Tags

Jessica set out some of the background to Mother Julian in posts a few weeks back, and for those starting afresh on this, I would recommend starting there.
I want to start with the old Commination prayer which, when I was a child, would be said at Morning Prayer on Ash Wednesday:
BRETHREN, in the primitive Church there was a godly discipline, that, at the beginning of Lent, such persons as stood convicted of notorious sin were put to open penance, and punished in this world, that their souls might be saved in the day of the Lord; and that others, admonished by their example, might be the more afraid to offend.
Instead whereof, until the said discipline may be restored again, (which is much to be wished,) it is thought good that at this time (in the presence of you all) should be read the general sentences of God’s cursing against impenitent sinners, gathered out of the seven and twentieth chapter of Deuteronomy, and other places of Scripture; and that ye should answer to every sentence, Amen: To the intent that, being admonished of the great indignation of God against sinners, ye may the rather be moved to earnest and true repentance; and may walk more warily in these dangerous days; fleeing from such vices, for which ye affirm with your own mouths the curse of God to be due.
This would seem rather at odds with what Mother Julian says about the anger of God, but I think Jessica deals well with the seeming tension when she wrote:
Mother Julian saw with insight that if God were to feel what we call “anger” even for a moment, he would cease to be the creator and become the destroyer, and we should cease to exist. Anger is what happens inside us and we attribute it to God. We are, we say in some circumstances, “standing up for God”, as though he needs our anger; well it’s an excuse isn’t it? It was human anger which crucified Christ; it is our own anger which crucifies us. It holds us in an atmosphere of conflict and fear which keeps us from peace – and from atonement and repentance;
It may be indicative of where we are in more than one way that the Commination service seems to be a rarity (though one may be had here) and that the Church, whether Anglican or Catholic, seems reluctant to talk about “wrath”. It is easier to talk about God’s “love”, not least because love is a pleasanter topic for reflection and for sermons than “wrath’. That is, in some quarters, a natural reaction, to be deplored by some of a traditionalist bent, and to be celebrated as “progress” by those of other minds.
Julian of Norwich has become something of a beacon for those who wish to emphasise love and not wrath, and she should not be held responsible for some of the things some of her latter-day admirers load upon her. Her understanding was deeper than a surface perusal sometimes allows for. But that should not be read as indicating that it’s time to go on about “wrath” more than we do. Those who lament the decline of wrath-related preaching might wish to reflect on why it has happened? Here Mother Julian has much to help us with.
“God”, she tells us, “enfolds us in love and will never let us go.” (Chapter 5). How do we react to that? It is easy to say we love God, but this Lent is an opportunity to ask ourselves a question we ought to ask of all our close relationships – how much time to we spend on it?
Our prayer makes God happy (Chapter 41) we are told by Mother Julian. But how often to do pray? I used to have three main reactions to prayer: I prayed when I felt I needed something or wanted help for someone; I didn’t feel in the right frame of mind for prayer; or my prayers felt “dry”. It became an excuse for not praying. A few years back I decided to follow the lectionary and prayed morning, evening and compline prayers – in season and out, however I “felt”. Once it stopped becoming about me, it could become about God. I recommended it to Jess, and others, who seem to have benefitted from it. Praying the Rosary while walking also helps me.
There, I was pleased to see, were among the steps recommended by Sheila Upjohn (pp. 5-8) in the first chapter of our Lent Book. She poses some interesting questions about prayer at the end of the chapter, and to this, I shall turn on the morrow.
But as we enter Lent together, let us remember that: “dust you are, And to dust you shall return.” But into that dust God breathed life, and through His Son He offers us forgiveness for all our sins. As we ponder and wonder what we should give up, let us give ourselves and each other something positive instead – like a break! – And let us take up regular prayer.
Thessalonians 5:17 Pray without ceasing. Aside from ‘prayer book prayers’, there are those that are like notations in a personal journal; thank you, Father – it was a good day but x, w, and z happened. Thanks for helping me through it. Or Father, do you think it’s ever going to stop raining? But I love the dimness of the sky that comes with rain – makes me appreciate the sunshine again. Or Father, this thing has come into my life and I need you to sort it out for me. Every time the words of a hymn run through my head, that’s a kind of prayer. Every time I say “bless your heart”, it’s an acknowledgement that there is a God and that it is Him alone that can ‘bless’. The prayer is carried in our hearts and colors all else. The conversation with God is unceasing.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Great comments, Audre 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
I think it is good to have comforting writing, which is one of the reasons I enjoy Jess’ posts and conversing with her generally. Indeed I am of a fairly maudlin bent, so anything that helps to promote a sense of peace and rest is welcome.
LikeLiked by 2 people
There is a great deal to be said for comfort
LikeLiked by 2 people
Nicholas – if you’re of a maudlin bent, then try reading some Raymond Chandler – it should do the trick. `The Little Sister’ is a good one – a tale of depravity, greed and vengeance. It contains two gangsters – Sunny Moe Stein and Weepy Moyer – the `maudlin bent’ reminded me of the latter.
All of Chandler has great entertainment value.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This post also reminded me of the fate of Mistress Shore…
LikeLiked by 2 people
Chalcedon – you hit the bullseye with the sentence
Once it stopped becoming about me, it could become about God.
That – really – is what it is supposed to be all about. It was pointed out several times throughout the years by one minister that the Lord’s prayer begins with `Hallowed be YOUR name, YOUR kingdom come, YOUR will be done on earth as it is in heaven’
This tells us the priority – and it is only after these petitions that we move on to prayers for ourselves – daily bread, forgiveness of sins, lead us not into temptation.
With corporate prayer, at (for example) a church prayer meeting, if it is a good prayer meeting, we see the issues facing humanity in general and the church *as a whole* in particular – and then our own personal difficulties of life pale into insignificance when faced with the mission.
I’m not at all sure about all this `wrath’ and `love’ business – you’d have to give concrete examples of before I understand what you are trying to convey.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thank you Jock – I shall endeavour to clarify as I go forward – a wishing you a holy Lent
LikeLiked by 1 person
Wrath I interpret in several ways according to the context: (i) the wrath of God against unbelievers as discussed by Christ in John 3 with Nicodemus and developed in the Epistles: the wrath is averted from the believer because atonement has been made; (ii) God’s general disapproval of sin as contrary to the good He intends for His creation; (iii) our own wrath – which can be intemperate or a just reaction to evil, depending on our self-control and other factors; (iv) the hatred of spirits such as Satan towards mankind. I think it is important not to confuse chastisement with eschatological wrath (either poured out on earth or in the form of Gehenna/the Lake of Fire). Chastisement is for correction and edification; wrath is for destruction, punishment, and vindication. Punishment we bring upon ourselves by our sin and lack of repentance.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Indeed, chastisement is a form of love, just as righteous anger can be an edification of those who defend the Good, the poor, the down-trodden, children etc.
Hebrews 12 says it well:
5 And you have forgotten the consolation, which speaketh to you, as unto children, saying: My son, neglect not the discipline of the Lord; neither be thou wearied whilst thou art rebuked by him.
6 For whom the Lord loveth, he chastiseth; and he scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.
7 Persevere under discipline. God dealeth with you as with his sons; for what son is there, whom the father doth not correct?
8 But if you be without chastisement, whereof all are made partakers, then are you bastards, and not sons.
9 Moreover we have had fathers of our flesh, for instructors, and we reverenced them: shall we not much more obey the Father of spirits, and live?
10 And they indeed for a few days, according to their own pleasure, instructed us: but he, for our profit, that we might receive his sanctification.
11 Now all chastisement for the present indeed seemeth not to bring with it joy, but sorrow: but afterwards it will yield, to them that are exercised by it, the most peaceable fruit of justice.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Chalcedon – thanks – and I wish you a holy lent.
I haven’t darkened the doors of a church for many years now – so I don’t really know what is going on – whether sermons emphasise `wrath’ or `love’.
It is absolutely not clear to me how to split these. When I did go to church, the minister worked through the whole of Paul’s letter to the Romans – and in the initial stages of the letter, there is not much about the love of God, but by the end of Chapter 8, there is an overwhelming message of the love of God.
More importantly – it actually seems very difficult to separate the two; I find it difficult to see how anybody, starting with Holy Scripture, trying to draw out rather than read in, can avoid a discussion of both `wrath’ and `love’ – and I also find it difficult to see how it can be boxed into categories and divided.
Another issue raised: with all this business about our `anger’ being a bad thing – I wonder if we’re allowed to feel a teensy-weensy bit angry at those who are responsible for Julian Assange being banged up in Belmarsh for the crime of doing some excellent journalism – while no charges have been brought against those whom he exposed for perpetrating hideous war crimes. I do not begin to understand what you mean by our anger in the quote that you gave. I do not see any contradiction between `peace with God’ and at the same time anger towards perpetrators of evil.
LikeLiked by 1 person