Lutherans preach from a lectionary. Okay, there might be exceptions doing something more topical, but you will look hard to find them. It is not a controversy in the church, it is just an assumption.
And lectionary preaching by its nature is pericopal preaching. For those who don’t use this term, pericopes are sections of biblical text determined to be one literary unit by someone. We typically have three pericopes each week (OT, Epistle, and Gospel). And typically the sermon focuses on one of these pericopes.
So one week, Jesus is changing water into wine. The next he is preaching the beatitudes. Or one week, Paul is exhorting people to unity. The next week he is talking about tongues and prophecy. One week Isaiah is being called to the prophetic office and the next Jeremiah is calling for trust in God.
The strengths of the lectionary are several. One is that it gets us around to much of the bible. Whole counsel? Perhaps not, but closer than if the preacher chooses only his favorite topics to address. Secondly, our lectionary is based on the church year. This gives the preacher and the congregation a chance to consider the major life events of Jesus and then of the church each year. Third, it allows those who are absent one week to easily return without any threat of falling behind. Lastly, our particular lectionary is Christ-O-Centric. The texts are chosen to always lead us to Christ and the salvation he brings.
But what are the difficulties with this type of preaching. Well I would suggest several.
First, this preaching is not truly the whole counsel. We often skip in our lectionary those texts that we do not feel comfortable with. For instance, Lutherans rarely have many texts from the book of Acts about the supernatural manifestations of the Spirit.
Secondly, this type of preaching often, especially in a Lutheran context which generally allocates only 10-20 minutes for the sermon and expects a full presentation of the story of redemption each week, does not allow much true meditation upon the text for our hearers. What do I mean? Well the assumption in Lutheran homiletics is that the basic story of redemption must be present every week in addition to whatever the text’s focus happens to be. Creation (although this is often skipped), sin, redemption, heaven must be there in each sermon. We hope that in doing so, our people should be brought to true repentance and receive true forgiveness is those 12 minutes or so. And while it is certainly possible to mention all of the parts in your sermon, I doubt that it happens often in the hearing and experience of the people that they are brought to true repentance and receive true forgiveness in those 12 minutes not to mention meditate upon the other truths of the text for the day. In our context, it is one text, 10-20 minutes, and we are out. And then the next week we are somewhere else altogether. People just begin to think about resurrection, and then we are on to creation. They never get a chance over an extended period of time to consider a topic or text. Pericopal preaching moves on too quickly i would suggest especially in a context where the weekly presentation of the redemption story is preferred if not expected.
Third, it teaches our people to read the scripture primarily out of context. Oh, hopefully good preaching put things into context for them, but the system itself give three texts completely seperate from their contexts. At best usually one of the three gets expounded. And so people go home and read a couple verses here and a couple there, and in so doing miss much. They miss much not only because they skip parts but because they also don’t understand the context of what they do read, and therefore often misinterpret or under-interpret the text.
Next, it often does disservice to the unity of scripture. Since we are so often moving around, people don’t often understand the big picture. They take a pithy moral home or an unattached proclamation of the gospel but do not really understand what it has to do with the rest of scripture or their lives for that matter. At best, they figure out that two or three texts have a similar message.
In contrast to what was listed above as a positive, it also seems to at the very least encourage less than regular attendance. Miss a week? “No problem.” it says.
At times it can lead to misunderstanding of a doctrine. We move on so quickly that our people are left to fill in the blanks not covered in those 12 minutes of preaching. And all too often, they fill in the blanks not with biblical wisdom but worldly ideas supplied by the sages of the TV world.
Finally, it leaves the biblically illiterate in that state. We wonder why people don’t know the basic story of scripture and the individual stories that make it up. But how can we expect our people to understand that it was first Joshua, then the judges, then the kings and prophet, and then the exile when our lectionary never ends up telling the story in that order. It seems that pericopal preaching assumes that the hearer knows the basic stories of the bible and will place the pericopes where they should go, and we unfortunately can no longer assume these things.
So what are thee other options. Topical preaching allows mediation on a topic for several weeks, but often centers only on the pastor’s favorite topics. Expository preaching (going verse by verse more like typical Lutheran bible study) allows both for sustained meditation and place texts on their context. It also help teach the biblically illiterate the stories of the bible and forces the pastor to deal with all of the issues the text offers. At the same time, it requires more time than 10-20 minutes and also makes observing the church year more difficult. It also assumes the congregation will be consistent in their attendance in order to not get behind. Positively, it encourages such consistency.
I wonder if the answer isn’t utilizing all of the options occasionally rather than only doing one. For instance, perhaps in the non-festival part of the church year, one could go through a book of the bible or take several weeks on a certain topic. It seem that relying only one option always leaves something to be desired.
I’d have to agree that using a multitude of options is the best route to go. I would argue though, that pericopal preaching allows a pastor to tackle tough issues, without accusations that they are going after one issue, and neglecting another. That assumes a pastor who’s willing to tackle issues the congregation may not want to hear….
Right, expository preaching through a book also affords that opportunity.
Phil,
Your criticism of the historic lectionary is one of the pitfalls of modern Protestantism, namely that we know better than the ancient fathers who gave to the Church the historic lectionary and thus it needs to change. But in that historic lectionary is the story of salvation. Perhaps you lament that people do not get to hear the “whole” story and remain biblically illiterate, but let us remember that there is more than simply the Sunday Divine Liturgy, such as the Prayer Offices of the Hours, Matins, Vespers and Compline. Most of these offices have appointed Scripture to be read, but since modern people do not wish to spend their time in Church (and I’m generalizing here), they demand that all these different pericopes be squeezed into that 10-20 minute allocation. So, again, who knows better–today’s nominal Christian or the holy fathers?
Another criticism you bring up is that for even those Christians who come to Sunday Divine Liturgies, the historic lectionary does not make them more literate. Well, remember that the historic lectionary was in place in a time when most people could not read or write and there was no complaint there about the people being “Biblically illiterate.”
One more thing: for as much animosity as Lutherans display towards Catholics, how is it every time the Pope plots, the Lutherans leap? Take the calendar. Pope Gregory XIII decided it needed to be updated by 13 days and the Lutherans followed suit–60 years after the Reformation! The origins of the 3 year lectionary were introduced at the Second Vatican Council. Why did the Lutheran Churches immediately follow? The historic lectionary has been in place for some 1600 years; who are we to assume we can improve upon it or should bother?
Palo
Christopher,
I really appreciated your thoughts. For someone like myself who doesn’t come from a tradition that uses the lectionary, the original post and comments have been interesting to read. And I am coming to a point in my own life (personal and preaching) of seeing the beauty and benefits of using a lectionary and liturgy.
However, while my own tradition has issues to work through on how we preach through the Bible I am wondering if your tradition perhaps places to high an emphasis on the lectionary itself. We have been called to “preach the word” but we have been given no strict guidelines on how that should be done. Learning from and utilizing church history/father’s is great but when it becomes the master rather than a faithful guide it becomes problematic. Phil’s question/argument seems to be: the guide (lectionary/liturgy) has been good (and he will continue to use it and enjoy it) but what other forms can he use that will still allow him to be faithful to the master of – preach the word.
While I understand your second point – i think the context and situations are vastly different. Then you had a society in which only some of the privileged and wealthy could read and write, thus the necessity/benefit of the lectionary. Thankfully, most everyone (at least in the US) has the opportunity to be literate – shouldn’t we encourage, through whatever means we have, people to be biblically literate? The lectionary may have been in place during a time of illiteracy but could this be a case in which it was a faithful guide during those times and then it became the master? And in becoming the master it became THE WAY to preach for some and fostered in times of literacy a biblical illiteracy that Phil is looking to address(among other concerns)?
Tom,
Thanks for your response.
You asked if my tradition places too much of an emphasis on the lectionary. And the answer is that we do! Because, contained in that lectionary is the story of salvation from God to the human race. Now it may not hit every single word of Scripture (in fact, the Apocalypse of St. John is not appointed for any day in the Church year), but it provides a holistic encapsulation (as much as that is possible) of what God has done for us. Another thing is that I, for one, have really become familiar with more Biblical passages since becoming Orthodox which uses the historic lectionary.
One thing I need to say about the Orthodox is that many, whether Protestant or non-Christian, feel that we hold on to traditions just because that’s the way it has been done for a long time. Our traditions are not mindless or blind affectations. Obviously the lectionary has changed to compensate for the addition of new feast days of the Lord, the Theotokos, saints and important events in the Church’s life. We hold to these because our worship is not just something that goes on once a week, but it is something that we join into along with the heavenly choirs. The liturgy (which the lectionary is part of) is beyond time and space, praising our Lord in song along with the Christians who have gone to their rest, those about to come and the heavenly hosts. Again, I don’t understand why there is this modern need to fix what is not broken.
Christopher
Christopher,
I see much beauty with and in your tradition. I love the mystery and symbolism that the Orthodox embrace, along with the more liturgical expressions of faith.
So here are a couple of questions based off of your posts: you mentioned that the ancient fathers gave the lectionary to the church – if the lectionary is a man-made vehicle to tell the story of salvation, are not other man-made vehicles that tell that same story of salvation if not equally valid at least worthy of exploration?
I agree that the lectionary is not a broken way to tell the story of salvation but yet does it work for everybody in today’s cultural context? And perhaps even more importantly, does it have to work for everyone today? Yeah, culture has probably affected how we learn, etc. but that seems to be a reality we must face rather than a thorn we can just ignore. And I also agree that you do what you do not out of blind affection or that it is mindless – but yet, please know that those who choose not to use liturgy/lectionary are not being mindless, or arrogant, or throwing away well over a thousand years of history. We do what we do (and many are trying to recover some ancient practices/liturgies/symbols of the historic church) because we too are interested in telling the beautiful story of salvation. Which goes back to my main question – if you love the lectionary because of it’s beauty and history that is cool but the lectionary is not the message it is the vehicle through which the message is communicated. You seem to be elevating the vehicle to the same level as the message.
Tom,
Would you agree that the Church is a counter-cultural “institution” (I really hate that word when referring to the Church; it’s the best I have right now)? If so, then why do modern cultural demands even begin to dictate the theology and the practice of the Church? Your position betrays what I fear has infected Protestantism and is now even infecting Orthodoxy in this country, namely that one comes to Church to “get something out of it.” I hope that happens for everyone–that they do get something out of it, namely that Christ has come in the flesh to save us and to renew us for Christ-like living. But that should NEVER be the primary focus. We celebrate (not attend) the liturgy, we pray the offices, for what? To give thanks and praise, however insufficient it may be, to our God for all His great benefits to us. “Getting something out of it” is, to my mind, a stealthy rewording of “being entertained.” Forgive me, but you are advocating a position which says that the ancient fathers erred and therefore we have to correct, as modern enlightened indivdiduals, the ancient practices. The lectionary is not man-made, as you say, but, as with our liturgies, the councils, the canons and, yes, the Scriptures and the lectionary, all has been governened by the direction of the Holy Spirit.
As I said before, for the Orthodox, our traditions are not mindless or blind affectations of the “good ol’ days.” The faith we embrace encompasses not only correct belief (orthodoxy) but correct practice (orthopraxy). Lex orandi lex credendi, the law of prayer is the law of faith. The two cannot be divorced from one another.
Besides, you are engaged in a slippery slope. If the lectionary can be “reworked”, then so can everything else. The question is where does it end? And until Protestants, whether they be Lutheran or Methodoist or Baptist or whatever, actually confront that question, then those respective denominations will continually bend practices to the point that the parts of the ancient faith which can still be found there are either distorted or destroyed. Forgive me for being very blunt–I can do nothing else.
Christopher (John)
Christopher,
I believe you made some assumptions about things I never said. Yes, the church is counter-cultural and it should not be dictated to by contemporary culture – yet I am not quite convinced that making the message understandable or varying how the message is communicated is bowing to cultural pressure.
I too agree, in principle, that we are not here to entertain people. And there are certainly enough churches that do that. However, a defintion of entertain is, “to hold one’s attention.” In a sense then, all churches that are trying to faithfully communicate the story of salvation, should entertain.
And as I affirmed, I know that you do what you do not out of blind affection.
My tradition would say that if Scripture itself can be re-worked then everything is up for grabs. But I understand how your tradition would incorporate the councils, creeds, and the use of the lectionary/liturgy. So while there certainly is danger in my tradition of individuals or churches flying solo that want to reinterpet orthodox beliefs, I believe the danger that your great tradition is faced with is not engaging in a cultural analysis that enables us be at the same time faithful to the story of salvation and also make that same story culturally and contextually understandable. Isn’t this in fact what Jesus did in his culture when he used stories and images to engage his hearers? Isn’t this what Paul did when he engaged those at Mars Hill? Would Jesus’ approach have been as effective as Paul’s?
And forgive my bluntness. But I believe the church father’s could have and did err (on a number of things). In my tradition we heavily utilize Luther and Calvin (though many of us are going back to the earliest church fathers to hear their voice as well – and it is indeed beautiful)and as right as I think they were on a number of issues – they got it wrong on things too. I guess I am okay saying that because I am not dealing with Scripture itself but rather with men who were trying to be faithful to what God had called them to. They were led by the Spirit just like you, me and (probably :])Phil are but we all err (especially Phil and his love for the sooners).
As much as I love this dialogue I sense that we are trying to convince each other of positions where there is much to learn from each other (and I have from you for which I thank you) but probably not much wiggle room. I guess, for me, it turns on the idea of we are both trying to be faithful to this wonderful story of salvation and I pray that God continues to use you and your tradition to draw people to a true and real relationship with Himself.
PS – when I said, ‘would Jesus’ approach have been as effective as Paul’s I meant in the context of Mars Hill. Sorry.
So Tom, Jesus is not as good as Paul? Okay, noted. Seriously, I have to write a sermon, but early next week I am going to jump back in.
OK… Despite finding the Tom/Christopher debate fascinating, I’m responding to Phil’s comments.
One, is it possible at all for a 90-minute church service, once a week, to ever give whole counsel? Rather than being a downfall to lectionary preaching, I think it’s just the nature of church services in general. There’s just not enough time to get to everything.
And I definitely think you’re right when you say that sermons do not allow much time for meditation. Sometimes I feel that the sermon is whizzing by and I’m trying just to keep up.
To me, though, I’ve never expected sermons to be my be-all and end-all of biblical literacy. Isn’t that why we’re exhorted to be in the word when we get up and lie down? Even in ancient biblical times where people weren’t as literate and bible texts weren’t as accessible, biblical instruction was a throughout-the-week, not-just-at-temple activity.
From sermons I listen to, I expect new insights into scripture, instructions, inspiration, reminders, and sometimes a swift kick to get me back on track. I expect that God’s going to use the pastor and his words to reveal himself more and more to me. But my wrestling and thinking and learning and searching and finding is going to come throughout the week, too.
Oh, and also… our pastor preaches topically, and I think it’d actually be easier to miss one of his sermons than a pericopal one. Since his sermon series last for 3 or 4 weeks, he spends the first few minutes reviewing what was discussed last week anyway. 🙂
Chris,
One of the pitfalls of Orthodoxy is that it ascribes to the ancient fathers an orthodoxy that many never had. We often desire a past that never existed. And your passing assertion that only nominal Christians exist today is equally false I know I am not as well read as you are in the Fathers, but I have read plenty to know that they do err. And if they can err than their vehicles for presenting the gospel are not divine and therefore instructive rather than prescriptive.
Also, have lay Christians ever followed all the hours prescribed in orthodoxy? To my knowledge the practice of such hour only existed in monasteries and the like. So, why do you expect this of the Christians now?
As far as literacy, I refer to biblical knowledge not to true literacy. And if Luther’s examinations are any clue, throughout history biblical literacy has also been a trouble. It is not a new problem.
As far as Lutherans going with the Catholics, Lutherans have always been unique in their ability to take what is good about catholicism and leave behind what is not. Perhaps if we would do the same with other churches, we would be stronger for it. Orthodoxy by history and practice must only use that which rests within its tradition, and that is not to its benefit in my opinion.
You also mentioned that you have come across new pericopes in the historic lectionary, but no doubt you will not hear some again that you were blessed to hear growing up Lutheran. Alas, Jaime is right, to get the whole counsel one must take up the meditation of the word individually.
I totally agree that “Lex orandi lex credendi, the law of prayer is the law of faith.” That is why I ask the question I do. I am asking precisely if the way we pray has the best effect on our faith.
Tom and Chris,
The debate bout Christ and Culture is as old as the gentile mission of the church. I tend to agree that the church with its truths must be itself, and that often is anti-cultural. Within its bounds, the church also should have a unique culture from the world around it. But as we go into the world, we have to be at least intelligible to the world with our message, which at times means adopting their culture’s ways.
Jaime, you point is well taken. The individual Christians must be in the word to truly have the whole counsel. But I also want to see as much as possible interpreted within the community of Christians. For interpretation is always best on the whole when done in the community Christ creates rather than individually. But your point is well taken, the goal of whole counsel may be out of reach, but I want to get closer to it is possible. Finally, I think only expositional preaching through a book really asks people to commit to weekly attendance.
Ok, Phil… what about Sunday school then? Is that the balance? If you can only fit in 20 minutes of bible interpretation goodness in the average sermon, is Sunday school an adequate supplement to worship that can provide that meditation and “deep digging” time?
Jaime, it is, or should be, but with only 10% or so of adults in bible class, it has led me to believe that perhaps for now we need to bring bible study to the people in church since my constant exhortations have not brought the people to bible study.
Phil,
Nowhere did I ever imply the individual fathers were infallible. Indeed they are! However, when the Church comes together and is guided by the Spirit, as did happen during the 7 Ecumenical Councils, whose teachings and decrees Lutherans accept by the way, and uses the wisdom of the holy fathers to articulate her belief, then, without doubt, are the fathers most useful and beneficial to our spiritual development.
Did Christians ever prayer all of the hours? A great many of them did, and not necessarily the Orthodox hours, but those of St. Benedict, St. Augustine, St. John Cassian, etc. in the west. I might even add that it is easier to pray these hours now, since so many books have been published which contain these fine gems of the church life. However, most people simply will not, even if they do have the time, because they see such things as “unnecessary” as long as they go to Church on Sunday. But, again, how much are they depriving themselves! Therefore, you shouldn’t be forced to do in 10-20 minutes on Sunday what they neglected to do for 10-20 minutes for the other 6 days!
I don’t know where you get this idea that Orthodoxy never existed. It most certainly did in, what we call, the phronema pateron, the mindset of the fathers. And it was practiced. If you’re going to make a charge like this, I would really appreciate, for intellectual honesty’s sake, that you give me more.
God keep you all during the Lenten fast to glorify His life-giving Resurrection!
Christopher (John)
Christ, while Lutheran affirms many of the items affirmed in the councils, our reason for this is not that they come out of the councils, but because the decisions of the council were in line with scripture and often quite beautifully captured the truths of scriptures in terminology not standardized before. Luther himself was clear that even the councils can err.
Although I dream of the day when we could have a council again. Man, how that would be awesome. But with all the division in the church, it is only a dream.
I am still not sure that many lay Christians ever followed strictly any of the various rules, orders, or hours. When in history did this happen? And of course, we have to make sure that our time spent in prayer does not cloister us from the world.
And I don’t think I said that orthodoxy never existed. Certainly it did, and if not, we are in trouble today. I am just saying that ancient and orthodox are not necessarily synonymous. I am also concerned that you seem to think it does not exist today. Trust me I am cynical about the state of the church, but orthodox teaching is still available in the church.
Lastly, and this is directed at all people here, what responsibly does the Pastor have for your spiritual growth, and what responsibility do you have? And how do these relate? Maybe my occupation draws me to these texts, but the scriptures seem to be full of texts that make clear that the Pastor hold great responsibility toward those entrusted to his care.
And yes, Chris, blessed Lent to you and to all. Rend you hearts not your clothes, they will do enough of the latter tonight in New Orleans.