This coming
Sunday I’m preaching The Lion King.
Although we’ll read scripture during the service, a single image from The Lion King will serve as the sermon
text. It’s the scene where Simba is lectured by his father, King Mufasa, for
putting himself and his friend Nala in danger by disobeying him and visiting
the Elephant Graveyard. While there, three hyenas almost manage to eat Simba
and Nala for lunch. King Mufasa saves them in the nick of time. But he is angry
that his son Simba has disobeyed him.
Now, as Simba walks
toward his father to receive his punishment, he puts his tiny paw into a huge footprint
made by his father’s much larger paw. And that image, the naughty child’s paw
in the magisterial father’s paw—that image is the sermon text.
Will Simba ever measure up? Will my preaching? |
This freedom is
new for me. In seminary, I was taught that all sermons had scriptural texts.
Not only that, it was the preacher’s unique job—something that he or she
trained many years for—to get the interpretation of that text exactly right. There
was a whole long process for doing so—I used to teach it, in seminary, the “hermeneutic
spiral.” You read the text in Hebrew or Greek to make sure you catch
interesting nuances not available in translation. Then you read the text in its
immediate context, trying to discern how it fit into the passage it was found
in. Then you compared it to similar texts in the Bible, in order to discern how
it fit into its larger message. Then you fit the text into the larger “redemptive-historical”
story of the Bible, the one where Jesus dies for everyone’s sins and is raised
on the third day. All along the way you pretend to be able to bracket your own
prejudices, hopes, dreams, and ignorance. And finally, you figure out how to
state your conclusions in a way that is relevant for people who live today.
All along the assumption
is that all of scripture is divinely inspired, that there are no mistakes in
it, that it all fits together like a puzzle (even if at first it didn’t seem
to), that every tense change and verbal mood fluctuation was intentional and
important, and that all of this is authoritative for all of life and so on.
You get the
picture.
But what
happens when you don’t buy these assumptions anymore? When you don’t think it
is all “God-breathed,” that it is all coherent? What happens when you recognize
that scripture is full of inconsistencies, that you often can’t get into the
mind of the original author, and that if you could you’d find that it was
probably just as confused, inconsistent, stubborn as you are? How do you preach
when you think that the Bible’s attitude towards gays is hateful, towards
adulterers is far too harsh, that its attitude to slavery has been too long
forgiven, its mythology of end times too fantastic and inconsistent, and overall
its message about God is more confused and various and anthropomorphic and
incredible than most conservative Christians are allowed to think?
And how do you
preach when in spite of all this, you still love scripture and are amazed by
what you find in it?
I’m feeling my
way here. When I joined the United Church of Canada, four years ago, it was as
if someone left the gate open. At first I galloped out of the coral and just
reveled in the feeling of not being tied up anymore, not being restrained.
But after
awhile, once you’re free, you have to ask yourself, “what next?” and “Where to?”
and “to what end?” That’s where I am now.
So I’ve put
together a couple of ideas that are (loosely) guiding me. They’re not a
systematic theology of preaching or anything like that. I’m guessing that some
will take strong issue with them, and others might be able to add helpful
comments. So here are ten thoughts on preaching the Lion King instead of scripture.
- I don’t believe that scripture has a divine authority that I carry with me into the pulpit. Such a belief is pure hubris. I’m too aware of my own prejudices and predispositions to believe in such authority. And given how many different versions of the truth are preached in many different pulpits each Sunday, the notion that there is some sort of divine authority that attends such confusion is just short of ridiculous.
- But I do believe there are big themes in scripture that are worth sharing from the pulpit: shalom, justice, love of neighbor, mercy, grace, hope, forgiveness. These tend to be the big moral (not historical or theological) themes that churches have always theoretically agreed on (but often failed to live up to).
- The problem with focusing on morality is that preaching can easily devolve into badgering. I try to remember that the big themes of scripture are not merely a list of “to-dos” but a panorama of insight, hope, mystery, longing, and inspirational history. Sill, I find “not badgering” is hard to do.
- Most of scripture’s big themes have corollaries in other religions and philosophies, as well as in literature and popular culture. These other sources often illuminate scripture, confirm its wisdom—but at other times, improve on scripture. These other sources are benchmarks that help preachers avoid going off into left field.
- But then, I don’t always need to go to scripture to find a great starting place for addressing these big themes. Sermons on musicals like Les Miz and cartoons like Lion King and books like Wizard of Oz or the epigraphs in Wade Davis’ marvelous The Wayfinders are fun, interesting, surprising, attention-grabbing places that I’ve started sermons lately.
- I no longer parse texts to within an inch of their life believing that by doing so I can somehow better understand what God really meant to say or what the intent of the original author was. When preachers do this they’re (usually inadvertently) making a show of their training to insist on some doctrine they’ve been taught or a prejudice they hold. Many of these doctrines are debatable, and few of these doctrines are agreed upon by multiple denominations. If some great truth depends on parsing a single text correctly, it probably isn’t a great truth. Or even a minor one.
- Which isn’t to say that preachers ought to ignore texts, or not love scripture. Scripture is the deep source of our tradition, our shared ancient memory, the galaxy in which we spin. But read it whole and don’t focus on its jots and tittles.
- Writing a sermon isn’t a science. It involves weighing and sorting many strands of evidence, many factors, many possibilities. I think of my sermons as “spiritual op-eds” relevant for living life today.
- Preaching is as much about the hopes and fears, the dreams and struggles that congregants face as it is about anything that might serve as a text for your sermon. In fact, these emotions and daily realities can be sermon texts.
- Preaching is more about finding our way today than recovering the ancient past.
Thanks very much for this John. I agree with almost all of this and find it useful. I may even weave it into a sermon this Sunday!
ReplyDeleteNice. If you do so, and if you like how it turned out, send me a copy!
DeleteYou might not still be looking over your right shoulder John but it sounds like you're still talking over it. :) Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I appreciate it.
ReplyDeleteI'm always looking over my shoulder. The past is so much me, today, that I can't shake it. I apologize to my past self, argue with it, get angry at it, miss it, and deeply grateful for it. I doubt I'll ever shake it. It's sort of a benchmark, for better or worse, by which I measure everything that goes on (not only in ministry). Most of us, whether we change course or not, have similar relationships with our past selves, if we would only stop to think about it. But it is, as I've said before, complicated.
Delete