PREACHING AGAINST THE TEXT

By Ronald J. Allen

IN THE LAST fifteen years, a rebirth of interest in preaching has taken place in the mainline church. Characteristic of this rebirth is an emphasis on biblical preaching. In a significant work, Leander Keck sets forth two criteria, widely approved by the homiletical guild, for such preaching. A sermon is "truly biblical when (a) the Bible governs the content of the sermon and when (b) the function of the sermon is analogous to that of the text."(l)

Given the vaccuous state of much of the life and thought of the mainline church today, this stress upon the Bible is welcome. For the Bible is a fundamental and generative witness to God and to the gospel. Yet, the church does not preach the Bible. The church preaches the gospel, to which the Bible witnesses.

Typically, the preacher uses a biblical text as a lens through which to interpret the significance of the gospel for the modern congregation. In so doing, the preacher stands in the interpretive tradition of Israel and the early church: ancient formative traditions were interpreted so as to cast the light of God on the present situation of the community.(2)

Yet, in its enthusiasm for the recovery of preaching whose content and form is guided by the Bible, the homiletical guild has given little attention to the sermonic treatment of texts which run contrary to the gospel. In the archetypal example, Psalm 137 comes to climax in a call for vengeance on the Bablyonian captors of Israel:

Happy shall be he who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rock! (Ps. 137:9, RSV)

This text is representative of many that run against the current of the gospel.

What shall the preacher do with such texts? The answer proposed m *Ronald J. Allen is Assistant Professor of Preaching and New Testament at Christian Theological Seminary.

ENCOUNTER 48:1 (105) WINTER, 1987

106 Encounter

this essay is quite simple. On such occasions, in order to preach the

gospel, it may be necessary to preach against the text.(3) In so doing,

the preacher will show that the content and claim of a given text actually

work against the content and claim of the gospel. To put it bluntly, the

preacher will oppose the text in the name of the gospel.

In this article, I will show that this approach to the interpretation

of the sacred text is rooted in the Bible itself. Further, brief attention

will be given to figures from the history of Christian tradition who have

rendered similar critical iudgments on texts. A method for evaluating

texts will be proposed and, finally, mention will be made of select

problematic areas in the Bible.

I

The sensitive reader will often hear writers of the Bible m

conversation with one another as to the proper interpretation of tradition.

The following examples (by no means exhaustive) show that this conversation

sometimes took the form of setting oneself over and against the claims of

another text or tradition. This occurs when the text or tradition offers

an interpretation of God or of life which can no longer be considered valid

and which needs to be corrected.

In II Samuel 7, the covenant with David is depicted as unconditional.

A centerpiece of that covenant is the assurance from God to David that when

the temple is built, the temple will be the permanent dwelling of God on

earth (e.g. II Sam. 7:13; cf. Ps. 78:67-72, Ps. 132:13-18). But in his

temple sermon, Jeremiah explicitly refutes that tradition. Arguing on the

basis of the conditional Mosaic covenant, (26:5-7), Jeremiah claims that

the presence of the temple is no guarantee of the favor of God upon the

community. Indeed, if the community does not turn from its evil and uniust

ways, the temple itself will be destroyed (26:6).

A simple understanding of history governs much of the thinking of the

prophets and comes to full expression in the book of Deuteronomy (e.g. 28).

Obedience to the covenant will yield blessing; disobedience will result in

curse. The exile, for instance, is the result of disobedience and

consequent divine retribution. Against this position is set the book of

Job. The friends of Job interpret Job's plight in the light of the

covenantal understanding epitomized by Deuteronomy. In the mouth of Elihu

(32-37) this position is even described as an insight given by the spirit

of God (e.g. 32:8). Yet, when God appears, this position is clearly seen

as an inadequate way to understand the relationship between blessing and

Preaching Against The Text 107

curse (4). The book of Ezra, and its companion Nehemiah, become a part of the

life of Israel in the fifth century B.C.E. Ezra 9-10 delineates the problem of the marriage of Israelites to those outside the community and calls for divorce form gentile wives. This exclusion policy is opposed by the book of Ruth which calls attention to her Moabite roots and to her seminal place in the genealogy of David. Israel's greatest moment (the time of David) is the result of a mixed marriage.

Apocalyptic eschatology is characteristic of much of the early church. For example, I Thessalonians 4:13-5:11 is thoroughly apocalyptic and marked with the expectation that the apocalyptic finale to the history of the world will come soon. The ourth gospel not only replaces apocalyptic eschatology with realized eschatology but expressly criticizes apocalypti-cism. At the death of Lazarus, Martha voices traditional apocalyptic thought when she says of her dead brother, "I know that he will rise again in the resurrection of the just" (11:24). The Johannine Jesus corrects this viewpoint. "I am the resurrection and the life" (cf., e.g. 3:18-19, ll-25ff.).

In a discussion with the Pharisees concerning the tradition of the elders (7:1-23), the Markan Jesus declares, "Do you not see that whatever goes into a man from outside cannot defile him, since it enters not his stomach and so passes on?' (Thus he declared all foods clean)." (7:18b-19). Thus, the importance of the law for the Markan community is completely relativized. Matthew, writing for a community which is largely Jewish-Christian, revises Mark's version of this encounter at three important points in order to show a definite affinity between the Matthean Jesus (and church) and Judaism. First, Matthew omits the exclusive sentence, 'Thus he declared all foods clean." Secondly, where Mark says "There is nothing outside a man (ouden estin exothen tou anthropou) which, by going into him, can defile . . . ," Matthew says much less emphatically, that it is . . ." not what goes into the mouth that defiles a man." Thirdly, Matthew adds 15:12-14 to show that his quarrel is not with the law itself but with Jews of his own generation.

Thus we can see clearly that the Bible itself contains examples of preaching against the text. My purpose is not to assess the validity of the grounds for opposition, but to establish that the practice of preaching against the text was known in the communities which produced the Bible. In this sense, it is a part of our Biblical heritage, and, indeed, a part of

108 Encounter

what it means to preach biblically.

II

In the tradition of the church, the principle of preaching against the

text can be seen even more clearly. In this section, I seek not to offer a

comprehensive history of this notion, but to show that it has significant

precedent.

For Luther, the purpose of Scripture is to point to Christ(5). By

Christ he means the gospel of the free, unmerited love of God which is

graciously given in Christ to the sinner and which alone saves. Thus,

Christ is the "Lord and king of the Scriptures" (6). Scripture itself is

to be evaluated as to the degree to which it witnesses to the grace of God.

When Luther encounters a passage which does not contain the gospel, he

argues that the passage is not the word of God.(7)

During the Enlightenment and the period following, it became common to

criticize the Bible on two grounds. For one, the Bible depicted events

that violated the "law of nature." A miracle, for instance, could scarcely

be believed to have occurred in the way reported. Therefore, an explanation

other than miracle should be sought to account for the story, or the story

should be dismissed. For another, some charged that the behavior of God

is sometimes pictured as immoral. For example, the wholesale slaughter of

the inhabitants of Canaan could not be the command of a God whose nature is

love. In both instances, Scripture is evaluated according to the norm of

reason and the coherence of the Bible with the modern view of the world.

In the late nineteenth century, Adolf Harnack recalled with approval

Luther's elevation of the gospel over the Bible. The problem was that

Luther was not sufficiently clear about the implications of his thesis and

"did not make a clean sweep" (8). According to Harnack, while the church

since Luther did not completely forget that "the content of the Gospel is

not everything contained between the lids of the Bible," it still remained

for the church of the Reformation to complete the task which Luther had set

in motion.(9)

Emil Brunner argues that the real norm of Christian doctrine is Jesus

Christ. Christ witnesses to the church concerning his gracious revelation

through the Holy Spirit and through the apostolic witness which is in the

Bible. Indeed, the witness of the Bible and of the apostles "is valid,

absolutely binding, insofar as it really witnesses to Him himself".(10)

While Brunner affirms Scripture as a primary norm of Christian theology,

Scripture itself is to be evaluated. "Critical reflection on the

Preaching Against The Text 109

adequateness, or inadequateness, of the Biblical doctmal testimony to which it bears witnesses, is not eliminated; we still have to face it".(11)

Even Karl Barth acknowledges that the Bible is human and fallible. Barth writes, "The vulnerability of the Bible, i.e. its capacity for error, also extends to its religious and theological content".(12) The word of the Bible is measured against the Word of God, i.e., revelation.

In the contemporary era, David Tracy posits a crucial distinction between the revelatory event of Jesus Christ and the Bible. The Bible is the primary witness to the event. And since Scripture has been declared canon, it "norms but is not normed (norma normans sed non normata by later witnesses".(13) Nonetheless, Scripture itself is a witness to the event and not revelation itself. In order to be an authentic Christian witness, each witness (including the Bible) is to be evaluated according to two norms: (1) Appropriateness to the content of the gospel; (2) Intelligibility (14). "Above all, the scriptural texts themselves will show that they, as original witnesses to the event, must be iudged by the event itself" (15).

Four ideas are common to the viewpoints articulated by these representatives of the church. First, the most important fact in the life of the church is the gospel. The gospel is commonly understood as the life-transforming message of the grace of God. Secondly, the Bible has a special place m the life of the church as the primary witness to the gospel. Indeed, the Bible is essential to the life of the church. But, thirdly, some parts of the Bible make a witness to the gospel which (to use the categories of Tracy) is inappropriate to the content of the gospel or is unintelligible. Therefore, fourthly, it is the responsibility of the church to evaluate the claims of the Bible m the light of the gospel itself.

Ill The step is short from these observations to a statement of a method

to help the preacher determine whether to preach from a text (that is, to interpret the positive meaning of the text for the Congregation) or to preach against the text. In the paragraphs that follow, a simple step-by-step theological method is set forth.(16)

1. The preacher needs to come to clarity as to the content of the gospel. For the preacher's understanding of the gospel is the fundamental plumblme against which the text is measured. A good theological exercise is regularly (perhaps two or three times a year) to write a brief, indica-

110 Encounter

tive paragraph which summarizes the content of the gospel as the preacher

understands it.

While I speak here of "the preacher's understanding of the gospel," I

do not mean to imply that the preacher can privately and subjectively

formulate a normative statement of the gospel. Any serious articulation of

the gospel will be made in conversation with the Bible, with Christians of

other times and places, and in accord with the mcdern understanding of the

world. As a result of these conversations, the preacher will appropriate

the gospel in terms that are both universal and particular to the

experience of the preacher and the world in which the preacher lives.

2. The preacher needs to come to conviction as to the nature and

extent of the power of God and as to the way(s) in which the power is exer-

cised in the world. Such a determination is necessary at two points. For

one, it is necessary in order to iudge whether or not a text describes a

use of divine power which the preacher honestly believes to be consistent

with the nature of God. Secondly, it is necessary to judge what the

preacher can honestly offer to the congregation as a hope for ways in which

God is active in the world.

In connection with some texts, the preacher will conclude that while

God does not work in the world in the way assumed by the text, the text can

still be carefully interpreted in order to yield a positive gospel message

for the congregation. For example, although the preacher may no longer

assume that God heals blind people in the way that Jesus healed Bartimaeus

(Mark 10:46-52), the preacher may still be able to point to analogous

situations.

In connection with other texts, the preacher may need to say clearly

and plainly that God does not exercise power in the way depicted in the

text. Otherwise the congregation may be left with a false understanding of

God and with false hope.

3. The preacher needs a self-conscious, critical theological method

by which to relate the gospel (and correlate understanding of the power of

God) to the text and to the world. Such a method needs to account for the

Bible, the preacher's understanding of the gospel, the power of God and the

modern understanding of the world and of experience. An adapted version of

the so-called "Methodist quadrilateral" provides a systematic framework

which brings these entities together.(17) This method can be put into the

form of five questions which can be asked of any text in the Bible.

a. What is the theological claim of the Biblical text (or the

Preaching Against The Text 111

claim of some part of the text)?

b. How has this text and its claim(s) been understood in

Christian tradition?

c. Is there an analogue in our experience to the kind of

thing stated by the text?

d. What sense can we make of this text and its claim(s)

in the light of the modern understanding of the world

and of the exercise of divine power in the world?

e. Is the claim of the text appropriate to the content

of the gospel?

The answers to these questions, evaluated in accordance with the pastor's

understanding of God and the world, determine whether the preacher will

interpret the text for the congregation or will oppose the text (or some

aspect of it).

4. Through hard-nosed exegesis, the preacher needs to establish the

theological claim(s) of the text. What does this text present as news from

God? For whom?

This may become slightly complicated. For a text can make different

claims about different people. For example, in the gospels, a text will

sometimes make a very positive gospel statement for one character (or group

of characters) and make a very negative statement about another character

or group of characters. In the story of the healing of a person with a

withered hand on the Sabbath (Mark 3:1-6), the life-restoring grace of God

is given to the one with the withered hand. This is good news! But the

Pharisees are given a very negative evaluation: they are described as

afflicted with hardness of heart beyond the reach of any by-pass surgery

and then hold counsel with the Herodians to destroy Jesus. The reader is

left with the impression that they are outside the range of the gospel.

5. The preacher evaluates the text and its claim(s) using the method

set forth in step three (3). Is the text one to be preached or to be

preached against? Does the text contain elements that deserve to be given

a full and liberating exposition but others that need to be opposed?

6. The preacher needs to think carefully about how to say that which

needs to be said. If the text is one to be opposed, the preacher will want

to think very carefully about how to introduce and engage the subject.

Despite the theological tradition of evaluating the text against the norm

of the gospel, most grass-roots congregation have an exalted view of the

Bible (18) and are not accustomed to having the Bible opposed by the

112 Encounter

minister on Christian grounds. Therefore, the preacher will want to

construct the sermon in such a way as to receive the widest possible

hearing.(19)

7. In the sermon, the preacher will want to strike the note of the

Good News of the gospel. In Christian preaching, it is never enough to

deny the validity of a particular viewpoint or behavior. In order for

preaching to be Christian, the preacher will offer the good news of the

gospel to the congregation. Indeed, a good question to ask of every

sermon is this: what is the good news from God for the community in this

sermon?

This outline will not resolve all ambiguities of interpretation. But

it can serve to help focus the attention of the preacher on important

issues.

IV

Some types of texts, when examined in accordance with the preceding

model, consistently provide the occasion for preaching against the text.

Among the more obvious problematic cases are the following.

As is becoming more and more well known, the pictures of Judaism in

many parts of the canonical apostolic literature are not objective

historical reminiscences of first century Jews but are disparaging

caricatures which arose out of conflict between the church and the

synagogue. That is particularly true of the Jewish representatives who

appear in the gospels. The disparagement reaches its height in the fourth

gospel where "the Jews" become representatives of the very power of

darkness. These caricatures have contributed in a significant way to the

anti-semitism which led to the holocaust. The effective claim of such

texts is that Jewish people (at least in the first century) were enemies of

God and rejected by God. Such a claim is inappropriate to the gospel

itself.

Much of the Bible assumes a patriarchal structure of authority in

which power is vested in males. Women are portrayed as, by divine intent,

dependent upon men for economic security, social status, knowledge, ard

even identity. Yet, we do not experience women as "the weaker sex,"

carriers of the curse. Further, such a view has been used to justify

obvious and subtle abuse of women, and, in the end, denies the liberating

power of the gospel to women.

The dominant structure of authority represented by (and centered in)

patriarchy causes much of the Bible to assume the institution of slavery.

Preaching Against The Text 113

This point of view receives classic expression in the household codes of the epistles. In Colossians 3, for instance, wives are exhorted to be subject to their husbands; children and slaves are to obey their parents and masters m everything (3:18-4:1; cf. Eph. 5:22-6:9; I Pet. 2:13-3:7; Tit. 2:2-10, 3:1-7).

In several parts of the Bible natural disaster is interpreted as the direct and personal judgment of God. For instance, the first six trumpets in Revelation 8:6-9:21 describe natural catastrophe as the judgment of God upon the wicked. Yet our experience is that natural disaster falls indiscriminately upon the just and the unjust. Random natural phenomena, rather than observable divine will, bring about natural disaster.

Some texts describe the people of God as joyful at the prospect of retribution and tragedy befalling enemies and evildoers. Psalm 80:13 beseeches God to make the devastators of Israel "like whirling dust" to be pursued by the divine tempest. To pray thus is not only to deny the gospel to those for whom prayer is made, but is to wish them tragedy.

While the burden of this article is upon the evaluation of texts in the light of the gospel, it is appropriate to close with two comments. First, preaching against the text is a matter not to be undertaken casually but deserves the best of one's pastoral and critical attention. Secondly, the sensitive interpreter will be aware that the text can call into question the interpreter's own presuppositions. Indeed, to make any presupposition an unquestionable absolute is to create a text which may one day be preached against.

114 Encounter

NOTES

1. Leander E. Keck, The Bible in the Pulpit (Nashville: Abingdon, 1978), p. 106.

2. Among those who have traced this development in the formation of the Bible are James A. Sanders, Torah and Canon (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1972); idem., Canon and Community (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984); Brevard S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979); idem., The New Testament as Canon (Philadelphia: Fortress 1985).

3. The preacher has two other options. (1) The preacher could ignore such texts, yet in this case they would still be left unchallenged in the Bible. (2) The preacher can attempt a reinterpretation of the difficult texts. While acknowledging that some texts may contain substandard theology, Thomas G. Long argues that it is often possible to derive a positive emphasis from such texts by considering them on the basis of their function in the Bible rather than on the basis of their content. ("The Fall of the House of Uzzah . . . And Other Difficult Preaching Texts," Journal for Preachers, Vol. 7, No. 1 (1983), pp. 13-19. This model has great possibility. But when the preacher does not directly challenge the wrong-headedness of a text, the average listener may not become fully aware of the problem. For instance, one can claim that Psalm 137:9 is a statement of the trust of the Psalmist in the power of God to deliver the people of Israel from captivity. Yet, one is still left with a major image which depicts an act of savage barbarity.

4. J. Gerald Janzen, Job, Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching (Atlanta: John Knox, 1985), pp. 224-5.

5. Luther's Works, Vol. 35, p. 132.

6. Ibid., Vol. 26, p. 295.

7. Ibid., Vol. 35, p. 396ff.

8. Adolf Harnack, What is Christianity? tr. T. Bailey Saunders. Second Edition (New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1901), p. 298.

9. Adolf Harnack, Outlines of the History of Dogma, tr. E.K. Mitchell (Boston: Beacon Hill, 1957, o.p. 1893), p. 562.

10. Emil Brunner, The Christian Doctrine of God, tr. Olive Wyon (London: Lutterworth, 1949), p. 47. Cf. pp. 14ff., 107ff. cf. idem., Revelation and Reason, tr. Olive Wyon (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1956), pp. 20-32.

l ì . The Christian Poetine of God, p. 49. Cf. idem. , The Word and the World (New York: Scribner's Sons, 1931), pp. 94ff.

12. Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, tr. G.W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1956), 1/2, p. 509.

13. David Tracy in Robert M. Grant with David Tracy, A Short History of the Interpretation of the Bible, Second Edition (Philadelphia: For-tress, 1984), p. 176. These themes are given more expansive treatment in

Preaching Against The Text 115

his Blessed Rage for Order (New York: Seabury, 1975), esp. pp. 43-90.

14. On appropriateness, see A Short History, p. 176; on intelligibility, see p. 180. Cf., Blessed Rage for Order, pp. 70-72, 79-81.

15 A Short History, p. 183.

16. As outlined, this process may seem laboriously detailed. Yet, because the idea of preaching against the text is relatively unfamiliar and is little treated in the literature of homiletics, I have decided to take little for granted.

17. These categories are used in a way somewhat different from the way in which they are used by John Wesley. For a systematic presentation of Wesley's approach, see Colin Williams, John Wesley's Theology Today (Nashville: Abingdon, 1960), pp. 23-38. Cf. John Wesley's Theology: A Collection from His Works, ed. Robert W. Burtner and Robert E. Chiles (Nashville: Abingdon, 1982, o.p. 1954).

18. For an analysis of attitudes toward the Bible in the United States, see The Bible and Popular Culture, ed. Aliene S. Phy (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985).

19. For help in formulating communication strategies, see the standard homiletical works. Especially helpful are those by Fred Craddock, David Buttrick, and the team of Edmund Steimle, Morris Niedenthal and Charles Rice.