The festal period of the church year is closing. We have celebrated Holy Week and Easter, the Ascension has passed, and now we come to Pentecost. Next week will be Trinity Sunday and then we will pass into the comfortable, repetitive rhythm of Trinitytide, or ordinary time.
Our spiritual life is enriched by each of these festivals because they progressively build in our minds a robust narrative of the work of Christ. For many, the gospel ends at Easter. Their ministers will say that they are declaring the Pauline gospel:
Paul left off his narrative short of the Ascension to make a lengthy discussion of the resurrection. But I submit to you that if Christ had not ascended, he would be no better than Lazarus - who he himself had delivered from the grave- and less than Enoch and Elijah -who were taken up without first passing through the grave. That is why, in the consecration prayers at the altar, the celebrant speaks of his “most glorious ascension.” And this phrase description, most glorious, points to the uniqueness of Christ sharing fully in the glory of the Father in such a way that he is privileged to return to his side and take a seat at his right hand.
In the East, Easter (or Pascha, as they call it), is sometimes described as the eighth day. By this, they mean that Easter is not an ending but a new beginning -the day of new creation. It is a theme which Sts. Peter and John refer to in their letters, writing of the new heavens and new earth. This view prepares us to look at the festal seasons of the church year with a proper perspective, one which lacks the myopia of celebrating only Christmas and Easter.
I have already discussed the importance of the Ascension. I submit also for your consideration that Pentecost is of no less importance. If Christ had not sent the Spirit, the Apostles would not have been empowered to establish the church as a distinct entity from the Jewish synagogue. Rather, they likely would have come to represent another niche school of Judaism. And this identity for the church is what the Jerusalem council was all about (Acts 15). Would the church be a sect of Judaism or an entirely new entity altogether? Just as the Spirit moved at Pentecost, so he moved at the council and the church was definitively broken from Judaism. There were many parallels, because God's truth was in Judaism, but the church in every way eclipsed what Judaism could do for mankind.
Pentecost, too, eclipses certain prototypes from the OT. The church fathers saw the tongues of fire which rested upon the apostles as being prefigured by Moses' commissioning at the burning bush. And the feast of Pentecost itself, to the Jews, was a time to remember the giving of the Law but these new leaders of God's people -the apostles- were about to give them the Gospel.
As for the languages of Pentecost, some scholars have said that had the apostles merely preached in Aramaic and Greek the bulk of the crowd would have likely understood. But then there would have been no convincing sign to prove that the coming of the Spirit that had drawn the attention of the town in the first place was anything special. So Pentecost is loaded with symbolism.
I have discussed how some essentially stop the Gospel message at Easter. Others stop it at Pentecost. This typically leads to some thought of a mythical primitive church where everyone had a vibrant faith and the Spirit worked powerfully. Interestingly, there are two ways to approach this 'golden age' theory. Pentecostals emphasize the signs and Restorationists emphasize the supposedly primitive structures and worship.
But the NT epistles allude to sophistication in the early church, and they allude to a continual progress to a more organized structure, so that by the time one reads the Pastoral epistles it is fairly clear that the bishopric, in some form, is already known in the churches. And John, writing the Apocalypse, makes it clear that there were dioceses in place as he writes to the 'seven churches of Asia Minor.'
My point in mentioning this builds on what Father Paul spoke of last week when he made mention of the progressive nature of revelation. Just as what we have come to know as the NT came over the course of a few decades, the structures and worship of the church developed over time as well. That is why the Anglican ethos has been to measure the church with the three voices of Scripture, Tradition, and Reason. The Articles of Religion qualify this by reminding us that tradition must not be repugnant to the plain sense of Scripture and yet Tradition has also been invaluable in reminding us what the sense of Scripture has been through the long course of church history.
Many in the church are not living in continuity with this ethos. They have introduced a fourth paradigm to the church's way of analysis: experience. This fourfold method has been called the Wesleyan quadrilateral, but it is really a return to the methods of Montanus. (Montanus convinced himself that he was the Holy Spirit incarnate and attracted a band of prophets, deceiving many of the faithful.) There is an inherent problem in this approach: subjectivity in the experience.
There is a difference between what the mystics of the church have offered and what Montanus said. We will have experiences in the faith. But they must always be tempered by a connection to Scripture, rightly understood. St. Peter warned that the devil walks about as a lion, seeking to devour the faithful. And the St. Michael prayer, which was said at the close of every Catholic mass for many years, tells us that Satan has even taken the form of an angel of light to deceive the churches. Authentic monasticism was always contemplative, not creative in the sense of coming up with something wholly new.
Debates are raging about the direction of mainstream Anglicanism -and Christianity generally- in North America with both sides justifying their positions not so much with reasonable arguments, but with a Montanist appeal to the Holy Spirit. Both sides say, “The Spirit is doing a new thing.” However, what one group is doing is sometimes exactly the opposite of what another group is doing. I submit that one and perhaps both sides are erroneously claiming a move of the Spirit in their midst. When we hear of a 'new thing,' we should pause for a moment because if it really is new it is probably not something we should do.
The story of Pentecost is that the apostles were empowered to preach the Gospel and administer the sacraments, beginning with the great number of baptisms that were performed that day. They then empowered their successors to do the same. St. Paul gave Timothy this commission when he wrote to him:
There is a certain historical continuity in authentic Christianity. Unfortunately, many of the churches have lost that continuity in their doctrine and practice. We must be the voice of reason one community at a time. Growth will follow, sometimes dramatically as at Pentecost, and other times in small ways. But where the Gospel is preached and the sacraments are administered grace is present and growth comes.
Our spiritual life is enriched by each of these festivals because they progressively build in our minds a robust narrative of the work of Christ. For many, the gospel ends at Easter. Their ministers will say that they are declaring the Pauline gospel:
For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures;
Paul left off his narrative short of the Ascension to make a lengthy discussion of the resurrection. But I submit to you that if Christ had not ascended, he would be no better than Lazarus - who he himself had delivered from the grave- and less than Enoch and Elijah -who were taken up without first passing through the grave. That is why, in the consecration prayers at the altar, the celebrant speaks of his “most glorious ascension.” And this phrase description, most glorious, points to the uniqueness of Christ sharing fully in the glory of the Father in such a way that he is privileged to return to his side and take a seat at his right hand.
In the East, Easter (or Pascha, as they call it), is sometimes described as the eighth day. By this, they mean that Easter is not an ending but a new beginning -the day of new creation. It is a theme which Sts. Peter and John refer to in their letters, writing of the new heavens and new earth. This view prepares us to look at the festal seasons of the church year with a proper perspective, one which lacks the myopia of celebrating only Christmas and Easter.
I have already discussed the importance of the Ascension. I submit also for your consideration that Pentecost is of no less importance. If Christ had not sent the Spirit, the Apostles would not have been empowered to establish the church as a distinct entity from the Jewish synagogue. Rather, they likely would have come to represent another niche school of Judaism. And this identity for the church is what the Jerusalem council was all about (Acts 15). Would the church be a sect of Judaism or an entirely new entity altogether? Just as the Spirit moved at Pentecost, so he moved at the council and the church was definitively broken from Judaism. There were many parallels, because God's truth was in Judaism, but the church in every way eclipsed what Judaism could do for mankind.
Pentecost, too, eclipses certain prototypes from the OT. The church fathers saw the tongues of fire which rested upon the apostles as being prefigured by Moses' commissioning at the burning bush. And the feast of Pentecost itself, to the Jews, was a time to remember the giving of the Law but these new leaders of God's people -the apostles- were about to give them the Gospel.
As for the languages of Pentecost, some scholars have said that had the apostles merely preached in Aramaic and Greek the bulk of the crowd would have likely understood. But then there would have been no convincing sign to prove that the coming of the Spirit that had drawn the attention of the town in the first place was anything special. So Pentecost is loaded with symbolism.
I have discussed how some essentially stop the Gospel message at Easter. Others stop it at Pentecost. This typically leads to some thought of a mythical primitive church where everyone had a vibrant faith and the Spirit worked powerfully. Interestingly, there are two ways to approach this 'golden age' theory. Pentecostals emphasize the signs and Restorationists emphasize the supposedly primitive structures and worship.
But the NT epistles allude to sophistication in the early church, and they allude to a continual progress to a more organized structure, so that by the time one reads the Pastoral epistles it is fairly clear that the bishopric, in some form, is already known in the churches. And John, writing the Apocalypse, makes it clear that there were dioceses in place as he writes to the 'seven churches of Asia Minor.'
My point in mentioning this builds on what Father Paul spoke of last week when he made mention of the progressive nature of revelation. Just as what we have come to know as the NT came over the course of a few decades, the structures and worship of the church developed over time as well. That is why the Anglican ethos has been to measure the church with the three voices of Scripture, Tradition, and Reason. The Articles of Religion qualify this by reminding us that tradition must not be repugnant to the plain sense of Scripture and yet Tradition has also been invaluable in reminding us what the sense of Scripture has been through the long course of church history.
Many in the church are not living in continuity with this ethos. They have introduced a fourth paradigm to the church's way of analysis: experience. This fourfold method has been called the Wesleyan quadrilateral, but it is really a return to the methods of Montanus. (Montanus convinced himself that he was the Holy Spirit incarnate and attracted a band of prophets, deceiving many of the faithful.) There is an inherent problem in this approach: subjectivity in the experience.
There is a difference between what the mystics of the church have offered and what Montanus said. We will have experiences in the faith. But they must always be tempered by a connection to Scripture, rightly understood. St. Peter warned that the devil walks about as a lion, seeking to devour the faithful. And the St. Michael prayer, which was said at the close of every Catholic mass for many years, tells us that Satan has even taken the form of an angel of light to deceive the churches. Authentic monasticism was always contemplative, not creative in the sense of coming up with something wholly new.
Debates are raging about the direction of mainstream Anglicanism -and Christianity generally- in North America with both sides justifying their positions not so much with reasonable arguments, but with a Montanist appeal to the Holy Spirit. Both sides say, “The Spirit is doing a new thing.” However, what one group is doing is sometimes exactly the opposite of what another group is doing. I submit that one and perhaps both sides are erroneously claiming a move of the Spirit in their midst. When we hear of a 'new thing,' we should pause for a moment because if it really is new it is probably not something we should do.
The story of Pentecost is that the apostles were empowered to preach the Gospel and administer the sacraments, beginning with the great number of baptisms that were performed that day. They then empowered their successors to do the same. St. Paul gave Timothy this commission when he wrote to him:
The things that thou hast heard from me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.
There is a certain historical continuity in authentic Christianity. Unfortunately, many of the churches have lost that continuity in their doctrine and practice. We must be the voice of reason one community at a time. Growth will follow, sometimes dramatically as at Pentecost, and other times in small ways. But where the Gospel is preached and the sacraments are administered grace is present and growth comes.
