The situation is perhaps more dire if we think about the fact that even if all three readings are used, the vast majority of preachers only (and reasonably) preach on just one of the readings (usually the Gospel reading, very rarely the OT reading).
Of course, another way to think about canon as use is in terms of what we can use in an argument. If I can quote something to support a point I want to make and my interlocutors cannot just dismiss the authority of the quotation, then it's canon for us.
This makes me wonder whether the "canon with a canon" problem you've identified is necessarily a problem. Surely dismissing parts of the canon is a problem (though we should recall the importance of the homolegommena/antilegommena distinction), but that's not what our situation is. If I quote a book that never appears in the lectionary, nobody is going to object that that book doesn't actually matter. Our situation is that we give more attention to some parts of the bible over others. And to be fair, that's not necessarily bad. Some parts of the bible are more important than others. The resurrection accounts are more important than the censuses in Numbers.
Perhaps instead of making a lectionary that covers the entire Bible, we would do well to try to emphasize greater breadth in our teaching and preaching. We can be broader without being exhaustive. Pastors can seek to preach on the OT reading more often or can cover sections of neglected books in the summer, midweeks, or in Bible Study. It's also possible to preach and teach on scripture from a more zoomed-out perspective. We don't have to do everything verse-by-verse or chapter-by-chapter. One could very profitably do a four-week bible study of, say, Ezekiel without covering every chapter and every verse. At the end of the day, there will be no replacement for people reading the Bible at home whether alone, with their families, or in a group.
As a sidenote, there is no direct evidence that the Sadducees rejected the authority of the rest of the OT. We know they rejected the oral Torah of the Pharisees, but we just don't know what they thought about the prophets and the writings.
It's funny to me that you say three readings instead of four. What does it say that so many congregations don't use the Psalm reading? Talk about an important book! I'm not sure where Psalms land, but it's got to be in the top 10, maybe higher (if we're allowed to make such distinctions). After 7 years, I'm guessing I've preached more times on the Psalms than 99% of my colleagues. But, of course that means that I preach less on the Gospels.
I totally agree on the reality that there are parts of the Scripture that are more important to the life of God's people. Indeed, there are sections that are probably not appropriate to read in worship with children present. And I think we're actually on the same page with being broader, but not exhaustive. I'm not advocating for a lectionary that covers 100% of the verses. But every book being a part of it is probably worthwhile. I only need a few verses from Haggai to give you the whole story of that book in a sermon. Or as you say, I could do a sermon series or Bible study on Ezekiel that doesn't cover very much of the book, but gives people a broader appreciation for it. I'm all about zooming out. I think my ideal would be a four or five year system that simply has longer readings, and maybe adds a fifth reading. Maybe it would get to 40 or 50%.
I do wonder at your assertion that there will be no replacement for people reading the Bible at home. I don't think I agree there. There's no guarantee literacy rates remain high. Indeed, they are not very high in many parts of the world. There's no guarantee that access to Bibles will be easy. In this cultural moment, yes, people should be reading the treasures of the Scriptures on their own. And maybe my crazy ideas are just helping people be lazy. I don't know.
And to your sidenote. I'm literally laughing in my desk chair at that because an editor added it to something I wrote a while back and I didn't question it. I figured they knew what they were talking about. Now I'm super curious about it. Thanks Kendall.
A good question to ask might be, "Why do we have the lections we have in the lectionary?" The Apostle Paul's answer: "We preach Christ crucified" (1 Corinthians 1:23). This canon within the canon magnifies the central focus of God's action in the world through Jesus. None of the Scripture is ancillary, but without the central focus of Christ, we might question the importance, or even the inclusion, of parts.
For sure. As another commenter pointed out, I think we can fairly say that the resurrection accounts are more important than census data. That one reading is dedicated entirely to one of the four Gospels shows the importance of those books.
I think within the system we have (1 year or 3 years, 4 readings), what we have is well chosen. Certainly the goal in its creation was to do as you say, select readings from which Christ crucified and raised is central.
I am just trying to have my cake and eat it too. I think we can have something where there is more breadth, but that does not lose that central focus on Jesus.
Agreed. One of the things about the lectionary in the LSB is that they actually do expand some of the readings from the Revised Commonly Lectionary that it is based on.
I do find the Star Wars analogy interesting. I "like" Star Wars, but I am more of a casual consumer than a nerd. To me, the further they stray from the Anakin/Luke storyline, the less interested I am. I know there are impassioned discussions as to what is part of the canon, but quite frankly, a new story does not do anything for me if I cannot see how it develops central characters or gives insights into the main story.
I do consider myself somewhat of a Bible nerd, though, and I find all kinds of background into the Scripture fascinating. Not the same for anything else. Guess that what distinguishes the nerds from the casual consumer.
That's a helpful perspective. To extend the comparison. I imagine much of Star Wars to be like the book of Acts. We are introduced to Peter and John and the other disciples in the Gospels. Then in Acts, we see what they are up to. Then we are introduced to Saul. And then we get his travels and his letters come in later media.
One of my favorite Star Wars shows is called Clone Wars. It covers what happens in the war between Episodes 2 and 3. It has Anakin and Obi Wan and Yoda as well as Palpatine and Dooku. But, we are also introduced to other characters, most importantly, Ahsoka Tano, Anakin's apprentice.
Ahsoka then comes up in so many other shows including Rebels, the Mandalorian, and her own show titled Ahsoka. And nerds like me follow those shows because we were introduced to those characters and we want to see where their travels took them. But, that is harder to accomplish without some connection to previous characters. Shows like Skeleton Crew and The Acolyte are good shows in my opinion, but they are lacking some of that connectivity. And maybe that's why a lot of people don't like them.
The situation is perhaps more dire if we think about the fact that even if all three readings are used, the vast majority of preachers only (and reasonably) preach on just one of the readings (usually the Gospel reading, very rarely the OT reading).
Of course, another way to think about canon as use is in terms of what we can use in an argument. If I can quote something to support a point I want to make and my interlocutors cannot just dismiss the authority of the quotation, then it's canon for us.
This makes me wonder whether the "canon with a canon" problem you've identified is necessarily a problem. Surely dismissing parts of the canon is a problem (though we should recall the importance of the homolegommena/antilegommena distinction), but that's not what our situation is. If I quote a book that never appears in the lectionary, nobody is going to object that that book doesn't actually matter. Our situation is that we give more attention to some parts of the bible over others. And to be fair, that's not necessarily bad. Some parts of the bible are more important than others. The resurrection accounts are more important than the censuses in Numbers.
Perhaps instead of making a lectionary that covers the entire Bible, we would do well to try to emphasize greater breadth in our teaching and preaching. We can be broader without being exhaustive. Pastors can seek to preach on the OT reading more often or can cover sections of neglected books in the summer, midweeks, or in Bible Study. It's also possible to preach and teach on scripture from a more zoomed-out perspective. We don't have to do everything verse-by-verse or chapter-by-chapter. One could very profitably do a four-week bible study of, say, Ezekiel without covering every chapter and every verse. At the end of the day, there will be no replacement for people reading the Bible at home whether alone, with their families, or in a group.
As a sidenote, there is no direct evidence that the Sadducees rejected the authority of the rest of the OT. We know they rejected the oral Torah of the Pharisees, but we just don't know what they thought about the prophets and the writings.
It's funny to me that you say three readings instead of four. What does it say that so many congregations don't use the Psalm reading? Talk about an important book! I'm not sure where Psalms land, but it's got to be in the top 10, maybe higher (if we're allowed to make such distinctions). After 7 years, I'm guessing I've preached more times on the Psalms than 99% of my colleagues. But, of course that means that I preach less on the Gospels.
I totally agree on the reality that there are parts of the Scripture that are more important to the life of God's people. Indeed, there are sections that are probably not appropriate to read in worship with children present. And I think we're actually on the same page with being broader, but not exhaustive. I'm not advocating for a lectionary that covers 100% of the verses. But every book being a part of it is probably worthwhile. I only need a few verses from Haggai to give you the whole story of that book in a sermon. Or as you say, I could do a sermon series or Bible study on Ezekiel that doesn't cover very much of the book, but gives people a broader appreciation for it. I'm all about zooming out. I think my ideal would be a four or five year system that simply has longer readings, and maybe adds a fifth reading. Maybe it would get to 40 or 50%.
I do wonder at your assertion that there will be no replacement for people reading the Bible at home. I don't think I agree there. There's no guarantee literacy rates remain high. Indeed, they are not very high in many parts of the world. There's no guarantee that access to Bibles will be easy. In this cultural moment, yes, people should be reading the treasures of the Scriptures on their own. And maybe my crazy ideas are just helping people be lazy. I don't know.
And to your sidenote. I'm literally laughing in my desk chair at that because an editor added it to something I wrote a while back and I didn't question it. I figured they knew what they were talking about. Now I'm super curious about it. Thanks Kendall.
A good question to ask might be, "Why do we have the lections we have in the lectionary?" The Apostle Paul's answer: "We preach Christ crucified" (1 Corinthians 1:23). This canon within the canon magnifies the central focus of God's action in the world through Jesus. None of the Scripture is ancillary, but without the central focus of Christ, we might question the importance, or even the inclusion, of parts.
For sure. As another commenter pointed out, I think we can fairly say that the resurrection accounts are more important than census data. That one reading is dedicated entirely to one of the four Gospels shows the importance of those books.
I think within the system we have (1 year or 3 years, 4 readings), what we have is well chosen. Certainly the goal in its creation was to do as you say, select readings from which Christ crucified and raised is central.
I am just trying to have my cake and eat it too. I think we can have something where there is more breadth, but that does not lose that central focus on Jesus.
Agreed. One of the things about the lectionary in the LSB is that they actually do expand some of the readings from the Revised Commonly Lectionary that it is based on.
I do find the Star Wars analogy interesting. I "like" Star Wars, but I am more of a casual consumer than a nerd. To me, the further they stray from the Anakin/Luke storyline, the less interested I am. I know there are impassioned discussions as to what is part of the canon, but quite frankly, a new story does not do anything for me if I cannot see how it develops central characters or gives insights into the main story.
I do consider myself somewhat of a Bible nerd, though, and I find all kinds of background into the Scripture fascinating. Not the same for anything else. Guess that what distinguishes the nerds from the casual consumer.
That's a helpful perspective. To extend the comparison. I imagine much of Star Wars to be like the book of Acts. We are introduced to Peter and John and the other disciples in the Gospels. Then in Acts, we see what they are up to. Then we are introduced to Saul. And then we get his travels and his letters come in later media.
One of my favorite Star Wars shows is called Clone Wars. It covers what happens in the war between Episodes 2 and 3. It has Anakin and Obi Wan and Yoda as well as Palpatine and Dooku. But, we are also introduced to other characters, most importantly, Ahsoka Tano, Anakin's apprentice.
Ahsoka then comes up in so many other shows including Rebels, the Mandalorian, and her own show titled Ahsoka. And nerds like me follow those shows because we were introduced to those characters and we want to see where their travels took them. But, that is harder to accomplish without some connection to previous characters. Shows like Skeleton Crew and The Acolyte are good shows in my opinion, but they are lacking some of that connectivity. And maybe that's why a lot of people don't like them.