A TRAVELER hired an Ass to convey him to a distant place. The day being intensely hot, and the sun shining in its strength, the Traveler stopped to rest, and sought shelter from the heat under the Shadow of the Ass. As this afforded only protection for one, and as the Traveler and the Owner of the Ass both claimed it, a violent dispute arose between them as to which of them had the right to the Shadow. The Owner maintained that he had let the Ass only, and not his Shadow. The Traveler asserted that he had, with the hire of the Ass, hired his Shadow also. The quarrel proceeded from words to blows, and while the men fought, the Ass galloped off.
And the moral to the story is: In quarreling about the shadow we often lose the substance.
So says ÆSOP. But I could come up with a completely different moral: Contracts should be well defined, even written, to avoid disputes arising from ambiguity. Or again: Don't travel on a hot day unless you have a particularly large Ass. Or again: Never count on your Ass to provide you with shade. Or again: Never rent, always own.
And which is right? Which is the meaning? We could take up sides and argue over the absolute meaning or even the shades of it. But, ironically, we will have lost the substance (that is, if there ever was a substance), for this is the trouble with extracting a point or a moral from a story: we bring a bias to a story if we think that there is a point to it. Our bias is our proviso that the author writes the story to make a point.
But modern men love ÆSOP because he tells you the point right there at the end of the story. And ultimately, isn't that the right answer? My points are nice, but wrong. The author is right because the author is the authority. We like that. But this betrays something about us. We think that story exists to make point, that morality is the father of episode. Surely ÆSOP saw it that way. We think that the way everything should work is this: Author has point to make. Needs way to make it. Tells story. If good author, tells point in end to avoid quarrels and wars among hearers.
And that's what we don't like about God. He is the Author. He had a point to make. He needed a way to make it. He told this Story that is recorded in the Bible. But he's not a very good author by our definition, because he didn't tell us the point at the end. Consequently we war and quarrel and probably miss the substance for the shadow. Just look at all the interpretations and divisions. In fact by this definition, God is beyond being a lousy author—he is an evil author, for
He has blinded their eyes and deadened their hearts,
So they can neither see with their eyes,
Nor understand with their hearts,
Nor turn—and I would heal them.John 12:40
He even obscured the point by speaking in parables so that some would not understand, and would be afflicted in sickness and confusion. But we are betrayed, not by God, but by the poison apple we have swallowed: God as the Great Pointer.
I think we've feasted on a philosophy for who knows how long that led us to believe that the purpose of our existence is to implement enough of God's points to make Him happy. Or another variation: that because God loves us he has pointed out for us the things that will make us happy. And if we don't get the point, we're not trying hard enough, or we're sinful or something. There are other variations, too, but you get the point: God intends something for us, so He told us a story or a series of stories in order that we would get the point. So we argue over what is the point of the Story. Is it obedience? Discipline? Authority? Forgiveness? Righteousness? Justice? Mercy? Redemption? Restoration? Love? Or are those all valid points? No matter what our final destination is, we are still traveling over trails through the kingdom of the Great Pointer.
My children and I wanted to show how much we loved a certain person, for who she is and for the good she does. So for the formal launch of her ministry we put on a play. I wrote the script. Each child had a part. I recorded it as they acted it out. Everyone inside and outside the play thoroughly enjoyed it. There were some stellar performances and some goof ups. There was no moral to the story. The story was not the shadow but the substance. The story itself conveyed our love and respect for one person, allowed us to enjoy doing something together, and pulled in the others who were witnessing it, so they too could share in the joy.
To me this is more like God. The Father wants to tell a story, so he recruits kids to play different roles. Some are heroes, some are villains. Some walk in the light, some are confused. Some are not who they seem, as the story reveals in its unfolding. His Story has a beginning, a middle, and an end. Some parts make you laugh, some make you cry. Some parts are encouraging, others disappointing. Some things seem to have gone rather badly, but end in glory and beauty. Some things seem glorious and grand all along but end suddenly and bitterly. And each part of the story will be as rich with meaning as the Writer, and will affect each person observing it or living it in some unique way.
In my case I took into account the players before I wrote the script, but I don't know if God does that or not. Maybe He thinks of the roles first and then auditions players for the parts, or maybe He thinks of the characters first and then thinks of how the story should flow. Maybe it's a mixture. Or maybe He's just so smart that it doesn't matter which way He does it, and it will work out to please Him in the end. I'll leave that to paid professionals. I resolve not to know the answer to that, but I resolve to know beyond the shadow of an Ass that the story is the point. When all is said and done, we will all have to give an account for how we played our role, not how we understood the story. We are travelers, not arguers.
No comments:
Post a Comment