[The following was preceded by a reading from Regina Brett's book 'Life's Little Detours', Lesson 34, 'God loves you because of who God is, not because of anything you did or didn't do.']

"God loves me because it's God's nature to love. I can't earn that love. I can't lose that love. It was enough, not because I was enough, but because God is. I am home free. So are You" ... says Regina Brett in .

I say Yes!... Yes! Yes! Yes!" I say. I totally agree with her. This matches my earlier 'God experiences'. The totality and rightness and 'safeness' of the oneness, the everything. The bliss of the inner smile. The reality of beauty really being everywhere. The actual words of god's self description when I asked the question, "What are you?". And the answer that came back, "The best word is love but I am much, much more." If God is love then it can only act in a loving manner. There can be nothing but a loving acceptance of who we are. There can be no shunning, punishment or banishment.

So where does that leave us? Is this going to be the shortest sermon in the history of this church? Do we get our tea and biscuits early today? Is this all that the parable of the prodigal or lost son is about? Is it? What else of importance can we tease out of this story? What else is also hidden here which relates to other aspects of what God said to me? Let us use the knowledge and certainty, referred to by Jalal Al-in Rumi in our opening words, to help us illuminate the hidden message or messages. I believe that the biblical parables were teaching stories that present us with other meanings for those who are open and 'aware' to them. So let us look more closely at the son that was lost.

The story is simple, one son demands his birthright and heads off to the 'dazzling city lights' where he squanders his inheritance. Then, having nothing but unpaid loans he is reduced to finding a job. However, the only jobs available are menial, low paid and don't include food. When he realises the reality of his position he heads for home hoping that he will be accepted by his father. The wayward son, when he finally arrives back home, is 'blown away' by the positive welcome.

Let us look at this bit first. What else could this be telling us. Well let us paraphrase this piece of this parable. At one level it says that no matter what the son did he was still loved.

But what are the other elements of this story? The son, with all he possesses, leaves home. Surely this was a 'turning away' from what his father stood for. What does the word 'father' stand for? Could it be that 'father' is another way of saying God? If we accept this, then this part of the story is about turning away from God. It is even, perhaps, about rejecting God as being irrelevant.

This situation is further compounded by actively doing things that his father would definitely have frowned upon. These, in the NIV Bible, are phrased as 'wild living'. So how else might these words be rephrased. We could say a whole list of things but perhaps a list of possibilities in our time would not be too helpful for the list could be as long as my arm or longer even. Are the son's activities relevant at all? They could have been anything. Should we be focusing on such activities anyway? perhaps not

So what, then, is the usefulness of having the son's activities mentioned in this parable? Could it be that the words used are just a graphic example of the son continuing to be turned away from God and perhaps rejecting all that God stands for? Or is it that this part of the story is just saying that the son was focusing on physical things, which of course he was? If the son has turned to the physical things, then what has he turned away from? I would suggest that the opposite of physical is non physical and in this biblical context could the 'physical' be the opposite of 'spiritual'?

Is this part of the story really about the folly of turning away from a spiritual existence? I personally think that this is the likely theme. For me, certainly, it is about turning away from God by focusing on the physical world to the exclusion of all else. We cannot be turned two ways at once. We cannot become spiritual by being focused on the physical world.

This suggestion, in my mind, is further supported, in the story when the son, having reached the depths of despondency, turns again to his father. The situation that he finds himself in is totally unbearable and he journeys back to his father. Not only has he recognised the folly of his 'physically focused' position but he must have also understood the importance of the journey back towards his father. Now what could that journey represent? Earlier I suggested that the opposite of physical was spiritual. If we accept that premise then we should perhaps accept that this part of the parable is pointing out the importance of spiritual practice.

To my mind the 'spiritual practice' is about the journey home. It is the journey home! The son's initial journey was towards the pleasures of the physical world. But the physical world is not just about pleasure. It is about pain! It is about all the things that we do to ourselves, and to others, as well. When we are totally focused on the physical world we tend to be focused on things and ourselves. In this state we are almost totally unable to comprehend the effect we have on others because others are there in our physical presence, purely to gratify our needs and desires. There is no real love only 'physical love' in this physically selfish world focus. When we are locked into this 'physical focus' then the non physical has little or no validity because all that matters is the continual gratification of the 'me me, me' within us.

The only true journey at this point is not the physical one but the spiritual one, the journey home. It is not about buying your way back but walking your way back, or better, working your way back. Step by difficult spiritual step we can work our way home. Of course once you have stepped the difficult step you then find that, in hindsight, it wasn't difficult at all. Now that's annoying isn't it?

For me, then, the younger son's journey away and towards the father is about showing how easy it is to be beguiled by things physical and that it is the journey back to God which is of real importance. We are born knowing all about the spiritual stuff by just being it. We lose it, or hide it, by focusing on the physical world. The spiritual world or state can be regained. So we have to pull ourselves up by our own spiritual bootstraps.

Why do I think that this is a likely interpretation of this parable? Well, just think for a minute. What phrase did Jesus use after he had finished any of his parables? He said, "Those who have ears to hear let them hear." Why would he say this if there wasn't a hidden or obscure message or teaching buried in the fabric of the story? He wouldn't would he? This suggests to me that there was always a hidden teaching within the story. But what would that be?

There may be hints still remaining within the bible but I will turn to The Gospel of Thomas for what I think is the answer. The Gospel opens with the words "These are the hidden sayings that the living Jesus spoke and that Didymus Judas Thomas wrote down". The 'hidden' sayings, I think, does not refer to a physical hiding, but rather, points to hidden meanings beyond the surface words. Saying 5 says, "Jesus said, 'recognise what is right in front of you, and that which is hidden from you will be revealed to you. Nothing hidden will fail to be displayed'". But what is it that is hidden for us to find?

In another part of The Gospel of Thomas, Jesus also says, in Saying 27a "If you do not fast from the world you will not find the Kingdom." To me, this clearly says that if we don't turn our focus from the physical to the spiritual then we will not be able to make the journey home. In Thomas there are many references to the 'kingdom' or the kingdom of God'. For these reasons and many others, I believe that the parable of the 'lost son' or prodigal son, if you prefer, is a call to all of us to turn towards God through spiritual practice because this is important to do.

So what about the elder brother? He, who is so miffed by his father's actions towards this errant younger brother that he cannot even allow himself to join the party and stands sulking outside? He grumbles that the brother's party is not fair. 'What about me?' he says to his father who has come to find him, 'me who has toiled without reward in his father's fields.' Now why is this in the story? What is this telling us that is so important? My view is that this small part of the parable must be important because it was included in the parable. I think that nothing was unimportant if it has survived in this parable.

Those who recorded this parable must have recognised this story element as having an importance within the whole story context, otherwise these words would never have been included with the rest of the story. What could these consequences be when the father has already said that "everything I have is yours"? To me, this is both a recognition and a warning. As the main part of the story is about the spiritual journey back to God, then this part of the story must also be related to this idea. So what is its hidden meaning, because there must be one, beyond the petulant brother's words and the father's answer?

I think that it wasn't just to show that we can all be allowed to be grumpy. So what could be the hidden meaning? Now, if the hidden meaning of the main parable was concerned with the spiritual journey then this must also be related to that spiritual journey. Well, what is portrayed by the elder brother is 'upset and grumpiness'. This cannot be important in itself but rather that this could perhaps have consequences for the older brother unless rectified. The words a gentle reprimand, "My son", the father said, "You are always with me, and everything is yours." Yes this is a recognition of the elder brother's status. A gentle reprimand but one, I believe, that points out to the older brother that his thoughts and actions could have consequences for him and that this must be corrected. Now what could these consequences be?

The hidden meaning of the main story was concerned with the importance of the spiritual journey but also, that this 'journey' is open to all and probably open to all as often as necessary. This is a door that is always open. If we accept this, then the elder brother's actions could, if sustained, surely affect the quality of the elder brother's spiritual position. It would be harmed so that the elder brother's own spiritual security would be under threat. This is not a threat by the younger brother who has made his own spiritual journey and achieved his goal. Nor does the father threaten. He only wants the best for all his family. Surely the elder brother's own attitude and actions themselves constitute the threat to his own spiritual position and longstanding position because any negative thoughts could and would cause him to become less spiritual. He'd have pushed himself away from God. Surely this would be the sting in the end of the tail (tale) for it would be teaching us that a spiritual state could be lost or gained by our own thoughts and actions.

Joe Potter  29/08/2010