The Lectionary.
A lectionary is a list of readings. As a spiritual discipline, a person may simply open The Bible at the beginning, and start reading. They might read a chapter or more each day. The weakness of this kind of reading is that it is the reading style of our time, the method for reading a novel, or even a text book. It assumes a narrative thread from beginning to end. However, a text book is often not read from cover to cover. It may be designed as a resource with discrete sections to be consulted at appropriate times.
The Bible is even less novel-like. With 39 "books" in the Hebrew Scriptures, and 27 in the Christian Scriptures, there are multiple authors, times, geographic locations, and theological perspectives represented. This considers only the main collection (Canon) of the books common to most Christian traditions. There are also the books not present in the Hebrew Scriptures or "Old Testament" which are often known as the deutero-canonical books. How does one read all this and make sense of it?
Christian groups have traditionally created lists of texts that are considered important to read. They sketch out some of the key planks of that group's tradition, and its understanding of the Christian faith.
One well known modern lectionary is the Revised Common Lectionary, which is used by many churches world wide. It divides the bible over a three year period, based around the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke. The readings are chosen to reflect the cycle of church year as it progresses from the hope for a Messiah (Advent), through Christmas, and on to Easter. Each week also has a reading from the Hebrew Scriptures, the Psalms, and from the letters of the New Testament. The Gospel of John is used in each year around the times of the major festivals. There are often readings assigned for special days which do not occur on a Sunday.
Many ministers preach from a lectionary. It provides a discipline which works against the temptation to avoid uncomfortable subjects and concentrate on favourite themes.
A lectionary provides an overview of the Christian tradition. Unfortunately, it also represents a particular theological and historical outlook. Some people point out, for example, that women's stories, often already marginalised in Scripture are further submerged by the RCL . The lectionary is also constructed of short readings, excerpts from the whole, so that some parts of the bible will never be read in public worship under this scheme. It also means that the wider flow of a narrative is interrupted, and perhaps divided in ways never anticipated by the authors. In their own devotions, many people will at least read from the end of the previous week's readings to the end of the designated readings of the current week, in some attempt to overcome this disintegration of the narrative.
Good Comment
Richard Beck’s blog, Experimental Theology, remains one of my favourites. He has recently been thinking about his comments policy. He says, very gently, I think
… from time to time, particularly when I drift too close to political or ideological hot button topics, the comments [posted on my blog] might become unproductive. … So let me tell you about the kind of conversation I want to host and the kinds of comments I'll keep or remove.
My comment policy is informed by two ideas, one theological the other epistemological.
The theological idea comes from Miroslav Volf's notion of "the will to embrace." Importantly, the will to embrace is a reflection of the kind of person you are. As Volf writes, the will to embrace characterizes the "kind of selves we need to be in order to live in harmony with others." In short, I'm less concerned with the actual content of your comment than the kind of self you are presenting. Which means, and this is very important to know, I'm judging you, not your comment. The problem with anonymous Internet conversation is that it is stripped of its face-to-face humanity. And this is the main reason blog conversations go awry. So what I expect in comments is a degree of humanity. It's this humaneness that I will judge. I don't care if you are right or wrong. I care if you are kind. And Volf describes the critical feature: "the will to give ourselves to others and 'welcome' them, to readjust our identities to make space for them." In short, when I read your comments I'll be trying to read between the lines to determine the kind of person you are, to determine if you are trying to win an argument or if you are trying to welcome and embrace others in their difference. Do you seem willing to readjust who you are to "make space" for those around you? If your comment "makes space" it stays. If it shoves or tries to "win," I'll delete it.
Importantly, if I, as the author of this blog, fail to lead you by example in all this, please call me out. Generally, as you will find, I'm quick to apologize if I treat others badly.
I like this. Censorship is not a helpful activity, and dangerous to a free society, but allowing anyone to say anything unchallenged also has huge problems. People can be immensely destructive in what they say, as anyone who has worked in any group setting can testify. Censorship tends to block content. Beck is talking here more about purpose and humanity. As he says, he is less interested in the actual content of the comments. To re-quote:
..what I expect in comments is a degree of humanity. It's this humaneness that I will judge. I don't care if you are right or wrong. I care if you are kind.
Of course he can judge incorrectly, or unfairly. But as he says
….if I, as the author of this blog, fail to lead you by example in all this, please call me out.
Calling out bad behavior and language in church is something we are poor at. Too often we remain silent when someone makes hurtful, spurious, or plain wrong comment in meetings, afraid to intervene, or afraid to risk being called out ourselves. If we will not do so, we remain at the mercy of the pathological people who wish to use the church for their own purposes and are not seeking to follow the way of Jesus.
The question here is not really about censoring. It is about making church a safe place. It is about being compassionate.
Beck does not limit his critique of his readers’ comments to their tone.
I will from time to time delete comments on the basis of content alone. The criterion for a content-based deletion depends upon if the comment is epistemically (intellectually) virtuous. As Jay Wood describes:
Epistemology, then, is not (or ought not to be) concerned merely with the piecemeal appraisal of individual beliefs but with what kinds of persons we are becoming: whether we are intellectually humble rather than arrogant, studious rather than merely idly curious, insightful rather than dull, wise and not fools.
In short, the epistemic virtues are those habits of mind, conversation and inquiry that tend to produce truth. The truth cannot be found if we are intellectually lazy, fearful, prideful, or closed to counter-argument. Truth is found, in isolation and in community, when we work hard to listen to each other, consider the strengths in each others arguments, and have the courage to admit when we are wrong.
He then lists the virtues he is looking for in comments on his blog. They are an antidote to so much which is wrong with internet dialogue. I post them in full. They are worth reading. They are thoroughly Christian, and again, are an excellent guide to behavior in congregations.
Here are the virtues I am looking for in comments:
Attentiveness and Care: Did you read everything I or another commenter wrote? Did you read that qualification or caveat? Or did you read too quickly, hear what you wanted to hear, and jump to a conclusion? In sum, if you are not demonstrating sufficient attention and care your comment is ripe for deletion.
Circumspection and Humility: Be warned, I prize this virtue above all the other intellectual virtues. Comments should be humble, tentative, provisional, and open to change. I'm a pretty smart guy and I've come to the conclusion that there are no simple answers to religious, philosophical, political, or moral questions. These things are perennially controversial for a reason: There are no simple answers. The truth is always between you and I. Neither of us owns it. Because if there were simple answers to any of this stuff we wouldn't be arguing about it. Those people on the other side, the people who disagree with you and I, have pretty high IQs. So if you think you know The Answer let me recommend that you take your Answer--be it religious, political, moral, or philosophical--somewhere else. The people who disagree with you or I are not "wrong." They only disagree and, truth be told, they have good reasons for disagreeing. No single ideology can describe the complexity of the world.
Charity: Are you willing to see the very best in the arguments and positions you disagree with? If you consistently try to exploit the weaknesses of arguments, to score quick rhetorical points, your comments are targets for deletion. You are expected to regularly recognize the strong points of everyone's argument before moving on to criticism and disagreement. If you have a habit of beginning your comments with criticism or disagreement I'll begin to delete your comments. Start with charity, and maybe then we'll be open to your critique.
Truthfulness: Does the comment move us toward the truth? If your comment is just a sarcastic remark I'll delete it. That kind of comment might communicate your distaste or displeasure for something I or someone else writes, but it doesn't move us forward. …
Beck’s own humility remains.
If… you find I'm regularly removing your comments feel free to send me an e-mail at beckr@acu.edu so I can explain what I'm seeing and thinking on my end.
The original post by Richard Beck is here.
SharePrevious page: Embracing Life
Next page: Burqas and Dog Whistling