Wanted: A revised children’s lectionary

I am not against making the word of God available to children. I am concerned with the way the current LMC does this and believe we could do better. The LMC cautions against making substantial differences between the texts the children hear and those in the regular Sunday lectionary (14). That is, however, what the LMC itself does. In attempting to simplify the Gospel for children’s comprehension, the LMC sometimes changes the biblical message. Such distortion of the biblical text leads to a distortion in faith and theology. The following are just a few examples. There are many disconcerting changes like these in the LMC.

On the Solemnity of the Epiphany, the LMC overturns a major biblical tradition. The LMC states that Bethlehem is “very important” among the towns of Judea, while the lectionary states that Bethlehem is “by no means least.” Granted, it is easier to proclaim and hear “very important” than it is to proclaim and hear “by no means least.” However, there is a major difference in these expressions. That difference is fundamental to our understanding of the biblical message. By saying Bethlehem is very important, one is giving a prominence to Bethlehem that the city never had. The message of Micah 5:1, which Matthew is quoting, is that Bethlehem is too small, too insignificant, to even be considered a part of Judah. The point is the irony of role reversal: that the last will be first. This is a central plot in the overall biblical story. Those who are considered the least likely — the outsider, the sinful and insignificant — are often the ones chosen by God to bear his word. In our own day, based on this biblical tradition, we speak of the preferential option for the poor.

Of course it would be absurd to say that by changing the rendering of this one text we are altering the course of biblical faith. However, that the LMC does alter this text demonstrates the extent to which we have not embraced this message proclaimed by the word of God. Furthermore, it does distort the biblical tradition of God’s favor to the poor and lowly. The LMC changes the sense of the text and ignores the inner tradition of the Scriptures.

On the First Sunday of Lent, Year B, we read in the LMC that “God’s kingdom will soon be here.” In fact, the LMC uses this rendering for the reign of God throughout. The lectionary renders this, “the kingdom of God is at hand.” While nothing is done to alter the antiquated terms “kingdom” or “reign,” the LMC alters the time frame of the reign of God. In the LMC the time frame is in the future. The lectionary translation “at hand” maintains the tension of God’s reign as both present and future. This is in line with the widely accepted understanding that the kingdom of God is a reality “already, but not yet.” The kingdom is not a completely future event but one that breaks through into the here and now. Our weekly gathering is just such an experience and anticipation of God’s reign. To speak of something being “at hand” is a common expression easily understood by a child. So why this change that denies the present reality of the kingdom for one that is totally future?

Continuing into Lent we see more instances of simplification altering meaning. In the dialogue with the woman of Samaria (Third Sunday of Lent, Year A), there are several problems. I will focus on one. The LMC reads that the water Jesus gives “is like a flowing fountain.” In the lectionary, this is rendered in the definitive “will become in him a spring of water.” Why does the LMC make this into a metaphor? Baptism does not lead one to “something like” eternal life. Baptism leads one to eternal life. The addition of “like” weakens the imagery of flowing water.

Another Lenten concern is that the LMC never uses the term “fasting.” It prefers “not eating.” While this captures what fasting is literally, it fails to convey the difference between missing a meal and the practice of fasting. One may not eat for any variety of reasons: illness, dieting, busyness, nervousness, anorexia and so forth. Fasting has spiritual significance and a faith dimension. By omitting “fasting” children will not encounter the term, or the idea of fasting, nor will they see its place in the biblical world. The LMC rendering undermines a major practice for the Lenten season.

The story of the rich man and Lazarus (26th Sunday in Ordinary Time, Year C) is another illustration of “substantial differences” with the Sunday lectionary. The LMC tells us that the rich man died and went to “hell.” The lectionary says he went to “the netherworld.” The term “netherworld” is vague but so too was the ancient Jewish understanding of life after death. To say the rich man went to hell is to make a judgment the church has never made about anyone. The hope is always for salvation — even with notorious sinners. The wording in the LMC is “substantially different” and a violation of the principles that the LMC itself has established.

At the conclusion of this same passage, the LMC has Jesus state they won’t listen, “even to someone who comes back from the dead.” The lectionary renders this, “if someone should rise from the dead.” Again, the lectionary is clearer — even for children. By speaking of someone coming back from the dead, a child could imagine ghosts, vampires and other ghouls. However, to “rise from the dead” contains connotations of what Jesus did on Easter. It is clear that Jesus is not talking about ghosts or zombies. Rather, his words refer to resurrection and the insistence that the resurrection of Jesus is the only sign a believer should ever need.
  This leads to another troublesome trend of the LMC. Often, it alters the traditional language of faith. I have already touched on the expressions to “rise from the dead” and “fasting.” Other examples would include “synagogues” which become “Jewish meeting places,” the Hail Mary and Lord’s Prayer. These revisions do not help children to understand the faith. Children need to hear the language of faith as it is commonly expressed. Even though they may not fully comprehend, they will grow into these familiar expressions. In reworking these words and phrases, we run the risk of keeping children locked into a childish faith rather than inviting them toward an adult faith.

In addition to numerous translation problems such as these, the LMC has other limitations. The LMC is primarily a Sunday lectionary designed perhaps for children’s Liturgy of the Word. For parishes doing this correctly, the LMC might work fine (minus the above-mentioned problems.) Most children’s liturgies, however, take place on weekdays either at an after school program or school Mass. For these, a Sunday-based children’s lectionary is not much help. The LMC does have a special section of weekday readings designed for the seasons of the year. The selection, however, is very limited and the rendering of texts rarely conveys the poetic beauty of the lectionary. Even worse, each selection has a heading naming its “theme.” Instead of proclaiming death and resurrection as the theme of every Eucharist, this design takes us back to the “theme liturgies” of the ‘70s.

The LMC also suffers from the assumption that children have a short attention span so selections are usually brief. There is a basis in fact here. However, children love to listen to stories, even lengthy ones, provided we proclaim them well. This, I believe, holds the key to designing a much-improved LMC. I do not propose scrapping the LMC. I suggest that it be revised in a way that would be more helpful in passing on the story of faith to our young people. Besides correcting translation errors, I envision an LMC in which we take the first reading from the stories of the Old Testament. The stories, proclaimed well, hold attention. More importantly, our children will become familiar with personages such as Abraham, Sarah, Jacob, Rebecca, Rachel, Joseph, David and so forth. Our young people do not seem to be familiar with these stories. Without a sense of these persons and their stories, it is difficult to appreciate the overall story.

The stories do not need to be arranged in chronological order. I would prefer an order that flows from the liturgical year. For example, Adam and Eve, David and Isaiah work well for the Advent–Christmas seasons, while Joseph, Moses, Jeremiah and Daniel lend themselves toward Lent. The Easter season might include stories of the early church from Acts, as well as the call narratives from both testaments.

An emphasis on the Old Testament stories allows limited space for the epistles. However, these are often over the heads of most youngsters. Homilists rarely use the epistles as a basis for preaching to children. Even so, we could retain some passages from the epistles, such as Paul’s conversion. However, the emphasis should remain on stories over other types of literary forms.

By designing a new LMC, one based on story, homilists and catechists would have a powerful instrument to evangelize, celebrate and inspire. Our young people would become familiar with biblical characters. They will see parts of themselves in some biblical figures. A familiarity with these stories will give children a sense of connection to their ancestors in faith. Through it all our young people see their own story as a continuation of these stories. Our children will grasp, even if intuitively, that they root their faith in a community of persons, and ultimately, in the person of Christ.