Thoughts on the Lectionary and Lenten Preaching
The restrictive nature of modern lectionaries and the importance of faithful, Christocentric Lententide preaching
The season of Lent is a central and integral time in the Church. We ponder not only the event of Christ’s Passion, but the necessity on account of which Christ became Man and died in the flesh. The solemnity of Ash Wednesday, therefore, does not truly cease. We carry with us throughout the season of Lent the burden of our sin and the weight of our trespasses that stand against us—which Christ Himself took and nailed to His cross.
In Lent, Christ’s Passion not only becomes our focus—for it always is—but it thus becomes our common anthem, constant devotion, and central point of preaching. Certainly the cross must always be preached, Christ crucified for us must always be our anthem, and the Passion must always be the foundation of our confession. Nevertheless, the Passion of our Lord—and the necessity on account of which it occurred—is given a unique homiletical concentration in Lent.
Modern Lutheran lectionaries, however, are designed with one fatal error. Contrary to the faithful and useful conventions of historic Western lectionaries, modern Lutheran lectionaries do not include propers or lections for midweek services—even for the season of Lent. Propers are only provided for Sundays and major Feast days. Thus, to account for this lectional exclusion, many churches concoct “sermon series” and “thematic lectionaries” to be used in Lent.
Sermon series and thematic lectionaries may account for the exclusion of midweek propers from Lutheran lectionaries, but they cannot fix the harmful exclusion of midweek propers from the lectionary. Sermon series tend to be gaudy, unhelpful, and aimless. Their themes may be stretched far beyond their natural limits. Sermon series and thematic lectionaries may often run contrary to or out of sync with the traditional lectionary used on Sundays and Feast days.
Sermon series and thematic lectionaries simply do not serve well the propriety of Lenten preaching and purposes for which the traditional lectionary is instituted. They often distract from the singularly central theme of Christ’s Passion—and do not best exemplify the Lutheran Church’s liturgical and lectional tradition.
It must be noted that pastors ought not be faulted for using or creating sermon series or thematic lectionaries. The lectionaries afforded by the Lutheran Service Book (LSB) are restrictive. Pastors must scramble to determine what course they must take to ensure their congregations are best fed the Word and Sacraments in the Lenten season. It is admirable, faithful, and necessary that pastors seek whatever resources are made available to them and use them. It is shameful, however, that pastors are not afforded consistently suitable liturgical and lectional resources to be used in Lent—and, more broadly, throughout the year.
The exclusion of the historic Lenten pericopes from the lectionary disjoins the central message of Lent in the liturgical calendar. What use is the substantial nature and prominence of the Lenten season if its pericopes are to be excluded entirely from the lectionary? The ancient Church made faithful use of an extensive, encompassing lectionary that incorporated the entirety of the Lenten season. The Church has long recognized the liturgical and lectional centrality the season of Lent rightfully holds. Lent therefore occurred in conjunction with the traditional sanctoral calendar, rather than a disjointed liturgical peculiarity.
Yet these grievances speak indirectly to the shortcomings of sermon series and thematic lectionaries. What, then, shall be said about them directly? In a word, the sermon series and thematic lectionaries offered by various entities and synodical authorities restrict proper preaching, especially as it concerns the liturgical propriety needed in the season of Lent. Weekday masses become disjointed from Sunday masses. Lent seems to exist in two separate vacuums, for which pastors are afforded no conventional lectional resources.
The sermon series often focus on peculiar aspects of pre-selected pericopes. The themes are forced, and their application unnatural. The cross may take a place of hermeneutic honor, but the Passion of our Lord takes a back seat. We focus on the “hand of the Lord,” or “the Spirit anointed Christ to…,” and many other stretched analogies and thematic excursions. Indeed, these themes may not be ill-fitting as secondary homiletical devices. Yet the pericopes are often selected based on these predetermined themes, instead of the liturgical and sanctoral basis on which the ancient Church established and handed down its lectionary.
Sermons are often recycled, re-preached, and reused. While it is fitting that various homiletical resources be provided for pastors to guide their preaching and strengthen their hermeneutical ability, true preaching does not occur in the abstract. The preacher is a necessary instrument through which preaching takes place. A recycled sermon seems to me—admittedly a comparatively unknowledgeable person—to be homiletical malpractice.
The historic weekday propers for midweek Lenten services are considerably typological. The Monday following Invocavit Sunday, for example, Ezekiel 34:11-16, Ezekiel’s Good Shepherd discourse, is appointed, in which we are reminded that God’s scattered sheep will soon be gathered. The Wednesday following Invocavit calls to mind our Lord’s 40-day temptation in the wilderness, prefigured by Exodus 24:12–18, Moses on Mount Sinai, and 1 Kings 19:3b–8, Elijah’s forty days without food, both of which are read as the Old Testament and Epistle, respectively.
The typological and prophetic nature of the weekday pericopes during Lent lead us to remember and confess the centrality of our Lord’s Incarnation and Passion. We also find in these historic Lenten periscopes a common, irreplaceable theme: that all Scripture points to Christ, and that He Himself is the fulfillment of Scripture. Without His Passion, for which the Lenten season prepares the Christian heart, faith comes to naught. All would be forsaken if Christ and His Passion is not the heart, center, and foundation of our Lenten piety and liturgical propriety.
The needful Christocentric preaching that ought to accompany Lent is restricted and recklessly regulated. Whether the “sermon series” is a response to the lectional blackhole that accompanies modern lectionaries or the cause of this lectional sinkhole, it has done great harm to Lenten preaching. An informal thematic guide to Lenten preaching may be in good order—yet the proper, historic lectionary itself is suitable for this goal. To find from each pericope a common theme and bring them together under the necessary liturgical banner of our Lord’s Passion is a noble task. To disjoint the liturgical property that is especially needful in Lent is harmful.