The Liturgical Church Year begins in Advent, usually the last Sunday in November (though it starts this year on the first Sunday in December). The entire first half of the church year consists of the story of Jesus, his earthly ministry in Galilee, his trip to Jerusalem, his Crucifixion and Resurrection, and his post-Resurrection appearances and Ascension. The first half of the church year contains both Christmas and Easter. By and large, the Church loves the first half of the Liturgical Church Year.
The second half of the Liturgical Church Year is another story altogether. The twenty-six weeks of the season after Pentecost have a completely different focus, lack significant theologically-based holidays, and just happen to fall when the weather is better and when the (grand)children are out of school. The second half of the Liturgical Church Year is based on the power of the Holy Spirit, at work in the Church. The Church does not at all seem to embrace the second half of the church year. Based on empirical evidence, like worship attendance and congregational activity, one would have to conclude that the bulk of Church focus lies in the first half of the year. The second half goes mostly ignored.
I find that fact odd. While the first half of the Liturgical Church Year, roughly December through May, focuses on the story of Jesus and God's Sacrament in him, the second half, June through November, focuses on the Spirit of God, which is at work in the Church that bears Jesus' name. The second half is sacramental. The same work is being done. Both halves are about God accomplishing the work of salvation for all people. Both halves of the year involve holy work, sacred calling, divine empowerment.
Why, then, does the Church of Jesus Christ mostly ignore the importance of the second half of the Liturgical Church Year? Unfortunately, the evidence would suggest that the Church of Jesus Christ embraces the first half and ignores the second half because the means by which God accomplishes salvation for all people differs.
The difference is stark. In the first half of the church year, Jesus is the means by which God accomplishes universal salvation. It is in Jesus' earthly ministry, his teachings, his miracles, his sacrifice, his death and new life that God works salvation. In the second half of the Liturgical Church Year, God works universal salvation through the power of the Holy Spirit, which is put to work in the ministries and mission of the Church of Jesus Christ.
While we in the Church love to claim that the Church is the body of Christ, we are uncomfortable with the idea that God works universal salvation in the world by actually empowering us. God enables us. God calls us. God sends us. God relies on us. God waits on us. And we do not like it. God's call to us makes us accountable for the advent of God's kingdom in the world. God's empowerment makes it potential for the world that it may be God's kingdom. God's reliance on us makes it incumbent upon us to move with God's will toward the fulfillment of that kingdom.
The Church does not like the pressure. It does not like the idea that it is a crucial part of God's sacred work on earth. It does not appreciate the fact that God will not do God's work of salvation without the hands and feet of the Church as its vehicle.
We blame it on summer. We blame it on vacations. We blame it on yard work. We blame it on tee times or soccer games (which clearly are more important than God's work in the world).We blame the decline on the (grand)kids being out of school. The reality of the situation is that we do not want to be accountable for God's work. We do not want to be its vehicle. We do not want to be the means by which God brings God's kingdom to actuality. So we stay away. We pull back.
The Liturgical Church Year is a tale of two halves. The Church of Jesus Christ may as well admit that it likes the Sacrament of God in Christ Jesus, where all the pressure and responsibility is on him, but dislikes, and stays far from, the sacramental work that makes the kingdom manifest. We do not want to be responsible for the work. We want to receive the blessings of the first half, but we do not want to bear the sacrifice of the second.
Forgive us, Lord.
See You Sunday!
5 comments:
*Disclaimer* I just read through this comment as I am typing it and can see that it would come across as a little jumbled. I apologize, but I am too tired to go through and try to reorganize it into a more cohesive form.
I just spent some time catching up on these blogs, and thought I would chime in.
First, (somewhat in response to a comment that Jim posted a blog or two ago) it is sad to see how the comments have sort of dropped off on here. My favorite part of reading the blogs used to be the discussions that would take place within the comments thread. It seemed that there was always as much (or more, in some cases) content within the comments as there was within the body of the blog itself. I was slightly surprised to see the lack of this discussion now (but admittedly, it has been some time since I've found myself here), and hope that readers will once again realize that these can be an interactive springboard for discourse rather than just a short message to read over and then wait for the next installment.
Now that I have made my Public Service Announcement, I can move on to addressing the current blog...
We have talked for a long time about the two halves of the church year, the concept of sacrament vs. sacramental, etc., and the church's apparent preference for the first half of the church year. My thought has always been, "Well, the church (and church goers) prefer to focus on the first half of the church year because it is easier." It is very easy to get behind this idea that through the "uppy downy" we were given universal grace. Game over. End of story.
We were all given grace through the crucifixion/resurrection. Jesus did the "heavy lifting" of sacrifice for us. Paved the way for smooth sailing ahead.
As radical as the concept of UNIVERSAL grace may seem to some Christians, universal CALLING seems to be off-putting to large quantities of even the progressive lot. Maybe not accepting the IDEA of universal calling, but accepting the RESPONSIBILITY that it brings.
"Wait, we just said that Christ Jesus died and rose and provided universal grace, right? And now, you want ME to go out and give of myself for the betterment of all? Yeah, I'll get right on that."
On top of the fact that accepting universal calling means more work for us (which seems to be something we frown upon in our culture for some reason), it also seems to disrupt what I will call the more "traditional, historical church experience." By this, I am referring to the idea of a Christian going to church on Sunday morning, receiving a message from a spiritual intermediary (pastor, etc.) who the congregant views as having some calling to do God's work, praying, tithing, and then "disconnecting" from God when they leave (because the link was established through the spiritual intermediary). A church experience like this does not make that congregant a bad Christian or a bad person. It does not mean necessarily that they are not living out God's will in the world. But it would make it a little bit difficult for them to comprehend and embrace the idea of universal calling, as they may be used to a system in which only those in positions of power within the church have been called to do God's work.
*Sorry, my comment was longer than the text limit for one comment, so I had to break it apart*
Yes, I realize that I am probably rambling.
A final point that I will address (I apologize in advance for any offense) is that it is difficult for us to embrace the idea of universal calling (if by that we mean that every individual is provided with certain gifts or abilities by God, and they are called to use those gifts or abilities out in the world in ways that benefit all, in order to bring about Kingdom) because it seems slightly un-American.
As much as we claim to value "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," it is more often than not a selfish happiness that we crave. The new "American dream" seems to be the bettering of an individual's life with little or no regard for others. The more disturbing side of this issue seems to have risen from the old notion of the level playing field. More and more, it feels like the majority of people think things like... "Well, I am more successful than that person because I worked harder and made better life decisions. If that person would have worked as hard as I had, they wouldn't be in the position that they are."
When we live in a society that teaches us that everyone gets what they work for, and exactly what they deserve, it becomes difficult to accept a message that tells us that we are called to go out and give of ourselves in the world, often to the benefit of people that society might deem as undeserving.
Sorry to have ranted for so long. I will now retire for the evening.
Justin
Thanks for your "rant" Justin. I too feel we're living into a new time and any transitional time is hard, really hard to figure out. Here's a link to a real interesting article in The Christian Century; (hope it works).
http://www.christiancentury.org/article/2012-05/just-isn-t-working
When we talk about "THE" church, we have to be so careful we're not talking about "a" church. There's certainly a part of me that's "Serving the world by living the Word". (Reversed intentionally). I think I and lots and lots of others are living our faiths where we live; and I personally believe, people who I/we work and spend time with do notice. The fact that their recognition doesn't necessarily reflect itself in traditional church involvement as we've known it in the past half century makes it no less real.
The question for me is; "What are doing that we really don't need to be doing in church; and what are we not doing that we really should be doing?" I'm finding different churches; (somewhat like people), have different gifts ... and like many in the under 30 crowd; I'm finding connections in a variety of worshiping communities. (This is very different for me; but not so much for younger people). Many studies show this.
Admittedly; this is really hard for what we think of as "traditional church." I don't know what the next few decades will look like; but I do believe it will not be like when I was formed in the faith in the 50's through 70's all over again. Again; I can not say too strongly how hard this is for church leadership to live out.
I've got more; ... but that's enough. :)
Thanks, Jim and Justin, for engaging the blog. My problem is that I am working from within the "traditional church," and have to work to change it from the inside. While I would love to be engaged in the cultural aspect that you both highlight, my calling is to work at equipping others to do the cultural work. This work takes place from within the church-as-it-is. I fully realize both the growing gap and the bleak future of that church. In my case, it simply feeds a sense of extreme urgency for that to which I am called.
Post a Comment