian homes. While the parents are ready to forgive and forget the activities of an estranged son or daughter, in general most of the other siblings won’t do that that much easily and if possible, try to keep it alive keeping an eye on their share of the property in which that Prodigal song might cut a new share. Or the parents, out of compassion might give their part of their share to the estranged son, as it is quite common in Indian homes to keep a portion of the property when it was divided among the household members for them. And most of the parents will give it to the child who takes care of them or to anyone who becomes financially weak due to any reason. Some generous siblings will accept. But in most cases, they won’t agree to this arrangement—which I have personally witnessed in several homes. For them, the change of heart was merely a survival tactic by the younger son as there is no guarantee that he won’t desert the family for any other reason. About this, Dr. Hoefer pointed out, ‘I hadn’t thought of the community/family dimension of this parable. The reaction of the elder brother would indeed express the lifelong reaction of the community/family to the runaway boy. In that context, it may indeed happen that he would run away again, and this time never return. He would go to a city where he could try to lose his identity and history. In a shame-based society, is there such a thing as “forgive and forget”?
’
This also happened. In one of my distant relative’s homes. Being the only son [having an elder sister], he left the home, not because of any immoral activity, but due to self-respect and personal pride not accepting any share from his parent’s property to prove his father his worthiness to stand on his own leg by establishing himself as a businessman. Because his father, like most of the Indian parents, wanted him to choose a particular career. But the son wanted to become a businessman. Finally, both disagreed with each other and the father refused to give even single paise for him to do any business saying that as an inexperienced person, he will lose everything in that endeavour. Accepting the challenge, the son left taking only one umbrella from his father and became a big business man due to his own hard work.
Whatever might be the context, such things happen in Asian and particularly in Indian society. So, the change of heart could be merely a survival tactic on the part of the younger son or genuine repentance. The reason for me to say that it might be a ‘survival tactic’ by him is that after losing his wealth, immediately he never returned back to his home. So, he tried to survive on his own. But due to famine as life became very hard, finally he went and served a non-Jew even sharing the fodder given to the pigs. His pride might not have allowed him even to go and work with some Jews. This we can infer as no Jew will rear pig. Finally, as he cannot stand that kind of life which not only goes against his tradition but even against his conscience finally, he decided to return back to the home. So, this could be part of survival tactics and again for some other reason he would do the same by leaving the home, unable to face the hostile atmosphere of his home, particularly that of his elder brother.
If he genuinely repented, then he would never leave the home again but continue to stay accepting all kinds of treatment. In his case repentance is not just returning back to the fold but continuing to remain faithful till the end with a thankful heart, accepting all kinds of challenges like humiliation, indifference, hostility, negligence and continuing to be doubted. This is the cost that he has to pay for his previous act. Instead of this using any kind of excuse if he leaves the fold then his returning back also could be another kind of ‘tactics’. Of course, it will be difficult to survive in this kind of atmosphere. But that is the prayaschitta [propitiation] that he has to do. Similarly forgiving and forgetting is not a one-way act. Generally, we think that those who are affected and offended alone can forgive and forget. Not necessarily. Even the person who caused the offence also should do the same, at least in her spirit.
Thankfully this part of the story is not part of this parable. However, three kinds of perspective one can read in this parable: the attitude of the elder son like a Pharisee, compassion of the father and survival tactics of the younger son. Even if he truly repented, what he has done is nothing but a survival tactic.
And the one lesson that we can learn through this kind of allegorical interpretation of the parable is this: for any reason don’t sever your relationship with your group—that could be a family, community or mandali. Of course, tension will be there for every individual to survive within the group. But severing the relationship is not the best option. When disagreement comes, better keep lowkey and even go underground waiting for the right opportunity to come to prove your worthiness. For any reason, in the name of individual freedom if one sevears her relationship and goes away, might come back one time or another in her life back to the group. Then her condition will become like that of the younger son. The one best real story that happened recently in India is about the Ambani family which is known to everyone. After the death of Sri Deerubai Ambani, both the sons {Mukesh and Anil Ambani} get separated. While now Mukesh Ambai thrives by dominating the Indian corporate world [Jio is one example] Anil Ambani is struggling to survive. Though several attempts were made to bring reconciliation between them {by their mother], still they remain separated.
So, the sociological message of this parable is this:
There is no salvation outside Christianity for the Christian and outside the church for the Catholic.
There is no identity outside the family for Indians.
There is no Satsang [true fellowship] for a bhakta of the Lord outside the mandali as one cannot have a private God, bhakti or Mukti.
In all these cases hardly, an individual can survive following the western individualism propagated by people like Dr. Hoch.
07-08-2022
Gurukulam
Leave a Reply