Monday, December 10, 2007

Andre Dubus' "A Father's Story"

A Commentary

"So, He says, you love her more than you love Me.
I love her more than I love truth.
Then you love in weakness, He says.
As You love me, I say, and I go with an apple or carrot out to the barn."

These last lines of Andre Dubus' "A Father's Story" elevate what until the last few pages is a dramatic story illustrating the most perplexing of moral quandries (do we choose love or truth?), into an even more complex theological rumination (Why did God allow his Son to die?; What does it mean that God loves us "in weakness.") Like Thomas Aquinas's theology of grace, this story grasps the reader on two levels--the natural/ordinary (Luke's dilemma between the love of his daughter and the truth to do what is right and just), and the supernatural (Luke's ever-present perception of God becomes the God with whom Luke has an ongoing dialogue by the end). As in Thomas' theology, to grasp the latter of these, one must mine and prod the first (as Luke Ripley has it, "I…have come to believe my life can be seen in miniature in that struggle in the dark of morning'). This essay, thus, begins with the narrative of Luke Ripley, before proceeding to the Christological-narrative revealed in Luke's dialogue with God.

First Narrative: Luke Ripley
Much of the early part of the story, Dubus deftly details both the fractured history and emotional texture of the life of Luke Ripley. He is a divorced father of three sons and one daughter ("It is Jennifer's womanhood that renders me awkward."). His best friend is a Catholic priest with whom he talks of faith and longing ('Belief is believing in God; faith is believing that God believes in you"). We hear of why his marriage fell apart and what his reflection on it and love are now ("I believe ritual would have healed us more quickly then the repetitious talks…perhaps then we could have subordinated feeling to action, for surely that is the essence of love."). We also learn of Luke's perspective on the Church and his faith in it and God ("what I'm really doing is feeling the day, in silence, and that is what Father Paul is doing on his five-to-ten-mile walks.")

The first narrative comes to a head when his daughter Jennifer comes home following an evening out drinking and skinny dipping: "…then the sobs in her throat stopped, and she looked at me and said it, the words coming out with smoke: 'I hit somebody. With the car." Certainly one of the most dramatic moments is when Luke returns to the scene of the accident to see if the accident occurred and if the person his daughter hit is alive. With the full awareness that God is watching his actions, Luke proceeds to feel for life in the dead young man. At one point Luke compares himself to Cain (Where is your brother?) or Job (suffering without reason)--stating that he is not sure which he is closer to (murder/Cain or absurd suffering/Job). Luke then follows up in action what he knew he was going to do the first he heard of what happened: he fails to report the accident, and furthermore, covers up his daughters manslaughter through crashing the car she had used, in front of the church the next morning on the way to Mass. Some scenes between daughter and father in their collusion to cover this crime up--purposely leave the reader uneasy. Can such a secret drive them apart? How is each going to live with this?

Second Narrative: Luke's Love of His Daughter--God's Love of Christ/Mankind
The last few pages beginning with the lines: "I have said I talk with God in the mornings…" elevate this story beyond ethics (was the act he did right or wrong) to: 1) questions of the salvation of Luke's soul, and 2) questions about the nature of the Christian God and salvation understood within its tradition.

The question of whether what Luke did was right obviously has great religious repercussions for Luke. We are left asking: Did Luke's action to cover this up willingly, damage his soul irreparably? The questions of justice for the dead boy and his family and the dignity of that life that was taken by careless and negligent actions by his daughter is one question. The deeper question, however, is the cover-up and how Luke justifies it to himself and to GOD. According to Luke, it is only with God that he battles with this question (not even Father Paul knows). Such an ending is reminiscent of Abraham (Gen 22, and Gen. 18--where Abraham does God's will, even to sacrifice his child in one story, and in the other, challenges the justness of God's order), Job, and even the story of the prodigal son. The question behind it is: What is Luke's duty--to the truth and justice or to the love of his daughter? This is a profound question for us all. One perceptive student to this question said: "We can live without truth but with love, but we cannot live with truth and no love." (Nice job Pat Barrett!).

What if, however, we could do both--both love and do the truth? In this case it would have meant that Luke would have had to turn his daughter in. Luke states that if it was a SON, he could do this as the type of love between son and father mandates that the Father must let the Son be bruised and broken in life. When a father sees this--he is proud of his son. To see and allow this is what a Father's love to a son means. For a father's love for his daughter, however, to let her suffer he seems to infer that if you do not do something to stop the suffering, IT IS NOT LOVING HER. Or in the very least--Luke states--he cannot let this happen because it hurts more to a father to see his daughter suffer, then it does to see his son suffer. In either case, the question here is raised: WHAT IS LOVE? What is the role of allowing another person freedom--and not to intervene--what does this have to do with love?

The last half of a page elevates this story from the questions of Luke's salvation to the questions of the CHRISTIAN UNDERSTANDING OF GOD and the "economy of salvation" (why God became human and suffered and died for humans). This begins with the lines where God actually begins talking to Luke: "And He says: I am a Father too." Luke also speaks to God--both to God as the Father, and to God as the Son. Each line at this point has great theological meaning. The lines of God responding to Luke are the following:
"I am a Father too," "Yes, but I would not lift the cup," "Why? Do you love them less?," "So, you love her more than you love Me," and "Then you love in weakness." This profound exchange between Luke and the Trinitarian God suggests: 1) That God the father also feels for his Son as Luke does for his daughter, 2) That God loves his Son--as a Parent loves their children--allowing them to suffer through the trials of life as they cannot intercede without taking away their freedom, 3) that love manifests itself differently dependent upon the individual, i.e. love in different ways for their needs, and 4) that God--loves us "in weakness." These last lines are meant to hang with us. What does it mean "to love in weakness?"

To answer this, I think it is instructive to examine a few important scripture passages: Abraham (Gen 22), the parable of the two sons (Luke 15), and the crucifixion of Christ (all the Gospels). In comparing how God demands Abraham's obedience to prove his love with the love of the Father in the prodigal son, we can see that Jesus presents a God of unconditional love. The God Jesus reveals in the parable is one of Agape--waiting and happy without judgment for the return of the son. This seems to be the message for us…that God's love is without judgment and always present. Thus, In contrast to the God of Genesis, this could be interpreted as "loving in weakness."

The God Jesus reveals, on the Cross, however, can be looked at several ways: 1) Jesus' love for us--in his total weakness, his love is expressed most, 2) God's love for us--despite our wrong-doing, God loves us so much HE SUFFERS on our behalf so that we can find his love, 3) God-Jesus--the love of the two (Doctrine of the Trinity: God is one being, who exists simultaneously and eternally in three persons) for one another allows the other person to suffer. This very profound ending leaves with Luke responding: "As You love me"--suggesting that God will continue to love Luke despite his action. It also gives us through the analogy of Luke's own love for his daughter, a glimpse into the type of love God the Father might have for his Son, as well as by extension (since he let his own Son suffer on our behalf), for us. Likewise, it also demonstrates Jesus' (the Son's) love for the Father.

What are we to make of this for ourselves? I think there are some great questions to ponder for our own view of love and faith. What does "loving in weakness" mean for us? What does it mean to choose love over truth? What does it mean to view God's love as "loving in weakness" for our own life and faith? Such questions, of course are deeply personal. I find them, however, to be also deeply beneficial in stimulating a deeper awareness of love, responsibility, faith, and my own understanding of God.

54 comments:

Angela Ginocchio said...

The most interesting part of this commentary for me was the differentiation between love for a daughter and love for a son. I do not necessarily think that letting one's daughter suffer is equivalent to not loving her. Would Luke have been withholding his love for Jennifer if he had let her face the consequences of her actions? I like your simple question: What is love? I think it goes beyond saving someone from suffering. I definitely agree, though, that Luke's actions were motivated solely by love for his daughter.

Tony Acciari said...

What I liked about this handout was when it mentions what is love? Luke was showing his love for Jennifer by not turning her in, even if it was the right thing to do. I also like how the handout compares the cituation between a girl being involved or a boy, and how it would hurt Luke more if he saw his daughter suffer, more than his sons.His choice shows how much fathers are protective of thier daughters, and how fathers are closer to their daughters more then one may think.

Jack Keating said...

"To see and allow this is what a Father's love to a sone means." This quote explains how God could sacrifice his son and watch him suffer on the cross. It is part of loving a son to let him find his own way and take punishment when it comes to him. I also liked the idea that loving in weakness is like agape. God always loves us without judgement, which is how we need to see other people.

Anonymous said...

what i found interesting in this commentary was the last paragraph. I loved all the Questions having to do with love and Faith. One of the questions though i found to be very intriguing was,"what does it mean to choose God over truth?". You really have to think about that question in a deeper sense, and put yourself in a situation where you would choose one over the other. I think that most of the time i would have to say that i choose love, not saying that i constantly lie, its just how i like to think of life.

Madeline said...

I really liked the idea that God loves humans so much that He had to suffer in order for us to find his love. I agree with this thought concerning Jesus’ crucifixion. I think that because of the greatness of His suffering, His message has the strength that it does. I also believe that at the end of the story, Dubus was acknowledging the fact that because we are God's children and God saved us through Jesus’ crucifixion, God, like Luke saved his children from suffering.

Francesca Luizza said...

One of the most touching parts of this story and this commentary is how Luke Ripley loved his daughter in weakness just like God loves his children in weakness. As Dr. Martin said, "God's love for us--despite our wrong doing, God loves us so much HE SUFFERS on our behalf so that we can find his love." This quote really means a lot because Luke Ripley loved his daughter unconditionally and in weakness. He was willing to chose love over truth for her even though he had to suffer and live with the guilt and remorse of not turning her in (chosing truth). Luke acts like God in this story and becomes more faithful to him by knowing in his heart that his daughter is his meaning in life, his blood, and that he would never want to lose that true love and meaning.

steven curran said...

Luke’s inner conflict between duty to truth and justice vs. duty to his daughter is the one I found most important in the story. It speaks not only of morality in general, but also of morality within a religious context, as Luke obviously feels a pull towards God’s calling of justice.

In a question asked previously, I answered “loving in weakness” refers to God’s unconditional love for Luke, as well as Luke’s unconditional love for his daughter. He loves her when she is weak that night and comes to him for help, and likewise loves Luke when he is weak and turns to God for consolation.

Kelly J said...

There is just one thing that still bothers me a little about this. That is the differentiation that Luke makes about his son and daughter. I agree that there is a difference between sons and daughters, and that it would be very hard to watch your daughter suffer. However, if Luke thinks it would be love to let his son suffer, he should think the same for his daughter. I don't understand how allowing his daughter to suffer would not be loving her. In Luke's case, I see how much he loves her and wants to protect her and how much he wants her to love him. However, I don't think gender should change love.

Anonymous said...

I think that there is a complete difference in when God gave up his son and Luke saved his daughter. God knew that his son had to die to save us, but Luke was just protecting his daughter from suffering. I also think that God is constantly testing us as he tested Abraham, he tests us to see if we have faith in him. God tested Luke in this story using love and truth.

Adam DeBortoli said...

The obviously most important part of “A Father’s Story” is the questions that one faces about what is love. For Luke, love is saving his daughter from jail as well as the pain of knowing that she killed a man. By not turning his daughter in, he will have to live the rest of his life with this hideous murder on his conscience. In this sense love can be interpreted as protection of someone else at any cost to you. This love is very much the same as that of what God demonstrated for us through his son Jesus Christ. Jesus suffers for all of our sins to save us from hell, which is similar to Luke, who suffers for his daughter’s sin to protect her for the reasons I mentioned above.

To switch gears a bit, I really liked the quote by Pat Barrett which was, “We can live without truth but with love, but we cannot live with truth and no love.” From the onset, I thought that the father should have turned in his daughter, but this quote made me think that the father has a semi-valid reason to not turn in his daughter. Luke loved his daughter more than anything else and this was a pure and true love. Without this love, he would lose something very special in his life that is a necessity to live with. Is truth more important than this type of love? I don’t think so. The reason why this love is not a completely valid reason for Luke’s actions is because of the victim’s family. Luke, by impeding justice is not showing love for the victim’s family. God wants us to love everyone equally and by not turning in his daughter, he is not doing this.

Serrantos said...

What i liked the most about the commentary was the contrast between love for a son and love for a daughter. Luke would have turned his son in and let him deal with the punishment himself, but he can not do the same with his daughter. It is WHY he can not do the same thing that boggles my mind. Luke feels that if he had turned his daughter in, he would not be loving her but this is not true. I think that Luke should have let her learn her lesson, just like his son would have.

Brendan McLaughlin said...

A very important part of the story I believe is the comparison Luke makes between himself and Cain and himself and Job. I find the Job comparison more interesting. Why should Luke suffer for his daughter. The love he has is obviously strong because he suffers because she suffers. I believe that Luke should not suffer for her actions. He should love in weakness, and that is that he should back off and let Jennifer suffer for her sins. He could "love in weakness" by not doing anything and let his daughter pay for what she did. But the point is that he still loves her but he would be looking out for her by letting her learn her lesson. Through all this though I must say that I still havn't completely grasped the "love in weakness" but this is my meaning of the statement.

Anonymous said...

i enjoyed reading this commentary because it was such an accurate noting of the story. i believe the more important part of the first narrative was how luke dealt with the situation. how he covered up for his daughter's mistake by crashing the car the next morning. this then correlates with the second narrative and how this justifies luke to himself and to God. it mentions how he only battles this event with God and nobody else. I liked the question having to do with Luke's duty, whether to tell the truth for justice or to the love of his daughter. then, i liked the added commentary by pat barrett because i do believe in that quote. truth can be ignored but love always needs attention.

Karen Gameng said...

What confuzzled me was the whole situation of why Luke wouldn't turn in his daughter and how this love for her is "weak". His choice in itself challenged God making us wonder if he did the right thing. The conflict in which fathers would turn their son in and not their daughters got my attention. If you looked at it in a feminist way, you'd either be "Yaaying" or "Naaying". One explanation someone would give is that all fathers have some certain soft spot for their daughters. To see them suffer tears such a man apart. Still an argument a hardcore feminist would say would be along the lines of " We should be treated equally as men are treated. Thus she should also be turned in and suffer the consequences." As for his "weakness", I thought that it was brought up as something bad. His dialogue with God at the end of the story made his love for his daughter a "weakness" is terrible and should be overcome. Though I believe that this is a weakness we SHOULD give into.

Pat Barrett said...

I think that the "Loving in weakness" aspect is a hugely important part of understanding this story. To love in weakness is to love unconditionally, or love anyone for their negative and positive characteristics. Whether they do the right thing or the wrong thing, you still love them. When Luke was loving his daughter in weakness, he loved her even though she had hit a man and came straight home to him. He loves her even though she has made a grave mistake. In the same sense, God loves Luke even though he chose not to report the death.God's loving in weakness of us is just as important because he loves us for our mistakes. I think he wants us to make mistakes because he gave us free will to make those mistakes. Maybe he wants us to make the mistakes to learn from them and grow as humans, in our hearts and in our faith. If that is in any sense true, then it would be logical to assume that he loves us through our mistakes. So God loves Luke when he does not report that death.
Maybe the purpose of this event was that through these events and mistakes, Luke was supposed to come to see his daughter as aadult and connect with her more deeply than he had before. God does work in mysterious ways and this occurence of having to end a man's life to make others learn grow certainly is mysterious. But then if the above is true, then was that man simply born so that a different couple whom he had never was met could stregnthen their relationship? No, I think that maybe through his death, his family came closer together also. Maybe the man had already done his life's mission and was at one with God, maybe he had nothing more to learn. God still loves that man unconditionally, however. The man is one of the bigger subjects left open for discussion that could go a number of ways.
The point is that God loves us through everything that we do and that he wants us to learn from the mistakes that we will inevitably make.

rosie croghan said...

I don't know if there is a right answer in between Luke's turning his daughter in or not. I think he chose the better answer, but his daughter still has to live with that guilt of killing a man, without punishment. I think the daughter should have realized at the end of the story that she should turn herself in. I think the commentary highlights the major themes of the short story nicely and I think pat barret's quote summarizes the overall message really well.

Anonymous said...

A Father's story appealed to me in the way that it encourages a different type of personal relationship with God. Like in Genisis 18 when Abraham questions God as to why he wants to destroy the city of Sadam and Gammorrah, Luke Ripley challenges God's notion of love towards us. He talks of the way God gives us his love almost as if it would hurt him to see us suffer without his love, the way Luke Ripley would be unable to see his daughter suffer.

jenny gutbrod said...

I think the connection between the love Luke has for his daughter and the love God has for his people is an important part of the story. I like the comparison between the two and the fact that they both love the same way: in weakness. I think this means that they love people that do not always deserve their love. It also means that loving these undeserving people is their weakness.

Pat Tobin said...

I think that in most cases, quite unlike the story, choosing love and truth are the same, and they result in us choosing God. But Luke's story presents a moral dilemma. However, I think that to choose God in any situation we only have to act in the way we think is right. If Luke actually chose to turn her in, not becuase it was right and truth is his highest love, but because he wasnted to hurt her, that would not be choosing God. And if Luke chose to protect her to get back at the police instead of out lf love, that would also be wrong. Because he had the right intentions, God still loves Luke in his weakness.

Anonymous said...

I find this entire discussion deeply disturbing. We do not "choose" between love or truth; truth simply exists regardless of human attitudes. Since we cannot leave reality, any attempt to evade the truth results in mental deterioration. Love must be based on the truth, since nothing exists outside of the truth.

Think about what you are saying before you immediately declare your unconditional love for humanity. One cannot simultaneously uphold a value system and a doctrine of unconditional love. Any attempt to do so by “hating the sin while loving the sinner”, separates a man’s actions from his character, a blatant evasion. Do you love Osama bin Laden as you do your parents?

Mr. Barrett’s quote and the class’ ready acceptance of it leave me pessimistic about the current state of humanity. People can evade the truth for some time, but eventually the Law of Identity catches up with them. If truth can be subordinated to feeling, why formulate any ethics? A society in which perpetual desistance from moral judgment on the basis of unconditional love is the highest moral absolute exists on the standard of absolutist relativism. A contradiction like this does not obey the Law of Identity, and so this morality does not exist metaphysically, only in man’s consciousness. A society that follows this moral reasoning will eventually cease to exist also.

SSasenick said...

I enjoyed reading this commentary to get some insight into the meanings of this story. For me, what I like about the story is Luke's Faith. I like that at the end of the story he knows that God still loves him and he is confident about it, I think he sees God as one who suffers for us, because he did, and so when we sin he suffers, but he waits for us to come back to him because he knows we always will. Another thing about the story I got interested in was how we got to talking about love. I believe that love is different for everyone and maybe for Luke love is protecting his daughter and not letting her suffer, because she means something different to him, than what his sons mean, and I do not see it as a negative thing. Love is very personal and different between every person.

mike verity said...

The connection which Luke has in loving his daughter in weakness and God loving us in weakness is really a striking one. There are many similarities in Luke's love for his daughter and God's love for us as pointed out in the commentary. Luke and Jesus both take on great burdens for the sins of the ones which they love, and whom they love no matter what bad things they may do. Though I do not agree with what Luke did it serves a good metaphor for how we are called to be like Jesus, and take on burdens for the ones we love, and to love them unconditionally, as God does for us.

Cody Maloney said...

It is interesting how there are the different views of love. I agree with what Luke did because that is what I would have done in that situation. I see the points in loving truth, but I would not have done that. It was also interesting how Luke said God loves in weakness. Because God loves us no matter what, Luke thinks he loves in weakness. I also like what George Sadd said how truth exists, we do not choose it.

Martin Inch said...

The most interesting part of this commentary and of the story is when God tells Luke that he is "loving in weakness." I agree with the commentary that says that this means that Jesus' love, his loving in weakness, is what he expresses most. I believe that loving in weakness means that God loves us even though we sin and do evil, just as Luke still loves his daughter even though she hit a man with her car. God is a forgiving God and he loves all of us in weakness becuase he continues to love us even when we sin. The commentary also says that this love means that God suffers so that we can find his love and this is also interesting becuase God offered his son, Jesus, to die on the cross for our sake and this is how God suffers for us.

Angela Romano said...

I think that the most interesting part of the commentary is where you are talking about how it would have been different if Jennifer were a boy. Luke would have been able to turn his son in because a father, "must let Son be bruised and broken in life. When a father sees this-he is proud of his son." However, Luke could not turn Jennifer in because it is his daughter. You make the point that by not turning her in he is not loving her. I think that he loves her, but at that moment he did not show that love by doing the best thing. I liked the question at the end of this paragraph asking what love means because there is no simple definate answer.

Adam Figlewicz said...

One of the most confusing parts of this story is the "loving in weakness." What does it really mean? If God loves us in weakness then is that a good or bad thing? Another thing that is imporantant in the story is how in the end Luke says that he would have turned his son in if it had been one of his sons. How does having a son make the decision to turn someone in to the police change?

Ellie Russell said...

I like the idea of loving in weakness that is talked about in the handout. The story ends with the character Luke conversing with God, saying just as Luck loves his daughter in weakness so does God love us. I like how this relationship is compared to the crucifixion. Jesus' loves for us is expressed the most in his time of weakness on the cross and God's love for us is so strong that he suffers for us on the cross. Although there is suffering and weakness, love is present.

Ellie Russell said...

I like the idea of loving in weakness that is talked about in the handout. The story ends with the character Luke conversing with God, saying just as Luck loves his daughter in weakness so does God love us. I like how this relationship is compared to the crucifixion. Jesus' loves for us is expressed the most in his time of weakness on the cross and God's love for us is so strong that he suffers for us on the cross. Although there is suffering and weakness, love is present.

Anonymous said...

I agree with Ellie's comment and think that the comparison of Luke's relationship with God and his daughter is compared to the crucifixion. I thought bibical stories such as the crucifixion and the Parable of the Lost Son were important background to understanding Dubus's theme of "loving in weakness." I think Luke grows closer to God at the end as he comes to share with him the secrets of his loving relationship with his daughter and does not depend on Father Paul as an intermediate when speaking with God.

Anonymous said...

"I have said that I talk with God in the mornings..." This was the most interesting part of the commentary to me. It rises the question of whether our actions and decisions are the right ones. It also raises the question of what God believes was the right thing to do and what to put first when making these types of decisions. Do we make the decision according to God, to truth, or to love? For me, I believe that for the most part I make my decisions according to my love. If I had been put in the situation that Luke was put into, I would have chosen my daughters love over telling the truth. I don't think that if I or Luke made that decision we would fail with God. I think that we would grow closer.

MAGGIE TOBIN

Joe Principe said...

I liked a lot of the things you said about Jesus being in his weakest state when he loves us but I feel that even that interpretation may be slightly off. Have you considered that Jesus/God's love for human is indeed the weakness. Perhaps that it is that he does not choose sides which makes him weak. I think Dubus was trying to say that giving undeserved love could be a weakness, seeing as Luke Ripley was fully aware of his own evil actions.

Peter Leemputte said...

I am not sure that I entirely agree with what George said. Through his reasoning, it seems as if even the slightest bit of relativism is absolutely corrupt and destructive. When responding to this story, Luke is not evading truth at all; he is simply not letting everyone else know the full truth. George implies that Luke is running away from what really happened, but this is not the case at all. He knows exactly what went on and knows to what extent his decision might later affect him (through his ending conversation with God). Although I agree he could mentally deteriorate through his guilt and the pain of holding it so himself, this would not happen because of "evading the truth."

Anonymous said...

I feel that Luke has a different idea of love if he believes that daughters must be loved differently than sons. Why should gender play a part in how a person should be cared for in tense situations? If I were in his situation, I would have turned her in becuase she needs to face her actions as an adult instead of running away like a child.

Matt Hill said...

I agree with Peter. I think Luke knows exacly what he is doing. If anything, the situation brings him closer to God. The love for his daughter is what brings him to the state of mind he is in. If it had been his son, he would have been ok with turning him in. I also think the quote, "We can live without truth but with love, but we cannot live with truth and no love" is important. It explains why the mindset Luke is in. Luke loves his daughter very much and because of this he is able to evade the truth with others. But he faces the truth head on with God.

Anonymous said...

I agree with Peter's comment opossing George's point of view, expressing that Luke is by not running away from any kind of truth, because he loves his daughter, he is doing anything and everything possible to keep her out of danger, and being hated for her actions - why? - because of his unconditional love for her.This love also is in great correlation with God's love for humans, and how after countless mistakes and turns, we are loved with truth - however in this instance, Luke loves his daughter by evading the truth and making his love in "Weakness".

Phillip Falson said...

"A Father's Story" asks about the question of what is love. Love for Luke is ptotecting his daughter nd standing by her side but for his son love is watching him take responsibilty and become a stronger man.

VWilson said...

the ending of the story was interesting. I thought that Luke was telling god that he did not love him enough, however, after our discussions in class and reading the reflection I came to believe that he was saying that to love in weakness means to love others even if they do not love you back. Being able to express an emotion like love the way that Luke does is amazing. He should consider himslef lucky that he has someone in his life that he cares that much about. I think Luke was brought closer to God at the end of the story becuase he is constantly talking to god. He agrees with him and then disagrees. A Good relationship has a balanced amount of doubt but faith. The more he questions God the more Luke becomes close to Him.

Alex said...

After reading this commentary in class, I feel as if i got a better understanding of the story. In the commentary, it speaks about what the author is really saying in the story. It brings about questions of Love and Truth, as well as dealing with relationships of Sons compared to daughters. I liked it because it shows how Gods love is unconditional and helps better understand and bring about dicussion about God.

michael lynch said...

I liked this commentary about Andre Dubus, "A fathers story" I liked the discussion that it brought up, and how it spoke about the difference in Gods love. Dividing the narratives was a good way to help me understand the story, and what the author is truly trying to say.

Anonymous said...

I really like the difference between the suffering of a son and the suffering of a daughter. This not only points to our historically patriachal society, but it shows that love can be two opposite ideas or actions. Love can be both saving someone form suffering or letting them suffer. That leaves a lot of doubt about love or what someone perceives as love. Could some forms of love be seen as discontent or mistrust?

Anonymous said...

After reading this story, I thought that the ending was a very unique way to end it. The conversation between Luke and God brought up a lot of interesting questions such as "what does it mean to choose love over truth?" In the commentary, the point was brought up that Luke could've choosen both by turning in his daughter. I agree with this statement and I think that it would have been a lot easier for him to turn in his son just because they are two different types of love. A father's love for a daughter is a lot more protective and he doesn't want the girl to grow up and face the world. As for the son, most fathers encourage them to go out and explore the world and learn their lessons so it would've still been hard to turn him but he probably would have done it.

M heideman said...

To "love in weakness" i think is to love another when they're at their weakest point or when you're at yours. Luke still loves God after he chooses Jennifer over the truth as God still loves him as he chose against the truth. In the parable of the lost son, the father still loves his son after he's sinned against all and i think that that is how God is with everyone. To choose love over truth is to love something more than something that is morally or factually correct. This love would make someone ignore everything that exists and lie, cheat, or steal to protect someone. God loves us even when we choose things over Him. He loves us no matter what. To view His love like this it seems like we our love doens't matter at all to Him. He'll love us even when we don't love Him back. The only question I have is if His love doesn't require ours, and we can make better use of ourselves helping others, than why do some people waste time by showing their love for him through prayer or song? Wouldn't it be better to help those who need it than to express our love to Him? I think that loving in weakness is the only love one can have for God because many haven't communicated with him, but there's people who make a difference and matter in our own lives. Would it be right to choose something we've never seen or heard from over someone who looks out for us and helps us daily?

Diana Jimenez said...

i thoought that it was interesting that the father claimed that what he was doing was because he loved his daughter and that if it were his son he would not have done the same. i think that if he really loved her then he would let her pay for what she did instead protecting her. she probably learned her lesson but she should learn to know that every action has a consequence and that what she did had a very bad consequence.

Tina Frukacz said...

This handout really gave me a push on my thoughts about what it doesn’t mean to “love in weakness.” It states that “God’s love is without judgment and always present.” This statement may be interpreted as an action of “loving in weakness.” However, I view it in no such way. I think the fact that God loves each and every one of us, without any judgment and in all cases, presenting his affection all the time, shows that he loves in strength. It is an easy thing not to love someone based on their mistakes or shortcomings. It is an easy thing not to let someone know that you will always love and be there for them, even in their lowest times. It is a difficult thing however, to do these things. God does them. He loves us no matter what. God has open arms and embraces us for our every aspect – loving us not in weakness, but in strength.

Tori Johnstin said...

I love the quotes "you love in weakness" when we first read the story. It stood out to me the journey Luke went through from the beginning of the story to the end. Through the whole story he makes reference to God but at the end God speaks back. I found this very interesting and it was hard to think about the quote. To me it may mean that God loves all no matter what you have done or said that your a person and he loves you in weakness as does Luke.

Anonymous said...

What really struck me about this commentary was that the author was questioning about what loving in weakness meant and referred to God as a parent. Unfortunately, I have never seen God as a parent before, but more as a "Father," a higher power that is so unlike you and I. What this brings up is the question about Luke's decision to protect his daughter. Jesus, as God's son, had to suffer in order to save mankind. But what if God had a daughter? Prior to reading this I did not agree with the thought of protecting daughters and allowing sons to pay for their actions. But would God have a woman suffer on the cross as Jesus did? If we are supposed to love as God does, Luke "loved in weakness" and made the correct decision to protect his daughter.

Anonymous said...

"I have said I talk with God in the mornings." Luke's assurance that God will still love him after the incident is in large part due to the fact that he has a strong bond with God.
-annie raccuglia

The Truth said...

i, like many others, thought the ending, the dialouge with God, was the most important part of this story, giving a unique approach to the similarities between and nature of the relationship between God and his children (us) and the parent child relationships that we form ourselves.

like madeline and mike v. i find there is a striking connection between the suffering of Christ for our sins and the suffering of Luke to protect his daughtor from the consequence of her sin.

the dying Christ on the cross says, "father forgive them for they know what they do" and so proves that He loves us in weakness, that in our imperfection, our failings, and our sins (which hurt both Him and each other), he still loves us enough to die for us. In this same weakness Luke loves his daughtor, who has done something aweful, so much that he choses to protect and love her, regardless of the suffering it brings him.
-Irene Kearney (i cant get "the truth" tag to go away)

Anonymous said...

Appreciate the recommendation. Will try it out.

My web blog - jackpot 6000

Anonymous said...

Ι blog quitе often and I genuinely thank yοu for
your infoгmatіοn. This aгticle hаѕ truly peaked my inteгest.
I will take a notе οf your site and κeep cheсking for new ԁetails about onсe a week.
I subѕcribeԁ to yοur RSS feed
аs well.

Ηere is my web-site; rhinoplasty top surgeon

Anonymous said...

Keep on writing, grеat jоb!

Herе is my blog post: reverse phone detective

Anonymous said...

An impressive share! I've just forwarded this onto a co-worker who had been doing a little research on this. And he actually bought me dinner because I found it for him... lol. So let me reword this.... Thanks for the meal!! But yeah, thanx for spending the time to discuss this matter here on your blog.

my blog post; nosejob

Anonymous said...

Hi there to every one, since I am really eager of reading this weblog's post to be updated daily. It includes nice stuff.

my website: Jackpot 6000 - http://www.blogymate.com/post.aspx?blogid=4044082&t=Online-Gambling-And-Legislation -

Anonymous said...

Amazing blog! ӏs уour theme сustom mаde
or did you downloaԁ it frοm somewheгe?
A thеme like уours with а few sіmple tweeκs would rеally maκe my blog jumр out.
Ρlease let mе knоw where you gοt уour theme.
Cheeгs

Here is my weblog; nummerupplysningen