THE HOMILETICAL PLOT

THE HOMILETICAL PLOT
The Sermon as Narrative Art Form, Expanded Edition
By Eugene L. Lowry
Louisville, Westminster John Knox Press, 2001

When I recently read Adam Hamilton’s “Leading Beyond the Walls,” I was intrigued by a statement he made regarding preaching: “Finally (after developing series topics and sermon titles), I outline each sermon, beginning with the human condition, moving to possible scriptures that might speak to this condition and any theological concepts that have bearing on it.” (“Leading Beyond the Walls,” p. 92)

I was intrigued, but not convinced. While I appreciate the value of such a utilitarian approach, I had reservations about the way such an approach could fully illumine the experience of God’s grace. Now granted, I have not HEARD Hamilton preach, but what I read reminded me too much of some of the sermons I read in a couple magazines I no longer subscribe too- all about ethics and morality and practical living, and not enough about the Kingdom of God. My own approach is to begin with scripture, identify the human condition that it addresses (context), and then proceed.

I was therefore much excited when I began reading Lowry’s book. He begins by artfully describing his struggles with general notions of sermon construction, and notes what I was taught and believe to be true: “The sermon has its roots in the truth of the gospel which indeed has a life of its own. Our task is the same as that of any artist whose act of discovery…is to ‘extricate the import and order of his experience and body it forth in language’” (p. 10).

He then proceeds to the question of how to move to a genuine sermon idea.

“Some will reply: A theme or topic. Others will reply: A problem or a felt need…Both kinds of replies are correct- but something is missing. The first reply concentrates on the substance of the sermon, the central message to be preached. But if this is the central priority in our sermon preparation we will tend to produce lecture-type sermons which are strong in content but weak in establishing contact with our congregation. If we follow the advice of the second kind of reply…we likely will establish quick rapport with the listeners but be weak in content” (p. 17).

Then he described his current (now classic) process, which I found amusing because it SEEMS haphazard AND seems to much like my own process, which seems all to unorganized to me: “I mean quite literally that I take my jumble of notes and divide them into two stacks on my desk- the one with problem notes, and the other with theme or answer notes. Then I try to link thoughts from one stack of ideas with the other until a relational gestalt happens” (p. 18).

Lowry then makes the conclusion that delighted me:

“It is not enough to probe the question of WHAT the text is saying. It is equally important to discover WHY it is saying what it says. The question of WHY is most often the context for the transition into homiletical form. Every explicit theme presumes an implicit problem; every explicit problem presumes an implicit theme. When this does not hold, there is no sermon.” (p. 19)

Now this reminded me of the lesson Bob Culp taught me when I came home to preach (from seminary my junior year), and what I was taught one year later: The introduction of a sermon should make “a promise”, that is, ask a question that will be answered by the end of the sermon. Which is what Lowry does with “the homiletical plot.”

I remember well the discussion of Lowry’s method in class, and that is why I bought the current edition of the book. I believe the book was on a list of books we were given, of which we had to read one or two and write on them. I did not read it then, but it was well worth the read now, 5 years into my career.

In Lowry’s method, once the sermon idea is “discovered”, the sermon functions as a narrative, even if it is not A narrative. In other words, it has a plot. There are several keys to this, and I will list them briefly.

First, start with ambiguity- often called “discrepancy” or “homiletical bind” or even “upsetting the equilibrium.” Sometimes this is done for the preacher by the context of the sermon- for instance, sermons preached on September 16, 2002, hardly needed to begin by upsetting the equilibrium. It was already upset.

“Foster-Harris in “The Basic Patterns of Plot” advises that ‘just as a good fiction story is always a parable, so a correct fictional plot, the map of the story, must contain a problem, the solution, and the answer.’ Likewise a sermon in its essential form is a premeditated plot which has as its key ingredient a sensed discrepancy, a homiletical bind.” (p. 20)

Second, do not answer the discrepancy until the end. Hold the tension in the story- do not “tell them what you are going to tell them, tell them, and then tell them what you told them.” The key point here is to let the listeners discover the answer along with you. Lowry calls this “diagnosis," and suggests going down a few dead-end streets in the sermon before finally reaching the desired destination. All those notes on your memo pad that are scratched off as you think theologically through the sermon include them for the congregation’s benefit. Lowry says this differs from “description”: “What is missing is depth- a probing into the causative ingredients responsible for the situation.” (p. 43) Later, he gives his reasons: The purpose…is not simply for a resolution to be reached but also for a READINESS FOR RESOLUTION to be developed.” (p. 51, emphasis Lowry’s)

Third, the part I remember most from my seminary class, the “AHA” moment, or “disclosing the clue to resolution.” The part that I either forgot or missed, but appreciated reading, was “the principle of reversal,” (and I will tell why in just a moment). Lowry first illustrates the principle as seen in jokes, literature, and movies. The example he used is “High Noon,” but I think my generation would see it clearly in “The Sting.” “This sudden reversal in preaching comes as the clue to resolution reverses the train of diagnostic thought. The resultant shock does not come in the form of humor, but in the form of release by means of sudden illumination of the homiletical puzzle.” (p. 57)

Lowry gives several biblical examples of reversal- all of the parables, for instance, and the sacrifice of Isaac. But then he makes the point that was “Aha!” for me:

“What is being alleged here is not that Paul, Jesus, and the writer of the Abraham story necessarily intended to utilize the principle of reversal, obviously; it is that there seems to be a common thread of narrative plot procedure which in fact constitutes what can be labeled the principle of reversal…Moreover, the principle of reversal which occasions the homiletical “aha” is more than just a literary device or good strategy- although it is that. I believe it has its roots in the gospel itself. To claim that the preached Word ‘is a stumbling block to Jews and a folly to Gentiles’ surely is to suggest that there is something about the Gospel which is upside down to the world’s way of viewing truth.” (p. 70)

I hope that Lowry tossed and turned on his bed for hours before arriving at that discovery- it is too great to have been reached by an easy method!

Lowry not only offers this discovery, he offers methods of reaching it week after week. Using the teaching tool of a connect-the-dot puzzle with a “trick” answer, he concludes “The peculiar talent of the puzzlemaker (a rather sadistic one at that) is the talent of “helping” us to make the wrong assumption…Except by good luck only by CONSCIOUSLY QUESTIONING our assumptions can we begin the process of extrication and resolution.” (p. 61) Of course, this rang a bell in my recent memory of the book I read by Douglass John Hall, in which that author claimed that thinking theologically- and teaching congregations to do so- was the greatest task of preachers in the post-Christendom era. To me, thinking theologically- and questioning culture critically- is the same as “consciously questioning our assumptions.”

Lowry, however, notes another truth. “The reason that flashes of insight come when one is not looking is that our cognitive ruts lose their tenacious hold upon us when our mind is occupied with other things or begins to drift as we go to sleep. Hence, the unthinkable thought (generally inverted from common sense) has a chance to break through.” And this reminded me of Brueggemann, reminding us to “make room for otherwise,” by telling us that Thomas Kuhn’s work argues “scientific learning does not advance incrementally by the steady accumulation of data, but by the emergence of new interpretive paradigms that drastically rearrange data.” (“Testimony to Otherwise,” p. 31)

So what is Lowry’s practical suggestion? “So too, the expertise of the homilist may produce blinders preventing resolution of an issue. In many cases crucial diagnostic resolution will come only by reversing the particular assumption.” (p. 62)

Fourth (the method does not end with “Aha!”), is what Lowry calls “experiencing the gospel.” This is not the same as reversal- reversal was the “clue” that enables us to hear and experience the gospel. Experiencing the gospel is seeing- and being- in the place where problem intersects proclamation. Lowry views “the gospel as continuous with human experience AFTER human experience has been turned upside down.” (p. 79)

And Fifth, anticipating the consequences. This is the “Now what do we do? stage.” Particularly helpful was an explanation drawn from the work of behavioral change theorist Kurt Lewin:” Believing that any static state is a balance of tensions on either side of the status quo, Lewin states that change can be achieved by two means: first to increase tension (pressure) from “behind” the static state in the direction of the desired change, or second, to diminish tension (pressure) which exists between the static state and the desired change.” (p. 84)

Lowry uses different words to say it, but essentially the gospel- by turning life upside down- “diminishes tension which exists between the static state and desired change.” And so the Kingdom of God comes. Amen.

George R. Pasley
June 28, 2002