I am somewhat amazed — not quite altogether, though — that the Revised Common Lectionary authors would jettison the BCP lectionary reading of 1 Corinthians 7:17-23, especially at this time of year when we are in Black History season, and especially for this period of time around the celebration and honoring of Martin Luther King, Jr. I wonder if he ever avoided certain verses from the bible.
What cowardice on the part of a (mostly white, probably) Lectionary revision committee.
Of course, at some point in a few years there will be no voice of comparison. That is, all BCP’s being newly printed will only have “The Lectionary”, and there will be no note of what was before for comparision’s sake. It is not a problem with what is in place of 17-23 (which is 1 Corinthians 7:29-31). But the withdrawal especially of 21-23 just seems such blatant cowardice. What a wonderful opportunity to talk about Christian stewardship, and the changing of attitudes and laws without losing the validity of God’s Word.
Amazing, eh?
But what will seem to always raise questions will be the reading from Jonah for Epiphany 3, Year B (the Old Testament companion to 1 Corinthians 7:17-23). If you will notice, vv 6 thru 9 are listed as excised. The lectionary calls for Jonah 3:1-5, 10. What happened? Did PETA pay off somebody on the Revised Lectionary committee? You read it, and try to explain why it is not formally included. But you see that because the lection is listed with a noted skip from vs 5 to 10, printed right into the lectionary pages, curious minds will read and begin asking the curious question, “Why should these vv be left out?” Thus the controversy will be engaged as long as the RCL is not edited. That was smart, eh?
As for me and my congregation, we will add in the missing verses, as the rubrics for the lections allow. There really is no rational reason to not read them, and so they should be read. They include the important response by the king and people of Ninevah to the call to repent.
I feel sorry for those sitting in mainline denomination pews (those who use the RCL) who will have scripture inserts that only include the scripture text as outlined from the lectionary. Such powerful momentum is difficult to change: the parish has paid for the inserts, and to not use them, or not use them AND make up a new insert with expanded text, will be seen as poor stewardship. If the missing verses ARE included in the reading by the Lector, then time from the liturgy will have to be taken to explain that certain verses will be included. Or if included in the sermon somehow, then the same explanation will be made, perhaps a reference to a pew bible page, if such exist, and more time to allow for congregants to find and review. Just a whole lot easier to not mention them at all, right?
And unfortunately and tragically, that is just the tip of the iceberg, isn’t it. These remarkable excises need to be challenged, and returned to the Lectionary. There really is no reason for the Old Testament lection not to be Jonah 3:1-10, and for the Epistle not to be 1 Corinthians 7:17-31. If only for the sake of – what? - biblical transparency? You would think that proclaiming the message of The Light of the World would not mean hiding bible verses.
Lord, have mercy.
The omission from the story of Jonah of the response of the King of Ninevah is very peculiar.
The fact that the King responded (even though Jonah had not even made it into the heart of the city the center of power), and it was the king that called for the people to fast and repent is left out of the Sunday version.
As editted, it sounds like Jonah made it into the suburbs of the city, and the people responded to Jonah’s call directly.This makes it sound like a populist revival or even a revolt.
To me, the editting deprives us of hearing about one of the ways of how we respond to God’s call.
UP,
God’s blessings to you.
Strange it is.
I’m telling you, its all about the animals and perceived abuse.
That’s my cynical side that is informed.
rge+