Lectionary or Sermon Series?
Sunday, August 31, 2008
Are you a lectionary preacher, or do you preach topically using sermon series?
In the new issue of Circuit Rider, the Rev. Bill Barnes, pastor of St. Luke's United Methodist Church in Orlando, FL, has a great article on preaching called, "Lectionary vs. Sermon Series: Does it have to be one or the other?" (I would upload the pdf of the article, but Blogger is acting persnickety this evening).
Barnes writes, "I have personally never understood why we preachers have to align ourselves with one style over and against the other. My seminary exalted the discipline of the lectionary as a way to guard against lopsided preaching, and we were taught to look disapprovingly at those persons who ignored the three-year cycle of scripture. On the other hand, topical or thematic preachers regarded the lectionary crowd as slaves to an outdated method, instead of relating the scripture to 'where people are'." He goes on to say that, during his ministry, he has used both lectionary and sermon series approaches to his preaching.
I think there's a lot to be said for Barnes' balanced approach. In my own experience, lectionary-only preachers tend to be the more rigid about thinking that lectionary-based preaching is the only way to go. I confess I've never been quite sure why that is the case, except that lectionary-only preachers almost always trot out the discipline rationale: that is, the idea that if you don't hold to a lectionary discipline, you will invariably only preach on your favorite topics or passages, and you'll end up totally avoiding the hard areas of the Scripture. Frankly that sounds to me like something a seminary professor said once that has gotten repeated a thousand times. I mean, has anyone ever seen a single piece of statistical evidence that says topical preachers only cover fluffy parts of the Bible?
I have gone long stretches of time both with lectionary and with sermon series approaches to preaching. And yes, it is true that the lectionary often pushes you toward hard texts. (Today's lectionary gospel text of Matthew 16:21-28 is a prime example; it was the first time I have preached on that passage and it wasn't easy.) But what it does not do is allow you to spend sustained amounts of time teaching your congregation doctrine from the pulpit. We have only to look to the early church fathers to see how this was a preferred approach of theirs - I'm thinking here of Ambrose's patriarchal treatises or mystagogical sermons, Augustine on marriage, Chrysostom on wealth and poverty, etc. These guys put a premium on instructing their flocks with regard to Christian doctrine, and they used the internal coherence of the Bible to guide their exegesis. All in all, I think we could do worse than following their example.
Anyone want to weigh in on the pros and cons of lectionary vs. sermon series?
Labels: Lectionary, Preaching
posted by Andrew C. Thompson at 6:36 PM
12 Comments:
Great topic. I've mentioned this on my blog too, back in the spring being the most recent time. Couple of thoughts...
1. I prefer the series approach, which, responsibly endeavored upon, means that the preacher is crafting his or her own "lectionary". The loaded term is "responsibly endeavored," and I mean by that planning one's selection of texts and series at least 6-9 months, but preferrably 12-18 months out.
2. I don't tend to think of series preaching as primarily of the "selp help" variety--"relating the scripture to 'where people are'." It all depends upon one's agenda as a teacher/preacher. When I was a solo pastor, my annual preaching plan tended to start with scripture most of the year, with particular emphases (a letter of Paul, an OT character/biography, following Christ through one gospel) with a short series on doctrine (approaching the Apostles' Creed and Scripture, for example) and a short series on the sacraments (baptism one year, eucharist the next). I would do one mid-length topical series on burning questions (I solicited questions in May and put together the major concerns into a 6-week series for late Aug-Sept)--things like what's the deal with heaven, problem of evil, etc.
3. I don't buy the argument about the lectionary being great at keeping us on hard texts. Yes, it will make one deal with its readings (or avoid them for one of the other readings), but notice how incredibly frequent the lectionary skirts around the hardest parts of those passages by stopping short or skipping over parts of reading that one would not miss if one was guided more by the textual pericope than the lectionary's assignment.
4. My blog post from last spring reflected my own sense that a rigid lectionary-based approach presents an alternative narrative shape to the canonical narrative shape of Scripture. It certainly takes discipline to preach in a way that situates itself within the canonical narrative, as it does to keep oneself engaging the whole of scripture (the lectionary folks are correct about the challenge of doing so). I'd rather enculturate and train our pastors in how best to teach the canonical narrative of Scripture in their preaching and let them do it than set up a lectionary to attempt that task for them.
5. In practice, when planning a preaching calendar, the lectionary is one source I do consult. For all I've said, still--why wouldn't it be a reference point of some sort? It's particularly good to consult for Advent, Lent, and other particular days one might want to do well in the Christian year. Though I did something non-lectionary, I wanted to be aligned with good thinking about the season of the Christian year. The lectionary has done that.
I tried the series approach when I was a lay missioner during my undergrad and as a student local pastor my first year. After that first year, I switched to lectionary simply because I didn't have the time to devote to the time I need to do justice to series method.
As of late, I've been choosing from Lutheran, RCC, Anglican, and RCL. It provides a bit more variety. I have them all in one spreadsheet, and its amazing what is still left out. I'm thinking about following an "anti-lectionary" for a while...perhaps making it a long term series.
I've been a lectionary preacher for the past two years at my first parish. I had three sermon series during that time, but for the most part I was lectionary.
In a worship committee discusison, we talked about how a typical Lectionary month was like four episodes of two to four different TV shows (since lectionary texts relate to one another per week, but not always week-to-week). So a sermon series was like four episodes of the same TV program, which gives us the ability to go deeper into the text.
Thus, this Fall, we're shaking up worship a bit and I'm doing three sermon series instead of lectionary for October, November, and Advent. I'm pretty excited about it, and will let you know how it turns out.
The biggest difficulty between thematic and lectionary worship planning is the latter has tons more resources. Picking four weeks of hymns based on the theme of "Blessing" is very hard if you don't know your hymnal well.
I have not preached lectionary since I was a local pastor 10 years ago, and even then I did mainly series. My little congregation then told me I was a better preacher when not following the lectionary, and I wholeheartedly agreed. I preach series more because it suits how my mind works - pick a big topic and break it down for a few weeks. Some can be what some might call "self-help," if preaching on marriage and family life is what you call "self-help." However, I don't consider "Faith and Science" or preaching through Revelation (from a mainline theological perspective) to be "self-help" preaching, much less avoinding the difficult portions of scripture.
I agree with the comment from guy about planning way in advance - I plan my preaching schedule 6 - 12 months in ahead. For me (emphasis: FOR ME - not everyone), preaching lectionary tempts laziness or lack of creativity.
My past two congregations, I've pretty much stuck to the lectionary for the first 3 years that I've been with them. I've done a lot of intentional work with helping them to see the shape of the lectionary in any given year and across the three year span. But I've also done series that have been lectionary based--i.e. my series a couple of years ago in January about resolutions, which used the lectionary texts and used the series idea as a hermenuetic for those texts rather than the other way around (which is what I find myself doing in many ways when I try to do a series). But after the 3rd year, I find myself moving into a different preaching time with the congregation, exploring all our growing edges and using the worship service (which is another soapbox--other than our Protestant Reformation heritage, why have we abnormally separated the sermon from the rest of the worship service...as if proclamation can't happen with one of our songs or another part of the service...anyway) to help with the overall formation and shaping of the congregation.
The use of the lectionary has also helped me in one other way--it is an excellent training ground for helping me get a worship working group together. Every church that I have been appointed to has had no worship working group, and to be able to hand them the multiple resources out there for lectionary gives them some "training wheels" to begin thinking about worship in a creative way. Sometimes it even comes down to "we can do it better than this!", which is fine. Most of the time in my experience, when lay people are faced with helping to plan and shape worship, they stare and stammer and stutter because they've only ever been asked to be a glorified altar guild. Lectionary has been a good way to help them wade in.
The final thing positive on lectionary for me has been the few lectionary groups that I've been involved in that have worked--having a common text to work with that we're actually going to preach has helped me get to know other pastors and see other perspectives on the scripture. Now, I know that you could do this with just about any set of scriptures if you were out that far ahead, but to know that we're all working with the same stuff for Sunday has helped me connect not only to the scriptures in a different way, but also to my colleagues. And since I really am capable of centering my thoughts and energy around one scripture or set of scriptures and find that other study distracts me, I know that if I'm not preaching lectionary, going to lectionary group is only going to confuse and frustrate me because my brain will spend more time with the options of how to weave all of those good ideas together with the other stuff I'm doing. The trials of being a "P" on the Myers-Briggs! (btw...I wonder if anyone has ever done a study on M-B in relationship to which preaching styles and prep styles work best for pastors...might be interesting!)
And series have been helpful too--they provide more of a structure for the congregation to work through, especially if you can incorporate some consistent thematic visuals or song elements. I was most likely to use series in Advent and Lent, and the consistent visual approach was one of the things that people commented on--that it was formational for them to move through a season in a different way than "normal".
So my vote: Both And!
Cynthia
As a little girl, I always looked forward to those Sundays when my father delivered what he called an "extemporaneous" sermon. He'd leave his notes behind and tell everyone God had put a different message on his heart. He could be very dramatic. Also, I had to laugh about the "fluffy parts" comment. Sometimes, it seems like preachers try too hard. One Easter Sunday, a few years ago, my husband and I were complaining about the sermon like all good Christians do after church on Sunday. My five year old announced: "Yeah, he didn't even say anything about the Resurrection." We don't have a lectionary in the Church of the Nazarene. Wish we did sometimes.
Have you written anything about the "emergent Church"? I came across "Emergent Nazarenes" on a blog and keep seeing this everywhere. Have I been living under a rock?
Personally as a Pastor I don't mind which method is used. I think both have their positives and negatives. However, I choose to follow the lectionary and here are my reasons:
1) I only became a Methodist in 8th grade and before that I was a church-mutt (meaning we went to whatever church was the best community for my mother and I in the town we would move to) and so before I became Methodist I had never heard of the lectionary (which tells you most of those churches were non-denominational or non-lectionary churches). I still didn't get the lectionary until one day when I went to church back home and then went to my church I was attending that summer in the Twin Cities. It blew my mind that they were preaching on the same text and I got two totally different and interesting interpretations and sermons. Obviously, at that time I didn't "get" the lectionary concept, but now I find it a great tool that can be shared by laypeople in conversations with one another. My mother and grandmother often talk about the sermons they have heard at their churches (both lectionary followers) and it has led to stimulating conversations as they shared each pastor's sermon and discussed with each other. So to sum that all up. The Lectionary to me is one of those "catholic" (i.e. universal) practices that bind the churches together.
2. I have confidence that the various levels of scripture always have something to offer to the community. I trust that Holy Spirit will move through my exegesis and the lectionary text to speak to the community I am a part of. I think to often we preachers think so much is dependent upon what we do or what we craft when often the Scripture text (i.e. God through the narrative) speaks to the community and we just help point out how it is speaking.
3. I am starting a new small group study based on the lectionary texts (and idea taken from someone/somewhere that I read or spoke to) where the first half of the time together will be a discussion of my sermon/interpretation and the text that was for the past Sunday and then the 2nd half is looking towards the next Sunday's texts and just having the laypeople (without me there) discuss their understanding interpretations in preparation for the sermon and the next weeks discussion. Now I know that this can be done with a sermon series too, but I am hoping to push the understanding of #2 a bit more through this. (i.e. how the narrative of Scripture continues to speak to us today and is our narrative not just a story about people in the past)
Just my thoughts. Blessings on all of you who have commented above and thanks for your insights into lectionary/sermon series preaching.
I think the Revised Common Lectionary leaves a lot to be said for it.
The RCL assumes a knowledge of the Bible that most people - whether church outsiders or lifelong members - lack. Churches that do all four readings (a rarity) may be (I say "may") be shaping people who've been in the church for decades, but the RCL fails to accommodate new disciples and non-disciples.
Two authors are prodding me on my thoughts on this issue. The first is Adam Hamilton in his Unleashing the Word which advocates well-prepared series. The excuse that "I don't have time to do series" is a good indicator that a pastor/preacher needs to clear his schedule of other duties ever so often to better attend worship preparation.
The second author is Tom Bandy in his fairly new The Uncommon Lectionary. Bandy provides a rationale and a framework for a seeker worship service with its own seeker lectionary cycle. This cycle emphasizes 52 must-know Bible stories for new and non-disciples. Then he offers a disciple cycle for disciples ready to grow deeper. He doesn't completely disregard the RCL but puts it in its own worship service, as are all three cycles. Granted, you need a larger church with committed volunteers to run three services, but you can alternate in smaller churches.
As for me and my house, we will preach series.
Hey all -
These have all been thoughtful and detailed responses. I've enjoyed reading them. Thanks a lot!
Peace,
Andrew.
As a Children's Minister in a church for four years I observed the Senior Pastor's sermons. He sticks to the lectionary no matter what. Beginning in the third year he started to sound like a broken record. I suggest preachers mix it up a bit and let the Spirit lead. Also, bring in guest preachers to break it up a bit. It's good to hear the word in another voice once in a while.
Ivan Walters says as someone in the pews, too many topical sermons sound like pop psychology lectures, instead of sermons which are "expositions upon the meaning of scripture relating it to our lives today" [my definition]. At least using the lectionary you will start with a different scripture that you can expound on. You shouldn't sound like a broken record. Every passage of scripture has many, many diffrent levels of meaning and "hooks" on which to hang a sermon.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home