Robert Martin Walker, a United Methodist minister, turned full-time writer, has written an
amusing little book called POLITICALLY CORRECT PARABLES, published in 1996, which has been
quite popular in religious circles. He no doubt got the idea from another writer, James
Finn Garner, who wrote a best-selling book a few years ago on POLITICALLY CORRECT BEDTIME
STORIES . The rationale for Walker's book is to show the contrast between the values of
our presumably "politically correct" culture and the teachings of Jesus in the
Gospels. Walker notes that "in the mouth of Jesus, the parables are set against the
primary form of first-century political correctness: Pharisaism." His book is meant
to be "a satire of modern pharisaism (political correctness taken to an
extreme)." What Walker does is to both re-title and recast the parables of Jesus in
modern politically correct language. The result is both humorous and instructive. One sees
immediately how absurd the "politically correct" point of view is when
contrasted with the original intent of the ancient Biblical stories.
The story of the Good Samaritan becomes "The Generosity-Gifted Samaritan." The
parable of the The Prodigal Son becomes "The Negative-Attention-Getting Son."
The story of The Lost Sheep becomes "The Geographically Dislocated Sheep", while
the story of The Unjust Steward becomes "The Ethically Impaired Stewperson." The
parable of The Pharisee and the Publican becomes "The Humility-Impoverished Pharisee
And The Marginalized Publican", while the story of the distribution of The Talents
becomes "The Differently Abled Enslaved Persons." I think you get the picture.
Walker also puts politically correct language into the mouth of Jesus so that he says
things like: "Those who are aurally challenged, let them hear", or "Do this
and you will never be terminally inconvenienced."
Let's take a look at what Walker does with some of the parables. Just as Jesus gave his
stories a kind of surprise twist to show the difference between conventional morality and
the justice and mercy of God so does Walker give the parables a new twist with politically
correct endings that tickle the funny bone and show us the absurdity of our all too common
cultural thinking and behavioral practice. In his retelling of "The Good
Samaritan" Walker has Jesus ask the lawyer who was present, "Which of the three
persons was the most sensitive to the male Jewish person's needs?" The lawyer at
first answers, "I wish I could have found that injured person myself and sued those
morally different persons", but then reluctantly gives the correct answer, "The
one who was generosity-gifted." When Jesus tells him to "Go and do
likewise", the lawyer immediately runs down to the Jerusalem-to-Jericho road and
begins looking for victimized persons (potential clients) so that he could enhance his
income. Which is exactly what Danny DeVito does in the film based on John Grisham's novel,
The Rainmaker, by hanging out at the local hospital to talk to accident victims and their
families.
In the original parable of "The Prodigal Son" the central teaching of the story
was that God was merciful and forgiving like the figure of the father in the parable who
was ready to forgive his wayward son just as soon as his son was ready to return to him
with genuine penance. You will remember that the Prodigal's older brother who had remained
behind and been loyal to his father for many years was really miffed that his father had
killed the fatted calf (in Walker's version the "weight-challenged calf") and
thrown a party to celebrate his brother's return to the fold. When the father pleads with
his older son to come into the party he really lets the old man have it....(Here's the
Politically Correct Version): "Stop this rescuing behavior! For all these years
I have been...obedient and morally responsible. Yet, you have never given me a scorched
animal carcass so that I might party with my friends. But, when this
negative-attention-getting son of yours comes home, after wasting your money on waged sex
workers, you throw him a party! That's the most dysfunctional, codependent act I've ever
heard of."
Walker concludes the parable by having "the chronologically gifted son"
immediately make "an appointment for his father with a therapist specializing in
codependency." From the point of view of those trying to get out from under the
throes of codependent enabling behavior the parable of the Prodigal Son is not about the
virtues of tough love, but rather about the foolishness of cheap grace. In this
politically correct version the father needs to pay attention to the protestations of his
older son and to set limits to the munificence of his mercy.
Do any of you remember the story of "The Rich Man And Lazarus" (here retitled
"The Financially Exploitative Person And The Economically Disadvantaged
Person")? Lazarus is a poor beggar at the gate covered from head to toe with
herpeslike sores. The Rich Man, who gained his wealth "at the expense of the
underwaged" is full of pride and is not willing to give even a few coins to the poor
sick Lazarus. It so happened that the two died on the same day, Lazarus from an infection
of his sores, the economically advantaged person from "a myocardial infraction
brought on by cholesterol-challenged arteries."
As expected the rich man goes to hell and the poor man goes to heaven. The rich man lies
in torment in the fires of hell and looks up into heaven and sees Abraham and Lazarus
enjoying the comforts of heavenly cuisine. Calling out through parched lips he begs for
mercy: "Ancestor Abraham. Be mercy-abled toward me. Please allow Lazarus to dip the
tip of his finger in his chilled chardonnay and cool my tongue. I am comfort-deprived down
here." Abraham tells him that because he had once ignored "marginalized and
differently abled persons like Lazarus" (who had formerly been "underhoused,
food-deprived, and involuntarily leisured") their roles have now been reversed.
Up to this point Walker's politically correct version of the parable follows the biblical
version fairly closely. But then he gives it a new twist. Here the formerly financially
exploitive person cries out in anger: "What's wrong with this picture?! I, a
productive member of society, am being eternally punished and Lazarus, a bum, is being
rewarded!" Abraham tells him that "there is no need for verbal abuse or
insensitivity." The rules governing the afterlife were not set by him but by the
Higher Power who has established "a vast chasm" between them "that cannot
be crossed." He then asks Abraham if he can have an audience with the Higher Power.
"When can I speak to Him?" he pleads. Now here comes the zinger: "Probably
never," replies Abraham, " since you just made an egregious gender faux pas by
referring to the Higher Power in masculine terms! She has better things to do with Her
time than listening to the whining of a chauvinist like yourself."
Feeling much abashed the exploiter chauvinist asks that Lazarus be sent to the male
siblings in his family to warn them that the Higher Power is female. "It's too late
for that", says Abraham. "Their social conditioning has already biased them
against thinking of the Divine as having feminine qualities." Well, at least suggest
to them they might "become gender-neutral in their image of the Higher Power."
Finally, Abraham says sadly, "Gender-neutrality isn't good enough. They must be cured
of their masculism if they are to have any hope." As you can see, Robert Walker
enjoys making fun of the new theological fads in our society and milks them for all their
worth. As if God/Goddess/ or the Eternal Ground of Being really cared enough about our
gender images of the divine to send us to hell for not getting it right.
Let's take a look at the parable of "The Talents" or "The Differently Abled
Enslaved Persons." The Master of the House, a capitalist, is going on a long journey.
He gives to each of his three servants a sum of money--to the first he gives five coins or
talents, to the second three talents, and to the third one talent. He asks them to take
care of his money and to invest it wisely so that he may be recompensed upon his return.
The first servant or five-talent enslaved person invests it in the Jerusalem Commodity
Exchange and "trades futures contracts on the carcasses of nonhumyn animals."
The pork-belly market goes wild and he doubles his investment. The second servant also
doubles his money by investing in metal futures just before the price of gold shoots up.
The one-talent servant was risk-averse, having had a difficult childhood and parents who
were negative savers, and so she hides her talent under the mattress, "not even
trusting an interest-bearing bank account insured by the FDIC."
When the master returns he is over-joyed at the wise investment of his talents by his
first two servants--"Well done my financially abled and loyalty-gifted enslaved
persons!" he tells them and generously doubles their wages. When the one-talent
servant reports that she took no chances of losing her master's single coin and returns it
to him just as she had received it the master capitalist hits the roof and exclaims:
"Are you mentally challenged as well? Haven't you heard of the concept of
'opportunity cost?' Take her talent and give it to the enslaved person who is now
investing ten talents for me. As for this value-impoverished womyn, throw her out! She can
see what it's like to be non-waged."
That's where the original version of the parable ended. But Walker adds a new chapter to
the tale: "The one-talent enslaved person wasn't as mentally challenged as the
capitalist thought. She immediately went to the ACLU and filed a lawsuit against the
capitalist for sexual harassment. She eventually won a settlement of eight talents and
used part of the money to buy her freedom. She used the remaining talents, still a large
sum, to set up a consulting practice specializing in helping risk-averse enslaved persons
maximize their investment returns."
I've always felt sorry for the poor servant who didn't want to take chances on losing his
master's money and thought it grossly unfair that his single coin be given to the one who
now had ten. It violated my egalitarian sensibilities and seemed like it was advocating
taking from the poor and giving to the rich much like certain politicians who support a
tax-break program that favors those in the higher-income brackets, a redistribution of
wealth from the bottom to the top. Walker helps to balance the ledger on this score, but
I'm not sure I like his method of using the charge of sexual harassment as a way to get
rich quick at the expense of capitalists or presidents who make the mistake of mixing sex
and politics. I wonder what Jesus would say.
Just for the fun of it let's do one more, the parable of "The Laborers in the
Vineyard" or "The Differently Waged Persons." This is another one of Jesus'
parables that I had problems with similar to the one above. In this story the owner of a
Vineyard hires some migrant workers to pick his grapes. The workers agree to work from
morning to the end of the day for the usual daily wage of one denarius. Later in the day
around noon time he hires some more workers and agrees to pay them a fair wage even though
they won't be working a full day. He makes the same offer to some workers at 3:00 in the
afternoon, and then again to yet other workers at 5:00 P.M., only one hour before sun
down. At the end of the day when it comes time to settle accounts and pay his workers, the
owner of the vineyard decides to pay all his workers the same wage--one denarius, whether
they worked the whole day, part of the day, or only an hour.
As you can imagine, "this especially galled those who worked from sunrise to
sunset." So, "they organized a delegation and approached the owner."
Walker continues his version: "'We wish to lodge a grievance. You paid us the same as
those who worked only one-half hour! Where's the economic justice in this?' The owner
calmly replied, 'Where did you acquire this entitlement mentality? Didn't you agree to
work for a denarius? I haven't done anything unfair. If I choose to pay those hired last
the same, that's none of your business. Or, would you restrict my right to use my money in
the way I see fit?' But the workers complained, 'If you want to throw away your money, why
don't you throw some our way? What's equal isn't always fair!' They started to invade the
owner's personal space by getting in his face."
So the owner defended his choice by saying, "What do you know about fairness?"
He argued that the workers whom he had hired later were "differently abled with
various physical challenges", some were even "chronologically advantaged",
while others were "undocumented residents" who almost never got hired.
"What I have instituted", he declared, "is a system of economic equality
based on need rather than merit. I call it, 'the last will be first and the first will be
last'." Here is where Robert Martin Walker adds a new twist to the ending of
the parable: "The disgruntled workers backed away from the owner, regrouped and held
a meeting. They discussed the various possibilities for resolving their grievance with the
owner, ranging from violent revolution to passive acceptance. Finally, they came to a
consensus. 'We have carefully considered your "last will be first" philosophy
and have found merit in it. We will show up for work at five o'clock tomorrow afternoon.
See you then.' The owner was rendered speechless by their clever manipulation of his
system of economic equality. Unfortunately, he had no recourse, as he had no intention of
picking the grapes himself."
Of course, the point of this parable when Jesus first told it was not about the economic
practice of the owners of grape vineyards, but about the grace and mercy of God which is
not based on merit, but on divine forgiveness and compassion. Universalists used to argue
that salvation was for all regardless of merit. Life is pure gift both here and hereafter,
whether we are saints or sinners or a mixture of both, whether we realize early or late
that we all have inherent worth and dignity, no less at the beginning of the day than at
the end. As a formula for doing business, however, and giving workers their just due, this
parable is surely a formula for labor troubles and grievances and cause for the formation
of unions versus management.
I think I enjoyed Robert Martin Walker's "Politically Correct Parables" almost
as much or even more than the original parables. In any event they should give us pause to
reflect that what is politically correct is not always the best moral or spiritual
practice. Sometimes it may be better to be politically incorrect with the other Bill and
his circle of impolitic guests than politically correct with a gaggle of holier-than-thou
self-appointed Pharisees who know they are right. Remember, the first shall be last, and
the last shall be first, or to put it another way, "all who are humility-impoverished
will be equalized and all who are humility-gifted will become self-actualized."
Give us a sense of humor, O God. Teach us to laugh at ourselves and our pretensions of
self-importance. Laugh at us and with us. Let the medicine of thy mirth heal while it
stings. Dispel the humidity of our self-concern. When our thoughts grow tiresome, teach us
to laugh with thee, until we shatter the tinkling goblets of our ego and pride, and we
find ourselves at last at home with ourselves and thee. Amen.