Narration in the biblical message

NARRATION IN THE BIBLICAL MESSAGE

Chapter Six

from “COMMUNICATING THE WORD OF GOD. Practical Methods of Presenting the Biblical Message” by J N M Wijngaards, Theological Publications in India, Bangalore 560 055, 1974. First published in Great Britain in 1978 by MAYHEW-McCRIMMON LTD Great Wakering, Essex, England.

The whole book can be found online here: http://www.johnwijngaards.com/contents-communicating-word/ .

Kohelet drew his wisdom from everyday life. Observing the “business that God has given to the sons of man to be busy with”, he stated: “I have seen everything that is done under the sun” (Koh 1,14). The stuff of life is being busy, action, drama. It is marked by sudden changes. Real life swings between fear and hope, regret and excited expecta­tion. Authors and playwrights have instinctively recognised the frenzy of movement as the core of human life. Shakespeare speaks of life’s “fitful fever”. G. M. Cohan says we are “hurried and worried until we are buried”. It is all “sobs, sniffles and smiles”, says O. Henry. And F. W. O’Malley sums it all up by saying “life is just one damned thing after another”.

Narration describes life. Good narration captures something of the excitement of real living and so never fails to intrigue. Every speaker knows that telling a story is the best way of captivating an audience. People simply love stories. In their imagination they re-live the events narrated to them. To some extent life and story are interchangeable. Don’t we say that life is a fairy tale written by God or that facts are stranger than fiction?

It is hardly a coincidence that more than half of the Bible is narration. The Bible is a book of life in the fullest sense of the word. In this chapter we will discuss the implications of this fact and how we can re-narrate the biblical stories to their best advantage.

As the material is plentiful and its discussion of necessity somewhat drawn out, it may help some readers to have a cursory glance at the sections and what they contain:

“Every story has a purpose” : The meaning of a narrative depends on the reason for which it was composed.

“Hinge of the Covenant” : The Old Testament history of salvation had the purpose of inculcating the Covenant; of teaching God’s supremacy and man’s dependence.

“Analysing a biblical story” : To understand a biblical story “from within” we should be aware of its component parts : cast of actors, place, time, dialogue, motifs and suspense.

“Narrative force” : When re-narrating a biblical story we should think of describing the setting, introducing the actors, reporting direct speech, using dynamic verbs and descriptive detail, and leading up to a climax.

“Historicity and artistic presentation” : The message of the story is carried by the main statement and by secondary statements contained in details. Audience related and decorative details may need to be transformed through a contemporary presentation.

“Simple free narration” : Some stories can be presented as they are with an explicitation of the “moral” in the course of the narrative.

“Story-Reflection-Story“ : Other stories can be used as the frame for instructions on up-to-date topics.

“Some hints from practice” : Suggestions are given regarding the “story-reflection-story” technique.

The ultimate aim of our study is the re discovery of how biblical narrative could revolutionize our teaching. There will be no harm in our capturing some of the enthusiasm for stories apparent in the old negro song:

“Young folks, old folks, everybody come.

Join the darkies’ Sunday School.

Bring along your chewing gums and stick them on the floor.

We’ll tell you bible stories which you never heard before”.

EVERY STORY HAS A PURPOSE

One day King David was administering justice in the reception hall of his palace. A woman appeared before him who was obviously in a state of great agitation. She wore clothes of mourning. Her hair was dishevelled. She threw herself face downwards on the floor in front of his throne, and cried out, “Oh King! Help me!”

“What’s the trouble?” he asked.

“I’m a widow”, she replied, “and my two sons had a fight out in the field, and since no one was there to part them, one of them was killed. Now the rest of the family is demanding that I surrender my other son to them to be executed for murdering his brother. But if I do that, I will have no one left and my husband’s name will be destroyed from the face of the earth”.

“Leave it to me”, the king told her, “I will see to it that no one touches him”.

She said, “Please swear to me by God that you won’t let anyone harm my son. I want no more bloodshed”.

I vow by God”, he replied, “that not a hair of your son’s head shall be disturbed!”

The woman’s story seemed straightforward enough and David thought he had understood it. But actually there was more behind it all, because the woman continued to speak in this way: “Why don’t you do as much for all the people of God as you have promised to do for me? Why do you refuse to bring home your own son whom you sent into exile? By making this decision in my case you contradict your decision in the other”. Then David understood that the woman had been sent by Joab to plead Absalom’s cause. Absalom had killed his elder brother Amnon and had been banished from Israel for it. Now David realised the full purpose of the story. It was meant to make him see that the feud within his own family could better be settled by an outright pardon. (2 Sam 14,1-33).

This incident in the Bible is highly instructive. It shows that to understand a story one must not only know its contents, but also its purpose. The purpose was there all the time, but what it was only became apparent afterwards. Of course, this is an exceptional case. Joab’s aim of drawing the king’s attention to Absalom was bound to come to light. It was precisely Joab’s intention that the king would first understand the woman’s story as an ordinary event and only afterwards apply it to his own family. But what we may forget, or overlook, is that every story has a purpose, and that we cannot understand the story without knowing what its purpose is.

There was a time when scholars thought that an objective history could be written. Now the fallacy of this assumption is universally admitted. No author can write without adopting a value judgement that will influence his writing. When writing on Henry VIII we may try to stick to facts as much as possible, but we have already made a choice by deciding to write about him. For why should we write about a king? Are kings more important than peasants? Is it because we have more historical records about kings, or is it because we really know that he was the most influential person in his time? When analysing this kind of story telling we will see that ultimately the true meaning and validity of the narration will depend on its purpose. A reconstruction of Henry VIII’s life and personality from available sources is a legitimate exercise, as long as we realise that this, and no more, is its purpose.

I have gone into this question at some length because it is essen­tial for us to reflect on the purpose of biblical narrative before we can effectively communicate its teaching to others. Some biblical stories have an obvious purpose that can easily be learned from handbooks and commentaries. The books of Jonah, Tobit and Judith are extended parables with the morals heavily laid on. Practically all the other historical books have a unifying purpose, namely the history of salvation. A word about this purpose may be helpful in order to over­come many possible misunderstandings.

HINGE OF THE COVENANT

In the ancient Middle East big nations tried to exercise control over small nations by imposing treaties on them. The right to impose an alliance usually derived from military help which the big nation had provided. Mention of this historical fact in the treaty document became an important element of political practice.

Take the case of the Hittite Emperor Shuppiluliuma who imposed a treaty on Niqmadu, King of Ugarit in the 14th century B.C.*(1) The terms of the covenant make clear that Ugarit is being reduced to the status of a satellite state of the Hittite empire. It has to pay tribute. It is subject to the Hittites in foreign policy. It has to cooperate with the Hittite police. The legal document (clay tablets) in which these terms are spelled out, also makes clear why the Emperor could demand this new status of dependence. It points to the help the Emperor has given:

“When Iturabbi, King of Mukish, Addunirari, King of Nuchashshi and Afitteshub, King of Ni’i rebelled against their feudal lord, the Emperor, and started the war against him, they brought an army together, cut off the cities of Ugarit, invaded the Kingdom of Ugarit, plundered and destroyed it. Then Niqmadu,

King of Ugarit, sent this message to Emperor Shuppiluliuma, ‘Please liberate me from the hands of my enemies. I will become your vassal. You will be my feudal lord. I will be enemy of your enemies and friend of your friends. Please help me. These kings are putting me under heavy stress’.

The Emperor reacted favourably to Niqmadu’s request. Emperor Shuppiluliuma sent his grandsons and generals with soldiers and chariots to Ugarit. These drove all enemy troops out of the Kingdom of Ugarit. They returned to Niqmadu the spoils that had been taken”.

Biblical scholarship has shown that the history of salvation had that same function in the covenant or treaty between God and Israel. God was understood to be the Emperor who imposed his rule on the Israelites in the form of an ancient alliance. And, just as in political vassal-treaties, God demanded Israel’s subjection on the ground of the many things he had done for his people. When the question arose as to why the Israelites had to keep God’s laws, the answer given was not: “These laws are reasonable”, or: “God is our Creator”, but: “God saved us”.

“When your son will ask you ‘What is the purpose of these laws which the Lord our God has given us?’ you must tell him, ‘We were Pharaoh’s slaves in Egypt and the Lord brought us out of Egypt with great power and mighty miracles – with terrible blows against Pharaoh and all his peoples. We saw it all with our own eyes. He brought us out of Egypt so that he could give us this land he had promised to our ancestors. Therefore he has commanded us to obey all of these laws and to be subject to him so that he can preserve us alive as he has until now!’ ” (Deut 6,20-24).

Once a year the people came together to re affirm and renew the Covenant with God. On that occasion the prophets and the priests instructed the people anew in all the aspects of their allegiance to God. Their laws would be inculcated again and, where necessary, explained. Through the invocation of blessings, and curses, the people would be reminded of the reward which God would give for loyalty and of the punishment he would mete out for disloyalty. But one important element in the ceremony was to recall the history of salva­tion. The priest would deliberately recall the past history of the people to remind them of the many ways God had guided and saved them. This was the origin and the function of “salvation history”. Beginning most likely with an account of the exodus from Egypt, salvation history gradually began to comprise all the major headings we know from the biblical accounts: creation, the call of the Patriarchs, the liberation from Egypt, the journey through the desert and the con­quest of the Promised Land. The purpose, then, of salvation history, and therefore of all the main historical books, was to strengthen people’s loyalty to the covenant. Clearly it is a religious purpose. Tribal stories, secular history, military records and other sources used in the narration are made entirely subservient to this overall purpose.

To be even more specific we might say that the same stories of the history of salvation have two main purposes for us today:

1.  They want to teach us about God. They want to prove that he is our Master, that he has a right to our submission. They reflect on his strictness, his mercy, his love and his unflinching loyalty to what he has promised.
2.  They want to teach us about our duties. Being a people party to a covenant, we are expected to be faithful to the obligations imposed by that covenant. The stories will be geared to give examples of how we should act, or how hot, and what the consequences of such behaviour will be.

As we will see later, the stories will have to be applied to our own circumstances. At the same time, whenever we take up a bible story for communication we do well to begin to put ourselves into the frame of mind of the original narrators. Putting ourselves back into the covenant situation and feeling how the story helps to inculcate God’s rights and man’s duties, we will more easily hit upon the particular message contained in the story, and then apply it to ourselves.

ANALYSING A BIBLICAL STORY

Before we can make use of a story, we should read and study it properly. It is, of course, useful to refer to commentaries to see if they have anything special to say about the story in question. But when I speak about study here, I am not first of all referring to a kind of specialist study, either of commentaries or even of the text. What I think should be done first and foremost is that we ourselves read and analyse the text carefully, so that we can on our own easily identify the elements of the story.

In the beginning this may seem cumbersome and complicated. It is like anything else we do for the first time. In my experience a personal analysis of a biblical narration can eventually be done in five to ten minutes. What we have to learn is to spot accurately the various elements in the story and so recognise what a particular story is trying to bring out through these elements.

The technique can be learned best by working out a particular example. I have selected for this purpose the story of Ehud (Judges 3, 4-30) not because it contains a deep message, but because it is about the shortest complete story I could find and it lends itself well as an illustration. I will perform the analysis by discussing successively the cast, place, time, dialogue, motifs and suspense. After reflecting on each element in turn, I will try to show the overall results of such an analysis.

1. 12 When Othniel son of Kenaz died, once again the men of Israel began to do what displeases Yahweh and Yahweh gave Eglon.the king of Moab, power over Israel because they had done what displeases Yahweh.

13  Eglon in alliance with the sons of Ammon and Amalek marched against Israel and conquered them and took possession of the city of palms.

14  The Israelites were enslaved by Eglon the king of Moab for eighteen years.

15  Then the Israelites cried to Yahweh, and Yahweh raised up a deliverer for them, Ehud the son of Gera the Benjamite; he was left- handed. The men of Israel appointed him to take their tribute to Eglon the king of Moab.

16 Ehud made a dagger – it was double-edged and a cubit long – and strapped it on under his clothes, over his right thigh.

17 He presented the tribute to Eglon the king of Moab. This Eglon was a very fat man.

18  Having presented the tribute, Ehud went off again with the men who had carried it.

19  But he himself, on reaching the Idols of Gilgal turned and went back and said, “I have a secret message for you, O king”. The king replied, “Silence”, and all who were with him went out.

20 Then Ehud went in. The king sat in the cool retreat of his upper room; he was alone. Ehud said to him, “I have a message from God for you, O king”. The king immediately stood up from his seat.

21 Then Ehud, using his left hand, drew the dagger he was carrying on his right thigh and thrust it into the king’s belly.

22 The hilt too went in after the blade, and the fat closed over the blade, for Ehud left the dagger in his belly; then he went out through the window.

23  Ehud went out by the porch; he had shut and locked the doors of the upper room behind him.

24  When he had gone, the servants came back and looked; the doors of the upper room were locked. They thought, “He is probably covering his feet in the upper part of the cool room”.

25  They waited until they no longer knew what to think for he still did not open the doors of the upper room. At length they took the key and unlocked the room; their master lay on the ground, dead.

26  While they were waiting, Ehud had fled. He passed the Idols and escaped to safety in Seirah.

27  When he reached the territory of Israel he sounded the horn in the highlands of Ephraim, and the Israelites came down from the hills, with him at their head.

28  And he said to them, “Follow me, because Yahweh has delivered your enemy Moab into your hands”. So they followed him, cut Moab off from crossing the fords of the Jordan and let no one across.

29  On that occasion they beat the Moabites, some ten thousand men, all tough and seasoned fighters, and not one escaped.

30  That day, Moab was humbled under the hand of Israel and the land enjoyed rest for eighty years.

The meaning of the story in general is quite clear. It is one more incident to prove that God punishes, but is also ready to forgive. When the people turned back to him, he delivered them from their enemies by raising a courageous and cunning leader. We will concentrate now on the narrative element.

When we consider the cast, we find, first of all, some large groups mentioned in general. The two main protagonist groups are: the Moabites and the Israelites. Three persons are mentioned by name: Yahweh (God), Eglon (king of Moab) and Ehud (leader of Israel). Eglon and Ehud are the two main adversaries. Each of them is surrounded by a small group of helpers, who are only referred to in general terms, without names: the men carrying the tribute (vs. 18) and the king’s servants (vs. 19, 24,25). If we combine all this information we can draw a simple scheme (see Fig. 12).

Fig 12. Protagonists in the Ehud story.

Note the parallelism of the two opposing forces.

Two nations, Moab and Israel, face each other in conflict. The conflict comes to a head in the meeting of their two leaders, Eglon and Ehud, each of whom is surrounded by a small group of helpers.

Next we study the places involved. To facilitate matters I have drawn a simple map (Fig. 13). Let us first look at the large movements. The Moabites move from their country (the land of Moab) to the city of Palms (Jericho), where Eglon builds his palace. The Israelites leave their home towns (the hill country of Ephraim) to bring tribute to Eglon at Jericho. After Ehud kills Eglon, he returns again to the hill country of Ephraim, collects soldiers from there, goes back to Jericho and drives the Moabites back into the land of Moab. A few places mentioned on these major routes are the Idols at Gilgal

Fig 13. The top half gives a map of the localities.

Below the movement of the story from one place to another is indicated by the arrow.

and the fords of the Jordan through which one goes to Moab. Some further details of place are given regarding Eglon’s palace. The tribute was probably delivered in the reception room downstairs (vs. 18), while the private meeting between Eglon and Ehud took place in the king’s private room on the first floor, his upper room (vs. 19). We also find mention of the “inner part of the cool room”, which was a toilet adjoining the king’s private room (vs. 24). We can express all this in a simple scheme of places (Fig. 13). It is obvious from the scheme that Eglon’s palace is the main locality of the story, with particular stress on the scene in the upper room. The other move­ments converge on this place or move away from it.

Fig 14. The vertical column represents the passage of time; the horizontal one the amount of words devoted to it in the story.

The importance of the scene in the upper room is also confirmed by a study of the time element. We feel how the narrator accelerates the time as he develops the story (see Fig. 14). After disposing of 18 years’ oppression in one single sentence (vs. 14) he devotes five sentences to Ehud’s journey to Jericho which must have taken two or three days. The confrontation between Ehud and Eglon, which probably only took a few minutes, is given another 5 sentences. After this, time gradually lengthens out again. Eglon’s courtiers probably wait for one or two hours before taking action (vs. 23- 25). Ehud’s return to Ephraim to collect an army would have taken at least two or three days. The story ends with the mention of 80 years’ peace result­ing from this war. In the narrator’s handling of time we should also notice his use of “flashbacks”. After telling us that Ehud and his companions had sent out to bring the taxes to Eglon, he mentions that Ehud had hidden a dagger under his clothes (vs. 16). Surely the Israelites were searched for weapons before entering the Moabite fortress and Ehud had strapped the dagger on before leaving home! While the king’s servants were deliberating what they should do, Ehud had already covered a great distance towards the hill country of Ephraim (vs. 26). Such flashbacks help to bring tension into the story.

Dialogue is another means of heightening the sense of drama. The narrator uses only a few quotations of direct speech, but these are well selected. We are not surprised to find that it is the protagonists who speak during their meeting in the upper room which is the climax of the story. Twice Ehud says, “I have a message from God for you” (vs. 19-20). This is not just a ruse to enter the king’s presence alone, on the plea that it was a secret message. It also expresses the purpose of his prophetic deed. Thrust­ing the dagger into Eglon’s body is an act of judgement performed in the name of God. The other direct speech reported in the narrative expresses human emotion. The anxiety of the king’s servants makes them say to one another: “He may be in the toilet” (vs. 24). Ehud’s joy can be heard in his triumphant cry, “Follow me because God will give you the victory over the Moabites” (vs. 28). Dialogue helps us to understand both the role of agents and the moments of excitement or emotion in the story. (See Fig. 15).

Fig. 15. On the left all persons are listed. The arrows indicate who is speaking to whom.

Woven through the narrative as a thread are its motifs. Motifs correspond to the narrator’s personal interest. They are certain themes which the story teller wants to stress and which he therefore refers to whenever he has the opportunity (see also Chapter Eight). In our present story three motifs come to the fore. The narrator is convinced that whatever happens to Israel is ultimately God’s doing; God rules history. When the Moabites subdue Israel it is because God wanted to punish his people (vs. 12). Again, it is God who makes Ehud take the leadership in the revolt against Moab (vs. 15). When Ehud kills Eglon it is seen as a judgement from God (vs. 20). The ultimate victory over the Moabites is attributed to God (vs. 28). Another motif is Ehud’s cunning and courage. We are told how Ehud is left handed, how he hides his dagger before leaving for Jericho, how he effects an entrance to the king by saying he has a secret message, how he manages to escape by closing the door of the king’s private room and

Fig. 16. The scheme shows the verses where the three main motifs recur in the story.

making his exit through a window. All these details help us to admire our “hero”, his clever planning and cool performance. Quite the opposite treat­ment is given to Eglon. We are disgusted with this fat tyrant who receives tribute from poor people (vs. 17). We hear with glee how the dagger kills him, disappears into his fat belly (vs. 21). We laugh with relief when we realise that Ehud can make his escape because the king’s servants are used to their master spending long periods in his toilet (vs. 24). Such motifs are better appreciated when we plot their occurrence against the verse numbers (see Fig. 16).

The last element I would like to analyse is the one of suspense. Stories usually take their beginning from some problem, some prospect or some conflict that arouses the emotions of the hearer. This ‘suspense’ inherent in the story is usually brought to a climax, or a series of climaxes, before being resolved. In our narrative the growth of suspense is easy to follow. We are dismayed at the oppression of Israel by Moab. Our hopes rise when we are told that God is going to liberate his people. Guessing Ehud’s subversive intentions we share his emotions as he penetrates single-handed into the king’s private room. Eglon’s death is a climax which partly resolves our suspense, but still leaves us anxious about Ehud’s escape. Ehud’s successful return to the hill country of Ephraim, and the victory of Israel that follows, finally resolve our emotions and bring them back full circle to peace and satisfaction. (Fig. 17). The suspense in the story is determined by far more than just the contents. It is very much brought out by the style of writing. With the increase of suspense we normally find that sentences become brief and the descriptions vivid. The indications of time and place are more accurate. The narrator introduces more direct speech and uses emotional words. When the suspense is resolved the narrator expresses this by speak­ing in a more relaxed and general manner.

Fig. 17. The rise and fall of suspense.

What do we gain from this kind of analysis? Certainly it will help us see what matters in the story, how the original story-teller viewed and presented his subject. The elements of cast, place, time, direct speech, motifs and suspense are found in every story. Every story has a general background, an overall setting within which it is placed. This overall setting is usually expressed in very general terms: the people are groups, the places are wide, and the period is of long duration. Then the narrator zooms in on a specific scene. This scene is then characterised by its definite locality, a distinctive moment in time, named individuals and the recurrence of reported speech. The whole story is held together by a theme and its dramatic tension. Recognising this inner structure of a story helps us to understand it better and to re-narrate it properly as I will explain in the next section.

It also helps us to get ideas from Scripture itself. In the story we have used as an example, we may be struck by the problem of Ehud’s self-understanding. Although he knows himself a person under God’s protection who can act in God’s name, he realises at the same time that all will depend on his own nerve and skill. Ehud had men under his command, yet at the crucial moment of decision and action, he was on his own. Ehud was troubled by the ethics of his deed. He obtained admission to the king by a ruse, not by telling a lie, thus saving his soldier’s conscience. Reflections such as these may well open up fruitful comparisons with other leaders in our own day who have to perform improbable and courageous missions. Or we might be impressed by the central scene itself, the encounter between Eglon and Ehud in the king’s upper room. Ehud saved his people by courageously facing the main opponent and by doing this by himself. This might spark off ideas as to how we could solve some problems by tackling them head on. We will discuss further on how such a “message” can be developed in practice. The point I want to make here is that a careful analysis of the narrative elements goes a long way towards making us discover the full riches of God’s word.

NARRATIVE FORCE

When we use a biblical story in communicating the message, we do so because we want the message to have a special grip on the audience. This was exactly why the old mediators of the covenant, men wanting to bring out God’s supremacy and the people’s obligations to him, did not simply enumerate a number of facts, but told their hearers a story. Telling a story is a powerful means of drawing our audience into our way of thinking. It entices them to pay attention and to share our feel­ings. Narrative has this special force of its own and as good com­municators we should at all costs preserve that force.

There is a big difference between simply pointing back to a story by recalling one or two of its facts, and narrating the actual story itself. For some reason or other many preachers and teachers shy away from straight-forward narration. Somehow they seem to think that story-telling is not sufficiently packed with meaning or is intellectually below their level of speaking. Or it may simply be that they have never really learned how to tell stories. As a result many speakers, if referring to a biblical story at all, will restrict themselves to a brief recapitulation of the event, presuming that their hearers have heard or read the story elsewhere.

They might say something like this: “You will all remember how the prophet Elijah challenged the priests of Baal to decide by a miracle whether Yahweh or Baal is God. Both Elijah and Baal’s followers prepared a sacrificial altar. When Elijah prayed, Yahweh responded by igniting the sacrificial wood with a bolt of lightning that fell from heaven. Then the people understood that Yahweh was the true God”.

This is not a narrative, but a resume. The story has been robbed of all its narrative force and reduced to the level of a recorded fact. In other words, the story as story has been ruined. What could have been an excited sharing in Elijah’s experience of God has been made as lack-lustre as a death notice. It is good to recognise that it is the attempt to summarise that kills a story. All definite indications of time and place are omitted. No exact descriptions are given. Specific human actions are levelled off into abstract terms and general state­ments. No dialogue is recorded. There is no build-up of tension, no room for emotion, no climax. All flesh and muscle has been shorn off to leave dead bones.

The function of a relay station is to receive the original signal correctly re-process it and broadcast it again with renewed strength. When we re-narrate a biblical story we have the same task. After carefully reading the story ourselves, we try to narrate it again for our particular audience in such a way that its original narrative force will strike home. This will mean that we should be aware of the elements to be preserved and others to be strengthened or completed. Here are some suggestions that may help us. I will illustrate the various points with reference to the story of Elijah confronting the priests of Baal (1Kings 18, 20-40)

Whenever we tell a story, our hearers must have a good visual picture opf the setting. With their mental eyes people must be able to see the place where things are happening. Sometimes a story may have more than one central place of action. Each of these then needs to be described and presented. It often happens that the Bible omits a good description of the place, as it was so well known to its con­temporaries. If I say that I met “so and so” while changing trains at Leeds, I need not add a vivid description, because we all have a clear picture of what a railway station looks like. For those belonging to another culture, or a different age, it would be different. The same applies to biblical localities which are so far removed from us in distance, cultural practice, and time. The story of Elijah could begin as follows:

“Today I would like you to come with me to Mount Carmel in the North of Israel. The time is about 860 B.C. The mountain is covered with forests and jungle, but somewhere near its top we find a wide clearing. We see a lot of people who have gathered from far and wide. It is a huge crowd of hundreds of men, excitedly talking to one another as if something important is going to happen …”

Then we have to make sure we introduce the persons. People have to have some clear idea who the main actors are, otherwise they will not be able to identify themselves readily with them. In the Bible it is generally presupposed that we know who the persons are. Our audiences are usually not so well informed. Moreover, it is good to remind them of some of the main characteristics that make the actors living and interesting persons to us. To return to our example:

“. . . Then all of a sudden we see that the people’s talking sub­sides. A great ring is formed. On one side within the ring we see a lonely figure dressed in a brown, camel hair cloak. It is the prophet Elijah. The austerity of his face, and his erect posture as he looks round, command respect. On the other side, facing him, we see a group of priests of Baal, dressed in multi-coloured gar­ments, their faces bright and washed, their beards well-oiled.

They stand in small groups, conversing together and occasionally bursting forth into boisterous laughter. Obviously they feel at ease and are sure of themselves…”

Direct speech is a powerful element in narrative. We should pre­serve it when we find it in the biblical text, and, if necessary, introduce our own. It has an electrifying effect on the audience. It makes our protagonists real and lends emotional colour to the story.

“Then Elijah raised his eyes and addressed the people. Looking around him with a fierce expression on his face, he said: ‘Oh, people of Israel, how long do you mean to hobble first on one leg and then on the other? If Yahweh is God, be loyal to him. If you believe that Baal is God then serve Baal. Well, what is your choice? In whom do you believe?’ A great silence descended upon the people. No one gave an answer. Then Elijah spoke again: ‘I alone’, he said, ‘am left as a prophet of Yahweh, while the prophets of Baal are 450. Well, I challenge them, here and now, to an ordeal. Let two bulls be given us. Let the priests of Baal choose one for themselves, slaughter it and lay it on sacrificial wood but not set fire to it. I in my turn will prepare the other bull, but not set fire to it. You, priests of Baal, must call on the name of your God, and I shall call on the name of my God.

The God who answers with fire is God indeed’.

The people shouted in response, ‘Yes, agreed’.”

We should make the most of the dramatic events of the story. Story implies change, a succession of things that happen, a movement of events as well as a succession of different emotions. The wheels that make the story of life roll on are the verbs. Our narrative should be full of dynamic, descriptive and vigorous verbs. The following section of our Elijah story, in which practically nothing has been added to the Bible text, shows what action verbs can do.

“… The priests of Baal took the bull, slaughtered it and pre­pared it for the sacrifice. From morning to midday they called upon the name of Baal. ‘Oh, Baal, answer us!’, but there was no voice, no answer. They kept on performing their hobbling dance round the altar they had made. When midday came Elijah began to mock them. ‘Call louder’, he said, ‘for he is a God: maybe he is distracted or he is busy, or he has gone on a journey; perhaps he is asleep and won’t wake up’. So they shouted louder and gashed themselves as they were used to do, with swords and spears, until the blood flowed down their skins. Midday passed, and they ranted on until the time in which the evening offering is usually presented. But there was no voice, no answer, no atten­tion given to them from heaven .. .*’

Another element we should not overlook is the descriptive detail. The Bible gives plenty of them and we should not omit or abbreviate them. The details give a touch of realism and help to make the event visible. Notice how, in the following excerpts, details such as the twelve stones of the altar, the width of the trenches and the amount of water poured over the victim add to the power of the account.

“. . . Then Elijah repaired the ancient altar of Yahweh which stood on that place, but which had been broken down. Elijah took twelve stones, corresponding to the number of the twelve tribes of the sons of Jacob with whom Yahweh had made a covenant and with these stones he built a new altar in the name of Yahweh. Around the altar he dug a trench, wide enough to allow two sacks of corn to stand in it side by side. He then arranged the fire wood on top of the altar, slaughtered the bull, cut it up in large pieces and arranged it as a sacrificial victim on the wood. Then he said to some helpers, ‘Fill four jars of water and pour it on the victim and on the wood’. This they did. He said, ‘Do it a second time’. They poured the same amount of water a second time. He said, ‘Do it a third time’, and they did it a third time. Water dripped all around the altar and the trench was full of it…”

As we are carried along by the story we will, of course, be sensi­tive to the build-up of suspense. With our audience we should live through moments of suspense, climax and happy resolution. There are no exact rules for this; much will depend on our use of intonation, pauses and inflexions of voice. A moment of suspense can immediately be felt in the reaction of the audience. People tend then to become very still and quiet, the interest manifest on their faces. A story-teller will relish the magnificent climax in the Elijah narrative, bringing out how the bolt of lightning did much more than ignite the sacrificial fire.

“.. . Elijah prayed ‘Yahweh, God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel, let them know today that you are God in Israel and that I am your servant and that I have done all these things at your command.’ When nothing happened he fell on his knees, stretched his arms out to heaven and called out more urgently, ‘Answer me, Yahweh, answer me, so that all these people may know, that you, Yahweh, are God, and that you want to win back their hearts’. There was a moment of anxious silence (pause) then suddenly the sky rent open and a bolt of lightning sent by God fell down and consumed not only the victim and the wood, but also the stones and the sand, and licked up even the water in the trench. When all the people saw this, they fell on their faces, ‘Yahweh is God’, they cried out, ‘Yahweh is God’.”

Telling a story is an art and is something very personal. Each narrator will have his own approach and his own distinctive style. But the elements mentioned above will enter in some form or other in every good narration. It is the prudent and calculated use of these ele­ments that will give our stories the natural force that makes them so powerful in communication.

HISTORICITY AND ARTISTIC PRESENTATION

Children of the scientific age that we are, we are sensitive to the ques­tion of historicity. We expect our daily papers to give factual reports of contemporary events. Most of the history books we read are pre­occupied with reconstructing past events in an objective manner. “Did it really happen?”, “How exactly did it happen?” are the phrases we frequently hear. The scriptural narratives were discredited in the eyes of many when they were found to contain much that is not historical in a strictly scientific sense. This in turn has had a paralys­ing effect on communicators who have become less inclined to make use of such “untrustworthy material”. There are many issues that could be raised here, but I will restrict myself to some practical ques­tions. What is and what is not historical in biblical narratives? How does this affect our use of such stories?

The answer, in a nutshell, is that narration like any other art of its kind, contains both statement and presentation. When judging what the narrator wants to convey to us, we first try to understand the main statement he is making through his presentation. After this we study the details of presentation and distinguish between: additional statement, audience appeal and decoration. To explain these terms and what they stand for I would like to make use of a painting by Dirk Bouts, a Flemish artist who lived in the fifteenth century. I will later apply the same distinctions to biblical narrative.

If we study the painting (Fig. 18) it is not difficult to establish its main statement. The artist presents us with Christ and the twelve apostles at theLast Supper. The exact moment portrayed seems to be the institution of the Blessed Sacrament when Jesus said “Take and eat. This is my body”. Whatever we have to say about the details later on, it is clear from the whole painting that the artist attaches great value to this deed of our Lord. It is as if he says to us: “Never forget the Holy Eucharist which Jesus gave to us when he dined for the last time with his twelve apostles”.

However, the painting is so rich in detail that we might, at least theoretically, raise the question: “Did the Last Supper really happen like this?” The artist, who would be horrified at our lack of comprehension, would obviously hasten to give the following reply: “Surely it did not happen exactly like this. For one thing I do not know precisely what things looked like in Jesus’ time, neither does it interest me very much. What I have tried to do is to present the institution of the Holy Eucharist in a way that my people can understand and appreciate”.

“That my people may understand”. Studying the painting again we see that indeed many details are due to the Flemish milieu in which Dirk Bouts worked. The table and the chairs correspond to fifteenth century furniture. The shape of the house, the windows, the doors, the hearth, and the tiles on the floor, reflect the architecture of that age. Many other details spring from his relation to the Flemish audience. Even the personalities of Christ and the apostles have purposely been modelled on the common folk found in Flanders in those years. The realism of many details springs from the artist’s desire to reconstruct a scene in which people could recognise themselves and their own situation. We call this aspect of the presentation audience appeal.

However, Dirk Bouts also wanted to produce a work of art. He wanted his painting to be beautiful, to be admired for its colours, composition and delicate expression. Many of the details come from this purely artistic concern and have, consequently, a decorative function. Some examples of this may be seen in unnecessary objects that were added, such as the statue over the door, the four servants standing to attention, the cupboard standing on the right side and other odds and ends. Like other Flemish painters, Bouts is interested in bringing out depth and distant perspectives. That is why he makes us see a glimpse of faraway scenes through the windows and open doors. Again, like other contemporary painters, the artist shows great skill in capturing the different materials seen in the painting. Just study how one can almost feel the difference between the various surfaces, the tile, the wood, cloth, hair, the metal of the plate and the marble of the pillar. Such details make the presentation attractive, but they do not by themselves add a separate meaning.

Some details, of course, enter for a special purpose. They enlarge the artist’s main statement and so I prefer to call them added statement. In the painting in question it is no coincidence that the gesture of Christ’s right hand corresponds to a similar gesture of the priest at consecration. The round white host, distinct from the loaves of bread lying on the table, and the chalice, purposely different from the ordinary drinking cups standing about, point to the eucharist. Obviously the artist wants us to see the link between the main celebrant at Holy Mass and Jesus Christ. This I would call an added statement resulting from details of the presentation. Another added statement of this kind concerns the sanctity of the apostles. Innocence, sincerity, love and reverent fear shine from their faces. Judas, in the left foreground, with the grim expression on his face, has been given a different treatment.

Fig. 18. The Last Supper by Dirk Bouts. On view in St. Peter’s Church, Louvain.

If it isn’t difficult for us to see the above distinctions in a painting – and I am sure I have exasperated some of my readers by discussing them at length – why on earth do we find it so difficult to apply the same to narrative? Basically biblical narrative is an artistic presentation, not a scientific description. Like the painter, the biblical author has a statement to make. He believes in what God has done for his people and his statement expresses this belief. But like the Christian artists of later ages the biblical authors were concerned to present the main tenets of salvation history in a form that could be understood and appreciated by their audiences. In one century after another ancient traditions, which often consisted substantially of one or other single fact, were elaborated and embellished by the mediators of the covenant. It is a serious misunderstanding to imagine that they presented the details because they themselves believed them to be historically true. Apart from the main statement and added teaching, most of the details found their origin in the artistic need of captivating the audience.

There is more that we as communicators can learn from the comparison with painting. Dirk Bouts’ vision of the Last Supper could inspire his contemporaries with respect for the Holy Eucharist. For Christians in a village of the Indian sub-continent, the same picture proves meaningless. Although various items in the painting can be explained to them they will not to be able to appreciate the message on account of the difference in cultural expression and artistic language.

See what fundamental changes in the presentation the Indian artist, A. da Fonseca had to bring about to make the same fundamental statement as Dirk Bouts. (Fig. 19). Now Christ and the twelve apostles are seated on the floor in Indian fashion. They are dressed in the saffron robes of religious men. In short, the whole presentation has been Indianised and we feel instinctively that just as Dirk Bouts did justice to the main “statement” of the Eucharist for his Flemish contemporaries, Fonseca achieves exactly the same through the cultural symbolism of India.

Fig. 19. “Khrist prasad” by A. da Fonseca, Bombay.

As narrators we have a similar choice. What weighs heavier with us? Strict adherence to written details of the culture centuries removed from our own, or a presentation as expressive as possible of the main statement with details in our own cultural language? Christian theology of the inspired word has always affirmed that it is the meaning, not the external expression, that comes first. The implication for our use of the stories is quite considerable. To be faithful to a biblical narrative and its message we need not worry excessively about stylistic or audience-related written details. Rather we should feel free with the creative vision of the artist, to adjust the presentation in such a way that the message will strike home. It is a practice which skilled catechetical narrators have followed with great success through the ages.

Giving the biblical stories a “modern feel” does not mean that we should introduce manifest anachronisms into our stories. We should avoid extremes that will strike our listeners as odd. Everybody knows that our modern technological facilities did not exist at the time of Christ. An assertion such as “Joseph and Mary caught the bus to Bethlehem”, or “Pilate told Herod by telephone that he would send Jesus along”, disturb rather than help. But barring such new modern inventions, practically all biblical stories can be re-translated into the every day, human experiences familiar to the people we address.

On the other hand, whatever we do, we should preserve some local colour. People are used to hearing about different cultures and other customs. They realise that the biblical stories refer to Palestine

2000 years ago. A touch of strangeness or oddness in persons, objects and events, makes the story interesting and objective. But any out-of-the-way customs should be explained in terms familiar to our audience and should not dominate the overall presentation. Japanese theatre when presented to a European audience will fascinate at first by its novelty and quaintness. But after ten minutes most people will feel bored and turn away. On the other hand, a film about Japan and Japanese customs, specially made for a Western audience, may well keep people spell-bound for hours.

The final remark related to our re-narrating of a biblical story, concerns the need of quoting some parts of Scripture literally.

Usually a biblical narration contains certain passages in which the message of scripture is brought out clearly. While retaining our freedom to extend and enlarge on other parts of the narration for the sake of contemporary presentation, we do well to quote such striking passages in their original form.

In the story of Elijah’s confrontation with the priests of Baal, for instance, such passages could be Elijah’s prayer “Answer me, Yahweh, answer me that these people may know that you are God”. Or, the classic description of how God’s fire from heaven consumed the altar as well as the sacrifice. “Then the lightning of Yahweh fell and consumed not only the sacrificial victim and the wood, but also the stones and the soil and licked up even the water in the trench”. Such literal quotations of key texts bring our hearers into immediate contact with the inspired word and keep our pre­sentation “biblical” in spite of the trans-cultural alterations we have made in our presentation.

SIMPLE FREE NARRATION

Some preachers and teachers are used to telling a story in two parts. First they will present the narrative itself (and then usually in the “all­bones” fashion, that is: too short, too abstract and without emotion). Then they will indicate the moral which will amount to a long-drawn- out series of applications and admonitions. This approach normally produces the “slump effect” in the audience. As long as the story lasts attention will be riveted. As soon as the moral part begins the audience slumps into distraction. If a teacher at school frequently follows the story-moral sequence, some children may even switch off earlier, while the story is still going on, in anticipation of the repug­nance about the moral which they know will come.

In a good story the moral of the story is the story itself. A feature film is not much use if it needs a fifteen minute explanation after -the show is finished, to explain what it meant to say. Nor would people want to remain in the cinema for such a purpose. A good novel carries the message in itself, not in an added epilogue. A beautiful church building should speak for itself. An instructive exhibition informs and educates through its exhibits, not by material added on to it from the outside. In other words, whatever a story has to say it should say it as part of the story itself, not as something added on, certainly not as something added as an afterthought when the suspense has been resolved.

The application to our own life, the moral for a particular audience, may need to be made more explicit. But pointing the moral should be done in the course of the story itself. The moral should be interwoven in a natural way, with the events, with the description of the personalities, the dialogues and other details of the narrative. Story and application should be so naturally integrated that the audience experiences the whole presentation as an undivided unity.

Not every biblical story lends itself to this kind of straight­forward presentation. But many stories do, many more than most preachers are aware of. A catechetical instruction in class or a sermon on a Sunday morning might well consist entirely of such a well-integrated narrative. This may seem unbelievable to some. In our experience of sermons many of us have come to identify preach­ing with moralising, so much so that we use expressions like “don’t preach at me”, by which we mean, “don’t tell me how to behave”. A well balanced story, however, can be a very good and effective sermon.

Presenting an instruction from the Bible in this form will be called by me a “simple free narration”. Actually it isn’t as simple and free as it looks, but it owes its name to the fact that it does not have the deliberate interruptions which we insert when we use the “story- reflection-story” technique that I will describe later on. For a simple free narration we should choose a biblical story that has an obvious message for a certain audience. In presenting the story we do nothing else than re-tell the story in such a way that our audience will take the message home with them.

Let us work out an example. Rehoboam lost half his kingdom because he did not listen to the advice of experienced people (read the story in 1 Kings 12, 1-19). The moral of the story is obvious. The story could well do for boys and girls in high school (a 20 minute conference on a recollection day?), for priests gathered at a clergy retreat (a seven minute homily during concelebrated Mass?) or for a mixed congregation (a 10 minute Sunday sermon?). Our presentation will vary considerably depending on the audience and the occasion, but in all cases it could be in the form of a simple free narration.

In preparation for the event we first read the story carefully. We reflect on what it has to say, or could say to our particular audience. With teenagers the main problem centres round what is known as the “generation gap”, how to have confidence in all the people who advise us to do things we don’t understand or like. With priests our stress will probably lie more on the side of responsibility. Rehoboam as a new king barged ahead and imposed his authority without realising that the exercise of all responsibility should be guided by the advice of wise men. With a mixed congregation we might, perhaps, draw more on the lasting need of an attitude to learn and to take advice. Reflecting on such applications, we jot them down on a sheet of paper, possibly adding some specific examples from everyday life that illustrate the need of taking the message seriously.

We now have a look at the story as a story. On the lines suggested earlier in this chapter, we analyse the narrative elements and plan our pre­sentation. Here again much will depend on our audience. Priests will need much less explanation than high school children and a more sophisticated form of narration. However, for any audience our story as a story should be good. If we feel embarrassed at telling a story to professional preachers, we might do well to remember that Christ spoke in parables to the first college of bishops!

We now plan our application – going through the story, we look for openings, for small remarks on the side which will imply the application. Suppose I am preparing the sermon for the mixed congregation. The story tells how the people complained to Rehoboam before his enthronement and gave him an ultimatum. “Your father, King Solomon, gave us a heavy burden to bear. If you lighten the burdens he laid upon us, we will acknowledge you as king”. Here we could reflect, while telling the story, that people often groan and grumble, but that there is more than once a kernel of truth in what they say. What do we do when we hear complaints against ourselves? Do we immediately respond in anger? Rehoboam at least had the common sense not to react immediately. He said to the people’s representatives, “Give me three days and then I will let you know my deci­sion”.

Again, when in the story we narrate how Rehoboam received different advice from his young companions and the council of elders, we can reflect on the contradictory counsel given us by friends, relatives, the books we read, and the professionals whom we consult. It is a point of wisdom to con­sider who is giving the advice and why. While narrating Rehoboam’s harsh reply, we may dwell a little on Rehoboam’s psychological attitude, compar­ing it to similar experiences we have ourselves when dealing with others. Such reflections and remarks should not be overplayed. They should hardly be noticed as distinct from the story. They should be absent from the last part of the story. The conclusion of the story will automatically make people reflect on the implications for their own lives.

I will add here a fully worked out example of how the story of 1 Kings 12, 1-17 could be used as a simple free narration in an address to priests. I have been asked to give a short homily during the concelebrated Mass. The

Gospel text read during the Mass was Matthew 15, 12-14 where Christ speaks of the pharisees.

“My dear Fathers,

Christ’s warning in today’s Gospel that we should not be blind men leading the blind, cannot be ignored by us priests. There seems to be some kind of blindness that easily befalls those who take on responsibility. It may be good for us to reflect again on the Old Testament story of the blind king.

Solomon had died and a sigh of relief went up all over Israel, for his rule had been oppressive, his taxes heavy. So when the days approached for Solomon’s son, Rehoboam, to be enthroned as king the leaders of the people came together and decided to lay down conditions. We can well picture the scene before us in the wide valley of Shechem. The tribes had come together. All the slopes of the hills were covered with tents as far as the eye could see. And in the meadow near the ancient sanctuary was the pavilion which had been erected to house the young king, with his wives, his officials and the servants who formed his court. There, in front of the pavilion, representatives from the people met the new king. Their demands were clear. “Your father was a hard master. We don’t want you as our king unless you promise to treat us better than he did”. We can almost see Rehoboam recoil at these words as we ourselves recoil whenever we hear words that are unpleasant, that hurt our pride. How do we react when people criticise the clergy or lay down terms for cooperat­ing with us?

“Father never prepares his sermon”, people say about us. We are furious but do we take the trouble to find out why our preaching fails to inspire them?

“Father has his own friends. We never see him in our home”.

“Father is old-fashioned. He cannot get on well with the young”. “Father looks well after himself. We wonder what he is doing all day”. – They may be hard words for us to swallow. We rise immediately in self-defence with angry indignation. Why don’t we listen to people first and examine their criticism dispassionately…?

As is usually the case, the people’s criticism against the house of David was justified to a great extent. Had Solomon not imposed heavy taxes to pay for his costly administration? Scripture tells us that the daily food requirements for the palace alone amounted to 195 bushels of fine flour, 390 bushels of meal, 10 fattened oxen, 20 pasture-fed cattle and 100 sheep. Over and above he needed deer, gazelles, roebucks and chickens, all this not counting the barley and straw required for Solomon’s

40,000 chariot horses and the food supplies for his garrisons all over the country. And had Solomon not raised a levy of 30,000 able-bodied men for forced labour on his royal buildings? Rehoboam sat back and reflected. “Give me three days”, he said, “and I will give you my answer”. The people retreated with a glimmer of hope. Perhaps, he would listen …

Kings were used to confrontation and the next day Rehoboam indulged in this game, playing with what would turn out to be the most important issue of his life. Although asking for advice, he had, of course, made up his mind. He really knew what was best. But don’t we need the support of those who counsel us to do what conforms to our judgement? Few of us can stomach the people who tell us the truth. Most of us will more readily listen to the advice of people who think like ourselves, who reassure us that we were right in the first place. So we see Rehoboam acting true to form when he seeks advice to his own liking. We see him convoke the council of wise men that assisted his father. He feels important and assured as he puts the royal question, “What do you think I should do?” They reflect. They discuss. Eventually they reach a unanimous conclusion. “Give them a pleasant reply and agree to be good to them. Then you can be their king for ever”. It was simple, but it would involve a loss of face. Then Rehoboam turned to his friends, as we so readily do when we feel threatened in our position. Then we go to a man we like, we weep on his houlder, we grumble about our griefs and are con­soled by hearing what we like to hear. Rehoboam called together the young men with whom he had grown up. He put the same question to them, “What do you think I should do?” But they gave a different answer. “This is what you must answer”, they said: “My little finger is thicker than my father’s loins. My father made you bear a heavy burden. I will make it heavier still. My father beat you with whips; I am going to beat you with loaded scourges”. It was a classical moment of blind men leading the blind.

Malcolm Lowey, speaking of the misconception that may blind man’s mind says in one of his books:

How many wolves do we feel on our heels,

While our real enemies go in sheepskin by.

We know the final scene. Rehoboam, feeling sure of himself, hearing the reassuring advice of his friends echoing in his ears, stands in front of the people and assumes an air of authority that was to prove empty. I can see myself holding forth confidently at a meeting and thumping the table.

Rehoboam was a man who thought he knew, but actually he was blind. He took no notice of the people’s wishes, the Bible says, and this was a punish ment brought about by God. “My father made you bear a heavy burden”, he said, “but I will make it heavier still. My father beat you with whips; I am going to beat you with scorpions”. Then the people rose in revolt. They shouted insolence at Rehoboam, and said, “Down with David and his house! Let us all go home! Let Rehoboam be king of his own family!” And when Rehoboam sent Adoram, one of his ministers, to pacify the crowd, they stoned him to death. King Rehoboam himself had to flee for his life in a chariot. He became king only over the tribe of Judah”. In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, Amen.

THE STORY-REFLECTION-STORY APPROACH

Many scriptural stories have a direct bearing on general truths or fundamental virtues which remain valid for all times. God helps us when we pray to him. God is always ready to forgive. Beware of false friends. Respect your parents, etc. Such messages can often be handled by the simple free narrative approach explained above. But what about the many other aspects of our modern Christian life? Have biblical stories anything to teach about them? I mean things such as forming a prayer community, the vocation to religious life, loyalty to the church, the forgiveness of sins, the Eucharist, Social Action and the charismatic movement. As our situation is so different from the one presupposed in the scriptural narratives, how can it be made to bear on our present condition?

To meet this requirement, a technique has been developed which I will call “story-reflection-story”. The technique consists of inserting two or three major interruptions at well chosen points in the story. The most common pattern followed is: Story – reflection – story – reflection – story. The justification for following such a pattern lies in the fact that our communication contains two distinct and equally valuable parts: the biblical story which provides the motivation and the reflection which carries up-to-date theological thought. Both parts are of equal value. I will need to explain this at a little more length.

In the City of God (Book 13)(*2) St. Augustine discusses original sin and the mortality of the human race and its consequences. Book 13 is really a treatise on death. In more than twenty chapters Augustine discusses all aspects of death as they were known to him at that time from theology or contemporary philosophy. All men must die. Death is a punishment for man’s sin. Death is unpleasant and painful because it involves the unnatural

Fig. 20. Illustration in Augustine’s “The City of God”.

separation of body and soul. Even those who are saved by Christ have to die, but for them death becomes another means of merit. For St. Augustine all these instructions on death find their roots in the story of man’s first sin.

“(Adam’s body) would never, in fact, have died, had not Adam by his disobediences incurred the punishment which God had threatened beforehand. Even when driven out of paradise, Adam was not denied nourishment, but was forbidden to eat of the tree of life and so was doomed to die from age and senility …”

“By being justly deprived of the tree of life Adam and Eve became subject to that necessity of bodily death, which is now for us innate. For this reason, the Apostle says … ‘The body is dead by the reason of sin . . .’ The Apostle calls the soul ‘dead’ because it is bound by the necessity of dying …” (City of God, 13.23).

In a fifteenth century manuscript of the City of God in French, a monk has tried to capture Augustine’s thought in a single picture (see Fig. 20). In the background we see the garden of Eden. From a central fountain spring the four rivers that irrigate the whole world. Adam and Eve stand under the Tree of Life while the serpent with a human head offers the apple to Eve. So far the picture is like any other artistic representation of the Fall of man. But notice the two important additions in the foreground. On the right we see the corrupting body of a dead man, symbolising death itself. On the left St. Paul is portrayed holding in his hand the quotation from

Romans: “As by one man death entered into the world ” The artist has thereby presented St. Augustine’s thinking in a very graphic and convincing manner. He shows us at a glance, in the same picture, as equal elements of discussion: the story of man’s fall, the fact of human mortality and Paul’s teaching on death.

It is this same kind of insight: the wish to combine ancient biblical narrative with present-day instruction, that should make us choose the story-reflection-story technique. It proves to be the only presentation that will do justice to both aspects of our topic. To stay with our example of paradise and death, we could put ourselves into the frame of mind of a teacher who wants to explain the Christian view of death to sixth form pupils at school. She might begin by jotting down the various points she would like to cover: the experience of death and what it means; that death is not quite the same for animals as for man; that death carries in itself an element of punishment; that on account of Christ’s resurrection we won’t need to fear death as it leads to heaven; that spiritual death is much worse than physical death, etc. The extent to which such points can be discussed will obviously depend on the needs and abilities of her particular pupils. Being a good teacher she will also bring in illustrations from everyday life, perhaps occurrences in the school, or references to death that would help to enliven and clarify the discussion.

Now she could, of course, at this point, collect all this material and present it to the pupils in some sort of logical order in a straightforward lecture form. But she could say to herself: “Is there a scriptural narrative that could frame and motivate these thoughts on death? Where in the Bible will I find those inspiring images that will help me bring across our Christian view of dying?” She might then, quite naturally, think of the story of man’s fall (Genesis 2,5 – 3,24). After all, our theology of death derives from this text to a great extent and the themes of life and death are well presented in it.

The teacher should now take her Bible and read the story carefully. She should study the narrative elements, as suggested earlier in this chapter, so that she can make the most of the intrinsic thoughts of this beautiful narra­tive. She could then compare the points in her lesson on death with the biblical story and bring about a synthesis between the two. This she could do, for example, by planning her presentation in the following way:

Story, first part:…………God created the whole world; he filled everything with life; he made man and woman out of love, and made them masters of the created world.

Reflection:……………….The meaning of life; it means move­ment, enjoyment and growth; the experience of death with plants, animals and even human beings; some of the questions this raises.

Story, second part:……God planted the tree of life and death and forbade man to eat from it; Adam and Eve sinned by pride; God had to punish them by banning them from paradise and by imposing death.

Reflection:……………….The experience of evil and sin in ourselves and in the world; pain, suffering and death, while being natural from our point of view, contain in themselves an element of punish­ment; physical death is not the same as spiritual death; etc.

Story, third part:……….God took pity on man and promised redemption; he expressed his love by making clothes for them and he promised heaven through Jesus Christ. The meaning of heaven; how Christ has overcome death; we need not fear death if we live united to Christ.

Reflection:……………….The meaning of heaven; how Christ has overcome death; we need not fear death if we live united to Christ.

Story, fourth part:         As   a kind of conclusion we give a vision of paradise to come in heaven; God will wipe every tear away and we will finally overcome death.

The presentation suggested above will easily fill a full class period, with the narrative taking up 40% of the time and reflection and discussion the remaining 60%.

The biblical story in question needs careful handling. In spite of its con­taining some central truths about the human condition, it is more of a parable than an historical narrative. The story may also have other disadvantages from the teacher’s point of view; there may be too heavy a stress on sin and punishment which may be undesirable when discussing death with teenagers; they may have heard the story so often before that it has lost its freshness. The teacher may then decide to turn to another biblical story to frame and carry her instructions on death. Such stories could be Jesus restoring to life the son of the widow of Nain (Lk. 7, 11-17), the raising of Lazarus (John 11, 1-44), Ezekiel’s vision of the dry bones (Ez. 37, 1-14) or other similar narratives. While dealing with the same subject matter, “death”, the presentation will take on a new perspective through its being presented with any of these texts.

SOME HINTS FROM PRACTICE

I know from experience that story-reflection-story can be a very successful form of presentation for catechetical instructions, con­ferences and sermons. But having made considerable use of it myself and having taught the technique to others over a number of years, I am keenly aware of some of the pitfalls which eager beginners in the trade are likely to encounter. I hope the reader will pardon me if I give advice about this in a schoolmasterly fashion.

Do not shorten the story part. Make the fullest use of the dramatic possibilities offered by your particular narrative. In your presentation of the story lay a subtle emphasis on those aspects that prepare the way for what you want to say in the reflection, but clearly keep them separate in your presentation. The story will be in the past tense; the reflection will speak about the present. The transition from one part to the other should speak for itself. “Now let us go back to our story. We had left Ezekiel in the Valley of Bones, meditating on death and destruction. Then suddenly he heard a voice. “Son of Man”, it called out..

Make sure that your reflection parts contain up-to-date and worthwhile instruction. When giving a retreat conference, for instance, it should contain a real substance of illustrations from present-day life, quotations from relevant authors, other scriptural references, and whatever in such conferences provides matter for thought. I have found that some teachers neglect this necessary homework and fill the reflective parts of their presentation with general observations such as anyone could make. As we have seen above when discussing simple free narration, the moral that is implied in the story itself need not and should not be brought out as an afterthought. Doing it makes the presentation exasperatingly boring. Whenever we use story-reflection-story rather than simple free narra­tion we should do so because we have a separate and an equivalent amount of information to convey through the reflective parts.

A frequent question with those who use the technique for the first time is, “How do you compose the presentation? Do you start with the story or the topic?” In theory one could start with either but my experience is that it is more common to start from the topic and then look for the story that can carry it. Topic and story will then mutually complement one another until a harmonious presentation arises.

Some persons have the initial difficulty that they do not see how their topics can be carried by biblical stories. Sometimes this springs from a lack of imagination; at other times from a lack of trust in themselves or an insufficient acquaintance with the biblical texts. To answer these difficulties and to show the possibilities of Bible stories in this field and the many ways in which story and instruction can be interwoven, I will briefly work out five more examples.

In a conference for high school students on anger and reconciliation we could be guided by the story of David and Nabal (1 Sam 25).

(1) We introduce David and Nabal, the difference in their characters, Nabal’s feast and David’s request for a share (25, 1-8). (R) We explain the psychological differences between people through temperament, education and personal growth. We illustrate the necessity of accepting people as they are.

(2)  We then narrate extensively and dramatically how Nabal offended David’s messengers and how David in great anger set out to take revenge (25, 9-13). (R) We analyse the reasons for the growth of anger. We see what it does to ourselves and others. We evaluate our relationships from this angle.

(3)  We continue the story with the account of how Abigail intervened and made peace (25, 14-42). (R) We discuss the folly of anger and living in enmity with others. We indicate practical ways in which a person can be a peacemaker.

A Sunday sermon about the communion of saints could be based on the story of the conquest of Ai (Jos 6-7).

(1)  We explain how the Jewish people under Joshua conquered the Holy Land with God’s help. They vowed that they would give all captured treasures to God (6, 18-19). (R) As Christians we receive God’s kingdom at baptism, but in return we vow total dedication to God. We explain the meaning of our baptismal vow.

(2)  We narrate how Israel was defeated in the war. Great losses were inflicted because some persons had not kept their vows (don’t mention Achan as yet). (7, 2-12). (R) We explain how infidelity to baptismal vows affects the whole church.

(3)  We narrate how Achan’s sin was revealed and how he was punished (7, 14-26). (R) We point out how God knows every individual’s sins. He expects every Christian to be holy. We point out the community dimen­sion of confession and the Eucharist.

In a retreat conference for sisters we could speak of religious obedience in the context of Abraham’s sacrifice (Gn 22).

(1) God demanded from Abraham the sacrifice of Isaac, an almost impossible demand (22,1-4). (R) We expound the theology of religious obedience as the sacrifice of the will.

(2)  We narrate how Abraham and Isaac talked about the sacrifice while climbing the mountain. Isaac was afraid and Abraham full of sorrow. Yet both agree to bring the sacrifice together. We could make use here of Jewish tradition to complete the narrative (22, 5-9). (R) We bring out how obedience is a question of dialogue between superiors and persons entrusted to their care. We quote Vatican II on this and give practical guidelines and examples.

(3)  God converted Abraham’s sacrifice into a great blessing (22, 10-18). (R) We indicate the advantages of obedience both for one’s spiritual growth and for efficiency in the apostolate.

When addressing priests on the competence of the laity to assume church leadership we might refer to the sharing of the Spirit in the desert (Num 11).

(1)  The Hebrews in the desert revolted against Moses so that Moses felt inadequate to rule the people all by himself (11,4-15). (R) We reflect on how since the Reformation, priests have become more and more isolated in their task; the undesirable consequences of this.

(2)  God ordered Moses to appoint 70 elders to assist him. These elders shared in Moses’ Spirit (11, 16-17, 24-25). (R) Vatican II stresses the distinctive task and competence of the laity within the church. We work out examples and consequences.

(3)Also two others who had not been present at the function assumed leadership under the Spirit. Moses defended their action when they were criticised (11, 26-30). (R) There are many ways in which we can quench the Spirit. Our priestly leadership should be directed towards encourag­ing the laity to take initiatives and to exercise their rightful responsibilities.

Suppose we speak to a group of college students on faith. We could take as our starting point Jesus’ extraordinary behaviour as described in John 6.

(1)  After the miracle of multiplying the loaves Jesus refused to be made king (6, 1-15). (R) The modern world is inclined to worship humanistic values. The Gospel presents a higher set of values that give a new meaning to life.

(2)  Jesus walked on the water (6, 16-21). (R) The Christian view of reality transcends the limits imposed on itself by science. The categories of mystery, true freedom and divine love liberate us from a too restricted vision of reality.

(3) Jesus promised to give himself as food (6, 22-58). (R) Faith ultimately means the experience of God who communicates himself to us. It does not need any exterior justification. It is an event that changes our life and thus justified by its results.

(4)  Many people left Jesus through lack of faith (6, 59-71). (Brief concluding reflection). Faith is a mature decision which we make in response to our experience of Christ.

Footnotes (*1) Le Palais Royal d’Ugarit, J. Nougayrol, (Vol. IV, pp 48ff), (author’s translation.