‘The season of Lent is traditionally understood to be a time for reflection, contrition, and consideration of the sacrifice Jesus undertook for our sins. … all that is contingent upon a belief in the atonement theory of the crucifixion by which we accept that Jesus died to save us from our sins and bring us into eternal relationship with the divine being, God. If our belief in that story has cracks in it, the idea of Lent can become nonsensical.’ Gretta Vosper [progressivechristianity.org]
This post made me angry; angry because it lacked the depth of the response that is sometimes needed to make sense out of long-standing traditions. As Diarmaid MacCullough states in ‘Christianity: the first three thousand years” [2009] when talking about the catechumens [those who had not fulfilled the requirements for baptism and were still under instruction (catechesis)] ‘It was the perfect time of the liturgical year for the catechumens to spend a last rigorous preparation before their triumphal reception into the Church during the celebrations of Easter’ He also states that this forty day period was first mentioned in the Canons of the Council of Nicaea [325] and was the season that in English is known as Lent.
Originally then, or at least as far back as 325 if not even farther, Lent was seen as a time for study and spiritual growth. We have a period of forty days set aside by the church in which to intentionally take up some piece of discipline, reflection, or study that will help prepare us to celebrate not only Easter, but also to deepen our lives as Christians. That certainly is as valid today has it was nearly 2000 years ago.
Lent is a gift of time where we are invite to grow in whatever way we need to. Nothing is proscribed or set down but it is up to us to decide how best to spend this time remembering that what we choose should call on us to reevaluate or deepen our spiritual practises. It could be time spent each day in reflection or meditation. It might be reading that book on our shelves [or in our Kobo] that deepens our theological understanding. It might be committing ourselves to helping ‘the other’ in an ongoing way. It could be anything that deepens our Christian experience.
The understanding that Jesus died for our sins didn’t some into being until the 16th century when it was developed as an extension on Anselm’s doctrine of substitutionary satisfaction. “Penal substitutionary atonement refers to the doctrine that Christ died on the cross as a substitute for sinners….This Reformed view says simply that Christ died for man, in man's place, taking his sins and bearing them for him.” http://www.theopedia.com/
If the doctrine of substitutionary atonement works for you, then, of course, go with that for the next 40 days. But if it doesn’t, you have good company in all the Christians, both before and since 325, who have seem it as an opportunity for study, reflection and growth.
How you respond is up to you!
Comments
Post a Comment