Which is usually the case - and in the C of E, at least, one is not automatically condemned to Everlasting Fire (and the Worm that dieth not) if one changes the readings on a particular day, for a particular reason.
There are times, outside the principal seasons of (say) Lent, Easter, Advent, Christmas/Epiphany, when it might well be both possible and desirable to speak about (say) safeguarding, or climate change (I agree that the latter is eminently suitable for Lent, as well as being very topical...).
I can easily imagine a sermon on climate change. I cannot as easily imagine one based on the readings traditionally heard on Ash Wednesday.
This is where, to my mind, the traditions that rigidly follow a lectionary have it wrong to the extent that - dare I say? - they might even be "quenching the freedom of the Spirit". For one either has to make the momentous decision to go off-piste and use different readings, causing ire and wrath among the faithful; or one has to somehow squeeze the readings and the topic together even though they aren't natural bedfellows and better readings could have been chosen.
Our place doesn't have a service on Ash Wednesday, but the prayer book has a Gospel reading (Matthew 6) about giving to others, fasting and not storing up treasures on earth - I could easily make a sermon on how consumerism and accumulation of worldly wealth and comfort have contributed both to impoverishing others and damage to the environment, and our calling to follow Christ should include assessing our attitudes to "stuff" and how we consume the resources of the world. Isaiah on true fasting, "to loose the chains of injustice, to set the oppressed free, to share your food with the hungry, provide the poor wanderer with shelter"; lots from that which could apply to how we respond to the climate emergency. 2 Corinthians about how we live as ambassadors of Christ, I can see how to fit in a climate emergency filter on that, leading by example to work to address the problems, add in the bit there about enduring the criticism and hostility of living the right way and you've got a bit chunk of my last sermon which included the need to act on the climate as part of our service to others.
All fair enough. Thanks!
FWIW, I like the lectionary and what it accomplishes—a disciplined system of readings that invites the preacher to work from the reading, sometimes with significant challenge involved, rather than picking a reading to support what she or he wants to say, and that is shared by the wider church. I also like that, at least in my tribe, the preacher has the ability to deviate from the lectionary when he or she thinks appropriate.
There are times ... when it might well be both possible and desirable to speak about (say) safeguarding, or climate change.
Absolutely; but don't take the set readings for the day and try to manipulate them to suit your theme.
Quite - it's difficult enough at times to work out how (or if) the readings (we have OT, Psalm, NT, and Gospel each Sunday) actually relate to each other!
Our previous incumbent sometimes tried to wangle them all together, like some sort of Chinese puzzle, and just left everyone (including himself) in a fog...
Allan Cresswell: When the lectionary sets a Gospel, OT, Epistle and Psalm then there should be something in that collection of readings which is relevant to the life of any Christian community.
As they say, Allan and Bishop, "you'd better believe it!" I guess I'm just curious as to who "the lectionary" that "sets a Gospel, OT, Epistle and Psalm" considers suitable for myself and others is (are). What social background do they come from? What is their theological formation, and so on? I don't doubt that we can all get something "relevant to the life of any Christian community," from it (them). but the degree of relevance from one community to another might vary significantly, and passages of scripture ignored by the lectionary but relevant to certain cultures ignored or given lesser prominence than is desirable. We are discussing power, aren't we? Who is setting the agenda and with what assumptions?
We (in the Church of England) use the Lectionary provided for us by the Church, and I believe the Roman Catholics do much the same - indeed, many of the readings are the same (or nearly so) each day. I expect the Orthodox churches also have set readings, though to what extent they can be varied, I don't know.
Quite HOW, and WHY, these particular readings (on a 3-year cycle) are provided, I am not competent to say, but doubtless there are other Shipmates who are more knowledgeable than I. Some of the choices are fairly obvious - the Resurrection account on Easter Day, the Nativity at Christmas, and so on.
I'm not quite sure where 'power' comes into it, when pretty much the whole Bible is read in the course of the lectionary - it's not as if we're being forced into reading only a small selection of verses expressing someone's personal prejudices...
I think the lectionary actually safeguards us from pastors with fixations on certain issues.
I once attended a CofE service on Christmas Eve that was all about recycling. I'll admit to being disappointed.
I think I would have been a little disappointed with the Ash Wednesday climate change sermon, too. It just wouldn't have been what I was hoping for. Climate change like recycling comes under the head of "good husbandry" to me and I do think it has it's place in sermons. But, just as at Christmas I want to think about the birth of Jesus, on Ash Wednesday I'm more prepared to look inward at my individual sins rather than the collective sins of me, my fellow citizens, and my government, which is where climate change would take me.
From previous page's Ash Wednesday scriptures: "(Matthew 6) about giving to others, fasting and not storing up treasures on earth -"
I don't know about linking Climate Changes as an antidote to treasures on earth. Our resources are part of our earthly treasures and ultimately we will have to give it all up.
I guess I just don't think Ash Wednesday is the best time for the CC sermon. Give me a much needed, never heard, sermon about gluttony instead. (And not that diversion tactic of reminding us about the broader meanings of gluttony.)
I think the lectionary actually safeguards us from pastors with fixations on certain issues.
As @Enoch notes above, "Care for God's Creation" is the Lenten campaign in the C of E this year, so it is entirely appropriate to speak on this at the very start of Lent -- as long as it is done so in a a manner which is religiously appropriate and doesn't replicate a purely secular take on the environment.
Yes - that, and the reference in the OP to an earlier sermon on Safeguarding (very much a current concern of the C of E) made me wonder if an Anglican church was being referred to.
Other churches will have different ways of organising Bible readings, sermons, etc.
We (in the Church of England) use the Lectionary provided for us by the Church, and I believe the Roman Catholics do much the same - indeed, many of the readings are the same (or nearly so) each day. I expect the Orthodox churches also have set readings, though to what extent they can be varied, I don't know.
Quite HOW, and WHY, these particular readings (on a 3-year cycle) are provided, I am not competent to say, but doubtless there are other Shipmates who are more knowledgeable than I. Some of the choices are fairly obvious - the Resurrection account on Easter Day, the Nativity at Christmas, and so on.
I'm not quite sure where 'power' comes into it, when pretty much the whole Bible is read in the course of the lectionary - it's not as if we're being forced into reading only a small selection of verses expressing someone's personal prejudices...
I did look this up when I started having to prep Sunday School lessons, and was curious as to how it was all organised. (This is based on the RC lectionary, but I expect the CofE one is on similar lines)
The special seasons have readings that fit with their theme, so the 3 readings and the psalm will be broadly on the same topic. Ordinary time works through the Teaching of Christ parts of the Gospel of the year in a fairly methodical order, so the period between Christmas and Ash Wednesday was the Sermon on the Mount., after the Beatitudes. We will then skip back to that when everything based on the date of Easter is out of the way. The Old Testament reading and the Psalm are related to the Gospel. However, the Epistle is working through parts of the various Letters from Paul et al that aren't covered elsewhere, and any relevance to the Gospel theme is purely co-incidental.
Traditional Christianity relates to everything or it is nothing.
If you say that there is nothing that people care about that cannot profitably be viewed through a Christian lens, I won't disagree. And Christians have always taken that view.
That doesn't mean that Christian tradition is so broad as to be identical with life itself. I'd say that, for example, the Christian tradition was formed prior to the rise of social media and therefore addressing the topic of social media is not part of the tradition as such.
No reason why any priest or minister shouldn't preach on that topic. Or anything else that affects people's choices.
Just suggesting that for everything there is a time and season. That there is a time to tackle hot new topics and a time to remind ourselves of traditional truths, and I can understand if someone feels that Ash Wednesday falls into the latter category.
We (in the Church of England) use the Lectionary provided for us by the Church, and I believe the Roman Catholics do much the same - indeed, many of the readings are the same (or nearly so) each day. I expect the Orthodox churches also have set readings, though to what extent they can be varied, I don't know.
Quite HOW, and WHY, these particular readings (on a 3-year cycle) are provided, I am not competent to say, but doubtless there are other Shipmates who are more knowledgeable than I. Some of the choices are fairly obvious - the Resurrection account on Easter Day, the Nativity at Christmas, and so on.
I'm not quite sure where 'power' comes into it, when pretty much the whole Bible is read in the course of the lectionary - it's not as if we're being forced into reading only a small selection of verses expressing someone's personal prejudices...
I did look this up when I started having to prep Sunday School lessons, and was curious as to how it was all organised. (This is based on the RC lectionary, but I expect the CofE one is on similar lines)
The Revised Common Lectionary, which is followed, either as is or with some adaptations (particularly to the OT reading), by many denominations around the world—including the CofE (I think)—is itself the Roman Catholic lectionary with some modifications. At least in the US, one stands a very good chance of hearing the same readings in Catholic, Episcopal, Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian, UCC and many other churches (including some Baptist churches) on any given Sunday.
But, what's "traditional"? If the lectionary gives you a lesson about temptation (as it will during Lent) why shouldn't the preacher address the temptation to attack someone on social media or share a suspect Tweet that happens to reinforce something you think is true. Should the preacher stick to "traditional" temptations even if social media presents real temptations just because someone has said the sermon should avoid "new topics"?
, on Ash Wednesday I'm more prepared to look inward at my individual sins rather than the collective sins of me, my fellow citizens, and my government, which is where climate change would take me.
Perhaps that's where it should take you? Why do you think Ash Wednesday and Lent is only about your individual sins? Unless you're a mass murderer they don't amount to a hill of beans compared with what we do corporately.
Besides, why aren't things like my excessive consumption of the resources of the planet not individual sins? My failure to source all my food and clothing from sources where everyone from primary producer to the shop staff paid at least a living wage and work in safe conditions with security of employment, annual leave, access to health care etc? My failure to go out and campaign for real government action on the climate because I'm feeling tired or it's raining? Are these not individual sins, and hence worthy of contemplation on Ash Wednesday according to the @Twilight criteria.
Perhaps that's where it should take you? Why do you think Ash Wednesday and Lent is only about your individual sins? Unless you're a mass murderer they don't amount to a hill of beans compared with what we do corporately.
I don't agree.
Ranting about corporate sins in my experience is a very convenient excuse for massaging one's own ethical purity without having to do anything apart from feel superior to others.
Preaching about climate change, whether on Ash Wednesday or any other occasion, is only of any value at all - and I mean that 'at all' - if its primary focus is on getting 'this congregation here present' to do something that involves changing their own individual ways of life and daily habits, however small.
Preaching that's really addressed to someone else, or nobody in particular except that they are somewhere else, however passionate or well put, is a pointless exercise that encourages self-delusion.
Perhaps that's where it should take you? Why do you think Ash Wednesday and Lent is only about your individual sins? Unless you're a mass murderer they don't amount to a hill of beans compared with what we do corporately.
I don't agree.
Ranting about corporate sins in my experience is a very convenient excuse for massaging one's own ethical purity without having to do anything apart from feel superior to others.
Preaching about climate change, whether on Ash Wednesday or any other occasion, is only of any value at all - and I mean that 'at all' - if its primary focus is on getting 'this congregation here present' to do something that involves changing their own individual ways of life and daily habits, however small.
It has to be more than that. Even if I and my congregation recycle everything they can and get all their electricity and heating from garden windmills it will make little difference whilst we expand airports and roads and continue to power more and more of the vehicles on them by burning oil. We can't fix that as individuals; only collectively.
Getting excited about most people's individual sins whilst ignoring the terrible things we do as societies is straining a gnat while swallowing a camel.
It has to be more than that. Even if I and my congregation recycle everything they can and get all their electricity and heating from garden windmills it will make little difference whilst we expand airports and roads and continue to power more and more of the vehicles on them by burning oil. We can't fix that as individuals; only collectively.
Getting excited about most people's individual sins whilst ignoring the terrible things we do as societies is straining a gnat while swallowing a camel.
We'll have to disagree on that.
What matter for me, for you, for anyone, is what I, whoever I am, actually do, what individual moral responsibility I implement. Getting worked up about that which I can't control may be important for those who can control it, but as far as I'm concerned, it's all too easily a successful temptation not to deal with the things I can do.
As far as my take on things goes, what I, me, whoever I am, can do, but don't, or shouldn't do but do, is a camel not a gnat.
What I think somebody else ought to do or stop doing is more like, 'If it's my wish that he stays until I come, what is that to you?' That's bad enough but fairly obvious, where the 'somebody else' is somebody I can put a name to. 'Societies', though, is a bit meaningless unless it's something I can do something about. If I can, and do, then good. If it's a different version of 'they ought to do something' then it's the 'portentous we' again.
, on Ash Wednesday I'm more prepared to look inward at my individual sins rather than the collective sins of me, my fellow citizens, and my government, which is where climate change would take me.
Perhaps that's where it should take you? Why do you think Ash Wednesday and Lent is only about your individual sins? Unless you're a mass murderer they don't amount to a hill of beans compared with what we do corporately.
It's my individual sins, and yours, that will weigh on our eternal life. What we do corporately determines the quality of life, on this planet, for a tiny increment of time.
, on Ash Wednesday I'm more prepared to look inward at my individual sins rather than the collective sins of me, my fellow citizens, and my government, which is where climate change would take me.
Perhaps that's where it should take you? Why do you think Ash Wednesday and Lent is only about your individual sins? Unless you're a mass murderer they don't amount to a hill of beans compared with what we do corporately.
It's my individual sins, and yours, that will weigh on our eternal life. What we do corporately determines the quality of life, on this planet, for a tiny increment of time.
That is not my view. It implies God cares more that I lost my temper with someone last week than that rising sea levels will drown the Maldives.
Your view, IMO, makes the mistake of implying that this world doesn't matter.
It also seems selfish - screw the environment as long as I get into heaven.
It's not either or, Karl. It's priorities. I've never said screw the environment. I'm the most minimalist person I know, I don't have to worry about where my clothes are made because I rarely buy any, my "best" go to church blouse is 17 years old, my clothes, mostly bought used at thrift stores, take up about 10" of space in my closet. I drive my 21 year old Neon once or twice a month. I don't use aerosol sprays, I don't buy any magazines or newspapers. All my books come from the library. I cook vegetarian for almost all meals. I do care about the planet.
But those are things I think, read and talk about in my more secular groups; my Democratic party group, message boards, my book club. Although, I don't think the subject is out of place in sermons, I, personally, go to church for something else, something that I do think is more important than this earth -- for everyone, not just myself.
As for what God cares about? Who knows, but I do think it's at least possible that he cares more about people losing their tempers than the sea levels in the Maldives. It's through man's heart that we are made to care about these things in the first place. I think he wants us to love each other first and foremost.
It's clear from all the things she's listed that she takes seriously all the things, @KarlLB you'd like her to. And even though God may well care more about the sea levels round the Maldives than whether I lose my temper, my saying I care earnestly about the Maldives, which I can't do much about, doesn't let me off losing my temper, which is something I'm supposed to be controlling. Nor does it gives me some credits that will let me ogle my neighbour's wife.
What matter for me, for you, for anyone, is what I, whoever I am, actually do, what individual moral responsibility I implement. Getting worked up about that which I can't control may be important for those who can control it, but as far as I'm concerned, it's all too easily a successful temptation not to deal with the things I can do.
I think if I were making climate change a focus for Lent I’d want to focus in two directions.
One would be attitudes and behaviours in myself which are profligate or unconcerned about my use of the world’s resources - what can I change about my choices that will make even a small difference? The other would be about my participation in a society which has profligate or unconcerned tendencies. What things might I do to begin to shift that. It could be anything from changing my shopping habits to introducing my neighbours to Fair Trade to changing my
Investments to writing to my MP.
I agree that simply railing at something which I regard as not my responsibility is little more than a smug kind of virtue signalling.
I think if I were making climate change a focus for Lent I’d want to focus in two directions.
One would be attitudes and behaviours in myself which are profligate or unconcerned about my use of the world’s resources - what can I change about my choices that will make even a small difference? The other would be about my participation in a society which has profligate or unconcerned tendencies. What things might I do to begin to shift that. It could be anything from changing my shopping habits to introducing my neighbours to Fair Trade to changing my
Investments to writing to my MP.
I agree that simply railing at something which I regard as not my responsibility is little more than a smug kind of virtue signalling.
Aye, but simply railing wasn't actually proposed by anyone, just criticised as if it had been.
Are you sure you didn't slip into my previous diocese by mistake (question to the OP, not Kwesi)? Run by the Green Party at (occasional if you must) Prayer, Climate Change would absolutely be seen as a subject on which to preach on Ash Wednesday. And Easter Day. For the love of Gaia, you understand?
, on Ash Wednesday I'm more prepared to look inward at my individual sins rather than the collective sins of me, my fellow citizens, and my government, which is where climate change would take me.
Perhaps that's where it should take you? Why do you think Ash Wednesday and Lent is only about your individual sins? Unless you're a mass murderer they don't amount to a hill of beans compared with what we do corporately.
I think I agree with Twilight on this point. Being centred around the imposition of ashes on each individual, I think that Ash Wednesday has a focus on our personal repentance, relationship with God, propensity to sin and how we are going to try and improve our own lives on that front, of which improving the lives of others should be playing a part.
There are 5 whole weeks, and 5 Sundays (allowing for Palm Sunday and Holy Week to have a focus on the events of the Passion), in which we can explore how we collectively as a church community and as citizens are prone to sins, including environmental ones, and can use Lent as a time act on them and promote changes, at a congregational level (individually and collectively), and in the wider community.
What matter for me, for you, for anyone, is what I, whoever I am, actually do, what individual moral responsibility I implement. Getting worked up about that which I can't control may be important for those who can control it, but as far as I'm concerned, it's all too easily a successful temptation not to deal with the things I can do.
Two words: Greta Thunberg.
In addition to the observation that one person can make a difference, the other observation would be that a sermon is addressed to a congregation. The preacher addresses a community, not individuals, and calls that community to be the body of Christ. The body of Christ Himself is surely not incapable of bringing the Kingdom of Christ into being.
In addition to the observation that one person can make a difference, the other observation would be that a sermon is addressed to a congregation. The preacher addresses a community, not individuals, and calls that community to be the body of Christ. The body of Christ Himself is surely not incapable of bringing the Kingdom of Christ into being.
Much of that passes over my head but I don't think I have ever done anything or attended anything as a member of a community. I've always done things for my own reasons and taken from them whatever I find useful or interesting.
So do you think the church, your local congregation, is a community or just individuals who come together on a Sunday morning to each do their own thing in the same place? Is the commission Christ placed on us, to be His witnesses something we each do on our own or is it something that is the action of the church as a community? When you receive bread and wine is that just something between you and God, or is it something that joins you in communion with others in the church?
IMO, the idea that our faith is individual, all about each of us as individuals, is the great heresy of our time. Our faith is about our place in the people of God, the body of Christ, and about how we relate to each other, and how that body of believers relates to God and our neighbours. If you go to church only for yourself then there's something missing, if you want the sermon to only address your individual needs then you're going wrong. We come together to worship together, to grow together, for the dried bones of my foot to join with the dried bones of your leg, and for the Spirit to blow through us to join us together as a single body that is able to work to bring the Kingdom into reality. And, the sermon is part of that act of worship that builds up the body, and urges that body into deeper worship of God and more effective actions that show our love to our neighbours.
So do you think the church, your local congregation, is a community or just individuals who come together on a Sunday morning to each do their own thing in the same place?
@Colin Smith is an atheist, and he has commented before that he doesn’t do groups.
IMO, the idea that our faith is individual, all about each of us as individuals, is the great heresy of our time. Our faith is about our place in the people of God, the body of Christ, and about how we relate to each other, and how that body of believers relates to God and our neighbours. If you go to church only for yourself then there's something missing, if you want the sermon to only address your individual needs then you're going wrong.
I would slightly disagree with you there. As a mum/Sunday School leader, there are times I do go to services, or I'm currently doing the church's Lent course, so I can focus on my own faith, and not worrying what others are doing during the service. There is a place for both the corporate and the personal, such as the promotion of private prayer and study. A sermon that doesn't speak to the majority of individuals within the congregation is also one that is going to fall flat and get forgotten, or remembered for the wrong reason, as we all bring our own experiences and situation to the table, and they will temper our responses.
on Ash Wednesday I'm more prepared to look inward at my individual sins rather than the collective sins of me, my fellow citizens, and my government, which is where climate change would take me.
Two levels - yes, that's exactly it.
Talking about the sins of governments is talking politics. I'm wary of politics in church, whether it's the left-leaning or the right-leaning variety.
But talking about climate change as if it were purely an issue of individual sin is distorting the issue.
Should the preacher stick to "traditional" temptations even if social media presents real temptations just because someone has said the sermon should avoid "new topics"?
Modern-day examples of temptation to illustrate a traditional Christian understanding of temptation seems fine to me.
Using air travel as an example of a luxury good when expounding traditional Christian understanding of attitudes to wealth would be similarly unproblematic.
But limited environmental resources are a challenge to traditional notions of wealth as something that should be multiplied so we can all have some. Climate change is thus part of an inherently new issue; it needs us to think outside the traditional box.
I'd still say that even before the impacts of atmospheric carbon dioxide, methane etc on our global climate became widely known it wouldn't have seemed at all odd for a preacher to address issues of stewardship and sharing of the resources of the world - Harvest thanksgiving services, whenever the opening chapters of Genesis came up in the lectionary, various Gospel passages about stewardship etc. Does that count as traditional? Though, I'm not old enough to remember what churches did to mark these occasions more than 50 years ago.
In regard to the emphasis on climate change in various Lenten resources this year, I've got the Christian Aid material on my bedside table, if your concern is that it's "political" was that also your concern when we had material on debt relief, fair trade, refugees etc in previous years?
It's well known of course, but there is an OT scripture which shows a relationship between corporate confession and Divine response. 2 Chronicles 7:14.
It ends with 'I will heal their land'. Not just their individual souls.
Corporate repentance for institutional sin has a pretty good traditional pedigree. And, let's face it, the truth of it is that the land, and the sea, need healing.
But limited environmental resources are a challenge to traditional notions of wealth as something that should be multiplied so we can all have some. Climate change is thus part of an inherently new issue; it needs us to think outside the traditional box.
I think the idea that wealth should be multiplied is not very traditional: traditional Christian morality would just have it shared or given away. The idea that wealth can be multiplied doesn't go back much before Adam Smith. Environmental concerns are not significantly younger: they go back at least to the Romantics.
So do you think the church, your local congregation, is a community or just individuals who come together on a Sunday morning to each do their own thing in the same place? Is the commission Christ placed on us, to be His witnesses something we each do on our own or is it something that is the action of the church as a community? When you receive bread and wine is that just something between you and God, or is it something that joins you in communion with others in the church?
IMO, the idea that our faith is individual, all about each of us as individuals, is the great heresy of our time. Our faith is about our place in the people of God, the body of Christ, and about how we relate to each other, and how that body of believers relates to God and our neighbours. If you go to church only for yourself then there's something missing, if you want the sermon to only address your individual needs then you're going wrong. We come together to worship together, to grow together, for the dried bones of my foot to join with the dried bones of your leg, and for the Spirit to blow through us to join us together as a single body that is able to work to bring the Kingdom into reality. And, the sermon is part of that act of worship that builds up the body, and urges that body into deeper worship of God and more effective actions that show our love to our neighbours.
Leaving aside the church aspect (which others have addressed) individualism is now the norm for most people in modern western society and if there is such a thing as individualism in faith as well then I suspect that it's an extension of the individualism in society. That doesn't necessarily mean that people's expression of individualism is selfish or wholly materialistic, merely that people have a pick 'n' mix approach to life and, particularly where I live, to spirituality.
You may lament the loss of the collective society but I see that society as oppressive and stifling.
Given the importance of the subject to the future of our world, I find it sad to learn that the OPer feels alienated by its mention at church.
A hugely important subject, yes of course.
But not part of traditional Christianity.
And that, frankly, is half the problem. "Traditional Christianity" can be code for "God gave us the Earth and we get to rule it... and so we get to exploit it."
That's the mindset that Christians carried around the world with them for a long time while they colonised, bringing Christianity with them, often to local peoples who had a far, far better relationship with the land they lived on than the Christians did.
The other thing, it seems partly from reading some comments on this thread, that "traditional Christianity" tends to do is divorce the soul from the body and decide that the eternal fate of one, on an individual basis, is far more important than the home of the other which we're all sharing.
Which is actually unbiblical, as I've come to realise from listening to some excellent episodes of the BibleProject podcast. The conception of human beings presented in the Bible is not of some disembodied eternal bit that carries on without the body. We declare in a creed that we believe in the resurrection of the body.
If we're going to live on a new earth, it'd be nice if we paid a lot of attention to how the one we've currently been given is supposed to work.
Well, Orfeo, I know Jehovah's Witnesses believe that only the 144,000 elect go to Heaven and the rest of us stay on a nicer earth where we can have pet lions.
I always thought it was the resurrection of Jesus' body we were talking about! Now I'm disappointed. I wanted JLo's body next time.
...and I don't want a pet lion, as I'm allergic to cats!
I think the concept of 'new earth', and what is meant by that in Biblical terms, might be an interesting subject for another thread, but we certainly need to concentrate meanwhile on the earth we presently have.
Well, Orfeo, I know Jehovah's Witnesses believe that only the 144,000 elect go to Heaven and the rest of us stay on a nicer earth where we can have pet lions.
I always thought it was the resurrection of Jesus' body we were talking about! Now I'm disappointed. I wanted JLo's body next time.
Resurrection of the Dead in the Creed refers to us, not Jesus - it's less explicit in the Apostles' Creed which just says we believe in "the resurrection of the body" - although that's odd language if it specifically referred to Jesus. In the Nicene it's one of the things we say we look forward to. There's loads of stuff in Paul about Jesus being the first, and how if he wasn't raised, we won't be either.
More generally, though, I agree with (I believe it was) Granny Weatherwax - that if people stopped worrying so much about the next world, they might put a bit more effort into making this one better.
if people stopped worrying so much about the next world, they might put a bit more effort into making this one better.
I don't think the sentiment is unique or even original to Pratchett's characters. Nor have I ever seen much evidence that it's true. Belief in the afterlife does not seem to me to correlate negatively with concerns to improve this world, or in so far as it does, it seems to do so as a result of correlations with third term variables.
Well whatever we believe about the afterlife, I think most of us care deeply about the sort of planet we leave to our grandchildren, if we have them, and all the people and animals that will still be around a hundred years from now
Well whatever we believe about the afterlife, I think most of us care deeply about the sort of planet we leave to our grandchildren, if we have them, and all the people and animals that will still be around a hundred years from now
I do hope that will make the vital difference in the end. I've got four grandchildren and there is a need to make amends for their sakes and countless others. The land and sea need healing for them. It's a kind of blind selfishness not to see that.
@FloRoss - My precise reaction would be 'Gimme a break!' This could well be followed by a glazed expression and a mutinous attitude for the rest of the service.
Comments
There are times, outside the principal seasons of (say) Lent, Easter, Advent, Christmas/Epiphany, when it might well be both possible and desirable to speak about (say) safeguarding, or climate change (I agree that the latter is eminently suitable for Lent, as well as being very topical...).
FWIW, I like the lectionary and what it accomplishes—a disciplined system of readings that invites the preacher to work from the reading, sometimes with significant challenge involved, rather than picking a reading to support what she or he wants to say, and that is shared by the wider church. I also like that, at least in my tribe, the preacher has the ability to deviate from the lectionary when he or she thinks appropriate.
Quite - it's difficult enough at times to work out how (or if) the readings (we have OT, Psalm, NT, and Gospel each Sunday) actually relate to each other!
Our previous incumbent sometimes tried to wangle them all together, like some sort of Chinese puzzle, and just left everyone (including himself) in a fog...
Some selection is often required.
As they say, Allan and Bishop, "you'd better believe it!" I guess I'm just curious as to who "the lectionary" that "sets a Gospel, OT, Epistle and Psalm" considers suitable for myself and others is (are). What social background do they come from? What is their theological formation, and so on? I don't doubt that we can all get something "relevant to the life of any Christian community," from it (them). but the degree of relevance from one community to another might vary significantly, and passages of scripture ignored by the lectionary but relevant to certain cultures ignored or given lesser prominence than is desirable. We are discussing power, aren't we? Who is setting the agenda and with what assumptions?
Quite HOW, and WHY, these particular readings (on a 3-year cycle) are provided, I am not competent to say, but doubtless there are other Shipmates who are more knowledgeable than I. Some of the choices are fairly obvious - the Resurrection account on Easter Day, the Nativity at Christmas, and so on.
I'm not quite sure where 'power' comes into it, when pretty much the whole Bible is read in the course of the lectionary - it's not as if we're being forced into reading only a small selection of verses expressing someone's personal prejudices...
I once attended a CofE service on Christmas Eve that was all about recycling. I'll admit to being disappointed.
I think I would have been a little disappointed with the Ash Wednesday climate change sermon, too. It just wouldn't have been what I was hoping for. Climate change like recycling comes under the head of "good husbandry" to me and I do think it has it's place in sermons. But, just as at Christmas I want to think about the birth of Jesus, on Ash Wednesday I'm more prepared to look inward at my individual sins rather than the collective sins of me, my fellow citizens, and my government, which is where climate change would take me.
From previous page's Ash Wednesday scriptures: "(Matthew 6) about giving to others, fasting and not storing up treasures on earth -"
I don't know about linking Climate Changes as an antidote to treasures on earth. Our resources are part of our earthly treasures and ultimately we will have to give it all up.
I guess I just don't think Ash Wednesday is the best time for the CC sermon. Give me a much needed, never heard, sermon about gluttony instead. (And not that diversion tactic of reminding us about the broader meanings of gluttony.)
As @Enoch notes above, "Care for God's Creation" is the Lenten campaign in the C of E this year, so it is entirely appropriate to speak on this at the very start of Lent -- as long as it is done so in a a manner which is religiously appropriate and doesn't replicate a purely secular take on the environment.
Other churches will have different ways of organising Bible readings, sermons, etc.
I did look this up when I started having to prep Sunday School lessons, and was curious as to how it was all organised. (This is based on the RC lectionary, but I expect the CofE one is on similar lines)
The special seasons have readings that fit with their theme, so the 3 readings and the psalm will be broadly on the same topic. Ordinary time works through the Teaching of Christ parts of the Gospel of the year in a fairly methodical order, so the period between Christmas and Ash Wednesday was the Sermon on the Mount., after the Beatitudes. We will then skip back to that when everything based on the date of Easter is out of the way. The Old Testament reading and the Psalm are related to the Gospel. However, the Epistle is working through parts of the various Letters from Paul et al that aren't covered elsewhere, and any relevance to the Gospel theme is purely co-incidental.
If you say that there is nothing that people care about that cannot profitably be viewed through a Christian lens, I won't disagree. And Christians have always taken that view.
That doesn't mean that Christian tradition is so broad as to be identical with life itself. I'd say that, for example, the Christian tradition was formed prior to the rise of social media and therefore addressing the topic of social media is not part of the tradition as such.
No reason why any priest or minister shouldn't preach on that topic. Or anything else that affects people's choices.
Just suggesting that for everything there is a time and season. That there is a time to tackle hot new topics and a time to remind ourselves of traditional truths, and I can understand if someone feels that Ash Wednesday falls into the latter category.
Perhaps that's where it should take you? Why do you think Ash Wednesday and Lent is only about your individual sins? Unless you're a mass murderer they don't amount to a hill of beans compared with what we do corporately.
Ranting about corporate sins in my experience is a very convenient excuse for massaging one's own ethical purity without having to do anything apart from feel superior to others.
Preaching about climate change, whether on Ash Wednesday or any other occasion, is only of any value at all - and I mean that 'at all' - if its primary focus is on getting 'this congregation here present' to do something that involves changing their own individual ways of life and daily habits, however small.
Preaching that's really addressed to someone else, or nobody in particular except that they are somewhere else, however passionate or well put, is a pointless exercise that encourages self-delusion.
It has to be more than that. Even if I and my congregation recycle everything they can and get all their electricity and heating from garden windmills it will make little difference whilst we expand airports and roads and continue to power more and more of the vehicles on them by burning oil. We can't fix that as individuals; only collectively.
Getting excited about most people's individual sins whilst ignoring the terrible things we do as societies is straining a gnat while swallowing a camel.
What matter for me, for you, for anyone, is what I, whoever I am, actually do, what individual moral responsibility I implement. Getting worked up about that which I can't control may be important for those who can control it, but as far as I'm concerned, it's all too easily a successful temptation not to deal with the things I can do.
As far as my take on things goes, what I, me, whoever I am, can do, but don't, or shouldn't do but do, is a camel not a gnat.
What I think somebody else ought to do or stop doing is more like, 'If it's my wish that he stays until I come, what is that to you?' That's bad enough but fairly obvious, where the 'somebody else' is somebody I can put a name to. 'Societies', though, is a bit meaningless unless it's something I can do something about. If I can, and do, then good. If it's a different version of 'they ought to do something' then it's the 'portentous we' again.
It's my individual sins, and yours, that will weigh on our eternal life. What we do corporately determines the quality of life, on this planet, for a tiny increment of time.
That is not my view. It implies God cares more that I lost my temper with someone last week than that rising sea levels will drown the Maldives.
Your view, IMO, makes the mistake of implying that this world doesn't matter.
It also seems selfish - screw the environment as long as I get into heaven.
Fixed quoting code. BroJames Purgatory Host
But those are things I think, read and talk about in my more secular groups; my Democratic party group, message boards, my book club. Although, I don't think the subject is out of place in sermons, I, personally, go to church for something else, something that I do think is more important than this earth -- for everyone, not just myself.
As for what God cares about? Who knows, but I do think it's at least possible that he cares more about people losing their tempers than the sea levels in the Maldives. It's through man's heart that we are made to care about these things in the first place. I think he wants us to love each other first and foremost.
It's clear from all the things she's listed that she takes seriously all the things, @KarlLB you'd like her to. And even though God may well care more about the sea levels round the Maldives than whether I lose my temper, my saying I care earnestly about the Maldives, which I can't do much about, doesn't let me off losing my temper, which is something I'm supposed to be controlling. Nor does it gives me some credits that will let me ogle my neighbour's wife.
Two words: Greta Thunberg.
One would be attitudes and behaviours in myself which are profligate or unconcerned about my use of the world’s resources - what can I change about my choices that will make even a small difference? The other would be about my participation in a society which has profligate or unconcerned tendencies. What things might I do to begin to shift that. It could be anything from changing my shopping habits to introducing my neighbours to Fair Trade to changing my
Investments to writing to my MP.
I agree that simply railing at something which I regard as not my responsibility is little more than a smug kind of virtue signalling.
Aye, but simply railing wasn't actually proposed by anyone, just criticised as if it had been.
I think I agree with Twilight on this point. Being centred around the imposition of ashes on each individual, I think that Ash Wednesday has a focus on our personal repentance, relationship with God, propensity to sin and how we are going to try and improve our own lives on that front, of which improving the lives of others should be playing a part.
There are 5 whole weeks, and 5 Sundays (allowing for Palm Sunday and Holy Week to have a focus on the events of the Passion), in which we can explore how we collectively as a church community and as citizens are prone to sins, including environmental ones, and can use Lent as a time act on them and promote changes, at a congregational level (individually and collectively), and in the wider community.
Much of that passes over my head but I don't think I have ever done anything or attended anything as a member of a community. I've always done things for my own reasons and taken from them whatever I find useful or interesting.
IMO, the idea that our faith is individual, all about each of us as individuals, is the great heresy of our time. Our faith is about our place in the people of God, the body of Christ, and about how we relate to each other, and how that body of believers relates to God and our neighbours. If you go to church only for yourself then there's something missing, if you want the sermon to only address your individual needs then you're going wrong. We come together to worship together, to grow together, for the dried bones of my foot to join with the dried bones of your leg, and for the Spirit to blow through us to join us together as a single body that is able to work to bring the Kingdom into reality. And, the sermon is part of that act of worship that builds up the body, and urges that body into deeper worship of God and more effective actions that show our love to our neighbours.
I would slightly disagree with you there. As a mum/Sunday School leader, there are times I do go to services, or I'm currently doing the church's Lent course, so I can focus on my own faith, and not worrying what others are doing during the service. There is a place for both the corporate and the personal, such as the promotion of private prayer and study. A sermon that doesn't speak to the majority of individuals within the congregation is also one that is going to fall flat and get forgotten, or remembered for the wrong reason, as we all bring our own experiences and situation to the table, and they will temper our responses.
Two levels - yes, that's exactly it.
Talking about the sins of governments is talking politics. I'm wary of politics in church, whether it's the left-leaning or the right-leaning variety.
But talking about climate change as if it were purely an issue of individual sin is distorting the issue.
Modern-day examples of temptation to illustrate a traditional Christian understanding of temptation seems fine to me.
Using air travel as an example of a luxury good when expounding traditional Christian understanding of attitudes to wealth would be similarly unproblematic.
But limited environmental resources are a challenge to traditional notions of wealth as something that should be multiplied so we can all have some. Climate change is thus part of an inherently new issue; it needs us to think outside the traditional box.
In regard to the emphasis on climate change in various Lenten resources this year, I've got the Christian Aid material on my bedside table, if your concern is that it's "political" was that also your concern when we had material on debt relief, fair trade, refugees etc in previous years?
It ends with 'I will heal their land'. Not just their individual souls.
Corporate repentance for institutional sin has a pretty good traditional pedigree. And, let's face it, the truth of it is that the land, and the sea, need healing.
What are the ashes about but repentance?
Leaving aside the church aspect (which others have addressed) individualism is now the norm for most people in modern western society and if there is such a thing as individualism in faith as well then I suspect that it's an extension of the individualism in society. That doesn't necessarily mean that people's expression of individualism is selfish or wholly materialistic, merely that people have a pick 'n' mix approach to life and, particularly where I live, to spirituality.
You may lament the loss of the collective society but I see that society as oppressive and stifling.
I've wandered round the odd bit of Norman and medieval with my camera but only once attended an actual service and even that was for a dare.
And that, frankly, is half the problem. "Traditional Christianity" can be code for "God gave us the Earth and we get to rule it... and so we get to exploit it."
That's the mindset that Christians carried around the world with them for a long time while they colonised, bringing Christianity with them, often to local peoples who had a far, far better relationship with the land they lived on than the Christians did.
Which is actually unbiblical, as I've come to realise from listening to some excellent episodes of the BibleProject podcast. The conception of human beings presented in the Bible is not of some disembodied eternal bit that carries on without the body. We declare in a creed that we believe in the resurrection of the body.
If we're going to live on a new earth, it'd be nice if we paid a lot of attention to how the one we've currently been given is supposed to work.
(To both of @orfeo's posts, above)
I always thought it was the resurrection of Jesus' body we were talking about! Now I'm disappointed. I wanted JLo's body next time.
...and I don't want a pet lion, as I'm allergic to cats!
I think the concept of 'new earth', and what is meant by that in Biblical terms, might be an interesting subject for another thread, but we certainly need to concentrate meanwhile on the earth we presently have.
Resurrection of the Dead in the Creed refers to us, not Jesus - it's less explicit in the Apostles' Creed which just says we believe in "the resurrection of the body" - although that's odd language if it specifically referred to Jesus. In the Nicene it's one of the things we say we look forward to. There's loads of stuff in Paul about Jesus being the first, and how if he wasn't raised, we won't be either.
More generally, though, I agree with (I believe it was) Granny Weatherwax - that if people stopped worrying so much about the next world, they might put a bit more effort into making this one better.
I do hope that will make the vital difference in the end. I've got four grandchildren and there is a need to make amends for their sakes and countless others. The land and sea need healing for them. It's a kind of blind selfishness not to see that.