Goldilocks and the Three Bears is a tale about a little girl who gets lost in a forest and ends up in the home of three bears (traditionally portrayed as Papa Bear, Mama Bear and Baby Bear). She sits at the table (where the chairs are too large, too small and finally ‘just right’), eats the bears’ porridge (which is too hot, too cold and finally ‘just right’) before being found sleeping in their beds (which are too hard, too soft and finally ‘just right.’)
The conclusion of the story (how the bears deal with this invasion of privacy) varies, with some versions showing Goldilocks running away, vowing to be a good child in future, and in others being rescued by her mother from the wrath of the bears. The story seems to be a useful vehicle for teaching through repetition, but the ‘moral’ is less clearcut than in some other stories. Are we meant to sympathise with Goldilocks (who can appear quite selfish) or with the bears? Is the story a cautionary tale about the importance of respecting property or an encouragement to try out new things? It seems interesting to me that in a tale where repetition is clearly a teaching aid for young children, the ending is quite vague. I suspect children deal better with ambiguity than adults.
As a child, we are very aware that we do not know everything and that life is full of mystery. We accept implausible scenarios (talking bears, little girls alone in a forest) without question and are content to live in the ‘now’ of a story, secure in its structure and confident the author knows best. Perhaps this is something as adults we need to regain: the acceptance that we don’t have answers to all of life’s dilemmas but can trust in the love and care of a God who is both the author and finisher of our faith. (Heb 12:2)