Censoring the Bible
(Apologies for more of a church nerd post, but it does speak to broader issues.)
The second reading from the Revised Common Lectionary (the Bible readings for worship used by churches around the world) for this Sunday comes from the book of Revelation. For a few weeks now, we’ve been working our way through Revelation and have now arrived at chapter 22. The assigned reading, though, is Rev. 22:12-14, 16-17, 20-21. On first glance, it sure looks to me like we’re censoring the Bible.
The assigned reading picks the lovely-dovey smooth feeling sections of chapter 22, and skips of the darker passages.
Included in this Sunday’s passage:
See, I am coming soon; my reward is with me, to repay according to everyone’s work. 13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.” 14 Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they will have the right to the tree of life and may enter the city by the gates….And let everyone who is thirsty come. Let anyone who wishes take the water of life as a gift….
Excluded from this Sunday’s passage:
Outside are the dogs and sorcerers and fornicators and murderers and idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices falsehood….I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this book; if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away that person’s share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.
Yes, Revelation is a really difficult book and comes with a lot of cultural baggage. Yes, most people in mainline churches these days don’t know the Bible like they used to. Yes, it’s difficult to read passages like that in worship.
But, really, isn’t this censorship plain and simple? And isn’t it ironic we censor the exact verse that says, “ if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away that person’s share in the tree of life”? What are the implications here? Seems to me like we’re dumbing down worship, the faith, and the Bible for reasons of comfort and convenience.
Connect Online
The most egregious omission in the lectionary is in Psalm 137 where the verses about dashing the babies’ heads against the rocks is left out. I think it appears in October.
The lectionary does a great job in leaving out the really hard parts of the Bible.
Re Psalm 137: the Common Lectionary left out the offending verses. I beliive the Revised Common Lectionary includes the whole Psalm this October.
An example of positive reinforcement, excluding the punishment of unpleasant dictates?
There is certainly some psychology in the dissemination of scripture. I wonder at the early councils that formed the modern Biblical anthology; were they attempting to establish a text comprised of purest content, or one that made sense for the time in which they lived? Did they consider the shape of civilization to come? Did they hope to lock the culture of Christianity into one they knew and understood, disregarding mankind’s extraneous development?
These questions are relevant because we see the same possible intentions through the example in your post. My experience growing up Lutheran was one of easing the duty of faith, the pastors never resorting to such lambasting as certain passages imply. I’m not suggesting they ought to return the fear of God to their weekly sermons, but it’s rather patronizing to deny the congregation some insight into the origins of faith.
We now attend a local Presbyterian church. The pastor there is quite good at weaving some historical context into the service. Alternatively, there are brands of Christianity confuse spirit with emotion and cater to less discerning aspects of religion, contributing to what may be the “dumbing down” of liturgy.
I’ve come to settle on the one size does not fit all analogy. There’s no use in arguing which denomination is more or less proper or legitimate. The Bible is a thing born to interpretation (which, yes I know, espouses a certain slant to my commentary). I can only direct a person to take one look at the variety of Christians in the world, to see the truth in my statement. (I won’t even start on other faiths.)
I’m preaching John and Revelation this Sunday and I put the censored parts back in. I’m not addressing it in the sermon (either the censorship or the difficult parts) but I prefer to read chunks of the Bible at a time … none of this skipping a verse here and there stuff.
Also, on a completely practical note, it’s easier for those who are reading along in their pew Bibles, of which I normally have a good handful.
exactly. I’m preaching the Acts text this week, but am expanding it a bit. I often preach longer texts than the lectionary provides–maybe not because of censorship, but because I think the broader context of the text needs to be heard.
And I think if the lectionary included those texts that we don’t want to hear, it would be harder for people to argue, with a straight face, that they take the Bible literally. This year, as we read through the Bible, most of the texts I preached were ones that never occur in the lectionary. It was a good practice for me, and for the congregation.
Thanks for all these comments. Very helpful. So, if I do decide to read the whole Rev reading even with the censored parts, what do you think about introducing it before the reading? Should readers say, “This is a difficult reading and should be heard with this in mind….?” Or should the Bible just stand on its own like we say it can?
Here’s what I wonder; how many pastors would “self-censor” the lectionary passage were the bad parts left in? I know darn well that happens too.
Adam,
“introducing it before the reading”
Actually, I’ve found it more effective with explanation following at least a part of the difficult text. I don’t want to tout it as shock value, but much of understanding comes from the humility of recognizing one’s own misinterpretation. I know I have felt that way, confronting my own preconceptions. The trick is in the presentation, respecting their intelligence with the knowledge you impart.
Yes, it is censorship, and it doesn’t serve the church well to just gloss over the less pleasant parts. John of Patmos tended to be a bit on the frothing at the mouth side, and owning that reality is important.
I’ve used this “editing” as a focal point for several sermons, with the problematic text serving as a linchpin for the message. If we can’t address difficult passages, then we can’t say we’re teaching the whole Bible.
I wrote about this the other day, too. The censored text is just a sort of greatest hits of images, and even with the left out parts restored, this passage is nothing without context but a speed-through of “you can have this if you’re good; otherwise, go to hell!” We’ve got to find a way to talk about the whole picture, or we’re likely to be seen as hypocrites.
I totally agree. Nothing aggravates me more about the lectionary than this kind of censorship. I think it is our responsibility as preachers and teachers to show people how to faithfully wrestle with even the most problematic biblical texts.
Adam,
I’m glad you raised the question.
The body that developed and continues to “steward” the Revised Common Lectionary is the Consultation on Common Texts. I happen to be its Secretary at this time. I’m not proposing to provide an official answer from the Consultation to your post, but rather, perhaps, some insight into why some readings, including this one, appear as they do.
During Eastertide, all four of the lections are related to each other and specifically to the gospel lesson. The gospel lesson for Easter 7 in Year C is taken from the “high priestly prayer” of Jesus, as in fact it is in all three years. The focus of that prayer for this year is Christ’s desire that the glory he has given us, which he had received from the Father, may also make us fully one with each other as he and the Father are one. The whole tenor of this text, then, is about those who are invited, those who are Christ’s.
While throughout Eastertide in Year C, we also use texts from Revelation, we are not trying to offer here a “semi-continuous” reading of Revelation as such– but rather selecting from Revelation texts which closely illustrate or best accompany the focal gospel for each Sunday. The verses we include from Revelation 22 accompany the sense of the gospel reading for this Sunday very well. The verses we chose not to include really do not do that as well, and in fact could be seen to detract from the focus on Christ’s prayer for those of us whom join the cosmic call for the Bridegroom to come to the feast of joy.
So the issue here is not one of censoring out parts that are harsh, per se. This lectionary overall includes plenty of very harsh texts, far more than its predecessor or any previous lectionary, in fact. Just wait until you see the horrors we left IN from Amos this summer (though of course we left some out, too– because there’s just not time to read all of every text in worship in a three year cycle!).
Hope this helps.
Peace in Christ,
The Rev. Taylor Burton-Edwards
Secretary, The Consultation on Common Texts
Director of Worship Resources, The United Methodist Church
Thanks, Taylor. That’s really helpful and I’m sure we all appreciate your response. Thanks very much for filling us in. When one looks at the Rev text in the light of the gospel for that day, I can totally see how it could be deemed best to exclude a few verses from Revelation.
That said, the way I was taught homiletics is pretty much totally in opposition to that kind of Bible reading. Who knows, maybe this is something the Consultation on Common Texts is tackling already. But all my professors said jump into the difficult texts. READ them. Preach them. Don’t jump over their difficulties, but embrace them for that is the challenge, the gift of the Bible.
So, given the gospel lesson for the day and the Rev text, all my profs would have said: don’t you dare miss out those parts from Rev. The task for preaching that day is to hold both the gospel and Rev at the same time, for that is the gospel. It’s not that John has the good news but Rev doesn’t; they both are good news.
Or maybe a better way to put it: the homiletical approach I employ is one that basks on the gray areas. If it’s a difficult text, I preach that. If it’s hard to see the good news in it, I preach that too. Sometimes the Lectionary seems to make things too black and white, and that just feels inauthentic.
Thanks so much for your response. I’m going to keep mulling it over. And many blessings on your work with the committee.
Adam,
I do not disagree (nor do I think most of us on CCT would disagree) with your homiletic approach in general.
But I might push back a bit to ask whether what the text itself says, or the whole of a particular text, always represents or should always represent the liturgical and pastoral focus for a particular congregation or a particular liturgical season.
In other words, is preaching ALWAYS about dealing with the difficulties of texts, which in a way might seem to privilege preaching (as explanation of a text) as the pre-eminent act of a given liturgical assembly, or are there also other factors that should be seen to influence what preaching does and how preaching proceeds?
During Eastertide especially, the intensification and more intentional implications of the celebration of the mystery of the resurrection (mystagogy) have, for centuries, been the first principle for the development of lectionaries for this season, just as during Lent the lectionaries have been developed, at least in the early centuries and as a result of the recovery of liturgical scholarship beginning in the late 19th century, in ways designed to support the culminating weeks of the catechumenate. In other words, in both of these instances (and in fact, in all the “non-ordinary” times), the church’s tradition has in fact to be to select texts to support a larger liturgical and missional purpose rather than to focus on the texts themselves, per se.
A gift of the Revised Common Lectionary in particular, and with it a revised calendar for ordinary time, has been to provide other opportunities throughout the liturgical year where the readings are chosen to be semi-continuous, rather than related to each other, the presumption being that congregations may read all of them but actually, in preaching and worship design, focus primarily, and deeply, on one “stream” of these texts at a time. (Indeed, it would be wise not to try to correlate these texts since they are not chosen to be correlated!). It is in those seasons particularly that dealing with the “difficulties” of a given text may be more to the point, rather than in the “axial” seasons which carry with them and through them their own seasonal, missional and ritual point.
Hope this helps!
Peace in Christ,
Taylor Burton-Edwards
I agree. The Lectionary often leaves out anything that could be construed as objectionable or uncomfortable. I sometimes put it back in for Sunday worship. The people don’t need to be protected from scripture.