tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329600504016968888.post8888966597875183271..comments2024-03-27T15:47:46.091-05:00Comments on Pastoral Meanderings: A Day Without Beauty. . .Pastor Petershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10653554256101480140noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329600504016968888.post-38131052464303620532013-02-23T16:05:38.149-06:002013-02-23T16:05:38.149-06:00I need the ashes, too, Pastor Peters. The ashes a...I need the ashes, too, Pastor Peters. The ashes are a dirty reminder that my sinfulness is not some aggregate total of wrongs done and rights ignored. Rather, the ashes are a reminder of the condition of my sinfulness, the corruption of my flesh so deeply ingrained that, left to myself, I know nothing but sin.Rev. Kevin Jenningsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329600504016968888.post-13197508578770574162013-02-21T07:27:49.404-06:002013-02-21T07:27:49.404-06:00Fr.,
A couple of reactions:
1) First a minor cor...Fr.,<br /><br />A couple of reactions:<br /><br />1) First a minor correction to your Latin: it is Simul justus et peccator not simil.<br /><br />2) Symbolism is not that bad of a thing. WE have to remember that even as fallen creatures, our language and ability to use language fell. We are told in Corinthians that the "grunts of Angels" would be understandable had it not been for the fall. So, because of that corruption, symbolism is often the only way we have to connect with the divine reality. If you read Augustine's De Magistro (on the teacher), he says that words are often signs which in turn lead to other signs which eventually all lead back to God. Call it a linguistic theology, if you will. Symbols can be misinterpreted yes, but that does not mean the symbols themselves are bad.<br /><br />3) You say you don't want people to think the Ash Wednesday service as beautiful because that would be to regard sin and death as beautiful. Beauty can occur and does occur even in the dark. Doesn't the Ash Wednesday service also proclaim the triumph of Christ over sin, death and the devil as well as His gifts to us to do the same? If not, shouldn't it? Whatever happened to the Lutheran Law-Gospel approach? The Divine Liturgy, no matter for what day, feast, commemoration also remembers Christ's death and Resurrection. You have both together and that is a beautiful thing. Plus, isn't there room for beauty even in recognizing one's sin?<br /><br />My wife, several years ago, was in a horrible car accident. Her face was cut up, nose broken, bruises everywhere, several broken bones and yet she was still beautiful despite the outside appearance and despite how negatively and down trodden she spoke. Beauty exists in the dark. We just have to cut through the darkness to see it or even want to see it.<br /><br />4) Also, responding to the first comment, if people misunderstand the symbols which may lead to error, is that not a reason, if not THE reason for good catechsis. I find the Lutheran aversion to symbols for fear that those could be misunderstood, is a knee-jerk reaction that has lead to some very negative developments particularly in the LCMS over the past 50 years. The liturgy has too many symbols therefore it can be abused so we should do without it. The sacraments have too many symbols so we should only offer the Eucharist maybe once a month, if that, to prevent people from misunderstanding. One of the problems with these reactions to peoples' poor understanding is that you have abandoned the church's tradition of good order. The Lutheran forebears knew that symbols could be abused but that did not mean they called for all of their removal and disuse. Another problem is that you let the laity determine doctrine and praxis. The care of that was left to the Church and her bishops and presbyters. Yes, even they can go wrong, but so can the laity. Lutherans have just made new referees. Meet the new boss...same as the old boss.<br /><br />I also think that the aversion to symbols is easier for many Lutheran pastors who feel that the task of instructing people correctly in the praxis and history of the church is simply too much for them to do. Also, they don't want to be accused of being Romish. All in all, it's really a sad commentary.--ChrisUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08038508116670615703noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329600504016968888.post-59547943660047153472013-02-21T06:24:20.191-06:002013-02-21T06:24:20.191-06:00While I do offer the ashes on ash Wednesday, I do ...While I do offer the ashes on ash Wednesday, I do think it is necessary to point out one problem with your argumentation<br /><br />"It can be misunderstood (if that were a serious reason, we would not have baptism or the Lord's Supper)."<br /><br />Baptism and the Lord's Supper or not only symbols and, therefore, whether they may or may not be understood is irrelevant to whether we practice them.<br /><br />The ashes are purely symbol and, therefore, the meaning is the ONLY reason we apply them. If, therefore, the meaning is likely to be misunderstood, that is a legitimate reason to forgo the ashes.<br /><br />The difference is that if the meaning of the sacraments is likely to be understood, we must correct the understanding. If the meaning of a symbol is likely to be understood it is a perfectly legitimate solution to simply forgo the symbol. <br /><br />Mixing symbol and sacrament on common grounds in order to make a point is generally a very dangerous direction in which to head.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com