Why the Lectionary?

As I was reviewing my blog, I saw that I had a presupposition when dealing with the lectionary. The question should be asked: "Why have a lectionary at all?"

Limitations of a lectionary (ones that I've heard from congregations not having a lectionary):
1. The Bible, in its entirety, is not preached on.
2. One does not have the ability to preach to the needs of the congregation.
3. There is a hermeneutic of any lectionary.

My responses:
1. It is impossible for a parson to preach on the entire bible. Even if one were to preach everyday, One could never exhaust the riches of the biblical text. The question is not whether a pastor preaches on every verse of the bible. The question is: How do these verses proclaim both law (our sin and inability to be righteous) and Gospel (In other words, Christ: Who is our Righteousness). Preaching is not a lecture on the more obscure Christian truths. Preaching is meant to kill the old Adam, and then raise Him to new life in Christ. This is also called, by my friend Rev. Dreyer, the Divine narrative. For more info, Read Walther's "The Proper Distinction between Law and Gospel."

2. This objection is usually used with the word "relevance." These preachers want to speak to today's world. The lectionary is old and dusty. What could it possibly answer for us today?

Well, we must come to the realization that the Word of God is not "relevant." Relevance comes and goes. Here is a quote that explains what I mean:

"We note . . .a certain detachment in Jesus' attitude toward contemporary events and the secular problems and policies of His day . . . We will do well, therefore, as disciples of Jesus, to imitate His attitude toward the external and contemporary and secular life of the world. We will not allow our minds to be too much occupied or enmeshed in the vexing questions of the day. We will keep ourselves informed concerning these, but we will not become so preoccupied with present-day problems which perplex, disturb, and harass the mind."-- From the Minister's Prayerbook

In other words, to use contemporary events (homosexuality, etc) as your lectionary is to be driven from below. We must be guided from above, with that "peace which passeth all understanding."

3. This point is valid, in many respects. A pastor must be careful of what the creators of the lectionary were thinking. What did the makers leave in, and what did they take out?

But, at the same time, this can be a very good thing too. If the hermeneutic is Christ and His work (divine narrative), then we can trust and appreciate this lectionary.


All in all, lectionaries are human traditions. They are not infallible or perfect. Different lectionaries have been used at different times for different purposes. I will continue with another post on the positives of the lectionary shortly.

The Lectionary Debate

There has been a lot of debate back and forth between those that support the one year lectionary and those that support the three year lectionary. The LSB has (wisely, in my humble opinion) included both. This is good, because neither the one year nor the three year are commanded or forbidden in scripture.

However, the question remains: which lectionary is more beneficial to the church?

As pastors, seminarians, and lay theologians (yes, every layperson is a theologian), we must examine the principles which led to the formulation of the three year lectionary, the committee's reasons for putting this lectionary forward, and then test this lectionary according to the Christological hermeneutic.

We will start our investigation with the three year lectionary and then move to the one year lectionary.

Since I've already covered Kant's moral system, let us now move on to how his Ethical system influences his view on religion.

First of all, Kant's religion must be as free and rational as his ethics. There cannot be anything contingent (historical) which cannot be independently deduced from theoretical principles. Kant states this in his book "Religion within the Bounds of Reason Alone," "The Christian faith, as a learned faith, relies upon history . . . it is not in itself a free faith . . . or one which is deduced from insight into adequate theoretical proofs. Were it a pure rational faith it would have to be thought of as a free faith."

Religion, in all its varied practices, is also reduced to morality. Take for example, Prayer. Kant writes, "Here too public prayer is indeed no means of grace, yet it is a moral ceremony . . . and [it embraces] all the moral concerns of men. Such an address . . . cannot only raise the feelings to the point of moral exaltation . . . it also possesses in itself a more rational basis than does private prayer for clothing the moral wish."

Kant does the same with the Lord's Supper: "The formality of a common partaking at the same table, contains within itself something great, expanding the narrow, selfish, and unsociable cast of mind . . . toward the idea of a cosmopolitan moral community; and it is a good means of enlivening a community to the moral disposition of brotherly love which it represents."

And this morality is free and self governing. It cannot be legistlated. Listen to how Kant speaks of the office of pastor: "This name (pfaffentum), signifying merely the authority of a spiritual father, possesses a censorious meaning as well, only because of the attendant concept of a spiritual despotism, to be found in all forms of ecclesiasticism, however unpretentious and popular . . . they take the form of the representataion of this idea (in a visible church) to be the thing itself."

Quick summary: A Pure, Kantian Religion is a Rational Morality based in a priori maxims and is self-governing.
Next time, we will investigate how this influences the early Hegel.

This post springs partly from my work done on Hegel and his view of Religion, especially his evolving Christology.

First, let us look at what Kant's view of morality.

Now, for Kant, Morality was synonymous with the Categorical imperative. This rationality is a priori, which means that it is not based on the visible world, on what we see or experience. This is, then, found in the will.

Kant's definition of the categorical imperative is this specific for three reasons:

1. The Will must be free. A priori means that the moral laws are free from bounds of the contingent world. This is markedly different then utilitarianism (Bentham, etc). The allows for freedom of the will, without succumbing to the determinism of the world. This is why for Kant the height of humanity is the autonomous (self-governing) person.

2. The Good will is the rational will. This good is not based on utility or on some divine fiat, but is based on man's defining attribute: reason. Therefore, there is a common foundation for morality, found in all human beings (following Aristotle's definition of a human being). Rationality has a long history in philosophy, dating back beyond Plato to Parmenides.

3. Morality has high, immutable standards. This morality is not based on your inclination. It is not based on your circumstances or even in your ability to carry out these moral demands.

Let us try out Kant's system with a relatively easy vice: stealing. The Categorical Imperative requires us to universalize this particular action. So, if we were to steal, what would the world be like if everyone stole? Here we see the irrationality of stealing. Stealing only works if I'm the only one stealing. Therefore, I ought not to steal.

Now, remember. This is a priori reasoning. One must not start with casuistry. If a thing cannot be universally applied, then the particulars do not matter.

From this priniciple of the categorical imperative, all duties flow. Since reason is one, it is necessary that the maxim, though formulated three different ways by Kant, ought to be one as well.

This is a brief overview of Kant's ethical philosophy.

This is my first blog post, so basically here it goes.

This blog was created as a springboard for my musings and discoveries in the dialogue between Christianity and philosophy. These two have had quite a long history together, whether through assimilation of theology by philosophy (Bultmann/Feurbach), by a synthesis of the two (Thomas Aquinas), or by a (not so complete) rejection of philosophy by Christian thought (Tertullian).

Well, that's all for now. I'll have something more prepared in the next couple of days.