I’ll be the first to admit it: having a Master’s in Communication doesn’t always make you a good communicator. Somehow what I wrote yesterday came across as a rant against preachers and preaching.
What I’m trying to say is that we often don’t know how to read narratives. [Jeff Hobbs made some interesting points (here and on Facebook) about everything being narrative, but let’s leave that for another discussion] We take a story and make the incidentals into the main points. It’s like reading Don Quijote to learn about how to use windmills or reading Moby Dick to study boat building.
Too often, we try to make narratives a part of a system of laws. In the Wright quote yesterday, he talked about turning the gospels into epistles. To do that, we have to create teaching points, “timeless truths” that we can pull out of every story.
In my experience, we’ve done that more with the book of Acts, since the gospels don’t really count. (Yes, that is sarcasm) We read Acts 20:1-12 and come away with lessons about the frequency of the Lord’s Supper, debates about whether the passage describes one meal or two, etc. Is that even close to what Luke was talking about? Acts 20 tells us the story of a man raised from the dead, and we’re focused on the meals surrounding that act?
In fact, most churches thoroughly enjoy studying Acts, up until about chapter 14. Then it starts to drag, because it becomes harder and harder to pick apart the stories. Part of the problem is that we really need to read the stories of Paul’s journeys all in one sitting to get the feel for them. More than stories, it’s one story, with different episodes. Those episodes find their meaning as part of the whole.
So how do we let narratives tell their own story? How do we keep the Bible stories within the framework of the bigger picture… and the really big picture? I’m at that point where I can see what not to do and haven’t yet come to what should be done. Guidance would be appreciated.
Acts 20 also tells us the story of Paul looking like Peter who looks like Jesus from Luke, Volume 1.
You’d think that, as familiar as we are with episodic storytelling on TV, we wouldn’t have such a hard time grasping the genre in the Bible. But we do.
I think you’re dead-on. Recently, I’ve heard more and more talk of “timeless truths” or “principles” when it comes to preaching. I think there are some reasons for this: (1) principles can be manipulated to fit our preexisting worldview, politics, understanding, etc…but narratives don’t change. We don’t like that. (2) Principles are more easily accessible for topical preaching – which I’m a proponent of – but narrative makes you stick to a story. What’s more, is that the story is not a story in which we are the hero. When we read a narrative concerning Jesus and the Pharisees, our place, more frequently than not, is the one of the Pharisee. We don’t care for seeing ourselves that way. Anyway, great discussion.
I see how this has been abused. It’s easy to look too closely at the trees (and leaves, and a few nuts…) than it is to just enjoy the forest sometimes. Still, I think once again we need to strike balance in how we approach this. Instead of narrative vs. specific topic or principle, why not study the narrative and pull out various teaching points? I’m reminded of the conversations my wife and I have had as I’ve coached my son’s sports teams. “Wasn’t it a great game,” she’d say. “Yes, but did you see when Timmy did XYZ and Joey did ABC? We need to work on that.” (to which she’d reply, why can’t you just watch the game and enjoy it?) We definitely need to never lose sight of the big picture, and we do run the risk of overlooking “the main point” when we start micro-analyzing. Not that the small points aren’t important, we just can’t lose sight of the bigger picture. That’s one of the responsibilities of the teacher.
I am a strong believer in textual vs. topical preaching, not that topical preaching should be avoided at all times. There is a place for it; that place, however, I do not believe is week-in and week-out as a steady diet.
My reason for this is that in topical preaching it is too easy for us to craft the sermon from the Bible instead of letting the Bible craft the sermon for us through the text. I sincerely believe that much of topical preaching becomes subjective as we subjectively look for those things in the Bible that support what we want to say instead of looking at the Bible to see what it actually says.
The same principle carries over into narrative preaching. If we approach the narratives primarily as illustrations of what we want to say, we are apt to use them subjectively. On the other hand, if we go to the narrative to try to understand what God is trying to say through this narrative (in keeping with the meta-narrative of the whole Bible), we are more likely to have a divine message.
Of course, this is easier said than done. Our subjective “take” on what God is saying to us in the story will likely change over time. Part of that is because of increased understanding of the meta-narrative; part of it, also, is that many times the stories do have more than one meaning or “lesson” for us.
Story is more open ended than topic. How do you ever exhaust the parable of the Prodigal Son, for example? There is an immediate context for the story that gives us one message; there is the remote context of the entire Bible that may open us to wider dimensions of the first context; and then there is the story itself, looked at without a specific context. All may give a different “twist” to how we look at it – and all may be valid, especially if we are reading the story faithfully.
So, Tim, I’m not sure there is just one way to approach the narratives of the Bible. They are so open-ended – and I believe that is what scares us about preaching from the narratives, other than for moralistic lessons.
I don’t think anyone’s arguing either-or yet, but “pulling out teaching points” is often perilous because, done with the same narrative too often (Acts 20 is only one of a plethora we could list), the points being pulled out overshadow the point the author intended.
This is one area where many preachers have been unwittingly postmodern in their handling of the text. PM textual analysis asserts that what we have is ourselves and the text, and we can assume nothing whatsoever about any potential author from the text, so the meaning of the text derives solely from our interaction with it. The concept of authorial intent is at best irrelevant, at worst utter nonsense. I’m a PM in many, many ways, but since I’m also a writer, I wholly reject the elimination of authorial intent as an important interpretive goal/guide.
In Christian circles, we’ve taken a related course. Conservative commenters on Scripture would never be so bold as to say that authorial intent is irrelevant, but they seem to feel absolutely free to say that passages don’t just mean what they meant originally – we built amazing logical latticeworks from teaching points that are pulled out of narratives and epistles and used as support for things the author never intended to address with those passages – and might have addressed very differently than we have – but since we pulled it out of Scripture, it must be true! Authorial intent thus goes right out the window, because we need to beat the 7th Day Adventists in an argument about Sunday worship.
For me, part of the problem is being scared to let the Bible speak on it’s own, because it may seem to say something I’m not prepared for or didn’t personally intend to say. There is that vein of, “we have absolute truth and that’s what makes us different from everyone else!” When that is the case topical is much easier because we spend all of our time defending what we already know and proving everyone who disagrees with us are wrong. Narrative preaching on the other hand leaves far more to the listener to make their own conclusions, which, heaven forbid, might cause them to disagree with me.
Don’t get me wrong, do I believe in absolute truth? Absolutely. I just don’t purpose that my understanding of it is absolute. I also don’t try to say that because there is absolute truth there is no grey in the world. Absolute truth is whatever God has spoken. It’s his word, it is Christ. But does that mean that God himself hasn’t chosen to leave some grey areas for us to struggle through?
As long as we are scared of encountering different answers in our preaching we are going to be scared of narrative preaching and just letting the Bible speak for itself.
One other thought, I think one of the things that makes narrative preaching so difficult for many of us is we don’t want to take the time to learn the context, or preach the context, and by that I mean the social and historical context in which it was first given. Take for example Luke’s version of the “talents” in Luke 19. Without knowing the historical context this story gives us fits. When you know, however the story of how Herod the Great split his kingdom between his sons, who in turn whet to Rome and each argued they should be given the full kingdom and not just a part. And when we know that the Jews of Jerusalem went to Rome to argue against Antipas, and upon his return he slaughtered the families of all those that stood against him, well then the story starts to make at least a little more sense. At least you can see what Jesus was drawing from. Not that it answers all the questions, though :)
Just some “half-baked” thoughts.
Kenneth.
“Instead of narrative vs. specific topic or principle, why not study the narrative and pull out various teaching points?”
I understand what you’re saying, I just want to highlight your quote as an example of why I prefer narrative to “points.” When some people (though not you) say this, it scares me. I don’t think we need to “pull out” anything. The language seems extractive to me. I want the text to speak, to project on it’s own terms. This is immensely difficult to do, mind you. Perhaps it’s my own preaching, but when I feel that I’m pulling something out, I also feel as if the text is being abandoned to my limited insight, understanding, and interest. I want something broader for my community.
Again, I know this not what you mean, I’m just seizing on the way others might use the same language.
Sean, I get what you’re saying, but we do have examples of Jesus and the Apostles pulling out points and singling out verses, so I wouldn’t necessarily abandon the practice altogether. Imagine how Christ’s temptation by Satan would be different if He had answered Satan’s temptations with entire books of Scripture instead of the simple passages He used. My thought is there’s a time and place for both. One obstacle I see about relying mostly on narrative is the potential to gloss over some pretty important stuff (why are we arguing about baptism, it’s a narrative about love?). We can back this up even further and not even agree on what the entire narrative is. Is it a story of God’s plan for man’s redemption (which places the emphasis on the plan, our responsibilities, etc.) or is it the story of God’s Love (which can be interpreted much differently as far as man’s role and responsibilities), or is it something else? The more I think on this, the more my mind goes to a road map (which is narrative….I think….). You have a starting point and an ending point, but along the way are all sorts of stops, choices, even changes in direction. Sort of like others have talked about in understanding “the old paths” terminology, it’s not the destination, but it gets you there. Maybe not the perfect analogy, but feel free to elaborate as we come to a better understanding on this subject.
Travis,
I get what you’re saying, but I want to make a distinction between everything in the Bible and the teachings/sermons in the Bible. My interests are teachings and sermons, not conversations and letters, etc….The temptation of Jesus, for instance, occurs in the midst of a narrative as do the epistles. To teach that conversation means selecting part of the narrative in which ti emphasize. A sermon con focus on the conversation, but to understand the conversation, I need a bigger picture of the narrative. Pulling stuff out of the text is foreign to the text itself.
Imagine picking up a DVD from the RedBox. You’ve not seen the trailers or read anything about it. Pop in the DVD, go to scene selection, and pick scene 31. If a couple is fighting, I can parse out a good bit of the topic being discussed, but my I don’t really understand the story yet. If I were to then talk to a friend about that movie, without the rest of the narrative, even if only scenes 30 and 32, I’d look foolish. The more of the story I can have playing in the background, even if not explicitly stated, the more helpful it is. This is my point.
Teasing or pulling out a verse here, a phrase there bastardizes the text. We have to trust that the Bible knows how to teach itself. It comes as story, as narrative, there’s no way to avoid that fact, it seems. I simple think we are best served to swim with, not against, the stream of the text itself.
“My interests are teachings and sermons, not conversations and letters,”
Sean, I get what you’re saying, but we need to keep in mind the value of those conversations and letters in understanding the narrative. Those are also inspired by God and included for our benefit. I see those items as being integral parts of our learning and, yes, for our instruction — sort of like God’s little lessons on application within the narrative. Peter even referenced the value of Paul’s letters, so obviously they were being used for that purpose. Maybe that’s what you meant, not trying to put words in your mouth.
I gave up counting how many times I’ve heard a preacher say, “Now, this isn’t actually what the text is saying, but the point is good nonetheless,” or words to that effect. If the text isn’t saying it, don’t use it to make the point. If you can’t make your point by using the text correctly, you may want to reconsider your point.
When I lead a study of a gospel or Acts, we read the story to see what’s going on over the entire book. It’s been quite eye-opening. For example, Mark records this wonderful story arc of Jesus trying to get some down time and being unable to do so. Even when he leaves the country, he has to deal with people wanting him to help. In this larger context, the story of the Syro-Phoenecian woman makes more sense. Yes, Jesus’ initial response to her is harsh, because he’s tired and just wants to be left alone…and isn’t that something to which we can all relate? And when we read that story, we have a greater appreciation for Jesus’ empathy with us. He really does know what we go through, because he’s gone through it, too. And it lets me know that it’s OK when I get tired and down because the work (secular and sacred) never seems to end.
As for Acts, how can anyone not be absolutely enthralled by the growth and development of the church, as it expands and deals with issues of growth and cultural conflicts that are common today? Read the story: watch the church change from the beginning of the book to the end, watch Peter, Paul and the other leaders struggle to understand and accept the plan of God. See the real message of the Gospel as it’s preached (and it may not be what you think), and the many ways that message is presented and why the presentation changes.
One word of warning: reading Scripture as it’s written may change your view of it, God, yourself and the world.