Sunday, May 17, 2009
The Orthodox Heretic
Peter Rollins' latest book, "The Orthodox Heretic And Other Impossible Tales", is a treat. Rollins has written 33 short parables along with commentaries on each story. In his usual fashion, his stories leave the listener a bit unsettled. That's what good parables do. These stories not only make you question the easy answers, they make you wonder if you're even asking the right questions.
I've been thinking a lot about parables lately. I had one of the most bizarre conversations of my life, as a friend tried to insist that a parable is a lie if it "didn't really happen". Of course, he missed the whole purpose of telling a parable. Few people would take that absurd approach by interpreting a parable literally, but it does highlight one of the problems with modernity. During the last couple of centuries, mankind has come to understand some amazing things about the universe. Modern knowledge has been a huge benefit to society, but it had a peculiar side effect. The more we "know" about our world, the less we lean on telling stories to translate meaning. We can become slaves to the quest for certainty as we preference facts and devalue stories. Good parables don't simply communicate facts about some historical person or event, they take us on a hypothetical journey and leave us unsatisfied with simplistic answers.
6 comments:
I think modernity does explain the effect you describe. I also think the way (in modernity) that Christians often present the bible leads to some to reject parables as "lies."
The use of the term "lie" can imply a rejection of the truth claim being made by the parable teller, not of the parable's historicity itself. That can be confusing in the context of Christianity where many are presenting parables as something which others are required to believe.
Same for historical events in the bible which could be interpreted symbolically, but are required by some to be taken literally. That sets people up to lump parables in as "lies" as well.
JKG,
Thanks for the helpful comment. I'm curious.... Since I didn't state exactly how my "friend" was approaching the story, did you assume he was rejecting the deeper truths of the parable? Did you assume he might be a atheist or agnostic.
That's a good question, I'm not sure I can answer it though. I think I was commenting on what you wrote about the rejection of parables rather than thinking about the individual in your post.
I don't think I assumed an atheist or agnostic, don't know for sure. I did assume said friend was not an inerrantist.
It would be a bizarre conversation if your friend was just rejecting the historicity of the parable. What's the point in that? At the same time, I have seen a conservative defense of the historicity of a parable, something along the lines of, "Since God is omniscient, it would be reasonable to assume that the event really happened at some point in history, and Jesus is repeating a true story." That's kind of bizarre too. Not saying that's where you're coming from. ;^)
JKG,
I should have elaborated. The person was an biblical literalist (inerrantist). He was making the case that the parable must be actual physical history, or else it would mean Jesus is a liar. Of course, that is absurd. Parables have nothing to do with historical accuracy.
The reason I asked is because the same logical flaw creates both the atheist view and the theist view. Both of them struggle with metaphor and symbolism. They both assume the story must be factual or else its bunk (They just disagree on the facts). I'd suggest there are more than those two extreme options. A parable, myth, narrative, or poem can be both true and non-historical.
Fundamentalist cloud the issue by suggesting otherwise. Atheists then feed off of the lunacy of the fundamentalists.
Thanks again for your comments.
Mike, thanks for the elaboration. I appreciate where you are coming from. Most fundamentalists do not make that mistake, but it is of a similar nature to the conversation over historicity and metaphor of Gen 1 & 2, Jonah, etc, with fundamentalist and atheism at opposite ends of the spectrum.
I like your statement: "Fundamentalist cloud the issue by suggesting otherwise. Atheists then feed off of the lunacy of the fundamentalists."
I like this guys aproach. Can I go smewhere to hear him everyweek.
Post a Comment