I share this comment from Dave Clancey (to a post below about the lectionary) in the hope that further light may be shed on the mysteries of the RCL's choices:
"I share your beef about the 'continuous' nature of the RCL. And while I can appreciate Bosco's point about texts coming up in other places in the year, that argument appears to assume that texts can be picked up and moved around in the canon - that what is important is the simple fact that they are read - and where they are read is of less importance. But the Bible hasn’t been constructed like that – as so many have been so keen to point out, God has not given us a set of divine propositions – rather he has given us carefully crafted literature.
For example, I’m sure you, like me, are currently preaching through Mark’s gospel. Yet the RCL omitted the healing of the Gerasene demoniac, and thus omitted a clear piece of the evidence which Mark offers as to the authority held by Christ – over nature (4:35-41), disease (5:25-34), and even death (5:21-24; 35-43).
Similarly, the Markan sandwich of the sending out of 12 (6:7-13; 30) which is arranged around the account of Herod and John the Baptist was set out in the RCL over three weeks!
I note too that later in the year that account of the ‘partial’ healing in Mark 8:22-26 is omitted. I’m not sure how we’re to preach on Peter’s confession of Christ 8:29 and Jesus’ subsequent rebuke in the following verses without first dealing with Christ’s miracle in 8:22-26. So I share your beef – now all we need is to figure out what to do about it!"
Do We Really Believe What We Say We Believe?
20 hours ago