Curious Editing of Genesis

Yesterday, the Revised Common Lectionary expurgated several verses from the first reading.  In one sense, this is not unusual, as the Psalms are editorialized quite often in the RCL by leaving out verses.  However, over the next several months the only edit, meaning left out verses, that occurs in the RCL is on the Seventh Sunday of Easter.  All right, there is editing on the Great Vigil, but I think that is of a different order (think shortening for times’ sake).

Here is yesterday's reading from Genesis from the lectionary (17:1-7, 15-16):               

When Abram was ninety-nine years old the LORD appeared to Abram and said to him, “I am God Almighty; walk before me, and be blameless, that I may make my covenant between me and you, and may multiply you greatly.” Then Abram fell on his face. And God said to him, “Behold, my covenant is with you, and you shall be the father of a multitude of nations. No longer shall your name be called Abram, but your name shall be Abraham, for I have made you the father of a multitude of nations. I will make you exceedingly fruitful, and I will make you into nations, and kings shall come from you. And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your offspring after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your offspring after you. And God said to Abraham, “As for Sarai your wife, you shall not call her name Sarai, but Sarah shall be her name. I will bless her, and moreover, I will give you a son by her. I will bless her, and she shall become nations; kings of peoples shall come from her.”

Here are the missing verses (8-14):               

And I will give to you and to your offspring after you the land of your sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession, and I will be their God.” And God said to Abraham, “As for you, you shall keep my covenant, you and your offspring after you throughout their generations. This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and your offspring after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised. You shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you. He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised. Every male throughout your generations, whether born in your house or bought with your money from any foreigner who is not of your offspring, both he who is born in your house and he who is bought with your money, shall surely be circumcised. So shall my covenant be in your flesh an everlasting covenant. Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant.”

On the whole, I am not a big fan of expurgating verses from the middle of a suggested text, and I am well aware of the argument that the lesson could be expanded ad infinitum. Yet that slippery slope would mean, in this case, reading the whole Abraham cycle.  So why was this editing done?

Before I tackle this question there a few thoughts on lectionaries I want to put on the table.

1.       A lectionary is systematic way of presenting readings for the liturgy that are, mostly, cohesive.

2.       A lectionary is never value neutral; it always has a theological point.

3.       The theological agenda of the lections supersede the textual division.

4.       Agendas are not always negative, but must be analyzed.

5.       Psalms in the lectionary have traditionally been edited for singing, not for agenda driven purposes.

6.       A surface study of the RCL indicates that edits occur mainly on verses concerning judgment and violence.  This also influences the editing of the Psalms.

7.       Liturgy is catechetical.

8.       Most of what the average Episcopalian knows of the Scriptures and their content is appropriated through the Sunday Liturgy.

So why this edit? I have several ideas. 

First this is an uncomfortable passage, and would make preaching on this text difficult.  Look at what is stated. We have the gift of land, which means that the current population will be dispossessed, and that gift will be held in perpetuity.  We have the “cutting” of the covenant in the flesh of the male members of the household.  Circumcision is never a pretty topic for a sermon, although for jokes it has ample use.  The topic of slavery is also found in this text. 

In short, for those who would pay attention, there are all sorts of issues in which we could be caught up, and these might make it difficult to listen to anything else in the liturgy.  I can respect this, and if this is the reason the verses were expurgated, I can understand.  However, since most of our people do not attend Bible study, or even read the bible at home, are we not doing them a disservice by trying to keep them safe from “hard” passages?  Do we not also dismiss their intelligence and ability to discern, or frankly adopt a patronizing attitude towards them, if the lectionary editors, “our betters”, make a decision of what we can handle, and what we cannot?  Are we that elitist? Would it not be better for folk to wrestle with the reading instead of trying to show that all is sweetness and light?  I believe that discerning people can read the bulletin and realize when the reference is listed that verses are missing.  That does communicate something, does it not?

Overall, I hope the reason for the edit is the above, as the second is not very attractive.  It is possible, that the edit was made because the lectionary elites have determined that the passage is of no current use to the church.  We do not circumcise, we are not concerned with the land, and we do not keep slaves (thankfully), so we leave out the verses as being remnants of the past.  Abraham’s covenant continues through the Church, yet these particular verses no longer have theological merit and weight.  If this is the reason, it is a dangerous slippery slope that leads to expurgating any verses a committee may determine past which we have evolved.  Both theological progressives and traditionalists should be concerned about that possibility.  Again, why should we not wrestle with these?

If none of the above is operational, I posit a third reason for the edit, that it is too prescriptive.  Yes, this is related to the first two, but I think it is more subtle and spiritually damaging.  It is also related to point six above.  I know that we have established in Christianity that circumcision is not the sign of the covenant among us Gentiles, yet in these verses; there is a direct behavioral response that is required of the individual to partake fully in the covenant community.  In other words, God requires something from us, and if we do not obey, we are cut off from the covenant community.  This is both acceptance and judgment.  While we, by our works, are not made a covenant people, by our lack of obedience we may be put out of the covenant.  As a culture, we do not like judgment.  That is true at least for ourselves, but we love to see it executed on others.  Could it be that the editors of the lectionary have fallen into the trap of what Bonheoffer called cheap grace, and therefore, these verses, which hold no such thing, are expunged from the reading?  I really hope one of the other possibilities is the reason for the edit.

What are your thoughts?

As I let this sit before posting, I found that The Underground Pewster has posted his thoughts on the edit from a layman’s perspective.  If you wish, hie thee hence, and see what you make of it.