Lent was trending on Twitter in my part of the world yesterday. Here’s a sample from the people I follow…
First the funny…
- Malcolm Turnbull: Options for Lent – give up (a) alcohol or (b) talking about Rudd/Gillard?
- Jonathan Holmes: If everyone gave up (b) no one would need (a)
[Explanation for those outside Australia. There is a leadership tussle within the federal party of government, between current PM Ms Gillard and the former PM she deposed, Mr Rudd. Mr Turnbull is a prominent member of the opposition party, who was himself once ousted as party leader in a similar showdown! Mr Holmes is a media commentator.]
Then there are people like Noel Piper who twittered, promising,
“Beginning tomorrow–Ash Wednesday–I’ll post daily Lenten Bible readings to turn our hearts toward the cross.”
That sounds like it’s heading in the right direction! And indeed, my esteemed older colleague, Reg Piper, from whom I learn so much, published a great little daily Bible study guide for Lent in 2011 called Ephesus and the New Humanity, which many people found helpful.
On the other hand, a leading public Australian Christian leader, Tim Costello (whom I admire for his gambling reform campaign) tweeted:
It’s the beginning of Lent and 40 days to focus on what matters most in life. To love God, our neighbours and the world good place to start.
I realise Twitter only gives you a very limited letter count, but this sounds like an invitation to a potentially Christless Lent. And what matters more in life than my efforts to love anyone are God’s efforts to love sinners like me – perfectly executed in the death of Christ.
Over on Facebook, a Matthias Media author, John Dickson, gave some suggestions…
Lent begins … and here are the rules (for Reformed Anglicans, anyway): 1. Choose something from which to abstain as a reminder of Christ’s sacrifice at Easter. 2. Abstain from it from Wed 22 Feb until Easter Day, excepting all the Sundays of Lent – which are Feast days in the Christian calendar (and so the 46 day lenten period adds up to a 40 day fast). 3. Think of Christ’s death for sins just a little bit more than usual. 4. Don’t show off . Enjoy.
Apparently, it’s “Reformed Anglican” because it’s in the Book of Common Prayer, and a commenter pointed out that Cranmer’s newly minted collect for the first day of Lent threw away the heavy fasting “by works” emphasis and prays…
Almighty and everlasting God, who hatest nothing that thou hast made, and dost forgive the sins of all those who are penitent; Create and make in us new and contrite hearts, that we, worthily lamenting our sins and acknowledging our wretchedness, may obtain of thee, the God of all mercy, perfect remission and forgiveness; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
Another commenter, also a friend, said,
Need to recover the Christian calendar. 40 days of intensive wrestling in prayer is good for the soul.
It’s hard to argue against all this. But the “need to recover” sentiment helped me work out why I’m a bit worried. Why do we need to recover Lent? It’s not a festival or season commanded in Scripture.
And (maybe I am being insensitive to the relaxed way language is used on Facebook) it worries me to talk about “rules” for Lent. Because none of John’s rules are terrible, unless you think the first rule means you must or should abstain from something for Lent.
But I don’t think fasting or any particular abstention is ever urged on us as a spiritual necessity at any particular time. And why should we “think of Christ’s death for sins just a little more than usual” at Lent? Is there ever a day we should think a little less of it?
As I say, I am being picky. But I’m a little uneasy at how excited everyone seems about Lent. Yes, it may be Anglican. Yes, it may be used for useful purposes. But no, Lent isn’t commended, let alone commanded, anywhere in Scripture as far as I can see!
All this forced me back to the Bible to reflect a bit more. (Finally!)
Firstly I thought of Romans 14…
5 One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. (NIV84)
OK, Paul happily accepts people who consider certain days or seasons as more sacred than others. I should assume the absolute best about my Christian brothers and sisters, even if I don’t share their view on special days or seasons. And I am sure that however Noel or John or Reg or Peter acknowledge Lent, they absolutely do so to the Lord and give thanks him. Clearly Lent can be and is used for good purposes.
Romans 14 continues…
10 You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother? For we will all stand before God’s judgment seat. […] 13 Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother’s way.
So it’s crystal clear: I must not judge brothers who choose to observe or emphasise Lent.
But… there is that stumbling block thing. We must be concerned for the weaker brother. Because difficulties might arise for him from our attitudes or actions with one of these disputable matters.
And here my mind turned to Colossians 2…
13 When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, 14 having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross. 15 And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.
16 Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. 17 These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ.
The Bible testifies that humans have an inveterate tendency towards turning religious ritual – even good religious ritual like prayer or song – into a substitute for trusting Christ and God’s provision of mercy through the cross.
Colossians itself warns us about those who get all enthusiastic about not handling, not tasting and not touching (Col 2:21-22). There is danger there that such religious works displace grace.
And so I am still a bit worried that all the enthusiasm for Lent, all the urgings of the need, wisdom, or great spiritual value of giving something up or adding some special activity could unwittingly lead some others in such a direction (not withstanding warnings against it).
Probably not for the urger. But what of the urgee?
The reality is Christ. Do we need anything more?
This twit will give the last word to another tweeter, Glen Scrivener (of the superb King’s English website, celebrating the message and language of the KJV!) Perhaps his tweet gets it righter than me!
Neither Lent nor refraining-from-Lent means anything. What counts is the new creation. Galatians 6:16
Actually, let’s make Galatians 6:14 the last word, for the best context of all!
May I never boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.
In general I find it hard to be enthusiastic about anything which non-protestant churches get behind as well. While there may be personal and private benefit to something like lent, I would be reluctant to ever publicly endorse it because doing so could be seen as an act of unity with other gospel-denying churches.
Put another way, I can’t see how a proclaiming a fast will ever proclaim the gospel. When there is so little Biblical literacy in our society today, we have to make the most of every opportunity to increase that literacy. So no billboards about lent, no TV interviews, no writing to newspapers. Best to keep discussions about lent to private conversations. Where Twitter fits I’m not sure.
On this logic Dannii we Protestants had also better stop saying the Nicene and Apostles’ creeds!
Clarification: I’m referring to your first paragraph.
Put a third way, I think traditions can be a stumbling block to accepting the gospel, because if people only see the similarity of tradition/practice between churches, then they may never know that evangelicals and non-evangelicals have some fundamentally different beliefs.
So yes, maybe some churches could make a stand and stop using the old creeds in their liturgy, and instead start using some of the reformation era creeds, or even creeds from our modern era, such as the AFES statement of belief.
(While I believe the old creeds are true statements, I completely reject any notion that they are *sufficient* statements. Rejecting the creeds marks you as outside Biblical truth, but accepting them does not mark you as inside Biblical truth. You can believe everything in the old creeds and still be a heretic.)
I think, Sandy, you are not guilty so much of “being picky” as you may be of making unwarranted inferences. With the possible exception of the “need to recover” remark, I see nothing in the comments quoted that implies any sense of obligation about Lent (including John’s “rules” which I take to be simply a historical reference). These are people talking about a historic Christian practice which many have found helpful – entirely a matter of freedom as you assert. Apart from the longer time-frame, surely fasting or some other discipline during Lent is no different to meeting with the people of God on Christmas Day. I presume the latter is a discipline you would encourage without laying any obligation on your brothers and sisters other than the obligations of repentance and faith? Bob
Bob, you may be right about that – my making unwarranted inferences.
It is a combination of words like “need”, “rules” and the general enthusiasm for Lent in various ways (not at all just from John) including some suggestions which seemed odd to me.
I think I misunderstood John’s use of ‘rules’, which I have also agreed on his Facebook page.
Nevertheless if it is a mistake I could make, maybe others could make it as well.
I am all for encouraging while avoiding obligation on things not commanded in Scripture (such as Lent or church on Christmas Day).
Does it count if I give up Lent for Lent?
Geoff, you could tweet that!
Sandy, my friend.
Phooey, I say, to your ‘baptistic’ nonsense (with apologies to my Baptist friends!).
The problem is, you prove too much. On your own logic, gone are all traditions that don’t have a Bible text attached to them.
I see things differently.
So long as we don’t live by any other rule than the gospel and acknowledge any other obligation than love, traditions can be faith-enhancing.
I, for one, intend to keep the fine reformed Anglican traditions of declaring the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds (and the Athanaisian Creed on Trinity Sunday), saying the wonderful petitions of the Prayer Book, holding Christmas and Easter services, encouraging Confirmation, inviting godparents to witness baptisms, conducting wedding ceremonies, acknowledging the authority of my Archbishop AND enjoying and promoting the ancient 40-day fast of Lent, which—yes—invites us to “think of Christ’s death for sins just a little more than usual”, just as on Easter Sunday I think of the resurrection a little more than usual and at Christmas the incarnation.
Love your work, brother, but on this your are just being a party-pooper.
John
Everything is permissible, but not everything is profitable. I would add that not everything that is profitable for some will be profitable for all, and so we must be careful with what we promote.
John, what is your position on tradition then? I cannot recall reading you ever critically analyse anything that’s been handed down to us, not that I’ve read everything you’ve written of course. Are there traditions you think we should reject?
Many old heresies are still with us today, but they’re generally easy to identify. Hard to identify are the a-doctrinal but unhelpful.
Traditions that point away from the gospel, I reject. Ones that point toward the gospel (and are aesthetically pleasing) I generally accept. The historian in me loves to be connected to the wide and long family of God. I still say the creeds for the same combination of reasons.
Lent rocks!
Cheers,
John
I agree re the “wide and long family of God”. That’s why I continue to use the historic Creeds – not because they are ‘sufficient’ (frankly, I don’t know anyone who believes that, so it’s a bit of a straw man, Dannii) but because they remind me that I am part of a church which stretches back over the centuries as well as across every nation, tribe and tongue. What a marvellous truth that is!
Bob: the creeds were called sufficient in an Anglican catechism I read in PNG. Maybe if we’re thinking critically we know they’re insufficient, but in practice? While the Christian family is a wide and old one, in some places at some times it has existed despite the teachings of gospel-denying churches. How do we show our unity with the martyrs of the past without showing unity for their persecutors? Not through a creed those persecutors believed.
John: I guess I’m unconvinced that Lent is gospel pointing…
Hi John
Aren’t traditions that ‘point to the gospel’ simply mere shadows in the face of the reality of the cross?
Many practices in Christendom drag people back to living out a pre-cross way of existence/thinking.
But our practice is to be the reality. That is, Christ has died for our sins so we live in and rejoice in the completed sacrifice every day of the year as slaves of Christ.
M&D
As someone who has recently become an Anglican after being an AOG Pentecostal for 30+ years,I am amazed at how embarrassed and dismissive of LENT and communion that some are. It was these things and the discovery of the Christian Calendar that has led me to a Christian expression that is not a slave to spontaneity. The seasons being discussed provide a framework for seeing the whole gospel for what it is. It seems to be a Sydney phenomenon. having said that I am very impressed by their commitment to scripture.
Perhaps in the spirit of the Zwinglian sausage eaters, we suggest it could be helpful to reflect on the influence of ‘Pietism’ in the promotion of Lent amongst Protestants today.
Mark and Di, G’day to you. And that’s a good comment. Why not tease it out for me?
It did remind me that I wanted to share Doug Wilson’s “Lenten Meditation for Meat Lovers“, a bit of doggerel with a serious point!
It also reminded me of Mark Thompson’s first memorable lecture in Church History 2 (I was in his first year of lectures), where he got excited about Zwingli’s sausages too!
Hi John, and thanks for commenting. My Baptist friends down here will be very surprised to hear they’ve won me over;-)
I am discovering how complicated social media is. Blog on one site. Tweet it and it comes up on your Facebook, and then of course, it gets discussed on the Facebook of friends I mentioned. Fair enough. This really just repeats what John and I have discussed elsewhere for the sake of those reading here instead!
For the sake of being complete, I repeat that I can see now you were referring to “rules” in that lesser sense of “proper organising principles for people in a group” (definition on the fly). I guess it is interesting that I – who has at least come across that sort of use of the language – easily (carelessly?) misinterpreted it.
So my main concern is the ‘ought’/’need’ vibe I was picking up. It has been suggested that I am overly sensitive to this, and that’s probably true. It definitely seems not have been intended, certainly not by you. I may be only one of a few who picked up a obligation vibe.
And as I said above, I am not judging those who observe Lent except to assume absolutely that they do it to the Lord.
I am concerned for others who hear the vibe like me and think they must do something like Lent to get things sorted out better with God, and others I’ve met over the years who are caught up in the extent of what should be given up and how to do it properly.
The overall enthusiasm for Lent (from a variety of tweet sources) combined with some use of those sort of words about abstention which some will take as obligation tends in that direction.
I don’t think we’re talking about a huge divide here (to state the obvious!). I wonder if it would have helped, Sandy, if in you’re original blog you’d included some of the tweets/comments that seemed to you more clearly problematic. Just a thought . . .
As a non-Anglican, the tradition of lent definitely comes across like it’s something all Anglicans have to do. This is the way the Catholics promote it and it has stuck.
However, this would be the same for other traditions too, in most other denominations.
But in any case, this need not be a big deal, as long as we continue to say WHY we practise it.
As a side, I personally don’t feel the need to say weekly creeds or practise lent to feel connected to historic church. Being theologically connected to the apostolic teaching (and it’s application in my context) is enough for me. But I can understand people who’s hearts are warmed by certain long-standing traditions.
As a layman with some teaching role I have found myself defending the right of people to observe Lent and Good Friday et cetera while gently advising those who think rules and forms of observance should be imposed on others or given too much importance. I agree largely with Sandy while agreeing somewhat with John’s position. There’s nothing like sitting on the fence!
On Wednesday I led a Bible study of Anglicans, most of whom attend a robes and paryer book service, and no one mentioned Lent or Ash Wednesday. Interesting.
Back to the experts.
We actually use a prayer book. No pariahs permitted on the book shelves.
David, I suspect John and I both love you!
I just remembered that you were giving a twit’s view of Lent. Add me to the list of slightly unbalanced (as well as on the fence).
We all have an individual and personal relationship with God, through Jesus Christ. Amen.
If we feel that God has revealed something to us that we need to put aside, and lent is the time to do it, let us listen to him and no other.
If however, lent is something we are doing without guidance from or relationship with Him, then it is of no use.
That is of course what you are all saying. Including Paul, Peter, James et.al.
I for one would like to have 40 days where we all give up being belly button staring Christians and get out proselytising for 40 days….
Pingback: Anybody ever try fasting? - Page 2 - Christian Forums
Boss: You can’t eat meat today
Me: I can eat meat today
Boss: You can’t, it’s like biting Jesus
Me: I’ve had a corned beef sandwich today and God still loves me!
Quoted from a real conversation on Ash Wednesday over a discussion about lent. Over the past few years I have found lent a really great time for getting into conversations about Jesus with my colleagues.
In a setting with quite a strong Catholic tradition I have found my witness to the doctrine of grace far more powerful in abstaining from giving up anything for lent than by participating. Demonstrating that I am not bound to ‘do’ anything is testament to the freedom in Christ we have.
None of my colleagues are Christians, yet as soon as lent comes around there goes the question “what are you giving up for lent?”. “Nothing” I happily say, then I feel the eyes, “nothing, but you’re the religious one”, “no” I say, “I’m the Christian, it’s about grace.”
I don’t deny that in other settings some might find it more useful to use following lent to talk about the gospel and it may be a helpful period of reflection for you. Please do as your conscious tells you, but in my setting I have found it to be a great opportunity to NOT do lent.
Love your perspective, Harriet, and I suspect there are many out there who need to understand it!
Sandy I disagree with you (respecfully of course).
For Christians who were not raised in liturgical churches, or who are not into liturgical tradition, Lent can seem a wee bit weird or confusing. I think it is natural to raise the question regarding Lent:
Why set aside a special season of repentance and prayer when repentance and prayer is something that we should do all year round?
While that is good question, and one would be absolutely correct in saying that prayer and repentance is something that we should do daily and all year round, I believe that deliberately and intentionally devoting a period of time specifically for self-examination, fasting, and prayer, can only be a good thing, (1 Corinthians 9:24-27, tells us that spiritual discipline is something to which God calls every believer).
Do you not know that in a race all the runners run, but only one receives the prize? So run that you may obtain it. Every athlete exercises self-control in all things. They do it to receive a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable. So I do not run aimlessly; I do not box as one beating the air. But I discipline my body and keep it under control, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified.
Lent can be a time when you actively work to rid yourself of sins that have grown into habits,/or addictions and even character traits; whether they be external or internal. (Yes, this should be something we do all year round but it’s helpful to have a time like Lent set aside for that very purpose).
Lent can also be a time when we put on things that lead to Christian maturity (If, for example you believe that God wants you to be more committed to studying Scripture, then you should probably consider adding personal or group bible study to your routine. If you believe that God wants you to be more active in your daily prayer life, then you could consider setting aside time daily to pray each (In our diocese every ordained Anglican minister does what is known as the Morning & Evening Office, they are morning and evening prayer services that are written for each day of the week in the Prayer Book – it is something I have found to be extremely encouraging in regards to my prayer life! [Does not the BCP say something about daily offices to all ordained clergy?])
And if Lent is the time when we give up something or start something, do it for life.
As I say, I am being picky. But I’m a little uneasy at how excited everyone seems about Lent. Yes, it may be Anglican. Yes, it may be used for useful purposes. But no, Lent isn’t commended, let alone commanded, anywhere in Scripture as far as I can see!
Of course Sandy I concur with you about the danger of ritual, but this can happen with the sacred holy cow of Evangelical piety – the Daily Quiet Time. Quiet times are also not commanded in Scripture, Christmas Day services are not commanded in Scripture, in fact while I am there, there seems to be very little in the NT about Christians gathering together to celebrate the incarnation. Yet would you share the same unease about Anglican churches having Christmas Day services? Confirmation is not commanded in Scripture.
Lent is a very old Christian traditional, and like any tradition, it should not be deemed automatically good and helpful because it is old (or even pre-Reformation) nor should be deemed bad and unhelpful because it is old (or pre-Reformation) And the same is true of modern Evangelical traditions, (such as the Daily Quiet Time, Christian conferences, listening to sermons on line without being at church) and/or other traditions that are Post Reformation. We discern their value and helpfulness by Scripture. But when Scripture is silent on the issue, (such as Lent), there is liberty.
Joshua, thanks for commenting, I appreciate the kind way you speak. Things you seem to be saying:
1. Lent may need to be explained – from a helpful evangelical perspective – to make sense for people from a non-litrugical background, and there’s nothing wrong with that.
2. Lent can be used as time of intentional discipline, to put off old sinful habits and to put on new godly habits. Of course that can be done all year round, but there’s nothing wrong with using Lent as a kick start.
3. There are other things not commanded in Scripture that evangelicals enthuse over, like daily quiet times and Christmas services and (for Anglicans) confirmation.
Thanks for those observations.
In reply, I thought I made it clear I had no problem with people observing Lent in their own (hopefully gospel-focused, grace-shaped) way. I do not judge such people. I acknowledge your Christian freedom to observe Lent. We are free to observe any traditions that are not inconsistent with Scripture. I really thought I made that clear.
I also do not wish to turn things not commanded in Scripture into obligations. So I do not make it a law or burden for church members to come to church at Christmas or Good Friday (I said this explicitly about Christmas in a comment above). Hopefully it will be a joy! And daily Bible reading or prayer is not a law either. I do not want us to think we are justified by piety! But we can encourage them gladly.
That said, I think we are a lot closer in Scripture for pretty clear commands or urgings to the following than for Lent:
* regular church attendance (e.g. Hebrews 3, Hebrews 10, Acts 2)
* regular (even daily) Bible reading and prayer (e.g. Psalms 1, 19, 119, Philippians 4)!
The problem is if we make specifying the periodicity or formula of such things a law, or create the impression we are justified by them.
By contrast with Lent, I was trying to focus (and it seems my initial post was too scatter-gun) on words like ‘ought’, ‘need’, ‘must’ in combination with ‘abstain’ (especially where what most readily springs to mind is food and drink). Especially when we are telling others about it (even if we keep the details to ourselves).
And as you might point out in regards to urging a daily quite time on people, it is possible to create a sense of obligation or law, without actually using words like “Thous shalt…” or “must”.
At that point I think there is a danger of legalism intruding onto the freedom we have in Christ.
Maybe I could put the question the other way around…
What do evangelical supporters of Lent think is the proper way to communicate effectively…
(i) That food and drink (or similar abstentions) don’t bring you close to God, and that we are no better or worse if we do or don’t drink (1 Cor 8:8) and in fact, that the focus should be on righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, and not on what we do or don’t drink (Rom 14:17)?
(ii) That there is a strong tendency, which needs to be resisted, for people to urge as a means to spiritual advancement observance of rules about drinking and eating and religious festival observances, when the reality is in Christ and his death and resurrection (Col 2:16-23)?
And how would you integrate Paul’s comment that the discipline involved in regulations about the body and not eating or drinking “lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence” (Col 2:23)?
I guess I have felt there has been a noticeable lack of engagement with texts like these from proponents of observing Lent in the comments here.
Hi Sandy
That’s a very helpful clarification to your original “too scatter-gun” post. I think they are good questions to ask, and helpful cautions to all of us regarding ANY ritual practices, to ensure that both our understanding of them and our emphasis on them is (to quote Ryle) “according to the proportion of Scripture”.
Cheers!
Hi Sandy,
I am pleased you take my words as kindness on my part. (Because it means I have finally learnt how to convey tone in this sort of medium).
My take on Lent, is that it does not have to involve food. In fact I think that any Lenten discipline should not be arbitrary. If a person has a problem with porn, then don’t say “I am going to give up chocolate”.
As you rightly say:
in fact, that the focus should be on righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, and not on what we do or don’t drink
Amen to that! This should be my focus all the time, but sadly I admit that it is not. So Lent is a good opportunity to focus on this and when Lent is over, stay focussed on it.
ii) That there is a strong tendency, which needs to be resisted, for people to urge as a means to spiritual advancement observance of rules about drinking and eating and religious festival observances, when the reality is in Christ and his death and resurrection (Col 2:16-23)?
I have never seen Lent as a rule. More an encouragment or an incentive. I cannot speak for non-Evangelical Anglicans on this matter. They may see it differently.
I have to dash off (School Scripture seminar) but will endeavour to respond to your last excellent thought provoking point at an opportune time.
Sorry Sandy I have not engaged more fully with your reply. Time factor on my part. But have enjoyed this discussion on Lent with you!
in Christ
Joshua
Giving up porn for Lent – an interesting notion! As I understand it, the discipline of giving up food, drink, or some other thing which is not evil in itself is seen as something which may strengthen the believer spiritually, and may also give a season of clarity in identifying those things of which the believer needs to repent. This may well then assist in the daily, year round struggle to repent of sin, but the two are not the same thing.
Bob,
My point was not that the Lenten discipline should not be arbitrary. Lent is a good time to give up whatever it is that leads you into sinful behaviour. And don’t just give it up for Lent, use Lent to give it up forever. Likewise, if a person takes up something during Lent, use Lent to keep it forever! Let the Lord know that you are committed to turning from the sin he has shown you and then ask him to help you in your task though the power of his Holy Spirit. Of course we can do all of this at any time during the year, but as I said earlier, “do we?” For me, the answer, sadly, is “no”, so I personally need the emphasis on repentance that Lent brings.
Hi Joshua
I understood what you were saying. But I think that you’re post has confused the discussion a little by conflating the two separate issues of temporarily giving up something which is not sinful in itself (e.g., meat) for the sake of discipline, and permanently giving up that which is intrinsically sinful (e.g., porn) as an act of repentance.
My understanding of fasting during Lent (at least, the manner in which it has been practised for centuries) is that it is the former, but that it may well lead to the latter. Those with a better knowledge of history than me may well need to correct my understanding!
In summary, I wasn’t so much disagreeing with you as seeking to clarify the practice of Lenten disciplines. Hope this helps. :-)
Bob
With you. In all truth I had not really thought about Lent as being giving up something which is not sinful in itself (e.g., meat) for the sake of discipline and godliness. I see it more in terms of prayer and repentance primarily and giving up things that hinder prayer and repentance and/or taking up things that encourage and promote prayer and repentance.
As to the former issue, (what you said)
giving up something which is not sinful in itself (e.g., meat) for the sake of discipline and godliness </i)
I think this ties in with Sandy's helpful and appropriate concern of
how [we are to]integrate Paul’s comment that the discipline involved in regulations about the body and not eating or drinking “lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence” (Col 2:23). If Lent were about giving up something which is not sinful in itself, and/or taking up something that that is not sinful itselt but does not promote godliness, repentance and prayer, then I think that the opportunity that Lent provides would be squandered.
Wow you and Sandy have really helped me to think about this more.
Thankyou both!!!!!!!!
in Christ
Joshua
Arrghh!!!! forgot to close italics. Sorry. Will repost to make it more readable.
With you. In all truth I had not really thought about Lent as being giving up something which is not sinful in itself (e.g., meat) for the sake of discipline and godliness. I see it more in terms of prayer and repentance primarily and giving up things that hinder prayer and repentance and/or taking up things that encourage and promote prayer and repentance.
As to the former issue, (what you said)
giving up something which is not sinful in itself (e.g., meat) for the sake of discipline and godliness
I think this ties in with Sandy’s helpful and appropriate concern of how [we are to]integrate Paul’s comment that the discipline involved in regulations about the body and not eating or drinking “lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence” (Col 2:23).
If Lent were about giving up something which is not sinful in itself, and/or taking up something that that is not sinful itselt but does not promote godliness, repentance and prayer, then I think that the opportunity that Lent provides would be squandered.
Wow you and Sandy have really helped me to think about this more.
Thankyou both!!!!!!!!
in Christ
Joshua
The key, I think, is in the motivation. If I believe that by giving something up for a season (or permanently, for that matter) I am somehow making God more pleased with me, or even that I am utilising a ‘system’ which will make me more holy, then I am indeed wasting my time – this is what I take Paul to be saying in Col 2:23.
[Sidebar: the word ‘regulations’ or ‘rules’ doesn’t appear in the passage in question, although it could be argued that it is implicit; the thrust of Paul’s argument is rather that the Colossians are placing themselves under the wisdom or teaching of others, rather than living in the freedom which Christ has won for them. I think I’m strengthening Sandy’s argument here – he can thank me later!]
If, on the otherhand, I exercise my freedom to willingly set aside some activity for a season so as to pursue godly disciplines (cf 1 Cor 7:5) this may have great value. Colossians 2:20-23 is not an absolute prohibition of ‘rules’ or ‘disciplines’ as such, but rather of the kind of approach to God which makes such rules or discipline essential to that approach (or even ‘better’ than other kinds of approach).
Bob, not sure about your sidebar! Try “commands and teachings of humans” at the end of Col 2:22, which refers back to Col 2:21, which contains three rules – do not handle, taste or touch – and which NIV glosses together with the supplied noun “regulations” when referring back to them in Col 2:23. The verb at the end of v21 is also defined as “put under obligation by rules”/”obligate” by BDAG!
Quite right Sandy. My only excuse is that I was being called for dinner at the time so was rushing somewhat and overlooked ‘entalmata’! Scratch the sidebar[that’s the last time I try and help you out :-)] – the substantive point did not depend on it.