{"id":32,"date":"2021-11-19T19:56:20","date_gmt":"2021-11-19T19:56:20","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/martenlecturesvol2\/?post_type=chapter&p=32"},"modified":"2021-11-24T14:24:01","modified_gmt":"2021-11-24T14:24:01","slug":"lectionary-preaching","status":"publish","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/martenlecturesvol2\/chapter\/lectionary-preaching\/","title":{"raw":"Lectionary Preaching","rendered":"Lectionary Preaching"},"content":{"raw":"Let me explain how I got into this [lectionary preaching]. Several years ago, I was approached by the Liturgical Press. They asked me if I would redo \u2013 I think they said update, I can\u2019t remember the exact verb \u2013 Reginald Fuller\u2019s Preaching the Lectionary<\/em>. So I said to them, \u201cNow, do you want me to update it or do you want me to start from scratch?\u201d And they said, \u201cStart from scratch.\u201d\r\n\r\nIt just so happened that the year before that, a colleague of mine, Richard Fragomeni, who is a priest of Albany, and I team taught a course, \u201cHermeneutics for Bible and Preaching.\u201d Richard introduced me to a method of analyzing the biblical material. You\u2019re not going to get any preaching method from me tonight, but I will talk about the content of the preaching.\r\n\r\nBut he introduced me to a method that he learned from his mentor, David Powers, OMI, from Catholic University, and another student at the time that Richard was going to school with. Leas was his first name, and he was, hopefully, going to be the one that was going to develop this and sort of promote it; but he became a bishop and didn\u2019t have any time to do those kinds of things.\r\n\r\nSo, Richard and I worked on this particular project, and it ended up being three volumes. I\u2019m not pushing you to buy it, but it\u2019s nice if you do. But if you take a look at the book, it\u2019s my name with Richard Fragomeni. And it\u2019s with Richard Fragomeni, not because he wrote it \u2013 every one of those words is mine. I wrote every word there, but he\u2019s the one who taught me the method, and he is the one with whom we discussed the theological themes.\r\n\r\nSo, what I\u2019m going to talk about is that particular method, but I want to talk about a couple of themes first. I\u2019m going to talk a little bit about liturgical preaching; and you must realize that I speak now, though I do preach, even though homiletics is not my area of expertise. So, what I have to say is by one who is very much committed to biblical ministry, not just biblical exegesis and biblical analysis, but biblical ministry; and preaching is biblical ministry.\r\n\r\nI want to talk briefly about how I understand liturgical preaching, and then also I want to speak briefly about the difference between biblical preaching and liturgical preaching, because I do not believe that they are exactly the same. There is an overlapping, of course, but there is a significant difference.\r\n\r\nFirst of all, liturgical preaching can be understood in various ways, I believe. Certainly, when we are in the specific liturgical seasons, preaching frequently flows out of development of systematic themes that are associated with that season. For example, Advent is the time for preparation for the coming of Christ; and Lent, of course, is the time of penance for sin. Those are systematic themes. I want to say they are not liturgical themes, not if you look at the readings of the liturgy.\r\n\r\nIf you look carefully at the readings, let\u2019s say for Advent, it is not until we get to the fourth Sunday of Advent that there is any mention of the coming of Christ. What the other readings have to say, or concentrate on, is the coming of salvation and restoration. They are restoration themes. Now, clearly, we understand within the season that the moment that initiated or inaugurated our restoration was the birth of Jesus, and then the life of Jesus, which then culminates in the death and resurrection.\r\n\r\nWhen we preach systematic theological themes, it\u2019s not the same as lectionary or biblical preaching; and I\u2019m not prepared to say it\u2019s not liturgical preaching, because we certainly are bringing in themes that are associated with that liturgy, but the association\u00a0comes from systematic theology. It does not come from the lectionary.\r\n\r\nThe same thing with Lent. If you look carefully at Lent, there are very, very few readings in Lent that really capitalize on our sinfulness and our need to do penance. The readings of Lent really look at the graciousness and mercy of God; it\u2019s an entirely different kind of a focus. Now, that does not deny, of course, that we are sinners, because you don\u2019t need the mercy of God if you\u2019re not a sinner.\r\n\r\nSo, it\u2019s not the denial of sin, but it\u2019s an entirely different focus. The focus is on the goodness and the graciousness of God and not on human frailty. So, if we\u2019re doing liturgical reading, liturgical preaching based on the lectionary readings, be very careful that you do not bring in another theological theme that may not be in the reading.\r\n\r\nNow, again, I want to say that I am not in any way saying that\u2019s not liturgical preaching, and I\u2019m not certainly saying that\u2019s not good preaching; but I want to concentrate on liturgical preaching that flows out of what the liturgy provides for us; and that includes \u2013 ideally includes \u2013 the lections, the prayers, the collects, the preface, all of that.\r\n\r\nNow, on one hand, and I do not say this with any kind of disrespect: it\u2019s kind of a liturgical smorgasbord. If you look at just one Sunday, if you look at the readings, you look at the collects, the prayers, you look at the preface; and if it is the major season, you may even have a sequence.\r\n\r\nThe themes do not all weave together neatly; and anyone who has tried to do that realizes you really stretch the readings, if not your own creativity, trying to weave together themes that have nothing to do with each other. And I use the word \u201csmorgasbord\u201d\u00a0because try to go to a smorgasbord and eat everything. That, sometimes, is what happens when we try to preach every single theme. You get the same kind of bloated feeling.\r\n\r\nBut I want to say smorgasbord in the best sense. Look at all the richness. But I can\u2019t eat it all, I can\u2019t even taste it all, and I don\u2019t have to, because it\u2019s not going to go away. I can concentrate on these themes or that theme this time, and those themes another time.\r\n\r\nWe are past the time when all we have to do is pull out the drawer, pick out the homily and read it, because I\u2019ve done that last year or I did it three years ago. The readings haven\u2019t changed, the people haven\u2019t been changed, I haven\u2019t changed. They\u2019ll forget about it, and I just read it. I think we\u2019re beyond that, though maybe once in a while, you wonder, don\u2019t you?\r\n\r\nWhen I talk about liturgical preaching, I am going to be talking not about the systematic themes, but, really, the lections. Again, I\u2019m not going to talk about the prayers or the sequence or the prefaces. I want to really talk about the lections, which brings\u00a0me then into making a distinction between biblical preaching and lectionary preaching.\r\n\r\nI\u2019m not going to quibble about the terms, but I want to make a distinction. And I make this distinction realizing that, frequently, liturgists and biblical theologians are not in agreement on this; and in this particular question, I lean toward the liturgists\u2019 position on just what it is we are reading and using in our preaching. Are we using biblical passages, even though they open up and say, \u201cThis is the Word of the Lord\u201d?\r\n\r\nI\u2019m sure you know this is not the Word of the Lord. This proclaiming is the Word of the Lord. And you can\u2019t get up at a podium, you can\u2019t get up in an ambo at the end of the liturgy and\u00a0say, \u201cThis is the Word of the Lord.\u201d I mean, what are people going to think? And yet, maybe, in fact, it\u2019s the proclamation! That\u2019s the Word of the Lord.\r\n\r\nI am reminded of something that we used to have at our retirement in my community. I\u2019m a Sister of St. Agnes from Wisconsin and, in our retirement home \u2013 they don\u2019t do it anymore \u2013 but the reader would get up and say, \u201cThe first reading is on page seven.\u201d And, of course, the presumption is they couldn\u2019t hear the proclamation; and so, they would follow, and it is understandable in a situation like that.\r\n\r\nBut it is not understandable when we have people who can hear. And part of the problem, of course, is we have people that can\u2019t proclaim, can\u2019t even read sometimes, much less proclaim. So, as wonderful as missalettes are, they also have limitations. They don\u2019t help us to realize this is a proclamation.\r\n\r\nAgain, a little aside. I once thought it would be wonderful to explain, to do a kind of exegesis of, not the readings, but of the congregation. Instead of reading the readings and then preach, do a kind of exegesis \u2013 out loud, of course \u2013 of the group; and talk about who we are and what we need, and what problems do we face today, you and I, in the world in which we live, in the church in which we are. And after however period of time is acceptable for a homily, after we do that, then you do the readings.\r\n\r\nAnd if you\u2019ve done it well, you don\u2019t have to explain the readings, because they open up within the context. Now, of course, you have to know what the readings are, so you know, in your mind, at least, to make the connections. But then, the readings are proclaimed, and people\u2019s interior has been opened up to hear the Word of the Lord in the context in which they find themselves.\u00a0But, what\u2019s the difference between a lection and a biblical reading? The difference is re-contextualization.\r\n\r\nI\u2019m sure that you have heard many people say, and maybe you have said it yourself, that it\u2019s unfortunate that some lectionary readings cut out certain verses; and I want to go back to the Bible and find those verses, so I can complete the reading. Well, there\u2019s a reason why these verses have been cut out.\r\n\r\nNow, you and I may not know the reason, but those who make the selections know the reason. And I want to say, the reason that certain verses in some readings have been eliminated is because the liturgists did not want us to concentrate on the themes that are in those verses; they want us to concentrate on the themes that are in the verses that have remained. Now that, in itself, changes a reading.\r\n\r\nSo, biblical readings have various contexts. I\u2019m sure we\u2019re all aware of the fact that the Bible is, first of all, literature; and, therefore, a reading has its own literary context. And the literary context of Mark 13 is Mark 12 and Mark 14. And, clearly, within that literary context, the meaning of 13 unfolds. Ideally, we can discover the meaning of Mark 13 by itself, okay? But, then, we put it in its context, or we see it in its context, and both what precedes and what follows throws more light on the meaning that we have discovered. So, it has the literary context.\r\n\r\nBut, in the lectionary, we are taking it out of its literary context, its original context, and we are putting it in a new context. And the new context \u2013 if it\u2019s Mark 13 \u2013 the new context, then, is the first reading, the psalm response and the second reading. That\u2019s the new context. And from a liturgical point of view, the meaning found in the first reading, the psalm response and the second reading throws light on the meaning of Mark 13.\r\n\r\nThat is not to say that the readings interpret each other. It is, rather, that the theology that we glean after we examine each one of the readings separately \u2013 the light and the knowledge that we glean from each reading \u2013 in a certain sense, as Richard Fragomeni always says, they play with each other. The meanings<\/em> play with each other, not the readings. The meanings play with each other. So you have to do an excavation. You have to do an exegesis of the readings, and then you discover, as with the smorgasbord, what do we have here?\r\n\r\nAnd then, also, as a smorgasbord, what will look good on the plate? If I only have three kinds of meat, that\u2019s not going to be the best kind of a diet. So, you have a little bit of this theme, and a little bit of that theme, and a little bit of that theme, because it fits together. Now, that\u2019s the difference. A biblical passage, strictly speaking, is the passage within its biblical context; but when you take it out of its context and you put it in another context, then it\u2019s a liturgical passage, and that\u2019s why we call them lections.\r\n\r\nNow, again, we use the terms interchangeably. And I certainly wouldn\u2019t put any money down on one way or another how to use the language, so long as we understand what we\u2019re doing. As I said, not all the biblical people agree with that. I know excellent exegetes who believe that the only way you can really understand Mark 13 is within its biblical context, and I don\u2019t happen to agree with that. And, again, you don\u2019t have to take sides on that, but I think it\u2019s important to understand that there are different ways of understanding and it\u2019s not so much a question of what is right or wrong. It\u2019s a question of different ways of understanding. That\u2019s all.\r\n\r\nSo then, when I talk about liturgical preaching, I am talking about looking at the lections and allowing the theology of the lections to, first of all, come out and then see: what do we have in\u00a0this theology? And, once again, there\u2019s so much theology. There are so many themes. Sometimes, a theme will become very prominent. And the reason it will become prominent is because of another context; and that is the historical context within which we are preaching.\r\n\r\nNow, we could take the same readings \u2013 let\u2019s say, the readings for Sunday \u2013 and we could all discover what the readings for Sunday are. We could agree upon the theology and, then, we could talk about it among ourselves; and our context in this room is a very, very sophisticated context. It is a highly, theologically sophisticated context that you will not find in your average parish. I\u2019m telling you nothing that you don\u2019t know.\r\n\r\nSo, that context changes. What you would say to theologians \u2013 whether they are learning theologians or professional theologians \u2013 you will not say in a parish. What you will say to children, you will not say to adolescents. You will have the same theology but, somehow or other, you will have to do the hermeneutical move and bring that theology alive to a new context.\r\n\r\nSo, in preaching, there are so many contexts that we must be aware of. I want to say, first of all, it is the context of the season. Not the context of the day, but the context of the season. Now, I want to limit what I\u2019m saying to Sunday preaching: the context of the season.\r\n\r\nHow do you discover the theology of the season? I believe that one way of discovering the theology of the season is to look at all of the readings of the season and try to see: is there any kind of commonality? Now, that\u2019s not terribly hard to do with Advent. You only have four Sundays. And it\u2019s not hard to do for Lent, and it\u2019s not hard to do for Easter.\r\n\r\nIt\u2019s a killer for Ordinary Time. Except, in a certain sense, Ordinary Time gets short shrift, because it\u2019s just Ordinary Time. And I want to say, as I have said so often in much of my writing, that\u2019s where we live. We live in Ordinary Time. Once in a while, we have a peak. We have a Christmas or a major feast. Or in our own lives, something happens to us: final vows or ordination or whatever, or marriage. So we have a peak moment, and maybe where there\u2019s great preparation for that moment; and then, afterwards, we revel in the glory of that moment. And then we\u2019re back to Ordinary Time.\r\n\r\nAnd Ordinary Time is where we really live. Now, this may be very superficial, but in the work that I\u2019ve done, I have come to the conclusion that the primary theme of the Sundays of Ordinary Time, in every one of the three years, is discipleship. And that makes sense. I mean, how didn\u2019t I know that before I had to go through all those readings to discover it?\r\n\r\nBut it is discipleship: the call to discipleship, what it means to be a disciple, the cost of discipleship, the parables of the Kingdom, which all have to do with discipleship, whether we are in Matthew here or Mark or Luke. So, in a very real sense, then, when I said, \u201cWell, we do liturgical preaching,\u201d we discover: what\u2019s the major context? What\u2019s the broad context?\r\n\r\nAnd, let\u2019s say, for Ordinary Time \u2013 because that\u2019s where we are now \u2013 it is a discipleship. Then, if I have some sense of discipleship toward the last Sundays, where we are now, we\u2019re moving toward a more somber understanding of discipleship. So, we\u2019ll come across\r\n\r\nin Matthew\u2019s Gospel the parables about how to be a disciple when the end is coming. And so you will see eschatological parables in these last Sundays before the end of the liturgical year. But it\u2019s still all discipleship. But let\u2019s say that that\u2019s it.\r\n\r\nSo, that\u2019s my thinking; that\u2019s the broad context within which I\u2019m thinking. It is discipleship, and it\u2019s discipleship that\u2019s not summertime discipleship. It\u2019s autumn discipleship: northern hemisphere, autumn discipleship. The harvest is over, all right? Or, at least, we\u2019re in the time of harvest. That\u2019s the mentality.\r\n\r\nThen, with that kind of mentality, I would look at the readings for a particular Sunday and discover \u2013 looking at each one of the readings \u2013 what\u2019s the theology in these readings? Or, to put it another way, what\u2019s the theology for this particular Sunday? Realizing that that theology, understood within the context, is a very serious, sometimes sobering discipleship. Not that any kind of sobering puts a mantle of somberness on, but you realize we\u2019re beyond lightheartedness.\r\n\r\nIt\u2019s not just the thrill of being called a disciple. It\u2019s the realization: scrutiny is coming. We\u2019re going to have to give an account of our stewardship, to use that expression. And that\u2019s the thinking; therefore, we look to see it within these readings.\r\n\r\nAgain, a little aside. We really have done almost nothing with the psalm response; and sometimes we change it because we like the music that we\u2019re going to use instead. And the psalm response ideally, of course, is to be a response to the first reading. I mean, that\u2019s what the liturgists have arranged. It is a response to the first reading; and if you look carefully, the psalms are sometimes psalms of praise.\r\n\r\nToward the end, now, we\u2019ve got some laments. Very little of our psalms praise toward the end of the liturgical year, because the readings don\u2019t lend themselves to praise. But it\u2019s some kind of serious accountability. So we have laments, and we have psalms of hope and trust. And, again, it\u2019s ideally to be a response to the first reading.\r\n\r\nHowever, there are also, I think, some often very appropriate prayers simply to be prayers for that day, because, in a very real sense, they capture some of the major theology that we find, not only in the first reading, but in other readings as well. So we look, then, at the theology of these readings.\r\n\r\nAs an Old Testament biblical theologian, I am not at all happy with a very strong, traditional way of understanding the relationship between the two testaments. It\u2019s not just because I\u2019m an Old Testament scholar. I\u2019ve been in the Catholic-Jewish Scholars\u2019 Dialogue in Chicago for the last 18 years. One becomes very, very sensitive to any suggestion of Supersessionism when you are dealing with Jewish scholars.\r\n\r\nSupersessionism, of course, meaning that, now that we\u2019ve got Jesus, we don\u2019t need the Old Testament. Or now that we\u2019ve got the New Testament, we don\u2019t need the Old Testament. Or Christianity now has displaced Judaism. I do not deny that there is \u2013 I won\u2019t call it Supersessionism \u2013 but there certainly is in Paul\u2019s teaching a notion we are the new Israel.\r\n\r\nI want to say, however, in the world in which we live today \u2013 a world in which, by the way, we are now commemorating the 40th anniversary of Nostra Aetate<\/em>, which is the Vatican document that would talk about a sea change that really shifted Christianity\u2019s understanding of its relationship with other world religions \u2013 one can only say that some traditional teaching about the superiority of Christianity is very troublesome, and I say that as a loyal Catholic.\r\n\r\nI am not prepared to say that it doesn\u2019t make any difference what religion you believe in or you practice. I\u2019m not saying that, but I\u2019m saying that some of the very, very strong promise fulfillment ideology is very troublesome. And it\u2019s troublesome, not so much because of the theology \u2013 though that\u2019s bad enough \u2013 but\u00a0the consequences of living out that theology, and the notion that \u201cnow that we have New Testament, we don\u2019t need Old Testament\u201d was condemned as a heresy in the Early Church. And yet, we still have people who feel that way, without realizing that they think they are so faithful; they don\u2019t even know they\u2019re heretics. But most of us don\u2019t when we are, right?\r\n\r\nI want to say that it\u2019s rather troublesome. I say that because I am well aware that one of the principles of arranging the readings \u2013 we find this in the preface, I believe, of the Roman Missal \u2013 one of the principles was the principle of promise and fulfillment. In a certain sense, the first reading presents the promise, and the Gospel presents the fulfillment. That\u2019s very troublesome theology in the world in which we live today.\r\n\r\nMore than that, for a woman Catholic, it is troublesome from a theological point of view, because the first Testament is our Bible. It\u2019s a Christian Bible. I think it is incorrect to talk about the Jewish Scriptures and the Christian Scriptures, as if the Old Testament is not Christian Scriptures. It doesn\u2019t just belong to the Jewish people.\r\n\r\nIn fact, they have a different Bible than we do. They have a different Tanakh. They have a different Old Testament. It\u2019s not arranged the same way. I\u2019m not just talking about the fact that we have some books and some passages in certain books that they don\u2019t have. It\u2019s not even arranged the same way. Our first Testament ends with Malachi. Their Tanakh, their Bible \u2013 that\u2019s not even the word they use \u2013 but their Scriptures, their Tanakh, ends with II Chronicles.\r\n\r\nAnd the arrangement is theological in design. So if you look very carefully, their Tanakh \u2013 and that\u2019s Torah, Nevi\u2019im, Ketuvim: the Law, the Prophets and the Writings \u2013 their Tanakh ends with\u00a0the last part of II Chronicles. We have the story of Cyrus commissioning the Jews to go back home and rebuild the Temple. That\u2019s how their Bible ends, and that has inspired them to this day to go back and rebuild the Temple.\r\n\r\nNow many of them were satisfied when they went back in \u201948; but for many very, very religious Jews, that biblical passage commissions them to ultimately rebuild the Temple. It ends theologically with an exhortation that has motivated them for thousands of years. The Christian Old Testament ends with Malachi, \u201cI will send my messenger ahead.\u201d And it begins with Mark, with the messenger coming. It\u2019s arranged so that we can see the connection.\r\n\r\nAgain, we have to remember that promise-fulfillment, which we find in the Scriptures. We find that in the Old Testament: the promise-fulfillment. It\u2019s always retro, a reading back into; but we find that in the exilic prophets. The prophets are not looking to the future. Their prophetic work basically looks to the past and is reinterpreting. That\u2019s particularly in the Deuteronomistic, in the historical writings.\r\n\r\nYou do find that sense that God made promises, and the promises will be fulfilled, so the Christian community simply appropriated that notion and saw themselves and their writings \u2013 because of Jesus and His claims, which we believe are true claims, but not everybody does \u2013 that He is the fulfillment of the ancient promises.\r\n\r\nThat notion of promise-fulfillment is well grounded in our tradition. But over the centuries, we have used that in despicable ways to marginalize people, to persecute people, and to put them to death, to dismiss their religious claims. It\u2019s only recently that some \u2013 not only theologians but the teaching magisterium of the Church\u00a0as well \u2013 that the official magisterium of the Church acknowledges something that Paul says: that the promises made to the people of Israel have not been abrogated.\r\n\r\nBut we still have that in our lectionary. And if we have that in our lectionary, I think sometimes we have that in our preaching. And that is not helpful, because while it may not suggest anti Semitism, it certainly does sometimes suggest anti-Judaism. And anti-Judaism is not too far from anti-Semitism.\r\n\r\nThat kind of understanding of the relationship between the First Reading and the Gospel reading is not helpful at all. In fact, at times, it could be very dangerous. So I want to acknowledge that that theme is very much a part of our religious tradition. But there are other things that are part of our religious tradition. Over the centuries, we have learned at least to soften and interpret them in ways that are not harmful to other people.\r\n\r\nSome of these themes developed in a kind of survivalist mentality. Well, we\u2019re not in a survivalist mentality anymore, and sometimes it reverts. What do we do with that, then? My suggestion is don\u2019t make it promise and fulfillment. Don\u2019t preach that using the two readings, for the reasons that I\u2019ve given.\r\n\r\nSo we\u2019re still talking about contexts. First, you have the general context of the season. Then, you have the context of the Sunday. The Sunday, as I said, has the three readings and psalm response. Very often, the themes of the psalm response appear in\u00a0the First Reading and sometimes in the other readings as well. So, when dealing with the theological themes, it really comes to life in the context of the people before us, in the context of the living community now.\r\n\r\nI always tell my students that finding out what the passages mean is not hard. You can learn how to do exegesis. And if you\u00a0don\u2019t do exegesis, you can get commentaries that do exegesis. That\u2019s not the hard part. The hard part is the hermeneutics. The hard part, once you discover what the texts say, is what are you going to do with it? How do you take that theology and bring it to life or allow that theology to come alive in the minds and hearts of the people to whom you\u2019re speaking? That\u2019s the challenge.\r\n\r\nSomething that is very, very prominent in theology today, which was not in the past, is a kind of exegesis or an analysis of the community. I\u2019m not sure if you are acquainted with the theorist Gadamer, where Gadamer talks about three worlds. You\u2019ve got the fictive world within the text, you\u2019ve got the world behind the text and you have the world in front of the text.\r\n\r\nLet me just briefly summarize this. When you think about a story, a story creates a world. Otherwise, why do people cry at movies? It\u2019s because you\u2019re drawn into the world. Or why do you laugh? Or why do you cheer when you\u2019re a spectator? But you\u2019re not. A good story pulls you in, into that world.\r\n\r\nNow, it\u2019s called fictive world, and fictive not meaning fiction in the bad sense, but it comes from fiction in the best sense. Fiction, meaning it may not be historically accurate. Narrative exegesis reminds us of this. So, you\u2019ve got the world within the text, and that\u2019s the world \u2013 let\u2019s say it\u2019s a Gospel story of Jesus \u2013 it\u2019s the world of Jesus preaching or Jesus healing. That\u2019s the world within the text. And somehow or other, it is within that world that we have a message for us.\r\n\r\nYou and I are the heirs of historical-critical method; and within the Roman Catholic Church, that\u2019s a new venture. For many of you, it\u2019s always been that way, because of your age; but in the history of the Church, we only were using historical-critical method from about \u201942 or \u201943, legally. There were exegetes who did\u00a0it before, but it was frowned upon until Pius XII, in Divino Afflante Spiritu<\/em>, said that we should investigate using historical-critical methods. That\u2019s only over 60 years, which is nothing in the history of the Church.\r\n\r\nHistorical-critical began with Protestants at the time of the Reformation. They accused the Church, rightly, that they were making the texts say anything they wanted it to say. That\u2019s not what the original authors intended. And so they wanted to find out what the original authors intended. That\u2019s the beginning of the historical-critical method. It is so much a part of the Catholic Church\u2019s investigation of the Scriptures today that we may not always appreciate the fact that it\u2019s relatively new.\r\n\r\nWell, we\u2019re not behind. We caught up with it real fast. So, we\u2019ve got the historical-critical, which means that we\u2019re looking at another world, not the world within the text but the world behind the text, the world of the author. They\u2019re not necessarily the same\u00a0world, any more than Rowling lives in the world of Harry Potter. She\u2019s created a wonderful world, but the world of Harry Potter is a fictive world. Now, from her world \u2013 the world behind the text, the world of the author \u2013 she picked certain details and put them together in a very, very engaging way. But if her world is the world of Harry Potter, she\u2019s got problems. So, you can see that.\r\n\r\nIt\u2019s like that with the Gospels. Unfortunately, people ask historical questions about the fictive world, historical questions about Harry Potter. In no way am I suggesting that the Gospel is like Harry Potter, all right? I\u2019m just using that as an example. So they ask historical questions about Harry Potter. It\u2019s about the author<\/em> of Harry Potter. Historical questions belong to the author. Literary questions belong to the story.\r\n\r\nSo, you\u2019ve got the world within the text, which is where the message is, and you\u2019ve got the world behind the text. And, frequently, what happens in our proficiency with historical-critical work, we can reconstruct basically the world behind the text; and that\u2019s what you get in a homily.\r\n\r\nYou get all the historical details about Matthew\u2019s community and what they were going through, all of which is very interesting; but it\u2019s the world behind the text. And the message is not there, and revelation is not there. Somehow or other, revelation takes place with the message of the world within the text. Then it\u2019s the world in front of the text, which is us.\r\n\r\nSo, we do a great exegesis of the world behind the text. I\u2019m saying that what we\u2019ve got to do is learn to do an exegesis of the world in front of the text, the social world in front of the text, not just the social world behind the text, not just the literary forms behind the text \u2013 all of which is important.\r\n\r\nAll of that is important. And I say that as a trained historical critic. But if that\u2019s all we do, we are in history. Interestingly, many of the new insights that we learn from historical criticism we must also apply to the world out in front of the text, which means our world. In other words, what literary forms do we use when we communicate with each other?\r\n\r\nI\u2019m smart enough to know I should never stand in front of the students. I don\u2019t know what literary forms they use. I absolutely have no idea how they\u2019re going to hear what I\u2019m saying. I mean, I could be obscene. I have no idea because I don\u2019t know how they would hear what I\u2019m saying. I know my literary forms, all right. I know the kinds of literary forms within certain circles, but I would be very, very loathe, very, very slow to preach or to teach to people\u00a0of another culture in their culture, without knowing what some of their literary forms are.\r\n\r\nI\u2019m teaching a course, \u201cContemporary Issues of Biblical Theology.\u201d One of my students is Indonesian. The primary issue that we started with just yesterday is \u201cthe integrity of creation,\u201d so it\u2019s eco-theology we started out with. I was asking, \u201cWhat did you find interesting or challenging about the book that you were supposed to read?\u201d\r\n\r\nIt was a collection of essays on eco-theology done by some women, Roman Catholic women from a committee, a continuing seminar of the Catholic Biblical Association. They had collected these essays. They\u2019ve got in those essays not only eco-theology, but they\u2019ve also got a feminist approach to it.\r\n\r\nAnd he was saying that, \u201cYou know, in my culture, we like things to be in balance.\u201d And he said, \u201cYou know, sometimes, I read some of these women, and they throw things off balance.\u201d I think there was one other Anglo woman in the class besides myself, and he said they throw things off balance. And my response to him was, \u201cYou realize, of course, that they will say that what you consider balance is off-balance; and that what they\u2019re trying to do is re-create the balance.\u201d And he was going on about this and not accepting what I was saying.\r\n\r\nThen, it dawned on me that I wasn\u2019t understanding what he was saying. He was talking. For an Anglo to be saying that was one thing; but the way he was trying to describe that balance, it\u2019s not just a question of having everything neat. It\u2019s having everything balanced that was so very much a part of his mindset. And I was correcting him from an Anglo, a linear point of view.\r\n\r\nSo, when we talk about the literary forms of the ancient world, we should know more than the literary forms, in other words, the ways of thinking, the ways of perception of the people that we are preaching to. That is so difficult, because where do you find a mono-cultural community? But we have to at least realize that they may be different than ours.\r\n\r\nSo you\u2019ve got different literary forms, you\u2019ve got different language, you have different social realities. You don\u2019t talk to people of Asian background in the same way that you talk to people of African background. And I\u2019m not talking about Asian American and African-American. You don\u2019t talk to people of one age, generational age, in the same way you talk to people of another age.\r\n\r\nThat\u2019s the challenge of hermeneutics. That\u2019s the other context. And that is the context for preaching and teaching. But I want to say for preaching, because this is what this talk is about, it is imperative that we be extremely sensitive to those.\r\n\r\nThose of us who are part of the dominant culture \u2013 and I put myself there, because, of course, I am, despite the fact that I am a woman in what is relatively a man\u2019s world in Church. But I am still part of the dominant culture. We presume, \u201cThey\u2019re here. By God, they better learn. You\u2019re in America; be an American.\u201d You know, when in Rome, do as the Romans. Well, when in America, do as the Americans.\r\n\r\nBut we can\u2019t have that kind of mentality. The reason is not simply because we are open and generous; but the reason is because we have the privilege of bringing the Word of God to the people of God, so they can hear it. Not so that they hear it my way, but so they can hear it their way. And, therefore, it\u2019s imperative that we have some sense of what that context is. That also demands that\u00a0we have an understanding of our own social location. I am convinced that most of us don\u2019t. Now that may sound strange, but I think we take our social location for granted.\r\n\r\nAnthropologists tell us that there are basically four cultural or ethnological institutions: gender, economic, political and then religious. Now, we all know what gender we belong to. That\u2019s not too hard at this point; we all know what we are. But are we really conscious of how we perceive that in society?\r\n\r\nI speak up for myself. Obviously, I\u2019m a woman, and I\u2019m an articulate woman, and that\u2019s not always very popular in certain circles. I have one sibling. I have a sister who is two-and-a-half years my senior, so I never grew up in a house where a boy was. And it\u2019s not uncommon in my generation that the boys in a family were favorites, because the girls are going to get married, anyway. And so, the boys were favorites.\r\n\r\nI never had that experience. I came from a family where my father made sure that we spoke our mind at the table, the supper table. And then, I went to the community, and I didn\u2019t realize until I got in the community: that\u2019s not a very popular mentality. [Audience laughs.<\/em>] You can laugh about the community; but then I go into a man\u2019s world. Theology was a man\u2019s world.\r\n\r\nSo, I\u2019m articulate, and I don\u2019t realize that I\u2019m offensive. I don\u2019t think I\u2019m offensive. I don\u2019t realize I\u2019m offensive. Now, I say that about myself, and that\u2019s just gender. And I think every one of us has got to understand: what are the implications of the way we perceive our gender in a bi-gender church?\r\n\r\nYou\u2019ve got gender, you\u2019ve got age, you have class. I can remember a colleague of mine came from upper class. I come from working class. My father was a truck mechanic. We never wanted anything, but I come from working class. And she came from upper\u00a0class, I mean upper class. Her mother \u2013 her father died when she was very young \u2013 her mother had one of those buttons underneath the table. When she pushed the button, the servant came in. That\u2019s upper class.\r\n\r\nShe once said, \u201cYou know, we always dressed for dinner.\u201d And I thought to myself, \u201cSo did we.\u201d But I knew she meant something different. We can laugh at that, but when I talk about poverty, I didn\u2019t lose anything. When she took the vow of poverty, she lost a lot. So, I think when we talk about our relation \u2013 we know who we are.\r\n\r\nWe know what our economic standing is. We know what our politics are. But we may never really be reflective about how that functions as a minister. And that\u2019s very important, because if we don\u2019t know our social location, we will not be sensitive to the social location of others. And all of that is very much a part of this magnificent venture that we call preaching.\r\n\r\nSo, to pull it all together: we talk about liturgical preaching, then, it is really taking the riches of the lections and analyzing them using whatever critical methods we can. By that, I mean literary methods. What\u2019s really going on in that story? And from an historical point of view, can history throw more light on what is going on in that story, in that parable, in that oracle, or in that psalm? That\u2019s the first step: understanding that, and understanding that within the context of the season.\r\n\r\nI\u2019m sure you know that there are a few readings that are found both in Advent and Lent. They function differently in these two seasons. They better function differently, but it\u2019s the same reading with the same theology. Something opens up in one season, and something else opens up in another. And, of course, then they\u00a0open up with different adjoining texts, or related texts, because of the Sunday in which we find them.\r\n\r\nThen we take all of that, and with skill and imagination, we open it up in such a way that it hits them in the mind and the heart.\r\n\r\nAnd that\u2019s the Word of the Lord.","rendered":"

Let me explain how I got into this [lectionary preaching]. Several years ago, I was approached by the Liturgical Press. They asked me if I would redo \u2013 I think they said update, I can\u2019t remember the exact verb \u2013 Reginald Fuller\u2019s Preaching the Lectionary<\/em>. So I said to them, \u201cNow, do you want me to update it or do you want me to start from scratch?\u201d And they said, \u201cStart from scratch.\u201d<\/p>\n

It just so happened that the year before that, a colleague of mine, Richard Fragomeni, who is a priest of Albany, and I team taught a course, \u201cHermeneutics for Bible and Preaching.\u201d Richard introduced me to a method of analyzing the biblical material. You\u2019re not going to get any preaching method from me tonight, but I will talk about the content of the preaching.<\/p>\n

But he introduced me to a method that he learned from his mentor, David Powers, OMI, from Catholic University, and another student at the time that Richard was going to school with. Leas was his first name, and he was, hopefully, going to be the one that was going to develop this and sort of promote it; but he became a bishop and didn\u2019t have any time to do those kinds of things.<\/p>\n

So, Richard and I worked on this particular project, and it ended up being three volumes. I\u2019m not pushing you to buy it, but it\u2019s nice if you do. But if you take a look at the book, it\u2019s my name with Richard Fragomeni. And it\u2019s with Richard Fragomeni, not because he wrote it \u2013 every one of those words is mine. I wrote every word there, but he\u2019s the one who taught me the method, and he is the one with whom we discussed the theological themes.<\/p>\n

So, what I\u2019m going to talk about is that particular method, but I want to talk about a couple of themes first. I\u2019m going to talk a little bit about liturgical preaching; and you must realize that I speak now, though I do preach, even though homiletics is not my area of expertise. So, what I have to say is by one who is very much committed to biblical ministry, not just biblical exegesis and biblical analysis, but biblical ministry; and preaching is biblical ministry.<\/p>\n

I want to talk briefly about how I understand liturgical preaching, and then also I want to speak briefly about the difference between biblical preaching and liturgical preaching, because I do not believe that they are exactly the same. There is an overlapping, of course, but there is a significant difference.<\/p>\n

First of all, liturgical preaching can be understood in various ways, I believe. Certainly, when we are in the specific liturgical seasons, preaching frequently flows out of development of systematic themes that are associated with that season. For example, Advent is the time for preparation for the coming of Christ; and Lent, of course, is the time of penance for sin. Those are systematic themes. I want to say they are not liturgical themes, not if you look at the readings of the liturgy.<\/p>\n

If you look carefully at the readings, let\u2019s say for Advent, it is not until we get to the fourth Sunday of Advent that there is any mention of the coming of Christ. What the other readings have to say, or concentrate on, is the coming of salvation and restoration. They are restoration themes. Now, clearly, we understand within the season that the moment that initiated or inaugurated our restoration was the birth of Jesus, and then the life of Jesus, which then culminates in the death and resurrection.<\/p>\n

When we preach systematic theological themes, it\u2019s not the same as lectionary or biblical preaching; and I\u2019m not prepared to say it\u2019s not liturgical preaching, because we certainly are bringing in themes that are associated with that liturgy, but the association\u00a0comes from systematic theology. It does not come from the lectionary.<\/p>\n

The same thing with Lent. If you look carefully at Lent, there are very, very few readings in Lent that really capitalize on our sinfulness and our need to do penance. The readings of Lent really look at the graciousness and mercy of God; it\u2019s an entirely different kind of a focus. Now, that does not deny, of course, that we are sinners, because you don\u2019t need the mercy of God if you\u2019re not a sinner.<\/p>\n

So, it\u2019s not the denial of sin, but it\u2019s an entirely different focus. The focus is on the goodness and the graciousness of God and not on human frailty. So, if we\u2019re doing liturgical reading, liturgical preaching based on the lectionary readings, be very careful that you do not bring in another theological theme that may not be in the reading.<\/p>\n

Now, again, I want to say that I am not in any way saying that\u2019s not liturgical preaching, and I\u2019m not certainly saying that\u2019s not good preaching; but I want to concentrate on liturgical preaching that flows out of what the liturgy provides for us; and that includes \u2013 ideally includes \u2013 the lections, the prayers, the collects, the preface, all of that.<\/p>\n

Now, on one hand, and I do not say this with any kind of disrespect: it\u2019s kind of a liturgical smorgasbord. If you look at just one Sunday, if you look at the readings, you look at the collects, the prayers, you look at the preface; and if it is the major season, you may even have a sequence.<\/p>\n

The themes do not all weave together neatly; and anyone who has tried to do that realizes you really stretch the readings, if not your own creativity, trying to weave together themes that have nothing to do with each other. And I use the word \u201csmorgasbord\u201d\u00a0because try to go to a smorgasbord and eat everything. That, sometimes, is what happens when we try to preach every single theme. You get the same kind of bloated feeling.<\/p>\n

But I want to say smorgasbord in the best sense. Look at all the richness. But I can\u2019t eat it all, I can\u2019t even taste it all, and I don\u2019t have to, because it\u2019s not going to go away. I can concentrate on these themes or that theme this time, and those themes another time.<\/p>\n

We are past the time when all we have to do is pull out the drawer, pick out the homily and read it, because I\u2019ve done that last year or I did it three years ago. The readings haven\u2019t changed, the people haven\u2019t been changed, I haven\u2019t changed. They\u2019ll forget about it, and I just read it. I think we\u2019re beyond that, though maybe once in a while, you wonder, don\u2019t you?<\/p>\n

When I talk about liturgical preaching, I am going to be talking not about the systematic themes, but, really, the lections. Again, I\u2019m not going to talk about the prayers or the sequence or the prefaces. I want to really talk about the lections, which brings\u00a0me then into making a distinction between biblical preaching and lectionary preaching.<\/p>\n

I\u2019m not going to quibble about the terms, but I want to make a distinction. And I make this distinction realizing that, frequently, liturgists and biblical theologians are not in agreement on this; and in this particular question, I lean toward the liturgists\u2019 position on just what it is we are reading and using in our preaching. Are we using biblical passages, even though they open up and say, \u201cThis is the Word of the Lord\u201d?<\/p>\n

I\u2019m sure you know this is not the Word of the Lord. This proclaiming is the Word of the Lord. And you can\u2019t get up at a podium, you can\u2019t get up in an ambo at the end of the liturgy and\u00a0say, \u201cThis is the Word of the Lord.\u201d I mean, what are people going to think? And yet, maybe, in fact, it\u2019s the proclamation! That\u2019s the Word of the Lord.<\/p>\n

I am reminded of something that we used to have at our retirement in my community. I\u2019m a Sister of St. Agnes from Wisconsin and, in our retirement home \u2013 they don\u2019t do it anymore \u2013 but the reader would get up and say, \u201cThe first reading is on page seven.\u201d And, of course, the presumption is they couldn\u2019t hear the proclamation; and so, they would follow, and it is understandable in a situation like that.<\/p>\n

But it is not understandable when we have people who can hear. And part of the problem, of course, is we have people that can\u2019t proclaim, can\u2019t even read sometimes, much less proclaim. So, as wonderful as missalettes are, they also have limitations. They don\u2019t help us to realize this is a proclamation.<\/p>\n

Again, a little aside. I once thought it would be wonderful to explain, to do a kind of exegesis of, not the readings, but of the congregation. Instead of reading the readings and then preach, do a kind of exegesis \u2013 out loud, of course \u2013 of the group; and talk about who we are and what we need, and what problems do we face today, you and I, in the world in which we live, in the church in which we are. And after however period of time is acceptable for a homily, after we do that, then you do the readings.<\/p>\n

And if you\u2019ve done it well, you don\u2019t have to explain the readings, because they open up within the context. Now, of course, you have to know what the readings are, so you know, in your mind, at least, to make the connections. But then, the readings are proclaimed, and people\u2019s interior has been opened up to hear the Word of the Lord in the context in which they find themselves.\u00a0But, what\u2019s the difference between a lection and a biblical reading? The difference is re-contextualization.<\/p>\n

I\u2019m sure that you have heard many people say, and maybe you have said it yourself, that it\u2019s unfortunate that some lectionary readings cut out certain verses; and I want to go back to the Bible and find those verses, so I can complete the reading. Well, there\u2019s a reason why these verses have been cut out.<\/p>\n

Now, you and I may not know the reason, but those who make the selections know the reason. And I want to say, the reason that certain verses in some readings have been eliminated is because the liturgists did not want us to concentrate on the themes that are in those verses; they want us to concentrate on the themes that are in the verses that have remained. Now that, in itself, changes a reading.<\/p>\n

So, biblical readings have various contexts. I\u2019m sure we\u2019re all aware of the fact that the Bible is, first of all, literature; and, therefore, a reading has its own literary context. And the literary context of Mark 13 is Mark 12 and Mark 14. And, clearly, within that literary context, the meaning of 13 unfolds. Ideally, we can discover the meaning of Mark 13 by itself, okay? But, then, we put it in its context, or we see it in its context, and both what precedes and what follows throws more light on the meaning that we have discovered. So, it has the literary context.<\/p>\n

But, in the lectionary, we are taking it out of its literary context, its original context, and we are putting it in a new context. And the new context \u2013 if it\u2019s Mark 13 \u2013 the new context, then, is the first reading, the psalm response and the second reading. That\u2019s the new context. And from a liturgical point of view, the meaning found in the first reading, the psalm response and the second reading throws light on the meaning of Mark 13.<\/p>\n

That is not to say that the readings interpret each other. It is, rather, that the theology that we glean after we examine each one of the readings separately \u2013 the light and the knowledge that we glean from each reading \u2013 in a certain sense, as Richard Fragomeni always says, they play with each other. The meanings<\/em> play with each other, not the readings. The meanings play with each other. So you have to do an excavation. You have to do an exegesis of the readings, and then you discover, as with the smorgasbord, what do we have here?<\/p>\n

And then, also, as a smorgasbord, what will look good on the plate? If I only have three kinds of meat, that\u2019s not going to be the best kind of a diet. So, you have a little bit of this theme, and a little bit of that theme, and a little bit of that theme, because it fits together. Now, that\u2019s the difference. A biblical passage, strictly speaking, is the passage within its biblical context; but when you take it out of its context and you put it in another context, then it\u2019s a liturgical passage, and that\u2019s why we call them lections.<\/p>\n

Now, again, we use the terms interchangeably. And I certainly wouldn\u2019t put any money down on one way or another how to use the language, so long as we understand what we\u2019re doing. As I said, not all the biblical people agree with that. I know excellent exegetes who believe that the only way you can really understand Mark 13 is within its biblical context, and I don\u2019t happen to agree with that. And, again, you don\u2019t have to take sides on that, but I think it\u2019s important to understand that there are different ways of understanding and it\u2019s not so much a question of what is right or wrong. It\u2019s a question of different ways of understanding. That\u2019s all.<\/p>\n

So then, when I talk about liturgical preaching, I am talking about looking at the lections and allowing the theology of the lections to, first of all, come out and then see: what do we have in\u00a0this theology? And, once again, there\u2019s so much theology. There are so many themes. Sometimes, a theme will become very prominent. And the reason it will become prominent is because of another context; and that is the historical context within which we are preaching.<\/p>\n

Now, we could take the same readings \u2013 let\u2019s say, the readings for Sunday \u2013 and we could all discover what the readings for Sunday are. We could agree upon the theology and, then, we could talk about it among ourselves; and our context in this room is a very, very sophisticated context. It is a highly, theologically sophisticated context that you will not find in your average parish. I\u2019m telling you nothing that you don\u2019t know.<\/p>\n

So, that context changes. What you would say to theologians \u2013 whether they are learning theologians or professional theologians \u2013 you will not say in a parish. What you will say to children, you will not say to adolescents. You will have the same theology but, somehow or other, you will have to do the hermeneutical move and bring that theology alive to a new context.<\/p>\n

So, in preaching, there are so many contexts that we must be aware of. I want to say, first of all, it is the context of the season. Not the context of the day, but the context of the season. Now, I want to limit what I\u2019m saying to Sunday preaching: the context of the season.<\/p>\n

How do you discover the theology of the season? I believe that one way of discovering the theology of the season is to look at all of the readings of the season and try to see: is there any kind of commonality? Now, that\u2019s not terribly hard to do with Advent. You only have four Sundays. And it\u2019s not hard to do for Lent, and it\u2019s not hard to do for Easter.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s a killer for Ordinary Time. Except, in a certain sense, Ordinary Time gets short shrift, because it\u2019s just Ordinary Time. And I want to say, as I have said so often in much of my writing, that\u2019s where we live. We live in Ordinary Time. Once in a while, we have a peak. We have a Christmas or a major feast. Or in our own lives, something happens to us: final vows or ordination or whatever, or marriage. So we have a peak moment, and maybe where there\u2019s great preparation for that moment; and then, afterwards, we revel in the glory of that moment. And then we\u2019re back to Ordinary Time.<\/p>\n

And Ordinary Time is where we really live. Now, this may be very superficial, but in the work that I\u2019ve done, I have come to the conclusion that the primary theme of the Sundays of Ordinary Time, in every one of the three years, is discipleship. And that makes sense. I mean, how didn\u2019t I know that before I had to go through all those readings to discover it?<\/p>\n

But it is discipleship: the call to discipleship, what it means to be a disciple, the cost of discipleship, the parables of the Kingdom, which all have to do with discipleship, whether we are in Matthew here or Mark or Luke. So, in a very real sense, then, when I said, \u201cWell, we do liturgical preaching,\u201d we discover: what\u2019s the major context? What\u2019s the broad context?<\/p>\n

And, let\u2019s say, for Ordinary Time \u2013 because that\u2019s where we are now \u2013 it is a discipleship. Then, if I have some sense of discipleship toward the last Sundays, where we are now, we\u2019re moving toward a more somber understanding of discipleship. So, we\u2019ll come across<\/p>\n

in Matthew\u2019s Gospel the parables about how to be a disciple when the end is coming. And so you will see eschatological parables in these last Sundays before the end of the liturgical year. But it\u2019s still all discipleship. But let\u2019s say that that\u2019s it.<\/p>\n

So, that\u2019s my thinking; that\u2019s the broad context within which I\u2019m thinking. It is discipleship, and it\u2019s discipleship that\u2019s not summertime discipleship. It\u2019s autumn discipleship: northern hemisphere, autumn discipleship. The harvest is over, all right? Or, at least, we\u2019re in the time of harvest. That\u2019s the mentality.<\/p>\n

Then, with that kind of mentality, I would look at the readings for a particular Sunday and discover \u2013 looking at each one of the readings \u2013 what\u2019s the theology in these readings? Or, to put it another way, what\u2019s the theology for this particular Sunday? Realizing that that theology, understood within the context, is a very serious, sometimes sobering discipleship. Not that any kind of sobering puts a mantle of somberness on, but you realize we\u2019re beyond lightheartedness.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s not just the thrill of being called a disciple. It\u2019s the realization: scrutiny is coming. We\u2019re going to have to give an account of our stewardship, to use that expression. And that\u2019s the thinking; therefore, we look to see it within these readings.<\/p>\n

Again, a little aside. We really have done almost nothing with the psalm response; and sometimes we change it because we like the music that we\u2019re going to use instead. And the psalm response ideally, of course, is to be a response to the first reading. I mean, that\u2019s what the liturgists have arranged. It is a response to the first reading; and if you look carefully, the psalms are sometimes psalms of praise.<\/p>\n

Toward the end, now, we\u2019ve got some laments. Very little of our psalms praise toward the end of the liturgical year, because the readings don\u2019t lend themselves to praise. But it\u2019s some kind of serious accountability. So we have laments, and we have psalms of hope and trust. And, again, it\u2019s ideally to be a response to the first reading.<\/p>\n

However, there are also, I think, some often very appropriate prayers simply to be prayers for that day, because, in a very real sense, they capture some of the major theology that we find, not only in the first reading, but in other readings as well. So we look, then, at the theology of these readings.<\/p>\n

As an Old Testament biblical theologian, I am not at all happy with a very strong, traditional way of understanding the relationship between the two testaments. It\u2019s not just because I\u2019m an Old Testament scholar. I\u2019ve been in the Catholic-Jewish Scholars\u2019 Dialogue in Chicago for the last 18 years. One becomes very, very sensitive to any suggestion of Supersessionism when you are dealing with Jewish scholars.<\/p>\n

Supersessionism, of course, meaning that, now that we\u2019ve got Jesus, we don\u2019t need the Old Testament. Or now that we\u2019ve got the New Testament, we don\u2019t need the Old Testament. Or Christianity now has displaced Judaism. I do not deny that there is \u2013 I won\u2019t call it Supersessionism \u2013 but there certainly is in Paul\u2019s teaching a notion we are the new Israel.<\/p>\n

I want to say, however, in the world in which we live today \u2013 a world in which, by the way, we are now commemorating the 40th anniversary of Nostra Aetate<\/em>, which is the Vatican document that would talk about a sea change that really shifted Christianity\u2019s understanding of its relationship with other world religions \u2013 one can only say that some traditional teaching about the superiority of Christianity is very troublesome, and I say that as a loyal Catholic.<\/p>\n

I am not prepared to say that it doesn\u2019t make any difference what religion you believe in or you practice. I\u2019m not saying that, but I\u2019m saying that some of the very, very strong promise fulfillment ideology is very troublesome. And it\u2019s troublesome, not so much because of the theology \u2013 though that\u2019s bad enough \u2013 but\u00a0the consequences of living out that theology, and the notion that \u201cnow that we have New Testament, we don\u2019t need Old Testament\u201d was condemned as a heresy in the Early Church. And yet, we still have people who feel that way, without realizing that they think they are so faithful; they don\u2019t even know they\u2019re heretics. But most of us don\u2019t when we are, right?<\/p>\n

I want to say that it\u2019s rather troublesome. I say that because I am well aware that one of the principles of arranging the readings \u2013 we find this in the preface, I believe, of the Roman Missal \u2013 one of the principles was the principle of promise and fulfillment. In a certain sense, the first reading presents the promise, and the Gospel presents the fulfillment. That\u2019s very troublesome theology in the world in which we live today.<\/p>\n

More than that, for a woman Catholic, it is troublesome from a theological point of view, because the first Testament is our Bible. It\u2019s a Christian Bible. I think it is incorrect to talk about the Jewish Scriptures and the Christian Scriptures, as if the Old Testament is not Christian Scriptures. It doesn\u2019t just belong to the Jewish people.<\/p>\n

In fact, they have a different Bible than we do. They have a different Tanakh. They have a different Old Testament. It\u2019s not arranged the same way. I\u2019m not just talking about the fact that we have some books and some passages in certain books that they don\u2019t have. It\u2019s not even arranged the same way. Our first Testament ends with Malachi. Their Tanakh, their Bible \u2013 that\u2019s not even the word they use \u2013 but their Scriptures, their Tanakh, ends with II Chronicles.<\/p>\n

And the arrangement is theological in design. So if you look very carefully, their Tanakh \u2013 and that\u2019s Torah, Nevi\u2019im, Ketuvim: the Law, the Prophets and the Writings \u2013 their Tanakh ends with\u00a0the last part of II Chronicles. We have the story of Cyrus commissioning the Jews to go back home and rebuild the Temple. That\u2019s how their Bible ends, and that has inspired them to this day to go back and rebuild the Temple.<\/p>\n

Now many of them were satisfied when they went back in \u201948; but for many very, very religious Jews, that biblical passage commissions them to ultimately rebuild the Temple. It ends theologically with an exhortation that has motivated them for thousands of years. The Christian Old Testament ends with Malachi, \u201cI will send my messenger ahead.\u201d And it begins with Mark, with the messenger coming. It\u2019s arranged so that we can see the connection.<\/p>\n

Again, we have to remember that promise-fulfillment, which we find in the Scriptures. We find that in the Old Testament: the promise-fulfillment. It\u2019s always retro, a reading back into; but we find that in the exilic prophets. The prophets are not looking to the future. Their prophetic work basically looks to the past and is reinterpreting. That\u2019s particularly in the Deuteronomistic, in the historical writings.<\/p>\n

You do find that sense that God made promises, and the promises will be fulfilled, so the Christian community simply appropriated that notion and saw themselves and their writings \u2013 because of Jesus and His claims, which we believe are true claims, but not everybody does \u2013 that He is the fulfillment of the ancient promises.<\/p>\n

That notion of promise-fulfillment is well grounded in our tradition. But over the centuries, we have used that in despicable ways to marginalize people, to persecute people, and to put them to death, to dismiss their religious claims. It\u2019s only recently that some \u2013 not only theologians but the teaching magisterium of the Church\u00a0as well \u2013 that the official magisterium of the Church acknowledges something that Paul says: that the promises made to the people of Israel have not been abrogated.<\/p>\n

But we still have that in our lectionary. And if we have that in our lectionary, I think sometimes we have that in our preaching. And that is not helpful, because while it may not suggest anti Semitism, it certainly does sometimes suggest anti-Judaism. And anti-Judaism is not too far from anti-Semitism.<\/p>\n

That kind of understanding of the relationship between the First Reading and the Gospel reading is not helpful at all. In fact, at times, it could be very dangerous. So I want to acknowledge that that theme is very much a part of our religious tradition. But there are other things that are part of our religious tradition. Over the centuries, we have learned at least to soften and interpret them in ways that are not harmful to other people.<\/p>\n

Some of these themes developed in a kind of survivalist mentality. Well, we\u2019re not in a survivalist mentality anymore, and sometimes it reverts. What do we do with that, then? My suggestion is don\u2019t make it promise and fulfillment. Don\u2019t preach that using the two readings, for the reasons that I\u2019ve given.<\/p>\n

So we\u2019re still talking about contexts. First, you have the general context of the season. Then, you have the context of the Sunday. The Sunday, as I said, has the three readings and psalm response. Very often, the themes of the psalm response appear in\u00a0the First Reading and sometimes in the other readings as well. So, when dealing with the theological themes, it really comes to life in the context of the people before us, in the context of the living community now.<\/p>\n

I always tell my students that finding out what the passages mean is not hard. You can learn how to do exegesis. And if you\u00a0don\u2019t do exegesis, you can get commentaries that do exegesis. That\u2019s not the hard part. The hard part is the hermeneutics. The hard part, once you discover what the texts say, is what are you going to do with it? How do you take that theology and bring it to life or allow that theology to come alive in the minds and hearts of the people to whom you\u2019re speaking? That\u2019s the challenge.<\/p>\n

Something that is very, very prominent in theology today, which was not in the past, is a kind of exegesis or an analysis of the community. I\u2019m not sure if you are acquainted with the theorist Gadamer, where Gadamer talks about three worlds. You\u2019ve got the fictive world within the text, you\u2019ve got the world behind the text and you have the world in front of the text.<\/p>\n

Let me just briefly summarize this. When you think about a story, a story creates a world. Otherwise, why do people cry at movies? It\u2019s because you\u2019re drawn into the world. Or why do you laugh? Or why do you cheer when you\u2019re a spectator? But you\u2019re not. A good story pulls you in, into that world.<\/p>\n

Now, it\u2019s called fictive world, and fictive not meaning fiction in the bad sense, but it comes from fiction in the best sense. Fiction, meaning it may not be historically accurate. Narrative exegesis reminds us of this. So, you\u2019ve got the world within the text, and that\u2019s the world \u2013 let\u2019s say it\u2019s a Gospel story of Jesus \u2013 it\u2019s the world of Jesus preaching or Jesus healing. That\u2019s the world within the text. And somehow or other, it is within that world that we have a message for us.<\/p>\n

You and I are the heirs of historical-critical method; and within the Roman Catholic Church, that\u2019s a new venture. For many of you, it\u2019s always been that way, because of your age; but in the history of the Church, we only were using historical-critical method from about \u201942 or \u201943, legally. There were exegetes who did\u00a0it before, but it was frowned upon until Pius XII, in Divino Afflante Spiritu<\/em>, said that we should investigate using historical-critical methods. That\u2019s only over 60 years, which is nothing in the history of the Church.<\/p>\n

Historical-critical began with Protestants at the time of the Reformation. They accused the Church, rightly, that they were making the texts say anything they wanted it to say. That\u2019s not what the original authors intended. And so they wanted to find out what the original authors intended. That\u2019s the beginning of the historical-critical method. It is so much a part of the Catholic Church\u2019s investigation of the Scriptures today that we may not always appreciate the fact that it\u2019s relatively new.<\/p>\n

Well, we\u2019re not behind. We caught up with it real fast. So, we\u2019ve got the historical-critical, which means that we\u2019re looking at another world, not the world within the text but the world behind the text, the world of the author. They\u2019re not necessarily the same\u00a0world, any more than Rowling lives in the world of Harry Potter. She\u2019s created a wonderful world, but the world of Harry Potter is a fictive world. Now, from her world \u2013 the world behind the text, the world of the author \u2013 she picked certain details and put them together in a very, very engaging way. But if her world is the world of Harry Potter, she\u2019s got problems. So, you can see that.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s like that with the Gospels. Unfortunately, people ask historical questions about the fictive world, historical questions about Harry Potter. In no way am I suggesting that the Gospel is like Harry Potter, all right? I\u2019m just using that as an example. So they ask historical questions about Harry Potter. It\u2019s about the author<\/em> of Harry Potter. Historical questions belong to the author. Literary questions belong to the story.<\/p>\n

So, you\u2019ve got the world within the text, which is where the message is, and you\u2019ve got the world behind the text. And, frequently, what happens in our proficiency with historical-critical work, we can reconstruct basically the world behind the text; and that\u2019s what you get in a homily.<\/p>\n

You get all the historical details about Matthew\u2019s community and what they were going through, all of which is very interesting; but it\u2019s the world behind the text. And the message is not there, and revelation is not there. Somehow or other, revelation takes place with the message of the world within the text. Then it\u2019s the world in front of the text, which is us.<\/p>\n

So, we do a great exegesis of the world behind the text. I\u2019m saying that what we\u2019ve got to do is learn to do an exegesis of the world in front of the text, the social world in front of the text, not just the social world behind the text, not just the literary forms behind the text \u2013 all of which is important.<\/p>\n

All of that is important. And I say that as a trained historical critic. But if that\u2019s all we do, we are in history. Interestingly, many of the new insights that we learn from historical criticism we must also apply to the world out in front of the text, which means our world. In other words, what literary forms do we use when we communicate with each other?<\/p>\n

I\u2019m smart enough to know I should never stand in front of the students. I don\u2019t know what literary forms they use. I absolutely have no idea how they\u2019re going to hear what I\u2019m saying. I mean, I could be obscene. I have no idea because I don\u2019t know how they would hear what I\u2019m saying. I know my literary forms, all right. I know the kinds of literary forms within certain circles, but I would be very, very loathe, very, very slow to preach or to teach to people\u00a0of another culture in their culture, without knowing what some of their literary forms are.<\/p>\n

I\u2019m teaching a course, \u201cContemporary Issues of Biblical Theology.\u201d One of my students is Indonesian. The primary issue that we started with just yesterday is \u201cthe integrity of creation,\u201d so it\u2019s eco-theology we started out with. I was asking, \u201cWhat did you find interesting or challenging about the book that you were supposed to read?\u201d<\/p>\n

It was a collection of essays on eco-theology done by some women, Roman Catholic women from a committee, a continuing seminar of the Catholic Biblical Association. They had collected these essays. They\u2019ve got in those essays not only eco-theology, but they\u2019ve also got a feminist approach to it.<\/p>\n

And he was saying that, \u201cYou know, in my culture, we like things to be in balance.\u201d And he said, \u201cYou know, sometimes, I read some of these women, and they throw things off balance.\u201d I think there was one other Anglo woman in the class besides myself, and he said they throw things off balance. And my response to him was, \u201cYou realize, of course, that they will say that what you consider balance is off-balance; and that what they\u2019re trying to do is re-create the balance.\u201d And he was going on about this and not accepting what I was saying.<\/p>\n

Then, it dawned on me that I wasn\u2019t understanding what he was saying. He was talking. For an Anglo to be saying that was one thing; but the way he was trying to describe that balance, it\u2019s not just a question of having everything neat. It\u2019s having everything balanced that was so very much a part of his mindset. And I was correcting him from an Anglo, a linear point of view.<\/p>\n

So, when we talk about the literary forms of the ancient world, we should know more than the literary forms, in other words, the ways of thinking, the ways of perception of the people that we are preaching to. That is so difficult, because where do you find a mono-cultural community? But we have to at least realize that they may be different than ours.<\/p>\n

So you\u2019ve got different literary forms, you\u2019ve got different language, you have different social realities. You don\u2019t talk to people of Asian background in the same way that you talk to people of African background. And I\u2019m not talking about Asian American and African-American. You don\u2019t talk to people of one age, generational age, in the same way you talk to people of another age.<\/p>\n

That\u2019s the challenge of hermeneutics. That\u2019s the other context. And that is the context for preaching and teaching. But I want to say for preaching, because this is what this talk is about, it is imperative that we be extremely sensitive to those.<\/p>\n

Those of us who are part of the dominant culture \u2013 and I put myself there, because, of course, I am, despite the fact that I am a woman in what is relatively a man\u2019s world in Church. But I am still part of the dominant culture. We presume, \u201cThey\u2019re here. By God, they better learn. You\u2019re in America; be an American.\u201d You know, when in Rome, do as the Romans. Well, when in America, do as the Americans.<\/p>\n

But we can\u2019t have that kind of mentality. The reason is not simply because we are open and generous; but the reason is because we have the privilege of bringing the Word of God to the people of God, so they can hear it. Not so that they hear it my way, but so they can hear it their way. And, therefore, it\u2019s imperative that we have some sense of what that context is. That also demands that\u00a0we have an understanding of our own social location. I am convinced that most of us don\u2019t. Now that may sound strange, but I think we take our social location for granted.<\/p>\n

Anthropologists tell us that there are basically four cultural or ethnological institutions: gender, economic, political and then religious. Now, we all know what gender we belong to. That\u2019s not too hard at this point; we all know what we are. But are we really conscious of how we perceive that in society?<\/p>\n

I speak up for myself. Obviously, I\u2019m a woman, and I\u2019m an articulate woman, and that\u2019s not always very popular in certain circles. I have one sibling. I have a sister who is two-and-a-half years my senior, so I never grew up in a house where a boy was. And it\u2019s not uncommon in my generation that the boys in a family were favorites, because the girls are going to get married, anyway. And so, the boys were favorites.<\/p>\n

I never had that experience. I came from a family where my father made sure that we spoke our mind at the table, the supper table. And then, I went to the community, and I didn\u2019t realize until I got in the community: that\u2019s not a very popular mentality. [Audience laughs.<\/em>] You can laugh about the community; but then I go into a man\u2019s world. Theology was a man\u2019s world.<\/p>\n

So, I\u2019m articulate, and I don\u2019t realize that I\u2019m offensive. I don\u2019t think I\u2019m offensive. I don\u2019t realize I\u2019m offensive. Now, I say that about myself, and that\u2019s just gender. And I think every one of us has got to understand: what are the implications of the way we perceive our gender in a bi-gender church?<\/p>\n

You\u2019ve got gender, you\u2019ve got age, you have class. I can remember a colleague of mine came from upper class. I come from working class. My father was a truck mechanic. We never wanted anything, but I come from working class. And she came from upper\u00a0class, I mean upper class. Her mother \u2013 her father died when she was very young \u2013 her mother had one of those buttons underneath the table. When she pushed the button, the servant came in. That\u2019s upper class.<\/p>\n

She once said, \u201cYou know, we always dressed for dinner.\u201d And I thought to myself, \u201cSo did we.\u201d But I knew she meant something different. We can laugh at that, but when I talk about poverty, I didn\u2019t lose anything. When she took the vow of poverty, she lost a lot. So, I think when we talk about our relation \u2013 we know who we are.<\/p>\n

We know what our economic standing is. We know what our politics are. But we may never really be reflective about how that functions as a minister. And that\u2019s very important, because if we don\u2019t know our social location, we will not be sensitive to the social location of others. And all of that is very much a part of this magnificent venture that we call preaching.<\/p>\n

So, to pull it all together: we talk about liturgical preaching, then, it is really taking the riches of the lections and analyzing them using whatever critical methods we can. By that, I mean literary methods. What\u2019s really going on in that story? And from an historical point of view, can history throw more light on what is going on in that story, in that parable, in that oracle, or in that psalm? That\u2019s the first step: understanding that, and understanding that within the context of the season.<\/p>\n

I\u2019m sure you know that there are a few readings that are found both in Advent and Lent. They function differently in these two seasons. They better function differently, but it\u2019s the same reading with the same theology. Something opens up in one season, and something else opens up in another. And, of course, then they\u00a0open up with different adjoining texts, or related texts, because of the Sunday in which we find them.<\/p>\n

Then we take all of that, and with skill and imagination, we open it up in such a way that it hits them in the mind and the heart.<\/p>\n

And that\u2019s the Word of the Lord.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"menu_order":1,"template":"","meta":{"pb_show_title":"on","pb_short_title":"","pb_subtitle":"","pb_authors":["sr-dianne-bergant-csa-phd"],"pb_section_license":""},"chapter-type":[],"contributor":[64],"license":[],"part":3,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/martenlecturesvol2\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/32"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/martenlecturesvol2\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/martenlecturesvol2\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/chapter"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/martenlecturesvol2\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/martenlecturesvol2\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/32\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":50,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/martenlecturesvol2\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/32\/revisions\/50"}],"part":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/martenlecturesvol2\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/parts\/3"}],"metadata":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/martenlecturesvol2\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/32\/metadata\/"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/martenlecturesvol2\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=32"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"chapter-type","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/martenlecturesvol2\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapter-type?post=32"},{"taxonomy":"contributor","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/martenlecturesvol2\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/contributor?post=32"},{"taxonomy":"license","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.palni.org\/martenlecturesvol2\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/license?post=32"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}