UPDATE II: Fr. Ernesto pointed out that I had wrongly used the word “proscribe” in several sentences. I have changed those sentences, and that may have been the problem a few of you were having with my post and comments. Thanks Fr. E.
UPDATE: I’m not denouncing fasting, or any other traditional practice. I’m saying that whatever we do must be new covenant, Gospel centered, Christ glorifying in nature.
As a post-evangelical, I am an advocate of bringing the resources of the broader, deeper, ancient Christian tradition into the starved experience of contemporary evangelicalism. The includes such things as the Christian calendar, the lectionary and the prudent use of the Lenten season of preparation for suffering, death and resurrection of Jesus. Today is Ash Wednesday, and I would hope many evangelicals would hear the words “Thou art dust, and to dust thou shalt return” as a sobering reminder of why we are seriously focusing on the journey to the cross.
My own basic Christian instincts, however, are more Protestant than Catholic, and very much “New Covenant” in applying the Bible in my quest for a “Jesus-shaped” spirituality. I understand the impulse of the Puritans in simplifying Christian practice and devotion.
While I do not share the anti-liturgical, anti-ritualistic direction of Calvinistic Protestantism, I understand it as an expression of something important. I agree with my Protestant tradition that scripture should constantly, but generously judge tradition, especially in regard to practices and rituals such as Lent and Ash Wednesday. While I do not conclude that these practices should be discarded, I do understand the dangers and concerns that motivate that response. An important balance has to be pursued if post-evangelicalism is to be pursued in the Protestant context.
In trying to hold my new covenant Christianity at the same time I advocate a generous appropriation of liturgy, ritual and non-Protestant traditions, I’ve often emphasized the principle of new covenant priority over old covenant or traditional practices.
By new covenant priority, I basically mean this: Whenever any old covenant or traditional practice is employed by Christians, it should be done with a full awareness of the new covenant and all the Gospel-centric implications of the new covenant.
Let’s take a worthy old covenant practice as an example on a new covenant practice: fasting.
Jesus fasts. That is the most important Biblical endorsement of fasting. Of course, in the Gospel, Jesus perfect fasting not only endorses fasting, it also fulfills it. If we fast, we fast as those who belong to Jesus who fasted in perfect righteousness, perfect motives and perfect love.
Jesus mentions fasting as a practice his disciples may continue. (Mark 2:18-20.) Acts 13:1-4 shows the early church choosing to fast in discerning the direction of missionary efforts. This is certainly sufficient evidence that Christians may choose to fast. (Also Acts 14:23.)
While fasting is not used of the mutual agreed upon sexual abstinence in I Corinthians 7, that abstinence seems to be a kind of fast because it is combined with prayer.
I Corinthians 7: 5 Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.
There would be no argument that fasting is permitted and is a valid choice of how any Christian may pursue a kind of spiritual focus.
There is, however, no new covenant command to fast, nor should we expect to find one given the new covenant’s clear emphasis that old covenant ritual practices were “shadows” of the fullness coming in the gospel of Jesus Christ.
For instance, new covenant prayer is simple, and comes before God confidently in the name of Jesus. Jesus’ teaching on prayer does not contain conditions about or proscriptions of fasting. Our new covenant acceptability before God is the perfect obedience of Jesus, not our own spiritual practices. We come to him unpretentiously like children, invited into the most holy place by the blood of the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.
Fasting is of value as it promotes a simple faith where neither fasting nor other ritual are required. (We should be aware of the differences in spontaneous fasting in relation to God and fasting as prescribed by religious authorities and done with public announcement. Jesus is quite critical of public fasting, in the same way he is critical of public prayer.)
At this point, some would say we should continue to fast because Jesus modeled it and spoke about it. But another impulse is to say that the absence of a definite new covenant command to fast, and the presence of examples that permit it, but do not require it, should persuade Christians that fasting is not necessary. If fasting is an old covenant practice that may be abused, perhaps it should be abandoned.
Some of Paul’s statements in his letters same directed this way.
Colossians 2: 16 Â Â Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. 17 These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ. 18 Let no one disqualify you, insisting on asceticism and worship of angels, going on in detail about visions,* puffed up without reason by his sensuous mind, 19 and not holding fast to the Head, from whom the whole body, nourished and knit together through its joints and ligaments, grows with a growth that is from God.
Col. 2:20   If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the world, why, as if you were still alive in the world, do you submit to regulations— 21 “Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch†22 (referring to things that all perish as they are used)—according to human precepts and teachings? 23 These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh.I Timothy 4:1 Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, 2 through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared, 3 who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. 4 For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, 5 for it is made holy by the word of God and prayer.
Is there another way? I think there is a new covenant practice of old covenant and traditional rituals like fasting.
The new covenant approach to fasting would be to treat it as an “endorsed, useful, but neutral” practice, while seeing the necessary and fundamental new covenant difference in the fulfillment of all these rituals and practices. No one is better, before God, for fasting or not fasting. One’s prayer may be less distracted and more focused, but it is not more efficacious than the prayer of the believing child or the Christian who does not fast.
This is a kind of “new covenant burden” that many do not want to be troubled with, but unless we do the hard work of relating the new covenant fulfillments to traditions and rituals like Ash Wednesday and Lent, then we run a very real risk of promoting practices that distract from the Gospel. If we believe in the new covenant, we must constantly practice it and constantly place it at the center of our vision of spirituality. We want to shape a new covenant, Gospel loving, Jesus shaped believer.
So my own vision of evangelicalism is a mixture of Christian traditions and uncompromising, Gospel-centered, new covenant Gospel preaching, teaching and application.
Evangelicalism needs the connections and depth that come from the broader, deeper, more ancient Christian tradition; but even more, evangelicalism needs a strong new covenant Gospel emphasis in everything. Evangelicalism needs traditions that can give meaning and shape spirituality, but evangelicalism needs to avoid any form of legalism, asceticism or new versions of old covenant rituals.
The new covenant loudly announces that the old covenant was inadequate to save. It was a shadow of good things to come, and the savior has come. When we participate in any old covenant or traditional practice, it should be fully informed by the Gospel’s message that the old has been replaced by the new. Whether we are talking about fasting, tithing, various actions in corporate worship or meaningful spiritual practices, we must keep the new covenant perspective that we stand in the holy place by the blood of Jesus, we are accepted by his person and work, and we receive the Holy Spirit through faith, not efforts or rituals.
As we come to this Ash Wednesday, let’s have a new covenant Lent that brings us deeper into the experience of the savior who is our salvation.
I don’t think fasting is an obligation. It is simply available to the believer as a spiritual discipline. It helps one get out of the habit of obeying the body.
‘What is Jesus Shaped Spirituality? #14′ – religious practices that are helpful, but do not earn us any favor with God. It’s so basic, but so easy to forget. I think I may go back to Dallas Willard’s “Spirit of the Disciplines” making sure to keep this perspective in mind. It is so easy to make anything we do as spiritual practices or disciplines gradually shift from ‘helpful’ to ‘have to’, and once again finding ourselves ‘should on’.
Thanks, Michael, for the [as per the usual] interesting post.
I would disagree with the major premise of your assumption about fasting.
Fasting is not an “Old Testament” v. a “New Testament” thing anymore than prayer is. Our Lord was critical of present abuses in regard both to prayer and fasting and offered his “attitudinal adjustment” but he certainly does assume his disciples are praying and fasting.
Fasting can be abused, and has been abused, and the same for prayer, etc.
Jesus fulfills prayer, and then invites us to pray, in fact, assumes we do pray, “When you pray, say….” not “If you pray…” etc. So also he said, “When you fast….”
When we turn fasting into a drudgery or hypocrisy or a legalism or an act done by which we think we can appease God, then we need to drive this particular demon out, Matthew 17:21!
Many of us Lutherans will be hearing repeated throughout the Lenten season. “Return to the Lord your God for He is gracious and merciful, slow in anger and abounding in steadfast love” and “Oh, come, let us set our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy set before Him, endured the cross, scorning its shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.”
A blessed Lent to all.
Interesting!
It does indeed seem like people giving things up for Lent can easily turn into an attempt to try and earn God’s attention by somehow increasing our worthiness.
I think a healthy outlook would be to see the idea of giving something up serving the pupose of getting OUR attention and pointing towards God. From that point of reference maybe people should consider adding things (more concentrated parayer, readings, service, ect.)to their lievs this season rather than just giving things up.
I’ve did habitual fasting almost every week for 3 years and it is easy to make the abstinence the point rather than the reason for it.
Just to echo what George C said:
I went to our Ash Wednesday service tonight and our vicar was speaking on how we should consider both “Fasting” and “Feasting” during lent.
He considered that both of these were of equal importance. I think we sometimes forget the feasting side of things which might include joining a Lent study group, reading a devotional book during the Lent period or giving some extra money to God’s work.
I;d point out to the commenters that I delineated between proscribed and spontaneous. The greater concern is with what is required by an authority, i.e. “We all must fast during Lent.” One concept is Old covenant (required fasting) the other is tradition (Lent). Both are beneficial, but only if understood in the context of the new covenant.
For example, what are revivalists doing when they say we will pray and fast till God sends revival?
Michael, you said:
I agree with the first sentence. Yet, when I read Jesus’ teaching on prayer, I read that it begins this way:
“He said to them, “When you pray, say:’ “Father, hallowed be your name…”‘” (Luke 11:2)
Likewise, when I read Jesus’ teaching on fasting, I read that it begins this way:
“when you fast, put oil on your head…” (Matthew 6:17).
In fact, in the two times that I read Jesus teaching on fasting– Matthew 6 and Luke 5– there is a clear expectation that those who are disciples of Christ WILL fast. It is simply a matter of HOW they will fast that He teaches them about (and when it is appropriate NOT to fast, if you will).
In short, Jesus offers fairly broad proscriptions about prayer, with the clear expectation that we WILL pray. And He offers fairly broad proscriptions about fasting, with the clear expectation that we WILL fast.
Now, I agree with the Pauline quotes applying to fasting, but should we see these as teaching that we are free from fasting altogether? Or should we see them as urging us not to be legalistic about our fasting? I also agree that prayers accompanied by fasting are in no way more efficacious. Yet, this ought not be a rationale for NOT fasting.
I don’t think we disagree on this; but I think we have to be careful that what we teach about fasting– free from legalism and a sense of spiritual manipulation or leveraging– doesn’t encourage Christians to believe that they should reject fasting, or even that Christ didn’t expect them to fast.
Ed:
Fasting as a spontaneous act. Yes.
But I don’t believe Jesus is commanding fasts as in scheduled by authorities and institutions.
I’ve not only not said we should do away with fasts, I’ve presented the new covenant context for fasting.
peace
ms
Mr Spencer,
I shopuld probably introduce my self, I;m a Roman Catholic, from Australia, a college student and long time reader of your blog.
Obviously I have some areas of disagreement with you, but I always really apreciate the seriosuness with which you aproach questions of following Christ as well as your opness to dialouge.
That said, I have to say, I find your statement that “Jesus mentions fasting as a practice his disciples may continue.” Now I see nothing conditional inthe passage which you quote. Jesus doesnt say his disciples may fast, he says that they will fast. I simply cant see how you get from that statement to the suggestion that there is anything optional about new covenant fasting.
Thanks Jason.
This is the last time I’m going to say this. Apparently this piece is so poorly written that I’m not getting the point across.
No one can or should stop a person choosing to fast. It’s spontaneous, an act of prayer and devotion.
There is no reason to believe that Jesus’ example or statements indicates that a church can tell people when they should fast. That’s public piety of a required sort and a different matter altogether, a matter that falls under all of Jesus and Paul’s warnings.
What is Paul talking about when he warns the Colossians about THOSE who would tell them they must keep days, abstain from foods, etc.? Authority requiring fasts is a good guess.
So one last time: We are all given the example and words of Jesus that fasting is legitimate and expected from his disciples. But it’s not required unless we believe in salvation by faith + works and it’s not required because authorities can’t command a conscience.
peace
ms
A Blessing For Lent
Merciful God, you called us forth from the dust of the earth;
you claimed us for Christ in the waters of baptism.
Look upon us as we enter these Forty Days bearing the mark of ashes,
and bless our journey through the desert of Lent to the font of rebirth.
May our fasting be hunger for justice;
our alms, a making of peace;
our prayer, the chant of humble and grateful hearts.
All that we do and pray is in the name of Jesus.
For in his cross you proclaim your love for ever and ever.
(From Catholic Household Blessings and Prayers)
Even though I’m not Catholic, I still find this powerful.
I’m struck by a different angle – I think the admonition “When you fast, don’t do it as the Pharisees do” has to do not with the communal fasts that were part of the Jewish religion, but with voluntary fasting.
I hasten to add this is just personal opinion and it popped into my head – never heard it suggested by anyone else.
But the point – it seems to me – is that the Pharisees were taking on *extra* fasting, or fasting more severely, and that Our Lord was saying that a lot of it was less to do with personal piety and more to do with spiritual pride; the same kind of pride demonstrated in the parable of the Pharisee and the Publican – “God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican. I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.”
Admission of bias: this is all coming from a Catholic viewpoint and upbringing. But it seems to me that when everyone (or nearly everyone) is engaging in the clearly defined fasting and abstinence that applies to days like Ash Wednesday and Good Friday, then no-one can plume him- or herself on extra virtue above his or her neighbours. It’s the kind of person who says “I’m fasting and abstaining on other days!” or “I’m not even eating at all today – just drinking water!” who is doing the going about “with changed looks, so that men may see that they are going without food.”
I am also amused by the re-invention of the wheel that goes on when elements from tradition are re-discovered; the “GetReligion” blog has a post on Lenten fasting being tried by congregations belonging to denominations that don’t practice it as a rule, and the picture used to illustrate it is of a cookbook for something called “The Daniel’s Fast.”
This by the cover description (“no eggs, no dairy, totally vegan”) sounds to me like the old-fashioned ‘Black Fast’ of Lent. Suggest they might think of following guidelines from the Catholics or the Orthodox, who after all have been doing this kind of thing a long time – no! man-made traditions and unbiblical additions! Slap a label on it from the Old Testament, however, and you can safely indulge
I do understand you are not saying “Fasting is wickedness and should never be done by a Truly True Christian!”.
Your point about the spontaneity and the voluntary element is very important. It’s what the Church tried to get into people’s heads when the Friday abstinence requirement was done away with; that people should, if they chose, perform their own meaningful acts of penance. Of course, fallen human nature meant that most people just went straight from “We can only eat fish on Friday” to doing nothing extra at all.
I would like to suggest for your consideration that “fasting as proscribed by religious authorities” may be a method for curbing excesses; there are some people who would take it to a pitch of endangering health, or it could devolve into competition (‘you fast only once in the week? I fast two days!’ ‘well, *I* fast three!’) that is all about appearing ‘holier than thou’ and in that way is not only not beneficial, but a danger to the health of the soul.
And to round off, in Irish the names of three of the weekdays are “Wednesday: Dé Céadaoin – Old Irish, “first fasting”; Thursday: Déardaoin – Old Irish, “day between fastings”; Friday: Dé hAoine – Old Irish, “fasting”" – which means that long ago in my country, it was the custom to fast not just one but three days a week!
So you see, there is progress!
I would like to suggest for your consideration that “fasting as proscribed by religious authorities†may be a method for curbing excesses; there are some people who would take it to a pitch of endangering health, or it could devolve into competition (’you fast only once in the week? I fast two days!’ ‘well, *I* fast three!’) that is all about appearing ‘holier than thou’ and in that way is not only not beneficial, but a danger to the health of the soul. — Martha
i.e. “Can You Top This?”
An example of this (which actually involved fasting) was one of the catechists where I took RCIA. We called him “Fast Eddie” because his idea of Easter Triudium fasting was not just standard fasting practice on Good Friday, but NO food or water at all from Maundy Thursday until after Easter Vigil. This struck us as not only excessive but dangerous, especially when he tried to lay it on all us catechumens.
From a daily meditation…
The ashes we use are the burnt palms from last year’s celebration of Passion Sunday.
We begin our Lenten journey aware of where we are going.
We want to enter into the Passion, Death and Resurrection of Jesus for us more fully.
That is the purpose of our journey. It is why we mark our heads with his cross.
It is why we fast today and abstain from meat.
Our Lenten program is not an effort to save ourselves.
We have been saved by his sacrifice.
Our self-denial helps us, in the darkness that surrounds us,
to prepare ourselves to receive his light.
For this is a journey to the Easter font,
where we will renew the promises of our Baptism,
remembering that in dying with him in the waters of Baptism,
we are re-born with him to everlasting life.
This year’s journey begins today.
May The Lord bless and keep the imonk readership.
I think this may be an issue of talking and teaching beyond our knowledge.
Jesus response in Matthew 17: 21 to the disciples He sent out that, “This kind does not go out except by prayer and fasting,” and then Acts 13: 2 and Acts 14: 23 where fasting and praying played vital roles in the spiritual lives of the group of believers who release and send Paul out into his missionary work are important texts in regards to where fasting fit in in vital ways.
I can echo these scriptures in my own experience in reaching into Latin American neighborhoods and leading work to extend the knowledge of Him into unreached people groups. Fasting is a tremendous help in learning to walk in the Spirit and not according to the flesh. I find when I fill myself with pop culture, food on command and comfort, my carnality grows and my sensitivity to the Spirit weakens. Fasting is a tool to pull me back a bit to a purer reliance on Him.
Wesley fasted two days a week. Calvin & Luther were also quick to fast. (Pardon the pun!) Men in the last century like Arthur Wallis and Derek Prince have also been clear in it’s part in their lives.
[Mod edit] Speaking about abusing fasting or seeing it incorrectly is one thing but to relegate it to being old covenant is overly simplistic and perhaps even damaging to those who can be helped by following Jesus into this aspect of life.
Thank you so much for this blog and for your openness to the Father.
No one is denouncing Spirit led fasting. Required fasting is old covenant. There are no required new covenant fasts. If a person is led to fast by the Holy Spirit and does not subject that fast to the question, “What does this have to do with the Gospel?” then they shouldn’t fast. If they can relate this fast to the Gospel and to Jesus as our all sufficient righteousness, then they should fast.
Jesus example of fasting is like his example of prayer. He teaches us to pray and he warns us of the dangers of prayer if it provides a false righteousness.
What did the Pharisee say in his prayer? “I fast twice a week.” I assume many godly people fasted twice a week. What is the difference? I’ll suggest the difference is the Gospel.
Men and women fast as they believe it necessary to trust God in faith for all things. That is the center of Gospel faith. Others fast because it is tradition and it is ordered by the institution. That is not Gospel faith.
I am not teaching a “dangerous” doctrine. I am teaching nothing that Jesus and Paul do not teach in their critiques of fasting.
Here’s what’s dangerous: Not subjecting all traditions and old covenant practices (even if they were continued in some form in the church) to the question of New Covenant application.
Why are our churches full of legalists who think God demands a tithe? That worship is 11 a.m. Sunday? Who believe you must walk an aisle to be saved? Who accept whatever leaders or denominations say is a divine requirement?
Because we don’t apply the truth that Jesus fulfilled all things and we don’t treat these things as shadows of the good thing that has come in Jesus. Because we want to hold onto some forms of religion- which is fine IF we do so with a new covenant, cross centered understanding.
Great clarification, Michael, when you wrote:
“No one is denouncing Spirit led fasting. Required fasting is old covenant. There are no required new covenant fasts. If a person is led to fast by the Holy Spirit and does not subject that fast to the question, “What does this have to do with the Gospel?†then they shouldn’t fast. If they can relate this fast to the Gospel and to Jesus as our all sufficient righteousness, then they should fast.”
Now, perhaps the conversation should turn to the question why has fasting been a part of the Christian life since our Lord Christ, His Apostle, and the Early Church Fathers. Were they all legalists? Is there something about Fasting that commends it to us today?
I think we Protestants have a nasty habit of spending so much time condemning the errors and abuses associated with fasting. [Aside: Egads, check out the "Lenten Regulations" from various RC dioceses].
We spend so much time condemning, rejecting and warning against abuses we lose sight of the forest for the trees.
What are the blessings and benefits of intentional fasting? Can we talk about that? Maybe another time.
Actually Michael, you are subjecting tradition to your own interpretation of scripture on fasting, a uniquely modern and pretty recent interpretation at that. The things you say about fasting do not conform to the writings and practice of the church that we have from the first century on. (Didache and the earliest writings clearly support the interpretation the whole church gave for a thousand and more years.) Nor are the claims you make a ‘clear’ interpretation of either Paul or Jesus. It is just as reasonable to interpret that Scripture in the way that the church has interpreted it through most of its history, even well into the reformation. It’s like the radical shift on the views of Mary in just the last two hundred years in ways that none of the reformers ever supported or believed.
If you are unable to see that these other interpretations are at least as reasonable as your own … [shrug]. Ultimately that’s why Scripture alone can’t exercise authority. It’s not that it doesn’t want to, just as the Law wanted to give life. When stripped from the framework that gave it birth, it just can’t. It’s nothing but words that can be interpreted almost any way people want to interpret them. Protestantism has spent a half a millenium proving that point until it’s inescapable.
I’m a Baptist now and don’t really see myself ending up anywhere other than somewhere in the Protestant tradition. But I wasn’t raised enculturated by any particular sort of Christianity and the proof of the failure of the attempt to divorce Scripture from Church is so obvious I’m surprised it’s not taken as a given. I don’t have any answers and I don’t know how we get out of this mess.
But you aren’t trumping tradition with scripture here. I’ve been listening. People have been restating perfectly reasonable, very ancient, and extremely long-standing interpretations of the very scriptures you are referencing. And all I hear you saying to them is, in essence, that that’s not what it means. It means this. Why? As far as I can tell, because you prefer your interpretation. But that’s not authority. That’s personal interpretive preference. What privileges your preference of interpretation over their preference?
My reading of the new testament has never left me with any impression other than this: fasting is a particular intensification of focus in prayer. The “obligated” fasting of some groups seems to me to have the same issue as any other proscribed action. There is not a question of legitimacy, but of reality. Again, see Jesus critque of the Pharisee’s prayer.
Clinging to the full sufficiency of Christ doesn’t eliminate fasting, prayer, worship or anything else. But it gives a distinctive new covenant understanding to these things.
Oh, and Martha, Ireland has deep Orthodox roots. The names of the week days actually come from a two day a week Wednesday/Friday fast as outlined in the Didache and as practiced continuously by the church (though today only in the Eastern tradition). Wednesday is the first fasting day. Thursday is the non-fasting day between the two fasting days. Friday is the second fasting day.
iMonk,
Who (or what method) decides which traditions and old testament practices are applicable to the new covenant and which are not?
Again, are we not on the path to some sort of magesterium?
Or are we simply looking for a reason to install a teaching authority that is solely sanctioned within the “First Church of Me, Myself and I”?
Which btw, is the ultimate schism.
Scott M:
Hmmm. Perhaps the same thing that allows your view to trump mine? Have you called for a raised hand vote among the communion of saints?
Really, once we have your definition of Biblical authority and tradition…
>Ultimately that’s why Scripture alone can’t exercise authority. …It’s nothing but words that can be interpreted almost any way people want to interpret them. Protestantism has spent a half a millenium proving that point until it’s inescapable.
….we might as well swap “Protestantism” for “various forms of tradition” and play the same game.
Have you met our friend Surfnetter, Scott? A Catholic through and through who has quite another view of tradition and magisterium than what’s advertised at the latest “Come Home” rally. In fact, when we let him say whatever he wants, he comes off like one more Protestant, except he says Bishops agree with him.
No…I’m not so gullible that I’m impressed with the “tradition is against you” card. Some tradition is against other tradition, and all tradition does things to scripture that ought to make us all blush.
I’m not claiming infallibility. I’m trying to find a faith that I can live and die in. I’m not selling it, and I’m not asking anyone to sit through my sermons and give an offering. If this post is “that awful Protestant thing,” then have a cup of coffee. That’s what I do here. (And we’ll pretend that those citing tradition aren’t doing the same thing.)
And did you say that with this view of scripture as saying nothing unless forced to by tradition, you are remaining a Baptist? And I’m doing the Protestant thing of making up my own version? Uh…ok.
Here. From the archdiocese of Boston, courtesy of Paul McCain.
You guys want to say I’m dangerous and acting like “The Church of Me” by saying this sort of thing should ask “How does this fit in with the New Covenant as described in the New Testament?” OK. I can live with that. I assume my Catholic friends have that worked out, and that’s all I’m trying to do on my side of the fence.
And just to be fair, I could pick some of the very same things from my own denomination, where the leadership ordered us to all “Fast for America” or something right out of the Old Covenant.
Listen folks, if this doesn’t hit you like it hits me, then leave it alone. I’m going to judge these things by what the NT says about any religious ritual, law, tradition or practice. I’m not going to be a Quaker, but I’m not going to bail out on the New Covenant everytime someone says “Oh…here’s something you can DO.”
iMonk, this is one of those rare times when I very strongly disagree with what you have written on several levels. I think you are confusing and conflating several ideas, as well as making some stereotypical distinctions that have more to do with existentialism than with theology. But, I think I would have to write a very long posting, so . . .
So, let me just make one very brief comment on one and only one very limited aspect of what you have said, and leave it at that. I think that your insistence on spontaneity versus regulation, that somehow it is not as fully Gospel if it is prescribed, sounds to me a bit too much like the old existential claim that a person only defines themselves as a person insofar as they make their own decisions, free of outside influences. You insist that this is radical Gospel freedom. However, I note that it is also quite consonant with current American individualism. In other words, I find it interesting that your Gospel sounds altogether too close to the current American creed that I must be totally free to make my own choices otherwise I am not free at all.
Hmm, of course I know that you would list several areas where the choice is between Heaven or Hell, with no “freedom” options. Nevertheless, I do not see Gospel freedom in much of what you say; I see Americanism with a dose of existentialism.
I appreciate you for seeing and articulating the tension between a new covenant liberty that flows from the Gospel, and being part of tradition in a deliberate and intentional way.
Very good thoughts.
Those of you wanting the hang me up as replacing all liturgy with spontaneity know better. I wrote plainly and anyone can see that isn’t my position. I wrote paragraph after paragraph giving a positive view of fasting.
But if you want to condemn me for saying that institutions defining what spiritual practices will result in some assured result of being closer to God can meet me down at the corner of “Christ’s perfect righteousness” and “My imperfect spiritual practice,” and I’m buying. Fr. Capon will mix the drinks.
Fr Ernesto: I’ll deny that I am preaching the false Gospel of American individualism, and simply say that I am proclaiming the end of the types and shadows and the arrival of the finished work. However that affects a person’s fasting or lent is not my business. How it affect me is mine.
And when Jesus said “Come follow me,” it was the ultimate existential meeting of God’s initiative in grace and our freedom to say yes.
May Jesus shape all our Lenten seasons, in the image of his journey to the cross and to the glory of the God of the Gospel.
Heard an excellent Lutheran sermon in our Ash Wednesday service tonight. The pastor reminded us that the idea of “repent” is to “turn.” Before he talked about our turning toward God, he reminded us that God is continually turning toward us in grace through Jesus. Our turning is a response enabled by the God who turns to us in his Son.
Good start to a Jesus-shaped Lent.
Looks like we all could use a hamburger and a nice, big chocolate shake. All this fasting talk has made us a little cranky don’t ya’ think?
Headless Unicorn Guy, that is the craziest example I’ve heard. No water? For five days?? That’s where prudence comes in and whops you over the head, before introducing you to her friend scruplosity and dragging you to a spiritual director quick-march who reads you what Michael has excerpted above about the rules of fast and abstinence.
And then he or she whops you over the head with the full-version copy of the Cathechism for good measure
To satisfy personal curiosity, did your friend ‘Fast Eddie’ groove on personal revelation and obscure Marian apparitions as well? I think I recognise the breed
Michael, thanks for discussing this topic. I think, though, you’re probably going to be as popular telling Catholics/Orthodox that “institutional fasting? is outrage!” as you would preaching a sermon to your own denomination about how institutional tithing (to take an example you’ve mentioned yourself) is not the thing at all, backed up with the verse about what Jesus said regarding those who tithe mint and cumin, and that it should be spontaneous, voluntary, and left up to each person’s discretion how much or how little they give
>…spontaneous, voluntary, and left up to each person’s discretion…
An unfortunate choice of words on my part. In all things, it’s the leadership of the Holy Spirit that matters. AND I BELIEVE THE SPIRIT LEADS IN CORPORATE SPIRITUAL FORMATION, but I don’t believe that institutional requirement are automatically spiritual.
I can’t believe that’s what I wrote in this post.
I’m not aware that I gave an interpetation of Holy Scripture on fasting. I did say that I couldn’t see anything inherently less reasonable in the alternate interpretations of the same scriptures you have been citing to support your interpretation. Like a good Baptist, I don’t fast at all. I’m not really sure which of the myriad interpretations I believe. However, when it comes to fasting, the Orthodox have the most compelling case for their interpretation (and practice). They probably have me mostly convinced — at least in theory — on this particular question. I was trying to point out that your attempt to privilege your interpretation, your tradition as it were, with a claimed authority of Scripture doesn’t really help your case here. Your interpretation is simply not the most obvious or most reasonable. I’m mostly an outsider and don’t really have a dog in this fight. It just isn’t. I know it seems not only ‘obvious’ but the only possible ‘right’ interpretation to you. I get that. I was just trying to say: It ain’t. On either count.
Hmmm. The continuous and thoroughly documented practice of the Orthodox for more than twenty centuries probably has a lot to do with the reason I find the case for their interpretation of scripture on fasting compelling. It’s been lived and proven efficacious.
I think I tend to agree with Father Ernesto. It does sound a lot like that, though I hadn’t considered it in those terms until I read what he wrote.
How can I remain a Baptist? In truth, I’m probably a lousy Baptist. And I don’t know if I’ll stay one or not. But I came to Christianity around the age of thirty in an SBC church and for nearly fifteen years it’s been the only church in which I’ve been a member. I don’t hop around from place to place. It’s often been hard, but they’ve never kicked me out. In fact, parts of the church have embraced my family and me in ways I cannot lightly dismiss. I’ve taught. I’ve acted. I’ve hung out with students. I’ve taught adults. And in a lot of ways I’ve tried to live life and understand what it means to be a Christian.
I don’t call myself a Baptist because I think I’m a good Baptist or even because I think I’ll always be one. I call myself that because it’s all I’ve ever been as a Christian. It’s the name on the only Church I’ve ever had. If you can’t understand that much, I don’t know how to explain anything about me.
I understand you as a fellow pilgrim and I appreciate your journey. But you’re playing the Protestant card pretty strongly with your view of scripture that necessitates the RCC or the EO, in my view. But I get it. My best friend is a RC, and he/she is as Protestant as they come
I think, if we approach the matter that fasting is not a work but a discipline, we might all calm down and hear what each of us is saying better.
In the same way that an army doesn’t permit its soldiers to amble along at their own pace (the fast walkers leaving the slower behind) but teaches all recruits to march at the same pace, then an institutional church (or Church) is going to impose disciplines on its members. Many of us need prodding along the way. The rules are both goad (to urge us on) and bridle (to rein us in, like H.U.G.’s friend mentioned).
I think as well that we forget that a lot of the practices were formed in earlier days. The diets of the rich and the poor were very different; I’m no historian, but I imagine the less well-off didn’t eat much differently during the Lenten fasts than they did during the rest of the time. What made the difference was that the wealthy, who could afford richer foods, had to stick to the same rules.
Sure – it probably was abused, and certainly a five-course fish dinner on the table of the local squire was nothing like the salt herring the peasant had for dinner, but this one day and this one season, everyone had to toe the line. Whether duke, king or emperor, you couldn’t have flesh-meat anymore than the farmer, the yeoman or the beggar. A reminder that everyone is the same in the eyes of God and in the state of needing salvation. The same way that today, signed with the ashes of the triumphal palms from Palm Sunday, we are reminded “Remember, man, that thou art dust and to dust thou shalt return.” The palms of triumph and the expectation of returning monarchy and military victory are now burned to powder and cast upon the head in penitence – such are all earthly hopes.
But certainly – this only binds those of us within such denominations as impose these disciplines. If someone outside wishes to try it, as a personal mortification, good luck to them and no, it’s not compulsory. Though I have to admit, I am now curious as to what, exactly, a Baptist regimen of proscribed fast and abstinence would look like; any suggestions, Michael?
Martha,
>In the same way that an army doesn’t permit its soldiers to amble along at their own pace (the fast walkers leaving the slower behind) but teaches all recruits to march at the same pace, then an institutional church (or Church) is going to impose disciplines on its members. Many of us need prodding along the way. The rules are both goad (to urge us on) and bridle (to rein us in, like H.U.G.’s friend mentioned).
You make wonderful illustrations that make Catholicism understandable. You have a real gift. Were I inclined to buy the Catholic view of Biblical authority, I’m sure you’d be a good teacher for me. But my issue isn’t understanding how these things are viewed WITHIN various traditions. I quite understand that. I’m just questing for an authentic sense of what the scriptures teach regarding the new covenant, and how that affects various things I believe are valuable, but not commanded.
To me, this is the crucial passage on this sort of thing. And in the greater context, it not only discusses the individual’s freedom, but also the individual’s responsibility to the rest of the community. The way I see that working out practically is that the Church leaders don’t in the strictest NT context have the authority to make a fast obligatory, though they do have the authority as the leadership to proclaim a community fast. If people choose not to fast, there is no biblical basis for repremand, condemnation, etc. At the same time, should someone choose not to fast with the community, it’s a violation of the Galatians 5 ‘Law of Love’ to throw that in the community’s face and “cause your brother to stumble.” On the other hand, the leadership does not have the authority to cajole or manipulate people into participation by being heavy handed rulers.
I know that some have a vastly different idea of Church authority. But, those same people are usually honest enough to admit that the strictest NT context is insufficient in their view.
And I think we should be able to civily agree to disagree on that point.
In other words, Catholic brothers, you’re not going to convince the Protestants to submit to the concept of the Magestarium! And vice versa for the Protestants! Can’t we respect each other enough to recognize this? Especially on this blogsite!
>Church leaders don’t in the strictest NT context have the authority to make a fast obligatory, though they do have the authority as the leadership to proclaim a community fast. If people choose not to fast, there is no biblical basis for repremand, condemnation, etc.
I totally agree with this.
“In all things, it’s the leadership of the Holy Spirit that matters. AND I BELIEVE THE SPIRIT LEADS IN CORPORATE SPIRITUAL FORMATION, but I don’t believe that institutional proscriptions are automatic.”
Okay, I don’t think I’m understanding you. Is it your fear that practices such as fasting are (or will be or may be) imposed from above as a kind of duty, and that instead of growing in the spiritual life, people will be satisified by ticking off a list of physical actions and thinking that they are ‘earning’ or ‘buying’ salvation?
I don’t know how to reassure you, because of course fasting (and it need not necessarily be fasting from food and drink) can be abused. Anything can be abused. Sitting down and reading a verse of the Bible every day until you’ve worked your way from Genesis to Revelation can be thought of as a work that ‘earns’ grace merely by the mechanical performance of it.
And of course every rule or custom or practice of an institution is not going to be a direct inspiration and divine revelation of the Holy Spirit. I would be extremely worried if someone believed that, for instance, the ‘fiddleback’ chasuble was the only permissible Mass vestment and that this ordained of God the same way that baptism is ordained of God. Some things are just ways of doing stuff that come about because we need some way of doing this stuff, whether it’s running Our Lady of Dolours parish hall or Acme Mega-Box Manufacturers.
I’ll finish up with what the Pope said today in his Lenten message: “(I)t seems abundantly clear that fasting represents an important ascetical practice, a spiritual armour to do battle against every possible disordered attachment to ourselves. Freely chosen detachment from the pleasure of food and other material goods helps the disciple of Christ to control the appetites of nature, weakened by original sin, whose negative effects impact the entire human person. Quite opportunely, an ancient hymn of the Lenten liturgy exhorts: “Utamur ergo parcius, / verbis cibis et potibus, / somno, iocis et arctius / perstemus in custodia – Let us use sparingly words, food and drink, sleep and amusements. May we be more alert in the custody of our senses.â€
Fasting is not to win God’s favour, it’s to help us order our appetites, cultivate detachment from material things, and help orient our wills towards submission to and union with the will of God.
I’ve read what I wrote and I read what you said three or four times now and I don’t understand your paragraph at all. It’s not that I disagree with it or that I don’t understand any of the individual words you used. Rather I just don’t get how you used them. I think that it all hinges on this sentence, since I’m pretty sure I understood what you meant in the other two sentences.
I may be dense. In fact, I think I often am. But that sentence is completely impenetrable to me. I think I understand all the individual words, but that construction might as well be greek. I’m not even sure what your interpretation of my view of scripture might be.
However, in the course of this discussion I have been wondering, given all that he had to say about Torah (and I’ve had a number of those lengthy passages running through my head) what Paul would say about the way the Reformation, especially the Radical Reformation has tried to use Holy Scripture. I’m suddenly seeing an awful lot of parallels I never saw before.
Martha,
I saw your question, so I had to see what I could find. There were a couple of things that come close, but I am still looking. One of the pages included this story:
The whole thing is on the NAMB site at http://www.namb.net/site/c.9qKILUOzEpH/b.743485/k.E2CC/Session_8.htm
Honestly, the SBC has tried these types of guided focuses on a few occasions that I can remember. I have done some shorter fasts for a couple of different reasons, but have never participated in a large “community” type of fast at all. I like what you said about fasting as a discipline, and your explanation/analogy of the army as well.
Martha:
>…it’s to help us order our appetites, cultivate detachment from material things, and help orient our wills towards submission to and union with the will of God.
All very valuable things.
I do understand fasting as it works in the Catholic view of salvation. I really do. If I believed something other than salvation sola fide, I’d have a different view. But my view of fasting is derived from my view of Jesus as my perfect substitute and his perfect works allowing a gracious gift of righteousness to be given to me by faith alone.
IOWs, those Protestant doctrines of justification and imputation are the way I understand the center of my faith. So Christ has perfectly fulfilled these various rituals, and my own spiritual formation by the Holy Spirit takes place in the context of God’s acceptance of me for Christ’s sake completely apart from any work on my part.
But as I said, if I took the Catholic view of faith, works, grace, etc. I would certainly have no problem with the Catholic view that the church proscries obligatory fasting.
peace
ms
Scott:
You have a Roman Catholic view of scripture, but you remain a Baptist.
That’s Protestant.
You faulted me for being part of the “every man a pope” chaos of Protestantism.
I just tagged you, because you’re playing, too.
peace
ms
I have to go to bed people. I won’t turn moderation on, but Catholic friends, please don’t do the evangelization thing. I’m not quitting my job in these economic times, even if you are right.
peace
ms
Ah, I sorta get that. I did say in one of my comments that I didn’t really see myself ever leaving the Protestant tradition. I didn’t deny being a part of it or express any plan to leave it. However, if I did, it would be to Orthodoxy not Roman Catholicism. The two are vastly different from each other, though there is no “easy” window into Orthodoxy like the Catechism provides into Roman Catholicism. I’ve come to the conclusion, actually, that Roman Catholicism and Protestantism are more like each other than either is to Orthodoxy. Still, though I’m something of a latecomer to it, I haven’t denied my role in the disintegrating chaos that is Protestantism today. However, even as I participate, it is blindingly obvious to me that the experiment with asserting ‘Scripture’ as some sort of independent authority which it can never, by itself, be, has been an utter failure.
I don’t know what the answer is. But the first step is admitting the problem. Or so I’ve heard.
Oh, and I’m a little too postmodern to ever claim that my interpretation of a text somehow trumps someone else’s.
And in this discussion, I don’t think I’ve offered an interpretation at all. I was just pointing out that most, if not all, of the interpretations offered are perfectly reasonable. And they are.
So … given a raft of reasonable interpretations, how do you choose? The way you respond to that question often reveals much. (Me? I’m so postmodern, I try not to choose. At least strongly. Or I try on all of them and see if any don’t quickly deconstruct.)
Like Tim Keller probably said, “I don’t have to fast. I get to fast.”
Michael,
You hit a nerve with this one.
I’m curious about your views concerning Dallas Willard’s approach to fasting and the disciplines in general. Poorly summarizing his writing, he feels the disciplines to be an indispensable means for followers of Jesus to freely open and offer themselves to the inward work of the Spirit, and that apart from them human bodies do not typically submit to Christ. The disciplines do nothing in and of themselves to make us holy or approved. Nonetheless, they are the best way for us to cooperate with Christ and the work of the Spirit as He shapes us into His image.
I would guess you are not persuaded by Willard’s arguments concerning these things, nor his emphasis on spiritual formation. I’d very much appreciate having you comment. Doing so might also add greater clarity to the things you’ve already written.
Thanks.
I think that we would do well to consider the issue of fasting in light of scriptures like Isaiah 58:6-9 (“Is not this the kind of fasting I have chosen: to loose the chains of injustice and untie the cords of the yoke, to set the oppressed free and break every yoke? Is it not to share your food with the hungry and to provide the poor wanderer with shelter–when you see the naked, to clothe him, and not to turn away from your own flesh and blood?…”)
Gammel,
>Like Tim Keller probably said, “I don’t have to fast. I get to fast.â€
That’s perfectly said, and one would never say that and believe that fasting or anything else was a way to become righteous.
After sleeping on this, I’m not so much stunned that Catholics and Catholic leaning folks want to fault me on the issue of authority. I’m stunned that the mention of the phrase “new covenant” gets a lot of immediate criticism and “What abouts” instead of “amens.”
Even if I’m wrong that Jesus and Paul are unplugging the church from old covenant forms and emphasizing the work of the Spirit instead of the work of the law (hence all examples of fasting in the NT are works of the Spirit) why wouldn’t we all be united on the premise that whatever we do, and in whatever tradition we do it, it must be from new covenant, Christ exalting motives and nothing else?
ms