Ship of Fools: Lowpoints in the Lectionary

Thread: Lowpoints in the Lectionary Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=026499

Posted by pererin (# 16956) on :

Has anyone else felt that feeling of "oh no" when they looked at the readings for Evensong for the past two Sundays (and, I've taken a sneak peek forward to next Sunday: it's just as bad)? The First Lesson seems resolutely stuck in bits of Isaiah that either make one wonder whether Advent has arrived early or are totally obscure. And the Second Lesson seems to be picking all the most tedious parts of 2 Corinthians: first we had chapter 1, which is a formulaic greeting, wordy thanksgiving, and Paul's justifications for changing his travel plans; then we skipped past all the interesting bits in chapters 2-7 (or 2-6 at least) and got chapter 8, in which Paul gives instructions for his collection for the church in Jerusalem (leading at least to the memorable sermon line: "there are three things I'm not really meant to preach about: politics, sex, and money"); and next we're getting chapter 9, in which he reprises the theme of chapter 8. I don't know whether to be disappointed that we then skip the relatively interesting chapters 10-13 of 2 Corinthians, or relieved that we get back into the Gospel according to John after that. Did the people who devised the lectionary think that everyone's away on holiday in August, so they could concentrate a certain sort of reading there?

Posted by Barefoot Friar (# 13100) on :

The Gospel readings for Sundays have been kicking me up one side and down the other this month, but for reasons other than what you listed. I've never had such a difficult time preaching as I have this month. Jesus is in a snit, and it shows!

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Evensong gets the bin end of readings. All the best ones are in the lectionary for the eucharist.

If you go to church in the evening, you get the left overs.

If I am preaching at evensong, i have to spend more more time in preparation to get some sense out of the lessons - or run for cover to the psalms and preach on them instead.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

We only have Evensong (BCP) once a month, and Father insists on using the Authorised Version for the readings chiz chiz chiz......

....but at least yesterday we had that wonderful verse i.e. viz. to wit, 2 Corinthians 8 v9:

'For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that ye through his poverty might be rich.'

Ian J.

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

Yesterday, we had an amazing coincidence at my parish. The Sunday Epistle was Hebrews 11:29-12:2, the famous hall of Israel's saints, which mentions Samson.

At Evensong, the first lesson was Judges 16:15-31, the passage where Samson exerts his revenge on the Philistines by destroying the hall with his strength, killing himself and thousands of people in the process.

It is interesting to ponder the two readings and wrestle with what it all means. [Razz]

Posted by pererin (# 16956) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Evensong gets the bin end of readings. All the best ones are in the lectionary for the eucharist.

I don't see why. There are a vast number of good readings, from Cain and Abel in Genesis 4 to the defeat of Satan in Revelation 20 that never get read at a Sunday Communion service. Sunday Evensong really should be the next priority for getting the best readings — really the criteria should be being both interesting and longish.

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Yesterday, we had an amazing coincidence at my parish. The Sunday Epistle was Hebrews 11:29-12:2, the famous hall of Israel's saints, which mentions Samson.

At Evensong, the first lesson was Judges 16:15-31, the passage where Samson exerts his revenge on the Philistines by destroying the hall with his strength, killing himself and thousands of people in the process.

It is interesting to ponder the two readings and wrestle with what it all means.

What lectionary's that from? That sounds far more interesting. [Smile]

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

Fortunately we're far too indolent to pray after mid day here ... but I confess I approach the Easter season, with its self indulgent, self-congratulatory yet depressing wallowing in the Book of Acts (I wish Luke had put down his quill before the sequel - though some scholars are suggesting it was the first volume to be written, in which case I wish they'd sent a rejection slip) with fear and trepidation.

I mean how often can you preach about sermons that converted thousands, snake bites that did no harm, and prison walls that fall down on command.

Admittedly you get a chance to sing "my chains fell off ..." or even "laughing and jumping and praising God", but c'mon ....

Posted by Oblatus (# 6278) on :

quote:
Originally posted by pererin:

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Yesterday, we had an amazing coincidence at my parish. The Sunday Epistle was Hebrews 11:29-12:2, the famous hall of Israel's saints, which mentions Samson.

At Evensong, the first lesson was Judges 16:15-31, the passage where Samson exerts his revenge on the Philistines by destroying the hall with his strength, killing himself and thousands of people in the process.

It is interesting to ponder the two readings and wrestle with what it all means.
What lectionary's that from? That sounds far more interesting.

The USA Episcopal BCP 1979 had that at Evensong (for those using the "borrow the first lesson from the other year" approach). The same lectionary is used by some Canadian Anglicans and by some USA Presbyterians and Lutherans, too.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

The thing that I like about the lectionary is it does force you to consider many parts of Scripture you would rather do without if you had your own choice.

When I was in the military I found even non liturgical chaplains tending to use the lectionary if only to get an idea on what to preach.

Yes, Luke depicts Jesus as a revolutionary, not some cuddly little toy we can manipulate.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

We solve any potential problem by simply not having a sermon at our monthly Evensong - after the 3rd Collect, we sing a hymn, and then go straight to Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament.... [Big Grin]

But I agree that use of the Lectionary means that you do indeed read parts of the Bible that otherwise might not get much of a look-in - at Morning Prayer, over the past few weeks, we've tackled Job and Ezekiel, and are now wading through Proverbs... [Eek!]

Ian J.

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

I've had a number of grumbles recently from ordinary members of the congregation about the obscurity of some of the Bible passages in the service (Main service lectionary).

Their point is that if we are hoping to draw new people into the church (especially younger generations), readings about "circumcision of the heart" don't help - unless you have the time to unpack them (which is unlikely on a Sunday morning unless you are preaching on that specific passage).

Another example was the last Sunday's gospel reading (Luke 12:49-56), about families being divided and which contains the line "Do you think that I have come to bring peace to the earth? No, I tell you, but rather division." This is a passage that would take an awful lot of careful explanation to unpack. As it happens, I had already chosen to swap the reading for another (as I can during Ordinary Time), as I was preaching on a specific theme.

Now of course, the "correct" response to these complaints is to say that we need all parts of the Bible and to hide away the obscure or potentially offensive stuff would be wrong. But the grumblers have a point. The lectionary is not terribly "seeker friendly" (I apologise for using that awful phrase).

One answer, of course, would be to do away with the lectionary and simply choose readings that we felt were "suitable" for our own situations. But that raises as many problems as it solves.

Perhaps what we need is a fresh look at the idea of the lectionary, especially for the main service. It seems to me that it was constructed with the assumption that all (or at least most) of the people in the church would have a basic understanding of the books of the Bible. This is an assumption that needs some examination!

I don't think I am suggesting a "dumbed down" lectionary - but certainly one where a key principle in choosing the passages is "how will seekers/visitors be able to engage with the readings rather than be put off or confused"?

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
Readings about "circumcision of the heart" don't help - unless you have the time to unpack them (which is unlikely on a Sunday morning unless you are preaching on that specific passage).

Coming, as I do, from a Christian tradition which very much centres on the preached Word, I'm afraid that I find this statement faintly amazing. Given that most Christian believers do not go to "house groups" nor read very much theology, Sunday mornings are the only time when they are likely to engage much with the Biblical text.

So surely those conducting worship should make the time to unpack difficult texts on Sunday mornings - and congregations should not just be willing for them to do this, but expect it. In fact, they may rise to the fact that the preacher is grappling with a difficult text and trying to make sense of it for the present day.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

Coming from an almost diametrically opposite position to BT (worship is primarily sacramental and symbolic) I'd support him in a big way on this.

Posted by Morgan (# 15372) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
last Sunday's gospel reading (Luke 12:49-56), about families being divided and which contains the line "Do you think that I have come to bring peace to the earth? No, I tell you, but rather division." This is a passage that would take an awful lot of careful explanation to unpack.

I preached on this very passage, along with "I came to bring fire to the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled". I did not find it easy to do, but there were people who commented on how it spoke to them, and that they appreciated the addressing of difficult topics, of which we have certainly had a few in recent weeks.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

So did I, with a similar response.

Posted by pererin (# 16956) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
Another example was the last Sunday's gospel reading (Luke 12:49-56), about families being divided and which contains the line "Do you think that I have come to bring peace to the earth? No, I tell you, but rather division." This is a passage that would take an awful lot of careful explanation to unpack. As it happens, I had already chosen to swap the reading for another (as I can during Ordinary Time), as I was preaching on a specific theme.

I'd've been tempted to preach on vv54-56, referencing this in passing. This is probably why I'm not in a pulpit. [Biased]

quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
Now of course, the "correct" response to these complaints is to say that we need all parts of the Bible and to hide away the obscure or potentially offensive stuff would be wrong. But the grumblers have a point. The lectionary is not terribly "seeker friendly" (I apologise for using that awful phrase).

I like the all parts of the Bible view, but no lectionary I know of has ever implemented that completely. Even Cranmer didn't have us announcing, "The First Lesson is written in the sixth chapter of the First Book of Chronicles". Actually, there would be an interesting sermon in 1 Chronicles 6, but the reading itself would test the congregation's patience.

quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
One answer, of course, would be to do away with the lectionary and simply choose readings that we felt were "suitable" for our own situations. But that raises as many problems as it solves.

I think the answer is a better lectionary. Preferably one that moves the start of the year to Septuagesima...

quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
Perhaps what we need is a fresh look at the idea of the lectionary, especially for the main service. It seems to me that it was constructed with the assumption that all (or at least most) of the people in the church would have a basic understanding of the books of the Bible. This is an assumption that needs some examination!

I agree, but getting people to have an understanding of the books of the Bible also means that one needs to assume that they have an attention span of more than six verses.

In a way, I see it as the natural result of the Parish Communion movement. You don't want to go to Mattins? Fine, you need Mattins-length readings in the Communion Service.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

This may be a slight tangent, but a couple of years ago we switched from the RC Sunday Mass readings to those of the C of E (using the Redemptorist sheets). My impression is that our own dear old C of E gives us much larger chunks of Scripture on Sunday mornings than the RC church, even when following much the same route, IYSWIM.

BTW, I have no problem with this - I prefer it. Some of the RC lections e.g. on weekdays are little more than soundbytes - if you koff, you miss the Gospel!

Ian J.

Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on :

Speaking of low points in the lectionary, the US BCP daily office lectionary has been going through the II Samuel and King David's reign, and such edifying stories as David getting Bathsheba pregnant then having her husband killed (and God's punishment is to have the innocent baby die); and then we get David's daughter Tamar being raped by her half-brother, who in turn is killed by her brother Absalom, who in turn revolts against his father David, and is killed and David is more upset by Absalom's death than by all the horrendous crap that preceded it, etc., etc.,

I have found plowing through these readings to be yucky and grim, and yet challenging, from a theological perspective. I understand that these quasi-historical documents of a specific small country in the Middle East are a precursor to a more universal message, not that message itself. And it says a lot about Jesus' human ancestry.

In EfM class when it was my turn to bring a subject for group meditation I was noted for bringing difficult scripture passages -- nothing from II Samuel -- but rather New Testament passages that confused me and seemed to go against the basic thrust of the Christian difficult, I simply had difficulty with them and wanted to benefit from what the rest of the group had to say.

Ed. to add that i realise that if one wanted to comment more on the specific Biblical aspects of this post, Kerygmania is place. I was just commenting on the low points aspect

[ 21. August 2013, 17:03: Message edited by: malik3000 ]

Posted by S. Bacchus (# 17778) on :

quote:
Originally posted by pererin:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Evensong gets the bin end of readings. All the best ones are in the lectionary for the eucharist.
I don't see why. There are a vast number of good readings, from Cain and Abel in Genesis 4 to the defeat of Satan in Revelation 20 that never get read at a Sunday Communion service.

Yes, it is a little odd that Revelation 20 is consigned to Mattins on the Feast of St John Damascene, but Genesis 4 is all too good a fit for Evensong on the first day of the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity. Note, too, that Revelation 12 is invariably the Epistle at Michaelmas, which is one of the better attended Red Letter Day (we get about a third of our usual Sunday congregation for the Michaelmas Sung Mass at Our Lady of Scrupulous Kalendrical Obedience, as opposed to a little over a 10th for, say, St Matthias).

Also, if it weren't for Evensong, where would generations of choristers learn such inspiring lines as 2 Kings 1:8: 'And they answered him, He was an hairy man, and girt with a girdle of leather about his loins. And he said, It is Elijah the Tishbite'?

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Morgan:

quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
last Sunday's gospel reading (Luke 12:49-56), about families being divided and which contains the line "Do you think that I have come to bring peace to the earth? No, I tell you, but rather division." This is a passage that would take an awful lot of careful explanation to unpack.
I preached on this very passage, along with "I came to bring fire to the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled". I did not find it easy to do, but there were people who commented on how it spoke to them, and that they appreciated the addressing of difficult topics, of which we have certainly had a few in recent weeks.

I'd add that fire isn't always about judgement:

quote:
We are able to lead life to the fullest because our hearts are filled with the gift of the Spirit that removes all unnecessary clutter. As Teilhard has said: The day will come when, after harnessing the ether, the winds, the tides, gravitation, we shall harness for God the energies of love. And, on that day, for the second time in the history of the world, man will have discovered fire." Teilhard de Chardin, The Evolution of Chastity', in Towards the Future (Orlando: Harcourt, 2002), 86-87.

The Way, July 2013

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

I have often wondered where Teilhard found his mushrooms

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

I think some people may have missed the point that I was trying to make.

Personally, I welcome the chance to tackle some of the trickier bits of the Bible and help people to understand what they mean. But I am increasingly coming to the point where I don't think that this should be done in the context of a "main service" on Sunday - when (hopefully) there will be the greatest chance of seekers and visitors whose Biblical understanding cannot be taken for granted. Nor are they the kind of people who would easily sit through a 45 minute sermon, minutely exegeting such passages.

A couple of years ago, key people from our church worked their way through Bob Jackson's "Everybody Welcome" course. As a result, we have started to think more deeply about how outsiders perceive us and our services. So I find it quite pleasing that long-standing members of the church come to me and say things like "what on earth will that young couple over there (who are in church because they want to get married here) going to make of the gospel reading today?"

The Revised Common Lectionary was officially published in 1994, but its roots lie much further back from that. Basically, it comes from a time when it was still commonly assumed that almost anyone in church would have some sort of understanding of the Bible. In short, it really ain't "seeker friendly" because it makes no allowances for the possibility that there may be a considerable number of people in the church service who don't have the necessary pre-knowledge to make sense of the readings, especially if they are not explained in the sermon.

So I would argue that the RCL needs to be looked at again, from the viewpoint of "how will these readings be understood by seekers and those new to the faith"?

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

By "RCL" do you mean "Roman Catholic Lectionary"?

The new three year lectionary is problematic as opposed to the traditional one year lectionary. The main reason for this is because it was plastered together by a committee rather than being the result of centuries of liturgical tradition. The result is scripture - often rather obscure - for the sake of scripture. This often leaves the people puzzled by the relevance of the readings to the liturgical calendar.

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

Check out the ever reliable Wikipedia article on RCL.

However there are no morning and evening prayer texts in RCL. Sorry I have spent sometime looking for it. You can check this out at Consultation on Common Texts (CCT)page on the RCL. For those with problems here CCT are the group that produced the Revised Common Lectionary.

Where the CofE differs from the CCT version then it is CofE that is out of step with the ecumenical process behind this text not CCT.

Jengie

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
By "RCL" do you mean "Roman Catholic Lectionary"?

The new three year lectionary is problematic as opposed to the traditional one year lectionary. The main reason for this is because it was plastered together by a committee rather than being the result of centuries of liturgical tradition. The result is scripture - often rather obscure - for the sake of scripture. This often leaves the people puzzled by the relevance of the readings to the liturgical calendar.

'Revised Common' not 'Roman catholic'.

And it isn't 'new' It's 20 years old and in need of serious revision,.

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
And it isn't 'new' It's 20 years old and in need of serious revision,.

Twenty years in liturgical terms is the equivalent of a twinkle in a father's eye.

Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
The thing that I like about the lectionary is it does force you to consider many parts of Scripture you would rather do without if you had your own choice.

Nothing is forced in the ELCA, except perhaps the attendance of seminarians at synod assembly. You could do what my pastor does, and just change the readings to whatever you want, whenever you want.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

Oscar

Last Sunday was the beginning of the academic year for our university. I would say quite a few young people actually identified with the point of family division. They see it already in their own lives, especially the upper classmen/woman. Our pastor talked about how sometimes parents hope their kids continue to go to church to conform to expectations, our pastor said his job is to transform lives via the Gospel.

Olaf, if your pastor chooses to go on another tangent, more power to him/her. But I think the pastor is robbing you of the opportunity to struggle with the appointed passages.

Posted by Try (# 4951) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Olaf:

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
The thing that I like about the lectionary is it does force you to consider many parts of Scripture you would rather do without if you had your own choice.
Nothing is forced in the ELCA, except perhaps the attendance of seminarians at synod assembly. You could do what my pastor does, and just change the readings to whatever you want, whenever you want.

I must say that while I've seen ELCA pastors choose to omit one or more of the readings, I've never attended an ELCA service where the pastor had selected his own readings rather than using the lectionary. Admittedly that may be selection bias. When I decided to leave the UMC for a more liturgical denomination I seriously considered the ELCA as well as TEC, so I visited several local Lutheran churches, but I only visited the churches with weekly Communion. I probably passed over the less liturgical Lutherans.

Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Try:
I must say that while I've seen ELCA pastors choose to omit one or more of the readings, I've never attended an ELCA service where the pastor had selected his own readings rather than using the lectionary. Admittedly that may be selection bias. When I decided to leave the UMC for a more liturgical denomination I seriously considered the ELCA as well as TEC, so I visited several local Lutheran churches, but I only visited the churches with weekly Communion. I probably passed over the less liturgical Lutherans.

Oh, our church follows the liturgical book quite closely, and we do have weekly Communion, but one never knows what one will encounter with pastors. One of the ELCA's biggest problems is the lack of a unified liturgical identity. Each church, mostly prompted by the pastor, has enough of its own idiosyncracies to make it greatly different from other ELCA places. I think Gramps 49 said once that the liturgical movement was losing ground in the ELCA, and that pretty much sums it up.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

Sounds just like our dear old C of E. [Disappointed]

Posted by Anglo Catholic Relict (# 17213) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I'd add that fire isn't always about judgement:

I think I would say it rarely is; fire irt people represents purification or sanctification, imo.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Indeed - and today's epistle talked about God being like a refining fire.

Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
The new three year lectionary is problematic as opposed to the traditional one year lectionary. The main reason for this is because it was plastered together by a committee rather than being the result of centuries of liturgical tradition. The result is scripture - often rather obscure - for the sake of scripture. This often leaves the people puzzled by the relevance of the readings to the liturgical calendar.

Quite the opposite IMHO (or IMNSHO). I'll leave aside the themed seasons (Advent/Christmastide, Lent/Eastertide) whose themes do get expressed in either the old 1-year or current 3-year lectionary in its variations (though better in the latter). Addressing just the times after Epiphany and the time after Pentecost/Trinity (aka Ordinary Time) I fail to see where tradition produced other than an obscure hodgepodge.

Thank God that the RCC was inspired to produce the 3-year lectionary, and thank God that so many other Christian churches were inspired to adopt it, primarily in its RCL form. I think it has been a true blessing to the western church. One is exposed to more scripture and in a somewhat orderly way.

Does it have room for improvement? Undoubtedly -- human beings were involved in its preparation. But I have utterly no interest in going back to the old lectionary, either in its BCP or RC form.

On another subject, speaking of daily lectionaries, the folks that produced the RCL also produced a 3-year daily lectionary which is a far less successful effort I think. I think the best daily lectionaries are the US BCP daily office lectionary, and, when a briefer lectionary is wanted, the RC weekday eucharistic lectionary.

Finally, my spell check doesn't think lectionary is a real word. What does that say about the state of western culture today?

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

Since when did "seeker friendly" mean "nice and cuddly"? This is about Jesus Christ, not Hello Kitty.

Anyway, I think the RCL avoids the "difficult" passages far too often. We need longer chunks of scripture, and more coverage of the whole Bible, not shorter and fewer.

The icky bits of Samuel are very well worth reading, and worth preaching on. Think of it as the Bible's equivalent of The Godfather. These are not nice people and their story is a tragedy. Same goes for large parts of Genesis.

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

I should perhaps have been more accurate. The RCL has nothing to do with Evensong texts etc. They give a single set of readings for the main Sunday service. The rest is the good old CofE.

In other words if you do not like the readings for morning, evening prayer, you are free to do so, but do not blame RCL. They have not produced any such lectionary.

Jengie

Posted by pererin (# 16956) on :

Today we can blame the RCL though. I'm sure our church was far from alone to have the pythonesque spectacle of the reader taking far longer to climb the lectern than the length of the first reading at the Communion Service. The result was inevitably barely-suppressed laughter. That one really should be edited to be vv.1-7.

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

Well except the full OT was for the semi-continuous:
Jeremiah 2:4-13

and for the complementary
Sirach 10:12-18 or Proverbs 25:6-7

Now of course my view is you should use the semi-continuous. It will be harder to link, but you will be treating the text with more integrity, and that is what any low church should be doing. If you are more Catholic then you did have the option of Sirach!

It just shows you how Via Media lets you down.

Jengie

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

Sorry this computer seems to be automatically posting twice.

Jengie

Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Now of course my view is you should use the semi-continuous. It will be harder to link, but you will be treating the text with more integrity, and that is what any low church should be doing. If you are more Catholic then you did have the option of Sirach!

Finally, a week with a short RCL reading. I hope none of you here squandered it with an interminable sermon! [Paranoid]

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0