| Previous Sermon |
 |  |  |  |  |  |
| Previous Sermons |
| 1 Lent 5 March, 2006 The Rev. Robert C. Granfeldt |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
And now it’s Lent – the third season of the Church year, the season of prayer and
fasting, repentance and contrition. But, you know, Lent has not always been
understood like that. Like so much of Christian understanding and practice, it’s
changed a lot over the centuries – and over the past few decades it’s been in
process of changing, again.
Actually there was no Lent, at all, in the earliest centuries of Christianity. For the first
three hundred years, or so, Christians did prepare for the Easter celebration by
fasting, but it was only a three day fast, representing the three days on which our
Lord lay dead. By sometime late in those early centuries, though, a rather elaborate
process of preparing new converts to join the Church by Baptism had developed.
The new converts were called catechumens, and, eventually, the length of the
catechumenate – the indoctrination period -- reached three years, with baptism finally
coming at the Easter Vigil in the third year. The catechumens underwent a rigorous
period of teaching, training and preparation, and the final preparation took place in
the forty days before Baptism – meaning, also, before Easter – a period of intense
prayer, of introspection and self-examination, of repentance, atonement and
contrition, and strict fasting.
But then, in the Fourth Century, Christian life, itself, underwent some radical
changes, as the newly legal faith became the religion of the Roman Empire, and one
of those changes saw the practices of the catechumenate begin to spread to the
Church as a whole. And once they did, they were applied with a vengeance.
Suddenly, instead of the older three day fast before Easter, the whole Church was
fasting for forty days, and Lent was born. But from the more rounded, broader
preparatory emphasis of the catechumenate, the Church moved toward an
exclusively penitential Lent, and the six-day-a-week fast of the catechumens, as it
moved into the Church in general, became a true fast: one meal a day, no meat or
flesh of any kind -- including fish -- no eggs, no milk or anything made from it – no
cheese or butter – allowed. A Vegan diet!
This extreme Lenten observance only existed about 4 or 5 centuries, when, about the
Ninth Century, a shift away from it began to take place. It showed up, initially, as a
relaxation of some of the rules – with the hour for breaking the fast, for instance, first
being moved forward from evening to three o’clock, and then, by the 15th Century, all
the way to noon. Fish began to be allowed in the later Middle Ages, and by the 15th
Century, milk products were also permitted. And so it went through the Centuries, up
to our own time, with the rules relaxing, little by little. By the 20th Century, the rules
for Lenten observance had been considerably relaxed from their height. Three meals
were now allowed – with the new “fasting” rule specifying only that the two smaller
meals must total less food than the main meal, which is hardly a real fast at all; fish,
seafood and milk products were allowed, throughout, and even meat was allowed 5
days a week! This was the Lent I grew up with, and I suspect not a few of you! But the
intention and the atmosphere of Lent continued to be heavily penitential – a dreary
season, with its emphasis on sin and repentance.
And then came the middle part of the 20th Century, and the liturgical movement.
You know, the liturgical movement developed a bad name in the 60’s and 70’s in a lot
of places, but it was an undeserved reputation. People thought of the liturgical
changes of the period as being new and innovative, when they were really just the
opposite. In the course of nearly 2000 years of Church history, a lot of changes had
taken place for no good reason – they’d just happened. The development of Lent as I’
ve described is a perfect example. There were no REASONED decisions at the
beginning of the 3rd Century to extend the rigors of the final fast of the catechumens
to everyone; it just happened, and Lent really just “evolved!” The liturgical
movement, among other things, looked at changes like this and reexamined them,
historically and doctrinally. Was a change intentional? Was it examined in advance,
and a rational decision made? Were there doctrinal reasons for the change? Were
the results of the change positive or negative? Would the Church be better off going
back to the way things were before the change was made, or was it a move in the
right direction? Do we need to go further? Or back?
I think the prevailing opinion of Lent in the Liturgical Movement was kind of “in
between;” that is, an extension of the requirement of the Catechumenate to the
Church, as a whole, was probably a good thing in the Christian world that was
emerging to replace the pagan world of the Church’s birth. But it needed to be
adapted – not taken over, whole, in its most extreme form! So what we’ve seen from
the liturgical movement with regard to Lent was nothing radical, but a shift in
emphasis – and, in fact, a more intentional continuation of the changes that had been
taking place since the 9th Century.
Lent remains the most penitential part of the Church year, an appropriate time to
reflect on our failings, our sin, our hamartia – the ways we “miss the mark” in our
lives. But the emphasis is softened to make room for a different sort of emphasis that
was originally a part of the catechumenate: a broader and deeper emphasis on
possibility, on the future, on growth.
The English word, “Lent”, itself, comes from the Old English “Lencten,” meaning “to
lengthen,” as the days are lengthening, which came to mean, simply, “Spring.” So
“Lent,” is actually “spring.” And what is spring but the season of potential? The
season of rebirth and growth?
So the new approach to Lent, embodied in our present prayer book and our hymnal,
still emphasizes penitence, contrition and atonement, but it emphasizes these things
in the service of something bigger, something deeper, something greater than just
repentance. It emphasizes these things in the service of “becoming.”
Lent is a season of forty days -- the ancient, symbolic number that appears so often in
the Bible: the forty days and nights of the great flood, in Genesis; the forty days
Moses spends on the mountain, and the forty years of the Hebrews’ wandering; the
forty days Jesus spent in the wilderness, from today’s Gospel according to Mark; the
forty days of Jesus’ appearances between his resurrection and his ascension. In
ancient use, and in the Bible, the number “40” as a time span generally indicates a
period of transition and preparation; It’s a time of leaving something behind and
preparing to move on – an “in between time.”
And so it is with the new Lent, no longer dwelling on sin and repentance for their own
sake, but, rather, as with the great flood, as a means of cleansing and preparation –
preparation for new life, new growth. A springtime for the soul. If there is a time in
the Christian year when it’s appropriate to kneel in worship, it’s Lent! But even in
Lent, the kneeling is just part of the story – the start! We should enter this season of
lent remembering that repentance is only the beginning – the preparation for
cleansing, for washing, and for the real business of Lent, as it is of spring: new life –
and new growth; growth in Christ’s name; growth in Christ! Remembering that we
kneel, today, so that on Easter – and in our lives – we can stand with the Risen Lord,
our Brother; stand as sons and daughters before our Father! In His Name. Amen.
fasting, repentance and contrition. But, you know, Lent has not always been
understood like that. Like so much of Christian understanding and practice, it’s
changed a lot over the centuries – and over the past few decades it’s been in
process of changing, again.
Actually there was no Lent, at all, in the earliest centuries of Christianity. For the first
three hundred years, or so, Christians did prepare for the Easter celebration by
fasting, but it was only a three day fast, representing the three days on which our
Lord lay dead. By sometime late in those early centuries, though, a rather elaborate
process of preparing new converts to join the Church by Baptism had developed.
The new converts were called catechumens, and, eventually, the length of the
catechumenate – the indoctrination period -- reached three years, with baptism finally
coming at the Easter Vigil in the third year. The catechumens underwent a rigorous
period of teaching, training and preparation, and the final preparation took place in
the forty days before Baptism – meaning, also, before Easter – a period of intense
prayer, of introspection and self-examination, of repentance, atonement and
contrition, and strict fasting.
But then, in the Fourth Century, Christian life, itself, underwent some radical
changes, as the newly legal faith became the religion of the Roman Empire, and one
of those changes saw the practices of the catechumenate begin to spread to the
Church as a whole. And once they did, they were applied with a vengeance.
Suddenly, instead of the older three day fast before Easter, the whole Church was
fasting for forty days, and Lent was born. But from the more rounded, broader
preparatory emphasis of the catechumenate, the Church moved toward an
exclusively penitential Lent, and the six-day-a-week fast of the catechumens, as it
moved into the Church in general, became a true fast: one meal a day, no meat or
flesh of any kind -- including fish -- no eggs, no milk or anything made from it – no
cheese or butter – allowed. A Vegan diet!
This extreme Lenten observance only existed about 4 or 5 centuries, when, about the
Ninth Century, a shift away from it began to take place. It showed up, initially, as a
relaxation of some of the rules – with the hour for breaking the fast, for instance, first
being moved forward from evening to three o’clock, and then, by the 15th Century, all
the way to noon. Fish began to be allowed in the later Middle Ages, and by the 15th
Century, milk products were also permitted. And so it went through the Centuries, up
to our own time, with the rules relaxing, little by little. By the 20th Century, the rules
for Lenten observance had been considerably relaxed from their height. Three meals
were now allowed – with the new “fasting” rule specifying only that the two smaller
meals must total less food than the main meal, which is hardly a real fast at all; fish,
seafood and milk products were allowed, throughout, and even meat was allowed 5
days a week! This was the Lent I grew up with, and I suspect not a few of you! But the
intention and the atmosphere of Lent continued to be heavily penitential – a dreary
season, with its emphasis on sin and repentance.
And then came the middle part of the 20th Century, and the liturgical movement.
You know, the liturgical movement developed a bad name in the 60’s and 70’s in a lot
of places, but it was an undeserved reputation. People thought of the liturgical
changes of the period as being new and innovative, when they were really just the
opposite. In the course of nearly 2000 years of Church history, a lot of changes had
taken place for no good reason – they’d just happened. The development of Lent as I’
ve described is a perfect example. There were no REASONED decisions at the
beginning of the 3rd Century to extend the rigors of the final fast of the catechumens
to everyone; it just happened, and Lent really just “evolved!” The liturgical
movement, among other things, looked at changes like this and reexamined them,
historically and doctrinally. Was a change intentional? Was it examined in advance,
and a rational decision made? Were there doctrinal reasons for the change? Were
the results of the change positive or negative? Would the Church be better off going
back to the way things were before the change was made, or was it a move in the
right direction? Do we need to go further? Or back?
I think the prevailing opinion of Lent in the Liturgical Movement was kind of “in
between;” that is, an extension of the requirement of the Catechumenate to the
Church, as a whole, was probably a good thing in the Christian world that was
emerging to replace the pagan world of the Church’s birth. But it needed to be
adapted – not taken over, whole, in its most extreme form! So what we’ve seen from
the liturgical movement with regard to Lent was nothing radical, but a shift in
emphasis – and, in fact, a more intentional continuation of the changes that had been
taking place since the 9th Century.
Lent remains the most penitential part of the Church year, an appropriate time to
reflect on our failings, our sin, our hamartia – the ways we “miss the mark” in our
lives. But the emphasis is softened to make room for a different sort of emphasis that
was originally a part of the catechumenate: a broader and deeper emphasis on
possibility, on the future, on growth.
The English word, “Lent”, itself, comes from the Old English “Lencten,” meaning “to
lengthen,” as the days are lengthening, which came to mean, simply, “Spring.” So
“Lent,” is actually “spring.” And what is spring but the season of potential? The
season of rebirth and growth?
So the new approach to Lent, embodied in our present prayer book and our hymnal,
still emphasizes penitence, contrition and atonement, but it emphasizes these things
in the service of something bigger, something deeper, something greater than just
repentance. It emphasizes these things in the service of “becoming.”
Lent is a season of forty days -- the ancient, symbolic number that appears so often in
the Bible: the forty days and nights of the great flood, in Genesis; the forty days
Moses spends on the mountain, and the forty years of the Hebrews’ wandering; the
forty days Jesus spent in the wilderness, from today’s Gospel according to Mark; the
forty days of Jesus’ appearances between his resurrection and his ascension. In
ancient use, and in the Bible, the number “40” as a time span generally indicates a
period of transition and preparation; It’s a time of leaving something behind and
preparing to move on – an “in between time.”
And so it is with the new Lent, no longer dwelling on sin and repentance for their own
sake, but, rather, as with the great flood, as a means of cleansing and preparation –
preparation for new life, new growth. A springtime for the soul. If there is a time in
the Christian year when it’s appropriate to kneel in worship, it’s Lent! But even in
Lent, the kneeling is just part of the story – the start! We should enter this season of
lent remembering that repentance is only the beginning – the preparation for
cleansing, for washing, and for the real business of Lent, as it is of spring: new life –
and new growth; growth in Christ’s name; growth in Christ! Remembering that we
kneel, today, so that on Easter – and in our lives – we can stand with the Risen Lord,
our Brother; stand as sons and daughters before our Father! In His Name. Amen.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| Calvary Episcopal Church, Rockdale |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |