As I prepare to send this homily for the Feast of the Presentation to Susan
McGurgan—wonderful friend and homiletics colleague—I hunched that some reflections on its genesis may be helpful to others within our “college of preachers.” So, what I propose is that we take a journey through my preparations for the homily that include exegesis, homiletic method, and our liturgical context.
I hope that some of these jottings may be helpful to you and I look forward to your
own reflections on this reflection as you have time. (Eslingerde323@gmail.com)
The following list relates to various elements in the shaping of a homily, but in my
case, they do not often click off in sequential order. That is, I may double back on
further Greek studies after arriving at a preliminary shaping of the homily’s moves
or narrative scenes.
However, I will begin my work on a homily with some lectio divina prayer and contemplation along with an essential study of the Greek text. (I am speaking of the Gospel Lessons here primarily.) So we list the steps and stages in this homily’s development, but in reality, things are not thus well ordered!
I. “Holy Exegesis.”
In her important book, The Luminous Word, Ellen Davis
devotes an entire section to her ministry of exegesis. This engagement with
the text is emphasized over other approaches that may “look at the text to
find something to preach about” or “spot one or two points for the sermon.”
My approach, in solidarity with Professor Davis is first to check how the
lectionaries establish the text for preaching, including, of course, the Roman
Catholic Lectionary as well as the Revised Common Lectionary used in
North America by Anglicans, Lutherans, and liturgical Protestants.
Everybody is on board with the Lukan text for the Presentation. After all,
St. Luke gives us this story for the 40 th Day after Christmas. In studying the
Roman Catholic Lectionary, it is of interest to note how this February 2 nd
Feast displaces the lessons for the 4 th Sunday in OT. Also, I was confronted
by two alternate texts for the Lukan narrative, the long, full narrative (Luke
2:22-40) and an abbreviated version (Luke 2:22-32). The latter entirely omits the section of the pericope in which Anna and her story are proclaimed. Given the fondness of St. Luke—in both his Gospel and in Acts—for featuring male and female characters jointly, I opted for the primary, full text. This also was an easy choice since the focus on women in Scripture is rather meager at times, but when the Scripture does lift up a woman of the covenant, it is usually very important. (Consider, for example, Mary!)
Having decided for the full text in the lectionary, I turned to a Greek
study of the received text. One help here for those of us who are less
schooled in biblical languages is the availability of interlinear resources that
provide, in our case, the Greek text, a transliterated version of that text, plus
a rather literal English translation. (My go-to source here is “Bible Hub”
and I found this lesson at https://biblehub.com/interlinear/luke/2-22.htm.)
As I engage with the Greek text and its English parallels, I am also
pondering such issues as the literary character of the lection (obviously a
biblical narrative with an embedded canticle) and the types of language used
in various “scenes” of the narrative.
I was struck by several clusters of language groups that shaped the
entire narrative. In the introductory material, St. Luke employs the language
of rite, communal practice and theological meaning. We speak of such
clusters as pertaining to an “Ordo.” So Luke provides background data on
the rite of the Presentation, including both its biblical warrant as well as
some ritual details (the two young pigeons). Clearly the biblical meaning of
sacrifice is at work here! Luke selects juridical language in referring to what
is written “in the Law of the Lord.” He adds that the Holy Family is
complying with “the dictates of the law of the Lord.” This opening section
of the narrative clearly focuses on the Jewish texts and rituals that comprise
the rite of Presentation. Already, I become aware of the parallels between
this Lukan introduction to the Jewish rite and our own liturgy for the Feast.
The texts are presented and there is, to be sure, an Ordo that will form the
“structure of praise.” I decided early on, then, that I would draw some
parallels between the “structure of praise” manifest at the Temple forty days
after the birth of the Messiah and our own liturgical and sacramental context.
I also noted that many of the verbs in the section of the narrative dealing
with Simeon were visual in character. It was revealed by the Spirit that Simeon would not see death (idein) “before he had seen (idē) the Christ of the Lord.” Looking further in the Simeon section of the narrative, I was delighted to “see” that the Greek term for “arm” is ankalas from which we derive “ankle. The Greek means “angle or curve and so it came to pertain to both the crook of the arms and the other angle connecting our feet to our legs. This term immediately rang my “all hands on deck” homiletical imagination and the finished material on the Sacrament of Holy Baptism along with some pastoral implications all derived from this nifty word study. (What fun!)
On the other hand, as soon as the daughter of Phanuel (Anna) is
introduced, the dominant epistemology becomes auditory. She is a
prophetess who prays in the Temple and, now in the presence of the Holy
Child, gives thanks (not eucharistō, but anthomologeomai with its implied
oral and discursive quality). Also, Anna “speaks” (elalei) about the Child to
all who were “awaiting the redemption of Jerusalem.” The two figures
who meet the Holy Family share several things in common. They both are
of quite advanced years, and both are deeply pious and devout. But Simeon
dwells in a visual world and “sees” hidden things. Anna is a prophetess—and prophets speak!—who gives thanks and speaks about the Child. For now, this implies several things for this preacher:
(1) We will need to deal with each in separate moves. It would be confusing to mix the visual and oral/aural modes in one.
(2) We will need to shift the imagery respective to both moves.
(3) Visual imagery will obtain with Simeon while oral/aural will reflect Anna.
(Following this “holy exegesis,” I turned to various commentaries—hard
copy and online—related to this lection. These included Raymond Brown’s
magisterial text, The Birth of the Messiah.)
II. The Mode and Structure of the Homily.
We are engaging in this Luke 2 text by way of a “holy exegesis” and have assessed the narrative literary quality of the pericope. Further, we have identified several “scenes” in the story that all relate to the integrity of this biblical narrative. Therefore, we will not distill out of this beloved story a series of thematics or points. We will shape a homily that remains in the mode of immediacy, following the course of the biblical text through its narrative structure. The mode of immediacy in shaping a homily adopts the movement and intention of the biblical text as its basic organization.
The initial shape of the homily, as I began this process, located three moves
related to the Lukan narrative. These were:
1. There is an ordo in both the opening of the story of the Holy
Family at the Temple and in our Feast of the Presentation this day.
2. Simeon cradles the Child in his arms; we are cradled within the
arms of our loving God.
3. Anna speaks of the Holy Child to all who long for the redemption
of the world. We speak to all about the redemption accomplished
in Jesus Christ, his death and resurrection.
After a brief time working with this arrangement of the homily, I decided
on revising it for two reasons. On one hand, the first move regarding the
shared ordos of the Visitation in the Temple and our participation at this
Feast of the Visitation lacked adequate possibilities for being brightly
imaged. On the other hand, it was clear that two moves were needed in order
to deal with the Simeon material in the text. One strategy for dealing with
extensive biblical narratives within the parameters of a liturgical homily is to
apply what I have called “Reach.” If there is a portion of the narrative text
that is more introductory in nature, we can nicely appropriate that material as
the introduction to our homily. That is precisely what I have now attempted
in the final draft of the homily. Note that my introduction—dealing with
these juxtaposed ordos—is quite brief and compact. Introductions are not the
place to be expansive regarding extra material. As David Buttrick insists, the
role of the introduction is to invite the listeners to be ready to hear the first
move of the homily. This is why, Buttrick adds, that we should shape the
moves of the homily before determining an introduction. (However, with my
“Reach” strategy I modified Buttrick’s dictum at this point.) Now the shape
of the homily has changed:
1. Simeon takes the Holy Child in his arms just as we are cradled
within the arms of our loving God.
2. Simeon sings his Nunc Dimittis and sees a fall and rise for Mary
and for the Child.
3. Anna gives thanks and prophecies to all about the Redemption
come in Jesus as we, too, give thanks this day and are called to
proclaim such a glorious redemption.
III. Imaging the Moves.
Each of the moves will need to imaged out of the lived experience of the
assembly. Otherwise, the entire move may simply vanish from the listeners’
hearing. The imagery may be (1) brief illustrations—stories introduced to
the assembly providing some concrete material expanding on the meaning of
the move—or (2) a series of examples of the meaning of the move or (3) a
bright image itself. My decisions here led me to employ a variety of images,
each within one of the three moves. These came to be:
Move 1. Imagery related to our baptism, as we become “ankled”
within God’s providence and care. The “family photo” became the
most visual aspect of this imagery.
Move 2. This “fall and rise” of Christ—the Paschal Mystery—is
imaged as we “fall” into our baptismal waters and “rise” in union with
Christ to new and everlasting life.
Move 3. Anna gives thanks as we make Eucharist this day and she
speaks of Jesus’ work of redemption. We proclaim Christ within our
own “Jerusalem.” I noticed that this third move is not imaged as
brightly as the first two. Perhaps as you preach a version of this
homily, you can add further concretion as your parish undertakes
some witness to the world that is of the Gospel.
IV. Rhetorical Note and the Conclusion.
Within the third, last move, I added a rhetorical system that has its widest
use within African American preaching. Jesus is named as “Word made
flesh,” “Bright Morning Star,” etc. The purpose of such an “epic” in Black
preaching is not to add more information, but to center in on the affective
dimensions of what has been stated. If you are uncomfortable employing
such a rhetorical unit within your homily then, of course, please delete this
material. After all, the homily at the Feast of the Presentation should be
given in your own voice just as Anna proclaimed her words in her own
voice.
The conclusion to this homily does not attempt to explore new ground nor
simply summarize the material shared in the homily. I thought it most
appropriate to finish the conclusion with the last line of the Nunc Dimittis.
Commentaires