Here is a section from “Theo-storying: Reflections on God, Narrative, and Culture.” If interested, it is available by CLICKING HERE.

Definitions

As I have said or implied previously, there is no real agreement on definitions for the terms “myth” and “parable.” The term “myth” was used in chapter 5, but the definition used (as supplied by Erickson) is one of many. Part of the problem with defining the terms stems from the fact that these terms predate technical definitions. This is compounded by the fact that these terms have been utilized by different fields of study that have specific interests that are in conflict with each other. Those interested in cultural anthropology, folklore, literature, and theology are invested in these terms, especially the term “myth.” A layperson also has interest and may give a range of responses. One may focus on myths being old. Another may focus on myths being in opposition to “science” (“science” being another extremely loosely defined term). Yet another may focus on the heroic or divine nature of myths. Still others may see myths as etiological– providing explanation– “just so” stories of times past.

Theologians tend to see myths from a more functionalist standpoint. Myths exist to explain things to people regarding their culture and beliefs. Myths may be true or false. The Iliad by Homer appears to be VERY loosely tied to the historical events of a war in the Aegean Sea thousands of years ago. The element of historicity is interesting but not necessarily important. The function of the story to Greek self-understanding is not bound to whether the story is completely historical, completely fiction, or something in between. Curiously, while theologians say that myths may or may not be historical, from my experience at least, theologians typically presume that myths are not historical (a more layman understanding of the term). That’s a shame.

For the purposes of this book, a functionalist understanding of myth will be used, following the thoughts of Claude Levi-Strauss and John Dominic Crossan.¹ However, because of the confusion in the term, this paper will not focus on the term “myth” but on “mythic function.” Utilizing this and tying it to the idea of cultural relevance gives,

Mythic function: A story has a mythic function if it supports, justifies, or explains a social or cultural norm or ideal that resonates with that culture.

Parabolic function: A story has a parabolic function if it challenges or contradicts a social or cultural norm or ideal of a culture, resonating instead with deep-seated values within a counterculture.

If one takes the definitions for “mythic” and “parabolic” and extends them to the noun forms, also utilizing the idea of cultural resonance, then:

Myth: A story that has power within a certain culture because it resonates with the culture’s deep-seated values.

Parable: A story that has power within a certain culture because it resonates with the deep-seated values within the counter-culture (or gives voice to doubts within the dominant culture).

The use of the term “parable” can be problematic, just as can the term “myth,” described earlier. The various stories of Jesus are commonly called parables. Yet not all would fit the definition of parable shown above. This, however, seems no reason to throw away our definition, Rather, it seems best to recognize that some terms can have more than one definition.

Consider Figure 7 for a moment. Four quadrants are set up based on their role or function within a specific culture. The x-axis provides a range from being culturally resonant to being culturally relevant. Since a story can be both resonant and relevant, we will assume that on the left side are stories that are relevant but not resonant, while on the right are those that are both relevant and resonant. The y-axis is a range from being challenging to the dominant culture to not being challenging to that culture.

If a story has resonance and is challenging to the dominant culture (meaning it has counter-cultural resonance), that can be said to be a parabolic story. If a story has cultural resonance but is not challenging, but rather is supportive, to the dominant culture, it can be said to be a mythic story. If a story is not truly resonant, but is still culturally relevant, and challenges in some sense the dominant culture, it could be described as being a revelatory story (revealing something new to the culture). If the story is culturally relevant but not challenging, it could be described as being an illustrative story.

Figure 7. Story Quadrants

Consider a few examples.

A. The Parable of the Sower (Luke 8:4-8). The story in itself does not have the earmarks of resonance. A person sowing seeds certainly is culturally relevant but, having been raised in farming country, I just don’t see the story speaking to people in the culture on a deeper level. It also does not really challenge people in that culture. It could be said to be an illustrative story. It tries to explain to people how others respond to God’s word. The fact that Jesus actually does interpret His story in terms of explaining the abstract with the concrete (rather than challenge or support cultural values) gives credence to this view.

B. Parables of the Kingdom. There are several short stories that describe the Kingdom of Heaven (like yeast put into dough, like a tiny seed, etc.) These again don’t have the qualities of cultural resonance. However, they do challenge people’s thinking about what God’s kingdom is (and is not). As such, these could be described as revelatory stories. The kingdom of God arrives as a lamb not a lion. No Judas Maccabeus in this revolution.

C. The Parable of the Good Samaritan. This story is culturally resonant. Determination of ‘Us” versus “Them” is a hot topic in most all cultures. It strikes at the heart of the fears and hopes of people in that culture. However, the question is whether it is mythic or parabolic. If the story had as its hero a Jew, or a Jewish religious leader, it might be said to be mythic. The Mosaic Law enforces the value of hospitality and care for strangers and aliens. However, the switching of characters (the unhelpful Levite and Priest, and the caring sacrificial Samaritan) challenged the dominant cultural viewpoint, but most likely resonated with the feelings of the counter-culture that religious leaders are too often focused on religious piety rather than love and care for the needy. This makes it a parabolic story.

D. The Prodigal Son (Luke 15:11-32). This story is unusual because it has both mythic and parabolic components. A story that involves the question of children growing up and drifting away from the family would probably be resonant in nearly any culture. And the story follows a typical mythic path. The mythic component will be dealt with more in the next chapter. But after the son is restored into the family, poorer but wiser, the older brother comes into the picture. His sanctimonious complaint has a parabolic quality. The older brother was saying what most listeners would be thinking, so when the father challenged the older brother, the listener is likewise challenged.