June 1st, 2007
Excerpts from Paper
Page 13-15, The Parables and the Narrative Paradigm Luke 10: 25-37 Jesus’ parable focused strongly on the story of the Samaritan. He did not expand on the actions of the religious men. Instead, he left conclusions of them to his audience’s imagination. We are able to ascribe wickedness to the priest and Levite with ease; we immediately recognize their hypocritical and incongruent actions. We know them as the antagonists of the parable, even if Jesus did not explicitly say so. On the other hand, Jesus did attribute “compassion” to the Samaritan. We should not overlook that statement because through it, Jesus brought the Samaritan’s invisible, inner heart-condition out into the open. By doing this, Jesus prevented even the slightest chance of doubt on the part of his listeners. He wanted to secure the Samaritan’s protagonistic role in the minds of his audience. He had to do this because common Jewish understanding would attempt to do the very opposite. Throughout the gospels, Jesus is known for his paradoxical teachings. It was his most favorite method of gaining attention and imprinting teachings in the minds of his audiences. The sheer quantity of antithetical elements in his parables warrants a brief discussion about Kenneth Burke’s “Perspective by Incongruity” because I believe it tackles the issue straight-on. In daily language, we use words in certain settings and avoid its use in others. By doing this we are establishing “proprieties” of the word. This “law” sets itself in culture through repetitious “linkages” by a community of symbol-users. Incongruity happens when one takes a word usually applied to a context and transfers its use to another context. When this happens, a person may sometimes acquire a new insight or perspective. This instance of “exemplifying relationships between objects which our customary national vocabulary has ignored” is Burke’s “Perspective by Incongruity.” Jesus jarred the mindsets of his Jewish audience by choosing a Samaritan to be the protagonist. Jesus’ audience would be appalled; it would have been a good reason for them to reject his story. The concept of a “good Samaritan” is a perfect example of Kenneth Burke’s “Perspective by Incongruity.” Ostensibly, it accomplishes the very opposite of coherency and fidelity. Yet, despite the mental conflict, the lawyer was able to successfully “learn” the moral of the story. (Who was the neighbor? “The one who showed mercy,” he said). At first glance, this case conflicts with the Narrative Paradigm – until one explores in depth the notion of fidelity. There are many ways in which past experiences can play a part in bolstering fidelity. Everybody, including the lawyer, has met people who have looked the part but did not act the part. Have we not known the neat, nicely-groomed person who turned out to be selfish, greedy or even untidy? Or the physically unattractive friend who happened to be kind and faithful? If this is the case in real life, then one can definitely accept the existence of an “uncompassionate priest” or even a “good Samaritan.” The Samaritan man loved his neighbor. His benevolent actions, his willingness to sacrifice his resources fortify that statement. That and more are sufficient reasons to deem the value proposed by the parable “true.” The parable teaches that those who were assumed to inherit eternal life did not inherit eternal life. Those who were assumed to be closest to God, were in fact far from Him, because they lacked a true heart of compassion. From a heart of true godliness flows love for other people. Those who love God and other people will inherit eternal life.
Content_Showcase_I.wma
