Ongoing comment and dialogue on being a new church in a new world - A Blog by John Montgomery
[The Bible] is not, for a start, a list of rules, though it contains many commandments of various sorts and in various contexts. Nor is it a compendium of true doctrines, though, of course, many parts of the Bible declare great truths about God, Jesus, the world and ourselves in no uncertain terms. Most of its constituent parts, and all of it when put together (whether in the Jewish canonical form or the Christian form), can best be described as story. This is a complicated and much-discussed theme, but there is nothing to be gained by ignoring it. - N.T. Wright
So does your congregation stand for the reading of the Gospel?
A friend who knows that I am interested in this subject put me on to this wonderful video. Enjoy! They do!
Now most of us Methodists don’t do a formal “Gospel Procession” as part of our worship, although they do one at Duke Chapel each Sunday morning. Most of us are Episcopal light (as in not heavy, as opposed to dark!)
At the same time, a lot of us have embedded in our morning worship a series of lectionary readings – sometimes three, more likely two. Following the assigned morning texts, they begin with a reading from the Christian Old Testament (not the Jewish Tanakah), followed by a reading from either a Pauline epistle or one of the later writings, and then usually we have a reading from one of the four Gospels (Gospel as in literary type).
At Glenn Memorial where I attend, we usually only do two readings, but clearly, if the second reading comes from one of the four gospels, the congregations stands. If our second reading does not come from one of the four "gospels," we seem a bit confused!
WHY?
The Lutheran website that talks about this liturgical element in our worship describes the ritual as a gesture of respect, but don’t the other texts need similar respect?
Are those four texts privileged? You would not be surprised that a study of Christian responses to that question yield at least two different answers. Some say yes, the rest of the texts are commentary. Others, ofttimes the same author says, no, in the Christian Bible, all texts are potentially a vehicle for the gospel. Paul clearly talks of his teaching as the gospel, probably 20 years before Mark is written.
I prefer the latter. My current fantasy is that at the time of the second reading, our pastor will say the following, “Please stand for the Gospel reading taken this morning from the book of Exodus.”
To make things worse, in my mind, our last pastor reserved the Gospel reading for clergy! No way….
Now those who know me understand that the real reason behind these comments is my suspicion that there lurks a subtle assumption that Christianity supersedes Judaism and post-holocaust, most of us find that doctrine an abomination. Still, every morning, we begin with a reading from the OLD testament before moving to the NEW testament and then we eventually liturgically climb up the stairs of the temple to exalt the Gospel. Now don’t get me wrong, I am a Christian and for me Jesus is the key source of my understanding of the Word of God, but what that means practically is quite another question.
This all got brought to a head this week because our pastor preached on the Isaiah text and the second reading came from Psalms. So when we were ready to stand, instead we just sat there.
I’ve got two ways of dealing with this. First, why don’t we stand for every reading? Second, perhaps we should put the main reading for the day in the first position and follow-up with one or two related readings. During Advent, we experimented with the key text of the day functioning as the call to worship. I likes that model, it set the tone for the whole experience of worship.
So, what do you think? There is more where this came from…..I will be back.
4
comments:
Valerie
said...
John, This is something I've wondered about ever since I was in college. Early on when I questioned the practice, the answer was simply "out of respect for the gospel." And I kept wondering ....shouldn't we be respecting ALL of God's word? Even later in my theological studies, I never found a satisfactory answer.
Early in my marriage, my mother-not-in-law (didn't divorce her, just her son) made meatloaf in a way I had never seen. She used a huge flat pan instead of a loaf pan. I asked her why one day (cause she sure wasn't doing things the way I'd always done them)...and she said "this is the pan my mother used and her mother before that...we've always done it this way."
Wonder if this practice, as well as others, are done in this fashion because that's the way they've always been done.
I found your blog through your email on the 7V inner circle, and I enjoyed reading what I have so far.
In the church where I serve, we don't stand for any of the readings. They didn't before I got there, and I don't know their reasons, but for me I think it's less confusing because I so often preach from the epistles and the Hebrew Bible (and as you say, people don't know if they should stand for those).
My policy is to have two or three readings, depending on length, with the final one being the preaching text, read by the preacher. It could be me reading the gospel text, or I could read from Genesis (as I will this week) and the lector might have read from the gospel-- or from psalms or whatever. Or there could be a guest lay preacher. I'd be shocked at the idea that only clergy could read from Luke or something!
Perhaps more shocking, I don't finish my reading with, "The Word of the Lord/ Thanks be to God." I say, "This is the Good News," or "This is God's Good News," and the congregation responds "And for it we are thankful." I do this to emphasize that all of what we have heard is Good News, but that the scriptures alone are not the Word-- that's Jesus, whom we know in scripture and (hopefully!) sermon and hymn and passing of the peace and a myriad of other ways.
According to the Lutheran Book of Worship's "Manual on the Liturgy": "The Holy Gospel is normally read by one who has been ordained. Historically, reading the Gospel was the privilege of the deacon. In the words of the Gospel, Christ comes to his people and speaks to them anew. This is the climax of the reading of the Scriptures to which the first two lessons point, and it is a principal way in which Christ is present in the eucharistic assembly. The Gospel, therefore, has a different character than the other readings; and an ordained minister--one of whose functions is to represent Christ to the people--is the reader. ... The people stand when the Gospel is announced and greet Christ, who comes in the Gospel..."
One of my professors also once said, "Those who are risen with Christ stand with Christ." The "out of respect" argument I think is a bit insufficient. But it also depends on how one interprets the role of the minister and the relationship between the lessons. If all the lessons are viewed as equal, and the minister is viewed as not representing Christ, then standing for the reading of the Gospel makes no sense within one's liturgical tradition.
Being a fellow Methodist, I am sure you all know “we” have a wide swath of worship practices under one Methodist umbrella. From High Church to Low Church; Traditional to Praise and Worship services. Personally, I feel is one of our many strengths.
The previous Methodist church I attended recognized this practice as mentioned, however, the church I currently attend also does two readings, but they sometimes do not do a Gospel reading before the message, and do not stand when Gospel is read. So yes, it rather irks me!
I found a significant reason and rewarding symbolism in “The United Methodist Book of Worship” as to why we should recognize the difference between Gospel readings and the other readings.
Nevertheless, let us get down to the “official suggestion" as presented on page 23 of the, in the last paragraph, under the heading of SCRIPTURE. I quote…
"Because in the reading of the four Gospels we are addressed by the words of Christ and experience this as an encounter with the living Christ. Many Christians prefer to stand and greet Christ …and remain standing for the reading of the Gospel as an act of respect for the Christ who is addressing us.”
I also read, in similar terms, that when Christ addressed the crowds they stood when he was speaking. Therefore, in our response, we stand as they did, just as if Christ was addressing us as well. I find recognizing this custom serves as a deeply moving and a spiritually gratifying gesture.
I am a Christian activist living and working in the Atlanta area. Father of two adult children and member of Glenn United Methodist Church. A seminary trained layperson, I hold graduate degrees from the University of Chicago Divinity School and Chicago Theological Seminary. I am a fundraiser and am presently focussed on hunger issues.
4 comments:
John,
This is something I've wondered about ever since I was in college. Early on when I questioned the practice, the answer was simply "out of respect for the gospel." And I kept wondering ....shouldn't we be respecting ALL of God's word? Even later in my theological studies, I never found a satisfactory answer.
Early in my marriage, my mother-not-in-law (didn't divorce her, just her son) made meatloaf in a way I had never seen. She used a huge flat pan instead of a loaf pan. I asked her why one day (cause she sure wasn't doing things the way I'd always done them)...and she said "this is the pan my mother used and her mother before that...we've always done it this way."
Wonder if this practice, as well as others, are done in this fashion because that's the way they've always been done.
And still, every Sunday, I question the practice.
John,
I found your blog through your email on the 7V inner circle, and I enjoyed reading what I have so far.
In the church where I serve, we don't stand for any of the readings. They didn't before I got there, and I don't know their reasons, but for me I think it's less confusing because I so often preach from the epistles and the Hebrew Bible (and as you say, people don't know if they should stand for those).
My policy is to have two or three readings, depending on length, with the final one being the preaching text, read by the preacher. It could be me reading the gospel text, or I could read from Genesis (as I will this week) and the lector might have read from the gospel-- or from psalms or whatever. Or there could be a guest lay preacher. I'd be shocked at the idea that only clergy could read from Luke or something!
Perhaps more shocking, I don't finish my reading with, "The Word of the Lord/ Thanks be to God." I say, "This is the Good News," or "This is God's Good News," and the congregation responds "And for it we are thankful." I do this to emphasize that all of what we have heard is Good News, but that the scriptures alone are not the Word-- that's Jesus, whom we know in scripture and (hopefully!) sermon and hymn and passing of the peace and a myriad of other ways.
Peace,
Becca
According to the Lutheran Book of Worship's "Manual on the Liturgy": "The Holy Gospel is normally read by one who has been ordained. Historically, reading the Gospel was the privilege of the deacon. In the words of the Gospel, Christ comes to his people and speaks to them anew. This is the climax of the reading of the Scriptures to which the first two lessons point, and it is a principal way in which Christ is present in the eucharistic assembly. The Gospel, therefore, has a different character than the other readings; and an ordained minister--one of whose functions is to represent Christ to the people--is the reader. ... The people stand when the Gospel is announced and greet Christ, who comes in the Gospel..."
One of my professors also once said, "Those who are risen with Christ stand with Christ." The "out of respect" argument I think is a bit insufficient. But it also depends on how one interprets the role of the minister and the relationship between the lessons. If all the lessons are viewed as equal, and the minister is viewed as not representing Christ, then standing for the reading of the Gospel makes no sense within one's liturgical tradition.
John and others,
Being a fellow Methodist, I am sure you all know “we” have a wide swath of worship practices under one Methodist umbrella. From High Church to Low Church; Traditional to Praise and Worship services. Personally, I feel is one of our many strengths.
The previous Methodist church I attended recognized this practice as mentioned, however, the church I currently attend also does two readings, but they sometimes do not do a Gospel reading before the message, and do not stand when Gospel is read. So yes, it rather irks me!
I found a significant reason and rewarding symbolism in “The United Methodist Book of Worship” as to why we should recognize the difference between Gospel readings and the other readings.
Nevertheless, let us get down to the “official suggestion" as presented on page 23 of the, in the last paragraph, under the heading of SCRIPTURE. I quote…
"Because in the reading of the four Gospels we are addressed by the words of Christ and experience this as an encounter with the living Christ. Many Christians prefer to stand and greet Christ …and remain standing for the reading of the Gospel as an act of respect for the Christ who is addressing us.”
I also read, in similar terms, that when Christ addressed the crowds they stood when he was speaking. Therefore, in our response, we stand as they did, just as if Christ was addressing us as well. I find recognizing this custom serves as a deeply moving and a spiritually gratifying gesture.
Christ be with you all!
Howie
Post a Comment