ben-masora-Oy5IKUo8lZM-unsplash (1) (1)

The Parable of the Lenses

A modern-day parable for a world of competing interpretations, and very little patience for attempting to understand these differences.

Imagine, if you will, a village in which everyone is born with a pair of goggles securely attached to their eyes.

At first, the lenses in the goggles are opaque. But as the villagers grow, parents and teachers help them see the world more like everyone else, thus removing one opaque portion at a time and replacing it with a portion that looks like their own lenses. 

In the end, everyone’s lens ends up being largely similar to the goggles of those around them. And while everyone does their best to ensure that the lenses are clear and accurate, no one could ever know with certainty if what they are seeing is true, because everyone has similar kinds of goggles on.

This village worships a green cube. The cube represents all that is good about life and the people in the village. If you want to help the individuals in the village, or the community at large, everyone knows that the best thing you can do is worship the green cube.

Now imagine a visitor from a different village arrives. This person is also wearing goggles. The villagers are thrilled to have a unique visitor until they visit the town center. Upon seeing the object at the town center, the visitor proclaims, “Why do you have a red missile with a ticking time bomb in your village?”

The villagers are scandalized. How dare this visitor insult their green cube! And since the green cube is the core of who they are as a village, how could he harm them by attacking the core of their identity as a people?

At first, the visitor felt confused. Why were so many upset with him? He didn’t intend to hurt anyone; he merely observed what he had seen. He tried to explain that to the villagers, “If I wanted to hurt you, I wouldn’t have warned you about the missile. Why do you think I’m trying to hurt you?”

But the villagers had a ready answer, “Because you are attacking who we are as a people. That green cube is central to who we are as a people.  And you can’t possibly think you’re helping us if you are invalidating who we are.”

The visitor tried to understand, but having a missile in the middle of town wasn’t safe. So he tried to broach the point again to help the villagers. But they were incensed. 

“His insistence at calling it a red missile has hurt us. And yet rather than mourning with us, he just doubles down on his hateful rhetoric.” The villagers wondered,  “Why does he refuse to see it from our point of view?” When tempers would flare they would say, “How dare he red-splain our cube? Sometimes the right thing to do is just say nothing at all. If you’re not a green-cuber, you clearly can’t understand this. If you’re as backward as the visitor is, the best thing you can do is say nothing at all.”

As the visitor spent more time in the village, however, he began to notice that the lenses in his goggles started to change. As he spent more time with the villagers and began to understand their culture, he started to develop bifocals. 

There was still no way for him to tell for certain if either lens was clear or accurate, but when he looked at the sculpture in the middle of town he could view it both as a green cube and a red missile depending on which side of his lens he saw it through.

The visitor was ecstatic, and couldn’t wait to tell the villagers. If they realized it was just a matter of different lenses, he thought, and that he wasn’t trying to hurt them, maybe they would take the danger more seriously.

But when he did tell them, that’s not how the villagers responded. When he could finally see the sculpture their way, they saw it as validation that their way of seeing it was the right way. After all, they still couldn’t see it the way the visitor did. So they said things like, “Finally, way to catch up to the 21st century,” or “Ugh, you want applause just for basic civility.”

“But,” the visitor objects, “I didn’t say it was, in fact, a green cube. I said that I discovered that the only reason we saw things differently was because of the different lenses we had. Now I understand how you see it as a green cube.”

But the people continued to insist that because calling it a red missile offended their sense of dignity as a people, there was no excuse for calling it that. All this talk about lenses, they concluded, was merely a pretense for the visitor’s deep hatred for the town and their green cube. “If you truly care about this town, you will agree it’s a green cube.”

But the visitor still didn’t see why he should abandon his lens. “I understand the goggles that show it as a green cube work for you. But just as I was eventually able to understand how you saw it as a green cube, perhaps you could understand how I view it as a red missile. The lens that makes me see it as a red missile worked my entire life and has for the history of the village I come from. In fact, we were able to save ourselves from several missiles, because we knew what they were. I don’t know why I should abandon my lens for yours.”

But the villagers had an obvious answer: The green cube was important to them, so it hurt them to think anyone saw their green cube in a different way. And it’s wrong to hurt people.

The visitor loved his new town and didn’t want to hurt the people. So he agreed to call it a green cube. And if ever he happened to catch a glimpse of the red missile through the wrong side of his bifocals, he would immediately apologize. And over time the red missile side of his goggles slowly got smaller and smaller.

And with the visitor finally overcoming his bias and treating the villagers with love, they lived together in peace. Until the missile exploded and destroyed the village.

About the author

C.D. Cunningham

C.D. Cunningham is a founder and editor-at-large of Public Square magazine.
On Key

You Might Also Like

Kinda Pregnant, Kinda Forgettable, Mostly Raunchy

Amy Schumer is a mood.  About ten years ago it seemed like she was about to break out as the next great all-American comedian. But her material never softened. She never found a safe sitcom to mold her jokes into something that would be network-approved. She had her hard stand-up audience and she kept it. “Kinda Pregnant” is perhaps the most Amy Schumer film yet made, and certainly the most since “Trainwreck.” If you like the Amy-Schumer schtick, I imagine you will like this movie. The film is mostly an extension of Schumer’s 2019 special “Growing,” in which she talked about her own pregnancy and her experience with it.  In this film we learn that Schumer’s character Lainy has always wanted to be a mom, but she is now forty and her boyfriend is finally ready to propose. But alas he wasn’t proposing marriage, but proposing having sex with another woman. She soon learns that her best friend Kate is pregnant. Worried that Kate is becoming closer friends with their also pregnant co-worker, Lainy tries on a fake pregnancy belly at a maternity store, and when the clerk accidentally sees her wearing it and is very kind, Lainy decides she’ll pretend to be pregnant. She goes to a pregnancy yoga class, and meets Megan who she makes instant friends with. This means Lainy is living a split life, one pregnant and one unpregnant. There is not a lot of territory left to mine in the fake pregnancy category. Between “Glee,” “Gone Girl,” “Labor Pains,” “Preggoland,” “Desperate Housewives,” and “Baby Mama” the plot device has gone from comedy to drama to action and back again. In typical Schumer fashion she goes gross-out raunchy, which occasionally lapses into a serious talk about the physical and emotional realities of pregnancy and how society treats them.  On that final front, the film does have some interesting observations. The physical realities of pregnancy are weirdly under-discussed, for a society that seems to hold pregnancy as a high honor. But ultimately whatever positive message was there falls apart for two reasons. First the film wants to celebrate family and child birth, but feels the constant need to hedge its endorsement so as not to risk Schumer’s progressive bona fides. And the entire thing is lost in a cavalcade of profanity and gross out jokes about everything from masturbation to farting. I watched “Dog Man” a few weeks ago, a movie for 8-year-old boys, and I’m honestly not sure which movie had more juvenile fart jokes.  The movie does have a few very funny scenes, but for a Happy Madison production, it’s unusually slow. And the writing doesn’t give us the kind of endlessly quotable lines Happy Madison is usually known for. In terms of the comedy, the movie is less bad and more just forgettable. The movie has a very female sensibility, given its subject matter, but it’s presented with the kind of raunchy comedy that has a smaller female audience. If you love Amy Schumer’s comedy, especially if you’ve loved her more recent materials, and you have recently had a baby and feel like no one else really gets what you’re going through, there is a good chance this movie will be among your favorites. Though I’d still recommend using a service that will clean up the worst excesses of the vulgarity—this is a film that earns its R-rating. But if you aren’t in that small group, I imagine the movie might amuse you, but otherwise it will leave you feeling insipid and put off.  One and a half out of five stars. “Kinda Pregnant” premiers on Netflix today, February 5, 2025.

Rainbow Colored Heart & Red Broken Heart | Coming Out & Walking Away. Why? | Public Square Magazine | Stacey Harkey Gay | Studio C Gay | Stacey Studio C

Coming Out & Walking Away. Why?

You’ve probably only ever heard one answer for why so many LGBT+ identifying brothers and sisters are walking away. But the full truth is rarely so popular—or so simple.

Subscribe To Our Weekly Newsletter

Stay up to date on the intersection of faith in the public square.

You have Successfully Subscribed!