 |
| The Good Samaritan |
The peasants’ interpretations
of the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus (Cardenal 1979: 3:251-256) include
insights that echo recent social-scientific criticism-informed analyses of the
parable (see David B. Gowler, “‘At His
Gate Lay a Poor Man’: A Dialogic Reading of Luke 16:19–31,” Perspectives in Religious Studies 32:3
(2005) 249–265). One example is noted below (which could be categorized as "limited good").
A brief summary of some of the conversations:
Felipe begins the discussion by stating that the rich man
symbolizes all who are rich and Lazarus denotes all who are poor. He concludes
that the story is simple: Jesus condemns the rich, and the poor are saved.
Cardenal notes that the rich man is never called evil; he is only called rich.
Others respond to this observation bluntly:
Little Adan:
“Because he was happy”
Elvis: “While
the other was screwed.”
Cardenal notes that Abraham has the same response in Luke
16:25. Felipe then interprets the parable to mean that there should be no rich
or poor; all should live equally both in this world and the next. Alejo agrees:
the rich man should not have thrown parties every day—just every once in a
while—and he should have invited Lazarus to those parties.
As the congregation interprets the parable in their in
Nicaraguan contexts, their earthy and apparently simple responses are often
profound expressions of their conviction that Jesus and his parables were
alive, present with them, and actively working with and through them:
Gloria: The rich man’s sin was that
he had no compassion. Poverty was at his door and that didn’t disturb him at
his parties.
Julio: Now there are lots of
Lazaruses that the rich have at their doors of their parties.
Cardenal: And the poor man is badly
off because the rich man is well off, or the rich man is well off because the
poor man is badly off. There are poor people because there are rich people, and
there are rich people because there are poor people. And rich people’s parties
are at the cost of the poor people (cf. Gowler 2005).
William takes the interpretation even further. He notes that
the parable was commonly used to exploit the poor by convincing them to endure their
poverty patiently in the expectation that they will receive their reward in
heaven. Felipe agrees:
Felipe: As I see it, this passage
was rather to threaten the rich so they wouldn’t go on exploiting; but it seems
it turned out the opposite: it served to pacify the people.
. . .
Julio: There is no point in this
story being for [the rich] if they don’t read it, and if they do read it they
pay no heed. The rich man of this parable cares nothing for God; and that’s the
way the rich still are nowadays.
Cardenal: I believe the parable was
not to console the poor but rather to threaten the rich; but, as you said,
William, it has had the opposite effect, because the rich weren’t going to heed
it. But Christ himself is saying that in this parable: that the rich pay no
attention to the Bible.
Laureano: In the churches in the
big cities you see exactly the same picture that’s painted here . . . .
Felipe: Because for [the rich] it’s
like reading a bunch of nonsense . . . .
Oscar: It seems like it doesn’t do
any good to be reading the Bible, then, because if you don’t want to change the
social order, you might as well be reading any damned thing, you might as well
be reading any stupid book.
Cardenal: It seems to me that
Jesus’ principal message is that the rich aren’t going to be convinced even
with the Bible, not even with a dead man coming to life (and not even with
Jesus’ resurrection . . . ).
No comments:
Post a Comment