Lillian Daniel: The lectionary is great. Except when it's not.
In the ancient church a young monk would approach an elder and ask, 'Abba may I have a word.' Tom Arthur, in his first year out of seminary, seeks advice from elders in these letters. The letter to which Lillian Daniel replies is here.
Dear Tom Arthur,
In my tradition, the United Church of Christ, we are often asked whether or not we follow the lectionary. Folks from more liturgical traditions are sometimes surprised to discover that we do. Yes, we strictly follow the lectionary, absolutely. Unless we have a better idea.
I, like you, was taught in divinity school that lectionary preachers were more faithful to the text than topical preachers. Supposedly, by following the lectionary, we would be less tempted to preach on our pet themes or pet scriptures over and over again. We would be forced to view the church and the world through the word for that day. By following the lectionary, we would be less likely to sprinkle scripture, like seasoning, over what we were already planning to say.
For much of my ministry I bought into this. To be honest, I also appreciated the structure. I work much better with an assignment than with a completely blank page (which reminds me -- thanks for writing and giving me an assignment for this blog post). I like having four readings to choose between, rather than the entire book. And I found what many lectionary preachers find. The word for the day often speaks right to the heart of what is happening.
But sometimes there might be other scriptures that speak to the heart of the preacher as well. Maybe the lectionary passage “works” while some other passage might allow the sermon to truly soar. In cases like these, I will deviate from the assigned text. Having an idea for a sermon before getting to the texts is not a sin. It may be God working through you in a different and surprising way.
Let’s not confuse the lectionary with the Bible itself. The lectionary was put together by a bunch of guys in the last century, who appeared to have a real distaste for divine judgment and therefore, left most of it out.
They sought to take us through the Bible in three years, but it was through their version of the Bible. Some preachers speak of the lectionary like it is some sort of canon that will protect us from our own subjectivity. But the lectionary is a product of human subjectivity. Let’s face it. The lectionary is not the last symphony that ever needs to be written, sufficient for all the ages. It’s more like a really good mix tape.
There are lectionary-preaching clergy who would sooner die than be called fundamentalists and who would laugh at any one who believes Moses actually wrote any scriptures. Yet these same people judge the non-lectionary preacher with disdain, with an attitude that looks a lot like fundamentalism. Apparently we are not to take scripture literally, for that would be anti-intellectual and naïve, but the lectionary may not be questioned. Who’s being naïve again?
So I deviate and play with themes and topics on occasion, partly to keep myself fresh and challenged. I am sure I will hear back from people who find the lectionary offers them endless opportunity for excitement. It just doesn’t for me. And I will also hear back about the cheesy topical sermons out there, particularly the ones that read like the latest psychological self-help book with scripture added as a condiment by the preacher as iron chef. But sometimes those preachers get to play with a deep idea several Sundays in a row, or delve deeply into a practice or concept that the lectionary would not permit. Topical does not mean shallow, any more than lectionary guarantees deep.
And perhaps the biggest temptation to give a shallow sermon comes to those who insist on weaving all the texts into the sermon. Not content with the challenge of relating to one, they try to fit multiple texts into a basket that doesn’t have enough room and by necessity must therefore become wide and shallow. I suspect these preachers are preaching to some invisible and remembered seminary professor, who is checking off references to each one in the lectionary book of life. But trust me, no one in the congregation is impressed. They’re just bored by a lowest common denominator message that seeks to include texts that certainly God did not link together, and wondering when the preacher will get to the point.
Having said that, the lectionary is like a restraint that I don’t always care for, but still believe that I usually need. I wear it like a winter coat, something I suspect is good for me, but that also makes me feel hemmed in when the weather suddenly changes.
It also occasionally forces me to deal with Biblical stories that are difficult to preach. But given that I always have three other choices, I’m not sure I take on those hard texts with more enthusiasm, or practice, than the topical preacher. Just as fine preaching comes out of many methods, so does poor preaching.
God and the devil both seem to be enormously flexible.
Lillian Daniel is senior pastor of Glen Ellyn First Congregational Church (UCC) in Glen Ellyn, IL, co-host of the television program "30 Good Minutes." Her book with Martin Copenhaver, "This Odd and Wondrous Calling," was just released by Eerdmans.
Thank you for your post,
Thank you for your post, Lillian. From an Anglican perspective, I have found the lectionary to be at its most useful during the seasons of the church year that are most amenable to thematic pairing of readings. The season after Pentecost seems to be the best time for Anglican preachers to depart from the lectionary and preach through a book or on a particular theme, especially if they are using the Revised Common Lectionary rather than the Book of Common Prayer lectionary, as the former gives some more room for OT history.
The other point that I would like to make is that I perceive that both you and Tom seem to underestimate the value to the average pew-sitter of hearing a Gospel read through each year along with an OT reading that has some connection (however slight). As I tell my new lectors in training, the lection may be the only scripture most of your listeners experience this week! It is not all about the preacher, and the folks in the pews are seldom interested in one theological topic as much (or for as long) as clergy folk think they are.
Lectionary-ing
To choose to wear a winter coat, that is the question. The L is like so many other disciplines. If there is consent....good. If you feel bound, not so good. To choose one's bondage...that is the question...
ds
Nice essay by Lillian, who
Nice essay by Lillian, who always writes smart stuff. The lectionary lurches between being a very useful ecumenical tool and being simply a relic of Christendom. Best to hold it with a light grasp, and Lillian names it well.
I like Lillian’s post. A few
I like Lillian’s post. A few years ago I did a little article for Theology Today on the Lectionary, sort of “Two cheers for the lectionary.” It’s a great tool but shouldn’t be a straitjacket. Thanks for the discussion.
Peter Storey
It's a cool post with strong images. I remember coming out of my first preaching class where we were given this glorified vision of the lectionary, then going into Peter Storey's "Local Church in Mission" class and being horrified because he was suggesting preaching the lectionary isn't always the best strategy. In his loud, booming, gospel-driven voice he says, "The moment you bend your knee to the lectionary is the moment you cede your pastoral authority to something outside yourself." Unforgettable.
YES!
Thanks for this. So wonderful to hear someone in the "mainline" tradition question the Lectionary.
"And perhaps the biggest temptation to give a shallow sermon comes to those who insist on weaving all the texts into the sermon," was one of the highlights. If I had a nickel...
Looking back on my recently completed seminary education, I wish a preaching class had seriously explored SERIAL preaching. Adam Hamilton's book "Unleashing the Word" has helped me with this, as has Andy Stanley's "Communicating for a Change." What I appreciate about Stanley's approach (whether you swallow it all or not) is the fact that he challenges preachers to understand what they're doing when speaking to a congregation.
Good stuff
Great Essay
Couldn't agree more! Thanks for putting it so well.
isn't about pastoral judgement?
I'm grateful for my preaching professor 25 years ago at Candler School of Theology - Fred Craddock - who taught his students to be guided by the lectionary, and for my senior colleague in my first parish who did the same. I have been a "lectionary preacher" for all these years, and I believe my congregations have benefited from that discipline. Have I preached sermons off the lectionary? Of course! That is part of pastoral discipline too. Listening carefully in such a way that one knows when it is necessary to set the lectionary aside and can articulate those reasons. If I were to write the letter to Tom Arthur, I would say the lectionary has been enormously helpful for the congregation; drop it was caution.
The T Word
I spent the first 12 or 13 years of preaching working mostly from the lectionary, the last 12 or 13 mostly not. But I wouldn't call the recent sermons all "topical" -- only the worst ones. I've mostly done series on biblical books & biblical themes, many not covered in the lectionary. Most of these, I think, were better, and better received, than the lectionary-based sermons. Certainly more rewarding for me.
Nuts and Bolts
Dear Lillian,
Thanks for helping break through the ideological barrier between the lectionary and other forms of organizing sermons. These are helpful thoughts on an ideological level, and I'm enjoying immensely the conversation in the comments section.
On a more nuts and bolts level, if you were going to preach three years without the lectionary, how would you go about picking texts/themes/topics etc.? Are there models out there for organizing over a long-haul without the lectionary? Are there people you know who are doing this kind of thing well? What would your week look like in preparing such a sermon? What would your month look like? What would your year look like? For example, I've been toying with the idea of taking a three to four-day sermon retreat every quarter to pray and plan for upcoming series. But is there some systematic way to think about preaching through a year topically? On top of that I've been thinking about taking one day a month as a day-long sermon retreat to plan for next month's series. I find that I have to do a ton of exegesis upfront in order to even map out a series without just turning it into an exercise in proof-texting. Any thoughts, suggestions, comments?
Peace,
Tom
lectionary
I have never done what you suggest here. I have never just preached without the lectionary for a full year. It sounds both freeing and daunting. I imagine it takes all the work you describe here and more.
When I have done sermon series, they have not always been very original. (The seven deadly sins or the ten commandments - these are sort of a sermon series lectionary, if you will.)
I had a great time doing one more original sermon series called "Diversity and Prejudice in the Bible." I can testify it was a lot more work than preaching the lectionary, but well worth it because of what our church was going through at the time.
I look forward to hearing from others who have done this for a whole year, or three.
I do love the old New England Congregationalist model where the minister took the summer away (somewhere lovely with a lake, no doubt) to plan the sermons for the year. Of course, the minister's absence sent a pretty strong message that church was not in session during the summer months. (And often in New England it wasn't!)
But as a preacher, I wonder what it would be like to have a whole summer to really map out the rest of the year's preaching. I think it would be wonderful.
Meanwhile, back in the real world, I love your idea of taking time each month or quarterly to look ahead.
Local Lectionary
Thanks for your thoughts. Over the years, I faced some of the same frustrations with omitted texts, and disconnected readings, especially from the Old Testament. How does RCL NOT include Cain and Abel for instance?
So I spent a few years, off and on, assembling a 4-year lectionary, with two OT and two NT readings each week, which encompasses a lot more text, keeps certain literary units together more, and makes thematic connections more consistent. I've been using it in my church for the past three years, and we're starting the fourth year now (which incorporates an axis of Mark-Exodus-Jeremiah-Romans-Thessalonians-Peter, as well as touching others). It still follows liturgical year seasons and themes (second advent texts from Thessalonians and Peter have made for interesting preaching this month), and still compels me to preach on texts I wouldn't otherwise, but gets more Word into our worship. It also helps that the congregation accepts a 25-minute or so sermon. But even if a text doesn't get preached, it gets used in a litany of confession or praise or benediction.
We're a small congregation, but with some very active youth, and I see this as the front line of combating biblical illiteracy. By the end of four years, these kids will have heard at least once 75%+ of the Bible (including the OT) in all its strange and wonderful voices.
Post new comment