"Old"

For a while, although I would be hard pressed to tell you how long, when I've been referring to readings from what is considered the "Old Testament" as "A reading from the Older Testament".   It started at some point last year when the RCL focus was on Mark, as the more we worked away through the Gospel, the more connected to the Hebraic texts that lay behind the story I felt.   The more we lived in the Gospel of Mark, the more I found some of the literature from the older part of the Bible come alive.  (One of the beauties of the Revised Common Lectionary is that you do return to texts, and I'm now on my fifth time round on them and still finding things I hadn't noticed before.)

In the process of that happening I wanted to remind the congregation that our faith had it's roots in something ancient, and yet something that still had value for the world today.   I know this is semantics and for most people in the congregation it probably didn't desperately matter whether they were "Scripture Readings" or "Old Testament Readings" or from the Gospels or from the letters.   However underlying my chain of thought was that we tend to disregard what is "old" as being something to be cast aside or worthless - unless of course it is antique.   We even do it with people which is one of the reasons I very rarely refer to "old" people, but prefer "older", reminding myself at the very least that all opinions matter.

I was conscious that some of the American churches used the word "original", but I suspected that wouldn't work so well.   And I thought that people might struggle to make a leap to "Hebrew" Bible.   So I settled with "Older".

There's not been a furore.   In fact I wonder if most people have even noticed.   However last week our new organist asked, and so I explained the above.   Tonight at our worship team meeting one of the congregation representatives raised it saying that one person near her had turned to someone who was about to read and said "if you read "older", then I will get up and walk out of the church."   So we chatted through why, and an article will make its way into the magazine sometime.   But in the meantime we need to get across to readers that they say what they are comfortable with.

Only one negative comment.   But if it is making people uncomfortable do I need to review it - or is this one of those occasions where the discomfort is probably worth the while?   Something to ponder over before we make it to the Management Committee meeting or eventually the Kirk Session meeting.   Of course the naughty thing to do would be to try "Hebrew Scriptures" or "Original Testament" and see what is said then.

But I'm not naughty!