Actualization is an interpretive endeavor that
discloses the Word and its wonder
as alive in contemporary circumstances

The actualization of Sacred Scripture
By Michael F. Hull

n There is a short and rarely read instruction from the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship on the correct implementation of Sacrosanctum concilium entitled Liturgiae instaurationes (Sept. 5, 1970). Within its second paragraph, there is a simple statement: “The purpose of the homily is to explain the readings and make them relevant for the present day.” It is one of the most sublime and succinct descriptions of preaching in any Church document. It summarizes the conundrum of preaching: making sense of the Word of God in the words of men.

To make sense when he preaches, the homilist must do more than explicate the literal and spiritual senses of biblical texts. Effective preaching is more than the evocative explaining of the two senses of Sacred Scripture. Preaching must be actualization—the presentation of timeless truth in contemporary cadence. “Actualization” is a relatively new term in biblical interpretation. It has come into wider usage through the Pontifical Biblical Commission’s The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church (1993; French original, L’interprétation de la Bible dans l’Église). Actualization, as it is used therein, comes from the French actualiser—“to bring up to date,” “to become real.” With regard to preaching, actualization refers to the homilist’s requisite radical contextualization of biblical texts in his own day in order to make them sensible to his contemporaries. Actualization, then, is the exposition of the meaning of the literal and spiritual senses of biblical texts that make some sense of the first century in the twenty-first.

To preach the Word of God is not merely to know what it says and to discover what it means, but to impart that meaning to others in time and place. Too often, homilies present the literal and spiritual senses of Scripture without effect, because the homilist fails to make sense of the Word’s meaning in the “world.” Actualization is the result of the homilist’s indispensable interpretive endeavor of transposing meaning from the text of the ancient author to the context of the postmodern parishioner. In order to facilitate his interpretive task of progression from the literal and the spiritual senses to making sense, the homilist must employ some common sense. Common sense dictates that God’s people seek spiritual sustenance rather than fanciful fluff. In an age inundated with superficiality and shallowness, glamour and glitter, and rhyme over reason, a parishioner desires something different in the preaching of the Church.

Each and every homily, much like any form of public discourse, is composed of content and form. The content of the homily is the message, the meaning, the homilist wishes to communicate. That message, that meaning, is nothing less than the exposition of divine truth. Although the separation of content and form is an abstraction that runs the risk of ignoring their interrelatedness, the homilist must first set his sights on the message, on the content of a homily, rather than on its form. In homiletics form follows function.

Thus, if the function of the homily is to explain and make relevant the Good News of Jesus Christ to a people who wallow in culture wars and postmodern perplexities, then the homilist ought to observe some “basics” before he enters his pulpit. On the one hand, he should strive to understand the Word of God himself. To do so, he must comprehend the literal and spiritual senses of the biblical texts he is called upon to preach. He must be an exegete and theologian of sorts. He must grapple with the ancient biblical sources and all that produced them in order to cull their meaning within the analogy of faith. On the other hand, he should strive to perceive the specific relevance of his exegetical and theological ventures to his own day. To do so, he must be able to present meaning to his contemporaries in terms concomitant with their experiences in contemporary culture. He must grapple with the mentality of his day and all that produces it in order to make sense within it. Obviously, such tasks are accomplished only with God’s grace and Herculean effort.

The two senses
The Church has long recognized two senses in Sacred Scripture: the literal and the spiritual. That is, the Church notes the distinction between what a biblical text says and what it means, although she does not necessarily differentiate the two. The literal sense establishes the meaning of the text within the context of the first century. The literal sense tells us what a particular text meant in its own time. Surely, to read the Word in order to preach it, is to go “all out” to understand what it says. The historical-critical method is the means by which we may establish the literal meaning of a biblical text, but it is only the beginning of seeing what the biblical text means in its totality. The spiritual sense is the meaning of a biblical text when interpreted within the past and present reality of the Paschal Mystery of Christ. Traditionally, the spiritual sense is spoken of in three venues: the allegorical or creedal, what the faithful are to believe; the tropological or moral, what the faithful are to do; and the anagogical or eschatological, what the faithful are to hope for. Since the spiritual is dependent on the literal, the homilist queries the literal for the spiritual. Concomitantly, the homilist is cognizant of the analogy of faith. He understands before he explains.

But how? The homilist is not an academic exegete or theologian. His time, his tools, and his talents are limited. A glance at any passage of Holy Writ presents enormous exegetical challenges as well as a plethora of homiletic fodder. Yet, he still must make a concerted effort to see what his texts say before he can begin to understand what they mean—much less render that meaning to others. So, what is a preacher to do to begin to prepare a typical homily? Though time, tools, and talents are short, the homilist is compelled to cooperate with the grace of his office in preparation for his sacred duty of preaching the Word of God. The following steps serve as a means to organize the task of explaining the readings of a given day.

First, study the gospel reading. Naturally, the prerequisite of such study is reading. The homilist must read the gospel passage over and over again with care. Reading the passage solely as it is presented in the Lectionary is inadequate. The passage in the Lectionary is part of a whole. Turning to the larger section of the singular gospel from which the passage was extracted is key, especially when various translations are consulted. Though recourse to the original languages is not feasible for most homilists, recourse to several translations is worthwhile because it animates the richness of the Word in its many nuances. Next, the homilist must consult secondary literature. The last thirty years have seen an explosion of biblical commentaries, dictionaries, reference works, and homiletic aids tied to the Lectionary cycles. Often times, separating the wheat from the chaff in such sources is not easy, yet the process is an end in itself, as the homilist hones in on those sources which prove valuable in the present and for the future.

Second, study the other readings. Whilst the gospel passage is usually, though not necessarily, the prime text of a homily, it is not the only text. Certainly, the homilist is aware that an interpretive undertaking is present in the Lectionary itself. For one reason or another, the Church has placed these readings together. Each of the readings must be read and studied carefully so that the preacher may decide how, if at all, he is going to use each of them or parts thereof in his homily. Within the process of exegesis in the confines of homiletic gestation, numerous themes, concepts, ideas, and words come to the fore, even as the homilist realizes that he cannot utilize them all.

Third, pick a point. A point, one point, will do. As Aristotle noted, the end of discernment is the beginning of action. Without doubt, steps one and two above convey an “embarrassment of riches.” A constitutive element of preparation is to discern one pertinent point. The homilist has the responsibility to choose one and only one element upon which to preach. Deciding on one distinct point not only keeps the mind of speaker and listener from straying, it also increases intelligibility. In the era of the “sound bite” and the “New York minute,” people are less disposed to grasp complex concepts, even in cleverly crafted orations, than they are to grasp simple, though not simplistic, expositions of a single subject. This is certainly difficult in consideration of the manifold nature of the treasure trove unearthed in biblical study. Nonetheless, the temptation to take on too much must be avoided. This is one of those occasions when less is more.

Finally, establish the point within the analogy of faith. The homilist must reread his biblical texts and secondary sources in order to flesh out the theme, concept, idea, event, parable, or word that forms the basis of his homily. Insofar as his previous reading and research was an attempt to select a point, now he must “begin at the beginning” by establishing that point in its overarching context, namely, the Paschal Mystery of Christ. The homilist must undertake to see how the point of his homily elucidates a truth within the analogy of faith. If one purpose of the homily is to explain the readings, even but one point within those readings, such an explanation can only be effective with reference and comparison to the truths of the Faith. The Faith is coherent, and to explain a point of the Faith it is necessary to root that point in the whole of the Faith.

Now with the establishment of a point, the first half of the homilist’s work is done. The literal and the spiritual senses of biblical texts, illustrated within the analogy of faith, have yielded meaning—a discrete and distinct meaning that is to form the message the homilist wishes to deliver. But meaning is an elusive presence. Inasmuch as the homilist has a meaning in his mind and knows what it is that he wants to say, he has still to plot the course whereby his meaning is made pertinent to his people. Nowhere is the medieval maxim that knowledge is imparted only according to the capacity of the receiver more operative than it is here. The second half of the homilist’s enterprise is to make meaningful sense to his people.

Making sense
To make the readings relevant for the present day is no small task. Because he is confident that the Word of God transcends all times, peoples, and places, the homilist knows that the theological meaning he preaches is applicable to his people. His task is to use the means at his disposal to demonstrate that relevance. His task is to make sense of his meaning to his people by actualizing God’s Word for them. Actualization is an interpretive endeavor that discloses the Word and its wonder as alive in contemporary circumstances, circumstances wherein its meaningfulness might be seen more clearly in the day-to-day reality of people’s lives. Actualization’s significance for homiletics is simple, for it is the mode by which the homilist elucidates the biblical text as germane in his own day. Its application in homiletics is complex; it is no mean feat to effectively communicate meaning and its subtleties in the flux of cultural idiom. In searching for a point upon which to preach, the limits imposed on the homilist are his own. The literal sense, the spiritual sense, and the analogy of faith are constants. As the homilist reads and researches in his preparation, no few bounds are upon him except the ones he places upon himself. This is hardly so with the actualization. Actualization is a variable. Precisely because knowledge is imparted according to the capacity of the receiver, the homilist must look to the contemporary context in which his people find themselves so as to make meaning relevant therein. He must actualize — make the meaning real in time and place for his people.

But how? The homilist is not a professional pedagogue or cultural critic. Indeed, with so much in today’s culture that is inimical to the Faith, does it not seem better to reject outright the perfidious path of postmodernity? Well, it may seem better at times, but it is not. The homilist, because he is obliged to evangelize in the here and now, must be in this “world” though not of it. To be sure, the twentieth century was no bargain, and the twenty-first is not looking much better. But that is where the people find themselves. To dismiss their cultural context is to dismiss them. The history of the Church is fraught with the examples of those who strove to follow the precedent set by St. Paul in the Areopagus. It was not easy then, and it is not easy now. Even the casual observer may see that contemporary America is no longer branded by traditional Judeo-Christian culture. Identifying particular and peculiar contemporary cultural trends is far beyond the pale of this essay. Nevertheless, a perusal of postmodernity manifests a deep cultural divide between the Church and the “world.” Actualization is an attempt to bridge the gap. With the Bible in one hand and the newspaper in the other, the homilist must address his people in and on their terms, or he runs the risk of incoherence and irrelevance. The following steps serve as a means to utilize contemporary culture in homiletic preparation.

First, establish the meaning in contemporary terminology. Theological meaning is not conditioned by context, but its expression may be. The homilist’s considerations of the voice of Scripture as it speaks to the present day are legion. While there is certainly nothing wrong with and much to be said for using the traditional vocabulary of the Church, the fact is that much of that nomenclature is now meaningless to people. The collapse of catechesis in the last thirty years can neither be glossed over nor ignored. Establishing the meaning in contemporary terms is the “hermeneutical moment” for the homilist. Two thousand years of Tradition enable him to see the past and present thrust of the Gospel; two thousand years of Tradition protect him from the tendentious and the superficial. He must embrace that Tradition and, at the same time, immerse himself in the cultural and intellectual milieux in which he finds himself and his people. Broad reading is his only hope. He must sharpen his theological acumen. So too, he is compelled to acquire the idiom and vocabulary necessary to translate theological insight into modern parlance.

Second, identify a contemporary pattern of thought akin to the meaning. With a meaning profound and succinct in his mind, the preacher must search the postmodern mind for a pattern of thought akin to that meaning in the twenty-first century. Such a pattern may be positive or negative in terms of faith. Assuredly, much of contemporary thought is amicable, or at least open, to Christianity. Likewise, there is much that rails against Christianity. The homilist’s task here is to use any and all avenues to lead people to the Truth. He must find some pattern of thought that his people know and recognize as a referent to compare and contrast the biblical meaning he has chosen as the basis for his homily. While it is true that many contemporary Catholics are ignorant of the truths of the Faith, they are often highly educated in terms of the “world.” The homilist must look to what they already know and use that knowledge to teach them more.

Third, identify a particular instance of the pattern. Once the homilist has selected a viable pattern of thought, he should find it easy to present a concrete example. If the twenty-first century is anything, it is an age of information. People have innumerable facts at their disposal, even if they lack the means to integrate them or to understand their value for a holy and moral life. A news story, a book, a movie, a television show, and the like go a long way in grounding concepts and depicting beliefs. Along with the Faith itself, the mention of something that people have read, seen, or heard establishes a crucial connection between the homilist and his people. The thoughtful manipulation of familiar situations and lived realities enlivens and enlightens consciences to see that individual instances in life, whether affable or adverse to the Faith, have much to say about what people lend credence to, and why. A particular instance of a contemporary pattern of thought functions as a serviceable foil for the homilist in his effort to cast eternal truths in finite shibboleths.

Finally, formulate a Christian response. A homily is by nature exhortative. A homily is a call to action. Whether the action be in the external order (as is most often the case) or in the internal order, a homily calls people to do something, to change, to resist inertia, to act. The smorgasbord of contemporary thought and the applications thereof give the homilist colossal latitude to fine tune a Christian response that is the intended result of the Gospel’s actualization. By calling his people to particular action, the homilist achieves actualization in that he has interpreted both the Scripture and the contemporary context to which the Scripture is addressed in the concrete. A double entendre results. The people are brought to see that biblical meaning is relevant to and informative of the reality of their lives. Moreover, the stated call to action offers a retroactive interpretative dimension. Acting follows being, and being follows acting.

Now the initial point of the Sacred Scripture may be explained and actualized. A homily that is grounded in Scripture and delivered in the context of present circumstance discloses the relevance of a particular portion of the Word for a life lived in imitation of Christ. The homilist is prepared to preach a Word that is a lived and livable message of hope that makes sense here and now in a broken world.

Ultimately, the goal of homiletics is to mediate meaning. And the homilist must be interested in how to go about it. There are no short cuts. The profundity of Sacred Scripture and the complexity of contemporary cultural circumstances require much of the man who speaks in the name of the Church. It is his charge to actualize Scripture, to move his people from the mere understanding of the senses of Scripture to its internalization and inculcation. Unto salvation or perdition, the state of affairs in the twenty-first century is that within which Divine Providence has seen fit to place both preacher and people. Christ is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Transient trends and cultural changes will ebb and flow until the Second Coming. In the meantime, the Church preaches from her pulpits, albeit in finite phraseology, the explanation and the relevance of the Word of God that stands forever.

Back to Homiletic & Pastoral Review Table of Contents December 2000

Back to Catholic Information Center Main Periodical Page