Brian+

Good to hear from you.

I agree with many of your sentiments.  One of my
causes of joy recently is that young families are
responding joyfully to our liturgy.

However, I don't see a problem with the 3 year
lectionary.  I used the old lectionary from 1969 until
3 years ago.  

I don't see that there is anything at all lost, and
there has been for me gain, not the least of which is
that it gave me heightened interest in study. I'm
spending more time in Biblical research and that is a
good thing.

In my opinion those who worked out the three year
lectionary have done an excellent job of not only
helping us be exposed to more of the Scriptures but
also tying the readings together and fitting them into
the Christian year.

I don't see that one can equate the three year
lectionary, nor a more accurate modern Enlgish Bible
with with problematical new liturgies.  These are two
different things. 

I like the rythyms of the old King James Version, and
still quote it when the passage is clear and quickly
comprehensible to the hearer.  However, for economy of
speech and time, and to keep the sermon
comprehensible, I will use whatever version that gives
an accurate and the clearest and most concise
expression of the text. 

Charles+
Church of the Good Shepherd, Indianapolis
 
>   Sent: Monday, May 29, 2006 12:15 PM
>   Subject: RE: [FaithandLife] Three Year
> Lectionary--question
> 
> 
>   Gentlemen,
> 
>   I have just been reviewing the posts on the Three
> Year Lectionary from November of last year.
> 
>   This is an intriguing discussion, I think, but I'm
> wondering if there is more to be discussed regarding
the three year lectionary.  To begin, I don't use it,
but I have always used the "starred" Old  Testament
lesson and Psalm in our service.  This
provides for four  texts to preach on every Sunday.  I
don't find  that limiting at all. 
>   I concur with those last November that noted that
> most parishioners   don't remember as much as we
wish they would--the  repetition is   helpful to them,
I believe.  I also concur with  those who noted that 
we get pushed to dig deeper to make more
> connections, etc.
> 
>   Of course, our people getting exposed to more
> scripture is always a  good thing.  What, however,
are we giving up in order to fit that  more Scripture
into the Sunday lectionary?  I'm  not sure I have 
specific answers, but I have misgivings.  I
> suppose my misgivings are mostly related to the
misgivings I have about new liturgies.  This 
>   modern--and now post-modern--age does not seem to
> be one in which we ought to be toying with our
inheritance.  We don't understand language in this age
and we don't understand history.
> 
>   Those two problems seem to mitigate against
> quality "modern language" 
>   liturgies and translations; what about new
> lectionaries?  I'm not 
>   opposed to the idea of change, mind you, but I am
> concerned that 
>   change happen from within the tradition and that
> we don't open the 
>   door to the little gremlin of modernity.  That
> gremlin can get it via 
>   new translations, liturgies and architecture,
> vestments, music and 
>   altar hangings.  Can he also get in via new
> lectionaries?
> 
>   In a sense, I ask myself the question:  "What am I
> giving up when I 
>   give up centuries and centuries of a tradition of
> Readings from Holy 
>   Scripture?"  I'm not sure I know, but that sure
> doesn't mean that I'm 
>   not giving up something important.  I'm usually
> mostly ignorant....
> 
>   I seek to provide thorough discussion of the
> Scriptures via weeknight 
>   studies and don't find Sunday morning to be the
> best time for such an 
>   in-depth study.  The Three Year lectionary got
> it's start from a 
>   completely modern set of assumptions and an agenda
> wholly entrenched 
>   in modernity.  What are we letting in?  Am I being
> overly concerned? 
>   Is it worth exploring?
> 
>   Any thoughts?
> 
>   Brian+