Storytelling

My most memorable moment as a teacher was when I was attempting to get a class of disaffected 15-year-olds through GCSE Religious Education. These were the most difficult students in their year, so it was a small class of a dozen or so, when they were all there, which wasn’t often. I threw it all at them – visual aids, pop music, special worksheets, creative responses. Frankly, what they mostly wanted to do was just copy stuff from the board.

The most difficult of them all was Michael, a bright but entirely negative joker, who seized on every opportunity and used every technique to get under my skin. He sat, of course, in the far corner of the room, so he could observe and dominate proceedings most effectively.

We came to the lesson on the Prodigal Son. Video? Act it out? Retell in a modern context? I decided to just let the story speak for itself, pretty much exactly as I suppose Jesus would have told it – no cheap jokes, no Ferraris, no discos, just a simple story set in a bygone age. I was stunned by the effect on the students. They were absolutely engrossed, living every twist and turn in utter silence.

Until the first and only interruption – from Michael, of course. The son was welcomed back, the party was in full swing. “What was the older son doing while all this was happening?” he blurted out. Moment of magic. “Funny you should ask”, I replied. The power of a story.

Tim Sheppard, a communications consultant from Bristol, has created a fascinating website about storytelling traditions around the world. He says this: “The power of story and narrative is crucial in communication skills, and can turn dry facts or abstract principles into compelling material which is absorbed and remembered by its audience. The principles of narrative tie everything together and give it meaning.”

Jesus was a great teller of stories, and a teller of great stories. People flocked around to hear him, neglecting even to bring their lunch. Crowds of people “listened to him with delight”. Children were attracted to him. I’m sure that what we have written down as his parables are just summaries. I can envisage Jesus embellishing the stories, pointing to examples of what he was talking about, relating to the everyday experiences of his hearers – a sower, a crafty steward, treasure buried in a field, a proud Pharisee, an unjust judge, a cheated widow.

In his parables, Jesus was tapping into a strong storytelling tradition in Judaism. Many of the great stories in the Bible would have been transmitted orally before being recorded in writing. Esther is perhaps the greatest example of storytelling in practice, with the traditional telling of the story at the feast of Purim being accompanied by boos and cheers, and Haman’s name being vilified. In this way, storytelling is a key element in the transmission of culture, as reflected in Exodus 12:26 and Joshua 4:6: “when your children ask you why we do this, tell them this.”

This is increasingly recognised in countries which have a rich and ongoing storytelling tradition, such as many of those in Africa.  Tim Penn quotes from the Africa Studies department, University of Pennsylvania: “Kenyan radio and television shows use folklore as part of their daily programming. Oral literature is part of the secondary and university syllabus. Part of the requirement in these classes is for students to collect folklore from their parents and grandparents. Kenyans believe that folklore is an important part of their heritage and culture and are taking steps to preserve and encourage folklore and education.”

In Arabic-speaking areas, particularly Syria, storytellers, known as hakawati, have been part of the culture for centuries. One famous café in Damascus has a continuous three-hundred-year history of storytelling, with the Crusades featuring strongly – from a Muslim perspective, of course! Tragically, there is a possibility that this tradition will die out as cafes are unable to operate because of the civil war.

Storytelling, the pure art of narrating a tale without props or visual aids, has had a major resurgence in the West over recent years. The weekly US podcast, “The Moth Radio Hour“, simply puts people on a stage with a microphone to tell their stories to a live audience.  [6] The results can be absolutely gripping. Indeed, in carrying out research on brain functions, Prof. Jack Gallant of U.C. at Berkeley put his subjects into MRI scanners for two hours at a time, and had them listen to podcasts from The Moth. Their synapses were apparently firing right across the brain. There’s a great report of this on the Freakonomics podcast.

Stories obviously produce large amounts of brain activity. It’s clearly a powerful way of communicating with audiences, and should have a much higher profile in our teaching in church.

 

A New Hope

Many journalists have reflected on the events of 2016, and they are pretty consistent in their verdict that it was something of an “annus miserabilis”.

Amongst other events, we saw the demise of significant cultural icons – David Bowie, George Michael, Alan Rickman and Leonard Cohen amongst many others, culminating at the end of the year in the twin deaths of Carrie Fisher and her mother, Debbie Reynolds.

Carrie Fisher was particular mourned, but mostly, it seems, as her most famous character, Princess Leia from Star Wars Episode 4: A New Hope. It was a reminder of the impact of film and television in shaping the cultural identity of today’s society. Just now, on Radio 4’s Newsquiz, a panellist was able to use an analogy about faith-based education in the UK: “If you belonged to the Jedi religion”, he said, “would you be comfortable sending your child to a school which was 100% Sith?”

Reflection is an important skill and habit which Methodist local preachers (and all Christians, really) need to develop. Here’s a definition offered in the course notes: “The discipline of exploring individual and corporate experience in conversation with the wisdom of a religious heritage. The conversation is a genuine dialogue that seeks to hear from our own beliefs, actions and perspectives, as well as those of the tradition …Theological reflection therefore may confirm, challenge, clarify and expand how we understand the religious tradition …The outcome is new meaning for living.” *

“New meaning for living” seems like a good starting point for the first blog of a new year. It’s interesting, too, that theological reflection is not, in this definition, restricted to sacred texts. In a previous blog I referred to Rev. Dr. David Wilkinson’s book on the theology of Star Wars, and for myself and I suppose for many others, God can speak through pretty much anything that crosses our path, if we are attentive. The Bible, particularly the Prophets, is full of visual cues leading to inspired understandings. “What do you see, Amos?” he asked. “A basket of ripe fruit,” I answered. Then the Lord said to me, “The time is ripe for my people Israel; I will spare them no longer”. Amos 8:2.

We’ve spent Christmas this year with our daughter and her family in the USA, and movies and TV play a large part in their lives. We watched “The Crown“, a gripping and excellently written series on Netflix about the early years of  the reign of Elizabeth II. It culminated in a taut and moving narrative about the desire of Princess Margaret to marry a divorced man, Group Captain Peter Townsend.

The Queen is forced to choose between family and a promise made to her sister to facilitate the marriage, and her duty as sovereign and head of the Church of England – and being subject herself to the law of the land in the form of the Royal Marriages Act. In making that choice she inevitably destroys the hopes of her sister.

It was a classic demonstration of the definition offered above: Elizabeth was forced to undertake a disciplined exploration of an individual situation in the light of religious tradition which, in the end, confirmed the validity of the tradition and drove the decision-making process.

I have two reflections on this unhappy saga. First, if Margaret were able to observe the acceptance of the marriage of Charles and the divorced Camilla, she’d have a right to be more than a bit miffed. However much we may argue about “continuing revelation” and “new light on the Bible”, it seems to be the case in practice that it is social change and public opinion which precipitates theological change, and theology and church tradition struggle to keep up and make sense of it all.

I suppose this is what is meant by “contextual theology”: our reading of the Bible is inevitably and perhaps rightly influenced by the realities of the world in which we live. But this doesn’t mean we should simply keep realigning our theological understanding and beliefs with the prevailing customs of society. Otherwise, where is the truth of the gospel? And at times when the Bible is at odds with society’s laws and customs, how should Christians respond?

We are, as was the Queen, between a rock and a hard place. If we choose faithfulness to the traditional interpretations of Scripture, we will be viewed as uncaring, unloving and out of touch with reality, putting rules before human rights and needs. If we continually reinterpret the Bible in the light of reason and the Western liberal ethical framework, we will be accused of making the Bible effectively irrelevant as a rule of faith.

I’m writing this in the USA, where the majority of Christians appear to be addressing this question by seeking to align the laws of the land with their interpretations of the Bible, notably in respect of abortion and gay rights. Evangelicals and Roman Catholics together make up around 37% of the US electorate, and are increasingly seeing themselves as a powerful political force.

81% of evangelical Christians voted for Trump. However unrighteous and immoral his views and actions may be, however distant he is from any reasonable view of what a “Christian” should be, he has attracted their support because he will appoint conservatives to the Supreme Court (the body responsible for interpreting laws), and will oppose and change legislation which is deemed to be “unChristian” – including, apparently, Obamacare and gun control.

Israel, of course, came badly unstuck through seeking political alliances with ungodly nations who in the end proved to be unreliable and destructive to their interests. I hope for the sake of my American friends – and the rest of the world – that Trump does not prove to be a “splintered reed of a staff, which pierces the hand of anyone who leans on it.” (Isaiah 36:6). Supporting Trump for his perceived pro-Christian Right stance may have some very unwelcome unintended consequences in areas which are equally – or more so – authentic gospel issues: none more so than the increasing bias against the poor, sick and dispossessed.

This leads to my second reflection: in what galaxy, far, far away is it considered to be a good thing for religious faith to ally itself with political power? Specifically, in the context of “The Crown”, why is the sovereign the head of the English church? I know the historical answer – Henry VIII’s need to get a divorce and therefore to split with Rome – but since the emperor Constantine began to make Christianity the state religion of Rome in the 4th century, tie-ins between temporal and religious powers have a distinctly chequered history, with an almost inevitable tendency towards the persecution of those of other faiths.

This is true not just in Christianity, but in Islam (where in some states there is the death penalty for apostasy or conversion), Hinduism (for example the current Hindu Nationalist party led by Narender Modi in India, and where both Christians and Muslims are suffering) and even oh-so-peaceful Buddhism (witness the persecution of Muslims in Myanmar).

It is legitimate and appropriate that Christians, along with all other citizens, should use the democratic process to continually move the laws of the land in the direction of what they believe is for the good of all. And mobilising in support of a cause is perfectly acceptable. But why should Christianity have an “Established” role in the British parliament? It’s a consistent complaint from atheists that Bishops should have no automatic right to be part of the House of Lords, and on this I am in agreement.

I suppose the root of it all is the idea of a “Christian country”. Many Islamic states could loosely be categorised as “theocracies”, but is that an appropriate concept within Christianity? Both Britain and the USA have at various times claimed that kind of special status, and have had laws, customs and assumptions which were based on that belief; perhaps we are experiencing a residual discomfort that the law of the land is increasingly at odds with Biblical patterns.

But Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world.” He didn’t die to establish a new political system, but to bring new life to people, who would change the world through their faith and witness. Paul encouraged us to pray for rulers (idolatrous Romans at the time), but only that we would be left in peace to practice our faith and share the gospel – not that they would enact laws favourable to believers. Rather than engaging in political efforts towards the creation or restoration of a “Christian country”, perhaps we should focus on being salt and light, and bringing a “new hope” to so many whom 2016 has left in despair.

Next up, “Paddington Bear” and the refugee crisis.

* The Art of Theological Reflection P O’Connell Killen and J De Beer, (New York, Crossroad, 1999), p. viii