The second of two longer than usual posts. This time I will explain why I did what I did (see yesterday’s post for the transcription).

On paper this feels like a long introduction. The message lasted 39 minutes, and this introduction took 5 minutes, about 13% of the message. Maybe slightly longer than necessary, but stories keep attention so I didn’t think people would lose interest.

There were some deliberate parallels to the parable. Both characters came from a privileged background (just like the two Jews, God’s special people). Lyndsey was a very deliberately good person, going above and beyond what anyone might expect of her. She was the kind of person you would choose for your church. On the other hand, Steve had knowingly compromised with what was wrong, living off other people who had little choice but to channel their money toward him. Steve was a character that begs little pity (he had chosen to sell rather than becoming an addict who felt obliged to sell, he had chosen his lifestyle, etc.) Both characters prayed, in very similar ways to the characters in the story. Steve cried out for mercy. Lyndsey spoke of what she would not do, and what she does do, above and beyond what was required. Their eternal destinies matched those of the parable characters.

I did not want the story to mimic the parable so that listeners would be focused on the text at this point. So I included significant differences. The story was about two characters, but they were not both men. They were a man and a woman, from the same family. This added a tension to the story, as people wondered how differently their lives might turn out. Instead of the religious leader in Jewish terms, I used a prominently involved church goer (an obvious parallel, but not a pastor or elder – perhaps too obvious). Instead of a tax man (different connotation today anyway), I chose to depict the compromise and despised nature through a combination of drugs dealer and homosexual with AIDS – perhaps the epitome of the kind of character that might be despised by my listeners. Yet with the differences, the man was still getting rich off other people’s resources. I chose not to have them come into the same building, such as a church, to pray. Again, too obvious. Instead I used Christmas day as a believable trigger for both to be praying.

My style of delivery was not like Jesus. Today people respond to more detailed description (novels last longer than five verses and movies are fully visual). Today people connect better with named characters. Perhaps the opening line would have distracted people enough from the parable to get caught up in the story – where would these two end up? Then I gave a false conclusion. After describing their different prayers on Christmas day, all felt completed by the use of the opening line again, but there was an extra step, perhaps surprising, the additional comment above heaven and hell.

I’m not saying it was perfect, or even good. But maybe this shows the kind of thinking that went into the story. Deliberate parallels, and deliberate differences. I wanted people not only to give attention, have their interest piqued and be moved toward the text. I also wanted people to somehow feel the force of the parable. I wanted to do what Jesus did. Then we looked at the text and focused entirely on the inspired version. However, there were subtle links as the sermon went on. For example, the use of phrases from the introduction, such as the Pharisee “going above and beyond what was required.”

So there it is, for what it’s worth. It is not easy to come up with a story that parallels a parable, but has a chance of slipping through the defenses of a knowledgeable crowd. Preaching a parable to unchurched and biblically illiterate non-believers is probably relatively easy. My challenge here was a crowd of people with a notice sheet that informed them I’d be in Luke 18 and talking about prayer!