I come from a church tradition where the ecclesiastical calendar is not much valued. That may be putting it too weakly. I grew up in churches with such a strong adherence to the regulative principle that we did not observe any annual celebrations. A point was made of singing carols in July. But that is all by the by. Even my relatively relaxed current church, which does observe Easter and Christmas and makes occasional nods in the direction of Pentecost and the like, does not make much of the liturgical year.
So I decided to experiment. Since November, I've been imposing on myself the discipline of saying Morning Prayer, as set out in Common Worship, and I've been deliberately and very carefully observing the different seasons and (for the most part) festivals. I can't bring myself to celebrate particular persons, but I have been following the lectionary and trying to get into the 'feel' of the different passing seasons. Advent was a tremendous blessing, Christmas was enriched, and Epiphany (despite it's recent origin as a liturgical season) was a big help. I've enjoyed the experiment thus far.
But...
It is very nearly Lent. I don't get Lent. I can see that in principle it may be useful to have a particular time when we remember our sins, and show our repentance. Lent, however, seems to involve remembering this whilst forgetting the gospel. Why can't I say Hallelujah until Good Friday? Has the gospel been suspended until then? At the very least I seem to have to assume, for the best part of six weeks, that the good news doesn't apply to me, at least not in its fulness.
Is there a way of doing Lent which is not anti-gospel? Or shall I just stay in 'Ordinary Time' until Holy Week?
Hi Dan,
ReplyDeleteI know that lots of my non conformist friends really loathe Lent, and I think I'm pretty non conformist myself... but somehow I have more of a fondness for Lent than they do.
I don't understand why remembering our sins and repenting has to necessitate forgetting the gospel... surely those two things are part of enjoying the gospel more and more. I kind of feel like Lent is a handy season for 'the weaker brother'... I know for myself that doing things I know will help my joy- like reading the Bible daily, choosing joy in Jesus rather than in things I buy or eat- seem really intimidating when it's just FOREVER. Lent helps me break down 'joy seeking' in to a more manageable chunk.
Now I have been thinking that perhaps somewhere lurking behind this attitude is a crazy legalist wanting to justify myself... but somehow, the idea of 6 weeks, a fixed period of time to help me 'get in to the habit' of joy seeking is more palatable than a life time of doing it. I imagine that after 6 weeks of committment to it, I will have gotten in to the habit! Is it a wrong, legalistic attitude that makes me want a period of time I think I can 'do'? Maybe so, but I know reading the Bible will do me good,and will help me grasp GRACE, and I kind of see Lent as a framework that will help me put my trust in that. That's why I see it as a useful tool for 'the weaker brother/sister.'
I'd be interested to hear your thoughts. I know I probably sound like a raving legalist to non conformist ears!
Hi Phil,
DeleteNo, doesn't sound particularly legalistic - sounds almost attractive enough to make me relent. Ha ha ha. In all seriousness, I suspect that most of my problem with Lent comes from the presentation - so, for example, in Common Worship one is forbidden from saying Alleluia during Lent, and the whole aim seems to be to create a mournful rather than joyful attitude (see discussion below).
Maybe I will just hijack Lent and make it a bit more gospelly.
Ever since hearing Peter Dray speak in London, I felt that should search out and learn what my shape my 'spirituality' is. So far, I think my spirituality, for want of a better word, is liturgically-spontaneous. I've been enjoying the Book of Common Prayer along with E.H. Bickersteth's hymnal companion of it. And this has been for the last few months despite, at present, being a FIEC chappy (or more sexily: a Cromwellian independent).
ReplyDeleteAs for Lent, I'm leaving the book of Face for it and attempting to quit smoking too. I will be saying Halle Lu Yah though!
David,
DeleteSounds like wise resolutions, Lent or not Lent, and perhaps if the season provides a space and a little nudge into doing things like that it is useful. Press on with the Hallelujahs - I can't imagine how the resolutions could be achieved without them!
You can have a 40-day (6 weeks 4 days minus 6 Sundays) fast to feast on Christ instead of Facebook, etc but I don't think Lent liturgically is that - it's about fasting and avoiding Christ-in-his-fullness so that, in 6-weeks time, you can then feast on Christ. Church calender-wise, it's the wrong side of Easter to where it should be (Passover comes before the Feast of Unleavened Bread for Israel and Jesus' baptism comes before his temptation) and historically it has about making yourself good enough, clean enough, for Easter - commemorating Jesus' time in the wilderness, being tempted on your behalf, by copying him and missing the whole point of it. It's Pelagian anti-gospel.
ReplyDeleteI can't believe that Cramner continued/came up with nonsense like being unable to say "Hallelujah". The Anglican church I grew up in also had it that you said, rather than singing like usual, responses in the Eucharistic Prayer during Lent: a similar anti-showing-joy-in-the-gospel move.
Holy Week is still part of Lent, and is still about making yourself good enough for the Cross. Then again, it's good to go through that week to reflect on Jesus' death, even if there's rather a lot of making yourself clean (at least we don't don KKK outfits for the week like those in Spain, etc) so come out of ordinary time then.
Hi Si,
DeleteThanks for your comment. See my reply to Liam's comment below - I think this is indeed the problem with Lent, perhaps not offically, but in practice.
But seriously, who hasn't sometimes wanted to dress up as a cone head and parade through the streets..?
"[I]t's the wrong side of Easter to where it should be (Passover comes before the Feast of Unleavened Bread for Israel and Jesus' baptism comes before his temptation) and historically it has about making yourself good enough, clean enough, for Easter - commemorating Jesus' time in the wilderness, being tempted on your behalf, by copying him and missing the whole point of it."
ReplyDeleteWhile I have mixed feelings about Lent, this is completely untrue. The origins of Lent are not in a churchy attempt to imitate the temptations of Christ in the desert, but in the preparations catechumens made for their baptism at the Easter Vigil: gradually, the Church felt it right to join those preparing to receive the sacraments in their prayer and fasting. To describe that as "Pelagian anti-gospel" is quite offensive.
The Reformer's name was Cranmer, and the word 'Hallelujah' (or 'Alleluia' in its Anglicized form) does not appear in any of his liturgies at any time of the year: indeed, it was rendered 'Praise ye the Lord' in his orders for Morning and Evening Prayer. In some parts of the Western church, the more subdued atmosphere of Lent is reflected liturgically in the avoidance of the word, but it is far from a universal practice in the Church of England, and the 'Alleluias' continue throughout Lent in the East.
The idea that Lent is 'about making yourself good enough for the Cross' is absurd propaganda. I still have not come to a conclusion about the merit or otherwise of having a 'penitential' season in the Kalendar, but Mr Hollett's unkind comments are beginning to convince me that it is probably an excellent idea. More anon.
Liam,
DeleteWhatever the origins of Lent may be, I think Si accurately represents the way it 'comes across' in the liturgical provisions. The rubric in Common Worship simply states baldly that 'Alleluia is not said until...', which seems like a pretty clear instruction. It does not need to be 'officially' the case that Lent is making oneself good enough for Easter for that to be the impression that is given. And indeed, I think it would be possible to argue that the way the catechumenate developed in the early church reflects this precisely: a fear of giving people baptism before they were 'ready' has interesting implications for your understanding of the gospel, don't you think?
Well, yes and no. (How Anglican is that?!) We do think that careful preparation is appropriate before receiving Holy Communion, so it would seem to me that careful preparation should also be appropriate before Baptism. I don't think there was a 'fear' of baptising people before they were 'ready' – although that does seem to be the implication of the Anabaptist requirement for a 'credible profession of faith' - but rather an understanding that sacraments are more spiritually useful if received after a time of prayer and reflexion.
ReplyDeleteI think the note on p. xix of CW: Daily Prayer is referring to a specific liturgical practice which marks Lent out as a time of restraint, rather than a specific 'banning' of the word 'Alleluia'. Accordingly, and in your honour, I have chosen 'Praise, my soul, the King of heaven', which, in its Hymns Ancient and Modern version has 'Alleluias' in each stanza, for the first Sunday of Lent.
I think the fear of baptising people prematurely is a matter of record - lots of death-bed baptism in the fourth century, it seems to me! But you're right, Anabaptist thinking does tend in the same direction, for different reasons. To a certain extent, we are touching here on the complex issue of relating to the objective to the subjective; a very substantial topic which is unlikely to be resolved on this or any blog in the near future!
DeleteAn excellent choice of an excellent hymn, though.
Vintage Blanche and vintage Beadle...I'm sorry I missed this discussion at the time.
ReplyDelete