Category: stories

Is the Bible “Perspicuous”?

On By missionmusingsIn Quotes, storiesLeave a comment

Reading my posts it should be pretty obvious that I am not a Systematic Theologian. In some sense, I am not much of a theologian at all. But I still try to see how to build a bridge between God’s (relatively) unchanging revelation and Man’s changing context.

As such, theology is really supposed to be fluid. Nevertheless within faith traditions there is the assumption that certain theological concepts are solid… not changing. One of those solid/static concepts comes from the Protestant Reformation. This is the Perspicuity of Scripture.

This odd term essentially says that the Bible is “Clear.” It came out as a reaction to a (former) Roman Catholic practice of discouraging, or even forbidding, Christians from reading the Holy Bible. The belief was that the Bible could only be understood by religious professionals who had been properly trained in the doctrines of the Church.

While I do believe there is great value in all people reading the Holy Bible, I do wonder about this theological concept (Perspicuity). As one reads more about it, writers add so many caveats to it that I wonder whether they actually believe in the clarity of Scripture or are holding onto the term in honor of their faith tradition. Obvious questions, noted by others as well, include:

  • Is the Bible “clear” only to Christians (as in it is only clear to those who receive illumination from the Holy Spirit)?
  • If it is clear, why do so many come up with contradictory understandings of it?
  • If human context (cultural and personal) affect understanding, would all contexts find Scripture equally clear or would some finding it more clear or less clear than others?

There are actually a lot more questions and caveats related to this doctrine. However, I tend to think that when one keeps having to come up with more and more complicated ways to support a concept (such as happens at times in the hard sciences), perhaps it is time for a paradigm shift. Certainly we don’t want to go back to a perspective where the Bible is accessible only by the trained elite. And we certainly don’t want to go to a situation like Muslim theologian I was reading earlier today whose way of dealing with the fact that the Holy Bible is at odds with some of his own doctrines is by saying it was untrustworthy due to language and copying. (This argument could be defended somewhat before 1948— perhaps— but it is time for him to catch up on present Biblical literary criticism.)

I think that the some of the problem with the Perspicuity of Scripture is that it assumes clarity has to do with propositional statement and doctrines. I would like to suggest an alternative.

That alternative is related to a quote from a book I am reading that is speaking of the 1978 Willowbank Report regarding the “heart of the gospel.”

‘It is important to identify what is at the heart of the gospel. We recognize as central the themes of God as Creator, the universality of sin, Jesus Christ as Son of God, Lord of all, and Saviour through his atoning death and risen life, the necessity of conversion, the coming of the Holy Spirit and his transforming power, the fellowship and mission of the Christian church, and the hope of Christ’s return. While these are basic elements of the gospel, it is necessary to add that no theological statement is culture-free. Therefore, all theological formulations must be judged by the Bible itself, which stands above them all. Their value must be judged by their faithfulness to it as well as by the relevance with which they apply its message to their own culture. ‘ <From the Willowbank Report>

Interestingly, the report did not come up with propositional statements on the nature of the gospel. Instead, it gave biblical theological themes or faith commitments that flow from the biblical story, from creation to new creation. The statement talks about these themes as basic elements of the good news of Christ. It is the biblical story that determines the shape and content of biblical teachings, and not a presupposed doctrinal system with corresponding proof-texts or Bible references. Evangelical theologians have critiqued this approach as one that treats the Bible as “a sourcebook of Christian doctrines” and tends to “overlook, suppress or deny [Scripture’s] narrative character.” But does this mean abandoning the use of system in theological construction.

Gener, Timoteo D.; Pardue, Stephen T.. Asian Christian Theology: Evangelical Perspectives (p. 26). Langham Creative Projects. Kindle Edition.

I would like to suggest, tentatively, that the clarity of Scripture makes more sense when speaking of the narrative of the Bible— its stories, and Story— and the primarily themes of Scripture.

So my thought is that in answer to the question, “Is the Bible Perspicuous?” the answer is “Not as it is commonly formulated.” Rather, the Bible is clear in terms of its primary themes/threads, and its story structure. In fact, in my view, the Bible starts to become opaque when one starts to devalue its narrative form and tries to distill it into propositional statements and dogma.

<I am very much still contemplating this one… so it would not be surprising if my thoughts will change on this one. I feel, however, good about this focus on the narrative and on themes as a better starting point than what has been used in the past.>

Is There a Place for Aggadic Midrash in Oral Cultures?

On By missionmusingsIn Commentary, storiesLeave a comment

The following is the first part of an article I wrote for a class I took on teaching in orality cultures. The title is “Biblical Commentary as Story: Is There a Place for Aggadic Midrash in Oral Cultures?”

Stories have many purposes in their religious communities. Much of Scripture is in the form of story. Bruce Baloian notes,

“Old Testament narratives chose not to have the narrator (for the most part) tell the reader what the stories meant. Biblical authors did not connect the dots. This choice forces the readers to interpret the stories. This form of communication both demands that the reader think and shows respect for the human ability to do so. … The meaning, message ortheology is implicitly present in the narratives but not clearly elucidated.” <1>

Because of this, stories are also sometimes created to attempt, speculatively, to “connect the dots”— to help interpret Holy Scripture. A term for this is “midrash.” A midrash is a commentary on Hebrew Scripture. According to the Lexham Bible Dictionary,

“Collections of rabbinic midrash interpret large portions of the Old Testament (especially the Pentateuch), often in the form of commentaries or literary sermons. These commentaries interpret laws, answer difficult questions arising from the biblical text,address apparent contradictions, and “fill in the blanks” where more information seems necessary.”<2>

 There are different types of midrash. Neusner speaks of three types— midrash exegesis that develops propositions, propositions that develop midrash exegesis, and interpretive reworkings of Biblical stories. It is this last form, “aggadah,” that is addressed here. <3>

1Bruce Edward Baloian, “Teaching the Ineffable Through Narrative,” Evangelical Quarterly 88.1 (2016), 56-70.

2Barry, John D., David Bomar, Derek R. Brown, Rachel Klippenstein, Douglas Mangum, Carrie Sinclair Wolcott,Lazarus Wentz, Elliot Ritzema, and Wendy Widder, eds. “Midrash.” In The Lexham Bible Dictionary (Bellingham, WA:Lexham Press, 2016).

3Jacob Neusner, Invitation to Midrash (New York: Harper-Collins, 1989), xiv

<<The rest of it is in the article that can be clicked at the top of the page.>>

 

Mythic and Parabolic Functions in Stories

On By missionmusingsIn Parables/Allegories, storiesLeave a comment

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.

Why Did David Grab Five Stones?

On By missionmusingsIn Quotes, storiesLeave a comment

This an excerpt from an article I wrote, suggesting the value of midrash discussions on Biblical narratives.

In a group theological reflection, suppose the story of David meeting Goliath is discussed using aggadic midrash. Focusing on the initial part where David enters the field of battle, perhaps one of them, named “Bill,” tells a part of his story.

As young David approached the brook that he had to cross to meet Goliath, all he had with him was a staff and a sling. He looked down and saw many different rocks. Some were flat— a bad choice to launch from a sling. Some had major cracks in them— making their desired impact uncertain. But then he saw some solid looking stones, worn smooth from centuries of water flowing over them. David thinks to himself. ‘Goliath is such a huge man, I must hit him squarely in the forehead to bring him down. I will need one stone for him, but he also has four brothers. I should grab four more stones— one for each of them— to remind myself that they are also a danger to God’s chosen people.

A second story was shared by “Ted”:

Young David reached the brook. Once he crossed the brook, he is in the field of battle. Having only his staff and sling with him, David realized that he had to hit Goliath squarely in a vulnerable place with a stone. Looking down he sees several fine looking stones, smooth and round. He takes what looks like the best one and puts it in his pouch. But then he thought to himself, “But what if I miss, or what if I don’t hit him hard enough?” He reaches down and grabs another fine looking stone. But again he is uncertain. He takes another and another until he has five total. He thinks of taking a sixth but that decides against it. He thinks that he is unlikely to get more than five chances to hit Goliath before he would be upon him. “Oh Lord God, may one of these five stones hit its mark, and may You grant Israel victory over its enemies for Your namesake.” Resolutely, David crossed the stream to face his opponent..

As the group discusses these two stories, they realize that neither story can be confirmed since the Bible is silent on why David grabbed 5 stones (as opposed to 1 or 2 or 19). That being said, as the group reflected on the first story, what insight could be gathered? In it David was super-confident and had special, perhaps prophetic, knowledge about Goliath’s family. For the second story, David is confident of ultimate victory, but seems uncertain as to how it will be accomplished. His trust is in God, not necessarily in his own skill or his ability to predict the future. In my view a discussion by the group would most likely find the second story to be the stronger one, not necessarily because it is historically true, but because it provides a perspective that is useful for us.


Robert H. Munson “Biblical Commentary as Story: Is There a Place for Aggadic Midrash in Oral Cultures?” https://www.academia.edu/108401821/Biblical_Commentary_as_Story_Is_There_a_Place_for_Aggadic_Midrash_in_Oral_Cultures

Storytelling and Samson’s Seven Braids

On By missionmusingsIn Parables/Allegories, storiesLeave a comment

Something like 40 or 50 years ago I was in church and we had a guest preacher. He was in his 60s, possibly 70s. He gave an interesting little story— probably not true, but perhaps it was. It was something like this…

“When I was a young boy in church, our pastor was preaching, and he was preaching on Samson and Delilah. In the story, Samson reveals to Delilah that if the seven braids are removed, he would lose his strength. The men of Gaza shaved off the seven braids of his head and Samson is conquered. The preacher explained what each of those braids represented. I was enthralled. I was so amazed at the knowledge of our pastor. I thought to myself, ‘If only I could go to Bible School someday, I may learn such wondrous secret things about the Bible.’ Years later I went to Bible School and was surprised to learn that the seven braids did not mean anything at all— it was just how many braids he had..”

For decades this little story reminds me of the temptation toward secret knowledge. I got lured by the enticements of aggressive typology, numerology, and eschatology. I think the story kept a skeptical edge in me. I appreciate that.

But lately I have done some thinking. Judges 16 is where the story of Samson and his seven braids is included. The story mentions his seven braids twice.

Why did it mention seven braids. I really don’t think each braid represented something. The story is whole without that detail. In fact, the story has lots of details missing and the braid thing could have been left out.

But while the number of braids is not necessary to the story… it is beneficial.

In telling the story, the fall is too quick. Samson gave his strength over to the enemy, and the enemy struck. But as a storyteller, the fall can be driven home in stages. He rejected his role as judge— snip and shave off the first braid. He took God’s empowerment and used it for drunken fights— snip and shave off the second braid. He rejected his people as he cavorted with the enemy— snip and shave off the third braid. The story could continue perhaps getting to the dramatic moment. Samson rejected the Torah and in so doing rejected his God— snip and shave of the final braid. Perhaps seven was the number of his braids— I tend to presume historicity. But if it was added for the purpose of the story, then it seems reasonable to assume that seven suggests a total fall.

The braids, then, don’t have actual meaning, but the preacher who used the braids as a framework for his sermon most likely was drawing from the oral roots of the story. Perhaps the only error of the preacher was to share this sermon with some who would confuse fact with rhetorical device.

Poisoning the Waters of Learning

On By missionmusingsIn Commentary, storiesLeave a comment

I was looking up two things this week with quite similar results. First, I was looking up Narrative Theology. I really see value in narrative theology but it is a challenging topic to wrap one’s head around. It really steps back from some of the common ways of doing theology— emphasis on word etymologies, establishing taxonomies of topics, establishing propositional (or even creedal) statements. So I wanted to read a bit more on this topic… so I did a search engine on articles. The first thing that came up was an article that was put out by The Gospel Coalition. Sometimes there articles are useful. I began reading that article and it soon became clear that the article was not trying to get me to understand narrative theology. Rather, it was trying to “poison the waters”— making me see narrative theology as bad and to be avoided.

That is a pretty rotten thing to do… darkening a topic rather than shedding light on it. It don’t remember too much of the article but two things I remember were (1) many people who are really into Narrative Theology are (theologically) liberal, and (2) Narrative Theology is less focused on truth (apparently because of less focus on propositions). Yet, these could be considered strengths not weaknesses. If Narrative Theology is found useful by a wide variety of Christians from a wide variety of theological and ministerial perspectives (including the theological liberals) that should evidence its value. If Narrative Theology places less value on propositions that does not mean that it places less value on “truth.” Arguably, the presumption (faith statement) that truth can be constrained and limited to propositions and truth is always best presented that way is truly dubious. <Paragraph 4 gives an example of where propositions do not point to greater valuing of truth… in my opinion at least>

Today, I am researching a paper on creating Biblical stories from limited Scripture passages. So for some reason I thought looking up the term “form criticism” online might be helpful. The first article I read was from “Got Questions?” and it was quite unhelpful. It did little more than try to steer readers away from the subject rather than towards it. Once again, it embraced a very narrow understanding of the topic and emphasized that “people like THEM not like US” are the people who value it. The short article emphasized non-Evangelical perspectives of Form Criticism. This is despite the fact that Evangelicals utilize Form Criticism quite often (and probably should more). Form Criticism does not in any sense require one to assume that everything in the Bible developed organically, non-supernaturally as an oral tradition and eventually got put into written form after a lot of starts and stops and edits. Again, the goal wasn’t to share truth— to enlighten— but to poison the waters.

I would like to give an alternative. Ronald Sider, in his book “Good News and Good Works,” has a bit of an excursis on the fate of the unrighteous. He wrestled with the topic. The book is not a theological work on Hell and the Damned, but did seek to look at the topic based on God’s revelation. He only expressed a lot of uncertainty because the Bible is really pretty unclear on some of the specific details. This section of his book is quite caution in making clear doctrinal statements on these topics rather than theologians who have clearly chosen a side, regardless of whether it is ECT (eternal conscious torture), Annihilation, Purging, Second Chance, or Universal salvation. The fact that these theologians come up with clear unambiguous propositional statements doesn’t mean that they hold to a higher position on truth. Arguably it is lower since they are taking a topic where God has left a lot of uncertainties and then they plugged up those holes with their own theological interpretation. That, arguably, is placing greater value on subjective (interpretative) truth than on objective. Now I might argue that Sider is simply being ambivalent and non-rigorous if he left it there with uncertainty. Sider does not do that. He goes on with something of the sort as ‘If we don’t know everything on this topic, we at least know as much as God felt that we needed to know. Based on this, what can we say, and what must be do.’ In other words, how is our story meant to change as it interacts with God’s Story?

I know it is tempting to do the same thing. I have felt it. When I dearly hold to a perspective, I am tempted to poison other topics so that they won’t investigate there. On occasion, I have given into that temptation. I am, however, doing a disservice. I am not helping people to learn but rather I am trying to stifle learning.

I don’t think God is ready at that point to say, “Well, done good and faithful servant.”

Book Review: “Basic Bible Storying” by J.O. Terry

On By missionmusingsIn Books, storiesLeave a comment

Basic Bible Storying: Preparing and Presenting Bible Stories for Evangelism, Discipleship, Training, and Ministry, Revised Edition, by J.O. Terry

Christian non-fiction is fairly diverse. At one end I call Inspirational/Devotional (not completely sure what publishers call them). These are books that have some generally positive Christian theme (perhaps on how to pray, or “have victory,” or create a good Christian marriage. They have some Bible verses, pleasant illustrative stories and Christian platitudes. If I sound negative about these books— well I am, but only because they are little interest to me, not because they are bad. They are popular because they are readable, and promise (correctly or incorrectly) to fix some broken area of a Christian’s life. The other end are very academic, theologically dense, and generally impractical works. These books are not so easy to find, and often for good reason. In between are books that seek to bridge the gap a bit, taking theology and research seriously, while still seeking to be applicable.

This, I think is the “sweet spot” I find “Basic Bible Storying,” by J.O. Terry. In fact, one of the things I really like about the book is that the title is a bit, in my opinion, misleading. To me the title suggests something rather formulaic— perhaps a “no assembly required,” ready to use story system for missionaries or ministers, or a very general look at how good it is to use stories in ministry. This is decidedly not what the book is. It is basic more in the sense that it seeks to be somewhat comprehensive– looking at the full gamut of the use of storying in its many iterations across a wide range of fields. However, I did not feel that its breadth worked much against its depth.

One reason it achieved this is that it provided good theological or practical complexity while also helping with more cut-and-paste answers for those who need them. For example, Terry makes a point that storying should be crafted to the situation— the worldview and context in which the storying is done, the time and place constraints of the storyteller, the type of learners, and the primary purpose for telling the stories. In this, he is going against the pre-packaged story sets, as well as the (in my view self-servingly lazy) view of some Christian storytellers that Bible stories are “supra-cultural” and so do not need to be contextualized for a specific audience. Despite this, however, he also gives specific information on gaining access to some of these story resources. He would prefer, it seems to me, that people would do the process of storymaking on their own, but understands that everyone needs a helping hand at times.

The book addresses the process of holding storying sessions (pre-story, story, and post-story) along with a lot of personal stories to illustrate the opportunities and struggles of this form of ministry. The book has a lot of “best practices” and “lessons learned” but built on a foundation of theology and missiology. That does make this book a bit unusual.

Terry is a retired missionary and the book is clearly missiological in tone and target. Nevertheless, he does make clear that a lot of the principles in the book work in many settings— including literate societies. While I agree that a missionary would gain more from the book than others, the principles of storytelling and narrative preaching are valuable for all ministers. Stories are not just for children any more— and never were.

Quote on Bible Storying

On By missionmusingsIn Contextualization, Quotes, storiesLeave a comment

The beginning Bible storyer may be tempted to take one of the existing popular model sets of Bible Storying lessons, translate the story lessons verbatim, and begin using them. While this may serve to produce some quick, though limited results, it must be realized that each story lesson model must be crafted for addressing worldview issues in culturally acceptable ways and means to the end that biblical truths speak claerly to a particular group of listeners. If the new listener group happens to be similar in worldview and at about the same point in their spiritual knowledge and quest as a group for whom the Bible story lessons were originally crafted, the use of existing models may produce acceptable results. As the worldview differences between the original and new listener groups increase, the end results typically become more unpredictable.

As the worldview that the existing Bible Storying model is based on differs from the worldview of the new listner group, unanswered questions may arise and many spiritual issues can remain unchallenged and unaddressed. …

Two prolems areas stem from the failure to customize the Bible Storying process for particular peoples and their worldviews. First, the failure to address spiritual issues can and does lead to potential syncretism. Second, failure to customize the storying to the culture may increase the resistance and hostility of the listeners by actually innoculating them against the gospel. By the inappropriate choice and crafting of stories or poorly adapted lessons and teaching themes, Bible storyers may delay or obstruct the acceptance of the Message.

-J. O. Terry, Basic Bible Storying– Preparing and Presenting Bible Stories for Evangelism, Discipleship, Training and Ministry, revised edition (Church Starting Network, 2008), Foreword

Planting Mangos— A Parable

On By missionmusingsIn Parables/Allegories, storiesLeave a comment

Paolo and Tomas, cousins, lived on a small island in a big river. They were born there as were their parents before them. In the fields, they found a spot of shade as they ate their merienda before returning to work the land.

As they were eating mangos, Paolo put his mango seed in a small sack. Tomas was confused. Dropping his seed on the ground, he said to Paolo, “What’s with that? Are you so hungry you are hoping to eat the stone later?”

As if to double down on his action, Paolo picked up the seed left by Tomas and placed in the same sack.

Paolo responded, “I am saving them to plant them. Who knows, maybe they will grow into great trees where we can get all of the mangos we want.”

Tomas looked at Paolo with scorn. “Paulo,” said Tomas, “You have lived here since you were born, but you still don’t know how things work? We work land that we don’t own. We live in homes that we don’t own. The Santos family own everything. We give 70% of all we grow to them. They don’t even give us the seedlings for the next season’s plantings. As if that is not enough, every year, the whole family comes in their pugpug (river boat) and they start collecting all the fruit that grows on the trees that are on their land. Even the children do that. And they don’t take 70%— they take everything that is ripe and commonly end up destroying much of what is not ready for harvest.”

Paolo just nodded. No need to respond to the obvious.

Tomas continued. “Those seeds may never grow and if they do will not fruit for many years. And what if they do someday bear fruit? You plant trees and the fruit just goes into the bellies of those who don’t deserve it… much less need it. It is like investing in your making your house nicer. THEY own the house, not you. They can kick you out anytime. Knowing our landlord, if you make the house too nice, he may tell you that should pay 75% of what you grow… or tell you to move out.”

“You are right Tomas.” said Paolo. “It might be a waste of time, But not much of a waste. 5 minutes of work may come to nothing…. who knows. Maybe someday I will enjoy these mangos. Maybe I won’t but my children will. Or maybe new people tending the land will. Or perhaps the Santos family children and grandchildren will. That is all okay. 5 minutes of work is worth the risk.”

Years later, the work proved worth the risk. Paolo got a job overseas sending money home to his wife and family so that they eventually were able to buy the land on which they lived. The families of Paolo and Tomas were both able to enjoy the mango trees— their shade in the heat of day and their strong and expansive branches to be explored by the children. Every year they enjoyed the sweet wonderful fruits and sold extras in the market.

<This story is strongly based on my father-in-law. The story reminds me that investing on possibilities is a risk… but there may be a greater risk in doing nothing.>