Of Parables: Parables tend to be Relational or Participatory Rather than Categorical. 3 7.25.2024

  Let’s end our discussion of parables this month with a final illustration of how these powerful word-pictures function in human discourse. My hope is not just to provide insight for how you and I can interpret and apply the parables of Jesus and other Biblical examples.  I also want to suggest that this sort of thinking can improve the way we all write and speak as preachers and teachers of Scripture. 

    Much of the language we use can be described as categorical. Technically (from Aristotle to the present) categorical thinking is a process of classifying predicable terms. In English, A category can function as a subject/object. We can talk about it. Now, how we talk about a category is limited by its nature. That is fine. When Mrs. Beckman and I are eating at our local diner I may say “This bacon is crisp!” I have made a categorical statement regarding the bacon I’m eating. Clear, plain, and prosaic. Much of our speech throughout the day falls into that basic pattern of communication. We use well-worn categories to do things with words that make our thoughts and intents know to others. 

    That is not the only way to communicate. We can, and often do, go beyond mere categorical speech. We imply. We evoke. We color. We cajole. We invite. All these communication strategies transcend basic categorical speech. They are participatory and relational. They depend on far more than the arrangement of words into proper syntactical categories.  That is the magic of parables. That is the secret sauce. While categorical speaking does the necessary task of keeping things straight and organized; picturesque literary forms like parable go beyond categories addressing all our senses simultaneously.  I concede that Jesus was both the Son of God and a genius, yet his communication strategy and style of story-building is learnable. It is an example to be followed. It is a model to be emulated. 

    Once again, we are talking tendency. Jesus could think and teach both abstractly and concretely. If we are following His example, we need to be wholly immersed not only in the message of Scripture but in its conceptual structure. We need to think in Biblical categories not those forged by our own hermeneutical situation. 

    This is hard because most conservative Christians have been taught to force the ambiguous, tentative, inquisitive, opaque parts of scripture into rigid categories. Sometimes our misunderstanding of scripture our own fault. 

    If we wish to make our preaching more participatory, if we want to share in the powerful and image-driven speaking style of Jesus there are a couple of adjustments we must make to ensure that our Biblical exegesis flows faithfully and effectively into 21st century communication categories.

    First, comes a comfort with ambiguity. Jesus did not always close the communication loop. He trusted His faithful listeners to draw appropriate connections and conclusions to His stories. When He said “Which one of you who has a…” those words form a mental invitation to participate in the dialogue. Those who have ears to hear will accept the invitation, their faithful listening to Jesus will allow them to draw the intended conclusion without Jesus stating it. 

    Next, we must develop a comfort with asking rhetorical, even open-ended questions. Our approach to preaching and teaching is so steeped in the Pauline tradition of forensic argument that both audience and preacher may find this a little unsettling. We like telling people things. We are propositional thinkers—many of us were taught to use that very term as the thesis statement for our sermons. It is a hard habit to break. The best place to begin breaking that habit is when preaching the parables of Jesus, who Himself was clearly comfortable with this level of audience participation. 

    Finally, we need to lose our fear of the culture around us. It is very difficult to imagine Jesus telling a Kingdom-comparison story (The Kingdom of heaven is like...) with no understanding of the culture in which His audience was embedded. Understanding the world in which we live does not mean succumbing to its social or intellectual outlook. We live in our time and place, and it is not only silly to think and act otherwise, but also pointless. How can you use relational comparisons if there is no contemporary peg upon which to hang the comparison? This in itself may be a part of the reason that much contemporary preaching is often anachronistic, simplistic, or vacuous.  

    To conclude this essay, as well as this month’s topic let me say this, it will take work. We must know the scriptures and we will have to know the culture in which our audience lives and to which we wish to speak. We must rely less on turning the text into propositions and more on discerning patterns and principles. These are not the same and in fact the rush to turn every text into a definitive proposition may result in missing signals about the intent of the author, particularly when he is trying to be abstract, elusive, relational, or participatory. 

    Image-driven thinking and speaking should not intimidate us. We live in a media-saturated world. Your imagination and creative thinking can invite your listener into the message as a participant rather than a mere spectator. 

    Yes, it takes work. You’ll need your dictionary and thesaurus. You’ll need to read a lot of literature—books of all kinds. You will need to consume enough media to know what is going on in the world. You will need to draft, edit, redraft, rephrase, cut, add, change, recolor, refashioned, rethink, and reformulate a message prior to delivering it. That’s OK. We are called to communicate Christ! We are called to preach and teach the Scriptures. Sermon structures are formats for the message. You may be surprised what happens when you challenge your congregation by showing them more and telling them less.