Lent
Lent is, as described by Buechner, akin to tithing a year. 10% of a year is roughly 40 days. 40 is also a symbolic number to the Jews and early Christians in that it is the number of transfiguration. Moses was in Midian before going back to
Lent, then, is our time of transfiguration. It is a time to give something up. However, as Paul Tournier states in A Place for You, we need to have something to abdicate before abdication. That is to say, we need an identity to shed before we can shed the identity. Francis of Assisi was able to take the vow of poverty after living the life of the wealthy; Diogenes the Cynic was able to renounce his position only after acquiring the position. Lent must be the abdication of that which you have, in order to transform yourself into that which you desire. Thus, again as Tournier states it, the first move has been completed; a personage has been identified that we then want to shed.
The second stage that I see in Lent is the process of abdication. The shunning of one's former self insofar that they will transform. However, we must ask ourselves what it is that we are trying to transform. If we are attempting to abdicate our Person, then we are in for a world of hurt. We are not to shed that which we are; we are to shed that which we do. The shame as I see it in modern man is that he confuses that which he does or has done with his Person. I know that I myself have fallen guilty to this, but alas I have shed the shackles (yes, I use the word shackles) of the doctrine of inherent sin. We are not sinful; we are prone to sin. Lent, then, or at least the second movement - that is, abdication - is the recognition of the separateness between us and sin. The transformation that arises from abdication is the realization that we are once again able to view ourselves as useful tools of God. And once the second movement - that is, away - has taken place and we have transitioned, we are then required to take a third movement: reincorporation.
This third movement is the return to our lives, or at least the other 90% of our year, anew: free from our previous personage. However, this is not to say that we are to be personage-less, and this is where I feel the Orthodox or Catholic traditions of Lent is more true to life. To explain this, I must first define one of the most evident of schisms between the Catholic and the Protestant movements: the lack of symbols in worship. Symbols are designed to help us, to aid us, they are not to be worshiped, but rather worship through. The Protestant movement removed all symbols from the church, and, arguably, symbolically calls the person to remove symbols from themselves. That is, I mean to say that Protestant man has a belief that he must attempt to live a personage-less life, which we are not able to do. Many Protestants don't even celebrate Lent as it is an Orthodox and Catholic symbol of faith. Protestant man has taken the abdication of symbols to far and lives a torn life: a life that says he is not to live within roles. The paradoxical nature of this is that Protestant churches have high rates of shame-based, institutionalized role-players who have been told for far too long that they are not to play roles; that is, they have not been able to accept a personage, and thus they attempt to abdicate that which they do not have. Also, in the Orthodox and Catholic faiths the practice of Lent is the acquisition of a new practice that they wish to incorporate into their lives. They symbolic meaning of this is that they have a new place to live, as Tournier would say, they have a new personage; and identity.
Lent, the transfiguration of man, is a rite of passage, and in a rite-less society, we need something to hold to. We need rituals; we need symbols; we need rites in order to form for ourselves a place. A place to live.
posted by Thinker Joe | 12:31 PM
4 Comments:
i like lent...
i also like you.
I've always felt that our modern society (U.S.) has a lack of rites and rituals. If someone were to ask me when I became a man (no longer a child) I would have to answer "somewhere between the age of 15 and 35".
Since I have learned the doctrines of the all of the major Protestant churches in my quest for the truth, I feel that I have compiled a vast understanding of the Protestant belief system. To be as concise as possible, Catholics worship in the nature of James, and Protestants worship in the nature of Paul. Catholicism is a continuation of the Jewish temple with many of its ordinances and laws. As such, all of the participants worship in a manner much like the Jewish followers of Christ. On the other hand, Protestants worship in a Pauline manner. They worship as being gentiles who never had the yoke of bondage of Jewish tradition placed upon them. This was emphasized by Paul, and later, Paul left the other Christian leaders to traverse the world preaching the gospel. Is one method greater than the other, one may ask? No!!! Catholicism came into existance due to the vast amount of Paul's converts and Constantine's efforts to Christianize his empire during the fourth century. The Protestant move ment was a rebellion led by Martin Luther and others to abolish specific traditions and practices that were contrary to the teachings of Christ. The validity of this claim can be found in the writings of Martin Luther. He forever loved the Catholic Church. When he established his church, he maintained almost allof the Catholic principles. Martin Luther died worshipping in a true Catholic manner. He rebelled against traditions much as Christ did. For example, when Christ went into the Jewish temple, he cast out the money changers. The question that many believers ask is, "Should I be a Catholic or Protestant"? The truth is neither. True believers shouldn't create a division omong themselves based upon a method of worship. A great example and support of this is found when one reads what Jesus told the disciples about a man who was healing and casting out demons in the name of Jesus. The disciples desired to stop the man, but our Lord said, "If he is not against us, he is one of us, let him be!" How a person chooses to worship is and should be a personal choice based upon the relationship that person has with our Father in Heaven and the Lord Jesus the Christ. A person's method of worship should never be a church mandated cumbersome yoke or burden placed upon his neck and shoulders. After all, Christ said, "Come to me all ye who labor and are heavy laden and I will give you rest". It seems that there has always been a struggle between Catholics and Protestants which is based solely upon personal pride and the desire to have power over the other. It is easy for one to see that these desires are not Christian in the least. So, which method of worship is better? Both methods are endorsed by our Lord!!! However, Catholicism is much more difficult. After all, a person is required to submit himself to a priestly line of mentors and to the Lord. In effect, a Catholic's salvation is directly related to his willingness to submit to the will and direction of a priest who follows the direction of the Pope.
In contrast, a Protestant's salvation is based upon his willingness to submit to the will of Christ with no intervention by another person. As you can see, a Catholic has the benefit of much counselling and guidance in his effort to maintain a Christian lifestyle, but he also gives up personal freedoms. On the other hand, a Protestant has only the Bible, the Holy Spirit, and his will to guide him, but he is free from criticisms from being subjected to the will of another person. Extreme danger exists in both methods of worship. The Catholic could be subjecting himself to the authority of a corrupt priest or to the authority of a corrupt Pope. History has disclosed the corruption of some of the Popes, but their corruption is by no means a devaluation of the Catholic Church. Even so, that danger has and can exist. The Protestant, on the other hand, has to depend upon his own ability to interpretation of the scriptures. This is a very bold and daring act in deed. However, if a person has great faith, the Holy Spirit will teach that person. Even so, many such believers fall prey to their own desires by misinterpreting the scripture to feed their own selfish desires. In either of the methods of worship, danger awita those who are unaware. I am a Protestant who finally became a Catholic, and who is now desiring to return to be a Protestant. I prefer to be free from the Law under Christ. I find it very difficult to have the Holy Spirit teach me one interpretation while the priest interprets the same scripture to the contrary. In my quest, I have learned much that others may never learn because they remain as they are using only one method of worship. Protestants argue that Catholics practice idol worship. That is only becuase of their absurd ignorance. What I have found to counter this arguement is the building of the Ark of the Covenant by Moses. While theere is the commandment that states we are to have no engraven images of anything from heaven, the sky, the earth, the water, or under the earth, Moses was instructed to make to Cherubim facing one another upon the top of the Ark. Now, that seems to be absolutely contrary to the commandment. However, it is an answer to the intent of the commandment. The intent of the commandment is that we should not make engraven images to be worshipped and/ or as idols of other gods. The Catholic Church uses statues as symbols to provide a memorial for its members. While Protestants make such claims, they are, in fact, guilty of the same acts. Many protestant Churches have pictures and engravings of Christ and the disciples. All of the churches use the engaven image of the cross. Now, isn't is better to worship the one on the cross than the cross itself? The Protestant Church seems to believe that the crucifix is wrong, but the empty cross is okay. I say, anyone who comes to me carrying the doctrine of Christ is my brother or sister. I don't concern myself with their manner of worship...that is between them and the Lord. If, by chance, they do something I believe to be offensive, I avoid contact with them until I can pray about the circumstance. I am concerned about their salvation as well as my own. Then, I confront them to question them as to why they committed the act. In other words, we have fellowship just as it would have transpired among the first Christians. James and Paul could never come to an agreement. So, Paul carried his faith to the gentiles, and James remained to convert Jews. Peter remained to help James until he realized the truth in Paul's convictions. So, we may disagree with another person almost all of our lives to finally realize that the other person was correct. That is why we should never judge the faith of others without much prayer and consideration of our own faults. I like your views and consider you a brother in Christ.
Post a Comment
<< Home