As of this Sunday I am shifting across to the lectionary as the basis of my preaching roster. This is not something I am looking forward to but I sense it is the right thing to do. I like preaching through stories or books of the Bible (By stories I mean the life of Samuel, Abraham, David etc) and yet I feel the lectionary, I feel, has something wonderful to offer spiritual formation in the life of the church which frees us to incorporate scripture more easily into the service.
The lectionary will form the structure of our service. The Psalm will act as our call to worship the second NT reading and OT reading will guide the theme of the service (unless of course I am preaching from the OT) and then one of the texts will be the teaching passage. Over the next 3 years most of the Bible will be read in our church. I hope I can remain disciplined enough to follow it through.
I am wondering what others’ experience of following the lectionary for Sunday preaching has been? Positive/negative? Any hints, tips or warnings would be gratefully appreciated!
the archives near Emmaus 
I have ventured into this territory this year, beginning with last Advent. I have enjoyed this journey. Being an expository preacher, I have been surprised by how I can find the readings following an OT passage for quite some time, or even a NT passage. The other thing I like is it keeps me disciplined and helps us a church find the rhythm of the Church calendar rather than simply following the rhythm of our cultural calendars.
I don’t read all four passages in a service, though. I haven’t stepped up my courage quite that much! 😉
I know you followed it a couple years ago and found it wasn’t necessarily your cup of tea, and then followed it aain when it was in Matthew and you wanted to work through the sermon on the mount. what is bringing you back to it? Peterson? I know many laud the values of the lectionary but I would have to do more reading and talking about it to get an understanding for it. I mean, it seems to me it is easy for pastors and church leaders to get fired up about it because they have read up about it and know what Is going on, but there are plenty of very spiritually dead churches (I know that can happen in any situation) that follow the lectionary and I often wonder if that is why, or that it gets a bit rote and repetitive and then it all becomes about going through the motions, that it has a tendency to become more about sticking to the liturgy and less about being sure everyone has a chance to experience the presence of God that day, if that makes sense. I am probably wrong about all this, it is just how I see it at this point. I am willing to consider it beneficial to all involved in the service but I think that can only happen if you educate them about it…Keep them in tune with what is going on, etc.
Obviously I haven’t preached from the lectionary since I don’t preach on a regular basis, but I was given an interesting insight in a conversation with my pastor yesterday who mentioned that one theologians he read (the name escapes me) argues for the lectionary because it keeps the gospel coming from the pulpit even during seasons when the church’s preaching has hit a low ebb. That is not to say your preaching is such, but it does seem like the main point that it keeps the preacher sharing the gospel each week is one benefit.
That raises an important question… Does the gospel need to be preached in church every week?
I blame Western Seminary, but I do think the gospel should appear every week. I don’t see the value of a sermon on finances without it being connected to the Kingdom of God and our citizenship within because of the gospel or a sermon on marriage without it being attached to the life of the church in relation to Christ which is part of the gospel. By gospel I do not mean a call-and-response alter-call type sermon or even that the bare elements of death, burial, and resurrection must be mentioned, but that basic call to come into the Kingdom and live in the Kingdom should be attached to everything. I don’t know that any of our sermons can make sense as sermons unless this is so.
I agree, I think it is call Christ centered preaching, or gospel centered preaching, and it is important. And I agree not every sermon nor even most sermons need to be “evangelistic” necessarily.
I think one of the benefits of the lectionary is that it helps you to see ahead of what’s to come so that you can have adequate preparation. Also, lectionaries tend to cover just about the entire Bible in about three years, so that is also a plus. I say good choice and good following of the Holy Spirit!
It was Helmut Thielicke who wrote that the liturgy provided a type of consistent gospel proclamation each week during times of dry, dead preaching. (The Problem With The Church, 1965). He preached to German congregations before, during, and after the Nazi devestation of the Lutheran church, and noted that the liturgy had preserved the gospel in the church as her gospel-preachers had been mostly removed from ministry during the war.
I think the decision whether or not to preach the gospel each week should be influenced by what type of people are in the church each week. If your church is static, with few, if any, visitors from week to week, and small enough that (as a preacher) you are confident that you’re preaching to people who are saved, then I suppose sermons on Christian living, etc., might be okay. But if you are blessed to preach to visitors who you not only assume, but also know, are not yet saved–then you’re skating on very thin ice (in my opinion) if you fail to provide them with a front and center presentation of how they can be saved and escape judgment for their sins. Paul argues that the public worship of the church should at least be prepared for the presence of unbelievers; perhaps we should do the same. (1 Cor14:23)
Another thing Thielicke wrote that intrigued me was that preachers should preach to those who are not yet there (in the church service). At the time, there were no young people in the German churches. They’d lost all interest and confidence in the church of Germany that had betrayed them, their parents, and their country–and were NOT going to waste their time attending. Thielicke starting preaching sermons with points, subjects, etc., that would address the needs of the young (non-church attending) Germans–before they ever thought to attend. In short time, thousands of students began attending St. Michaeli’s in Hamburg to hear him preach each week.
@Ken: Could it be suggested that a church that is not engaging in evangelism may need the gospel preached to it as much as a church where there are unbelievers sitting in the pews each Sunday? Again, when I say “the gospel” I don’t mean an alter call, per se, but rather the “King and his Kingdom” ala Mark 1.14-15 or Roman 1.3-4, 16-17 where the gospel is about the King, Jesus, and his Kingdom which he has been given by God? I am under the impression that your sermons are very gospel-centered even when not about the death, burial, and resurrection.
Oh, and thank you for reminding me of Helmut Thielicke’s name!
@Ken
The story of Thielicke is great real life application for Romans 4:17!
When I preach, I don’t always use the gospel passage. On those Sundays, however, I make sure the gospel passage is still read.
@Brian, Re: “Could it be suggested that a church that is not engaging in evangelism may need the gospel preached to it as much as a church where there are unbelievers sitting in the pews each Sunday?” I would certainly think so, although such a church should probably be called more to repentance (Rev 3-4 style) than initial belief–but that’s my free-graceness coming out!
@Nacy, what spot-on cf. for Thielicke’s strategy! Thank you! I’m going to use that!
@Ken: In part, this is what I mean by “the gospel” though. Not merely it’s “welcome to the family” aspect but its continual reminder and sustaining effect in the life of a Christian. In that sense it would be the gospel of the King and his Kingdom that reminds Rev 3-4 type churches of their duty to honor and represent the King.