Ash Wednesday: a day of reflection

Faith & Science Conversation
,
41

Because Holy Week only comes once a year.

Most people who get the ashes forget they’re there until someone asks a question.

“Against you, you only have I sinned!” declared David. But the sin was against Bathsheba; should David have only confessed to her?

Since the first century Christians confessed sins not just to each other but to their elder(s), because all sins are sins against God. They also confessed major sins to the whole congregation because they recognized that any major sin isn’t just against the person sinned against, it’s also against the community of believers.

What random setting? You go about your daily life, among the people you normally encounter.

42

So? Holy week is itself a human-constructed ritual. If one can conceive of a better or more effective ritual then why not change it?

And some non-Christians who see the ashes on foreheads of certain people may be surprised…Oh, so that grumpy gossiping guy in my office is actually a Christian, eh?

Sure, if a sin affects the community of believers then I think its appropriate to confess the sin to that community. I have witnessed a few such cases of confessions from the front of the church stage. But walking out into a random public place to display to strangers outside the church community that one is confessing sins that that nonbeliever has no involvement with still does not make sense to me.

Now we’re getting a bit pedantic. By random I don’t mean a coin toss, but a public (secular) place outside the church community where one will encounter non-believers and people that one can’t predict but who will not have anything to do (“be random with respect to”) the repentance the sin that one is supposedly displaying.

43

By now it should be apparent that all Christians do not observe Ash Wednesday, so it does not unite all Christians. Nor does that non-observation mean that a church is “non-liturgical”, as some have assumed.

I have theological problems with an outworking of the Christian life which ties it to the circles of nature. Time in the Christian life is linear, not circular; and the moments of repentance and faith work themselves out in each individual along a timeline determined by the Holy Spirit. One cannot truly repent by acting it out in a liturgy. And acting it out without actual repentance just makes you a phony. We have enough of those in the Church!

A second theological problem is that the Christian Faith comes to us when we know the whole story. We cannot today hear about the crucifixion on Good Friday without knowing of the resurrection on Easter Day. Thus, the Christian Faith comes to us as a dialectical theology of the cross. The cross and resurrection are superimposed. We hear something of that from St Francis: “It is in dying that we are born to eternal life.”

A personal problem I have with the so-called “liturgical year” is that it does nothing for me, and believe me, I have tried it out over many years. My spiritual time does not coincide with liturgical time. My journey of faith is determined by the Holy Spirit which causes me to wrestle with God according to God’s understanding of where I am in my journey. I have to say that I rarely go to church these days because it does nothing for me, and the thought of being intimidated into playing some “creative” liturgical game turns me off even more so. However, my faith in Christ has got even deeper.

As for fasting, I’ve tried that too. It gave me a migraine and pushed away any thoughts of God. But go ahead, fast if you want to. Just be sure to check your blood glucose levels throughout that time.

1 Like
44

As @St.Roymond pointed out, “The interesting thing here is that humans are inclined to engage in ritual. This point was made in an anthropology class where so-called nondenominational churches were used as an example: they all end up adhering to patterns in worship, and patterns are what make ritual.”

Our church is not liturgical. Yet, if I think of a ‘usual’ Sunday service, I know the most usual formula even before I attend the service. Welcoming words, prayers, worship, some sort of info about coming events (might also be in another part of the service), collection of voluntary money gifts (with music), sermon, … The length of the service aims to about 1.5 hours. This is close to some sort of ‘liturgical’ form.
Being non-liturgical means that the ‘usual pattern’ is not a rule, those planning the service often deviate from the usual pattern and such variation is considered a positive thing.

When a new nondenominational church starts, there are usually no fixed rules in the services. As the church gets older, liturgical rituals tend to sneak in the play at some point. It appears that old people like liturgical elements more than the young ones, so as the participants get older, there are more hopes for following some sort of liturgical patterns. My impression is also that as the first generation is replaced by their children and grandchildren, there is a higher probability of sliding towards more liturgical services.

I do not think that liturgical services are bad or good as such, as long as there is freedom to deviate from the liturgical norm when needed. The focus should be on the Lord of the church, not the outward rituals. Having a charismatic background, I feel it is also important to have enough of flexibility to allow the Holy Spirit to ‘interfere’ when He wants, so that the rituals planned by humans do not prevent the action of the Spirit. There needs to be order but rigid, inflexible forms are harmful.

3 Likes
45

That should be “the Holy Spirit who causes”.

46

This is one of my big issues with Orthodoxy; there’s no flexibility. I recently found, though, that there is Western Rite Orthodoxy which uses a modified Anglican liturgy, and that’s one that allows for a fair amount of flexibility. That got me wondering if there is an approved modification of the old Lutheran liturgy as well, but from what I can find there isn’t.

It would be possible, though. I read an article by an Orthodox liturgist recently who was lamenting something I’ve often lamented, namely the loss of the multiple Western liturgies as Rome asserted greater and greater authority (contrary to tradition, BTW).

1 Like
47

Evidence from scripture tells me this is Lucan redaction. He or someone before him has probably expanded Mark’s narrative.

John narrates two men were crucified beside Jesus and nothing else, which is consistent with his magisterial presentation of Jesus’s death (which he was in full control of at all times).

19:18 There they crucified him, and with him two others, one on either side, with Jesus between them.

Mark 15:27-32 tells us only that the two crucified next to him taunted and mocked him as well:

27 And with him they crucified two rebels, one on his right and one on his left.[d] 29 Those who passed by derided[e] him, shaking their heads and saying, “Aha! You who would destroy the temple and build it in three days, 30 save yourself, and come down from the cross!” 31 In the same way the chief priests, along with the scribes, were also mocking him among themselves and saying, “He saved others; he cannot save himself. 32 Let the Messiah,[f] the King of Israel, come down from the cross now, so that we may see and believe.” Those who were crucified with him also taunted him.

Matthew follows Marks account pretty slavishly here (Marcan priority) in 27:38-44. Note the two bandits both taunt Jesus:

38 Then two rebels were crucified with him, one on his right and one on his left.39 Those who passed by derided[n] him, shaking their heads 40 and saying, “You who would destroy the temple and build it in three days, save yourself! If you are the Son of God, come down from the cross.” 41 In the same way the chief priests also, along with the scribes and elders, were mocking him, saying, 42 “He saved others; he cannot save himself.[o] He is the King of Israel; let him come down from the cross now, and we will believe in him. 43 He trusts in God; let God deliver him now, if he wants to, for he said, ‘I am God’s Son.’ ” 44 The rebels who were crucified with him also taunted him in the same way.

Luke changes it up a little as he copied Mark. Now one of the bandits Matthew and Mark claim taunted Jesus along with everyone else acknowledges him and is saved. This is a problem.

39 One of the criminals who hung there hurled insults at him: “Aren’t you the Messiah? Save yourself and us!”

40 But the other criminal rebuked him. “Don’t you fear God,” he said, “since you are under the same sentence? 41 We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong.”

42 Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.[d]”

43 Jesus answered him, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.”

Personally, I’m not interested in “there were two people next to Jesus that taunted him then two more were brought that 3 of the gospels don’t write about but Luke knows of. Nor am I interested in “the two both mocked him at first but one thief changed his mind” and none of the other three gospels thought to mention that and Luke omitted the former.

Those reek of uncritical harmonization. Building a theology based off that one verse when the other gospels seemingly narrate a different version of that story is a house built on sand. I do not even deny deathbed conversions. But for those who accept Christ and live to a ripe old age, works clearly seem to be required by Jesus and parts of scripture.

48

I am not from a liturgical tradition. Some aspects of liturgy make a lot of sense to me, some of which include various layers of repeated cycles. Weekly repetition of the service, which includes a call to worship God, prayer of confession, assurance of pardon and response in gratitude, plus a weekly or monthly layer of communion, plus an annual layer of special days (the liturgical calendar is much fuller than Christmas, Lent and Easter) are valuable in my view. There are other valuable forms of repition that go with it throughout the year, including prescribed congregational Bible reading.

Ash Wednesday, or any of the other pieces unique to liturgical traditions, are not intended to stand alone. While it occurs once a year, there are other times to contemplate similarly throughout the liturgical year, month, week, and even at random, if one is in a church that uses artwork like the stations of the cross.

While I understand @klw’s reasoning about resurrection and life, memento mori grounds us very firmly in the NOW, which is largely defined by suffering, and even more largely, by the suffering of someone else.
What value is there for Christians to be grounded in the NOW, when we have a hope for the future? Jesus taught us to care about it, particularly about the others living here in the NOW with us. We are dying daily. So are they! Jesus never tells us not to be concerned about other people who are suffering, because their problems will all be sorted out in the resurrection. He commands us to care for the poor, to show mercy, to cultivate peace.
Life is beautiful (for those who can enjoy it) but fragile and fraught.

Memento mori also helps us see and value our hope. This is what an artist would call Figure and Ground.
If we only ever celebrate, one celebration becomes indistinguishable from another.

Wright (another plug for the History and Eschatology thread) talks as many theologians with roots in the Reformation do, about the Already but Not Yet. God’s kingdom inaugurated on earth with Jesus’s resurrection. In some later lecture (we are in lecture 4 now) he will talk a bit about what the church is supposed to be doing here and now. And it’s more than “saving souls” for some future state. We are supposed to be following Jesus’s commands – the straight-forward things he explicitly said to do. The practic of momento mori helps make the reasons for that obedience even clearer.

As a non-liturgical Christian, however, I don’t practice Ash Wednesday or desire to. I find a lot of “extras” that form the practice. However, I do value memento mori but not formalized in that way.

3 Likes
49

Textual Criticism is a whole other topic. Of course if you choose not to take what is written in the gospels, you are free to believe anything you wish.

all the best to you

1 Like
50

Yes certainly. But in my mind, it is precisely the awareness of the hope for the future that DOES ground one in the “now”! It is precisely with that eternal future in view that we have the stamina and underlying joy which motivates us to alleviate the suffering of others and do all that hard work of loving others here on earth. It is not the knowledge of one’s salvation and current gift of eternal life that is the problem, but the false teaching that this earth will burn and it doesn’t matter that I think NT Wright is pushing against.

Have you considered the theological message of “memento mori”? It is interesting (as I described above) that I see Ash Wed. as a late 11th century accretion to the churches’ practice that actually does not conveying theological truth very well–we are not returning to dust! Yes we have pain and suffering in the “now”, but we are not doomed to dust! We shall not die. I can muse about the sociological reasons why I think the practice was instituted in the 11th century, but that’s opening up another can of historical worms :wink:

Out of interest, I asked my 86 year old father about his experience of Ash Wed when he was young. He said that it used to be considered heretical in the denomination! That strong stance surprised me, but it did highlight the very fraught opinions over this holiday (and lent for that matter) among protestant Christians.

1 Like
51

Of course, if you choose not to take what is written in the gospel of Matthew and Mark about those crucified next to Jesus, you are free to believe anything you wish :person_shrugging:

That is not textual criticism. And taking the gospels seriously doesn’t mean assuming all they narrate is history. Doing that is to not take them seriously and turns Jesus into a Chimera.

52

I’ve studied textual criticism and exegesis in a seminary, read Bart Ehrman et al. and am no inerrantist.

I simply am busy and have no time at the moment to go down this rabbit hole :wink:

all the best.

1 Like
53

With a serious difference: they are just dying, while we are supposed to be dying to self.

That theme can be traced back to Irenaeus! On the other hand, it is rejected by some Orthodox on the premise that the Orthodox Church is the true church of Christ on Earth and thus is the Kingdom of God.

54

We are dust, and to dust we will return – it’s just that our journey goes beyond that.

The only way to not return to dust is to have a glorified body, which we don’t get till the Great Resurrection.

55

But that’s exactly my point. As I explained above (from my viewpoint) saying “we return to dust” is misleading because it stops the narrative half way. e.g., if one’s flight to Paris stops over for a few minutes in Heathrow en route, one does not usually tell people “I’m traveling to London”. Is it technically lying?..maybe not out of commission but it can leave one with the wrong impression because of omission of the entire narrative. That’s why prefer to celebrate Easter as the the more complete picture which incorporates the entire narrative of death (Good Friday) through to crucification and resurrection.

56

People who celebrate Ash Wednesday or even Christmas also celebrate that. It’s not an either or. Ash Wednesday is the beginning of that celebration.

Personally, I find Christmas just as important as Easter. The divine condescension, the incarnation—where God lowers himself and is found as a human. Since I don’t adhere to penal substitution and find a solidarity model of atonement much more reasonable, the entire incarnation is all super important to me. I think some Christians put too much emphasis on the death of Jesus. I say, save some room for his life. God lowering himself and becoming man is as important as anything.

2 Likes
57

I realize many people celebrate both Ash Wed. and the Easter weekend and that its not either/or for them. As I said, if one feels that Ash Wed. strengthens their relationship with God and they get something helpful from it, that’s fine.
But for me, I experience the theology around that ritual more confusing than edifying (I did participate in it once, several years ago to be gracious to an invitation from a friend).

Yes, I also find the incarnation very moving and important. Philippians 2 is probably my favourite chapter in the bible.

1 Like
58

I like to remind people that God became a single cell. We began that way, too, but I presume He was aware of the entire process.

1 Like
59

However, MY point is that all of us humans will endure the process of becoming dead. (Don’t get off on a rabbit trail about the return of Christ, please.)

Death is real. We are surrounded by it, although in our culture it’s entirely sanitized for most of us. However, we will experience it. That doesn’t mean that we have no hope. It makes our hope more valuable by contrast.

Facing death, memento mori, the reality of it and the reality of what it does to us, the life-long process of dying should be a reality check, and I think that’s the whole point of it. Iggy Pop wisely said, “Nobody gets out of here alive.”
Think it over. What do we do with this life that we have right now. Because it won’t last. Not as we have it now.

Yes. I have.
As a non-medieval-non-Catholic, who sees biblical assurance of salvation, I am in a completely different theological position as a lay person at that time. So memento mori speaks differently to me.

1 Like
61

I wrote from my Dutch perspective. I live in the South, with a Catholic majority. The Protestants here also observe it, or are quite positive when others do that (as far as I’m aware). And the NBG (Bible Society for the Netherlands and Flanders) provides a free Lent devotional every year to anyone who orders it.

But I understand now that opinions on Ash Wednesday can vary a lot. Nonetheless, I think my initial reasoning still stands.

What unites us all is that we are all mortal humans. We make a lot of mistakes. As the verses I mentioned say, fasting (or having the right ideas) without the right intentions doesn’t have any benefits. The Pharisee was extremely proud and looked down upon the tax collector. So, what to do?

First, we are imperfect, so from time to time (for some that would be Lent) we should “abstain” from certain ideas to take a look whether they are indeed as good as we think.

Second, even if we have the right ideas, we should remain humble.

That was my main message. I used Ash Wednesday as the messenger to convey this. :slight_smile:

2 Likes