Through A Glass Darkly

So, what do I think about the parables of Jesus in the synoptic Gospels?

While I have always enjoyed stories, my approach to working with scriptural texts has been primarily one of fact finding and reporting. On reflection I think that this is because my personal experience of religion has been strongly weighted towards ‘finding, believing and speaking the Truth’, and shying away from ‘making up stories’ or ‘telling stories’ (which was likened by my mother to being the furthest thing from telling the Truth, and punishable by eternal damnation… and even if I had the chutzpah/idiocy to try to argue against that reasoning when I was nine years old, I definitely didn’t have the facility to explain the subtle nuances that distinguish stories from lies or tattle tales).

Undertaking a study of the Parables has:

• clarified for me the value of using story as a means of telling the Truth;
• revealed myth, parable and allegory as three distinctly different types of story, each with its own intention and dynamics;
• explained parables as subversive stories that aim to expose injustices against vulnerable people by presenting a vision of life in the kingdom of God which challenges the hearer to metanoia and a new way of engaging with the world;
• given me clear factual information that helps me to better understand:
• the variety of parables (similitude, extended comparison, narrative parable),
• the format or ways in which parables are constructed (question, refusal, discourse),
• the themes of many of Jesus’ parables (farmer & fisherman, master/servant, king, householder),
• helped me to identify some of the risks involved in the interpretation of parables:
• where the evangelists may have reframed an original parable in order to address a specific situation, and over time the story has been developed and transmitted to the point where the original meaning is no longer clear or relevant;
• where some parables have been treated as allegories, which has affected the original message of the parables;
• where some action parables might have been reconstructed by the evangelists and aimed at a situation or need within a particular faith community, rather than at conveying historical content.
• made me aware that some of the parables (particularly in Luke’s Gospel) were presented in a context of conflict in order to help the reader understand the situation that the parable is addressing indirectly.

My study has also created a link in my mind between the valid use of story and the growth of interpersonal relationships. Conflict exists to some degree in all relationships, and the way in which this conflict is confronted and handled can be constructive or destructive to the relationship. The way that the parables of Jesus have been presented in Luke’s gospel as a response to situations of conflict, offers insight into a model for using story as a means of indirect confrontation in order to illuminate a point of view and in so doing open a meaningful dialogue in which all concerned parties are able to participate. Dialogue aims at reaching a new understanding that acknowledges and encompasses each person’s point of view, and in order to do this it must sincerely and continuously seek a response. This corresponds with the way that the parables are left deliberately open-ended in order to call forth a response from the hearer.

While it can be said that storytellers existed prior to theologians in the Christian tradition, I think that the storytellers were themselves theologians in that they were attempting through their stories to reveal the truth about the nature and character of God – which is the aim of theology. In addition, the storytellers were modelling dialogue as a priority of a God who is all about relationship.