Lectionary questions
I have a short question concerning the lectionary and its uses. First off, I would like to comment on the incredible prescience the lectionary readings have had this summer for my own ministry. Every week, it seems like it fits a significant need in the ministry and this next week is no exception.
I had never heard of the lectionary until my last year in undergrad and it was just passing. I mean, my pastors probably used it (except for those stupid summer sermon series) but I don't know. And really, I didn't know who wrote it until I just did a wiki search.
But I preach from the lectionary solely because of the universality of it. If I used the older lectionaries there might be other reactionaries preaching from it (and I'm fairly reactionary myself, don't get me wrong) but it would be very limited. Sure I'm annoyed when it cuts and clips passages, but they are the verses that the church I belong to reads together.
So what do other people think about the lectionary, and/or preaching in general?
I had never heard of the lectionary until my last year in undergrad and it was just passing. I mean, my pastors probably used it (except for those stupid summer sermon series) but I don't know. And really, I didn't know who wrote it until I just did a wiki search.
But I preach from the lectionary solely because of the universality of it. If I used the older lectionaries there might be other reactionaries preaching from it (and I'm fairly reactionary myself, don't get me wrong) but it would be very limited. Sure I'm annoyed when it cuts and clips passages, but they are the verses that the church I belong to reads together.
So what do other people think about the lectionary, and/or preaching in general?
posted by Unknown at 9:06 AM
12 Comments:
I'm wondering whether the lectionary is a reductionistic enterprise. :)
Just kidding. Actually, I think I will go back and forth between the lectionary and topical. What I like about the lectionary:
1. getting me to preach on passages I might not preach on
2. the potential universality of it (Wilson, my experience in the church is that maybe there are three old ladies out of 300 people who read the lectionary passages ahead of time)
3. the seredipitious events when the lectionary passages really speak to a situation
What I don't like about the lectionary:
1. You don't have the chance to forumlate the ideas of a complete book (though you could stretch the lectionary at times to focus on just one book...like right now you could walk through 1 & 2 Samuel, very roughly)
2. You don't have the freedom to fully address topics or situations that your congregation needs direction on.
I'm also not fully convinced that the form of ministry in worship that has worked in the past is the best form for today. But I suspect I will be labled a modernist for that sentiment.
Tom A.
In Preaching 30 at Duke this spring, a compelling case was made for using the lectionary to select the texts for sermons. I won't recount those here, but one of the key reasons is to protect the preacher from the temptation to preacher his/her word rather than God's word in the pulpit. It is easy to determine the message and then find a text to support it, so the lectionary provides a disciplined way to minimize that. However, they also told us not to become slaves to the lectionary and to use other methods to select texts when occasions warrant it.
I have always used the RCL for my own daily quiet time study and reflection. UMC also uses that, but Anglican churches tend to use the BCP's lectionary for worship.
I don't think one needs to use the same lectionary for both study and preaching. I have just switched to the 1945 BCP lectionary for my own study because it makes me go through the entire psalter monthly and takes me through entire books sequentially while hitting books that the RCL avoids. However, my default for preaching in a UMC setting would definitely be the RCL.
I want to echo the royal concern about assuming that the RCL is the right tool for today and tomorrow. I belong to a startup church, an Anglican church forged from mostly renegade Episcopalians. Our rector mapped out a catechetical agenda for 24 months that he based on re-building the fundamentals of faith for the entire congregation from scratch. That agenda included texts for preaching. That's just one example of why one might not use the RCL, but one I think we all should consider to the extent that we have less theologically literate congregations. It has had the effect of getting us all on the same page in a remarkable way.
I want to add (Wilson) that I echo your experience with the lectionary's uncanny ability to have the right text at the right time. However, my theology of preaching, from Dr. Turner, is that the Holy Spirit intercedes when the Word is proclaimed, working in the hearts of the hearers. So I am reluctant to attribute that experience to a man-made device like the RCL, and would rather give that glory to the Spirit. And you get credit for an assist, in my book.....
Craig, I think part of my ignorance about the lectionary has been because of an attempt to relate it directly to the spirit. If I don't know how it was formed, I can remove it from my own "private judgment" (I think that is been the biggest boogey man for the Socratic, so we should come up with another phrase for it, like cole slaw) from my own cole slaw and assume it comes from the spirit. And so I would consider that a great lacunae on my part which I should address.
And Tom, the universality I see in it has nothing to do with the people in my congregation but with other churches. It allows to feel the connectivity, to feel like I'm not in a congregational but a universal church, even though the practice isn't universal. This is probably another self-deception, though. But I do think there is plenty of freedom to address topics not of your choosing and that's a good thing. Like it might make you preach on the beheading of John the Baptist on stewardship sunday, which was one of the most ironic sermons I've ever heard.
Wilson,
Let me be more clear. I believe you are attributing the eerie, Twilight Zone experience you had to the RCL. I want to offer a difference possibility. The theology of preaching I shared sees the act of proclamation of the Word as a partnership between the preacher, the hearers, and the Holy Spirit. I call it the Alley Oop doctrine. It's an effort to describe the mystery of which we speak. The preacher's task is to speak the truth faithfully, like a point guard casting the ball up near the rim. The Spirit intercedes, acting between preacher and hearers to catch the ball and slam it home to achieve the divine creative purpose. That transformation of our words into the divine Word happens in the liturgical space between preacher and hearers, with the Spirit interceding to answer those sighs too deep for words with a Word that resurrects. So, in that view, which I recall reading from Garner Taylor and Barbra Brown Taylor, our job is not only to prepare our best sermon but also to trust in the real presence of the Spirit when we gather in Christ. In that view, our tools of the trade, like the RCL, remain simply tools and aren't sanctified in any way, because they are on our side of the Alley Oop play. Of course, this is all an effort to describe something that remains a mystery, and there's room for many descriptions. I just like this one because it helps me remember what my role is, helping me restrain my own savior impulse.
Yeah, but I think my deeply diminished sense of the importance of preaching has unwittingly increased the importance of the same scriptures being read in different places. And maybe it's an attempt against donatism, but I feel like if at least we read the same word there is a connectivity, even if the preaching is terrible. And so the RCL is not just a preacher's aid but an aid to the congregations in hearing the scriptures together, not as an independent church, but as a universal church (I keep coming back to that point, and I hope it's not a hash pipe dream).
Wilson, I wasn't challenging your claim about the value of proclaiming the same text universally. I am with you on that. However, I am brainwashed to believe that exegesis of the congregation is equally important. That's the old "prophet standing in the breach" thing. Preacher as mediator to the particular people gathered.
If I didn't have such high falutin' manners, and respectful of the royal presence on this blog, I would be tempted to wonder if your language has faint echoes of "the church is an administrative unit' wisdom that someone once brilliantly shared. A universal church! Egads! I hope the Prince doesn't read your posts! Of course, I know you don't believe in a church beyond the particular community and so I won't sink to such calumny. I'll try to keep this quiet, like just between us Wesleyans...
thanks craig,
I really wanted to use the word "catholic" whenever I say "universal" but that takes too many qualifiers in any conversation, especially coming from a protestant like me (though it pains me to admit it some times). And I feel like it is overused by protestants like myself to the point which the catholic distinctive is lost.
I have used the lectionary when preaching, and one thing that I am glad to be a part of is the fact that it was preceded and will be followed with concuring passages, according to the lectionary. However, the cynic also realizes that from my own experience, I would probably not be attune to the fact that it was sequencial OT references. However, it was helpful for my purposes to note that the same David that slays giants (the minister's sermon for the 25th) is the same one who mourns his friends Saul and Jonathan.
I like the fact that the prince answered so authoritatively a question I didn't even think was asked. I mean, he's the prince, why does he need to qualify or contextualize?
I was just talking with a retired bishop in our church on Friday. We were discussing preaching. He derided the lectionary. Said that all the lectionary preachers he knew were poor preachers. The lectionary didn't inspire. It was arbitrary selection of texts by a committee that no one knows who is on it. He was not fully against the lectionary, but was not pleased with the usual way he saw it used. I found his comments interesting coming, that is, from a bishop. He is in his 80's. I wonder whether there's a generational thing here?
I think we may expect too much of a tool. The lectionary is not intended to make great preachers. It is intended, among other goals, to protect preachers from the temptation of determining their own political agenda and then finding a text to support it, which often results in abuse of the pulpit. Other goals include assuring broad coverage of Scripture for all congregations and helping congregations to experience the church seasons more fully.
A risk of that approach, that I hear a bit in his critique, is that the lectionary will cause preachers to abandon the prophetic project and thus abdicate a crucial role. Barth talked of preaching with one hand on the Bible and one hand on the newspaper. There is certainly a risk that we ignore the newspaper and no longer challenge the parish to relate itself to Scripture in real terms that look like the kingdom come.
Or we do such violence to the text by trying to make it fit the current newspaper, rather than just choose another text that connects with the situation.
Bottom line for me is that there are pro's and con's to using and not using the lectionary. Neither way is perfect.
Post a Comment
<< Home