Different Perspectives on Dirty Hands

Sometimes social location divides clergy from the congregation

A few weeks ago, I wrote about four ways our social location affects how we read the Bible. These dynamics—and there are certainly others—are no respecters of persons. They affect us all, perhaps to varying degrees, whether we realize it or not and whether we like it or not. Being aware of them is empowering, then, because once we’re aware of them we can account for them and be curious about them. We can imagine different possible angles from which to view a given passage of Scripture. Often these new angles provide a clearer line of sight and a more faithful interpretation.

Taking stock of our social location is important for every reader who wants to understand the Bible better. But it is a crucial practice for teachers and preachers who want to understand both the Bible and the congregation to which they are charged with explaining it. Because the fact is that pastors and their congregants may reside in and be shaped by very different social locations.

Mark Allan Powell illustrates this point in his excellent small book What Do They Hear? Bridging the Gap Between Pulpit & Pew. I referenced this study in the previous essay but it’s worth elaborating here.

Powell conducted an experiment that began with dividing 100 people into two groups. One group was made up of 50 clergy. The other group was made up of 50 lay people. Both groups were diverse in terms of race, gender, and socio-economic status. 

Which Character Am I and What Difference Does It Make?

He asked both groups to read the story from Mark 7:1-8, in which Jesus and his disciples are eating dinner without having gone through the ceremonial hand washing ritual:

The Pharisees and some of the scribes gathered to Him after they came from Jerusalem, and saw that some of His disciples were eating their bread with unholy hands, that is, unwashed. (For the Pharisees and all the other Jews do not eat unless they carefully wash their hands, thereby holding firmly to the tradition of the elders; and when they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they completely cleanse themselves; and there are many other things which they have received as traditions to firmly hold, such as the washing of cups, pitchers, and copper pots.) And the Pharisees and the scribes asked Him, “Why do Your disciples not walk in accordance with the tradition of the elders, but eat their bread with unholy hands?” But He said to them, “Rightly did Isaiah prophesy about you hypocrites, as it is written:

‘This people honors Me with their lips,
But their heart is far away from Me.
And in vain do they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’

Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.”

Powell asked both groups one simple, open-ended question: “What does this story mean to you?” The results were fascinating. 

Among the clergy, two patterns emerged. First, the majority of clergy (about 80%) associated with Jesus in the story. They resonated or empathized (Powell’s term) with Jesus. When they heard the story, they saw in the character of Jesus someone with whom they felt they could relate.

Their association with Jesus inclined them to a particular application of the text. They answered the question, What does this story mean to you?” in terms of how they ought to behave in order to imitate Jesus. In their reading, the passage provided a command or directive to instruct their people in particular ways. For example:

 “The folks in my church always say, ‘We’ve never done it that way before.’ Jesus wants me to tell them, ‘Human traditions are less important than God’s commandments.’” [my italics]

and

 “We need to preach the Word, even if people would rather just hear homey stories and take part in religious rituals. What they need may not be what they want. They need to hear us preach the Word of God.” [my italics]

These reactions may strike you as totally reasonable and appropriate. They strike me that way. Surely anyone who wore a WWJD bracelet in the ‘90s would be inclined to do what Jesus did. Even so, these clergy responses become very interesting when compared with the responses from lay people.

Among the lay people, different patterns emerge. First, the majority of lay people associated (resonated, empathized) with either the disciples or the Pharisees in the story. None—zero—of the lay people identified with Jesus. When they heard the story, they saw themselves either as ordinary disciples being hassled by religious leaders or, perhaps remarkably, as the religious leaders doing the hassling.

Their association with the disciples or Pharisees inclined them to a particular application of the text. Remember that their pastors read in the story ways they should be more like Jesus. The lay readers saw in the text ways they were already, currently, like the disciples and Pharisees. In their reading, the passage provided either comfort or rebuke. For example, one respondent who empathized with the disciples said,  

“It comforts me to know that I don’t always have to get everything right to please Jesus.” 

By contrast, one respondent who empathized with the Pharisees, said,

 “I’m embarrassed to admit that I have a lot in common with the Pharisees. I worship with my lips but don’t always mean it. I guess I’m a hypocrite too.” 

I Know You Are but What Am I?

There’s another interesting pattern worth mentioning: 

Lay people were much more likely (almost 50%) than clergy (less than 10%) to identify with the Pharisees in the story. And catch this: lay people were very likely to associate clergy with Pharisees. One respondent said,

“Pastors and other church leaders are always criticizing everyday Christians for one thing or another. I hear Jesus saying, ‘Leave them alone. They’re doing the best they can.’” 

At the risk of overstating the situation, it’s almost as if a majority of pastors self-identify with the hero of the story, while a sizable percentage of lay people identify their pastors with the villain in the story. This suggests to me that pastors and their congregants may not only interpret the Bible differently. They may also interpret themselves and each other differently.

The implications of all this are pretty enormous for preachers. Imagine being a preacher and thinking, This passage clearly indicates that what my people need to hear is a confrontational message that challenges them to let go of silly traditions and follow Jesus, while, at the same time, your congregation is thinking, This passage clearly offers a comforting message that reminds us that Jesus loves us even when we fail to keep all the rules our pastor wants us to keep! It’s very possible, under those circumstances, that the pastor feels confident he is following faithfully along with the inspired meaning of the passage, while the congregation believes he has twisted an encouraging word into a stick to whoop them with.

Powell summarizes the issue this way:

“Preachers need to realize that the people in the pews may be hearing the story from a different perspective than they do. What this means for you is that a sermon that seeks to build on what you take to be a self-evident connection with the text is likely to fail—the assumed connection may not be self-evident for many parishioners.” 

Try This

Remember that our goal is to become aware of how our social location affects our interpretation so we can both account for and be curious about those dynamics. The preacher or teacher has the added challenge of taking stock of her audience’s social location and how it might affect the way people in the pews react to a particular passage of Scripture. That means you may have to consciously attempt to read the same passage from multiple vantage points at once.  

Here are some suggestions—a non-exhaustive list—to try:

1. When you prepare your sermon, ask yourself which character, experience, or point of view you find yourself resonating with. Try to articulate why. Why do I empathize or associate with Jesus in this text?

2. When you prepare your sermon, be curious about what difference it might make to empathize with different characters. How might I read this differently if I empathize with the Pharisees or the disciples?

3. When you preach, show your work. Be honest about the fact that you find yourself associating with one character and suspect that other people might associate with different characters. Invite your congregation to be curious about this dynamic. I recently preached on 1 Samuel 3 and acknowledged that I don’t have the right life experiences to truly resonate with Hannah (the barren mother) or Eli (the lousy judge), but I do resonate with the sensation that “word from the Lord was rare in those days” (3:1). I can’t be certain what this accomplished, but I hope it invited people to think about which characters they connected with and to engage the passage at a more emotional level. 

Before you go, I’d love to hear your thoughts in the comments. What character do you connect with in the story above? Why? What difference do you think that makes? Do you have an example of a time you and your audience (or you and your pastor) saw very different things in the same passage of Scripture?