On Time

The Third Sunday after Trinity

O LORD, we beseech thee mercifully to hear us; and grant that we, to whom thou hast given an hearty desire to pray, may by thy mighty aid be defended and comforted in all dangers and adversities; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Last Sunday’s post began with some musings on how language influences thought patterns and perceptions. Last week’s article discussed how it affects our theology in respect of our relationship with God and our willingness to submit ourselves wholly and completely to his will. This week considers how language can affect things such as our perception of events, and in particular time.

In the Greek of the Bible, there are two words which are rendered into the English word ‘time’ namely chronos and kairos. Chronos is used in the sense of a measurement of linear time. The progression of events past to the future, or events that have yet to occur. Kairos, by contrast, is not quantitative and refers to a particular moment of time, rather than a measurement of it. It is qualitative to the quantitative chronos.

Chronos involves a way of measuring time. Kairos is a way of indicating a marked moment in the present. Now. In our Christian walk, God marks several moments. Indeed, in Christian theology, kairos is viewed specifically as the moment in which God’s purpose is ultimately fulfilled.

It is an interesting reflection on the fact that chronos, culturally, is more reflective of Western Christianity which seeks to quantify and explain, systematize and order all things, whereas in the East Christianity tends to be viewed more experientially, with less need to explore the Holy Mysteries of God, and more of a need to experience them.

A friend recently received the Sacrament of Confirmation, and it was these thoughts that were working through my mind as the Lord Bishop laid hands on her and prayed over her for a strengthening of the Holy Spirit in her life.

Some of the sacraments indelibly mark our lives. In Holy Baptism, when chrism is applied, we are sealed and marked as Christ’s own forever. It is a marked moment in our lives, in which we accomplish one of God’s ultimate purposes for us, reconciliation with him. In Confirmation to do we experience this marked moment of kairos, this fulfilment of God’s purpose in our lives.

Our Christian lives are journeys. In Scripture, the Christian path is described quite literally as a walk (eg. Gal 5. 25; Eph 4. 1; Eph 5. 8), but these passages speak to a deeper meaning, that of our sanctification and infused righteousness. In this understanding, our righteousness is not imputed by Christ, but rather is the transformative result of God’s sanctifying grace which gradually justifies the Christian. It is not instantaneous. Even for those, generally speaking Protestants and some Anglicans, who hold to a different view of justification, they still view the Christian life as a journey and process, for those same Scriptural reasons and that even once justified, the Christian must, as it says in St Matthew’s Gospel, “But the one who endures to the end will be saved,” (St Mt 24. 13).


It is therefore easy to think of the Christian life in terms of chronos. At some point in the past, I came to knowledge of Christ, and was baptised in the name of the Trinity, and since then have continued to struggle to fulfil the Gospel teachings and Christ’s commandments and be filled with God’s transforming grace.

Yet, we must never forget these marked moments of kairos in our lives. These moments which, in the Eastern Christian understanding, we participate in some way in God’s eternity. CS Lewis discusses this concept somewhat briefly in Mere Christianity when he considers God’s nature beyond time. While he discusses this in the context of doctrine and pious devotion and belief under the authority of Holy Scripture, he expresses his personal belief that for God, everything is now. God is beyond time and does not experience chronos, but rather experiences the totality of kairos at once.

Less philosophically, it is important to not simply become focused on perceptions of the process, while ignoring the moments we are experiencing now. Christianity is not meant to be a clinical process, but a joy to be experienced. There is nothing wrong with remembering past accomplishments, and indeed failures in order to avoid them again, or looking to the future, but if we do so to the detriment of the present, we will never experience the true essence of Christianity, relationship with God.

On the Sacrament of Confirmation

The Sunday called Quinquagesima

O LORD, who hast taught us that all our doings without charity are nothing worth: Send thy Holy Spirit, and pour into our hearts that most excellent gift of charity, the very bond of peace and of all virtues, without which whosoever liveth is counted dead before thee. Grant this for thine only Son Jesus Christ's sake. Amen.

One of the five sacraments of the church most often practiced outside of the Catholic tradition is that of Confirmation. Throughout its history it has been strongly associated with the Sacrament of Holy Baptism, and indeed it traces its origins to Holy Scripture. In Anglicanism, though not counted as one of the Sacraments of the Gospel, it is generally accepted and requires the administration of a Bishop, in contrast to some other traditions, such as the Roman Catholics, where under certain circumstances a priest may administer Confirmation.

It is a sacrament which requires its recipient to be both Baptised and not already Confirmed. As St Thomas Aquinas puts it in his Summa Theologica, “confirmation is to baptism what growth is to generation. Now it is clear that a man cannot advance to a perfect age unless he has first been born; in like manner, unless he has first been baptized he cannot receive the Sacrament of Confirmation.”

In discussing Holy Baptism previously, Acts 19 verses 1-5 were consulted, as they tell the story of Paul arriving in Ephesus and baptises the believers who had not heard of baptism by the Holy Spirit, and who had only been baptised into John’s baptism of repentance. In verse six, which wasn’t previously quoted, St Paul then lays hands on those who had been baptised and at that point, not in verse five when they are actually baptised, they receive the Holy Spirit:

And it happened that while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul passed through the inland country and came to Ephesus. There he found some disciples. And he said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” And they said, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.” And he said, “Into what then were you baptized?” They said, “Into John's baptism.” And Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus.” On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking in tongues and prophesying.

Earlier in the Acts of the Apostles, St Peter and St Paul had similarly prayed over Christians in Samaria in order that they receive the Holy Spirit:

Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent to them Peter and John, who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit, for he had not yet fallen on any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they laid their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit. (Acts 8. 14-17)

Confirmation has thus developed in a historical understanding as the process whereby baptised Christians receive the laying on of hands and are spiritually strengthened by the Holy Spirit. In this understanding, Baptism is the initial pouring out of the Spirit on an individual, the way in which they are reborn into new life, and Confirmation fills that Christian with the fullness of the Holy Spirit and is the gateway to the fullness of the gifts of the Spirit. Because of its depiction in the Acts of the Apostles, in the Christian East, confirmation has traditionally occurred immediately after Baptism, whereas in the West it has traditionally taken place at a different time, particularly in respect of Christians who are baptised as infants, and for whom confirmation is an opportunity to reaffirm their baptismal covenants on their own behalf.

In the early Church, baptism always occurred on the Easter Vigil, followed immediately by confirmation and then the first Eucharist for the newly baptised Christian. In this way, there was a single event with multiple sacraments involved that initiated catechumens into the full sacramental life of the Church.

In the West, a number of developments occurred which split confirmation and baptism from a single event into multiple events. After Emperor Constantine declared Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire, the number of catechumens increased significantly, as did the demand for Baptism and Confirmation. However, unlike in the East where populations tended remained relatively centralised in cities, in the West, many of these new Christians were in the countryside, and it became impossible for the bishop to visit all the locations where Baptisms were in demand. Over time, the practice developed whereby the local priest would administer Baptism, and Confirmation would be administered by the bishop on his next visit to the Parish. In the East, the problem was also resolved by delegating the entire procedure to priests. The bishop would bless the chrism, holy oil, used in the rites, but otherwise it was acceptable for the Priest to administer in order to maintain the traditional form of having Baptism, Confirmation and Eucharist all administered as a single event.

In Anglicanism in particular, the importance of confirmation comes in the decision on the part of the candidate to receive the strengthening fullness of the Holy Spirit. Because the conventional practice for Baptism is infant baptism, the candidate themselves has no opportunity to make their baptismal covenants on their own behalf, and instead the covenants are made for them by their parents and godparents. Because of this norm, when a baptised Anglican is brought before their bishop to receive confirmation, it is an opportunity for them to also affirm of their own desires and volition, their baptismal covenant.

Among non-Catholics, confirmation has different understandings. It is generally not viewed through a sacramental lens, and thus when a protestant converts to a Catholic tradition, they may still be Confirmed, as whatever ‘confirmation rite’ they received, it was not sacramentally valid. Protestants generally view the rite as a mere rite of passage in which Christians, generally teens, are instructed extensively in the Christian faith, and not that there is a divine strengthening by the Holy Spirit. In some protestant denominations, particularly where infant baptism is not practiced, there is no confirmation rite and the protestant equivalents for instruction are merely incorporated into preparation for Baptism.

Again, this practice seems to ignore the Scriptural teaching on the distinction between Baptism and Confirmation, the sacramental reality of Confirmation and the necessity of authority for those administering the sacrament.