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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I guess I have the presupposition that a lectionary is a good thing. This should probably be addressed next. Why should other Christian denominations adopt a fixed schedule of readings? Why not free text?
ReplyDeleteA free text has the potential to become privy to a pastor's preference rather than the complete scriptures. That is, pastors with more choice in the matter may be accustom to avoiding other readings because they are difficult or less interesting at the time.
ReplyDeleteI agree one hundred percent. I have also seen situations where pastors will want to be more "relavent" to his congregation, and he feels that the lectionary does not give him this. His hermenutic is this: he gets to decide what he thinks his congregation should hear. This, I think, is a great problem.
ReplyDelete