The Week of the beginning of Lent, 2010, Part One

MORE THOUGHTS ON PREPARING FOR LENT

This Wednesday is the First Day of Lent, commonly called Ash Wednesday. Some notes on this day, including Aelfric’s homily on Ash Wednesday, were posted on this site last year on 23 February. Some other comments on Shrovetide were included in the posting on 19 February.
The name dies cinerum, Day of Ashes, probably dates from around the mid-eighth century. At first the ashes were imposed on the public penitents, but later the custom of distributing the Ashes to all the faithful arose from a general desire to imitate this practice. It is mentioned as being for general observance by both clerics and laity in 1091 (Synod of Beneventum) but nearly a hundred years before Aelfric (in the sermon included in last year’s notes) assumed that everyone took part in the rite.
With the beginning of Lent upon us, there is little time for looking at the disciplines of the season. Since there are plenty of resources available for prayer, bible-study, daily devotions, and the like available, we don’t need to add anything here, except perhaps to suggest that personal Lenten study could well begin with the Sermon on the Mount (chapters 5-7 of St Matthew). Advice on your personal Lenten reading should only come from someone who knows you. This more or less leaves Self-denial, or abstinence and almsgiving, or Giving Up and Giving Away.

Self-denial

“Every person who has read his prayer book with any degree of attention, knows that this season of Lent is appointed by the Church for the especial exercise of repentance; that she intends us to refrain for a while even from the innocent pleasures of the world, that our time and thoughts may be the freer to consider our past lives, to bewail and confess our sins, and so prepare ourselves, with thankful hearts, to acknowledge the infinite mercies of God in Christ Jesus on the great days of his Death and Resurrection.” ~ John Keble, Sermon for Ash Wednesday of Not Receiving the Grace of God in Vain.
So what should I give up for Lent? Keble leads us to the answer: it should be one of “innocent pleasures of the world.” As a wise colleague said to me the other day, “You give up for Lent something that you can quite rightly take up again at Easter”. It should be something good and lawful that you can do without, though perhaps not easily. The fact that the thing given up is not sinful or wrong is precisely why giving it up is a discipline. For while that word has many shades of meaning, its root is ‘to learn’, for it is what a disciple does. By choosing to give up for a time something perfectly innocent, a person learns to be stronger in self-control, more able to reject temptation when it comes, less dependent on pleasure. And since the thing given up is not itself wrong, failure in the discipline is not catastrophic. It merely shows where one needs to pray more and seek strength. Beyond that I have no suggestions to make as to what any person should give up, except to say that traditionally ‘giving something up’ is in addition to abstinence from meat in Lent.. There are some helpful ideas in two articles which may be found on line at Project Canterbury. They are:
“Some thoughts about Lent for Busy People” By E.F. Pemberton (London: Mowbray, no date):
http://anglicanhistory.org/lent/busy.html

“The Lenten Fast” by the Rev. Charles T. Stout (Milwaukee: Morehouse, no date)
http://anglicanhistory.org/lent/stout.html.

Almsgiving

Almsgiving is a Christian duty all year round: it is clear from the Gospels that there are no exceptions to the Lord’s commandments (see, for example, Mt 5.42; Lk 6.29-30). Nor does the ‘all’ in the baptismal promise to ‘seek and serve Christ in all persons, loving your neighbour as yourself’ leave much room for manoeuvre. Lent is a time to be more serious and more intentional in following the commandments of Christ. It is perhaps an odd thing that the fact that in a modern city where opportunity is never lacking to obey the commandment “Give to him who begs from you” it is often so hard to obey. But at least once a year let’s remember that our Lord doesn’t say we should ask if the beggar deserves it, or wonder what horrid thing our alms might get spent on, or discuss the state’s duty to alleviate poverty. Still, what any individual does about all this is between you and God, and we are not to judge one another (but see Mt 25:31-46).

Of course when we talk of all these things, we need to bear in mind that Lent is for Christians who want to practice their religion. It is not a set of tricks we think will make God love us (he already does), or forgive us (he already does), or will get us extra brownie points (merit). It is a way by which we make ourselves keep our hearts and minds set on what God has done for us in Christ as we prepare to celebrate the Christian Passover.
Above all, Lent is not an end in itself; it is about preparing to celebrate Easter. All the restraint and self-denial is a holding back so that we can let loose in the greatest feast of the Church Year. Some words of the Bishop of Durham are helpful here, and worth quoting at some length:

“…if Lent is a time to give things up, Easter ought to be a time to take things up. Champagne for breakfast again—well, of course, Christian holiness was never meant to be merely negative. Of course you have to weed the garden from time to time; sometimes the ground ivy may need serious digging before you can get it out. That’s Lent for you. But you don’t want simply to turn the garden back into a neat bed of blank earth. Easter is the time to sow new seeds and put out a few cuttings. If Calvary means putting to death things in your life that need killing off if you are to flourish as a Christian and a truly human being, then Easter should mean planting, watering, and training up things in your life … that ought to be blossoming, and in due course bearing fruit. The forty days of the Easter season, until the ascension, ought to be a time to balance out Lent by taking something up, some new task or venture, something wholesome and fruitful and outgoing and self-giving. You may be able to do in only for sic weeks, just as you may be able to go without beer or tobacco only for the six weeks of Lent. But if you really make a start on it, it might give you a sniff of new possibilities. new hopes, new ventures you never dreamed of. It might bring something of Easter into your innermost life. It might help you wake up in a whole new way. And that’s what Easter is all about.”
- N. T. Wright, Surprised by Hope: Rethinking Heaven, the Resurrection, and the Mission of the Church (New York: Harper One, 2008), p. 257.

Lectionary Notes and More

The Week of Sexagesima,
or,
the Fifth Sunday after Epiphany
7 February, 2010

The word Sexagesima means Sixtieth (in reference to the days before Easter), and has nothing to do with you-know-what.

More on Preparing for Lent

More seriously, it is only ten days till Ash Wednesday, and high time to be planning how to keep a holy Lent. Last week we noted the seven things to take into account for Lent from the Ash Wednesday Exhortation. Since the forty weekdays of Lent are set apart by the Prayer Book as days of Abstinence, and Ash Wednesday and Good Friday as Major Fast Days, it would be helpful to consider fasting, abstinence, and self-denial, a category which involves every sort of “giving-something-up-for-Lent”.
Here is the first problem of Lent. While our church tells us that there are days of abstinence and days of fasting, it gives us no official definition of these terms, but seems to assume we know what they mean. Traditionally, to fast is to take no food for a certain time, while to abstain is to do without a particular kind of food, usually meat. but perhaps a snapshot from an older moment in Anglican history can shed some light here.
At the Savoy Conference on the Prayer Book in 1661 the Presbyterian Divines objected that “Christ’s fasting forty days and nights” was “no more imitable, nor intended for the imitation of a Christian, than any other of his miraculous works were, or than Moses his forty Days fast was for the Jews.” To this the Bishops replied,
“The fasting forty days may be in imitation of our Saviour, for all that is here said to the contrary; for though we cannot arrive to his perfection, abstaining wholly from meat [i.e., food] so long, yet we may fast forty days together, either Cornelius his fast, till three of the Clock afternoon, or St Peter’s fast till noon, or at least Daniel’s fast, abstaining from Meats and Drinks of delight, and thus far imitate our Lord.”
So the old rule in the Roman Church was that “fasting essentially consists in eating but one full meal in twenty-four hours and that about midday.” It also involves abstinence from meat in the same period. “The quantity of food allowed at this meal has never been made the subject of positive legislation.” The rule was later relaxed to allow “a collation, usually taken in the evening.” It will be easily seen that to go into details of such rules would be to little purpose here. It is quite reasonable to suggest that on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday one abstain from eating until one has taken part the solemn rites of the day, but to stick to one meal.
More important is to consider the purpose of fasting. Bishop Jeremy Taylor wrote in The Rules and Exercises of Holy Living, that fasting is “advised in order to three ministries: (i.) To prayer; (2.) To mortification of bodily lusts ; (3. ) To repentance.
Of these we might need to clarify the second a little. The meaning of “lusts” has come to be narrowed in recent times, so that it means not just any desires or appetites, but only the “sinful lusts”. The mortification of lusts really means bringing our appetites under control, so that they do not control us. Experience shows that “mortification” is not too strong a word for this. By fasting we learn to do without things which are good but not necessary, which we like but don’t really need.
Young children (traditionally under seven) and persons over 60 are not bound to fast in the Roman Church, but “Pastors of souls and parents are to ensure that even those who by reason of their age are not bound by the law of fasting and abstinence, are taught the true meaning of penance.” It is perhaps needless to point out that one following a diet for medical reasons should not change it in Lent. Likewise, a person who is supposed to take medication with food may have to take a little something in the morning before Church on the two fast days.
As to abstinence, the only serious question is what a Vegetarian should do. I can give no advice here, because I do not know if there is anything in the diet of such a one that can be considered the equivalent of meat. If anyone has wiser advice, I would be grateful to hear it.
The lack of a hard and fast rule about fasting should not be taken as an excuse to do nothing at all. But this is all too often the way with Anglicans!
Next: Giving things up and Giving things away: Abstinence and Alms.

Lectionary Notes for Epiphany V
The Propers

The BAS Collect is A Prayer for Pardon in the Order of Service for Young People in the Canadian Prayer Book; I have not had a chance to serarch for its origins. It is often used at funerals, orders for evening worship and other occasions. It well fits the first Reading and the Gospel.

Just a reminder: there is a link to the RCL Comments at the head of the list on the left-hand side of this blog.

The first Reading : Isaiah 6.1-8 (9-13)

Chapters 6.1 to 9.6 of the Book of Isaiah are sometimes referred to as “Isaiah’s Memoirs”. The main section, 7.1-8.18 consists of materials concerning the crisis of 735-732 BC (when Syria and Israel tried to force Judah to join them against Assyria) arranged apparently to report Isaiah’s words and actions during this period. These are introduced by the prophet’s vocation narrative (6.1-13) and followed by 8.23-9.6. These materials may have been put together by Isaiah himself (note the use of the 1st person in caps 6 and 8 ).
In verses 1-13 Isaiah tells of his call to the prophetic office, to the end of justifying his teachings to his contemporaries, even though it may be unwelcome to their ears.
There is little we need to add to the notes in the RCL site except to point out an older comment which is not often found in modern notes.
Older commentaries (for example Matthew Henry’s, Adam Clarke’s and John Wesley’s Notes) remind us that this vision is explained in John 12.36b-41 as being a vision of the glory of Christ. Commenting on Isaiah 6.9-10, the Evangelist notes: “Isaiah said this because he saw his glory and spoke of him.” (Compare to this John 8.56) William Temple comments on the Gospel:
“God does not cause sin, but He does cause its appropriate consequence to result from it by the law of the order of creation. The prophet had apprehended this though a vision of the glory of Christ—who is thus identified with Jehovah; and this is correct, for Jehovah is God revealed; and God revealed is the Logo, Word, self-utterance of God; and the Logos is Jesus Christ.”
This point opens up many questions about the nature pf prophecy which we cannot deal with here.
The place of this reading among today’s lections is found in Isaiah’s response to the vision of the all-holy God: “And I said: ‘Woe is me! For I am lost; for I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; for my eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts!’" The sense of uncleaness and unholiness that grips one in the face of holiness is found in the Gospel as well, where Peter, when he saw the miraculous draught of fish, “fell down at Jesus' knees, saying, "Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord."” This is not just true of mortals:

At his feet the six-winged seraph,
cherubim with sleepless eye
veil their faces to the presence,
as with ceaseless voice they cry,
“Alleluia, alleluia, alleluia,
alleluia, Lord most high!”

These examples suggest that we might want to consider whether we are not often too familiar and casual in the presence of holiness and in our approach to God. we would do well to take some time to ponder God as all-holy, sinless, apart from earthly things, and the paradox that such a one would come down for our sake and take our nature upon him.
A companion to the reading from Isaiah is the antiphon Duo Seraphim from Claudio Monteverdi’s Vespers of the BVM: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7U0Nq2ngbzA

The Psalm.

The words of the psalmist in the second verse of Psalm 138 echo the passage from Isaiah: like Isaiah the psalmist is in the court of the Temple, looking toward the Holy Place. The psalm is a hymn of thanksgiving for the never-failing love of God.

The Epistle: 1 Corinthians 15.1-11

This Sunday we conclude our series of readings from 1 Corinthians with the opening of St Paul’s great chapter on the resurrection. Up to this point he has been answering questions posed by the Corinthian church, but now he raises a matter which he knew was of concern, although they may not have asked him about it. It appears that there was a group in the community who, for one reason or another, denied the promise of the resurrection of the body. He begins his reply with an appeal to the fact of the resurrection of Jesus. Note that verses 3-8 appear to be a very early statement of faith, or creed. The NJBC notes that while there is nothing to prove that this statement is a translation from a Semitic language, it almost certainly originated in a Palestinian community. Paul has apparently added v. 6b: “most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep,” with the point of underlining that eye-witnesses are still available for questioning. In verses 9-10 he speaks of his own experience of seeing Christ.
The English of verse 9 “one untimely born,” might be taken to mean merely that Paul was late to see the Risen Lord ; although it can mean this, it more likely ought to be taken quite literally, for it renders ἐκτρώμα, “an abortion.” The NJBC notes that this was “possibly a term of abuse used by Paul’s opponents, who mocked his physical appearance (2 Cor 10.10) and denied his apostleship (1 Cor 9.1-18).” The RCL notes catch this meaning rather well by pointing out that the original has the sense of “an object of horror and disgust.” and glossing it as “monster”.
When we read this passage along with the other’s appointed for this Sunday, Paul’s statement of his own unworthiness as a former persecutor of the church to be an apostle fits with the unworthiness expressed by Isaiah and St Peter. Together they build up a clear statement that there is nothing in us so bad, no guilt so deep that God cannot take it away when he calls us into his service and fellowship.
May I point out that since we all understand the metaphor of death as falling asleep (or can easily figure it out) the NRSV didn’t need to render ἐκοιμήθησαν (dormierunt) in verse 6b by “have died”. But the translators will insist on spoon-feeding us.

The Holy Gospel: St Luke 5.1-11.

The other readings for today suggest that this passage was chosen because of St Peter’s sense of sinfulness in the face of the holy might of Jesus and the Lord’s assurance of forgiveness implicit in the call to become a fisher of people.
The relationship of this pericope to certain other passages in both the synoptic Gospels and John is a difficult question which we cannot take up here; it is discussed at the RCL site.
For the traditional interpretations of this passage, you might want to check the selections from the Church Fathers in the Catena Aurea, for which an address was given in last week’s notes. Once again we are out of time.