the church i am currently interning at uses the revised common lectionary. this is the first time i have been in a church which uses the lectionary, so i have been comparing my experiences.
some arguments for using the lectionary that i find persuasive are:
1. it allows people to hear lots and lots of scripture, especially the hebrew bible.
2. because all of these less commonly used texts are in the lectionary, it gives preachers the opportunity to preach on texts they would otherwise not.
3. it is so widely used. in using the rcl, the local church joins in unity with thousands of other local churches globally, both within and outside its own denomenation.
4. it keeps us on the rhythm of the church year.
5. you don't have to worry about preaching series. the lectionary gives you 4 passages of scripture to choose from every week, usually topical to the season of the church year.
i think these are all good reasons to use the lectionary. but i also think there are several reasons not to use it:
1. it distorts the bible by breaking it down into bite-sized pieces. while this is necessary for any context, since you can't read the whole bible at every church gathering, the lectionary loses the overall sweep of the biblical story. this can be dealt with by careful preaching, but in my experience, it isn't. even though you go through most of a synoptic gospel in a year, the gospel itself is broken up into bits that follow the church year, not the gospel's own narrative context. also except for the gospels, big chunks of the rest of the books get skipped, breaking their narrative structure.
2. it distorts the interpretation of the hebrew bible by selecting pieces that sound as though they support or are supported by the new testament readings of the day. not only does this again destroy the narrative structure of the hebrew bible, but it also disallows the hebrew bible from standing on its own and speaking with its own voice, which i think it has. some people would not consider this a drawback.
3. although almost every book in the bible shows up in the 3 year cycle of the lectionary, big bits of those books are skipped, usually anything having to do with violence or sex or really anything that sounds too bound to the context of the ancient world. this gives people an erroneous idea of what the bible is and what it sounds like.
4. it can be very restrictive if you want to spend time addressing a certain topic or part of scripture. the church i used to attend spent one summer going through the entire book of ecclesiastes, a book mostly skipped by the lectionary because, frankly, it's weird, and seems to speak with a contrarian voice. those 12 weeks opened people up to seeing new possibilities, both in the bible as well as in the christian faith. also we spent several weeks going through the letters of John in an attempt to rebuild our community after a trauma.
so there are some arguments for and against using the lectionary. in general, i don't mind using it. at times it does feel restrictive, and i think it should not be followed slavishly year after year after year after year... but that space and flexibility should be given, both to address issues in the local community as well as to give people a more holistic view as to what the bible is and what the narrative arcs of the books of the bible are.
The other big advantage of the lectionary is that it supports weaker preachers, and encourages hobby-horse preachers to look at rather more of the Bible.
ReplyDeleteIt may just be a UK thing, but many Anglican churches don't put a great deal of emphasis on preaching (or indeed appointing a vicar who can preach well). Sometimes the most important requirement is that their sermons don't exceed 15 minutes.
Those churches that do value good preaching, including sermon series, often have a service on Sunday evening where they can go through Ecclesiastes, say, or a theme, like all the sexually explicit bits of the OT, or strong Biblical women, or whatever. This has the advantage that visitors or casual attenders usually go in the morning, so the evening preacher can go a bit deeper (and longer), or be more insider-focussed, if s/he wants.
thanks for the comment.
ReplyDeleteyes, i did note that one of the things i like about the lectionary is that it forces the preacher (and the church) to deal with more scripture than they often otherwise would.
i think it is a little different in the states, where the standard degree before ordination is the master of divinity from an accredited theological seminary. this degree always involves at least one preaching class to give the new pastor/preacher a baseline competence, and depending on the seminary and denomenation, can often require more.
the 15 minute sermon, however, is pretty similar. all the preaching classes i've taken expected no more than 15-20 minutes in a local church setting. you might be able to tell from my sermons posted here that i'm in a similar context - a 10-15 minute sermon is perfect for them. i don't think a short sermon is necessarily a shallow sermon, however. i've heard plenty of shallow, 40-45 minute sermons.
the evening service is a good option, but it is still optional. one of my main objections to the lectionary is the view of the bible it teaches, and i would like to see that preached to when the whole congregation is present, and even guests and visitors could benefit, if the sermon is constructed well. yes, it's a challenge to the preacher, but i do think it's one that needs to be risen to.