What ticks me off about the Lectionary

In the Revised Common Lectionary, when verses are left out, I get curious. Usually I have to look them up in the Bible to know what was left out and then wonder why. But this week I didn't have to look them up because I knew what was left out. Here's the gospel reading for this week in the Lectionary:

Matthew 13:1-9, 18-23
13:1 That same day Jesus went out of the house and sat beside the sea.

13:2 Such great crowds gathered around him that he got into a boat and sat there, while the whole crowd stood on the beach.

13:3 And he told them many things in parables, saying: "Listen! A sower went out to sow.

13:4 And as he sowed, some seeds fell on the path, and the birds came and ate them up.

13:5 Other seeds fell on rocky ground, where they did not have much soil, and they sprang up quickly, since they had no depth of soil.

13:6 But when the sun rose, they were scorched; and since they had no root, they withered away.

13:7 Other seeds fell among thorns, and the thorns grew up and choked them.

13:8 Other seeds fell on good soil and brought forth grain, some a hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty.

13:9 Let anyone with ears listen!"

13:18 "Hear then the parable of the sower.

13:19 When anyone hears the word of the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what is sown in the heart; this is what was sown on the path.

13:20 As for what was sown on rocky ground, this is the one who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy;

13:21 yet such a person has no root, but endures only for a while, and when trouble or persecution arises on account of the word, that person immediately falls away.

13:22 As for what was sown among thorns, this is the one who hears the word, but the cares of the world and the lure of wealth choke the word, and it yields nothing.

13:23 But as for what was sown on good soil, this is the one who hears the word and understands it, who indeed bears fruit and yields, in one case a hundredfold, in another sixty, and in another thirty."


You'll notice that 9 verses are left out. This is one of the passages that occurs in the three Synoptic Gospels: Matthew, Mark and Luke. It is obvious that both Matthew and Luke had a copy of Mark's gospel in front of them as they wrote, a decade or more later. "Synoptic" is a word you can figure out from the Greek pretty easily. "Syn" as in 'synonyms", means "the same" and 'optic' means 'to see'. So those three gospels 'see' the 'same' because Mark makes up 50% of Luke and Matthew.

Here's the gospel without the left out verses:

Matt.13

[1] That same day Jesus went out of the house and sat beside the sea.

[2] And great crowds gathered about him, so that he got into a boat and sat there; and the whole crowd stood on the beach.
[3] And he told them many things in parables, saying: "A sower went out to sow.
[4] And as he sowed, some seeds fell along the path, and the birds came and devoured them.
[5] Other seeds fell on rocky ground, where they had not much soil, and immediately they sprang up, since they had no depth of soil,
[6] but when the sun rose they were scorched; and since they had no root they withered away.
[7] Other seeds fell upon thorns, and the thorns grew up and choked them.
[8] Other seeds fell on good soil and brought forth grain, some a hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty.
[9] He who has ears, let him hear."
[10] Then the disciples came and said to him, "Why do you speak to them in parables?"

[11] And he answered them, "To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given.
[12] For to him who has will more be given, and he will have abundance; but from him who has not, even what he has will be taken away.
[13] This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand.
[14] With them indeed is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah which says: `You shall indeed hear but never understand,
and you shall indeed see but never perceive.
[15] For this people's heart has grown dull,
and their ears are heavy of hearing,
and their eyes they have closed,
lest they should perceive with their eyes,
and hear with their ears,
and understand with their heart,
and turn for me to heal them.'
[16] But blessed are your eyes, for they see, and your ears, for they hear.
[17] Truly, I say to you, many prophets and righteous men longed to see what you see, and did not see it, and to hear what you hear, and did not hear it.
[18] "Hear then the parable of the sower.

[19] When any one hears the word of the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what is sown in his heart; this is what was sown along the path.
[20] As for what was sown on rocky ground, this is he who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy;
[21] yet he has no root in himself, but endures for a while, and when tribulation or persecution arises on account of the word, immediately he falls away.
[22] As for what was sown among thorns, this is he who hears the word, but the cares of the world and the delight in riches choke the word, and it proves unfruitful.
[23] As for what was sown on good soil, this is he who hears the word and understands it; he indeed bears fruit, and yields, in one case a hundredfold, in another sixty, and in another thirty."


I underlined and made bold what was left out.


The Lectionary people took out the whole meaning of this passage in all three synoptic gospels. It makes it seem, in what I will read on Sunday, that Jesus explains 'the parable' to the crowds. But he doesn't if you put in the missing verses. He only explains it to the disciples and tells them he speaks in parables so they will not understand!!!

This is the 'secrecy motif' of the synoptic gospels. This motif does not exist in John, not at all. But it is part and parcel of Mark, Matthew and Luke. Jesus is always telling people not to tell others about what he does. Scholars have fretted over this for centuries. Why would Jesus want to be 'secret'?


That's a different conversation. What I want to know is why don't those folks who put together the Revised Common Lectionary not want us to hear those missing 9 verses.


Is it because they make the whole passage more problematic--why would Jesus tell the disciples the 'meaning' of the parable but not the crowds that followed him


Is it because this whole passage in all three Synoptic Gospels completely misunderstands the nature of a 'parable'? A parable is a story with one meaning. Parables are more like jokes than any thing. You 'get' them or you don't. Jesus turns the 'parable' into an 'allegory', the only time that happens in the gospels. Parable come's from the Greek word para-ballien, which means 'to throw out together'. There is a story and a meaning, thrown out together, and you either get the meaning of the story or not. In this case, Jesus explains the 'parable' to the disciples as an 'allegory' where every thing in the story stands for something else.

Maybe the Lectionary folks didn't want that to come up any more than they wanted the 'secrecy motif' to impinge on people's understanding. Maybe they just wanted it all to be simple and clear.

But Truth isn't 'simple' or 'clear'. Truth is complex, convoluted and obscure.

Maybe the Lectionary folks (and this is my best guess) don't trust lay folks to deal with complexity, convolutedness, obscurity and paradox. That's what I think.

I think lay folks can easily handle all that. So this Sunday at St. Andrew's in Northford, I'm going to tell them all this and let them sort it out--the whole 'secrecy motif' and the whole parable/allegory thing.

I think they can deal with it. I really do. I trust lay folks a lot more that I trust the people who put together the Revised Common Lectionary.

Was I ever right this time!!!

Remember how I told Mejol to stop looking for other Mejols? My friend Charles, who not only reads this blog but acts on it, sent me this after reading about Mejol.

MEJOL

Pronunciation unavailable

2,263,075th in the U.S.

Quick facts

Very few

people in the U.S have this name

1

to be exact

Maryland

has the most people named Mejol per capita

So, according to "White Pages Names", my cousin is the only Mejol in the country!

I told her and sent it to her and she feels special!

Imagine being the only person named James on the block, much less the town or the county...

I've been afraid to go to the website to check on James or even Gordon, fearing I'll be in the top 10 names for James and the top 40 or so for Gordon.

I've always known Mejol was one of a kind. I've been right all along....

Mejol

My cousin, Mejol, told me she keeps hoping to find someone else named Mejol. I told he to give it up. She's 73 and has never met another. I don't think she will. The family lore is that Aunt Georgie, my mother's sister (who was named after the Doctor who came to deliver her, Dr. George Something--more Jones family lore) named her after some character in some book she was reading while she was pregnant. An American Indian name, as the story goes. Maybe, maybe not...the Jones side of my family, my mother's side, had lots of lore.

Interestingly, the Bradley side was almost lore-less. The Bradley side of my family were matter-of-fact, straight-forward. They also drank alcohol, which the Jones did not, and smoked cigarettes and pipes and told bawdy jokes.

My making came from two drastically different families.

Mejol has been in my life since I had a life. Since my parents thought they would never have children and since Mejol's father had been 'shell shocked' in WW2--what would now be Post Tramatic Stress Syndrome--my mother and father had Mejol as a pretend daughter. When I was born, she was 6. As I grew she was always around--going on vacation with us to the Smokey Mountains year after year (why people who live in the mountains would go to the mountains is a conversation for another time) baby-sitting me from time to time, and ,since I spent most of my life until adolescence surrounded by family, Mejol was always in the mix.

We lost touch for decades. I saw her when her brother Bradley Perkins died twelve or so years ago. But it so happens she lives near Baltimore, so in the years Josh and Cathy and the girls have been in Baltimore, I've gotten back in touch with her and her two children and her son, Fletcher's, two children.

I've talked to her on the phone for what may be hours in the last few weeks since Pearl (Bradley's wife) died and we're planning a visit to Dunbar, West Virginia, just outside Charleston, this month to visit Aunt Elsie, our mother's only surviving sister. I'll take the train to Baltimore and Mejol (who I called 'Mesh' most of my life) will pick me up and we'll drive the 6 hours to Dunbar and stay two nights and then come back so I can catch the train to Baltimore.

Aunt Elsie is a member of the Nazarene Church. My Uncle Harvey, her deceased husband was a Nazarene preacher after he was a Pilgrim Holiness preacher and changed denominations for some reason I don't know. Uncle Harvey was gravely concerned that I became an Episcopalian in college and when I was going off to Harvard Divinity School in 1969, he told me gravely, "don't let them make you a Unitarian."

I've always greatly respected Unitarians who, the joke goes, begin their prayers with "To whom it may concern....." I'd be a Unitarian if they had liturgy, I imagine. Many of my prayers begin, "to whom it may concern....." Or else I'd be a Quaker, silent and liberal. That would have really freaked Uncle Harvey out....

I  have 17 first cousins, all but one of them older than me. Two of them--one on each side--dead. And Mejol means more to me that all the others put together.

I actually, in the end, revel in being an only child--much less messy and confusing. But if I had a sister, it would be Mejol.

Accident prone

"Accident prone" is the polite way to refer to it. "Clumsy" would be more accurate.

I am a very clumsy person. I bump into things on a regular basis--things anyone more adroit would never bump into.

I'm also incredibly sensitive to aspirin. I take a baby aspirin every other day since taking one every day means my forearms and hands are constantly bruised. They are still bruised, because I'm clumsy and bump into things, but I think it's a tad better since my doctor, Mark, let me go to one every other day.

People with some medical expertise have asked me if I take cumadin (sp) or some other blood thinner when they see my forearms and hands. Nope, just baby aspirin which is supposed to be good for you.

Right now I am as bruise free as I've been for months. I have a small, fading bruise on my left hand and 5 bruises on my left forearm. The only serious bruise on my left arm in near my wrist and got serious when I scraped it and it started bleeding and then weeping until Bern suggested Aloe, which has done wonders. I have a couple of fading dime-sized bruises further up.

It's rather embarrassing. During half the year I can wear long sleeves and cover up the worst of the bruising. But not these days. I have a slight--very slight--sense of what it must be like to be a leper. People are repelled by the bruises and I don't blame them.

I've also grown rather defensive about it. When Josh asked me about it over the 4th, I was short with him and he said he wasn't being judgmental, just concerned.

Also, an inhaler I take makes me tremble a bit--sometimes a lot. It has a steroid in it and simply makes me tremble. One of my best friends called Bern and asked about it, thinking it might be a sign of Parkinson's Disease. I'm on an injected medication every two weeks called Xolaire that is letting me use the inhaler less and less. I just held up my hands and there was no tremble at all.

Again, embarrassment is the issue.

What is 'embarrassment' about anyway?

Something about defensiveness, surely. And something about feeling 'not good' about yourself.

I'm going to ponder 'embarrassment' for a bit and try to get over it.

That might be something of value for you as well. I don't know, but maybe....

Looking back

The weekend was great--Josh and Cathy and the girls. Josh loves to organize outings so I went with him and the girls to Sleeping Giant Park--never been there, sort of like New Yorkers' who've never been to the Statue of Liberty or the top of the Empire State Building. Sleeping Giant is 5 miles away and we've lived in New Haven and then Cheshire since 1980 and never once been there.

The 'paths' aren't 'paths' at all, they are areas of large rocks and tree roots around which you can, if you are agile enough, walk. I almost turned my ankle a dozen times. When Josh and the girls went up a 60 degree hill, I demurred and waited on them. Had I turned and ankle or fallen and broken my leg, I could only imagine how Josh and three little girls would get me back over the 'not really paths'. Maybe they'd just leave me or shoot me and put me out of my misery.

My first visit to Sleeping Giant will be my last, I promise.

The 5th was wondrous! What a day! A day to be out in the yard and on the deck. But Josh had another road trip planned. We went to New Haven and had pizza at Pepe's. Since Josh and Mimi spent 5 years of their childhood in walking distance of Pepe's, it is a visit he wants to make. And, by the way, the pizza is beyond belief. Bern and I shared a medium white clam that was larger than any large anywhere else. Morgan, Emma and Tegan ate piece after piece of a bacon pizza and a plain cheese pizza. At dinner that night, the leftovers went on the grill and they ate even more....

We did Italian sausage, chicken and tuna kabobs with rice and corn and asparagus--all on the grill. Again, more eating that should be admitted to. Then roasted marshmallows over the coals and strawberry shortcake--the 4th on the 5th. So good.

The girls were wondrous. Emma with her humor, Morgan with her attention and engagement, Tegan with off the wall questions and comments.

An example: Josh and I are sitting on the back porch reading (me with an actual paper book and him with his smart phone) and the other two girls are in the yard, digging, they love to did--Bern goes inside and Tegan comes over to me eating a ice pop. "Granpa," she says, very seriously, in a whisper, "is your wife crazy?"

I'm startled. "Do you mean Granma?" I ask. Josh is shaking his head and chuckling.

Tegan nods solemnly and licks her ice pop.

After a while, I say, "yes, a little crazy....But a little crazy is good and fun."

She seemed satisfied.

Josh, still shaking his head, said, "I don't know where this stuff comes from, but it's always coming."

I told Bern later and she laughed and laughed. She is a little crazy and it IS good and fun....

rainy 4th

I ran into my neighbor from across the street at Stop and Shop earlier today. "Hey, Joe," I said, "plan B?" We were both there to find dinner that didn't have to be grilled.

The day is rainy but Josh and Cathy and our granddaughters are here so it's bright inside!

They came late last night--after midnight--and were exhausted. The girls got some back yard time between rains and found a multitude of worms and slugs and ballbugs driven out into the open by the wet ground. Kids love gross and slimy and dirty things by their very nature. It seems to me you could predict the onset of adolescence by when kids stop picking up slimy things.

Josh, like Mimi when she's here commented on 'how quiet' Cheshire is. I guess it is but I just take it for granted. Like the Irish cab driver a few years ago who, every time he turned a curve going from Dreury to the Domitine retreat center heard me gasp as the beauty of the landscape.

Finally he said, in a wondrous accent, "Yea, I think we've come to take it for granted."

Too bad how we take blessings and beauty like that. Having the girls around to let me see the world through their eyes jars me out of complacency and I notice how astonishing worms are....

OK, enough sweetness and light...

Ann Coulter.

You know where I'm going with this, right? If not you haven't been paying attention lately.

Ann Coulter (just to type her name annoys me!) went on a rant of Fox News (where else?) about soccer. Her take on the interest of Americans in the World Cup matches shows 'the moral decay' of American culture.

(Let me give you a minute to take that in...if, indeed, it is take-able in-able....)

OK, so here's her argument (such as it is):

1. America's interest in soccer shows that immigration from south of the border is out of control (because, presumably, white people don't like soccer!--nevermind about Europe....)

2. It is too much of a 'team sport' so there are no superstars and America needs superstars. (Nevermind, again, that there are stars in soccer but it is essentially a team sport...and when did playing as a 'team' become un-American? I thought that was the most American thing of all....)

3. It's boring because the scores are so low and American's like lots of scoring. (Never mind that a 1-0 baseball game is a classic and a 7-3 football game, though unusual, is the most exciting kind of game--since when is defense a bad thing.)

So, Soccer would be ok if the scores were like the NBA and there were super stars and white people played it....

Jesus, how stupid is that?

I didn't grow up playing soccer and neither of my kids played either, but lots of their friends did and now practically every kid in the suburbs plays soccer. And certainly every Hispanic kid does.

Ok, I'm getting irrational about this. Just go on line and find her rant and weep for America....