Ship of Fools: Lectionary gripes

Thread: Lectionary gripes Board: Ecclesiantics / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=6;t=008541

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Many say that 1 Corinthians is the most relevant of epistle for today’s culture yet it gets short shrift in the RCL.

It appears for the first 5 ordinary Sundays of Year B – that is now – in the RCL

But if Easter is early, like this year, it get eclipsed.

Furthermore, protestant and Anglican versions of the lectionary further eclipse it by having different readings for ‘Sundays before Lent’.

Is this an own goal?

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Depends on whether or not you find St Paul, and specifically his first letter to the people in Corinth, of particular relevance and resonance.

For myself, I'd prefer to listen to almost anything else of a Sunday morning.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Depends on whether or not you find St Paul, and specifically his first letter to the people in Corinth, of particular relevance and resonance.

For myself, I'd prefer to listen to almost anything else of a Sunday morning.

Taking into account the impression that is strongly implied that St Paul was writing to people in a city where many lived disordered and chaotic lives, I agree with Leo on this. I would have though that undoubtedly has particular relevance and resonance to people living in England today. Anyone who can say it doesn't for them, where they live, is very fortunate.

[ 17. January 2018, 18:52: Message edited by: Enoch ]

Posted by Galilit (# 16470) on :

Personally I was highly embarrassed on Sunday by the 1 Cor...specifically the repeated mentions of
fistly, fornication (which living without benefit of clergy with the same man for 32 years I am soooo guilty of) and secondly "prostitutes" (NRSV). The latter I thought "a bit much" because as a feminist I feel that there is a tension between "relationship" and "prostitution" that is not always pleasant

(I know that latter is just me but that's just me)

I wanted to grab Paul by the %^&*! and ask him where I fit

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Depends on whether or not you find St Paul, and specifically his first letter to the people in Corinth, of particular relevance and resonance.

For myself, I'd prefer to listen to almost anything else of a Sunday morning.
Taking into account the impression that is strongly implied that St Paul was writing to people in a city where many lived disordered and chaotic lives, I agree with Leo on this. I would have though that undoubtedly has particular relevance and resonance to people living in England today. Anyone who can say it doesn't for them, where they live, is very fortunate.

It touches on many issues that continue to make Paul’s letters points of conflict today:

• sex,
• multi-culturalism,
• rebaptism,
• life after death,
• the relationship of new (house) churches to the mainline,
• charismatics,
• liturgical order,
• hierarchies and equality,
• power and weakness,
• relationships with on-believers,
• wealth and giving,
• food and its source,
• whether Jesus’s commands can be set aside by personal opinion and,
• most of all, using one’s own judgement.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

I agree. It's probable that no two shipmates agree with one another on every single item of that checklist of 14, but I don't think one can deny that they're all relevant.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

It's also a letter that calls the church to account - especially when it comes to following an (albeit) gifted teacher (Paul or Apollos) over God.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Galilit:
Personally I was highly embarrassed on Sunday by the 1 Cor...specifically the repeated mentions of firstly, fornication (which living without benefit of clergy with the same man for 32 years I am soooo guilty of) and secondly "prostitutes" (NRSV). The latter I thought "a bit much" because as a feminist I feel that there is a tension between "relationship" and "prostitution" that is not always pleasant

(I know that latter is just me but that's just me)

I wanted to grab Paul by the %^&*! and ask him where I fit

Galilit, I think what you’ve said raises some demanding questions for all of us. I’ve been debating with myself whether to respond to this or not. You have been truthful and personal. You may well feel, and be entitled to feel, that I’m behaving like a bull in a china shop, intruding where I have no right to go. I think though, we all have difficulties with some of what you’ve raised. I'm unsure whether it's benefitting shipmates and the discussion to air this or whether I should keep quiet.

It does seem to me though, that if there are things worth saying in reply to your courageous response, there are at least three of them.

The first thing I think we’ve got to ask, is whether St Paul would have felt embarrassed by embarrassing you. Even if he did, would he have felt inhibited by your embarrassment, or would he have felt that this might be more of an indication that what he was saying was something that it was his duty to say?

Might he not say that most of us are all too happy to finesse ourselves round what we should recognise in ourselves as evasiveness in our own favour. If that is the case, isn’t it his job, as an apostle and a writer of scripture, not to let us get away with it? If we feel embarrassed, is that his fault or is it right that what he says should cause our own consciences to feel challenged?

The second is, obviously, the rest of us don’t know your circumstances. But are you sure he would simply classify your relationship as ‘fornication’? I’d have thought that if you’ve been together for 32 years, it is possible that he’d might take the line that you were de facto married. Would he say that after that length of time, you are obliged to each other as though you were? Might he not say in stead that it was about time you regularised things?

The third is, that, obviously, St Paul lived in the First Century and we live in the Twenty-First. Would anyone before about 25 years ago, yet alone in the first century, have had a clue what your reference to a tension between relationship and prostitution was talking about? Or what the issue was, even if you’d tried to explain it in different words? Is it reasonable to take issue with somebody in a different era for not guessing what people in some future age and different culture might be going to get steamed up about?

How are we to know which of the issues some of us get steamed up about now will, over the long expanse of time, prove to have been important? Which will turn out to be peculiar fads of our own day, as incomprehensible to other eras as Fifth Monarchists, those who were prepared to kill and to die for their opposition to the Treaty in 1921 or the surprisingly large number of respectable intellectuals who in former times advocated eugenics?

Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :

I do think that Galilit brings up issues that might have been, throughout Christian history, more likely to be noticed by women than men. But it's only been around 25-30 years that women have been in church pulpits expressing these tensions, compared to around 1,920 years or so that they haven't been. So the fact that they seem novel or faddish might just reflect the fact that roughly half (probably more) of the Christian population wasn't given a public place to express them until very recently.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Galilit, can I pick up a couple of points which Enoch raises. The first is to query just how many people would have gone through a formal marriage service 2,000 years ago. We know some did, but they were grand affairs well beyond the means of most farmworkers, slaves, candlemakers and so forth. My suspicion is that most people simply set up home together and remained together for the rest of their lives. Much as you and your partner in fact. I don't read Paul as criticising that sort of relationship, but rather he's referring to bed-hoppers - John and Jane tonight, but tomorrow it will be John and Mary, while Jane's moved on to James.

The next is your comment about prostitution and relationships, which I simply don't understand.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Galilit, can I pick up a couple of points which Enoch raises. The first is to query just how many people would have gone through a formal marriage service 2,000 years ago. We know some did, but they were grand affairs well beyond the means of most farmworkers, slaves, candlemakers and so forth. My suspicion is that most people simply set up home together and remained together for the rest of their lives. Much as you and your partner in fact. I don't read Paul as criticising that sort of relationship, but rather he's referring to bed-hoppers - John and Jane tonight, but tomorrow it will be John and Mary, while Jane's moved on to James.

The next is your comment about prostitution and relationships, which I simply don't understand.

There's a couple of assumptions here that may or may not be correct. The primary one is whether a "ceremony" to celebrate marriage was the norm or the exception. Jews saw little distinction between rich and poor and would encourage all to celebrate the societal norms which included marriage. (It was a community event rather like the Hindu weddings we see today). It as probably done by the community for the community -- in which case it meant little whether you are rich or poor, just as it does today.

Bear in mind, too, that Paul is writing to the church with a view to them living in such a manner that marks them out as followers of Christ (not living to MAKE them followers). He's referring to believers who have the choice to make a public commitment to faithfulness (and in the process proclaim Christ) but who choose not to.

Paul is not condemning those who are not married in the wider community. He calling to account those in the Christian community who choose not to get married. Again an assumption but the church would have been able - irrespective of social status - to have arranged a ceremony and celebration, however simple, in the community itself.

It's like a lot of his teaching in the letter - it ultimately comes down, like all behaviour he mentions, to personal choice. Some Christians in the Church at Corinth don't see the point of surrendering everything to Christ and can't then be the example Christ wants them to be. It's like the selfishness he talks about in ch 11 when it comes to sharing bread and wine. In the process there are no different from the wider community and do not reflect the grace of God and attitudes of Christ.

I don't know Galilit's particular circumstances. As has been said above, after 32 years it's certain that this is a contracted partnership whether her partner is a believer or not. Paul would understand the circumstances if as a believer she wanted to be married but her partner didn't as a non believer (the impact of a believing wife to sanctify her husband).

Perhaps as pointed out above it is more a painful personal reflection on society's attitude to women than it is about Paul's teaching on marriage. Clearly it's touched a very raw nerve but isn't scripture there to do that along with encouragement that we may think through our lives and actions?

On a wider view I don't think we preach 1 Corinthians enough. It's central message is handing our lives and behaviour over to Christ for Him to direct and lead. That covers both our morality (sexual purity but also a celebration of intimacy) and practical community (overcoming division, being careful what you eat so as not to give the wrong impression to outsiders).

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Thank you. I find your first paragraph interesting and it may very well be true amongst Jewish people. I wonder how true it would have been throughout the Mediterranean world (let alone the world beyond Rome's boundaries).

I'm not so sure that your later paragraphs deal with what Galilit called the tension between relationship and prostitution. What is that tension? I just don't understand that.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Thank you. I find your first paragraph interesting and it may very well be true amongst Jewish people.

1. I wonder how true it would have been throughout the Mediterranean world (let alone the world beyond Rome's boundaries).

2. I'm not so sure that your later paragraphs deal with what Galilit called the tension between relationship and prostitution. What is that tension? I just don't understand that.

1. Probably pretty rare I suspect. Paul wasn't writing to these people though - he was effectively saying please behave differently by writing to the Church.
2. Me neither to be honest. I wonder what the real issue is here

Posted by Galilit (# 16470) on :

I am very aware that the Early Christians didn't marry or have fancy big weddings (mostly because they thought the world was ending/Jesus was coming) and that The Church per se only got really involved in weddings around the C.8 or 9. Sorted all that historical stuff out in my early 20's so I would have something to respond with when I was confronted by Other Christians who thought differently (or did not think at all). This would have been in the very early days of Christian Feminism (Mary Daly particularly). Late 1970's maybe and the whole dialogue as well as society in general have moved on since then

My argument is with reading that chapter out loud "as is" TODAY. A person reading or preaching this does not know how it is going to "hit" each person in the congregation (even people they may think they know well may have a situation or a past they may not be aware of). Actually, even I was surprised by the visceral intensity of my own reaction (in my pew in Real Time). And I wasn't even on one of my "over-sensitive" or "looking for an argument" days. And it is always only afterwards you can say to yourself or hear from someone else "Yes, well he was talking to those people back then when everything was different".

I think you CAN say (today) something like "the human body is HOLY and anything that insults its holiness (like sexual violence, consent issues, etc) is not in line with Christian thinking and behaviour.

Re: Point 2... I heard in my teens "marriage is just legalised prostitution".

I can't recall if it was from a Marxist or a feminist but it has really stuck in my head. I am not in Total Despair about this Every Single Day; but it is never far from my thinking when I think about being a woman and a feminist and a Christian. Which is why I very carefully describe it as "a tension" when I mention it. Which I mostly don't as I am too old for arguments of this intensity. Also I have become more sensitive about shoving my finely-honed theology/ideology down people's throats.

Posted by Gottschalk (# 13175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Galilit:
Personally I was highly embarrassed on Sunday by the 1 Cor...specifically the repeated mentions of
fistly, fornication (which living without benefit of clergy with the same man for 32 years I am soooo guilty of) and secondly "prostitutes" (NRSV). The latter I thought "a bit much" because as a feminist I feel that there is a tension between "relationship" and "prostitution" that is not always pleasant

(I know that latter is just me but that's just me)

I wanted to grab Paul by the %^&*! and ask him where I fit

Embarrassed? Probably the point of honest religion. It's meant to be challenging, helping us look at our choices and assess them.

Posted by bib (# 13074) on :

I was rostered to read that same passage from 1 Corinthians 6 and must admit to feeling uncomfortable with the wording. I would actually have preferred to read the KJV rather than the newer more explicit one we are now using. Maybe I'm too conservative, but I'm inclined to think that some chapters from the Bible are better kept for individual or small group reading rather than for public occasions.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Galilit, There'd be precious few around who'd suggest that you and your partner were committing fornication because you lived together without benefit of clergy. Indeed, most would congratulate you on a long and what seems to have been successful marriage.

I'd forgotten that quote. I remember it from that time (being slightly older than you, I'd say)and even then I though very little of it. From memory, it was a feminist author, perhaps a Marxist but not speaking as one. It continues to strike me as silly and totally disrespectful of the millions upon millions of women who'd entered into a relationship of commitment and love with their partner. A headline grabber for a day or maybe even 2, but then faded into well deserved obscurity.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

And what about 'homosexuals' in v. 9?

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
And what about 'homosexuals' in v. 9?

"This is what some of you were" It implies change.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

The idea that we should leave out or tone done some bits of scripture because some people are, or even might be, offended by what it says, is disturbing territory indeed. It's a version of 'Peace, peace, where there is no Peace".

So also is the implication that reading that bit in the Authorised Version might be better because the people whom it might make feel uncomfortable won't understand the C17 language. That is patronising as well.

Posted by Galilit (# 16470) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
And what about 'homosexuals' in v. 9?

Yes, indeed. In my adrenaline-fuelled state of alertness I saw and heard that too and I thought to myself "Had you been in Switzerland and had it been winter ...you could have found yourself skating on some very thin ice there, Paul, old chap"

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :

Just a reminder that discussion of Dead Horses (including their treatment in liturgy/worship) belongs in... well, Dead Horses. Debates concerning specific statements in 1 Cor might also benefit from a dedicated thread in Kerygmania, so if you want to pursue, say, the translation of any particular word you could consider starting a thread there.

That would leave this thread for discussion about areas of deficiency in the lectionary and how they might be addressed, which seems like a valuable thing to have.

Your cooperation is as ever appreciated.

dj_ordinaire, Eccles host

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

Presumably the C of E chose to replace 1 Corinthians with Revelation in line with their innovation of an "Epiphany Season".

Liturgical bloody mindedness. Revelation crops up in Eastertide and has inspired more loony ideas than any other book in the Christian Bible.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

You can - maybe should - throw all sorts of accusations at the CofE but the "invention" of an "Epiphany season" isn't one of them.

From the publication of the BCP in 1662 there has been Epiphany: the Feast of, followed by up to 6 sundays after.

What may have happened is that someone has woken up to the fact that there is much to be drawn from the story of the magi, their quest and the gifts, and that perhaps the CofE would be better served to think about that than have seemingly endless Sundays "before" Lent.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

The BCP is After not Of.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
uld be better served to think about that than have seemingly endless Sundays "before" Lent.

BCP had 3 of these - each ending in 'gesima'.

What I would prefer is 'Ordinary Sundays' - green vestments.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
And what about 'homosexuals' in v. 9?
"This is what some of you were" It implies change.

Avoiding a dead horse as far as possible, I find it hypocritical that those Anglicans who condemn homosexuals look the other way when it comes to fornicators - ir encourage remarriage after divorce as did George Carey.

Let's have ALL 1 Corinthians, not cut it out of the lectionary.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

I agree with you, Leo, both about green vestments and inconsistent sexual morality

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

I am of the opinion the RCL needs to be retired. We are using what is called the Narrative Lectionary.

Of course, you might have to have the permission of the diocese to do this.

[ 08. February 2018, 00:29: Message edited by: Gramps49 ]

Posted by TomM (# 4618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
I am of the opinion the RCL needs to be retired. We are using what is called the Narrative Lectionary.

Of course, you might have to have the permission of the diocese to do this.

At least at a quick glance, that makes very little sense for a church with a traditionally shaped Eucharistic liturgy within the traditional Kalendar as its primary worship.

The Gospel is always the primary reading at the Eucharist, because it is the lens through which we read all of the rest of Scripture. So a lectionary designed around the principle of an optional extra Gospel is starting from the wrong place in this context.

And to take one example - a little at random - why would you want to preempt Christmas anymore than secular culture already does by reading the Johannine prologue on Christmas Eve/Advent 4 (I'm not sure which it was meant to be tied to)? It also appears to leave out all the major feasts of the Church's Year that don't fall on Sundays? Where is Epiphany, the Annunciation (as those missing the page I opened)?

And then that lectionary, by virtue of only really having one reading, leaves out far more than RCL with four readings (OT, Psalm, NT, Gospel).

Of course this lectionary loses (setting aside the Church of England's faffing about with the RCL for the moment - which had the effect of celebrating the Sunday in the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity with a different set of readings to those for whom we were praying for unity...) any sense of ecumenical sharing. As against a lectionary that is the basis for a significant number of Christians around the world. (Its probably a majority, but that's chiefly because the RCL is almost exactly the same as the Lectionary in the Roman Missal.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TomM:
The Gospel is always the primary reading at the Eucharist, because it is the lens through which we read all of the rest of Scripture. So a lectionary designed around the principle of an optional extra Gospel is starting from the wrong place in this context.

Slight quibble: It is true that the Gospel reading is the primary reading in RC, Anglican, Eastern/Byzantine and maybe (some?) Lutheran Eucharistic liturgies. But it is not necessarily true outside those traditions.

But I agree with all of your other observations.

Posted by TomM (# 4618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:

quote:
Originally posted by TomM:
The Gospel is always the primary reading at the Eucharist, because it is the lens through which we read all of the rest of Scripture. So a lectionary designed around the principle of an optional extra Gospel is starting from the wrong place in this context.
Slight quibble: It is true that the Gospel reading is the primary reading in RC, Anglican, Eastern/Byzantine and maybe (some?) Lutheran Eucharistic liturgies. But it is not necessarily true outside those traditions.

But I agree with all of your other observations.

Sure - but hence my caveat about a traditionally shaped Eucharist.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

Which perhaps invites the question “traditionally-shaped by which tradition?” [Biased]

For some of us, the Eucharistic is definitely shaped according to what may be called the Western rite, but because of the interplay of that larger ecumenical shape and our own particular tradition, the Gospel may or may not be the primary reading.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

And Luther saw Gospel throughout all of Scripture, some had more Gospel than others true.

It is through the lens of the resurrection we look at all Scripture.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

While some were keeping Candlemas, someone inn the Church Times suggested that there should be readings for the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity.

Another asked why we got the second half of a story today – the bit AFTER Peter’s confession. What happened to the first half? (C of E only – the RCs have he transfiguration story today)

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

Yeah. That was a bit annoying. Depending on what tack you were taking with today's gospel reading, you had to keep referring to what Peter had just proclaimed to make sense of Jesus's response! And explaining that that had happened just before today's gospel reading began!

Posted by georgiaboy (# 11294) on :

In today's (2 Lent RCC) readings I was mildly astonished at the truncation/near bowdlerization of the Abraham/Isaac trek/sacrifice narrative. I wanted to shout 'Tell the rest of it!'

I've not been able to check the text yet, and I'm pretty sure the reader wasn't cutting on the fly (sorry!), but it seemed to me that a lot of the point of the story was lost.

My question, other than opinions about this; is the story told more than one place in scripture? Does 'Missal3' allow for such cutting?

I promptly went and listened to Britten's 'Abraham and Isaac' for 'correction.'

Thoughts? Comments?

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

You can check the RCL readings for this Sunday.

Jengie

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0