Scrapping Lectionary IV: Baby and Bathwater

Some good comments were made on my first post this week on the topic of scrapping the lectionary. Yes, I stand corrected in that I see Ezekiel and the Dry Bones showing up on Easter Vigil and Lent 5A. My mistake. (Easter Vigil, however, is a service that few do and fewer attend, so for all practical purposes, I'm guessing that that particular service doesn't expose very many folks to the Dry Bones story).

Dave's comments on the RCL arising out of ecumenical conversations are valid, too. I'm wrestling with that one. Does having tens of millions of people hearing the same text preached on the same Sunday outweigh the fact that few of them remember it on Monday and apply it to their lives on Tuesday and know how last week's text relates to next week's text or where it fits in the Bible narrative?

And finally yes, Dave's point about the baby and bathwater is worth considering. The baby should never be thrown out with the bath water, although if that baby grows up and moves away and never comes home, we need to find a way of inviting the baby back from time to time - not just to watch our old home movies, but to show a particular interest in the no-longer-baby's life. Either that or we need to get busy and conceive a new baby.

When it comes to keeping the RCL and trying to make it conform to the present reality of the post-Christian-Biblically-illiterate-rarely-worshipping culture, I fear the baby has already moved out.

That leaves us with the conception angle.

I kinda like conception. Conception is messy, but it's a lot more fun.

Comments

[Rich Melheim]

Good thoughts. I'll blog a response tomorrow.

Text and context do need to connect, and what's on the shelves in the stores this week is more their context than the second lesson for the third Sunday of Epiphany.

[Randy Brandt]

Observation: In podcasting Rob Bell the last couple years, I hear a model of one who depending on the time of the year will reference the season of the church year handed down through history by church ancestors, and then use it quite intentionally as a teaching tool and access point into bible / teaching focus for the morning (or series). But Rob Bell certainly does not use assigned lectionary readings in doing so. In fact, this year his Sunday lent series on the book of Lamentations had some exceptionally good teaching and preaching - but you wouldn't find all those lessons in the three year lectionary rotation.

One more piece to consider: Using the lectionary readings gives a chance to weave together lessons from the OT, Epistle and Gospel and allow scripture to interpret itself. True? Or does anyone do this? Or having assigned texts to assigned days - isn't this self-limiting? or...?

Hmph.

One more observation: this summer for 8 weeks we again visited the preaching series of answering questions written by congregation members (we did this 3 years ago during the fall). Church members comment quite directly and even anticipate various upcoming questions and topics: when else does that ever happen in Lutheran lectionary based preaching? ("Gosh, pastor, I see you're preaching on Lectionary B Pentecost 14 texts: wow, we can't wait!")

-Randy B