Fr. Ernesto pointed out that I had used the word “proscribe” wrongly throughout the original post. I appreciate that correction, and edited several sentences that might ease the stress of a few readers who may have taken my wrong use of the word to mean I was denouncing all fasting. Thanks Fr. E.
Yesterday’s post of “A New Covenant Lent†garnered considerable strong reaction, particularly criticizing my reading of the Bible regarding fasting. While I’m not very excited about the strange suggestion that I’m preaching a false message of American individualism, I welcome the critical interaction. It sends me back to the scriptures for further consideration and examination of my fundamental point: all old covenant practices (or all practices initiated in the old covenant era, if that’s helpful) should only be continued with a new covenant, Christ-exalting, Gospel centered meaning.
With the assistance of my Accordance program, I looked at every mention of the words fast, fasts, fasted, and fasting. I examined the major passages where the topic of fasting is expanded upon, especially Isaiah 58:1-14.
Here are some of my conclusions and observations.
1. Fasting in the old covenant is almost always conceived of and described as either a corporate act of repentance, with official proclamation within the authority structure of the nations of Israel and Judah, or as an individual action closely tied to prayer, repentance or demonstration of grief.
2. When prophetic critiques are offered, it is almost always being offered to fasting as a scheduled, institutional activity. (Zechariah 8:18-19, Isaiah 58:1-14)
3. Individual fasting is almost always an expression of personal repentance, personal grief or intense entreaty of God in prayer. I assume that godly individuals took part in corporate fasts, but most references to individual fasting are acts of intense repentance, grief or focused prayer.
4. The critique of fasting in Isaiah 58:1-14, is a new covenant, Gospel critique. The problem with the fast under consideration is that it is has become an attempt to manipulate God. It amounts to a self-deceptive religious activity. The prophetic criticism notes the absence of humility and the presence of an unrighteous self-confidence and arrogance. A true fast will bring about a life of justice and reconciliation. God’s gift of light and righteousness will come to his people and go out to the nations. This is a Gospel promise; not a promise to the one who fasts, but a promise to the one who finds the “true fast,†and fasts in Gospel faith.
5. Isaiah’s description of a true fast runs on the same new covenant traction as other prophetic critiques of old covenant practices that had become empty of the reality of living faith. It is not that a corporate fast cannot be genuine, but it is the case that the corporate fast has become a ritual disconnected from genuine, living faith. (This same critique is offered somewhere in the prophetic canon to almost every aspect of old covenant life, such as circumcision, the temple itself, sacrifices, and so on.)
6. Jesus’ critiques of fasting follow this same direction.(Matthew 6:16-18) It is not a critique of fasting per se, but a critique that it has become a public show; a manipulation of God and not an expression of faith. It is the very definition of the kind of religion Jesus has come to replace with the new covenant. (We see the same kind of criticism in Jesus’ great sermon against the Pharisees in Matthew 23. While fasting is not mentioned, tithing, pray and other legitimate old covenant practices are mentioned. Jesus’ point is not hard to identify. By transforming faith into show and tradition aimed at creating a spirituality of “competitive external righteousness,†the Pharisees have abandoned true faith. I can’t think of a text that makes my point plainer. Look at anything in this sermon that we still do today, and ask what would be Jesus’ word to us about doing it?)
7. Jesus critique of the Pharisee in Luke 18 (including his claim to fast twice a week) is important because, in contrast to practices centered in the Gospel, the Pharisee’s fasting and tithing are exercises in self-glorification. The tax collector demonstrates what new covenant faith is all about: with or without fasting, it is a confession of complete dependence on God for righteousness.
8. Jesus’ words that his disciples “will fast†are spoken within an assumption of the practices of Judaism I have described in the old testament and within old covenant Judaism. This is similar to (not identical to) Jesus speaking of bringing a gift to the altar in Matthew 5: 23-24. Jesus is not saying that his disciples will always be in the context of offering animal sacrifices. He is speaking about a larger issue in the context of familiar practices of Judaism. (Obviously, animal sacrifice is explicitly brought to an end in the letter to the Hebrews and the destruction of the temple.)
9. There are no passages speaking of the elimination of fasting as a new covenant practice or commands for all Christians to fast in the new covenant. Jesus fasted. Jesus spoke about his disciples fasting (which isn’t a command to do so, but a recognition that some would do so.) Acts records that the early Christians fasted in periods of intense prayer. I assume that the critiques of fasting in the Gospels were prompted by issues regarding the continuing practice of Christian fasting. This is why, I believe, Paul is writing new covenant theology with fasting and other old covenant practices in mind. The issue is not whether a person, in response to the Holy Spirit, may fast. That is obvious. The issue is whether fasting accrues righteousness or spirituality, as some false teachers were claiming. (Colossians 2:16-23, I Timothy 4:1-5)
10. My position remains simple: Fasting as an old covenant practice is not required of Christians, even though its value as a part of prayer is obvious. Christians who choose to fast- whether individuals or corporately- should do so for new covenant reasons and do so in view of the new covenant’s view of all old covenant practices.
For example, look at the new covenant view of the old in Hebrews 10:1-10. Using an old covenant prophetic critique, the author says that God takes no pleasure in something we see all sorts of godly persons choosing to do: offering sacrifices. Instead, God explicitly takes pleasure in the perfect obedience and sacrifice of Jesus. There is a new covenant view of the old covenant practice: Jesus is the complete sufficiency that God is pleased with.
As this pertains to fasting, I would suggest that a fast is done in imitation of Christ (as a Spirit led manifestation of prayer), in trust of Christ (trusting Christ for physical sustenance), and in complete understanding of the Gospel of Christ (we are complete in him, complete apart from whatever we do or abstain from doing.)
The Internet Monk Archives 
I’ve enjoyed these posts on Lent, iMonk. Thanks. I grew up in a very creedless, ritualistic-shunning denomination. I’m now a Presbyterian and my church can be described as “liturgy lite”. We include some liturgy, but don’t practice them a truly “high church” manner. But, as I have grown in my understanding of grace, I have really come to appreciate the value of liturgy and I actually long for it more. When it comes to the Lenten season, I find that I often arrive at Easter morning with the sad realization that I have not reflected hard and long about Christ’s suffering and death as I would have liked–in a way that helps me to grow in my relationship with him and become more like him (not because I’m doing a ritual that will get me there, but because I’m focused on what Christ has done for me). In the past couple of years, I’ve had a longing for a deeper experience of Lent, and I think I can really appreciate liturgical practices more bc of my understanding of the gospel of grace.
What I find somewhat ironic though, is that in my experience, some evangelical churches who shun rituals and liturgy for fear of turning them into acts of legalism, often have an “unspoken” culture of rituals and legalism. The difference is that these “laws” are not always publically sanctioned from the pulpit (though sometimes they are; I can’t tell you how many “thou shalt not let alcohol touch thy lips” sermons I’ve heard as if it were the 11th commandment.) Evangelical rituals tend to be done for reasons of outward personal piety rather than a truly spiritual discipline (if someone can explain to me how refraining from dancing or dresses only for women during church hours is a spiritual discipline pointing to the new covenant, I’d love to hear it). All that to say, no matter what side of the liturgical fence we find ourselves, legalism loves to find it’s way into our spiritual lives.
LikeLike
This is such an interesting topic; I’ve given this a lot of thought myself, and at the risk of sounding totalitarian, I kind of have to side with (ahem) the idea of fasting as part of a Christian obligation rather than, as the priest kept referring to it on Ash Wednesday, an “opportunity” – and my reasoning is simple: laziness.
Not just mine, but everybody’s. Spiritual discipline, of which fasting and rosaries and vigils are all a part, are as much an art as an effort, and a lifetime of sitting in the pews has me convinced that learning discipline requires some kind of Disciplinarian, some kind of authority whose dictums create a culture, a place/time where that fitness can be achieved. Like a high school PE class or a fat camp, the fast (and all the other liturgical praying/teaching exercises that come up over the year) is something the Surgeon General of the RCC strongly suggests to us for our own health and fitness.
And like a high school PE class, most of us are walking around the track and socializing instead of running like it’s a race (Hebrews 12?) – and we live in a world where God, our benevolent coach, is merciful on us even when we forget to dress out. However, we’re obligated not to skip it, even if for the moment, in our awkward teenagery willfulness, we view the whole affair as an inconvenience and would just as soon not fast.
Most of us spend our lives being as lazy about our faith as we are about our bodies, and go about both in a sad, comfortable hypocrisy: like fat people in sweat pants, we show the world a pretense of an athletic lifestyle that we embrace only for the pathetic convenience of getting to wear pants with an elastic waistband.
A fast is like having your church tell you, in no uncertain terms, to take a lap whether you like it or not. Obedience is the sure sign that we, spiritually sloppy and physically corpulent as we let ourselves become, in fact do retain some LITTLE portion of that chrismal Christian dignity that our Baptismal whites were meant to signify – that we may actually USE our sweatclothes to WORK IN. The fast is a way to allow ourselves to be reminded that we began this Christian life in training for something – that our bodies and minds are God’s and are good and fit for work, and that we can trust the Church to train us to be spiritually healthy as we do trust in Jesus to make us pure.
Or so I think.
LikeLike
>It’s a relief to know that I wasn’t as alone as I thought…
That’s what this site is all about.
Sally: That’s the fast God is talking about in Isaiah 58. Excellent.
LikeLike
Fast from judging others: feast on the Christ indwelling in them.
Fast from emphasis on differences; feast on patience.
Fast from words that pollute; feast on gratitude.
Fast from anger; feast on patience.
Fast from pessimism; feast on optimism.
Fast from worry; feast on trust.
Fast from complaining; feast on appreciation.
Fast from negatives: feast on affirmatives.
Fast from unrelenting pressures; feast on unceasing prayer.
Fast from hostility; feast on non-violence.
Fast from bitterness; feast on forgiveness.
Fast from self-concern; feast on compassion for others.
Fast from personal anxiety; feast on eternal truth.
Fast from discouragement; feast on hope.
Fast from facts that depress; feast on truths that uplift.
Fast from lethargy; feast on enthusiasm.
Fast from suspicion; feast on truth.
Fast from thoughts that weaken; feast on promises that inspire.
Fast from idle gossip; feast on purposeful silence.
Gentle God, during this season of fasting and feasting, gift us with your presence, so we can be gift to others in carrying out your work.
Amen.
(from The Essential Lenten Handbook: A Daily Companion, 2000, Ligouri)
LikeLike
OK, I’ve not read all the comments here (yet), so maybe I’ll be repeating points others have made, but all the same…
1. iMonk, thank you for this post.
2. Having seen the notion of fasting = “better”/”holier” prayer carried to foolish lengths, it’s a relief to see you debunking that notion.
3. It’s a relief to know that I wasn’t as alone as I thought, back when I didn’t fast as directed. 😉
LikeLike
Yeah, I am forever amazed that some of the most obvious and simple things Jesus said– about public piety, treatment of leaders, status, money, etc.– are so easily interpreted out.
LikeLike
Thank you for this fine discussion, Michael. I’m particularly pleased that you resisted the prying questions regarding whether you were going to fast or not. It’s none of anyone’s business, except your Father who sees in secret (Mt 6:16-18).
LikeLike
Not a bad idea. Check’s in the mail.
LikeLike
Fr. Ernesto will be autographing Imonk t-shirts at the door. $25 each. It’s for a good cause 🙂
LikeLike
Time for me to give some big thanks to iMonk. Do you know why I read InternetMonk? Because of the incredible historical danger of not taking Scripture seriously enough.
In some ways, Vatican Council II was the incredible victory of several of the criticisms made by the Reformers. Let’s face it, many of the statements of Vatican Council II were careful rewordings of the Council of Trent (and some previous local synods) to bring them more into line with a Biblical or Early Church worldview. The Roman Catholic Church is celebrating the year of St. Paul thanks, in large part, to the witness of people such as Martin Luther, John Knox, and Jean Cauvin.
The Orthodox Church was in what the ancient Antiochians would have considered to be an allegorical overload. But, the responses that had to be given to the Lutheran embassy, and the response that was given to the Calvinists in the Confession of Dositheus forced the Orthodox to consider our theology in the light of Scripture as a primary, though not the only, source.
Our (Orthodox) answers, after due consideration, was that our theology was correct, but now we were basing it much more clearly on an exegetical analysis of Scripture along with a careful consideration of the Church Fathers. If one reads in a dictionary of theology about the “Antiochian School” and the “Alexandrian School” of Biblical interpretation, you will know why this makes us Antiochians so happy. In one sense, it is the long-term vindication of the Antiochian School.
And, so, I thank God for the Reformers, even though I am convinced they were wrong on so many things. But, they were right on insisting that Scripture must be primary and must be taken into serious account whenever the Church speaks authoritatively. And, in that, their reform of both the Roman Catholics and Orthodox has had a fair degree of success. Now, when we Orthodox argue, we argue from all of Holy Tradition, but we make sure that we do not clearly contradict Holy Scripture.
Here on InternetMonk, I argue vigorously with Michael. But, behind the scenes, it will sometimes take me two to three hours to write one of my answers because Michael forces me to think about many issues, what they mean Scripturally, what they mean philosophically, how it fits together logically, what this does to my theology in other areas.
And, so, in many ways, Michael has helped teach me much, both in our agreements and disagreements. And, so, I want to thank Michael for this blog. I have become both a better man and a better priest thanks to him.
LikeLike
Grace my brothers, Grace
May be that is the last Word.
LikeLike
Didn’t they arrest (the character) Nicholson (was playing) right after he said that? For murder? Wasn’t he defending the abuse of a young soldier, and arguing strongly for a post-modern view of truth as whoever has the most power?
Nah….must have been another movie.
LikeLike
See thats ultimately your problem monk when you criticize others its kosher but when others honestly and fairly criticize you its not….
As Jack Nicholson once said “you want the truth you cant handle the truth”.
LikeLike
All:
I’d like to apologize for getting too defensive in this conversation. The constant barrage of EO and Catholic points of view doesn’t do good things to me, and I know better than to engage. I simply don’t care about these Catholic/Orthodox debates about authority, and the more I’m exposed to them, the worse a Christian I become. It’s not a conversation that does anything to me but make me angry at God.
My apologies to all for the snark.
ms
LikeLike
Michael, Fr. Ernesto nowhere said all early church fathers were unanimous on all doctrine and practice.
[Mod edited]
Fr. Ernesto did more or less say that every early church father and document we have, if they speak about fasting at all, are unanimous that corporate fasts could be and were commanded by the church. Not all doctrine. Not all practices. Just one. Fasting.
I’ve certainly read a great many of them, if not all. And that is to the best of my knowledge a true statement. I know it doesn’t fit what you wrote about fasting. I get that you may not like it. But it is as well-established a historical fact as anything else we know from that era. And you don’t seem to want to deal with that reality.
[Mod edited]…the caution I share here is as one shaped by cultural postmodern forces. Something akin to ‘deconstruction’ (though I don’t actually know if that’s the best name for it or not) is not something I turn on or off. It’s not something I do. It’s a whirlwind built into who I am. I have tried on, attempted to believe, and shed more beliefs and attitudes than I can count because they collapsed under their own weight. They deconstructed to nothing.
I say that to say this. Fr. Ernesto’s warning is well-taken. If you make an assertion that essentially boils down to a claim that the apostles and others who were taught by Jesus of Nazareth directly were unable to even pass on the faith they had been taught to those whom they were directly teaching, then you have deconstructed Christianity. If it went wrong immediately, then there is not the slightest hope that we can get it right 2,000 years later.
Probably that’s why I responded so strongly in the first thread on this topic. I have read those early writings. I know what they say about fasting. And what you were asserting bore little resemblance to them. Again, if the apostles couldn’t correctly teach those who spent time with them, how are we supposed to understand and interpret scattered passages in scripture. For that matter, since it was those people and those they taught who collected and preserved and canonized what we now call the New Testament, how do we even have confidence in it?
This question treads close not to ecclesiology or polity or denomination practice. It treads close to the question of whether or not the apostles were able to learn from Jesus and communicate the faith to those they in turn taught. If the answer to that question, especially on a topic discussed so often in scripture and so integral to the life of the church as fasting, is ‘no’ then what in Christianity is there to believe?
LikeLike
I have no problem with leadership calling for a voluntary fast.
But that’s not what we have in some groups. We have requirements. Mandates.
ms
LikeLike
Wow, what has happened on this thread is amazing. I had no idea there would be so much passionate debate about this topic. I will have to delve into the topic deeper myself.
My current opinion on the issue is that I have no problem with the leadership calling for a group fast, whether local, regional or universal. For instance, I will be attending a short term mission trip to Guatemala in April. The leadership has asked the team to fast on Wednesdays as a joint prayer endeavor.
I agree with C. Hays that it should not be a public discussion as to what one has given up or for how long, etc. It may be a group call but it is a personal response.
Of course, there are those times when one fasts alone for personal reasons. These times should also remain private.
LikeLike
Flatrocker:
Thanks for calling ’em like you see ’em.
ms
LikeLike
caucazhin:
Prayer beads don’t compel a person to 1) pray at all or 2) pray anything. I’m sure you’ll be shocked to discover that people who aren’t Catholics do things like recite scripture with prayer beads.
I “endorse Catholicism?” Where? Quote me.
My friend Alan Creech sells the prayer beads and what a person does with them is their business. I have no control over what anyone does.
Now please note…I allowed your bigoted and disrespectful comment as you wrote it.
Some of you speak to me as if I were your dog. It amazes me what you beleive you can say to someone you don’t know at all just because it’s the internet.
ms
LikeLike
iMonk,
No one in this thread expects an endorsement.
You simply laid out a slow curve and Fr. E smacked it out of the park.
As you have stated to your readership in the past, thanks so much for playing.
LikeLike
Fr. Ernesto: Anyone who expects to hear me endorse the “authority” of the church to “mandate” a fast has clearly just arrived. Welcome new people! I’m a Protestant!
Seriously, mandated spiritual disciplines with repercussions, whether ordered up by the Catholic/Orthodox authorities or by SBC pastors planning a building program, are nothing I’ve ever been capable of signing on to. And that’s nothing new for my Catholic/EO friends. I’ll depart from Baptist polity and accept your baptisms, but I won’t grant that church authority includes the right to demand– not suggest– that I fast.
Sounds like a good gangsta topic. Maybe.
peace
ms
LikeLike
Can I interject a little landmarkism here just for kicks and giggles? Perhaps if you take a “local church” approach then all sides can be a shade of right?
Perhaps the church (local) can proclaim a fast that for its congregants, but the church (universal invisible) can not seeing as the church in that sense has no hierarchy but Christ Himself.
I have inherited some books by a Philip Mauro sp? One is The Church, the Churches, and the Kingdom, it has some very interesting things to say about the local church, univesal church, and the Kingdom.
Anyone here know much about Mauro? I first started reading his books b/c he is against dispensationalism.
Austin
LikeLike
I have no trouble with the idea of the Church proclaiming fasts. If it seems good to the Holy Spirit and to the leadership, they can proclaim and bind and loose whatever they need to.
However, the tendency of humans is to bind everything but sin, and the tendency of God is to loose everything but sin.
Thus the tendency of a church to call for fast after fast. ‘Cause it’s good for us. But it’s not good for us when we misunderstand its purpose, or fast for the wrong reasons, or do it so often that it becomes meaningless and rote. The early Church fathers understood that denying the pleasures of the world helped them detach from it and focus on God. Yet too often they were so hung up on maintaining their authority that the message was frequently the all-too-familiar “Do it because I said so.” And that is where we Protestants object. Only God gets to say that.
LikeLike
Michael, could you organize a Liturgical Gangstas on this topic? I think it would be the best Liturgical Gangstas yet!
LikeLike
“(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.)”
iMonk, you say that the discussion has taken a “decidedly denominational turn,” but the tenor of the two postings on fasting is a serious questioning of what authority does the Church have in the midst of discussing fasting. Since the Orthodox are those who do the most fasting and since it is such an integral part of our spiritual disciplines, in effect our ecclessiology was brought under a very serious examination, as we do claim that the Church has the authority to proclaim a public fast, and that this is in accord with what we have received from Our Lord Jesus.
So, GRIN, I have vigorously defended myself by pointing out the very serious questions I have about Anabaptist ecclessiology in order to defend the right of the Church to proclaim, with authority, a public fast.
In one sense, you could claim that it is a “decidedly denominational turn” but vigorous discussion is not always a retreat into denominational catch phrases. It is only a retreat when it is an unthinking parroting. I hope I have not done that, though, of course, if I was simply parroting, then I was most wrong.
LikeLike
I grew up in a (Baptist) church that as far as I remember, never mentioned fasting as anything any members should/could do. I discovered it on my own as an adult branching out to study the Word of God. Now whenever I have an urgent prayer of intercession, for example, I will fast. This may be a fast from the time I wake up until I’ve prayed. The time may be three hours, four hours, or an hour. I’ve also fasted from sunset to sunset. I’ve never fasted any longer than that, and I’ve never told one single living soul that I’m fasting. Not even my husband or son. They are busy and gone during the day, and don’t even notice, even on the 24 hour fasts. I’ve never participated in Lent, but I do have several friends who do, and there is always great discussion about what they “gave up”. Don’t know how I feel about that, but it certainly doesn’t matter. That’s their own thing between themselves and God. This has just been my two cents. I’m not educated enough to really join in any discussion, but I do enjoy all of your posts, Michael, and have been blessed by the discovery of your site. Thank you.
C. Hays
LikeLike
>The great weakness of a particularly Anabaptist theology is that it can only survive by impugning those who were alive when the Apostles were alive.
I posted the Dagg quote today just so this point might be heard a little less often.
I have a Baptist theology, and I don’t “impugn” anyone. Does saying someone was wrong, let’s say, about the superiority of virginity to marriage, amount to an “impugning?” Our differences over Baptism or the unanimity of the ECFs amounts to me “impugning” non-Baptists? I think not.
And if, like me, a person believes there never has been human infallibility, then I am not accusing the church of “falling.” We’re saying the church has never gotten it entirely right. Not then, not now, not ever.
Disagreeing with fellow Christians isn’t “impugning” anyone.
But I feel a bit “impugned” myself 🙂
Claiming that the ECFs were uniformly and identically echoing the Apostles can’t be a serious claim. Name one Patristics scholar who will say the ECFs are unanimous on all doctrine and practice.
Our discussion has taken a decidedly denominational turn. Too bad.
ms
LikeLike
What Fr. Terry said, GRIN. In order to take a stand that the Church has no authority to make regulations, one has to also argue that the Church fell immediately. If the Didache does indeed date to the end of the first century, which the vast majority of modern scholars believe, then the Church fell before the Apostle John was even dead. Add in the other great early saints and one has to argue that they are all wrong, does not one?
Of course, the other possibility is that maybe Romans and Orthodox have something of a point? But, let me make a further point. If the Church Fathers who overlapped the Apostles are all so wrong, how can anyone come even close to knowing that they themselves are right? After all, if the Fathers who were alive when some of the Twelve Apostles were still alive can get it so wrong, how does a modern believer have any possibility of knowing that they have it right?
No, throw away the Early Church Fathers, throw away the faith. This does not mean that Romans and Orthodox are right about everything. But, it does mean, as Fr. Terry has quoted, that where there is some unanimity in the Fathers, particularly those who were alive at the time of the Apostles, it behooves us ill to claim that they were wrong. And, uhm, they claimed that the Church could command a fast.
The great weakness of a particularly Anabaptist theology is that it can only survive by impugning those who were alive when the Apostles were alive. But, in doing that they leave the door wide open to many of our modern ills, including liberalism and post-modernism. For, if those Fathers are not reliable, then even Scripture itself is not reliable. And, quoting lines from Scripture about its reliability while claiming that the Apostles were unable to correctly teach their immediate followers is a recipe for doubting that the Apostles were even able to get the original story straight. After all, it was those very followers that preserved the Scriptures, judged which ones were truly Scripture, and collected those Scriptures in one volume.
To use the Holy Spirit to cover the supposed gaps in the way in which the Apostles discipled their immediate followers is a “deus ex machina” escape. Only if there is a recognition that those very early Church Fathers, who overlapped with the Apostles themselves, were correctly taught can there be a consistency to our claim that we know Truth and that such Truth is embodied in Scripture (and Ecumenical Council). This is why the Reformers (Luther, Calvin, Knox) could and would so easily quote the Fathers. This is why they were willing to accept at least four of the Ecumenical Councils. This is why there was an acceptance that, at least in the New Testament, the Church correctly enumerated which books were Scripture. This is why Anabaptism is so philosophically wrong.
LikeLike
I think perhaps Fr. Terry is getting to the crux of the matter where the real difficulty lies with “But I also believe that the Spirit speaks through those placed in authority in establishing foundational practices of communal fasting during Lent that are binding on Christians under their pastoral authority.”
This, I think, is where our mutual misunderstandings are colliding; it’s coming down to the differing views of authority. Michael is not condemning fasting, he’s saying it should not be mandated as a universal practice under pain of disciplinary measures, because the elders and leaders have no right to bind the conscience of the believer in that manner. On the Catholic/Orthodox side, we’re saying the Church has both the right and the authority to prescribe medicine for the spiritual health of the members of the body.
We’re not arguing about the benefits (which we all or mostly all acknowledge exist) or the pitfalls/potential abuses (which we also all or mostly all acknowledge exist also) of fasting, we’re arguing about communal versus individual responsibility and how the Holy Spirit manifests corporately.
LikeLike
Does it seem to anyone else that Matthew 6:1-16 could best be read as a complete thought?
I see a simple outline as:
Preface: Beware of practicing your righteousness before other people in order to be seen by them
1. when you give to the needy
2. when you pray
Interlude: Pray then like this
3. when you fast
Aside from the preface point, which applies to all three, it seems that Jesus could have said “if”, not “when”, if he meant “if”, not “when”.
Maybe not a command, but it does sound like an expectation. It would seem to be up to the individual to manage the expectations.
Thanks for the work you do with this blog, sir.
LikeLike
I agree with the overall emphasis on fasting as a response to the promptings of the Spirit. But I also believe that the Spirit speaks through those placed in authority in establishing foundational practices of communal fasting during Lent that are binding on Christians under their pastoral authority. Catholics understand that these disciplinary regulations can and have been adapted to be more suited to the times and that individual circumstances make for legitimate exceptions and dispensations from the universal norms. Ultimately it is about faithfulness to Christ, not legalism.
The following are some quotes from the Early Church in support of the above:
In addition to teaching the unchanging moral law, the Apostles had the authority to make disciplinary regulations on abstinence from certain foods: “It is the decision of the holy Spirit and of us not to place on you any burden beyond these necessities, namely, to abstain from meat sacrificed to idols, from blood, from meats of strangled animals, and from unlawful marriage. If you keep free of these, you will be doing what is right.†(Acts 15:28-29).
Christians recognized this authority, and that these decisions were binding on all Christians (“necessitiesâ€), even though the disciplinary parts were subject to later adaptation as circumstances changed in the Church.
In the Didache (Gk. “Teachingâ€), which most scholars date at the end of the 1st century A.D., Christians were instructed by their pastors to practice fast and abstinence at specific times:
Prebaptismal fasting: “Before the baptism, let the one baptizing, and the one being baptized, and any others who are able, fast. Command the one being baptized to fast for one or two days beforehand†(Didache 7:4).
In a commentary on the Didache, Aaron Milavec comments that although this is the earliest known reference to fasting in preparation for baptism, it is likely “giving voice to a tradition already practiced (although it is impossible to gauge how widespread this practice might have been).â€
Postbaptismal fasting: “Do not let your fasts coincide with those of the hypocrites, for they fast on the second and on the fifth day of the week [Monday & Thursday], but you should fast during the fourth day and during the Sabbath preparation day [Wednesday & Friday]†(Didache 8:1).
Further evidence of mandated communal fasts: (1) St. Irenaeus wrote to Pope Victor I in 190 A.D. on Lenten fasting before Easter. (2) Around 213-222 A.D., Tertullian wrote: “But it is enough for me that it is a customary practice for the bishops withal to issue mandates for fasts to the universal commonalty of the Church…†(On Fasting, 13). Granted that Tertullian had Montanist excesses with regards to fasting, but the above quote is evidence of widespread Christian practice, with regional variations.
LikeLike
As a continuation on last year’s Lent readings of the Church Fathers, today I was reading the first half of the 2nd Century “Epistle to Diognetus.” In this early work of apologetics, Mathetes explains why Christians don’t do things the way pagans do. He then explains why Christians don’t keep to the “superstitions of the Jews.” Seeing as how a lot of what he was speaking against were direct commands of the OT, I found it to be a bit offensive to call them “superstitions.”
But as I thought about it, I realised that any time our religion or even obedience gets between us and Jesus, it becomes a superstition. I’ve been meditating on concept a lot today. I.e. what are my well-meaning yet misled pious superstitions that have impeded my relationship with Jesus?
LikeLike
“Christians who choose to fast- whether individuals or corporately- should do so for new covenant reasons and do so in view of the new covenant’s view of all old covenant practices.”
That is indeed the whole point.
LikeLike
Lionel: Not entirely sure I understand your question. I’ll answer what I do understand.
I’m unsure about “pre-canonical” because the bulk of what fasts mean comes from the OT: Sorrow or repentance. The NT guideline, I believe, comes from Jesus’s statement, “The groomsmen can’t fast when the groom is with them, right?” (Mark 2:19) Jesus is with us, so fasting isn’t appropriate for Christians in various cases, like penance, repentance, sorrow, etc. Not that we won’t do those things (many sad people don’t eat), or are forbidden to; we just don’t need to do those things. Our standing with God isn’t improved by, or hindered by a lack of, fasting.
The reason I fast is because my deprivation redirects my focus to my Provider. I do it for Lent, but I do it other times too. I don’t seek His will through it; I’m not a fan of that interpretation. I seek Him. If He wants to make His will known to me, He’s told me in the scriptures, and He’ll tell me anything more if there’s anything more. I don’t need to sit around like a stick in the mud, whining, “I don’t know what He wants of me. I don’t know my calling.” I do so. We all do. “Love your neighbor” and the Great Commission are pretty accurately translated.
As for the early Christians’ reasons for fasting: I don’t know. Maybe they did it for my reasons; maybe they were repenting for something; maybe they were seeking God’s will; maybe they were Pharisees like Paul and used to doing it twice a week; maybe they were out of food and praying for it. Either way, like Michael said, I say Amen. They did it. Whether we do likewise, and why, is between us and the Holy Spirit.
LikeLike
“its value as a part of prayer is obvious”
I’m not so sure it is obvious, since again I’ve read recently, both here and elsewhere, lengthy Protestant protestations about fasting, noting all the dangers, and wrong aspects about fasting. Not much said about “its value as a par of prayer” so I’m thinking there is nothing very obvious about it.
Perhaps a future IM post might help us explore and understand the value of fasting for prayer and meditation on God’s Word.
LikeLike
Fr. E:
Hmm, not now, but I can make a Scriptural argument some other time. I’d be very interested in reading that. Hope you can do it soon, if not here then maybe on your blog.
A very interesting topic.
LikeLike
Fr. E….
The new covenant is all over the old testament, and all over the old covenant. Just not in fullness in Jesus, the Spirit, revelation, etc, and not “enforced” so to speak with the end of national Israel.
The new covenant traction was always there.
peace
ms
LikeLike
The trouble is that we often posit an either/or dichotomy. But there are other options than an either/or dichotomy. Fearsome Comrade has only two options, either obeying “church” regulations or being excommunicated or excluded from the Lord’s Table. Since I know of NO canon that says anything like that regarding fasting, I must conclude that this is a stereotype of the worst possible sort. In fact, St. John Chrysostom’s sermon, which is read every Easter in every Orthodox parish on Easter Sunday even asks those who have not fasted at all to come and receive Christ’s Body and Blood.
But, interestingly enough, iMonk’s posting points to quite a few themes I really appreciate. While we will undoubtedly continue to have our differences, this is one excellent posting.
iMonk says, “Isaiah’s description of a true fast runs on the same new covenant traction as other prophetic critiques of old covenant practices that had become empty of the reality of living faith.” May I suggest that the big mistake here is to call it a “new covenant traction?” Both the Old Covenant and the New Covenant run on exactly the same “traction” when it comes to the practices of the community. God never ever wanted empty practices. Isaiah’s critique is NOT a new covenant critique, it is a Biblical critique.
The mistake that is made by all too many is to assume that because Our Lord Jesus repeated the same critique as the Old Testament prophets that he intended to do away with the practices. The problem is that Church history shows otherwise. (Hmm, not now, but I can make a Scriptural argument some other time.)
Both the Old Testament prophets and Our Lord Jesus wanted practices that were done for the right reasons, from the heart and full of the Holy Spirit. But, to therefore conclude that Our Lord was against regulated practices is to go far beyond what either Scripture or history shows.
LikeLike
Lionel:
You said…
>How would you handle Acts where there is much fasting and praying for the seeking of God’s will for the church? Is this pre-canonical thing?
Are you asking me a question premised on the assumption that I am against fasting?
I specifically said the Apostles fasted for discernment.
(Are you asking someone else? Like K.W.?)
I said…
>Acts records that the early Christians fasted in periods of intense prayer.
and
>The issue is not whether a person, in response to the Holy Spirit, may fast. That is obvious.
Acts shows the Apostles fasting. I don’t have to do anything with that because I say “Amen.” I believe they were new covenant Christians fasting in new covenant understanding of the work of the Spirit.
And I don’t believe it was “required’ to stay in the good graces of the church.
peace
ms
LikeLike
Michael: Completely OT but if you put the bold words in red letter and then italicized other words and also increased the font size and italicized still other words, you will have come full circle. (Strunk, and now White, will be rolling over in their graves.)
It certainly gives me the willies to see even the hint of Pyro Emphatics cropping up here. If people are missing your point, it’s not because you failed to emphasize the point.
Peace
LikeLike
K.W and Mike,
How would you handle Acts where there is much fasting and praying for the seeking of God’s will for the church? Is this pre-canonical thing?
LikeLike
Flatrocker: When the Spirit leads me into a new covenant understanding, I’ll answer that question. 🙂
LikeLike
I blogged on fasting last month, in response to my sister’s church deciding to have a 21-day fast in order to seek God’s will for the year. My response was: Go and do God’s will as revealed in the scriptures—care for the needy—and see if God doesn’t give you a more specific direction as He sees that you’re obedient.
The whole fast-to-seek-God thing seems to have been pulled out Jesus’s fast in the wilderness, which we remember during Lent; since OT fasting was for repentance, why should Jesus, who had nothing to repent, fast? And if we’re truly commemorating His fast, why do so many of us use Lent as a way of giving up things that are bad for us? It’s Lent, not New Year’s.
In my own Accordance-digging, I noted the Hebrew idiom “afflict your soul” (or “afflict yourselves” in ESV) is often interpreted to mean fasting. Hence the belief that the Hebrews were to fast on the Day of Atonement. (Lev 23:27) But that would be the only mandatory fast the Law calls for. Otherwise we can’t say that, apart from special revelation, God ever calls His people to fast regularly; and if we do, it’s our own idea. Not a bad idea, but not to be blamed on God.
LikeLike
To chime in a bit, it is one thing to recommend a fast and quite another to threaten someone with excommunication if he doesn’t fast, or exclude him from the Lord’s Table if he hasn’t fasted. This is nothing other than “passing judgment.”
LikeLike
Soooooo, Michael are ya in or not?
LikeLike
The word “recommend” is important. To which I say “of course.” “Recommend” whatever the church has found useful. But “Require?” “Bind the conscience?” No. That’s wrong.
I also said that fasting accompanied other things in scripture, including entreaty and intense prayer, discernment in the NT, etc.
I closed with this:
“As this pertains to fasting, I would suggest that a fast is done in imitation of Christ (as a Spirit led manifestation of prayer), in trust of Christ (trusting Christ for physical sustenance), and in complete understanding of the Gospel of Christ (we are complete in him, complete apart from whatever we do or abstain from doing.)”
LikeLike
WOW….was that ever helpful…(rhetorical) 🙂
LikeLike
“My fundamental point: all old covenant practices (or all practices initiated in the old covenant era, if that’s helpful) should only be continued with a new covenant, Christ-exalting, Gospel centered meaning.”
Well put — I agree. Maybe even could say they find their fulfillment and meaning in Christ. E.G., fasting is meaningful and useful as a way to draw me more deeply into union with our risen and ascended head — Christ.
LikeLike
“The tax collector demonstrates what new covenant faith is all about: with or without fasting, it is a confession of complete dependence on God for righteousness.”
Michael, would you then advise, under any circumstance, anybody ELSE to fast? If fasting is a form of personal repentance, do you think it might be appropriate for us to recommend the fast to one another as a spiritual discipline – as something which produces a change in the self’s disposition towards God, rather than vise versa?
And echoing Flatrocker, are you gonna fast?
LikeLike
So Michael, are you going to fast?
LikeLike
well said and a hearty Amen
LikeLike