Have you ever listened to a sermon and suppressed the urge to stand up and politely shout, "Hey, that's not in the Bible!"? My soul had the opportunity to do that recently--successfully suppress the urge, that is, not use the ever-popular "call-down-the-pastor-in-front-of-the-congregation" etiquette.

I listened to yet another homily on Sarah, Abraham and Hagar that once again sold the Jewish matriarch up the river by stating that her faith was weak because she gave her slave to her husband for the creation of an heir rather than trust God's timing to fulfill his promise. The problem with that old saw is that God never told Abraham that he would give him an heir through Sarah until after Abraham had fathered Ishmael with Hagar. Abraham's reaction was to double over in laughter, prompting the Almighty himself to come up with just the right name for the as-yet unconceived son--Isaac, Hebrew for "he laughs" (Gen. 17:19). Abraham's gut-level reaction indicates that he too had no idea that his elderly wife would be the mother of the nations that God promised (in chapter 15) Abraham would sire. That Sarah had the same involuntary response in 18:12 surely means that she was hearing the news then for the first time--not from her husband, but from the three mysterious visitors who end up being identified as Yahweh as the story progresses.

This chain of events--the promise of an heir in chapter 15, the birth of Ishmael in chapter 16 through Sarah's slave (whom Sarah was obligated to give to her husband as was the custom in Ur, their place of origin, at the time), the revelation of Sarah as the Chosen One in chapter 17, and Sarah's silent guffaw of unpracticed incredulity in chapter 18--are all but ignored by modern Christian preachers (and probably unmodern ones as well, since it seems to be a custom passed from generation to generation). Why?

Laziness may be a good part of it; tradition is an easier path than the road not taken. But I think there is a deeper reason. There seems to be as much reluctance to acknowledge the necessity of this one woman to God's plan as there is to admit that the first disciple was not Andrew or Peter, but Mary, the mother of Jesus. This robbing of importance, this insistence that one man is chosen but any woman will do, is not a mere oversight. It is a source of decay in the implementation of God's will "on earth as it is in heaven." Abraham's seed without Sarah's would not accomplish God's plan--and he visited the couple himself to make sure that Sarah knew this.  Mary was chosen because she was Mary, not just any girl of the right tribe and nation. Had she refused the ridicule of a premarital pregnancy, God would have chosen someone else, sure. But in choosing Mary, he knew he wouldn't have to have a plan B.

Will I hear more sermons on Sarah's lack of faith (maybe even with the added kicker that Isaac was named after her laugh in the tent rather than her husband's fall-over-in-a-hoot response in the previous chapter)? Absolutely. Will I refrain from standing up and setting him or her straight? I hope so. It saddens me that so many graduate from seminary without being able to follow a story arc. One of my professors at Fuller had us illustrate a pericope, not verbally but visually. The lesson was invaluable in showing us how to identity the players, the apex, the beginning and the end. It helped us see that no one should be left out. Most importantly, it showed us that tradition should never trump text.