Key Principles In Lord Of The Flies

This paper will explore how the two homilies that were handed out in class (i.e. the one based on the scriptural passage about the two disciples on the road to Emmaus [henceforth referred to as H1] and the other homily about the repentant criminal [henceforth referred to as H2]) correspond to four out of the five “Key Principles for Affective Homilies.” The four principles that this essay will use to examine the two homilies are: 1) the “Multiple Purposes of Preaching,” 2) whether the “Design… is concise and clear,” 3) the “Role of the Congregation,” and 4) “The Place and Use of the Bible and Theology in Preaching” (each principle is henceforth referred to as P1, P2, P3, and P4). This essay will look at each homily individually to identify

The negative aspect of P1 is the fact that the homilist is unable to tie together all the treads of the day’s liturgy. As for P2, H1 uses several excellent and vivid images (e.g. being “cut off from everything,” “the sound of wind in the trees,” and “walk[ing] a lonely road”). Regrettably, this homily, in terms of P2, is too short and it lacks a clearly articulated focus and, as such, comes across as a meandering stream consciousness. According to P3, H1 does an excellent job of acknowledging the parish’s corporate situation of needing to address people’s loneliness. The homilist, as far as P3 is concerned, fails to provoke the people to think and act on this pastoral situation. Finally, regarding P4, H1 makes a valiant attempt at grounding its message in both the biblical text about the two disciples encounter with Jesus on the road to Emmaus (cf. Lk 24:13-35) and the contemporary situation of loneliness. In terms of P4, H1 did not succeed in providing a balance between tradition, the text, and the present situation. This homily is extremely disjointed in its connection between the scriptural text and the contemporary state of affairs, and it also fails to present any connection to the Catholic tradition of reaching out to the lonely and

Fyodor Dostoyevsky’s character Rodion Romanovich Raskolnikov) and two intelligent literary quotes (i.e. one from William Shakespeare’s Macbeth and the other from Dylan Thomas’ poem “Do not go gently into that good night”). Sadly, these two brilliant quotes and single character reference are not rendered relevant, courageous, and unusual in a good way in this homily as the homilist had intended; instead, they are surprising and confounding in a deleterious way. H2, in terms of P2, fails to successfully use these two literary texts and character reference to challenge the congregation’s idea of God and life effectively. Regarding P3, H2 does try to make a personal connection with the listener by encouraging him to talk to Jesus by saying, “Jesus, remember me. I want to stay vulnerable, tender, loving, human.” Despite trying to create an intimate connection between the listener and Christ, H2 does not genuinely invite parishioners to wrestle with the concept of forgiveness. In terms of P4, H2 tries to use the scripture passage about the criminal next to Jesus on Golgotha (cf. Lk 23:33-43) to address a real issue (i.e. pain and suffering) and to effect change. Unfortunately, from the point of view of P4, H2 is theologically incorrect because the homilist creates his own Jesus saying near the end of the homily. In that fabricated saying,