Second Thoughts on Lent

A coworker tonight asked me what I was giving up for Lent. “Nothing,” I answered, “I am not asked to give anything up for Lent. What are you giving up?”

“My time,” she replied, “I think Lent should be about what you give, not what you give up.”

Needless to say, I was floored and told her I thinks she hit the nail right on the head. I have been wrestling a lot with Lent lately. It is a time when Jesus fasted and went without, but for what purpose? The ancient monks had a notion called “white martyrdom.” Where “red martyrdom” was death for your believes, “white martyrdom” was something people could live out in their day. It meant that people could renounce the world and live a life of suffering for Christ.

People do that still today. We go around and tell people what we are giving up for Lent and ask others what they are giving up for the season as well. What point does it serve? Does it draw you closer to Christ, to God, or to the atonement? If it does … well, I don’t mean to be rude, but how? How is it that when I am giving up sugar, television, or what I love bring me closer to Christ and the atonement? It seems to turn God in a fun-stealing ogre, which is how most of my contemporaries view Him anyway. It is bad enough He is a buzz kill with our more problematic excesses, now He has to take away our benign ones too? This is not the God I signed up for twenty-seven years ago and this is certainly not the God I have worked to have a relationship with day in and day out since that first calling.

Luther had a remarkable way of turning the negative prohibitions of the Ten Commandments into positive calls for action in his Small and Large Catechisms. Here he reinforces that we should “fear and love God” so much that we not only down disobey the laws He wrote on our hearts, but obey the positive stirrings that were there before the dawn of history. That is the appropriateness of Lent. Lent is the story of the promises of God. It is the story of being tempted in the wilderness to do things for the sake of our own desires.

What is the purpose of fasting or giving something up? In the wilderness Christ didn’t fast because he was trying to beat Himself up; but rather because fasting removed an impediment to the more important part of His time alone, His need to be in communion with God. If when you fast or remove something from your daily routine, you do not replace it with time with Christ; it is hard to make the case that you are giving that thing up for Lent. Instead, you are doing a sort of post-New-Year’s resolution.

I think of Matthew 6:16 – 18, where Jesus says:

When you practice some appetite-denying discipline to better concentrate on God, don't make a production out of it. It might turn you into a small-time celebrity but it won't make you a saint. If you 'go into training' inwardly, act normal outwardly. Shampoo and comb your hair, brush your teeth, wash your face. God doesn't require attention-getting devices. He won't overlook what you are doing; he'll reward you well.

It is also interesting to note that right before this Jesus talks about how we must pray and ask forgiveness of him. Only then are we to think about fasting.

Perhaps more to the point is something found in the Gospel of Luke:

9-12 He told his next story to some who were complacently pleased with themselves over their moral performance and looked down their noses at the common people: "Two men went up to the Temple to pray, one a Pharisee, the other a tax man. The Pharisee posed and prayed like this: 'Oh, God, I thank you that I am not like other people—robbers, crooks, adulterers, or, heaven forbid, like this tax man. I fast twice a week and tithe on all my income.'
13 "Meanwhile the tax man, slumped in the shadows, his face in his hands, not daring to look up, said, 'God, give mercy. Forgive me, a sinner.'"
14 Jesus commented, "This tax man, not the other, went home made right with God. If you walk around with your nose in the air, you're going to end up flat on your face, but if you're content to be simply yourself, you will become more than yourself."

I could be making too much about this whole thing or maybe I am just feeling guilty for not giving up anything for Lent. However, I think the more likely scenario is that my pride sees yet another way that my faith shores up my inadequacies whereas my pride is unable fill in the missing pieces. And, like grace, perhaps Lent is less about what I give up, than what I give.

A quick thought

In the novella, a Christmas Carol, Ebenezer Scrooge observes, “I will honour Christmas in my heart, and try to keep it all the year. I will live in the Past, the Present, and the Future. The Spirits of all Three shall strive within me. I will not shut out the lessons that they teach.” This is a good lesson for all of us, but I would say that right now I am in the season of Lent. This is a season of fasting and prayer that comes right before Easter. It is considered a period of deep somber sobriety much like the dour-faced pilgrims at worship or the expression worn by many Cincinnati Reds’ fans after a game.

Lent is not really viewed as the happiest of times. It is after all commemorating Jesus’ forty days in the wilderness being tempted by Satan, which one can assume would not be the most enjoyable time spent. Many Christians give up things for Lent just as Jesus did by going into the wilderness. While I believe their intentions are pure on conscious level, I think perhaps giving something up for Lent as a sort of sign, is problematic. (The Lutheran in me recoils at anything the vaguely smells of work’s-based-righteousness.) If you are to give up anything for Lent, I believe it should be unknown to anyone around you if it is to be for God’s glory; and if you are to give it up for your benefit (i.e. smoking or sugar), don’t you believe you should give it up totally for your health. Things that are to be done for the “good” should need no special time of year to mark them; and become a sort of “sanctified New Year’s resolution.” I think this might lower God to a bit o a totem.

No, the real meaning of Lent is hardly anything to be sad or mournful about at all. The real meaning Lent is about a promise … or maybe a series of promises that make a larger promise. Long ago, God told Noah that he would never destroy the world; but instead of stopping there, he set into motion a plan to save the world. The real meaning of Lent is about suffering, but never about a suffering that we were meant to bear by ourselves or even at all. The suffering that was endured was Christ’s for us. When we seek to punish ourselves by going without, we must always make sure we ask ourselves why we are suffering. Is it because of Christ or is it because of our pride? To give up something for Lent therefore will never be enough. It is only when we give something to God. When we tack on our problems and sins to the cross and the God-man that hung there, then and only then, will we be approaching the true meaning of Lent.

The name Lent has an interesting meaning. In most of the Romantic languages it is derived from the Latin: quadragesima. This means fortieth day, and the nomenclature has kept this up in most of the countries around Europe. In English however, we use the term Lent. This derives from the Anglo-Saxon root word that means “long.” It its connotation means “spring.” I think this is the best way to describe this season. It is a season of painful changes and eternal promises that eventually leads to the long-ago promise of life once again. It is a time when God will make all things new and when we finally realize that winter will not last forever.

Shostakovich is my Homeboy!

 

I can still remember when Fantasia 2000 came out in theaters.  I practically begged everyone to go see it with me, but to no avail.  Later, when it came out on DVD, I was dazzled by the inventiveness of the use of music and imagery.  It is one great film and I recommend it to anyone who wants to see great imagination on screen.

            I had never lost my love for classical music.  I had listened to it when in middle school primarily as background music for papers.  However, when I listened to Shostakovich’s Piano Concerto, I became a lifelong fan.  Shostakovich combines so many things in his music.  It is orderly and yet feels avant-garde.  It appears very simple to play, and yet I am told his pieces are amongst the hardest.  His life, like his music was filled with contrasts fueled by a sort of pragmatism.

            Living in Communist Russia, one had to always live with such contradictions.  You never were really sure which end of the monster you were going to be on from day to day.  Because of this, and his being Russian, he is widely ignored by most of us in the U.S.[1]  While he has been lambasted by some.  One musical theorist said Shostakovich “made no secret of his debt to Mahler and many other composers: Bach, Stravinsky, jazz and popular music, Jewish and Russian folk music. But was the music of Beethoven not rooted in the music of Mozart and Haydn? Of course it was. But did it not evolve into something entirely different - something that is unmistakably Beethoven? Of course, it did. And who can deny that the symphonies of Shostakovich, taking their starting point from Mahler, developed into an entirely different musical idiom that is unmistakably Shostakovich and nobody else but Shostakovich?”

            And that is the best that can be said of anyone.  There will never be anyone like Dmitri Shostakovich or me or you.  Who knows years later, someone may come across some scrap I have written, like it very much, and put it in a movie, book, story, or what have you.  If you just put things out there, you never can be sure who is listening.

---

[1] It also doesn’t hurt that Copland and Gershwin are easier names to pronounce.  Then again, how many of us would actually pronounce Beethoven (ˈbā,tōvən)if we hadn’t had it drilled into our heads by legions of music teachers?

In The World of My Stress.

 

On my way to work today I felt pretty stressed.  It usually happens to me.  However, my problems are hardly insurmountable and my fears hardly warranted.  Indeed, I do not know of anyone who has had warranted fears.  Fear, for me at least, comes about when I am jarred from peace.  However, I have been looking for outward peace to substitute inner peace.  And when we try and substitute the definition of happiness for peace we are letting ourselves in for a great deal of sadness, disappointment, and of course stress.

 

We live in a harried and archipelic[1] world. It is a world where stress is ours to own, to keep, to hold in ourselves.  In life, however, we do not know how to deal with stress.  There are two things I know about stress:

 

1)    Each person has a unique language as to how their stress writes itself in one’s life.

2)    Stress must either move and be held in your psyche or pass through it.  If too much passes through, you are probably not taking things seriously enough.  If too much is bottled up … well, I needn’t tell you how damaging that can be to someone.

 

Stress is a lot like water: powerful and peaceful.  It has many different qualities, properties, stages, and even contents[2].  In my life, I internalize my stress.  I let it become stagnant in my heart.  Instead, I need to let it pass by like a river stream.  Cool, forward moving without chaotic and devastating rushes; a stream brings life and purpose to all that is around it.  To stop the flow is to be in painful stagnation.

 

This is the first stage for me to understand stress.  I will discuss the improper defining of peace as happiness and how I should handle my stress differently in my next blog posts.  Right now, I need to get ready for work.

---

[1] That is a world of archipelagos.  Don’t look it up, I felt like making a word.

[2] Water picks up silt or salt or many other things.  They aren’t water, but they make a body of water that body just as much as the water itself.  Stress is unique in its contents as well.  Stress of love or work is very different.

(Again I am barely conscious.  Enjoy the post, ignore the errors.)

The Comical Failure

Indulgences Return

 

Every time I see St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome, I chuckle a little.  It is an impressive building and one of the greatest pieces of architecture in the world; but as for the cost of its building … well, that’s so large, I think only God knows.  You see in 1517, a German monk named Martin Luther posted 95 problems on the door of the local church.  (Doors of churches were places where public announcements and such were placed.)  He wrote them in Latin so that it would be a scholarly debate.  The focus of the questions was on the sale of plenary indulgences.  Though, it’s a bit confusing, these were documents sold so that people could get themselves or their loved ones out of afterlife punishment.[1]  Now, selling indulgences to for Church projects was, alas, nothing new.  However, Luther was one of the few to actually have challenged it.  These particular indulgences were being sold so as to build … you guessed it … St. Peter’s.  The outcome is the same one that has plagued faith and religion since the dawn of time.  One person asks a question, this forces the powers that be to fight back, and the person positing the question looks deeper to find out if he or she is indeed right.  Rome’s intransigence forced Luther to delve deep into scripture to understand his point of view.  Rome could’ve saved face, most of Northern Europe, and several millions of members if it would’ve admitted it was wrong; but it couldn’t sacrifice its pride.  It won the basilica in the end, but lost its way.

 

Indulgences were something I thought faded into the mists of history.  I figured Rome had learned its lesson and quietly dismantled the foolish belief until an history professor brought in one that he had bought at a yard sale.  This one was issued back in the 1950s.  You see Roman Catholic dogma will not let things disappear.  If the church were to err, than their entire religion would be in err.  Protestants admit that their leaders are more right than wrong, but that these leaders were fallible humans just like any other schmuck.  The Bishop of Rome however has a dilemma, when he puts on holy relics and sits on the throne of Peter, his word is gospel and infallible.  Even if Rome did believe it was in err, it could not go back on itself because that would undermine everything it has become and is.

 

In every healthy relationship, a person must admit he or she is wrong.  Spouses must apologize to spouses, children to parents, and even sometimes parents to children.  The church is no different.  Sometimes we humans get it wrong.  A verse gets mistranslated, a belief was influenced by a culture and not scripture, or a pastor just flubbed big time.  Church is a place for sinners to get together and get better; but who can get better when no one admits when they are wrong?  After all, isn’t that the first step in AA; admitting you have a problem?

 

Well, indulgences are kept around, but with a wink and nod that they really don’t mean anything.  I can sort of live with that.  I would have an hard time living with Catholicism knowing that I was living with them; but as long as no one took them seriously, I guess I would be okay … sort of … a bit.  Not anymore though.  The Catholic Church is now beginning to move them closer to the forefront declares the New York Times or at least not be silent about them.  Yes, this is a direct challenge to Protestants; much like a bully gloating over its own stupidity.  Whatever the Catholic Church may contribute in understanding becomes severely diminished by high-handed declarations.

 

However the more disturbing problem is the cost this has for the psyche of average believer.  Is God’s grace and love to be bought or is it freely given?  The Smalcald Articles, written by Luther, puts it like this: 

 

The first and chief article is this: Jesus Christ, our God and Lord, died for our sins and was raised again for our justification (Romans 3:24-25). He alone is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world (John 1:29), and God has laid on Him the iniquity of us all (Isaiah 53:6). All have sinned and are justified freely, without their own works and merits, by His grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, in His blood (Romans 3:23-25). This is necessary to believe. This cannot be otherwise acquired or grasped by any work, law or merit. Therefore, it is clear and certain that this faith alone justifies us ... Nothing of this article can be yielded or surrendered, even though heaven and earth and everything else falls (Mark 13:31).[45]

 

Our faith in God is not built with our works but with our faith.  I would rather die for my faith than for my works.  This was not something Luther and his protestant reformers created; it was in the scriptures all along waiting to be rediscovered.  It feeds our egos to believe we can earn out way into heaven.  If that were the case, than God is irrelevant and our own lives had better be the center.  Yet how many Christians, Protestant as well as Catholic, believe that our works will earn us our salvation?  How much stronger does this myth become when our churches reinforce it with bad teaching and bad examples?

 

Sin is still in the world, but the way to fight it is not with get out of jail free cards or new church dogma or strategies for growth.  The way to fight sin is to rely on Christ to do what He said he would do, take the sin of the world onto Himself.

 

Luther’s war caused a schism in the church, but one that was desperately needed.  It allowed for people to be found more easily by a God constantly reaching for them.  Rome licked its wounds, but later moved closer and closer to the rest of the church. 

 

It seems that today, however, it has chosen to go back to its old ways.  The question is what new physical edifice will be erected as your spiritual edifice comes crashing down around your ears?  What tangible monument to foolish pride will have been lifted up as you ignore the simple monument of a cross the promise made there that “your sins are forgiven?”  Perhaps that failure isn’t comical at all.

---

[1] Actually it kind of goes like this: During the crusades, the popes said that anyone who fought the Muslims would go to heaven and get out purgatory.  What’s purgatory you say?  Purgatory is a place that doesn’t appear in scripture per se (and by per se, I mean not at all), but appears a lot in the tradition of the Catholic Church.  It is a place where people are “purged” of their sins, hence the name purgatory.  It is kind of a like refining someone so that you will be good enough to get into heaven.  It isn’t pleasant apparently, because why else would people try and get out of it?  However, not everyone was fit enough to go crusading, so the Roman Catholic Church said, “Okay, well, if you can’t go, we’ll take a donation that demonstrates your faith in the church.  In return for this, we’ll send you the same piece of paper that crusaders are getting to get out of purgatory.”  You can see the slippery slope.  People left out thoughts of donations and justification, and focused only on the tit a tat viewing payment as a way to get out of punishment, and we know that’s not right!