My homily from this past weekend on Luke's account of Jesus's visit to the home of Martha and Mary has elicited a good deal of discussion (at least by NewGathering standards), including some alternative "takes" on the meaning of the passage. It's interesting and stimulating (and, for me, instructive and rewarding) to hear others' points of view. That a passage may elicit a variety of interpretations shouldn't be surprising: theological reflection consists of interpreting a biblical passage in light of our faith and experiences, and both faith and experience vary from one person to another.
I don't know the total number of parishes in the US, but let us suppose there are 15,000 (I'm basing that guesstimate on some numbers I heard at last week's NPM convention, so it's not completely out of left field). If that number is close to accurate, then, considering that there are multiple weekend masses at most parishes and a good number of them have multiple preachers across any given weekend, there probably were something like 20,000 to 25,000 different homilies preached this past weekend, most of them presumably talking about this Gospel passage. It would be a fascinating exercise to somehow analyze and categorize those homilies (perhaps that could done with a representative sample), to get a feel for what actually is preached in the Catholic Church in the United States. My supposition is that that mountain of homilies would be categorized into only a handful of thematic "buckets".
Some of the comments in the homily thread have pointed to the reality that males are the ones who do all the preaching at mass. Preaching consists not only in speaking a message but also in composing it; and these commenters have suggested, credibly enough, that there is a certain incompleteness, even impoverishment, insofar as women's voices (and perhaps even more so, women's thinking) is not being heard from Catholic pulpits.
It occurs to me that anyone who preaches, if s/he is properly formed and prepared for that task, is influenced by what s/he has studied and read. The number of books and articles available on scriptural interpretation is immense; I would guess that even an academic specialist would be hard-pressed to read everything. Biblical interpretation commonly is categorized according to different forms of criticism, and I thought it might be of interest to NewGathering readers to see one such taxonomy.
What follows is cribbed from An Introduction to the New Testament by Raymond E. Brown, pp. 21-29. Brown provides brief descriptions of the following forms of biblical criticism:
- Textual Criticism: This involves the comparison of similarities and differences of readings across the manuscript sources of the bible.
- Historical Criticism: This involves applying our knowledge of history in order to understand what the author was trying to express. This method often is important to the preacher, as the literal meaning of a passage proclaimed at mass can be obscure to the listener, and it can be helpful if the preacher simply explains what the passage means in light of the historical circumstances, laws, customs and so on that prevailed.
- Source Criticism: This involves the study of the sources of the writings in the bible. The assumption is that, by and large, the authors of the various books and passages did not invent the texts out of whole cloth (some of the epistles attributed to Paul may be exceptions), but rather worked from sources (some oral, some written). Perhaps the most well-known example of a source is the near-consensus that both Matthew and Luke used Mark's Gospel as a source.
- Form Criticism: This involves studying the literary form of a work or a part of a work to determine its type, meaning and purpose. For example, in the Gospels, parables, miracle stories and passion accounts have characteristic forms. Some form critics believe that close reasoning about literary forms can help determine the historicity of different parts of the bible. To take a simple example, the genealogies of Jesus found in Matthew and Luke are widely agreed not to be historical, but rather are a particular literary form (a genealogy) meant to convey theological truth.
- Redaction Criticism: This involves studying the way that the final author of a work such as a Gospel selected and arranged the material. For example, Mary is a more important character in Luke than in the other two Synoptic Gospels. Why did Luke redact his material to highlight Mary's role in Jesus's life? Could she have been an important figure in the community for which Luke wrote?
- Canonical Criticism: This involves studying an individual work or passage in light of the other books or passages in the canon of the bible. For example, Paul's account of the Eucharistic celebration in 1st Corinthians supplements and enriches the accounts of the Last Supper contained in the Gospels.
- Structuralism (aka Semiotics): This involves studying the literary structure of each work. One simple such structure is a chiasm, a literary device which is utilized by all four Gospel writers. A chiasm has the structure A1 / B / A2. A section has a particular element or theme (A1); the next section has a seemingly different element or theme (B); the following section returns to the first element or theme, typically with some variation (A2). One famous example is in Mark 11. After Jesus' entry into Jerusalem, Jesus curses a fig tree (A1). After that, he cleanses the Temple (B). Then he and his disciples encounter the cursed fig tree again (A2), now withered to the roots, which inspires Jesus to urge his followers to keep their faith. The Gospel passage of Mary and Martha we've been discussing, Luke 10: 38-42, may be the "A2" section of a chiasm, with Luke 10:23-24 being the "A1" section, and the account of the Good Samaritan being the intervening "B" section. Brown points out that some of the structures proposed by Semiotics theorists nearly require advanced degrees in mathematics to understand.
- Narrative Criticism: This involves studying the narrative of the Gospels or other books to answer questions such as, "Who was the intended audience for this story? Who was the real audience for this story in the 1st century?" Narrative criticism may look at such problems as the seeming multiple endings of the Gospels of Mark and John.
- Rhetorical Criticism: This involves studying how such elements as word choice and rhetorical approach illustrate an author's intent and attempt to influence and persuade his readers.
- Social Criticism: this branch is related to Historical Criticism and looks at the political, social and cultural contexts of the biblical literature. What is the importance of Galilee and Jerusalem being ruled and occupied by Imperial Rome? What does the place of women in those cultures tell us about Jesus's ministry?
- Advocacy Criticism: Brown uses this as an umbrella term for Liberationionist, Feminist, African American and relates studies. Advocacy critics use the bible texts to advocate for change in today's world. Part of advocacy criticism is the view that those who wrote the bible had their own vested interests for which to advocate, such as patriarchy.
After this overview (which I've given in greater brevity than Brown does), he gives the principle, "Different approaches of the text must be combined so that no 'criticism' becomes the exclusive manner of interpretation" (p. 28).
This post is about preaching, so the questions arise:
1. Which critical methods do preachers use in the US?
2. Which critical methods should preachers use in the US?
I can't answer those questions. But I can make a couple of observations as they pertain to my own preaching:
1. Obviously, it would be optimal if all forms of criticism can be integrated into preaching. For me, that's not possible, because I'm not an expert in any of them, and I'm stronger in some areas than others
2. I have gaps in my formation. For example, I really haven't been exposed to much Advocacy Criticism. That is one practical reason why I don't generally give homilies along the lines of what Jean and Anne proposed in the comments section to the post that contains my homily text. Could I read up on feminist criticism and/or other forms of advocacy criticism? Yes! And perhaps this discussion will spur me to do so.
3. I'm a preacher who does some studying and reading (and attends occasional preaching seminars) post-ordination. I fear that a good many preachers, certainly including many deacons, don't pursue this continuing education. For them, whatever formation they received while in seminary or their formation programs is the sum total of their formal study. And my personal experience is that that formal training does not cover all of the types of criticism listed in this post. In my case, we had some formation in historical criticism, and also structuralism - the latter only because it happened to be the area of specialization for our New Testament instructor, a Carmelite priest and New Testament scholar. I think it's unlikely that Advocacy Criticism is taught in seminaries or programs of formation. (Of course, it is taught in Catholic university theology programs.) Perhaps the argument could be made that that gap is itself a form of patriarchy. At the least, I believe it points to the need for post-ordination continuing education and formation by those who are given the privilege of preaching to God's people.
Jim, thanks for that summary, and Raymond Brown's descriptions of the various forms of Biblical criticisms.
ReplyDeleteIf your house is like ours, your deacon library tends to fill up all the corners. The various biblical commentaries are a great help to homilists. The one most used in our formation classes was the Collegeville Commentary. We also have Raymond Brown's Jerome Commentary. I have mentioned before that my husband grew up in an Evangelical Protestant church. He occasionally likes to glean homily reference material from Scottish theologian William Barclay's commentary.
Katherine, yes. I buy books, and occasionally am given them (although personally, I don't think a book is a good gift idea - I used to tell people, "Give me a bottle of wine instead", but I only say that now to those whose taste in wine I trust :-)). The books do tend to overrun the place. I have two tall stacks on my nightstand now. I always have the best of intentions of working my way through them, but I always end up buying more books to replace the ones I finish or give up on.
DeleteCurrently, I'm reading a book called "The Business Francis Means: Understanding the Pope's Message On the Economy" by Martin Schlag. It's not a book on biblical interpretation per se, although the bible is a primary source for all the papal social encyclicals, including Francis's. I hope/expect it will somehow influence my thinking and preaching.
As I think I've mentioned before, I also read fiction. I hope that also influences my thinking and preaching somehow.
Some of our books are "inherited". The permanent diocanate has now been around long enough that the earlier deacons are passing away. Their families don't always want to keep all their books, so they offer them to other deacons. Getting some you don't want is the price of getting a few that you do.
DeleteAnother aspect of preaching to consider is: on what texts should the preacher's homily be based? The common and simple answer (although not the only possible answer) is, "The readings of the day".
ReplyDeleteThat in turn raises the questions, "Who selected the readings of the day, and by what criteria were they selected?" I don't know a lot about the history of the construction of the Lectionary, but inasmuch as it was done in the wake of the 2nd Vatican Council, most/all of the critical approaches bulleted in this post existed at that time, and presumably the specialists who drafted the reformed Lectionary were familiar with them. Did they select Old Testament readings and psalms in light of, say, historical criticism or canonical criticism? (I suggested, in our discussion of the Martha and Mary passage, that the Old Testament reading with which it's paired in the lectionary, the story of Abraham, Sarah and the three visitors, complicates a narrative that it was the woman's place to serve guests - a view I continue to hold in spite of good responses made by Jean and Anne :-). Was that desire to complicate a potential advocacy-criticism narrative a reason to pair up those two passages?).
Another consideration is that all of the critical methods that Brown describes are contemporary to our time. But those were not the methods that prevailed throughout most of Christian history. The Patristic and Medieval commentators were fonder of allegory and type - e.g. Jesus as the new Moses, or as Isaiah's Suffering Servant, or John the Baptist as the new Elijah. Those more traditional approaches to biblical interpretation surely continue to inform Lectionary selection decisions as well.
Brown could pull off a homily drawing on all of those kinds of criticism and make it look easy. Unfortunately, there is no Brown charism that comes with ordination, so we can't flay those who don't have it. Second best is to see a live human being contend with the reading, and I have to say you do that quite well, Jim. I know a lot about you from what you've told the folks at St. Edna, and us.
ReplyDeleteWorst is to see a human being trying to sound sincere while mouthing someone else's words. There is a parish -- which shall remain anonymous, but it isn't mine -- that posts its three priests' homilies on line. A gremlin has demonstrated to me that you can switch from one to another to another and get a continuous homily of the three different priests saying exactly the same thing in exactly the same order, with minor variations, such as: "When I was a boy in New Jersey/Fort Lauderdale/Haiti." In show biz they call that mailing in your performance.
One bit of advice to homilists that I recall Brown offering in something I read is: Don't overlook the second reading on Sunday. You might be exhausted by the Gospel again and suspect the congregation is as well. But with Paul there is always more, before and after the short reading on Sunday, to consider. Just a thought.
Not to mention the responsorial psalm can offer homily fodder.
DeleteAnd for all that Raymond Brown was an erudite and well respected scholar, spare me a homily using his takes on the infancy narratives. I actually don't think I've ever heard anybody do that. There's a reason for that. Way to buzzkill the Joyful Mysteries.
Well, there is a reason you don't preach Brown on the infancy narratives. And it's probably a better reason than the comment a priest I know got for his thesis on "Women in John's Gospel." The comment was: "A. First class scholarship. Do NOT preach this."
DeleteOur old priest believed basically had one mesaage: God loves you and wants to be your friend. All his homilies basically showed how the readings for the day illustrated that message, usually with Father's colorful and vernacular scene-setting.
ReplyDeleteI liked this approach--no jokes, no when-I-was-a-boy anecdotes, no football analogies--and it certainly appealed to children. The Boy paid close attention to homilies even as young as age 5. At First Communion, he got the idea that Confession was where you went to reaffirm that you loved God back and wanted to be God's friend.
I think homilists could do worse than to have this kind of consistent, thematic approach to Scripture. I know I miss, perhaps more deeply than I care to admit, being told every single week that God loves me and wants to be my friend.
Meantime, the mention of medieval sermons reminded me of a series of papers I wrote on Aelfric in grad school. That sent me off to Google, and I found this little treasure: https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Homilies_of_the_Anglo-Saxon_Church/Preface
Lotta stuff on my to-do list isn't going to get done now.
Give Us This Day used part of a 6th century sermon by St. Gregory the Great for the reflection Sunday on Martha and Mary. He contrasted the active life and the contemplative life, showing that the active life leads to contemplation, and the contemplative life leads to action. I thought it was a pretty nifty move by the ancient pope. It sure beat the sermons on the subject of my childhood in which we, the laity, were urged to be more like Mary and the monks because Jesus said it was the "better" choice -- especially when the sermon came from a pastor who was working 24/7 to keep the roof on the church, the Men's Club in sports films and the children from wandering off from school -- living the active life one (but not he) might say.
ReplyDeletewhen I was in "sister school" in SW Wisconsin lo those many decades ago, we were all trotted out for every funeral that happened. EVERY! The pastor at the time had a canned sermon (long before homilies) that always ended this way: "Watch and pray, for you know now the hour nor the day. For many are called but few are chosen." Once the nun explained what that was about, more that one of my contemporaries, yours truly included, had more than one nightmare the night after being force-fed that text once again.
ReplyDelete