A Single Parable

Over the past 50 years in biblical criticism, a branch of thought know as rhetorical criticism has risen. The basic gist is that nothing in the Bible was ever intended to be written for the sake of reporting an event. In fact every verse of the Bible has an agenda, or more likely multiple agendas, behind it. The truth is that humans on the whole have a large aversion to passing on useless information. With most of our interaction, we expect there to be a point to everything. This is funny in light of the way so many critics treat faith documents. Often any form of religious conviction in scholarly circles is treated with disdain. Yet, this is the problem when dealing with a document like the Bible, there is nothing in it that is not directed at persueding the reader. This is what has given rise to rhetorical criticism, which downplays the 'factuality' of faith documents, and gives credit to them as they are. It respects the supposed subjectivity, since in the eyes of rhetorical critics, objective documents are essentially pointless.

In other words everything that has been written which is worth reading has a point it is trying to make. And insofar as we want to judge such a document we must do so in respect of its purpose.

One genre of teaching that is all too foreign to us is that of parables. Yet to the earliest Christian community, and to Jesus himself, parables appear to be a preferred method of teaching. Why? Parables are essentially rhetorical. There is no format for a parable. A parable cannot be stripped down to a simple, straight-forward critique and answer. Often preachers will read a parable and the follow it up with "here's the point . . ." This only betrays the reason for using parables in the first place. The potential of a parable is to NOT state things plainly. Parable are intended to be a form of imaginative theater. The speaker lays out a scenario in the mind of the listener, where the listener is then left at a crisis point of judgment. The power of a parable is that it brings people to a point of decision, but leave the situation open enough that the listener finds it difficult to back out. Parables are intended to leave listeners in a state of theatrical self-criticism, where they are forced to contrast their worldview with a worldview that stands opposed to their own.

When Jesus tells parables he is not simply trying to get down on the 'peoples level'. It is not that Jesus assumes that people are too dumb to understand. On the contrary, it seems that Jesus has little faith in the capacity of 'outside critique'. If Jesus were to criticize people openly, he sees that his message would never really effect them on a level which could lead to change. In speaking with parables, Jesus is attempting to do more that offer a dry criticism. He is using mental theater to open up a world of possibilities that things aren't always what they seem. In fact, Jesus is attempting to show a different worldview with a different set of values. He is trying to get the listener to contrast his current mind set, with the one that Jesus fully believes is possible and better.

In the Gospels, it is reported that when asked to explain a parable Jesus would generally just tell another. This displays quite well that Jesus was not trying to play judge over people decisions. Rather he wanted to bring them to the frustrating point where, if they had any level of personal integrity, they would stand in judgment of their own worldview, and possibly see the potential to change. The only explanation to a parable is another parable. Analogy begets analogy. To attempt to 'sum up' a parable is to undermine the whole point of telling one in the first place.

Here's where this gets interesting: in the Gospels, as we've already seen, the writers are not simply trying to give an accurate report of Jesus and his preaching. Everything that the Gospel writers recorded has an agenda, and they are written in such a way as to persuede the reader to make a decision. There is an art in the Gospel narratives that is seeking to bring out a certain response from the reader/listener. The Gospels effectively blend the teachings of Jesus with accounts of his behavior and actions. Again even in recording what Jesus did in action, the Gospel writers are little concerned with the factual accuracy of their accounts. Their purpose is not to convey some dispassionate, objective, apologetic document. The Gospels are impassioned and most likely embellished accounts. They are intended not to convey facts, but to convey the fervor of the community that had already come to faith.

It is believed by most scholars that not all of the parables in the Gospels were originally spoken by Jesus. Rather, it is assured that Jesus often used parables effectively to bring others to a point of conflict between their worldview and the one that Jesus was so persueded of. In the Gospels we can see the early Christian community (before they were even called Christians) continuing on "as Jesus", and doing so in Jesus' name. When they record a parable which Jesus never historically said, they are nonetheless following the heart of Jesus in a new context.

In the Gospels, the parables of Jesus are intended to be contrasted with Jesus himself. This is the beauty of it. The ultimate parable is Jesus of Nazareth. He is the single parable the Gospels wish to record. All that is recorded as his teaching are merely lesser parables to explain him. This is the unique salvation that his original followers found in him. In his person, in his life and death, in his faith and the actions his faith resulted in, the early Christians were brought to a point of decision. They were led to a point where their worldview and values were contrasted with the worldview and values which Jesus lived out in complete integrity. What the Gospels truly convey is the effect which Jesus' life had on those who followed him. We can see the earliest Christians wrestling with this life-parable which Jesus became to them: one which provided no simple answers and left all judgments the the followers themselves. We can see that this parable has changed the world many times over.

And eventually, if taken with any seriousness, we have to allow ourselves to be brought to a similar point of crisis: do I see more of God in my own worldview, or that of Jesus? Is there a chance that the world as Jesus perceived it is more likely than the one I perceive? Is his life ultimately more true than my own?

In essence, it all returns to the question for each individual: . . . . and you, who do YOU say I am? It's a question that ultimately cannot be answered with words alone. It's a question that I'm still in the process of working out, with the utmost integrity . . . even if that gives the appearance of losing faith completely. Often we have to lose faith in order to find it . . . .