If I didn’t know better, I would suppose that Crossway Books, the patron of the Gospel Coalition, is a subsidiary of McDonald’s. Here is the connection. McDonald’s has for a limited time made available Fish McBites and this offering just happens to coincide with the transition from Fat Tuesday to Ash Wednesday, and will be available through March. As one news story has it, “Brian Irwin, director of marketing for McDonald’s USA, told the Associated Press that research revealed parents want the seafood option. In keeping with its 2011 campaign to give customers a healthier choice, Irwin said the Fish McBites give parents another selection to choose from.” The reporter added that, “The poppable fish-bites will float on participating McDonald’s menus though March to coincide with the season of Lent.”
So where is the Gospel Coalition? Well, today the blog posted two items recommending Lent to is gospel allies. One says this:
Lent strikes many Protestants as the exclusive domain of Roman Catholics, but this season can serve any Christian as a unique time of preparation and repentance as we anticipate the death and resurrection of Jesus. On the Christian calendar, Lent (from Latin, meaning “fortieth”) is the 40 days beginning on Ash Wednesday and leading up to Easter Sunday. (Sundays aren’t counted, but generally set aside as days of renewal and celebration—”mini-Easters” of sorts.) Whatever you might think about popular practices, “Lent is first and foremost about the gospel making its way deeper into our lives,” Kendal Haug and Will Walker observe.
The editors of the blog at TGC also dug up a recommendation of Lent from Chuck Colson. He identifies five virtues: 1) searching the depths of our sin; 2) considering the sincerity of our fellowship; 3) reflecting on our mortality; 4) more opportunities for charity; and 5) preparation to celebrate Easter. Colson concludes:
And so, I invite you to a holy Lent. Take up the opportunity to dwell upon the grief of our broken world, the sin within your heart, and the deep love of God that exceeds these realities. Reflecting on the hospitality of God, consider the needs of your neighbor, especially those without life’s basic needs. And, most importantly, in the gritty details of Lent, don’t forget—Easter is coming!
Strikingly absent from these recommendations are any of the older Protestant warnings about church calendars and liberty of conscience or about the devotional assumptions that lay behind the practice of Lent for Roman Catholics. Here is one explanation of Lent’s meaning for Roman Catholic readers:
Though we were created lovingly by God to enjoy the goods of the earth, these goods can consume us, and even become the object of sinful pride, as our first parents in the garden demonstrated. By temporarily renouncing these goods through fasting, we willingly suffer their absence in our flesh as a way to attack sin.
Fasting hurts us, but, like the pain brought about from physical exercise, it is supposed to hurt us. And like exercise, the more pain we endure for God, the more we gain in spiritual rewards.
The desert, then, is the place for Lent not only because it represents the pain and consequences of sin, but also because it is a place of abstinence from the fruits of the earth. When we spiritually withdraw to the desert, its emptiness reminds us that the goods of the earth ultimately cannot satisfy us.
As much as I appreciate Rome’s attention to sin and its consequences — something that doesn’t come through when leaders speak of Christ’s self-sacrificial love as a model for social justice and the dignity of the human person — Lent has significance for Roman Catholics that it cannot have for Protestants. After all, Protestants don’t have a history of self-inflicted pain to merit spiritual rewards. If as the gospel allies would have it that Lent is to remind us of Christ, then we should also be reminded that nothing we do to attack sin can compare with what Christ accomplished in his own suffering and death. If Protestants deny themselves, it is part of sanctification, the mortification of the self, that comes daily and year round through the means of grace and the armor of God (Eph. 6). We don’t spend forty days a year denying self.
TGC’s mix-and-match piety, a dose of urban transformationalism from column A, a slice of Roman Catholic devotion from column B, and a dish of sweet (charismatic) and sour (Calvinist) conferences from column C is a undisciplined program by which to promote and defend the gospel. It is further evidence of why Protestantism needs confessional churches, not the parachurch agencies that pillage those those communions.
145 Comments
Dr. Hart, taking your word for it that the Westminster Divines were “opposed to the liturgical calendar and also the prayer book,” it still leaves me wondering, if WCF 21.5 doesn’t justify Lent, how do “…religious oaths, vows, solemn fastings, and thanksgivings upon special occasions, which are, in their several times and seasons, to be used in an holy and religious manner” differ conceptually from Lenten religious oaths, vows, solemn fastings, which are in their several times and seasons, used in an holy and religious manner?
I mean specifically, I grabbed the language of 21.5 directly off the OPC’s own WWW pages, not CtC’s, or the Bishop of Moscow’s. You’ve implied you don’t see how it justifies Lent. What then is 21.5 referring to, then, in a Reformed, even Confessional, context? Not what it justifies, but more than that, the language seems to imply that these practices, whatever the language of 21.5 is referring to, are not just permitted, but commended, arguably as “ordinary religious worship”. Hence the word, “beside at the beginning of the final clause in question.
It would seem to me, that’s the plain reading of 21.5. Not that we are in any way to view any of these practices, whether or not done in the context of Lenten observances, as necessary for justification; that would contradict the plain teaching of scripture and the rest of the standards, but that 21.5 seems to treat such practices, seemingly otherwise indistinguishable from many Lenten observances (i.e. fastings, vows, etc.) as if they are or can be at least legitimate elements of “ordinary worship”.
How then “Lenten Fire, unless such practices are couched in and expected of Christians within the context of a Roman doctrine of “penance,” which isn’t the case, even in Lutheran contexts? What are the Divines, who were apparently opposed to liturgical calendars, etc., referring to, then? What solemnizes a fast, or a vow, then? What do the Divines mean by “their several times and seasons?”
If you’re a protestant and want to do a season of consecration, pick a time frame, as with fasting, do it so that no one else knows you’re doing it(wash your forehead, no self-righteous displays). Don’t unintentionally or wittingly bind another’s conscience by your actions and don’t forsake the Lord’s day. Only you and God should know about it.
Matt 6:1 “Beware of practicing your righteousness before other people in order to be seen by them, for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven.
2 “Thus, when you give to the needy, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. 3 But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, 4 so that your giving may be in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you.
The Lord’s Prayer
5 “And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites. For they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. 6 But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you.”
God seems to be big on guarding against self-promotion in your personal consecration, even to Him. He seems to think your public/personal consecration to Him, even under the guise of ‘witnessing Christ’ to others has more to do with your self-righteousness than piety toward Him. But what does God know about the heart?! We already know 2nd temple Judaism wasn’t a religion of works and self-rightesousness. Carry on ashy protestants.
Erik,
No serenade
No fire brigade
Just Pyromania
Hmmm . . . Maybe there’s something to this Lenten stuff. After all, it’s better to burn out than fade away.
Paul, the post never mentioned freedom of conscience. It was about bad theology. Someone who recommends Lent (aside for all the historical baggage of liberty of conscience and the sacrament of penance and wrong beliefs about Easter) is also guilty of bad pastoral advice — unless you want to be very clear to distinguish this Lent from that Lent. But then why not simply call it fasting? (odd that so many would talk about fasting at only one forty-day period in the year.)
Paul, seeing how to this day the Free Church, Irish Presbyterians, and Covenanters refuse to use even a bulletin for the order of service, I’d say that a major portion of the Assembly was opposed to the Prayer Book entirely. That’s part of the reason I get blow back when I recommend read prayers. Read prayers are not spiritual. They are rote.
Paul, the elements of worship are word, sacrament, prayer, and offering. I don’t see repentance there as an element.
Erik, you have too much time on your hand and too much GB’s on your machine.
Ignatius, no one is denying fasting. Fasting is part of religious devotion. What some are denying is turning into a certain limited time during the year. What could possibly be the justification for doing that (which is what Lent does)?
By the way, against my better judgment I tried the Fish McBites. They gave me raging heart burn. Playing with Lenten Fire indeed!
Dr Hart the post says
“Strikingly absent from these recommendations are any of the older Protestant warnings about church calendars and liberty of conscience”
so I assumed you were trying to make a case that protestant advocates of lent were ignoring an actual liberty of conscience issue with lent.
And I think “not calling it lent” is up there were refusing to call it Easter, or ChristMASS, and every advocate I’ve seen has indicated that it was not obligatory, its just piously useful to focus on a topic with added solemnity as a community. I think that’s superior to the hypothetical utility of fasting with no actual practice that seems to be the norm otherwise.
Can we really infer what the assembly meant by the beliefs of a few denominations now? I admit the majority of divines were against it. I’m also certain it was not all. In any case “in their times and SEASONS” seems to me like the kind of committee document that everyone can read in his own sense.
Thanks for the interaction and clarification.
Dr. Hart, does Lent do that? Which again begs the question, whose Lent? Anglicans’? RCs’? Lutherans’?
I don’t think anyone, not even Roman Catholics with their doctrine of penance and purgation as part of their Lenten observances, would agree that repentance and fasting and the like are only to be engaged in at certain times of the year and not at all times. But at their very essences, fastings & religious vows (even lifelong ones) are time-bound, i.e. “limited” things.
The reasoning, it seems at least in large part, behind observing “seasons and times” of fasting and special vows, etc., are ostensibly to exercise the mind of the worshipers on the historical reality of Christ’s work on their behalf. Situated as we all are in time, it seems such seasons and times are a practical way to redeem the time we live in by considering the events of Christ’s life and work in our own day.
How is this “fire” unless you hear it recommended as meritorious for salvation? I haven’t heard of any Protestant doing so. Not even functional RCs like the Bishop of Moscow or NT Wright.
Perhaps folks should just take exception to the last sentence of WCF 21.5.
What could justify a limited fast during the year?
1. all fasts should be limited. Otherwise you die.
2. if a church calendar focusing on events of the life of Christ over one year is clearly useful pedagogically, a fast as part of that seems sensible.
3. having a set time for something means people can and do participate in it communally. That may be of value, though it may bring dangers. Its great when sabbatarians are all together in church experiencing the same ‘fast’ from work and entertainment. It stinks when half your friends at church go on and on about how awesome the football game was.
4. having a fast at all is justified by simple biblical citation. The circumstances of the fast are regulated by “the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word”. And it is common to human actions and societies to do things as annual observances.
5. the light of nature and xian prudence probably argue against 6 hour sunday meetings with singing. So maybe 40 days is too much. Make it a week. or just the fridays of a month.
6. Its adiaphoral, so why not use an ancient form of doing the action that made sense to a lot of people over time, the objectionable elements having been purged. (not obligatory, not releasing anyone from temporal guilt, etc)
I bet you could think of a few more.
Dr. Hart,
Excellent, just excellent…..although Happy Meals do make me happy!
For those that want specific limitations I would suggest they try out the following plan:
…work for six days, rest for one day, and repeat….. What a delight!
Have a great weekend,
Ginger
I’ll offer some evidence in support of Paul Duggan’s point regarding the Divines and their position on a prayer book and a calendar. Check out this BCP as amended by the Westminster Divines and published in 1661. I do understand that this was proffered by them given the reality that Charles II was now on the throne and the Church of England wasn’t going Presbyterian. Nonetheless, they pu this forth as an alternative to a BCP that contained some doctrinal confusion and practices based on man’s tradition.
The Book of Common Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments
and other rites and ceremonies of the Church
As Amended by the Westminster Divines in the Royal Commission of 1661
http://tinyurl.com/amo7cqm
My goal here is to channel John Murray one day and Bill Murray the next.
Has anyone else noticed that the women who post here are sharp as a tack? Well done, ladies.
Erik, did you hear about the time John Murray and the Dalai Lama played a round of golf together and got into a discussion on the nature of a blessing?… (as he sets the table for him)
Right in the middle of their disagreement at the 12th tee, Bill Murray came from behind and asked to play through. And as he did he was heard mumbling, “the Dalai’s view on blessings is off… a bunch of over-realized eschatology…”
Today I’ve used an elevator in a Catholic hospital several times. The elevator includes a screen cycling through various points of information. Here is one of them:
First Sunday of Lent
“You shall not put the Lord your God to the test.” Luke 4:12
So what’s the idea? The failure to observe Lent is testing God? Or is it something else?
Ignatius, the question stands, why call fasting Lent? It’s like calling my pastor pope. I could do that. I’m not binding anyone’s conscience. Dutch Calvinists used to call their pastors dominie, as in papa. So it wouldn’t be far fetched to call my pastor pope. And yet there is baggage.
Paul, so go ahead. Fast. Fast with your friends. Why go to such limits to defend Lent or those who recommend it? It’s like you’re looking for ways to be Canadian without living in Canada. Or you could just use the generic North America — hence, fast.
Jack, can you verify that any of the compilers of this BCP actually participated at the Westminster Assembly. Thomas Manton was a clerk. It seems that a lot of politics were going on between 1660, the Restoration, and 1662, the Act of Uniformity. I can well imagine some pastors looking for ways to maintain a collective order. But would this accurately reflect their views? Also, it seems odd to site an edition published 200 years later in the U.S. Don’t get me wrong. I actually appreciate this BCP. But I don’t know that it reflects the commissioners of the 1640s.
Darryl, according to Wiki, eight of the twenty men who put their names to this amended BCP were also numbered among the Westminster Divines:
Anthony Tuckney, John Conant, William Spurstow, John Wallis, Edward Calamy, Matthew Newcomen, Edward Reynolds, John Lightfoot… Not to mention the clerk Manton.
As to siting this edition, it’s all I can find. But it does claim to be a republication of the 1661 original. The Google scanning team obviously needs to go further back into the archives! And yes, as I alluded to in in my comments, politics were afoot and very probably part of the rationale for this offering. Charles II was on the throne and a fallback position was arguably in view by these men. But it’s hard to find a clear line between Church and State even among the Divines and the Parliament dominated by Presbyterians, as the history of the 1640′s to 1660′s shows. Interestingly, the very objections that the Puritans/Prebyterians had, over the years, to the previous BCP were incorporated into this revision.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_Westminster_Divines
http://books.google.com/books?id=G33ZAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
Zrim
‘John T., the Reformed that are skeptical of penitential seasons are the same that confess WCF 19.5 and HC 86. You may say that lessens credibility but what keeps you from antinomianism?”
What keeps me from antinomianism is recognising that in Christ I have died to sin (just as I have died to the law). The life I now live I live to God. The new life I have and the indwelling Spirit who focusses me on Christ and thus I am changed into his likeness are the dynamic of godliness. Of course, all Scripture is profitable for instruction in righteousness, including the law. However, I am not under the authority of law else I would need to obey it as it stands without considering its value and teaching through the prism of Christ; I would be living as a Jew.
No, death with Christ means I have died to the authorities that controlled in the old life – sin, Satan, the world, flesh, and the law. I am obligated to none. My life is seeking the things above not the things on the earth.
We are told that those who now advocate lent do not seek to bind it on conscience. A couple of points.
1. What starts as simply suggesting, if embraced, becomes in time a habit that eventually binds the conscience. If enough people advocate it it becomes institutionalised and imposed.
2. Why preach it at all if it has no biblical authority? What right has anyone to advocate what has no biblical mandate and what is actually disapproved.
3. It is one thing for Paul to allow weak consciences but quite another to allow weak consciences (or misguided preachers) to turn their own weakness into a theology that adds to Christ which they actually preach and promote. Lent is an example of religious practice that fails to recognise we have died with Christ and live in a realm where rudimentary religion has no place. It has an appearance of wisdom but is of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh.
Darryl, to be clear I agree with your statement –
It seems that a lot of politics were going on between 1660, the Restoration, and 1662, the Act of Uniformity. I can well imagine some pastors looking for ways to maintain a collective order.
- I believe at the same time this book was put forth, the Presbyterians were also hoping to win concessions that would allow freedom of conscience as to individual ministers using the BCP. It was a messy time and as Letham notes in his book, The Westminster Assembly, although the Presbyterians were clear on liberty of conscience and the communion of saints (Chapter s 20 and 26) even they pretty much ignored that when it came to their dealings with the Independents (p. 299 including footnote).
So I don’t see this as evidence that the Divines were advocating a mandated use of the BCP and a church calendar. Interestingly, as pertains to the topic of this thread, there is no Penitential Office for Ash Wednesday in this 1661 Presb. BCP (nor was there in England’s 1552, 1559, or 1662). It was the U.S. Episcopal Church that incorporated that RC practice into their 1892 and 1928 books. The U.S. Episcopal has always been institutionally less reformed than England.
John T., that’s more or less something those who confess WCF 19.5 and HC 86 could affirm (i.e. not under law but grace). So why is it a problem to affirm the abiding nature of the moral law on believers and reject penitential seasons? Can you see how rejecting the binding nature of the moral law might give some reason to suspect an antinomian impulse?
Hello Jack,
We’ve been here before.
Manton wrote a preface or commended the Standards, but did not attend.
Thos. Case got left out of your list.
So the bottom line is 9 of 20 at the Savoy were former West. divines as compared to the 105 total who attended the West. Assembly in the first place.
And the point is?
If I didn’t know better I’d say this is tantamount to CtC’s clutching at straws when it comes to the universal consent of patristic fathers regarding the cause du jour.
Banner of Truth’s 1982 reprint of James Reid’s 1811 Memoirs of the Westminster Divines is out of print, but Vol.2 can be found on Google here
thanks
Anthony Tuckney, John Conant, William Spurstow, John Wallis, Edward Calamy, Matthew Newcomen, Edward Reynolds, John Lightfoot…
Whoops. John Wallis was a scribe at West. so your original number of eight is correct, Jack.
My error
Dr. Hart, the reason for calling it Lent is very simple (if Wikipedia is to be believed in this case):
In other words, (baggage notwithstanding) a fast, or “…a rose, by any other name…”.
Bob S.,
“Reid” is $9 used on Amazon.
http://www.amazon.com/Memoirs-Westminster-Divines-James-Reid/dp/0851513573/ref=reg_hu-rd_add_1_dp
Bob S wrote, And the point is?
Uh, it’s called the historical record. No agenda from this corner. You may be assuming something that is not there, but which can be used as fodder for comment conspiracy fun…
Ignatius, yes, and I am gay.
Jack,
My point was if it is the historical record, it is decidedly the minute one; the exception and not the rule.
To keep referring to “the Divines” as if those who signed the Savoy were the same as or the majority of the divines that attended the Westminster is to play word games/equivocate. That is what I am objecting to.
The Preface to the Directory for Publick Worship pretty much tells us in no uncertain terms, what the divines – who were largely ministers in the Anglican church – thought about the BCP. While it was useful in its day, further reformation was needed because of its abuse in binding consciences by the prelates, its hindrance to the preaching and its compliance with the papist service.
Yeah Erik, I saw that link at Amazon, but was looking for the text being up at Google. I got my copy of Reid in ’91.
IP, Lent is a rote and superstitious affair, not a holy and religious one according to the context of the entire Standards that comes automatically once a year. IOW it is not of apostolic origin. Weaker brethren misled by romanism may think it spiritual, but it is not scriptural, hence superstition again comes into play.
Neither was the altar erected by the two and a half tribes used for sacrifice, i.e. worship. Hence no violation of the RPW.
Bob S, it is in the historical record. I offered as some evidence in support of Paul’s point. Not definite nor dispositive. Believe it or not I actually agree that the BCP needing reforming (as I already commented) and that it was better to do away with its mandated use in that that would be binding consciences apart from Scripture (violating WCF 20). Nonetheless, the BCP as amended by these Presbyterians seems in the ballpark of conforming to reformed worship (e.g. chanting the Psalms) and doing away with what wasn’t conformable to the Word of God in the CoE BCP.
Darryl, sorry about the incorrect HTML tag.
As a previous commenter should know, these words:
Their sorrows shall be multiplied to other gods that haste.
Of their drink offerings of blood I will no offering make
Yeah neither I their very names upon my lips will take
Ps 16:4 Metrical
Very strongly teach piety of keeping very far away from the idolatrous practices of false worship. Lent is idolatrous because it is inexorably tied to the idolatrous system centered on the mass. (Shocking I know, but yes the mass is idolatrous)
My question is: where is the sackcloth, and why only ashes on the one day?
So for all those thinking Lent is at the very worst not so bad — are you so sure that God is really all that thrilled?
When ye come to appear before me, who hath required this at your hand, to tread my courts?
Isa 1:12
And Samuel said, Hath the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams
1 Sam 15:22
I’m sure if your are sincere enough (or convinced enough in your own mind) that God will find it acceptable. It doesn’t matter if it is the commandment of men or the suggestion of Satan really, as long as you mean it be devotional to God, because surely Christ would never ask you this: “When ye come to appear before me, who hath required this at your hand?“
Andrew, you might want to not assume and instead read my comments more carefully or what I have written on my blog. I am not promoting Lent. I don’t keep Lent. And the BCP as amended by a small minority of Divines doesn’t observe it nor Ash Wednesday. I am in the OPC and would be pleased as punch if more churches only observed one holy day, i.e. the Lord’s day. It’s this kind of knee-jerk reaction that inhibits a further understanding of the somewhat complex and uneven history that surrounds the development of our confessions and catechisms. You might want to read Richard Muller’s “Calvin and the Reformed Tradition” – recommended by R.S. Clark.
Where’s Mother Kirk when we need her?
Hi Jack, your first comment read:
I’ll offer some evidence in support of Paul Duggan’s point regarding the Divines and their position on a prayer book and a calendar. Check out this BCP as amended by the Westminster Divines and published in 1661.
It should have read “amended by a tenth of the original West. Divines”. That makes all the difference in the world.
Paul’s point(s)?
They were pretty pathetic/beautiful banalities.
2. A church calendar was clearly reprobated by the Westminster divines.
4. If the RPW doesn’t (and don’t worry, it does), arguably the “general rules of the Word” already preclude “annual observances common to human societies and actions” in worship.
5. One of the general rules of the Word is ‘avoiding even the appearance of evil’. Hence the reformed objection to the dregs of AntiChrist or his footprints in the worship of God. IOW Good Friday fasts, Lent, Advent etc. See RSC’s latest on Good Intentions at the Heidelblog.
6. The RC paraphernalia is not adiaphora according to Rome. It is the essence of piety/faithful walking by sight. But then the 40 days, the title Lent etc. would have to go. Indeed. So what are we arguing for again? Rote and superstitious fasting and prayer or the holy and religious use thereof? Can’t tell the difference? Then we’re only demonstrating our incompetence to the question. Best then to ask about rather than positively ssert this kind of nonsense.
I haven’t read through all the comments, so someone may have already said this, but it seems to me that, as long as we realize that our conscious is bound only by Scripture, and not by Church tradition, Protestants can participate in Lent.
So long as it’s a personal decision and doesn’t turn into legalism or public display, I see no problem with taking time to re-double our efforts to grow nearer to Christ.
Yes, this is a daily practice anyway for the Protestant, but who can honestly say that we don’t wander and become distracted in this fallen world?
1. To my esteemed cousin Andrew
Whether Lent is ‘inexorably” tied to the false practices of idolatrous roman catholicism is the question under consideration. It seems to me to say you can’t do any kind of thing like Lent because it is inexorably tied to the RCC is to beg the question.
2. to Dr Hart I’m not even doing lent, other than trying to remember the sufferings of Christ more. I’m just standing for adiaphora to remain adiaphora.
Bob S, thanks. Next time I’ll remember that this is a court room and not a blog. I’ll try to weigh my words more carefully when commenting knowing you’ll be parsing.
Just to note: What I offered was indeed “some” evidence of support of a BCP and a calendar by the Divines. If I meant “all” I would have argued that and hardly would have been the one to point out it was only eight. And additionally, if I thought it was clear evidence of their preferring that book and calendar I doubt I would have made the point that most likely politics played a role in their offering their amended version.
Can I get off with just a warning?
Paul, while you’re remembering, try some church history.
Come on, Jackie.
If you want the last word, just ask for it.
Here, hold at your hand and I’ll give it to ya.
There. Got it?
Don’t drop it now.
Bub S(miley face)
“a piece of work” comes to mind…
DGH confesses Ignatius, yes, and I am gay.
But not funny