I'd like to put a theory to test. I think it is a new one – and if it is, will hopefully be able to write a book on it. If it isn't a new one, I'd like someone to tell me so and point me to the folk who have posited it before I could. Let me begin with some initial formulations:

It is generally accepted that, through the ages, most religious leaders have used stories and parables as primary teaching techniques. Jesus comes to mind (well, because he's the leader I know best). He very rarely answered a question directly, but rather answered in parable or story, as an example.

There have been folk who have wondered why religious leaders have chosen to communicate in such a manner. Some of the reasoning I've heard goes along these lines:

• At the time of the religion's initial development, oral traditions and oral teachings were by far the most prevalent forms of instruction. Writing (or chiseling) stuff down was an absolute pain, and so it was easier to store stuff (wisdom) in the oral mechanism of stories.
• The majority of the people religious leaders spoke to were relatively uneducated , ordinary folk, and so required a manner of teaching that was not overly sophisticated, but that captured the complexity of what was being said in a simple way. Stories were thus the best format. They educated elite were the minority.
• In addition to the low levels of education, and the need to say things simply, there is a rationale that stories are by nature great conveyors of complex information, and do so in a simple manner. To use Dan Pink's words, they are high touch and high concept. They touch a deep level of emotion, and carry with them high levels of conceptual meaning.
• Often, what the religious leaders were speaking of was mystical in nature and thus would be bastardised if not communicated in some allegorical, metaphorical manner. Thus, stories was the mode of choice.
• The teachings needed to be rooted in the day to day experience of the listeners so that the could understand the difference these teachings could make to their lives. Stories are rooted in lived experience as well as fantasised experience, thus their stories connected with the listeners on this level.

Here's where my little theory comes in.

Languages change. Cultures change. Perhaps the realities of the supernatural, spiritual, mystical world don't? Perhaps, when wanting to communicate these realties, spiritual leaders needed a form of communication that could withstand the evolving nature of time, culture, language AND translation.

So, they chose stories because (and this is where my theory gets a little mystical) they knew that all of the above factors needed to be accounted for AS WELL AS the issues of translation. If this theory is true (that stories and their meaning are translation-resilient), religious leaders chose to use stories because they knew that their messages would withstand the need for translation and the inevitable loss of meaning that happens when words are translated.

There, I've put it out there (perhaps to my detriment). Consider it a Beta form of the theory known as Narrative Resilience. You're free to tell me that I've lost the plot (no pun intended) or you can help me out by:

• letting me know if you know of anyone who has pioneered this theory, researched it, proven it to be true or have proved it to be a bowl of air.
• letting others know about my quest, and see if their networks might know anything about it.

Go.