You are currently browsing the monthly archive for February 2010.
Today’s passage from Ecclesiastes contains two verses which you will have read time and time again. Yet, they are not included in the three-year Lectionary. This classifies them as Forbidden Bible Verses.
Today’s reading is taken from the King James Version, in order that you recall the famous verses. The other translations, unfortunately, do not have the same sense of gravitas.
1The words of the Preacher, the son of David, king in Jerusalem.
2Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities; all is vanity.
3What profit hath a man of all his labour which he taketh under the sun?
4One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever.
5The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose.
6The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to his circuits.
7All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again.
8All things are full of labour; man cannot utter it: the eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor the ear filled with hearing.
9The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.
10Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us.
11There is no remembrance of former things; neither shall there be any remembrance of things that are to come with those that shall come after.
—————————————————————–
Ecclesiastes is the work of King Solomon. He wrote it as a powerful, rich king who fell into temptation and subsequent sin. He was able to reconcile himself with the Lord with a repentant and contrite heart. He takes this opportunity to tell his people of the lessons he learned when he fell away from God. These are cautionary verses, as is the rest of Ecclesiastes, intended for teaching and admonition: ‘Don’t fall into the same trap that I did!’
In verse 1, Solomon lays out his credentials. He is now more than a ruler, King of Jerusalem, he has a new role — that of a preacher. He is also the son of David. This was a double-edged sword for Solomon. On the one hand, he has always been proud of being David’s son, and rightly so, but he then disgraced his father and his lineage by sinning seriously against God.
Do you recognise verse 2? Many people believe it is Shakespearean in origin: ‘Vanity of vanities; all is vanity’. Yet, it comes from the Bible. Solomon is telling his people that what we have on earth means very little in the great scheme of things. We are vain and we feed our vanity with vain things, the temporal: outside signs of, well, nothing much, really, when compared to the glory of God. Solomon wants his people to set their minds on God, not the baubles on this earth. Solomon knows what materialism is and how one can become its slave.
He continues in verse 3 by asking how our earthly labours profit us? Certainly, we earn money to feed and clothe ourselves and our families. Yet, we always need more money to pay for our existence. We always need more food and clothing. We work so hard to keep ourselves going on this earth. We are fatigued and exhausted. Solomon alludes to a type of labour that is work yet is devoid of the strain of what we know. God’s work, the work of the angels, who toil in His service joyfully without exhaustion.
But it’s not only that. People die, babies are born — our memories are short when it comes to remembrance (verse 4). We live, we die. We are always being replaced. Yet, the earth is always the same, living and renewing itself. The sun rises and sets on schedule, every day (verse 5). The winds and the flowing rivers are constant (verses 6 and 7). Unlike us, nature doesn’t stop and it regulates itself.
Man is another story, however (verse 8). No matter how much we work, our toil never ends. Everything we hope to have on earth involves labour of some sort. And, even when we acquire goods and possessions, our senses tell us we want more of them. We see things we want or we hear of them. We are never satisfied. Eventually, we start to rely on them and depend on them. (This reminds me of something a CEO I worked for told me many years ago. He said that no matter how much money you make — and he made a fantastic salary with all the ‘perks’ – your style of living increases commensurately. The more you earn, the more you can afford. You get used to it and come to expect it.)
Fallen man doesn’t learn his lessons of history often enough (verses 9, 10). We always think we are ‘inventing’ something or that, somehow, this time ‘will be different’. How many times have we heard of a ‘new’ invention that really existed decades previously. Several years ago, someone had invented a lightbulb that would glow for decades. Well, it turns out that had already been done in the 1930s and had gone on the market. The only problem was that the company decided it was a bad idea. The company would have gone out of business if it sold a long-lasting product. (I’m quite sure that my late grandparents had one of these incandescent bulbs in their basement pantry. It was clear and shaped like a very old bulb. I asked my grandmother when they last changed it. She said she couldn’t remember — they’d had it for decades.) Or take the electronic slimming and facial treatments. The same machines existed in the 1920s. They promised rejuvenation, but the effect was only temporary, much like today’s. When it comes to economic matters, every time there is a slump, pundits say, ‘This time is different’, yet the hallmarks remain the same. This is why it’s so important to study history. Same with political movements and trends. It’s the same old thing, rehashed and rebranded for each new generation. ‘There is nothing new under the sun’.
Solomon tells us in verse 11 that we forget history, events and people so easily. This reminds us not only of our mortality and ignorance but that we really need to set our mind on the everlasting God (1 Peter 1:24-25). We need to live for the world to come, starting today. Solomon is warning his people. The lessons hold true for us, too.
Matthew Henry has more on this passage.
Most of us would say that we keep the first Commandment: thou shalt have no other gods before Me. Nevertheless, others may be a bit unsure.
The Revd Martin Downes at Against Heresies provided a helpful quote from Martin Luther on idolatry. It is resonant even today and worth reading in full. Here are a few excerpts (emphases mine):
That upon which you set your heart and put your trust is properly your god …
If you have a heart that can expect of Him nothing but what is good, especially in want and distress, and that, moreover, renounces and forsakes everything that is not God, then you have the only true God.
If, on the contrary, it cleaves to anything else, of which it expects more good and help than of God, and does not take refuge in Him, but in adversity flees from Him, then you have an idol, another god.
Luther asks us to ‘examine our hearts’ accordingly. Not a bad exercise. Many good people get caught up in placing their confidence in the temporal: position at work or in the community, money, politics, social issues, food, botox, prescription drugs to tranquilise the mind, alcohol. Most of us have fallen prey to one of these over the years. Some of us are probably in thrall to one or two of them right now.
As a Lenten exercise, let’s do an examination of conscience asking ourselves when, where and how often we rely on earthly crutches to the point of idolatry. Can we do without another drink? Can we get through a stressful meeting without reaching for yet another muffin? How often do we use retail therapy as a palliative? Is the energy-saving lightbulb buying us salvation? Do the social justice issues we espouse make us feel more worthy than they should?
Then let us pray for guidance and strength in avoiding these temptations. A little of what we fancy is good – too much, though, and we become captives.
As committed Christians we know that we are supposed to act the part so that people can identify us as such. Colossians 3:12-14 spells that out for us.
But what does St Paul specifically mean when he says, ‘Put on’ at the beginning of verse 12? Imagine, if you will, that you’ve been painting the house all day. You’ve not done anything else. Then, a good friend of yours pops round to say, ’Hey, want to come out to dinner? A few of us want to go to that posh new restaurant that just opened up in town.’ You wipe a moist brow, scrape some paint off your shirt and say, ‘All right, but I’ve nothing posh to wear. I had been thinking about getting a pizza.’ Your friend says, ‘Well, there is a dress code at this place. Don’t worry, though. You can borrow one of my blazers.’ So, you take off your paint duds and put on a fresh shirt and your friend’s blazer. And off you go.
And so it is with living a life in Christ Jesus. When you wish to serve Him, you take St Paul’s exhortation seriously:
12 Put on then, as God’s chosen ones, holy and beloved, compassionate hearts, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience, 13 bearing with one another and, if one has a complaint against another, forgiving each other; as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also must forgive. 14 And above all these put on love, which binds everything together in perfect harmony.
Note that when you went out to dinner you didn’t put your clean clothes and your friend’s jacket over your painting clothes. You took those off and had a shower first. So it is with Christian appearance. We ‘take off’ our old sins and discard them. We ‘put on’ new behaviours, virtues and ways of thinking. Then we go to town.
St Paul speaks earlier in the chapter of the ‘old self’ and the ’new self’ (verses 9 and 10). When the old self is dead to sin, we are to manifest the new self. St Paul tells us to adopt virtues such as compassion, kindness, meekness, humility and patience. He asks up to forgive each other. He asks us to love one another — as Christ loved us. This love envelops all of our good actions.
So, then, you may ask, ‘What about those who believe in justification by faith? Can they just lie back and say, “I’m saved”?’ Recall that when the Holy Spirit is present in our lives, we feel an unutterable urge to do good for ourselves, our families and friends. We get an irresistible energy to manifest God’s love for us in the way we treat others. We want to give, to share, to be a part of His world in all the best ways. So, when that faith is alive, we naturally want to do God’s will. A new Christian will be eager to put good example into practice. It takes time and, if we’re honest, it can take a lifetime. Yet, we Christians like to improve and you can bet we’ll keep working at it.
So, when we emulate what Paul asks us to do, we will be careful in our speech and our actions. It’s like wearing a new or best set of clothes. We’re careful not to ruin their appearance. So it is when we have a deep love of Christ. Obeying Paul’s call in Colossians is empty without faith. A ‘work’ does not bring salvation if it is devoid of faith, which comes through God’s grace. A lively faith is a sign of God’s grace working in us. Through it we will make every effort and take every opportunity to show the world how wonderful God is.
Finally, doing ‘nothing’ is not an option. As Christians, we are called to manifest the Good News wherever we go, whatever we do. The key is realising that doing this requires God’s grace, not our own intellect or emotional state. Whatever good we do comes to us from the gifts of the Holy Spirit.
In Philippians 2:12, St Paul says that we must ‘work out’ our salvation. Let’s look at verses 12 – 15:
12 Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, 13 for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.
14 Do all things without grumbling or questioning, 15 that you may be blameless and innocent, children of God without blemish in the midst of a crooked and twisted generation, among whom you shine as lights in the world
Note that Paul says ’it is God who works in you, both to will and … for his good pleasure’.
But what does he mean by ‘work out your own salvation’? Paul is saying that he cannot work it out for you. You need to pray and ask God what He wishes you to do. This is why dedicated prayer and meditation are so important. A quarter hour of silence at the beginning and end of the day accompanied by thinking about God’s will during the day in terms of what we are doing in our lives.
In ‘God at Work in You – Part 3′, John MacArthur tells us that, unlike the distant pagan and voodoo gods, the one true God is always with us:
Having been justified by the power of God, we are sanctified by the power of God. And He lives in us. And that is why I believe that the process cannot be halted. Sin in our lives somehow some way slows it down but God effects the progressive work through blessing or through chastening … He sustains His sanctifying work by His presence, moving us toward greater spiritual maturity. So His person is power and presence ...
To put it simply, He produces a hatred of sin and a love of righteousness. That’s why if you want to get in touch with whether a person’s really a Christian or not, you can look at those two things. Do they hate their sin and love righteousness? Is there a holy discontent and a longing for something far more pure than what they are experiencing? That’s the work of the indwelling God, the Holy Spirit moving on your will.
He closes his essay with a simple, spontaneous prayer all of us can say in the quiet of our hearts:
Lord, what is it that You are working in me to will and to do? What do You want me to want? What do You want me to desire? What do You want me to long for? What do You want me to do? What work do You want me to work? Show me.
The other Sunday at church the priest briefly discussed Jesus’s authority in the midst of a Jewish population and hierarchy. She asked us to consider what He said and did, mentioning that they must have asked themselves, ‘By whose authority is He doing these things?’
We have, not necessarily in order, the wedding feast at Cana, the walking on water, the casting out of demons, the raising of Lazarus from the dead, the teaching in the Temple. He also did some of these on the Sabbath. So, imagine the casual onlooker of the time saying in conversation, ‘Where does this guy get off doing this? It’s against our religion.’
And I wonder where we would have been in Jesus’s time. Oh, sure, it’s easy for us to say today, ‘Surely we would be in lockstep with Him.’ I wonder. Would our imperfect hearts and minds allowed it? I don’t think so. Wouldn’t we have been observant Jews? Wouldn’t we have followed Mosaic laws to the letter? Wouldn’t we have been obedient to our rabbis and to the Sanhedrin? After all, they would have been our authorities in God’s name, His earthly representatives.
And I wonder where we would have squared up on the day of Jesus’s trial at the hands of Pontius Pilate. Would we have been among those shouting, ‘Free Barabbas’? Would we have considered Jesus to be mad, dangerous and presumptuous? He was a man with a few followers and many authoritative detractors. Just as in any cult movement, His believers were true believers. Nothing would distract them, the mark of people under the psychological influence of someone to be avoided, someone with no ‘authority’, no ‘standing’. Because what Jesus did had no ‘official’ approval, no hierarchical ‘stamp’.
Where would we have stood? I reckon that, if it had been possible for so many of us to have blogged so faithfully in Jesus’s day, we would have been clamouring for His condemnation to death. We would not have wanted our daily way of life further upset because of a man we didn’t ‘know’. (Remember that relations between Romans and Jews were tenuous. Pilate walked a tightrope during his governorship and was criticised for not doing enough to keep public order.) Most of us would have just wanted to ‘get on with our lives’, be able to put bread on the table for our families and sleep comfortably at night.
Many of us would have believed probably only once Jesus was dying on the Cross or risen from the dead or if we had seen Him prior to the Ascension. How many of us would have been like Thomas, asking, ‘May I touch your wounds so that I may believe?’
Just a Lenten thought. What say you?
Those of us who do not have health issues (e.g. sugar levels, blood pressure issues) should consider serious fasting this Lent.
It’s encouraging that the Revd Paul McCain of Cyberbrethren is promoting this spiritual discipline amongst his largely Lutheran (LCMS) readership. Would that more Catholic and Anglican clergy did.
As he says, it’s not a matter of if but when. Let’s have a look at a few excerpts (emphases mine):
Jesus commended fasting as a private act of humility and devotion to God (see Matthew 6:16-18). Note particularly that he says, “When you fast…” not “If you fast…” Take a look at Matthew 9:14-15. The first Christians fasted (Acts 13:2-3; 14:23). Why shouldn’t a twenty-first century Christian do likewise? Why?
He clarifies the confusion around the modern attitude towards fasts:
We do not fast to earn brownie points with God, but that fact has become our excuse for not fasting, for not attending to self-discipline and self-mortification. We excuse our laziness and gluttony by appealing to our freedom in Christ as forgiven children. We let ourselves off the hook all the while comforting ourselves that we are free not to get caught up in “legalistic” requirements such as fasting. We look at the required fasts in Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy and rightly criticize the imposition of such rules as contrary to the Gospel freedom we have, but then we again use this an excuse not to fast. We’ll show those legalists, as we continue stuffing our faces and filling our bellies with the food that perishes.
And fasting is not ‘new’ to Lutheranism:
The German name for Lent used historically in Luthernaism is Fastenzeit, “Fast time.” The spiritual discipline of fasting was always part of historic Lutheranism, but as in so many other areas of our church life, the desire to “fit in” with the rest of American Protestantism, led this practice to fall into disuse among us. Luther assumes that fasting will be part of Lutherans’ practice when they prepare to receive the Supper, for in the Catechism he writes, “Fasting is indeed fine outward bodily preparation…” What he goes on to say about the proper preparation being faith and trust in Christ was never intended to be an excuse not to fast. In The Lutheran Study Bible there is a great article on fasting and I thought you might find it useful as you consider how you will be observing Lent.
Pastor McCain also explains the Biblical history and various reasons behind fasting in both the Old and New Testaments. Insightful and well worth reading, such as this bit as to why Jesus fasted:
After Jesus’ Baptism, He went into the wilderness and fasted for 40 days and 40 nights (Mt 4:2). This recalled the devotion of Moses (Ex 24:18), the great prophet Elijah (1Ki 19:8), and the 40 years of wilderness wandering for Israel. During this fast, Satan repeatedly tempted Jesus, but He used God’s precious Word to defend Himself.
During the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus spoke against fasting as a means of salvation. Instead, He commended fasting as a private, voluntary act of humility before God (Mt 6:16–18). Take a few moments now to read His words and reflect on your own devotion. If you are like most people, you have thought more about dieting than fasting. It is hard to imagine a daylong fast. No doubt fasting for 40 days like Jesus did after His Baptism is out of the question. Yet our Lord’s words clearly reveal that fasting should be part of a Christian’s life …
Finally, Pastor McCain offers suggestions for a reverent and successful fast:
As you fast, let the feelings of hunger you experience remind you to pray. Spend the time you would normally spend eating by reading God’s Word and meditating on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Through His Word, the Lord will bless and nourish you. “Then shall your light break forth like the dawn, and your healing shall spring up speedily; your righteousness shall go before you; the glory of the LORD shall be your rear guard. Then you shall call, and the LORD will answer; you shall cry, and He will say, ‘Here I am’ ” (Is 58:8–9)…
Fasting during Lent can be a wonderful way to remember the perfect obedience of Christ and His sacrifice for your salvation. Money not spent on food may be donated for the poor. You might follow this routine for a daylong fast: (1) rise before dawn and eat breakfast; (2) examine yourself as you would prior to partaking of the Lord’s Supper; (3) offer your life to God in penitent prayer; (4) go about your day, breaking your fast at evening.
We should not fast because we wish to diet and look trim by Easter. We are to do it in meditation on and remembrance of what the Lord and His Son Jesus Christ have done for us miserable sinners.
A Fine Mess! wonders about the Catholic rules for fasting, which you can see in her post, but in brief the definition is as follows:
Fasting means one full meal a day with two lighter meals in the course of the day.
Strict fasting for Catholics today applies on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday.
She then asks (emphasis in the original):
I already do not eat breakfast and eat a light lunch with a full meal at supper. I didn’t know I was fasting. I could see this for those who have work that requires heavy physical labor, but not for the ordinary person. This isn’t how the doctor’s office describes fasting either (before tests are done).
… From a priest I learned that this definition of fasting is a leftover definition used pertaining to fasting during the whole 40 days of Lent. Meaning, this was what was required except on Ash Wednesday, Good Friday (maybe other days) that required true fasting.
So, for those who can fast more frequently during Lent — and all credit to A Fine Mess! for exploring this further – so much the better. Again, if you have any doubts, please check with your doctor first or perform another act of penitence. On the other hand, for those of us who actually can fast, does the Lord want to see us overindulge when we can restrain ourselves occasionally? It’s only 40 days, after all!
Like some of you, I can now remember five decades, start to finish. It got me thinking about changing societal attitudes and mores.
This isn’t a particularly religious post, if at all, but decades start and finish in dramatically different places. When you consider the first decade of the new century, you think of the dotcom boom and 9/11 in 2001 then of recession and appeasing our enemies in 2009. The Left made further inroads into our society and laws were passed (with more proposed) which encroach on our personal liberties. The state is ever-intrusive.
That aside, I went back to the 1960s to see what type of films were released. Film is a good barometer of social change. This is what I found:
1960 – the top 10 includes:
- Psycho
- Spartacus
- The Magnificent Seven
- Swiss Family Robinson
- The Time Machine
- House of Usher
Although this was before universal film ratings came into being, only Psycho had what would have been an ‘R’ rating today. Three of the films listed would have had a ‘G’ rating today.
Now, let’s look at the end of the decade.
1969 – the top 10 includes:
- The Wild Bunch
- Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid
- Easy Rider
- Midnight Cowboy
- True Grit
- A Boy Named Charlie Brown
Of the top 10 listed, three had an ‘R’ rating, two were rated ‘G’, one ‘PG’, and the others had no rating. But, look how the themes had changed. We now had anti-heroes in the movies. Directors explored more controversial, sexually-oriented themes. The clear-cut morality had gone, and we had started to slip into relativism.
So, what happened and how did we come to accept these changes? Ed Driscoll thinks that the late New Yorker film critic, Pauline Kael, had a significant part to play. In his article, ‘How Bonnie, Clyde and Pauline Gunned Down Middlebrow Culture’, he explains:
Leftwing historian Rick Perlstein recently told Reason that “Bonnie and Clyde was the most important text of the New Left.” It certainly foreshadowed the radical chic that runs through the liberalism of the late 1960s, from the Black Panthers sipping Martinis in Leonard Bernstein’s salon to recurring parodies such Michelle Obama in camo and combat boots clutching an AK-47 on the cover of this week’s New Yorker.
Speaking of the New Yorker, how much did Pauline Kael’s championing of the movie impact the rest of culture?
Driscoll cites an article from The National Post which addressed the subject, focussing on the 1967 film. It’s funny, but at the time, Bonnie and Clyde just seemed like a gangster movie kids weren’t allowed to see. Yes, it was interesting and engrossing the first couple of times, but after that, it got a bit samey. I didn’t watch it the last time it was on a few years ago. Apparently, I’m not alone.
Most critics found Bonnie and Clyde empty and trashy. The crusty old New York Times guy, Bosley Crowther, then one of the most influential American critics, decided that Bonnie and Clyde failed to meet his narrow, simple-minded, painfully respectable standards. It was too violent, and he thought the love story of its doomed, hare-brained title characters was “sentimental claptrap.”
Kael, whose critical reputation was in its early stages, used Bonnie and Clyde as the opening shot in what turned out to be a war against middlebrow, middle-class, middle-of-the-road taste. Her New Yorker piece began: “How do you make a good movie in this country without being jumped on? Bonnie and Clyde is the most excitingly American American movie since The Manchurian Candidate. The audience is alive to it.”
Mmm-hmm. Well, my mom was pretty open-minded when it came to new genres of film, and she’d lived during the Depression, so she knew Bonnie and Clyde’s story. She thought the film version was okay, but not what the reviews made it out to be. The best part for her was Michael J Pollard’s character, who, unfortunately, doesn’t appear that much in the film. It’s a launchpad for Faye Dunaway, whom my mom didn’t particularly for, and Warren Beatty didn’t thrill her to bits, either. But, the Pauline Kael sentiment made the rounds of all the national newspapers. The critics — from towns and cities — across America largely echoed what she’d said. Those glowing reviews were what drove my mom to the cinema.
Anyway, back to Kael. Having seen the original of The Manchurian Candidate twice and having compared that to Bonnie and Clyde makes me wonder what she was doing at the time she wrote that review. There is no comparison between the two. The Manchurian Candidate wins every time.
See if this doesn’t sound pomo:
She announced no less than a revolution in taste that she sensed in the air. Movie audiences, she said, were going beyond “good taste,” moving into a period of greater freedom and openness. Was it a violent film?
Well, Bonnie and Clyde needed violence. “Violence is its meaning.”
… She liked the raw energy in the work of adventurous directors such as Robert Altman, Francis Ford Coppola, Steven Spielberg, George Lucas and Martin Scorsese. She trusted her visceral reactions to movies.
Yes! The ‘freedom’, the ‘openness’, ‘the violence’. ‘Violence is its meaning’. Give over! I had a teenage cousin who picked up all these stock phrases and bandied them about at family gatherings. Ugh! ‘Oh, well, what would you know? It takes sophistication and knowledge to appreciate film. Film. Not movies. Anyone can watch those.’
But, I digress. Our Ms Kael came a cropper. The new films she lauded became the mainstream. There were no more Doris Day movies or melodramatic romances or proper westerns. Done, finito, kaput. Kael’s mistake was that she (emphases mine):
assumed she was safe to defend the choices of mass audiences because the old standards of taste would always be there. They were, after all, built into the culture. But those standards were swiftly eroding … She and her admirers won the battle but lost the war. Acceptable taste became mass-audience taste, box-office receipts the ultimate measure of a film’s worth, sometimes the only measure. Traditional, well-written movies without violence or special effects were pushed to the margins.
She herself said shortly before her death:
‘When we championed trash culture we had no idea it would become the only culture.’
Yes, Churchmouse, and ..? Try substituting ‘church’ for ‘culture’ and maybe you’ll see where I’m going with this. The odd bit of modernity for ‘the kids’ or ‘just this once’ soon became the only type of church service or Mass our children know. And the authority of our denominations has been declining since the 1960s. We always assumed ‘church’ and the ‘Church’ we knew would be there whenever we wanted, for us and future generations, but is it there today? No. And it may be too late in some cases to turn back the clock. So, let’s try to reclaim what’s ours in orthodoxy and tradition whilst we still have a chance. Complain about substandard services, point out the watery sermon, take a role that allows you to influence change … for the better.
Let’s not end up like Pauline Kael, who found the rug pulled out from under her entirely by accident. She lost her culture. We’re in danger of losing our churches.
Many Catholics and Anglicans – no doubt, along with other Christians — are having second thoughts over the three-year Lectionary in common use among all demoninations.
My personal problem with it is the omission of certain key passages, which is why I started my Sunday series of Forbidden Bible Verses and added a new page to Churchmouse Campanologist called Essential Bible Verses, an abbreviation of same for quick reference. How do you know when you’ve been missing out on Scripture? Just look in your weekly church bulletin for the ellipses (‘…’) between verses in your readings. Check out what’s missing — you’ll be surprised!
New Liturgical Movement recently featured an article called ‘Doubts about the Three-Year Cycle’. The author, Jeffrey Tucker, is a liturgist who finds the Lectionary problematic. Naturally, this cycle started as a post-Vatican II initiative which was instituted in 1969. Many Protestant churches picked up on it, no doubt in a drive for ecumenism. Who knows? The positives are that it certainly allows for a more comprehensive inclusion of Scripture in public worship every three years. It also expands the Psalms and Propers which are said or sung.
Mr Tucker makes the following points, which I’ve paraphrased below followed by my own commentary in places:
- How much of these readings are we as a congregation retaining each year? Even today, there are a lot of ‘new’ readings which people don’t remember too clearly afterward. Therefore, what is their impact? Very little.
- Repetition is important. This follows on from the first point. Many of us grew up with a common set of Gospel stories which we always liked to hear year after year. It didn’t take a lot of brainwork to remember when they would be read. Those lessons were comforting and thought-provoking. As a case in point, I always look forward to my favourite Gospel passage the first Sunday after Easter, featuring ‘Doubting’ St Thomas, who must touch Christ’s wounds in order to believe that the Crucifixion and Resurrection had taken place. ‘Blessed is he who has not yet seen, yet believed.’ So, it’s always disappointing to find that this isn’t necessarily Thomas’s year!
- What about the priest or minister who delivers the sermons? His paperwork and research is threefold!
- From a liturgist’s or choir director’s perspective, extra time is spent each week on rehearsing the music and singing for arrangements which one encounters only once every three years. That means that each year, it’s as if they’re starting from square one.
- The Church calendar is pushed to one side with continuous references to ‘Ordinary Time’, which automatically communicates to the layperson that it’s less important. Nothing could be further from the truth. What’s great about living in England is that term time at Oxford, Cambridge and public (private) secondary schools revolves around feasts in the Church year such as Michaelmas. Yesterday’s post discussed the Sundays immediately preceding Lent. These Sundays are part of Ordinary Time to Catholics. (Thanks, Cardinal Bugnini!) Thankfully, the Anglican Church still numbers its post-Pentecost weeks as Sundays ‘after Trinity’.
Blogger Christian Campbell, a high church senior warden, posted on his dissatisfaction with the Lectionary. The comments are priceless! I hope he won’t mind if I share a few with you here:
Fr Bill: I spent considerable time reviewing the 3-year lectionary before tossing it into the trash. The reason for the trashing was simple. I am a single-issue guy. It was the deletion of Scripture that indicated there are roles for men and women. I noticed also a deliberate skipping of Scripture that calls sin sin. AND no Sunday is ‘ordinary’.
Jeremy Hummerstone: … I don’t think the ‘wealth of prefaces’ turns out to be all that much of a positive aspect, when you actually come to use them. Many of them have a rather didactic air, and we already have quite enough of that sort of thing.
Fr Bill and Mr Hummerstone are preparing to cross the Tiber, by the way. Good luck to them, liturgically speaking. I think they will be mighty surprised and not for the better.
The new readings also have an impact on what people hear at church on saints’ feast days. Peter Kwasniewski of Scripture and Catholic Tradition explores the lack of suitable readings when the feasts of well-known saints occur on the same day. The readings often fit one saint but not the other. For example, St Thérèse of Lisieux’s (The Little Flower) feast day occurs on the same day now as St Remegius’s. Thanks again, Cardinal Bugnini! Yet, the Novus Ordo readings correspond only to St Remegius’s life.
A comparison with the propers of the old rite for Thérèse’s feastday will make apparent the magnitude of the loss suffered by the faithful when the ancient liturgy and its organic development were cast aside.
Comparing the two sets of propers, I ask: Is this an example of liturgical progress, of a ‘successful’ reform? The Novus Ordo propers are vague and generic, ready for application to any female saint; the Tridentine propers are majestic, poetic, and exactly apropos to the Little Flower.
Agreed and well said by everyone. If the day comes where we can reverse this, let’s take part, whether by letter-writing or petition-signing.
UPDATE (May 4, 2012): I first posted this in Forbidden Bible Verses. Two years on, I have discovered that it is indeed included in the Lectionary used in public worship. My apologies, especially to compilers and editors of the Lectionary!
However, this passage is so instructive that it remains fresh, even in the 21st century. So, I have given it a new title and let the rest stand as is.
Today’s reading is from the New International Reader’s Version. You may also wish to read the King James Version which makes the point much more forcefully.
Obey God
1 Why do you fight and argue among yourselves? Isn’t it because of your sinful longings? They fight inside you.
2 You want something, but you can’t get it. You kill and want what others have. But you can’t have what you want. You argue and fight. You don’t have what you want, because you don’t ask God. 3 When you do ask for something, you don’t receive it. Why? Because you ask for the wrong reason. You want to spend your money on your sinful pleasures.
4 You are not faithful to God. Don’t you know that to be a friend of the world is to hate God? Anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God. 5 Don’t you know what Scripture says? The spirit that God caused to live in us wants us to belong only to God. Don’t you think Scripture has a reason for saying that? 6 God continues to give us more grace. That’s why Scripture says,
“God opposes those who are proud.
But he gives grace to those who are not.” —(Proverbs 3:34)
——————————————-
This chapter is a letter to Jews who have recently converted to Christianity. They have provoked unnecessary conflicts with the Romans and amongst themselves. Why? The apostle says it is because of the urge to sin (verse 1), not for the glory of God.
James reproves the Jewish Christians telling them that there are reasons why their prayers go unanswered. Imagine him saying, ‘Have you ever thought about that? You quarrel, you’re eager to fight. In short, you pray to satisfy your earthly appetites. You’re not asking God for good things. You pray to satisfy yourselves.’ Today, what do we pray for? A promotion, social approval, a new possession? Haven’t we prayed for these at some time in our lives? Have we received them? Possibly not. What would those answered prayers bring us but earthly satisfaction? Where is God in that equation? Far, far away from our immediate longings of ambition, pride or lust.
The apostle reminds his audience that their actions betray God (verse 4). You can love the world and its temptations or you can love God. But you can’t do both. In the King James Version, the words ‘adulterers’ and ‘adulteresses’ are used. James’s audience betray the bond they have professed to God every time they ask for something from Him. They are not asking for a way of spreading the Gospel or giving glory to Him. They are asking for self-serving or material improvement in their lives. In a way, they are committing adultery by preferring the world to Him. In verse 5, James says that God wants us to live for Him alone, not for our own desires (verse 5). He asks the people, ‘Why do you think Scripture mandates that?’ When we live for God and in God, He grants us more and more of His grace (verse 6).
James offers further support of his plea for goodness in citing the verse from Proverbs. God will actively oppose the proud and the boastful, but He will exalt the humble and infuse them with His everlasting grace. We are here on this earth to obey His will and to glorify Him, not our sinful urges. If that’s difficult to grasp, God sent His only Son Jesus Christ to endure death on the Cross to pay for our sins — the sins of every man, woman and child. Jesus’s death and Resurrection have saved us from the fires of Hell. And we can’t look to God and express our unending gratitude? Time for a rethink.
You can read more in Matthew Henry’s commentary and from the Orthodox Presbyterian Church’s Revd Larry Wilson.
Tomorrow is the First Sunday of Lent, or Quadragesima Sunday in old money, signifying 40 days before Easter. (The ‘g’ is prounounced as ‘j’, by the way.) Some of you who have copies of the Anglican 1662 Book of Common Prayer or old Catholic Missals may have puzzled over the Sundays immediately preceding Ash Wednesday, the beginning of Lent.
These Sundays, which Catholics now consider to be ‘Ordinary Time’ thanks to the post-Vatican II revision of the Church Calendar in 1969, are still referred to by their original Latin names in many Anglican parishes, conservative Lutheran churches and wherever the Catholic Extraordinary Form (Latin Mass) is said or sung. They are all reminders that Lent and its disciplines are imminent. These Sundays are as follows:
Septuagesima Sunday: This is the third Sunday before Ash Wednesday. In the early Church, no Gloria was sung nor was the Alleluia in the early Church. This is because it was the first Sunday of the call to Lenten discipline. Although the word ‘septuagesima’ means ‘seventieth’, it occurs only 63 days before Easter. The use of this word will be made more evident when we look at Quinquagesima Sunday.
Early Christians began observing Lent the day after Septuagesima Sunday. This is because Thursdays, Saturdays and Sundays were not days of fasting in the early Church. So, if the faithful wished to fast for 40 days before Easter, following the example of Jesus, they would have had to start the Monday after Septuagesima Sunday. Today, only Sunday is a non-fast day, which is why Lent begins on Ash Wednesday.
Sexagesima Sunday: This is the Sunday after Septuagesima Sunday, or in today’s Church, the Second Sunday before Lent. In the Early Church, Lent would have begun the previous Monday (see Septuagesima Sunday above). Some Eastern Orthodox congregations refer to this particular Sunday as Dominica Carnisprivii (loosely translated as ‘No Meat Sunday’) and begin dietary observances for Lent on this day.
Quinquagesima Sunday: This is the final Sunday before Lent, or the Sunday immediately before Ash Wednesday. It is 50 days before Easter, hence ‘quinquagesima’, or ‘fiftieth’.
Scott P Richert, who wrote the text for About.com (see source links) is to be commended on his clear explanations, unlike New Advent, which doesn’t really explain they whys and the wherefores of these names and their significance.
For those of you who missed Oprah Winfrey’s interview with the Dominican Sisters of Mary on February 9, you can view all the segments on YouTube. The brilliant MG Writers has found them and kindly blogged the full set. Alternatively, you read a transcript here at Oprah’s site.
This is the order that also teaches in Ave Maria, Florida. One of Oprah’s reporters, Lisa Ling, stayed overnight with the sisters at their motherhouse in Ann Arbor, Michigan, a Detroit suburb. Some then travelled to Chicago to appear on Oprah’s show.
The sisters have revamped their website, which has some terrific pictures and insights into their life in community. The order was founded in 1997 with four nuns. They now have 98! It’s the traditional habits, rules and obedience which makes this order and others like it popular.
The sisters look radiant and happy. May God be with them in their discernment and ministry. Let’s hope they receive many sincere requests to attend their next open weekend for women considering convent life.
