I’ve been toying with the idea of providing printed copies of the readings where copyright allows. This would allow the visual learners to follow along, and it would put the text(s) of the sermon in their hands. In a Unitarian Universalist church, people are very unlikely to bring their Bibles along (if they even own a Bible!), so why not give them the Bible text that you’re preaching from? Or if you’re preaching from the Bhagavad Gita, or the Analects (as I have been known to do), again, why not give them the text? Although this idea really came to me because I often use a reading from Hosea Ballou as commentary on the primary text for the sermon, and I would love to get Ballou’s words into the hands of the congregation. In short, knowledge is power, giving texts to the people gives them power.

On another topic, I’ve been thinking about the role of the readings given what I’ve been elarning from the Emergent Church people. SCott, you write: “Perhaps an interpretive introduction putting the lesson in the context of readings in earlier weeks and a notice of uncommon names or words.” — and more and more I’m thinking that is a key point. We can’t count on any level of “bible literacy” or even “religious literacy” in congregations any more, particularly among younger folks. We need to explain everything — concisely, and with gentle respect for those who don’t know religion at all. (I’m also coming to think that the explanations have to continue into the sermon, so that at least half the sermon becomes simple explanation of the text, maybe from multiple viewpoints.) Along these lines, some emergent churches are even explaining the hymns — you can’t assume that anyone in the congregation can understand the hymns — and this makes good sense to me as well.

((For someone like me who’s very low church and serving in North America, the New Revised Standard Version works really well for readings — the translators designed it for reading aloud, and while far less poetic than REV it’s much closer to idomatic North American English. I can understand how it might sound awkward to someone from a higher church background, but to me it just sounds like plain English.))