I listened this afternoon to Dr. Leland Ryken’s message, in which he contends many things I have been telling my churches for years—though admittedly more thoughtfully than I have done. Obviously, since he is an editor of the volume I will be using, the message played wonderfully well into my Bible reading plan for the first quarter of the new year. Here follows what I got from his message.
His main point is that since the Bible is to such a large degree a great work of literature, our understanding of the Bible will be “enhanced if we are aware of its literary dimension.” He further contends that the Bible was purposefully written as literature. He sites Ecclesiastes 12:9 that says at least that book was written with literary intent. He notes that non-Christian scholars praise Christianity as being “the most literary religion in the world.” He then laments that evangelicals are not as cognizant as their critics.
Does it make any difference that the book that Christians believe to be God’s revelations comes to us largely as a collection of stories, poems, visions, and letters rather than in the form of abstract doctrine or systematic theology? Why are there so many stories and poems and visions in the Bible? Is it important that the Bible consistently uses a literary method of discourse, not simply in the narrative and poetic parts but in the the expository and theological parts as well? Why did Jesus so often use the indirect methods of of literary symbolism and parable when teaching theological truth…instead of direct statement?
Ryken believes the literary nature of the Bible should make a difference but does not. God intends to speak to us in the stories of Bible but we reduce them to doctrine and theology—things not bad in themselves but there is so much more to the Word of God than academics. It is interesting that we need to rediscover a literary approach to scripture to make it less academic.
He then asserts that God inspired not only the content of the scriptures but its form as well. It was the Holy Spirit who moved the writers of the Bible not just to write the content but to put it in the form they used—history, epic poetry, parable, apocalypse, allegory, vision, lament, satire…as well as theological exposition. This is a remarkably freeing notion for a preacher. I do not have to teach doctrine and theology all of the time; I can tell God’s story and let him do the teaching.
There is something to be heard from God in the form as well as the exposition. In fact, a larger share of of the exposition may be discovered through understanding the forms by which God delivered them. Because this is not readily believed by the evangelical preacher may be one reason we have not heard many of us preach a series from The Song of Solomon. The Bible is “daring” and “imaginative” and “entertaining” and “humorous” as well as instructive. In fact it instructs through these same human stylings. The “artistry” of the Bible—imagery, metaphor, simile, personification, analogy—tells us more about the human experience with God than any “abstract proposition[s]” of preachers. It is this telling of the human experience that makes the Bible such great stuff. It deals with the whole human condition and it does it with style. The historical and theological stuff is there too but it’s usually dealt with in its literature—the telling of a great and universal story. The Bible usually shows us instead of tells us; that’s why it gets through to us.
So why do so many preachers stoop to telling instead of showing? Maybe because the former is easier. Maybe it’s because telling controls the congregation and showing gives the control back to God. Maybe it’s because we do not understand the Book we teach.