Missing the rhythm of the liturgical calendar

I now go to a fairly low church.

I also grew up and worked in numerous low churches.

But, ironically, every church previous to my current one revolved around the liturgical calendar.

And, I think this link with tradition and the liturgical seasons is important.

Frankly, it’s something I miss about my current church.

For, while it passed with a mention, very little was made of Palm Sunday last week.

No palm branches.

No palm crosses.

No reading of the passage.

In fact, no ministry of the church - adults, teens or youth - focused on the events of Palm Sunday.

So… I missed Palm Sunday last week.

As I did last year.

And the year before that.

It’s only now that I’m out of the liturgical cycle that I see the true value of the repetition.

Palm Sunday. Christ the King Sunday. Trinity Sunday. Advent. Lent. Epiphany. Pentecost. 

The repetition of traditions.

The repetition of the core stories.

The repetition of the central truths.

The significance of communion

I’ve written a lot about communion over the years.

Last week I took some of the older youngsters through the significance of communion.

We spoke about how we did communion - the explanation, invitation, collection, consideration and united consumption.

But, more importantly, we spoke about the significance of the sacrament.

It reminds us of what Jesus did.

It reminds us of who Jesus is.

It reminds us of our connection with Jesus.

It reminds us of our connection with each other.

The tension a pillar must feel in a new church

Every church has pillars. Even in as far back as the New Testament.

Every church I’ve worked at had a few.

My home church had some.

My current church has some.

A pillar will be a member of the congregation who maintains the values, selflessly serves and - in short - holds the unspoken wisdom of the church.

But, what happens when they make a jump to another church?

How do they feel?

What do they see?

I suspect, being in a new congregation comes with a sense of freedom.

You’re not a pillar. 

You’re anonymous.

You’re not relied upon.

You’re not the first to arrive nor expected to be the last to leave.

You’re free to worship without a checklist of duties.

You’re able to observe a fresh context for faith.

You’re able to meet new people.

But, there must also be a sense of loss.

Loss of importance.

Loss of involvement.

Loss of familiarity.

When a pillar jumps - no matter what the circumstances - it must be a temptation to slot into your familiar roles in the new church.

Get on a roster.

Share your experiences.

Recycling some of your previous wins.

When a pillar jumps, it must be a strange mix of release and a desire to dive into a new congregation.

The challenge for those within the new worshipping community is to balance this tension in such a way that a long-term-valuable-congregant is accepted for who they are on day-one, not the potential to be a pillar in their new church.

Why reading the gospels in chronological order is an AWFUL idea

In my post entitled Random Graham Revisited, I concluded by mentioning that I’m planning to read through the entire Bible in 2029, 2033, 2037, 2041, 2044 and 2049.

Across the decades I’ll vary the methods I’ll use to read the Bible, with one of the ways to read through a chronological Bible (but not until 2049). 

In short, if you aren’t familiar, this method rearranges the text of the scripture in - as the name suggests - chronological order.

Which, for the Old Testament historical passages, is a brilliant idea.

Which, for the Old Testament prophecy passages, is a brilliant idea.

Which, for the New Testament epistles and early church narrative passages, is a brilliant idea.

But… for the gospels is a HORRIBLE idea.

For, the gospel aren’t designed to be mashed together chronologically.

This would be dishonest to the authors intentions and the entire genre that they are writing in.

The gospel authors are not writing biographies as we think of them in the modern world. These aren’t interested in chronological events.

Biographies in the ancient world, like those written about Jesus or the parallel lives recorded by Plutarch, are far more invested in the kairos moments, not the chronological ones.

These biographies of antiquity are more concerned about how the significant events in a life shape the person, their lasting impact and the ultimate message being conveyed.

If you force them into a chronological framework, then you fundamentally lose a vital part of their composition.

You lose their purpose.

You obscure their audience.

You soften the individual decisions that the author has made.

You cloud the literary context.

You quieten the voice of the author.

All because you missed the importance of the genre.

But, manipulating the gospels into a chronological timeframe places you in an unfair position of judgement over the gospel authors.

For, you then question why some things are omitted or place in the “wrong” place.

Of course, you do so without engaging in the entire conversation that the gospel writer is having.

You don’t see the thematic collection of teachings.

You don’t see the intentional groupings of miracles.

You don’t sense the decisions about sheer length of the gospel which influenced the any omissions.

It is clear that the gospel of John was selective in the events it included, with Jesus “performing many other signs… which are not recorded” (John 20:30). Every gospel is selective.

I read something during the week which mentioned that the gospel accounts are like a portrait, not a photograph.

They are accurate, but artistic.

They are accurate, but influenced by the artist.

They are accurate, but come from different perspectives.

They are accurate, but also present a message.

Smashing four paintings of a person together would make a horrible Frankenstein of the subject being depicted.

While I’ll read a lot of the bible in chronological order, the gospels - as they are - deserve to stand on their own.

Is the pinnacle spiritual metacognition?

The highest educational aim is nurturing metacognition in your students.

Form you don’t just want your students to absorb what you’re teaching them, but to be able to think about the process of their learning.

In short, you want them to be able to think about their thinking.

This is usually shown through their ability to critically reflect on the processes and effectiveness of learning and the capacity to accurately assess their understanding and obstacles to further growth.

But, is there a spiritual equivalent?

Is there a similar summit of spiritual metacognition?

Of course, I think it is possible to develop your understanding of theology and the way you connect with God.

But, I suspect this is not the height of discipleship.

While there is incredible value in familiarising yourself with the scriptures, studying theology and church history and nurturing the tools of spiritual disciplines, this isn’t the chief aim of Christianity.

The chief aim is a relationship reflected in obedience.

These must be the markers of spiritual development.

The summit is not metacognition - understanding the structures of discipleship - but a deepened relationship, observant spirit and swifter obedience.

Instead of spiritual metacognition, we require Spirit metacognition.

What we need to understand is the Spirit of God, not the spirit of spirituality.

This is true maturity and development in the faith.

You need maturity, not a mirror

Peers can be wise. Obviously.

Peers can be supportive.

Peers are essential for working out the difficulties which are happening in your life.

But, frankly, peers can create a blind-leading-the-blind paradigm.

Often, our peers only know what we know.

They have only gone through what we have experienced.

What we require, if we want true guidance, is an older head. We need someone who is in the next one - if not multiple - life stage.

Someone who has gone through the experiences we are navigating and walked besides many who have tread the same path.

When you’re just entering the workforce, you need an experienced person in your field.

When you’re newlyweds, you need a couple with decades of matrimony behind them.

When you’re starting a family, you need someone who now has an empty nest of healthy offspring.

When you’re buying a house, you need people who have sealed a property deal.

When your marriage is struggling, you need someone who has fought through the relational tough times.

This is true for the ministers of our church.

This is true for the leaders of our bible studies.

For, we need age, not peers.

We need maturity, not a mirror.