Welcome to IM’s popular new feature, “The Liturgical Gangstas,” a panel discussion among different liturgical traditions represented in the Internet Monk audience.
Who are the Gangstas?
Father Ernesto Obregon is an Eastern Orthodox priest, who as a result of this IM feature, now has a fan club of several million :-).
Rev. Peter Vance Matthews is an Anglican priest and founding pastor of an AMIA congregation.
Dr. Wyman Richardson is a pastor of a First Baptist Church (SBC) and director of Walking Together Ministries, a resource on church discipline.
Alan Creech is a Roman Catholic with background in the Emerging church and spiritual direction. Alan Creech Rosaries is an IM sponsor.
Rev. Matthew Johnson is a United Methodist pastor.
Rev. William Cwirla is a Lutheran pastor (LCMS) and one of the hosts of The God Whisperers, which is a podcast nearly as good as Internet Monk Radio.
Here’s this week’s question: I (Michael) recently published two posts on “A New Covenant Lent.” The responses have been animated, and several have asked me to “gangsta-ize” one of the issues. So…
To what extent can a church (and this context will vary from gangsta to gangsta) mandate personal spiritual practices? For example, what is your perspective on mandated fasts at particular times of the Christian year or for other causes? More importantly, what theology of Christian spirituality lies behind your reasoning?
Readers: This was an outstanding response, and please don’t miss the Baptist response. Wyman is in rare form.
Father Ernesto/Orthodox: I fear you asked no short question this time. Let’s first look at a couple of key Scriptures:
Our Lord Jesus Christ received his authority from the Father: “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.” Note that the Mark 16 parallel late addendum clearly speaks of the Church as having been given clear authority over demons, authority to heal, etc. That is, the authority received by Jesus is passed on to the Church
Christ’s authority is exercised in the Church through the power of the Holy Spirit. “And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.” Notice that the parallel Scriptures are even broader and say that what the Church binds on earth shall be bound in heaven, and what is unbound on earth shall be unbound in heaven. Authoritative teaching, miracles, the driving out of impure spirits, forgiveness of sins, the incorporation of people into the Body of Christ by evangelism and sacrament, the feeding of the people of God with word and sacrament, and, yes, authoritative guidance in the living of the Christian life is delegated to the Church in a way parallel, but not equal to, the way in which the Father delegated authority to the Son.
But, but, but, the purpose of the authority of the Church is to gather all of humanity into Jesus Christ, “to bring all things in heaven and on earth together under one head, even Christ.” No, I do not believe that all shall be saved, but I do believe that the Church’s job is to desire what God desires. “This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.” Authority in the Church is not for the sake of authority, it is to bring humanity to union with God. And it is to be exercised as servant authority.
Nevertheless, it is real authority, and there are several clear warnings in the New Testament that point to that real authority. Let me allude to several Scriptures that are often conveniently overlooked when we talk about the subject of Church authority. I will simply list them for the sake of keeping this post a little shorter.
Ananias and Saphhira in Acts 5 — there was no requirement that they give all the money from the sale. But, when they lied, St. Peter pronounced a judgment on both of them and they died.
The Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 — proclaims several rules of behavior to be obeyed. As late as the Apostolic Constitutions, one can read how it is forbidden to eat meat sacrificed to idols, in spite of the fact that St. Paul had already argued in an earlier writing that ultimately it did not matter whether one ate meat sacrificed to idols or not. Nevertheless, St. Paul was present at that Council and agreed and promulgated a disciplinary restriction agreed upon by the Holy Spirit and the Church in order to more faithfully order the life of the Body and to preserve peace, in spite of his earlier arguments about meat sacrificed to idols.
St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 5 pronounces a judgment on someone committing sexual immorality and clearly expects that the Church judgment will be reflected in the heavenlies as they, “hand this man over to Satan, so that the sinful nature may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord.” That is, not only are they throwing the person out of the community here on earth, St. Paul fully expects that, as a result of that decision, God will withdraw His hand from that person and allow Satan to destroy him for the sake of his salvation. It would be an understatement to say that this is tough love, as well as Church authority binding things in the heavens.
St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 11 makes it clear that, in several ways, they are violating traditions, both natural and Church. But, having said that, he clearly points out that he has received certain Traditions, regarding the Lord’s Supper, that they are to follow. Moreover, he makes the startling statement that their failure to handle the Lord’s Supper correctly, that is to follow what they have received in the manner in which they have received it has resulted in some people being sick and some having died.
Having said all that, God will not back the Church in anything contrary to His will. There are ample evidences from Church history to demonstrate that. But, to argue that the authority of the Church is purely persuasive, and that people may, in good conscience, disobey the Church without any spiritual repercussions, is the other, equally incorrect, pole of the discussion.
Hmm, I need to stop now, but with a mild frustration. This is not a simple subject with simple answers. And, one of my personal frustrations is that it took me a long time to learn that there is a major difference between the East and the West with regards to their approach to Church regulations. A canon (means something closer to principle, precept, regulation) is not a nomos (nomos means law). There is a reason why a person who does not obey the law is called an antinomian and not an anti-canonian. There is a different approach between East and West to Church precepts.
So, iMonk, color me somewhat frustrated. Hmm, by the way, ALL the Early Church Fathers unanimously spoke of fasting as something that the Church requested of all Christians, during certain events and certain seasons. I would take that seriously..
Matthew Johnson/United Methodist: Matthew is quite the spiritual fellow, and I expect that he is probably fasting from the internet and email, and hasn’t gotten the question. Or perhaps his church won’t allow him to answer. He does have a nice new picture though.
Peter Vance Matthews/Anglican: Anglicans do not require anyone to believe or do anything that is not explicitly required in scripture. So then, there are no canons that tell communicants when or when not to fast.
At the same time, Anglicans follow the liturgical calendar and in the calendar there are Holy Days and traditional days of fasting. Thus, it is allowable to encourage people to practice fasting and other spiritual practices on these days, but an Anglican clergyman must be sure to clearly communicate these are not required practices. For example, I usually encourage everyone in our parish to join me in fasting on Good Friday, but I never inspect whether or not anyone has followed me in that and I would never condemn nor criticize anyone for not doing so.
This is where Anglicanism gets fuzzy. We really do think highly of the traditions of the Church and in most cases seek to follow them. (For example a lot of Anglicans will pray through the Stations of the Cross during Lent.) But an Anglican clergyman would be clearly out of line to teach that these things are required or that they earn some sort of merit for the one who practices them.
Here are some relevant statements from the Articles of Religion, one of the doctrinal formularies for Anglican Churches.
VI. Of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation.
Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. In the name of the Holy Scripture we do understand those canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church.
XIV. Of Works of Supererogation.
Voluntary Works besides, over and above, God’s Commandments, which they call Works of Supererogation, cannot be taught without arrogancy and impiety: for by them men do declare, that they do not only render unto God as much as they are bound to do, but that they do more for his sake, than of bounden duty is required: whereas Christ saith plainly When ye have done all that are commanded to you, say, We are unprofitable servants.
XX. Of the Authority of the Church.
The Church hath power to decree Rites or Ceremonies, and authority in Controversies of Faith: and yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain any thing that is contrary to God’s Word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another. Wherefore, although the Church be a witness and a keeper of Holy Writ, yet, as it ought not to decree any thing against the same, so besides the same ought it not to enforce any thing to be believed for necessity of Salvation.
Alan Creech/Roman Catholic: OK, now who else does this, honestly? Fr. Ernesto, are we in the cross-hairs? I particularly sense a little red laser target on the back of my head on this one – hmmmm. I promise, I won’t mention purga… NOOO – this time. 🙂
To answer, from my perspective, the first part of the question – “to what extent CAN a church mandate personal spiritual practices?” Well, Any church that feels froggy enough can leap into mandating all manner of things for it’s members I reckon. Perhaps you mean “should” instead of “can.” Churches can do whatever they think is right and good. They even can do a lot of things they may even know aren’t that good. Now, whether they should or not, that might be a better question.
Also, is there a difference here in what we’re calling “personal spiritual practices” and “communal spiritual practices?” Is any practice that a Christian undergoes ever really solely “personal?” If WE are the Body of Christ, I am always a part of WE. OK, OK, sure, I am an individual person, we’re not the Borg here – BUT, the spirituality behind what I’m beginning to talk about does not see all aspects of “Borg-ian” life negatively. God speaks to us in Scripture about one, unified Body with many parts and one head (yes, I’m talking about Jesus, settle down). Our Christian life as the Church, therefore, is a communal life, not merely an individual life of relationship with God. So, even our so-called “personal spiritual practices” are ultimately communal. They not only effect me, but also the whole Body of which I am a part.
What does that have to do with any of this? Just a bit of philosophical underpinning. It speaks to how we think about spiritual practices. Generally speaking, philosophically, Catholics would think of spiritual practices, even if personally undertaken, as a part of a whole, as communal practices as well. We are all interrelated as a family of God. We are all members of the family, equally loved by God, but there is an order put in place to help the family function because of our differing levels of union with the Head. I’m boiling down here. The “parental” figures in the Church can, and sometimes should, say to the whole family something like, “hey family, we need to do some things together as a family, for the health of the family, for our common good, so let’s all do this…” Generally speaking, I think this is good – that a church would call a “community fast” say, for the season of Lent, say – lay down some general things we will all do together, over top of that, do whatever you feel led to do, but at least do the minimum with all the rest of us.
Fine and good. There is a definite good there, as I see it, within the context I’ve laid out. Even these general minimums given to us as members of the “family” can be very personally spiritually fulfilling and formational. There is something about obedience to something like this which is “will breaking.” I mean our often-times very selfish wills are molded, in part, through obedience, even to human rules – to a degree and within a certain mental and spiritual framework. I won’t get totally into how that might be a very bad thing for one’s spiritual development.
And certainly, there are very good, formational things which can happen on your spiritual insides via personally chosen practices and disciplines, perhaps to an even greater degree than by doing certain things because, for instance, a fast was called from on high. That is not to negate, though, what I’ve already said. There will be degrees of how effective something can or will be inside a person depending on the person, there state in life, “where” they are spiritually in their relationship with God, etc., etc. But again, even when we choose to do this or that by way of a spiritual practice or discipline, it is not only “our thing.” It belongs to the whole Body of Christ, because we belong to the whole Body of Christ. We are not a whole within ourselves.
Where things get problematic for me is when penalties are attached to these mandated practices and disciplines. Sure, keeping with the familial analogy I wrote about before, the “parents” can discipline their children for not taking out the proverbial trash, I suppose. How, though? To what extent? You decide not to take the trash out, so I (the Dad) kick you out of the house and refuse to feed you dinner any more? Say what? We need a whole Council to discuss what “grave matter” is – perhaps. Analogies, alas, do break down after a bit, even the good ones, even those that God gives us to explain our relationship with Him. They can never be perfect in how they explain things. St. Augustine said something once about how if you “do good for fear of punnishment, then you are a slave and not a son.” He went on to speak about how the more perfect way was to be a son to God and not a slave. We should be doing good for love of God, not for fear of punishment. The funniest part of his little statement, though, which is probably very wise, is that he said at the end, “if you can only do good for fear of punishment, then at least do that – eventually Love will come in and teach you the better way” – that’s from memory so likely not a perfect quote. Good stuff. I would like to see mandates like this aim toward leading all “the children” into a deeper Love and not work, if even passively, to perpetuate fear.
Wyman Richardson/Southern Baptist: Any attempt to “mandate personal spiritual practices” in a Baptist church is likely to go over like a pregnant high jumper. In fact, most Baptists view the word “mandate” in about the same way they view the word “heroin”: we know some people do it, but we think they shouldn’t.
I may be exaggerating a bit…well…no I’m not.
Now, certain civic practices are essentially mandated by the congregation. Ask any Baptist preacher who has forgotten to recognize the veterans on Veteran’s Day or any preacher who has, even worse, forgotten to recognize mothers on Mother’s Day. I tremble as I type. So there is an implicit mandate from the congregation based on its own idiosyncratic and, largely, civic traditions. But that’s not even liturgy. That’s syncretism.
Now, what many Baptist pastors do in an attempt to see their people “buy into” a particular devotional practice is either (a) guilt the people into it, which works in more sado-masochistic churches or (b) buy it in an over-priced, glossy, packaged, pre-fabricated format and then hope to dress it up with enough carnival atmosphere that the people will think it’s possibly more entertaining than the new episode of The Real Housewives of Orange County…which none of us watch, of course, we just stop “for a few minutes” while channel surfing.
You must understand: worldwide, intergenerational, transcontinental liturgical consensus and tradition cannot accomplish in over a thousand years what the latest Christian marketing gimmick can accomplish in a fortnight in a denomination that has learned to buy into almost anything so long as the workbook eventually has a final page and its presented in 150 font.
You can get Baptists folk to do just about anything (except fast) so long as you slap “40 Days Of…” before it.
Some of this is due to our penchant for what Tom Oden called neophilia (love of the new) and some is due to our truncated historiography which pretty much thinks Christian history started with Billy Graham. But whatever the reason, the average enculturated SBC church doesn’t get goosebumps over the thought of joining with the great cloud of witnesses in the rhythms of the Christian calendar, certainly not to the point of tolerating any kind of mandate! Oh, maybe on occasion, but only then in order to placate, at least for a year or two, a perceived tangent that some seminary-educated pastor seems to want everybody to follow him on. We get goosebumps over potlucks and church fights.
But I’m not bitter.
On the other hand, there are a growing number of Southern Baptist churches that are beginning to think that that “new church smell” we all pant over really makes us a bit nauseous, and that there is something strangely aromatic in the wonderful and strange world of ancient Christian customs like Lent, to take one example.
But let me say this: as a committed congregationalist, I myself am weary of “mandating.” But I will, despite my ranting, conclude by putting the blame on my own shoulders. Perhaps if we Baptist pastors began to intentionally educate our congregations in the logic, and beauty, and wonder of the classic Christian disciplines and in their wonderful liturgical manifestations, and, better yet, perhaps if we modeled them in our own lives and personal practices, then we wouldn’t be so frustrated.
As for fasting, one would think that a people who call themselves “People of the Book” would be compelled by the Biblical examples of and teachings concerning fasting to embrace that particular discipline. But, ironically, one recent study judged SBC folks to be the fattest Protestants in the United States, and one trip to your local SBC gathering will likely confirm that.
But, then again, I’ve just lost 30 lbs. and am only about halfway there, so who am I to talk?
William Cwirla/Lutheran: This is a timely question as some of us embark on the season of Lent, our “40 days of purple.†It’s also a great opportunity for the Lutheran to sound like a good old sola Scriptura Protestant for a change, though I’m quite aware of fellow Lutherans who have developed a hankering for corporate fasting and want everyone else to fall in line (always “in the Gospel,†of course).
Here’s the Lutheran take in a nutshell: Personal spiritual practices such as fasting are just fine and dandy, only keep them between you and God, don’t judge others, and they earn you no divine merit badges. Corporately mandated spiritual practices (excluding those specifically mandated by Christ, of course, like “Do this in remembrance of meâ€), are beyond the bounds of church authority. Of course, the churches need to have some agreed upon rules for the sake of order (for example, having set gathering times, rites, readings, seasons, etc), but even these are viewed as human arrangements not divine mandates. (That would include even Sunday, Christmas, and Easter, by the way.)
Lutherans officially consider fasting to be a “fine outward, bodily discipline†(Small Catechism). Jesus anticipated that His disciples would fast just as they would give alms and pray, but that these things would be done en crypto “in secret†away from the eyes of men (Mt 6:16-18). He warned His disciples to be careful lest their hearts become weighed down by dissipation and drunkenness (Luke 21:34). The apostle Paul speaks of subduing his body (1 Cor 9:27), though he himself recognized that outward discipline does little to restrain the sinful flesh (1 Tim 4:8; Col 2:23). (Origen learned the hard way that castration did nothing to curtail sexual lust. Ouch!)
This sentence from our confessional writings says it well: “Thus fasting in itself is not rejected, but what is rejected is making a necessary service of fasts on prescribed days and with specified foods, for this confuses consciences†(Apology to the Augsberg Confession, XXVI.39) So much for fish on Fridays or giving up chocolates for Lent. Prescribed fasts, with all the weight of church authority behind them, tend to bind consciences and lead people to believe that they sin if they do not go with the prescribed program.
The underlying theological principle is our blood-bought liberty in Christ. “For freedom Christ has set us free†(Gal 5:1). This is a strong and consistent theme with the apostle Paul both against the Judaizers, who wanted to establish practices of the Mosaic covenant among Christians, but also the various proto-gnostic “spirituals,†who were quite enamored of rigorous fasts and days. Paul would not allow anyone to be judged regarding food or drink or festival, recognizing that the reality of these things had come in Christ (Col 2:16-17). Moreover, these exercises of physical rigor and self-imposed worship may have the “appearance of wisdom,†but they “lack any value in restraining the sinful flesh (Col 2:20-23).
Romans chapter 14 is an excellent treatment of this topic. The apostle leaves matters of food and drink and days entirely to the individual under the umbrella of Christian liberty. “Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind†(Rom 14:5). One person fasts, another eats whatever he wants. One person keeps various days and seasons, another treats all days alike. It’s all done with thanks to God, and it’s all good. As long as it proceeds from faith, knock yourself out. But don’t judge another or look down on another for doing more, less, or not at all. “For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit†(Rom 14:17). The only boundary to Christian liberty is the law of love that does nothing to cause a brother or sister to stumble in the faith. The rest remains en crypto. “So whatever you believe about these things, keep between yourself and God†(Rom 14:22).
So how does it go with me and my own? Someone is sure to ask. As a pastor, I commend fasting as a fine personal discipline but make no rule about it. Personally, I fast non-religiously. My constitution prefers the discipline of intentional moderation to the see-saw cycles of fasting and feasting. I will intentionally forego things for a while that might be grabbing an unhealthy hold on me, just to get things under control. Lent can be a good season to take inventory of one’s addictions.
Would I ever impose a fast on my congregation? No. Would I participate in a fast imposed on me? No. Beyond that, it’s none of anyone’s business but God’s.
The Internet Monk Archives 
My friend on Facebook shared this link and I’m not dissapointed that I came here.
LikeLike
“I’m debating which is more horrifying: Codes of Canon Legalese or the Minutes of a Presbyterian Judicial Hearing in the OPC.”
Ouch, ouch!
LikeLike
Awesome discussion.
LikeLike
I wrote about the principles of fasting in a chapter in my book “Isaiah Insights to Teenage Temptations”, which is posted online here. http://scriptorium-blogorium.freehostia.com/Site/Chapter_4.html
LikeLike
My last posting on this topic. GRIN. I have been way too busy they last four days!
The difference between kanon (canon) and nomos (law) in Eastern thought is very strong. For almost any rule, you can find an Eastern Father explaining why in this particular case it should not be enforced and why in this other case it should be even more rigorous. That is, while the rule, if read juridically, would appear to mandate certain observances with certain punishments, in an unthinking manner, when one reads the Eastern Fathers and their written guidelines for application, one realized that a kanon is not a nomos.
Read St. John Chrysostom’s Easter Sermon and you will see kanon being expressed. GRIN.
LikeLike
Fr. Ernesto, your presence on this blog is a blessing!
I observe that those coming from a forensic legal model of how to understand Church “mandates” to fast will likely never comprehend the Eastern Orthodox mindset unless they are willing to call into question these forensic presuppositions. As formerly a longtime evangelical (going through various of its many camps over my 40 or so years under that banner), I seldom, if ever fasted (since it was not mandated), and derived little or no discernible spiritual benefit when I did. In contrast, I experience the “mandated” fasts in the Eastern Orthodox Church as well as its other structures (i.e., Liturgical cycle of prayers and services, Confession, etc.) as an unmitigated blessing for my wandering soul and look forward to them already (this is only my second year as an Orthodox Christian) and have heard other Orthodox of many years say the same–a joy that only increases through the years. They are a blessing since I am abominable at structuring myself, and I know many others who have similar struggles. Now, I do not yet observe the full strict fasting rules because I am a beginner and there is much economy (as Fr. Ernesto has explained) to adapt rules for various individual personal aptitudes and needs under the guidance of one’s Priest. The spiritual disciplines, properly applied, are a means to fuller intimacy and communion with Christ (which I have definitely experienced since becoming Orthodox). They are not the end of the spiritual life in themselves and if practiced as such will benefit no one. I hope this is a helpful perspective for some.
LikeLike
I love this topic (Anglican here), because it shows how weirdly we are both rebellious and legalistic in the same breath within the Body of Christ. Fasting, sacrifice, consecration, and salvation are all elements of the Body of Christ and therefore are promulgated to the world by the Body of Christ. These things are given to us as gifts of the Holy Spirit to minister to our fellow Christians and to a lost and dying world. Instead of treating them like legalistic acts or things to deny or dilute because they seem to constricting, we should embrace them out of love for our Lord and Savior. I spent six years in various SBC churches during my spiritual exploration and one thing that strongly stood out was a worship of the sense of propriety and not a worship of our Lord Jesus Christ. I had an ecstatic vision of our Lord’s journey down the Via Delorosa (Road of Sorrows) in the middle of a SBC church camp worship service, yet I was given some very odd looks whenever I mentioned it to friends in private. Yet these same people would talk about going to graveyards in the middle of the night to try to experience a dead person’s spirit. It was as if the things of God were not welcome because of how they looked in public, but the things of Satan were just fine as long as they were done under the cover of night. One of the struggles of the Baptist denominations is their lack of acknowledgment of God’s Real Presence among His people and this shows when things like fasting and discipline, which show this acknowledgment, are discussed as something for the whole church body to perform. The topic is poopooed as something that’s either too Catholic or too legalistic. The denial of God’s Presence can be construed as an implied denial of God’s existence for many, and so I’m led to believe that perhaps this is one reason why so many do become Catholics/Anglicans and alternatively, atheists.
LikeLike
When Lutherans state the whole story on where they stand on various issues, they usually end up not making either Protestant or Roman/Eastern Christians entirely happy. Here is a post on fasting I put up today that is an attempt to tell the whole story:
http://cyberbrethren.typepad.com/cyberbrethren/2009/03/on-fasting-and-lutheranism.html
LikeLike
I think the last part of Wyman’s answer is the most important issue to consider. If the pastor is not practicing the spiritual disciplines then it will be almost impossible to find many congregants practicing them. Its the same with sharing the gospel – if the pastor is not doing it personally there is a high probability that the congregants will not be sharing the gospel either.
I do not think some of these things should be mandated as much as they should be modeled. There is a greater chance of congregants fasting if the pastor is doing it, he speaks about it in such a way that it is evident he is doing it (knows about it from 1st hand experience), and he speaks under the authority of Scripture in order to challenge them to do it.
LikeLike
Fr. Ernesto
“…Church administered punishments. I recognize that this is a leftover from the Middle Ages in the West, but such was not the Early Church stance.”
I thought there were some cannons in the early Ecumenical Councils that mandated a certain frequency of communion and/or assisting at Divine Liturgy in order to remain in the Church. Is not this the same principle? Do X, Y, Z or you’re out!
LikeLike
Fr. Ernesto – Apology accepted; ad hominem forgiven. All in the heat of spirited conversation.
LikeLike
Pastor Cwirla – you are correct, and I apologize. I gave in to temptation.
LikeLike
No one is questioning the value of fasting. Catholic or otherwise.
LikeLike
If you look at “by what authority” the Church tells people to pray it is in its authority as a mother and teacher. A mother insists that her children eat balanced diets, get exercise, and limit TV. The laws of the church have more in common with the laws of a family and the enforcement used by parents than they do the laws of the government and enforcement by police.
LikeLike
This is a link to an article about why Catholic’s fast.
http://www.arkansascatholic.org/article.php?id=1631
LikeLike
>….Im — Not that you said the fasting is abusive — I’m taking your statement to mean that the requirement is an abusive wielding of religious authority.
What could the possible bad motive be? Why should we not be trusting them in their decisions on this that it is for the good?
Here we go.
I never said fasting was abusive. You suggested I did. I said it’s not part of the New Covenant. I then said that pragmatic reasons for whatever can justify abuses.
I’m just about done with this entire act.
LikeLike
I do not write posts by request. And I’m not going to be taunted.
I’ve got nine days off, and I plan to use it to clean up the comments on this blog.
The moderation list is going to get much larger.
Commenters: Talk about the subject. Cut out the personal taunting and disrespectful shots. Get the difference between learning about other traditions and prideful preening.
Yes, a couple of commenters have got me thoroughly annoyed.
LikeLike
“Hmm, I know many liberals who set up apostle against apostle. ”
Nice ad hominem. Let’s take a moment and admire it.
LikeLike
“While he and others might give a nod toward it and say it has value, where are those posts describing and talking about its value?”
The OP dealt with mandated fasts not the intrinsic value of fasting as a spiritual discipline per se. The question posed to us was: “To what extent can a church (and this context will vary from gangsta to gangsta) mandate personal spiritual practices? For example, what is your perspective on mandated fasts at particular times of the Christian year or for other causes? More importantly, what theology of Christian spirituality lies behind your reasoning?”
The underlying issue is church authority; mandated fasting is only an incidental example. The Gangstas, and the highly informed comment stream, have done a great job in addressing this question from the perspective of Scripture, tradition, canon law, and even religious polling data.
I’m sure if Michael would ask us, we Liturgical Gangstas would be more than happy to wax eloquent on the virtues of fasting, tithing, Bible verse memorization, 40 days of purpose, or even spinning seven times round quickly like Christopher Smart’s pious cat Jeoffrey in Benjamin Britten’s “Rejoice in the Lamb.”
LikeLike
I THINK the Catholic Church used to say it was a mortal sin to miss any weekly mass, but are they STILL teaching that as someone above states? If so, my soul is in mortal danger! (I did find that I can attend some masses early on weekdays and went twice this week. They are small and “cozy.” I am missing out on the singing of the big weekend masses though. I am afraid that even as I get more re-involved with the Catholic Church, I will always not be a “good” Catholic because my conscience will not allow me to agree with ALL the teachings. As long as we can stick with Jesus’ birth, death, resurrection, saving grace and his coming again to judge the living and the dead, I will be OK.)
LikeLike
Hmm, a typographical error in my previous post. India only has 1/3 the number of denominations as compared to the USA, and is in the number 2 spot for number of denominations.
LikeLike
The easiest answer comes using the meta-categories of The World Christian Encyclopedia. They list four to eight meta-categories because scholars disagree on classifications. I will use the longer list for better clarity. Remember, all Christians encourage fasting, but may not require it. I have listed the groups with their current worldwide membership.
Those who do not require fasting:
Anglican Communion – 77 million members
Pentecostals – 129 million members
Protestantism – 555 million members
Restorationists – 6 million members
Those who require fasting:
Eastern Orthodox – 260 million members
Oriental Orthodox and Assyrian Churches – 82 million members
Roman Catholic – 1.2 billion members
They have a final category called “Others” which means they defy classification, but are not a large part of Christendom.
In passing the World Christian Database run from Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary shows the USA as having the highest number of Christian denominations within its national borders. The second highest number of denominations is India, a well-known mission destination, and they have only 1/2 the number of denominations. We are far and away the country that has least been able to express the unity of the Body of Christ in any viable way.
LikeLike
Can someone provide a concise list of denominations that require scheduled fasting …?
That might help the discussion.
LikeLike
It might help if I say why the Orthodox have such a strong emphasis on fasting. Below is a post I wrote on Aug 9.
=====
Here is a small tidbit for you. What was Adam and Eve’s sin?
OK, here are answers that, while true, do not capture the question I am asking. Yes, they did disobey God. However, every sin is a disobedience of God. Yes, they did rebel. However, every sin is a rebellion against God. Yes, they did lie. But, that lie took place after the sin they had committed, thus it could not be the sin they had committed. Yes, they thought they could be like God. However, that was not the actual sin, that was the temptation to commit the actual sin. What request of God did they actually break?
God asked them to refrain from eating of the fruit of a certain tree. When we are asked to refrain from eating a particular food, it is called abstinence. Actually, in Orthodox terminology, we call it fasting. Besides “be fruitful and multiply,” which some debate was not so much a commandment as a blessing, the first commandment from God, according to St. Basil the Great, was that we fast. St. Basil says, “Because we did not fast, we were chased out of Paradise; let us fast now, so that some day we return there.”
This means that fasting, as a means of growth to maturity, was part of God’s plan from before the entrance of sin. Does that give you a different view of fasting?
=====
You see, for us, to not fast or to not do it rarely with no self-discipline, to find excuses not to fast, is to commit the same type of error that Adam and Eve committed. And, no, if you read the rest of St. Basil’s writing, he was not saying that we are saved by fasting, far from it. He was asking us to return to a similar obedience to that expected in the Garden of Eve. We do not abstain from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil since we have no access to it. But, we do practice fasting.
This does not go to the question as to whether the Church can schedule fasts and expect obedience. But, it gives you an insight into why it is so important.
LikeLike
I had a discussion with Dr. Rosenbladt about his life’s work.( an exhaustive annotated bibliography compiling books from Lutheran, Wesleyan, Calvinist/Reformed, and the RCC according to doctrinal categories.) He told me that on subjects like soteriology, christology, anthropology etc. that his lists of sources were 250 to 350 pages long regardless of the tradition or the doctrine.
EXCEPT when it came to the subject of ecclesiology. Those lists ran 450 to 600 pages long across the board in every tradition for which he was compiling sources. Apparently the church is its’ own favorite subject…
Speaks volumes to me…
LikeLike
iMonk – I tend to bring up both Isaiah 58 and St. John Chrysostom’s Easter sermon at the beginning of every Great Lent in order to set proper attitudes for fasting.
Martha – to us Orthodox to refer to Church canons as law, and to apply them by following juridical principles, is sssssooooo wrong. That is part of the philosophical differences to which I have alluded between East and West.
Pastor Cwyrla – no one denies that St. Paul received a direct revelation from the Risen Christ about the Gospel. But, I pointed out that most scholars, of many stripes, do not say the same about the Corinthian Scripture, given its structure and the particular words used by St. Paul to denote received/delivered. Are you then saying that the Lord directly taught St. Paul the details of the Lord’s Supper as well as how to celebrate it? And are you then setting up a contradiction between the Jerusalem Council which forbade certain types of food and St. Paul? If so, which one of the two was truly from God and to be followed as Scripture? Hmm, I know many liberals who set up apostle against apostle. 😉
Alan – tag you’re it! 🙂
Peter – in some ways the Orthodox views are not as far away from Anglican as you think. We also would never hook our canons to loss of salvation. To declare certain disobediences to be grievous sin (meaning mortal) is, uhm, way out of our sphere of thought. Canons have to do with growth in holiness, and bringing all into union with God (yes, again, I know not all shall be saved) not with salvation, in the narrow sense of the word. But, we do give more authority to the Church than you do.
iMonk – when you bump into a Calvinist, you can know it was meant to be.
And, from St. Augustine, “How many sheep there are without, how many wolves within!’ (Homilies on John, 45, 12)” Believe me, we Orthodox know that there are many sheep outside of Orthodoxy and many wolves within her. In all my discussions here I am always so conscious of the failures and imperfections of the Church. I defend the ideal but am fully conscious of how short we all fall from that ideal.
LikeLike
??
Would I?
Not in this discussion. And I think Isaiah 58 and the example of Jesus speak clearly enough.
LikeLike
Michael, would do a post on the value of fasting?
LikeLike
That’s what John XXIII said. 🙂
LikeLike
OK….it’s getting a bit hot in here. Let’s open a window, shall we?
LikeLike
“I’m debating which is more horrifying: Codes of Canon Legalese or the Minutes of a Presbyterian Judicial Hearing in the OPC.”
Michael, please note the following: “Can. 1313 §1. If a law is changed after a delict has been committed, the law more favorable to the accused is to be applied.
§2. If a later law abolishes a law or at least the penalty, the penalty immediately ceases.”
Are the Presbyterians that soft on sin? 🙂
And to be more serious for a moment, taking your example of the pastor who comes to a church and rams through amendments to the constitution off his own bat for his own aggrandisment – that’s part of the purpose of canon law. It means that Father Pat or Monsignor Lou or Bishop Tom or Archbishop Joe or Cardinal Frank can’t put on his biretta, mitre or galero, mount the pulpit, and unilaterally declare that every parishioner must from henceforth under pain of damnation consume hazelnuts alone and unalloyed as the Official Nut of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
LikeLike
Michael, I see I have failed to make my subtle Jesuitical distinctions clear enough for you. Perhaps a more deeply Curial approach is necessary (pay no attention to that black van pulling up on the street outside. Those albino assassin friars aren’t looking for you. There is nothing to worry about.) 🙂
Nowhere am I saying that Canon Law is on a level with, much less replaces, the law of God. What canon law is, is the rules for running the organisation. Same as I’d imagine your school has a code of conduct for how it expects its students and teachers to behave while on the grounds and in the classrooms, yes?
When you get a whole bunch of people gathered together and organised and in a group and supposed to be working together, you find out you need some kind of guidelines as to what happens. Because it is inevitiably going to happen that you will get a complaint about how come that guy gets away with doing that when I did something much less and I got hammered and it’s not fair and I’m going to hold my breath until I turn blue!
That’s what canon law is about: so an erring brother has to be be rebuked. How do we do this? How do we ensure that the brother gets fair treatment? How do we ensure that it doesn’t depend on which bishop he has – Bishop X being notoriously strict while Bishop Y is notoriously lenient? How do we assure the rest of the congregation that Brother Z is not being either persecuted or let off scot free? Yes, you say “start off with mild rebukes”, but what does that mean, exactly? How do I apply it when I’m dealing with cases of public scandal?
And that last is very pertinent – see all the pro-choice Catholic politicians and the calls on one hand for their bishops to publicly denounce them and excommunicate them and refuse them the Sacrament, and on the other hand the calls to let them alone and don’t you dare do or say anything, you mediaeval witch-burners!
Excommunication is the last resort.
LikeLike
Yeah, I thought I sensed that laser target on the back of my head – the bullet just went through. Unfortunate.
LikeLike
Michael said
“But when I bump into this in Calvinism- and it’s all over guys like Piper- it’s a descent into hell for me. Introspection = despair. Look at and confess Christ’s person and work = assurance.”
Amen. To steal a quote from my Pastor, when I hear that stuff I lose the will to live.
LikeLike
“That sounds to me like being taught by the disciples; almost like receiving something *through* the church *from* the Lord”
“For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not man’s gospel. For I did not receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through a revelation of Jesus Christ.” (Galatians 1:11-12)
“For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread…” (1 Cor 11:23)
No, this is NOT about being “Protestant,” “anti-Catholic,” or “American.” It’s about this:
“For freedom Christ has set us free; stand fast therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.” (Galatians 5:1)
It’s stuff like this that keeps me safely on this side of the Tiber and Bosphorus.
LikeLike
Looking back at my Anglican post, I realize I should have been more clear about a few things.
Anglicans do believe the Church has authority to dictate rites and ceremonies. In this case Church means the national Church or province. For example, the Provincial Synod of the Church of England decides what liturgies are used in its Churches. Any cleric who does not follow these requirements is liable to get in trouble with the Bishop or other ecclesiastical authorities. So Anglican churches go beyond the explicit statements of scripture in terms of what is required in worship.
What’s distinctive is that Anglican’s are never supposed to say that these Canons are required to be followed for one to attain salvation in Christ. When it comes to things like fasting, Anglicans do declare fasts and we do have traditional fast days and we ask people to follow these. In fact we see them as normal Christian practice. But if someone in the parish does not fast on good Friday, they will not be put under the ban!
My guess is the Anglican way isn’t tight enough relative to Rome or Constantinople and it is too tight for the free church tradition.
LikeLike
I wonder how much of this discussion is due to the fact we are Americans, who grow up immersed in a culture of personal liberty, individual autonomy, life, liberty, pursuit of happiness and all that.
We’re glad to do virtuous things, but the idea of someone telling us we have to do them is unacceptable.
Ask a group of Christians in Nigeria and I bet you will get quite a different response.
LikeLike
iMonk, there is no middle ground between Catholic and Protestant because of the presuppositions of their arguments. Have some different, though similar, presuppositions, as the Orthodox do and it becomes, uhm, interesting. That is why we sometimes sound Protestant, sometimes sound Catholic, and sometimes simply sound like we are wwwaaaayyyyy out into space cadet country (mysticism). GRIN.
LikeLike
Alan and Martha, let me just say that on the point of Catholic canons, I am much much closer to iMonk. GRIN. That was why my comment that there is a deep philosophical divide between East and West on the subject of canons.
LikeLike
One of the most attention getting Catholic convert apologist pieces I ever read basically said “When I gave up believing I knew I was going to heaven, then I became a real Christian.”
I know exactly what this guy is saying….and I see it in other Catholic friends I know. They actually LIKE the church’s ability to say missing mass is a mortal sin, etc. I’ve bumped into this one more than once.
Forgive me, friends, but I’ve given a lot of time to reading the Bible’s threats and promises, and if this is the energy the Christian life runs on, I am turning in my membership card asap.
If that works for others, good for them. Really, I’m quite happy. But when I bump into this in Calvinism- and it’s all over guys like Piper- it’s a descent into hell for me. Introspection = despair. Look at and confess Christ’s person and work = assurance.
No middle ground. But as I said, I understand that this appeals to some people, and we may be discovering that different traditions appeal to different people.
I tell my students, if you can read the Prodigal Son and come out with anything short of a God who is overwhelmingly gracious to you when you really, really screwed up….then I can’t be of assistance.
peace
ms
LikeLike
And by the other way, it was the Catholic boy up there (namely me) who originally brought up any objection to “penalties” attached to mandated fasts. And there is no canonically established temporal punishment for not obeying mandated fasts, that I know of. It is stated, though, that it is “gravely sinful” – read that “mortally sinful” if you will, not to obey. The same is said of no fulfilling one’s obligation to go to Mass on Sunday. I’m saying that as a Catholic, I have a problem with how seriously these things are stated. It’s not necessary that the Church classifies these things in such serious and “grave” territory.
Now, generally speaking, Catholics don’t go around thinking they are in fear of eternally separating themselves from the Life of God for infractions in these matters. But the stated “penalties” are still “on the books,” as we say. And as such, they still have a tendency, in some, to elicit fear and not love. I say this with respect for what the Church has mandated. I would not say that they shouldn’t be mandated. I’ve already made my case, such as it is, for that. On the matter of penalties, etc., though, I would only say that I believe it is perhaps time for an intensive rethinking of these things in our Western Catholic Tradition.
LikeLike
BTW- the image of God that goes along with those quotes of canon law is exactly why The Shack is selling millions of copies.
If I have to explain that to you, trust me, it’s not worth it to either of us.
I’m debating which is more horrifying: Codes of Canon Legalese or the Minutes of a Presbyterian Judicial Hearing in the OPC.
LikeLike
All:
I’m imagining Jesus reading those quotes from canon law to his disciples and then taking questions.
Go ahead. Laugh. It won’t hurt.
One of my fave IM posts is called “Jesus + The Footnotes.” I think we’ll now have “Jesus + Canon Lawyers.”
You folks can leave this Baptist boy completely without “canon law.” I now see why so many Calvinists are attracted to Catholicism.
Someone play some appropriate music. Sheesh.
ms
LikeLike
What are the horrible consequences that the Catholic Church imposes on people now or in the middle ages? Even though we are asked to take fasting as a serious responsiblilty, I never heard of anyone punished, kicked out of the church or doomed to hell for failing to meet the obligation to fast. The worst consequence I know of is a Hail Mary or two. Is the Catholic Church really as rigid, evil and legalistic as you make it out to be?
I tend to see the rules of fasting, and the various obligations of the faith, as the absolute minimum steps that I can take to grow in Christ.
Fasting just to fast is meaningless; but fasting,even when obligatory, if done with faith and love is something pleasing to God.
LikeLike
“We do not apply canons as laws but as medicine.”
Indeed, that’s the whole point. I’ll quote chunks of the 1983 Canon Law revision; warning: scary judicial language ahead!
“PART I.
DELICTS AND PENALTIES IN GENERAL
TITLE I
THE PUNISHMENT OF DELICTS IN GENERAL (Cann. 1311 – 1312)
Can. 1311 The Church has the innate and proper right to coerce offending members of the Christian faithful with penal sanctions.
Can. 1312 §1. The following are penal sanctions in the Church:
1/ medicinal penalties, or censures, which are listed in ⇒ cann. 1331-1333;
2/ expiatory penalties mentioned in ⇒ can. 1336.
§2. The law can establish other expiatory penalties which deprive a member of the Christian faithful of some spiritual or temporal good and which are consistent with the supernatural purpose of the Church.
§3. Penal remedies and penances are also used; the former especially to prevent delicts, the latter to substitute for or to increase a penalty.”
“Coerce” certainly sounds bad, doesn’t it? So what form does this coercion take?
“CHAPTER III.
PENAL REMEDIES AND PENANCES
Can. 1339 §1. An ordinary,” {this means the local bishop of the offender} “personally or through another, can warn a person who is in the proximate occasion of committing a delict or upon whom, after investigation, grave suspicion of having committed a delict has fallen.
§2. He can also rebuke a person whose behavior causes scandal or a grave disturbance of order, in a manner accommodated to the special conditions of the person and the deed.
§3. The warning or rebuke must always be established at least by some document which is to be kept in the secret archive of the curia.
Can. 1340 §1. A penance, which can be imposed in the external forum, is the performance of some work of religion, piety, or charity.
§2. A public penance is never to be imposed for an occult transgression.
§3. According to his own prudent judgment, an ordinary can add penances to the penal remedy of warning or rebuke.
TITLE V.
THE APPLICATION OF PENALTIES (Cann. 1341 – 1353)
Can. 1341 An ordinary is to take care to initiate a judicial or administrative process to impose or declare penalties only after he has ascertained that fraternal correction or rebuke or other means of pastoral solicitude cannot sufficiently repair the scandal, restore justice, reform the offender.”
So first you ascertain that the offence is grave, that it is culpable (not done out of ignorance, fear, coercion, mental defect or the like) and then you try fraternal correction. Only when all else fails do you haul out the rack and the thumbscrews 😉
LikeLike
“The tradition of the Lord’s Supper that Paul handed on was “received from the Lord†not through the church.”
wcwirla, I don’t exactly get what you’re saying.
“6 And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.”
Did not the Lord send Ananias to Saul? Did not Saul stay “certain days with the disciples which were at Damascus.”? Was not Saul baptised after Ananias came to him?
That sounds to me like being taught by the disciples; almost like receiving something *through* the church *from* the Lord 🙂
LikeLike
Now, setting aside the question of sin, can the Church discipline its members for breaches of Da Rulez?
Well, let’s leave behind all this Old Covenant stuff (as Michael would say?) and look at New Covenant examples:
Matthew 18: 15-18 “Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.
16 But if he will not hear [thee, then] take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell [it] unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.
18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
That sounds as if the church has the authority to make rules and to discipline – even to the point of expelling – the wilfully disobedient.
But mandating? This is the Lord speaking, but can a mere human set rules and penalties and mandate them? Well, Paul seems to think he can do just that:
2 Thessalonians 3: 14-15
“14 And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed.
15 Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother”
Once again, let me emphasise the distinction between the *sin* of disobedience to the will of God, and the *penalties* attached to breaking the laws of the church.
Does our disagreement boil down to this: the Church cannot say that its rules are the same as the will of God?
And I would have to say: Yes and no. No, the will of God is not dependent upon the rulings of the Church. At the same time, the Church claims She bases Her laws upon the word of God and follows His will.
Also, please remember there are gradations of seriousness; some things are purely local and temporal matters of running an organisation and can be changed, abrogated, dumped or ignored. Some things are deemed to be the commands of God which are pretty much immutable. Not the same thing at all (though yeah, sometimes you wouldn’t know by us) 🙂
LikeLike
I would argue that there is a synergy present, God and man working together on some of this. Hmm, this is not about justification, so please, no justification arguments.
OK, let’s go back through the Scriptures again. It does not matter what Ananias and Sapphiras main sin was. God’s judgment was not carried out until after St. Peter pronounced it. In fact, there is not revelation from God, is there, other than prophetic insight by St. Peter, that is, God working with and through St. Peter (synergy)? Both of them lied to the Church, but St. Peter says that ultimately they lied to God. He pronounced, God killed.
Yes, St. Paul said that, “And I have already passed judgment on the one who did this, just as if I were present. When you are assembled in the name of our Lord Jesus and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, hand this man over to Satan, so that the sinful nature may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord.” There is no request here; there is an order from the apostle for the Church to assemble and excommunicate, with the assurance that the “power of our Lord Jesus is present.” And, when they did, so was the man loosed from the Church, handed over to Satan, until he is restored in 2 Corinthians. But, God did not act until after the Church had pronounced together with Him (synergy).
Hmm, I find it interesting that it is claimed that the Tradition came from the Lord and not from the Church. I would say it came from both. I do not know of many modern scholars of any persuasion who insist that part of the Lord’s direct revelation to St. Paul included a full description of the Lord’s Supper and how to celebrate it.
In fact, the language St. Paul uses here is rather rabbinical that of a master passing on to his disciples something he has received. And, what is generally heard, particularly given the parallels to the writings of the Synoptic Gospels, was that St. Paul received from his teachers the Tradition that he passed on. And the shape of that Tradition, how to celebrate it, came from the Church as they remembered God’s acts. And St. Paul’s argument is that precisely the Corinthian failure to keep the full Tradition (Jesus and the shape given it by the Church), as St. Paul passed it on to them in an authoritative way, that has brought God’s anger upon them.
I cited the Apostolic Constitutions to make an interesting point. St. Paul’s argument is, indeed, a theological argument for freedom. But, it is actually fully parallel to the argument of Acts 15. Acts 15 and St. Paul are actually in full agreement. Both agree that “burdens” should not be put on the Gentile for theological reasons. But both say that, in practice, it may be necessary to restrict our freedom for the sake of others. In both cases, despite the argument for freedom, there is a decision to restrict that freedom during a time of transition. The Council of Jerusalem argues that it was done with the approval and backing of the Holy Spirit (synergy). And, in practice, as the Apostolic Constitutions show, that ruling stood until the issue was no longer an issue.
The Orthodox do not believe in de jure divino when it comes to Church regulations. That is a particularly Western concept. Remember, I mentioned that there is a difference between kanon and nomos in Greek and in the East. [But that is another post.] We believe in synergy. And, when there is synergy there is authority. But, it is not merely God speaking through the Church as through the Church were but a manikin. It is a full incarnational reality where the Body of Christ is both divine and human. The canons of the Church are the eternal realities of God applied, using the Holy Wisdom of God (there is a reason why the main church of Orthodoxy is Hagia Sophia, Holy Wisdom) to the cultural realities of the moment. And because the Church is, indeed, human, the canons are not perfect. But, that does not mean they are free to be disobeyed without the possibility of any spiritual repercussions.
Nevertheless, it is not automatic. It is not de jure. We do not have the right to act and expect God to automatically back us. The consistent claim of the Ecumenical Councils is that they are in accord with the Tradition received and with the Holy Spirit. It is always synergy.
The Orthodox do not see canons as law, that is why there are two different words in the Greek. We see them as the healing love of the Church forming the Church in ways that will lead to further health and holiness. However, like any medicine, it cannot be applied the same way to every person or situation, which is why we have another concept called economia. We do not apply canons as laws but as medicine. And, when the medicine no longer works, it is discarded and changed for a different medicine, as is appropriate.
LikeLike
“the members of the church must do this, or they sin against God”
Aha! We are approaching the crux of the matter. Sinning against God? Well, apart from the fact that all sin is by definition against God, there are two elements here.
The first is, what is the purpose of fasting? Here I quote you Pope Paul VI’s “Paenitemni”:
“In the Old Testament the religious sense of penitence is revealed with even greater richness. Even though man generally has recourse to it in the aftermath of sin to placate the wrath of God, or on the occasion of grave calamities, or when special dangers are imminent, or in any case to obtain benefits from the Lord, we can nevertheless establish that external penitential practices are accompanied by an inner attitude of “conversion,” that is to say of condemnation of and detachment from sin and of striving toward God. One goes without food or gives away his property (fasting is generally accompanied not only by prayer but also by alms) even after sins have been forgiven and independently of a request for graces. One fasts or applies physical discipline to “chastise one’s own soul,” to “humble oneself in the sight of his own God,” to “turn one’s face toward Jehovah,” to “dispose oneself to prayer,” to “understand” more intimately the things which are divine, or to prepare oneself for the encounter with God.
Penance therefore — already in the Old Testament —is a religious, personal act which has as its aim love and surrender to God: fasting for the sake of God, not for one’s own self. Such it must remain also in the various penitential rites sanctioned by law. When this is not verified, the Lord is displeased with His people: “Today you have not fasted in a way which will make your voice heard on high…. Rend your heart and not your garments, and return to the Lord your God.”
The social aspect of penitence is not lacking in the Old Testament. In fact, the penitential liturgies of the Old Covenant are not only a collective awareness of sin but constitute in reality a condition for belonging to the people of God.”
LikeLike
If we look at the OT examples of fasting it is interesting to note that a call to do so was given only after direct revelation from God. In Moses’ case the fasts were repeated and in the case of the prophets they wereone time events, but the authority to call them came from a direct command from God, not the from the rulers of Israel thinking it would contribute to Israels spiritual health.
The examples from the NT FR. Ernesto gives of God enforcing church mandates also hang on the fact that the commands given in the first palce came from direct revelation.
(I would argue that the case of A&S was a question of hypocrisy because we see no command for them to give up their goods.)
Does the Catholic and Orthodox churches claim direct revelation from God when they prescribe fasts and other required, but arguably extra biblical practices?
Do they believe that God really told someone that the whole church must celebrate Lent and do so in a certain way or is it just considered the wisdom of the leadership?
It seems to me that we should hold the church to the same standards that anyone who claims to be a prophet of God should be held to. Either they are really hearing from (or just repaeting what someone already did hear from God, ie. scripture)God which does require our obedience or they are giving their opinion, in which case it should be taken only as such.
LikeLike
Fr. Ernesto –
With all due respect, I do not follow your line of reasoning. Ananais and Sapphira lied about their gift. Those who got sick and died at Corinth failed to “discern the body of the Lord” and so profaned the holy Sacrament. The apostle Paul urged church discipline on a guy sleeping with his mother-in-law. The tradition of the Lord’s Supper that Paul handed on was “received from the Lord” not through the church.
I don’t think anyone here is arguing that church authority does not extend to forgiving the repentant and withholding forgiveness (or even excluding, if necessary) the unrepentant. The issue is whether the church has authority from the Lord (de jure divino) to make up rules and regulations for the faithful. I do not understand this notion of “God blessing as a result of our pious actions,” especially when those pious actions have no specific command and promise from God.
Correct me if I’m wrong here, but the so-called Jerusalem Council was somewhere around AD 49-50. Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8 were written after that, and clearly leave matters of food to the individual conscience. Given all that is being said about “church authority,” I would have expected the apostle Paul to simply quote the canon of the Jerusalem council and be done with it when the issue of foods comes up in Romans and 1 Corinthians. But he doesn’t do that. In fact, he makes no appeal to “church authority” whatsoever.
LikeLike
I think there is a convenient historical memory that “forgets†that many Protestant churches in the USA used to claim the authority to even minutely regulate the lives of their members.
I think you can rephrase this in the present tense, Fr. Ernesto… 😉
LikeLike
Alan makes an interesting point. As I have supported the idea that the Church does have the authority to call for (and schedule) fasting, the automatic response has been to immediately jump to Church administered punishments. I recognize that this is a leftover from the Middle Ages in the West, but such was not the Early Church stance. The discussion about secular punishments is a bit of a sideshow, and a bad historical nightmare.
But, the point is made by Alan, “Sure, on the surface, we are ‘not doing something’ but if nothing is being somehow effected in and through our fasting, then what’s the point, mandated or not?” You see, we love to cite the times when God blesses as a result of our pious actions. How many times have I heard sermons on some demons coming out only by prayer and fasting!
But, in every Scripture I cited, it was God who took the disciplinary action. And, I hooked every Scripture up with the failure to correctly follow a CHURCH request, such as Ananias and Sapphira or the Corinthian Lord’s Supper problem, or as a result of a CHURCH request, as when the CHURCH chose to turn a man over to Satan for the salvation of his soul and GOD listened, as one can see in 2 Corinthians when St. Paul now tells the Church to let the young man back in as he has been disciplined enough.
Alan is right when he points out that something is being effected when the Church acts (or it is worthless). I simply pointed out that, sometimes, what is being effected in the heavenlies results in God’s disciplinary actions here on earth, rather than blessings. Let us remember in the Old Testament how it was said, “See, I am setting before you today a blessing and a curse . . .” I gave three examples of believers in the New Testament ending up “cursed” as a result of their failure to correctly obey and/or discern. [Final tally was several dead, several sick, one young man personally destroyed like the Prodigal Son was in the parable.] And, I pointed out that every case was related to a CHURCH pious action request. That seems to me to be some rather significant spiritual authority.
Remember, just because it has been wildly misused at several times in history does not mean it does not exist.
LikeLike
The authority to bind and loose has nothing to do with being able to create conditions on salvation or new paths to eternal life. It is the authority to forgive the sins of the repentant and retain the sins of the obdurate.
Besides, even if it is the power to mandate things that place new conditions on obtaining eternal life, the Church ought to remove as many barriers as possible out of love.
LikeLike
Hey William – I don’t think I said anything about “contentious”, we certainly don’t need that. I was noting that this question has elicited responses from us that aren’t quite as unified as they have been. I’m not sure what you mean by Michael asking “the right question.” Hopefully not that only the “right questions” will show how divided we are.
Again, it’s not entirely self-evident that “when a community decides to fast it doesn’t really do anything.” I take your point about it not being readily apparent whether one is participating in the communal fast as much as if one comes to Mass. Of course, and I’m talking about a Catholic sense of things, one could have gone to Mass at another parish that Sunday, no one knows, no one can really judge. But I would definitely never say that we are “not really doing anything” by fasting, either as a community or as individuals. Sure, on the surface, we are “not doing something” but if nothing is being somehow effected in and through our fasting, then what’s the point, mandated or not? Possibly, that’s not what you meant, but this is the good ‘ole internet – hard to tell sometimes. 🙂
Peace to you either way.
LikeLike
Alan – I read your response; I’m always curious what my fellow gangsta write.
A “communal fast,” though communally organized, is still a matter of personal participation. When a community decides to fast it doesn’t really do anything since fasting is, by definition, not doing something. If I decide not to participate in a communal fast, you’d never know it, unless you spied on me in my kitchen. However, if I decide not to participate in Sunday Mass, you’ll know that because I simply won’t be there. There we gather together to do something.
This is contentious only among those who want to be contentious about it. As I said above, this is entirely a matter of liberty. As Irenaeus said, “Disagreement in fasting does not destroy unity in faith.”
When IM asks the right question. we’ll see some real dissonance.
LikeLike
Im — Not that you said the fasting is abusive — I’m taking your statement to mean that the requirement is an abusive wielding of religious authority.
What could the possible bad motive be? Why should we not be trusting them in their decisions on this that it is for the good?
LikeLike
>…Collecting money is one thing but scandalous abstinence/fasting requirements seem a stretch.
Surfnetter, I didn’t mean fasting is an abuse, and you know I didn’t mean that.
LikeLike
“Worship is, by definition, communal; fasting is private.”
…unless you read my answer. 🙂
There are definitely different ways of looking at it, and we see them here. This seems to have ended up the most dissonant of all the Gangsta posts.
LikeLike
“What I do sense is a subtext of avoiding practices that appear too Catholic.”
That isn’t a problem among most Lutherans, least of all in my congregation where we easily out-catholic the Catholics on any given Sunday, liturgically speaking. The essential difference between a mandated time of fasting and mandated times of worship is that the latter is necessary if you are going to have a congregation that assembles (or as we say, for the sake of good order). Synchronized fasting is not necessary, at least in the same way.
Worship is, by definition, communal; fasting is private.
LikeLike
im –“And I could come up with many pragmatic abuses.”
You mean like helping fishmongers clear out their coolers for the weekend? I’m sure that one didn’t start out that way, but they did come to rely on it. I’m having trouble seeing what other possible abuses could come from church enforced not purchasing/eating certain foods on particular days. Collecting money is one thing but scandalous abstinence/fasting requirements seem a stretch.
LikeLike
I’m torn on this one. Since I truly believe that Christ is head of the church, then the church can mandate spiritual disciplines.
But I think that it’s extremely dangerous to do so.
So let’s say that the church mandates a fast. Not requests or cajoles, mandates. Someone, a person, is stating that they have clear knowledge that the members of the church must do this, or they sin against God.
I think it is possible, but should be rare. And I think the greatest danger is to the person who is stating the mandate. They put their own soul at great risk in making the statement. If they are NOT doing God’s will but their own, they are a false teacher and come under the judgement mentioned in the gospels.
LikeLike
William,
“Of course, the churches need to have some agreed upon rules for the sake of order (for example, having set gathering times, rites, readings, seasons, etc), but even these are viewed as human arrangements not divine mandates. (That would include even Sunday, Christmas, and Easter, by the way.”
Who teaches that fasting during Lent is a “divine mandate?” St Paul also criticizes the Galatians for keeping “days, months and years” and yet we have these. I don’t see a lot of difference between time of fasting and prayer and time of prayer and communal worship. What I do sense is a subtext of avoiding practices that appear too Catholic.
LikeLike
I’m sure we can come up with many good pragmatic reasons. I know I could. And I could come up with many pragmatic abuses.
LikeLike
If fasting/abstaining has the power to break the spell of the world/devil on an individual believer (and whatever good effects this may have on his/her surroundings), what is the potential power of an entire church of hundreds of millions tapping that power at the same time?
Might this be a good enough reason for Church officials to exercise whatever authority they have in this regard?
LikeLike
I believe it’s perfectly valid for a church to add requirements to the scriptures. Heck, we do it all the time. One church requires formal dress on Sundays. One discourages tongues; another encourages; another over-encourages. One demands tithing. One shuns alcohol and tobacco. There are all sorts of things “Christians don’t do” that have nothing to do with the scriptures, and all sorts of churches that enforce these standards in one way or another.
The trouble with mandating things always comes down to enforcement.
Currently there is no way to enforce behavior among Christians unless you have every last one of us sign a legally binding contract with our churches—which will strike your average person as nuts. Therefore the only recourse left to a church is peer pressure, which doesn’t always work, or disfellowship. And if your church teaches that disfellowship means the expelled person is outside of God’s grace and going to hell, then we have a serious problem. Not just ’cause not every Christian believes this; but because the power to threaten eternal hell is not a power that should be put into the hands of humans.
Nor is it one that I believe has been put into the hands of humans. Jesus did tell His followers to not fear humans, but to fear that Person who could put us into hell. (Luke 12:5) Implying God hasn’t shared that power with anyone else. The Church may be able to bind and loose, but the Lord determines anything beyond that. And there are some things that He reserves for Himself. And should. Is this a power we want anyone other than God wielding?
Where we see abuse in the church is when the churches dangle this threat of hell over anyone that doesn’t conform to their standards, legitimate or otherwise. Where we see corruption is whenever we get it into our heads that we are above God’s wrath, or are the instruments of it.
(And lest you think I’m picking on the older churches, I’m not. I’ve seen plenty of naughty Protestants flinging this idea around.)
LikeLike
“What does a person do if their usually normal church calls a new pastor who manages to get the constitution changed to mandate tithing for all members?”
Mmmmm… that would be a problem. The Catholic and Orthodox have a universal requirement, but it’s laid on everyone equally through the authority of the bishops acting in concert. If Fr. Joe in his own parish church starts telling everyone that on pain of obedience they must “fast for three days before the election”, the parishioners can go to the bishop and get Fr. Joe hauled up on the carpet (unless the entire congregation agrees that if Candidate Y wins, it will be the work of the devil, in which case the place has got more problems than just being required to obey the laws of the church.)
And here are the six laws of the church:
“The chief commandments, or laws, of the Church are these six:
1. To assist at Mass on all Sundays and holydays of obligation.
2. To fast and to abstain on the days appointed.
3. To confess our sins at least once a year.
4. To receive Holy Communion during the Easter time.
5. To contribute to the support of the Church.
6. To observe the laws of the Church concerning marriage.”
LikeLike
I am quite surprised that no one has mentioned that within the lifetime of “old farts” like me, there were a significant number of churches in the USA that defined rock music, certain types of dancing, going to movies (or certain movies), dating, wearing pants to church, etc., as being forbidden to Christians, complete with serious church censures, maybe even excommunication, for violation of the rules.
I think there is a convenient historical memory that “forgets” that many Protestant churches in the USA used to claim the authority to even minutely regulate the lives of their members. The cultural change has been significant since the 1950’s. I have no problem with people saying that those rules were wrong, because they were. I do have a problem with people writing as though Protestants had never ever done those things. That is a bit dishonest.
Also, we are tending to use examples of where things went wrong. But do those examples mean that there is never a time when thing go right, when the Church mandates something and God backs it up? Remember the Scriptures I cited. Does God never discipline people for disobeying a Church mandate, given the Scriptures I cited?
LikeLike
Michael, I asked because it seems to me that on the question of tithing, there are various opinions out there, much as there are various opinions on here about fasting. A cursory Googling, without even reading the articles, on “Baptist tithing” gave sites that are agin’ it for Biblical reasons, sites that are for it for Biblican reasons, and sites that say it’s a private matter. So… sounds like what we’ve been going over about fasting, only for almsgiving, doesn’t it?
Does the Church have the authority/right to impose disciplines on its members?
We and the Orthodox (forgive me for speaking in your name, Fr. Ernesto!) would say the Church has both the right *and* the authority.
I think you are saying the Church has the right to ask, but *not* the authority to require, its members to fast/tithe/speak in tongues/do the PowerPoint presentation 😉
And I’m sure someone holds that the Church has the authority, but not the right, to do so.
LikeLike
Having been raised “Catholic” and Catholic school for twelve years, then entering into relationship with Jesus Christ in a Missionary Baptist Church, then moving to another state and aligning with a Christian Disciples of Christ Church, then a Kentucky Missionary Baptist Church and then marrying into a United Methodist Church and then being a charter member of a Word of Faith Church and then aligning with a Pentecostal Church, then a Full Gospel Church and then a Full Gospel Baptist Church and now pastoring and overseeing a non-denominational ministry, whew…. one of my conclusions is…one church, many congregations. We are the church…. ” Let everyone be persuaded in their own mind.” Let just teach people how to love God and then or rather through that one another. We are each unique creations and our relationships with God will grow out of who we are.
Luv ya’
LikeLike
Constitutional changes would be an legal mandate in themselves, from the members.
When I was a kid, we were in a SBC church that had a new charismatic pastor come in and ram through changes which included a “Pastor for life” amendment. He used that mandate to run a dictatorship that nearly destroyed the church. That was an extreme case, granted, but my folks fought for a while, then quit. No choice, really.
Some people look for and want structure, including mandates, even if they are doubtful from a Biblical standpoint. I don’t see anything wrong with that, personally. I would rather they be overt than implied, as so many are these days.
LikeLike
brandontimillan:
If your church is not liberal socially please start a mission baptist church in my home town, i will be there next Sunday.
Unfortunately the only baptist churches around here that do the things you do seem to be socially liberal. I don’t know why, and I’m not implying that one leads to the other, it is just the way it is here. I wish it wasn’t.
And Bro. Wyman’s response was classic.
But I also loved Bro. Mathews. The more I read about Anglicanism the more sense it makes in regards to their structure. They seem to have a strong foundation and skeleton and folks are allowed to build on that. It makes sense.
LikeLike
I’m pretty sure that Wyman’s response is one of the best explanations of the southern baptist church that I have ever read.
After growing up in the SBC, I began working at a Baptist church in Northern Manitoba which is part of the CBWC, a Baptist denomination based in Vancouver. I just felt the need to point out that there are other baptists than the ones that Wyman described. Our executive minister and other denominational leadership actually encourage our churches to practice lent and to use liturgies and to partake communion often if not every week among other things that aren’t typical of baptists… http://www.cbwc.ca
LikeLike
Dave,
I totally grant that point under normal circumstances. But Christians aren’t always on their best.
What does a person do if their usually normal church calls a new pastor who manages to get the constitution changed to mandate tithing for all members? Or mandate x number of services per week? Or mandates fasting for the money to build a new building? Is my only choice to leave? I hope not. I think my choice is to stay and, with my Bible, tell the guy that he’s wrong.
peace
ms
LikeLike
While churches may not mandate certain things overtly, they may imply that these are things “you should do”. If you don’t tithe, you may not meet the Biblical qualifications of a deacon, perhaps. Or, if you don’t participate in the pledge of allegiance, it may be implied that you are (insert epithet here).
Do churches have the right to mandate? Sure they do, not only for their leaders but also for the laypeople. If you don’t want to participate, find another church.
It seems like semantics to me, whether a denomination says it is “the way we do things” or simply says “this is what you will do if you want to be a good practicing whatever”. If you don’t want to celebrate Lent, along with the fasts and dietary “suggestions”, why belong to that denomination? You should be happy that your denomination mandates it, if you really believe they are right, shouldn’t you?
LikeLike
As a “recovering Baptist” (SBC) I am in a Baptist church which does follow the church calender. Last week, we had a wonderful Ash Wednesday service based around the “Billy Graham theme song” Just As I Am. I thought it a odd combination to begin with. But actually it was great. Our pastor spoke about giving up things butalso stated that, on the other hand maybe we needed to add something to our lives during this time. To be honest, I am doing neither.
LikeLike
I add a twist. Is social coercion a form of “requirement?†For example, when we were missionaries, we had missionary friends that spoke at a church (fund raising talk). Following their usual tradition, the church had the missionary couple hold a large (coffee-table sized) Bible open in front of the pulpit. The entire congregation was then paraded by, and if they “wanted†to give, they would lay their money in the Bible in front of the whole congregation. That’s extreme example.
LikeLike
Legally, would not “mandated” tithing begin to look like something other than a freely given contribution, becoming “dues”, threatening tax exempt status?
[Mod edit]
Rome mandates many things that no one else does. But it actively enforces far fewer of those kinds of things than most others do.
LikeLike
So today’s scriptural lesson is “Don’t do as I don’t say, do as I don’t”
Wew, glad we cleared that up (insert little smily face guy here).
LikeLike
And also, the concept of a penalty has been brought up several times. One can oblige without attaching a penalty. The Church leaves the penalties up to God unless the good of the community or the individual requires a temporal response. It remains, however, a sin to disobey, even with no censure attached, as opposed to a mere suggestion or encouragement.
Also, the species of sin must also be properly distinguished. If I fail to fulfill a mandated fast, it is the sin of disobedience and, possibly, sacrilege (meaning here, a display of contempt for the Church’s authority), not the sin of gluttony or non-fasting.
And it is perfectly acceptable to say “We may have that authority but we ought to use it sparingly or not at all”. Most Catholic bishops of the last 40 years would seem to agree with you.
LikeLike
Yes, the church does have the right to regulate quite a bit in the lives of its members, per church discipline and Biblically specific matters under that heading.
But this thread is about mandating spiritual practices that are not mandated by the church in scripture, even if they are done by the church in scripture.
What makes the cut? That’s a big subject that I would need to spend some time with. Again, the question isn’t “What do we do with members who refuse to worship with us.” It’s “Does the church have the right to say “All members must fast for three days before the election.”
LikeLike
Michael,
Your point was made on the first try (doesn’t take 20).
My question remains “Does the church have authority to regulate anything in the spiritual lives of its members�
If fasting is off the table as a New Covenant mandate, what does make the cut where the New Covenant church has authority to issue community mandates.
LikeLike
Well said, Fr. Ernesto. A Baptist pastor I once knew explained to me that the only authority he possesses is declarative, to declare what God has revealed. I’m not sure that’s actually authority but it certainly is not the authority to bind and loose that our Churches believe we possess.
Martha,
I have never known an evangelical body to mandate tithing by its own authority. They usually appeal to the Old Testament, to the Divine Law, not to ecclesiastical law. Although I’ve heard it very often insinuated that “it’s a sin to tithe less than 10%”.
Flatrocker,
From the RC (and I believe, Orthodox) view, the Church possesses all authority under heaven, to regulate and govern all aspects of religion. We have regulated prayer, ie. liturgy, and holidays of obligation. In the past, we have also obligated civil governments to support the Church with finances and military aid. We’ve also obliged nations to support certain wars. A lot of these examples went really badly, but, as you can see, we’ve interpreted our authority rather broadly.
LikeLike
Folks: I am putting moderation on. We’re going to talk about the topic these guys addressed, not the rabbit trail of “What’s wrong with fasting?”
Post will be delayed until I approve them.
LikeLike
Flatrock: I dealt with the objection you raise in the previous discussion. Several times, and to no avail.
Communities can recommend fasting. They can’t mandate them and claim to be New Covenant.
Communities can maintain order. Says so in the New Testament. (Service times. Order of service.)
Communities can do lots of things. (See Anglicans and Lutherans for details) Without mandating and requiring.
This is the intersection of church authority and personal discipleship. It’s complicated. That’s why we are now up to three posts.
Jesus was a Jew speaking within old covenant Judaism. And everything he said about fasting is true. For the twentieth time, no one is trying to do away with fasting. We’re discussing the authority to mandate it. Obviously Jesus’ disciples fast and always will.
Do I have to pray when the church says pray? What happens when I don’t? Discipline?
Am I obliged to do what the pastor says that’s not authorized in scripture? Uh…no.
LikeLike
Matha: Old covenant, not new covenant. The NT says explicitly to give as God enables and cheerfully. Churches can’t demand money. Now if I make a commitment, I should keep it, but that’s different.
LikeLike
Michael,
I think to broaden Martha’s question and still stay true to this post is:
“Does the church have authority to regulate anything in the spiritual lives of its members”?
Why limit it just to fasting? Martha asked about monetary contributions. We discussed community regulated norms such as when to hold service or basic church membership requirements.
But why not put some meat on the issue (sorry all you lenten fastors).
Namely does the church have the right to direct its members to participate in community prayer? When a pastor asks us a bow our heads or lift our hearts as a community, are we obliged to do so? Do we acquiesce to church authority in the very act of corporate worship?
Just as Christ said “When you fast…” so too He said “When you pray…” i.e. what goes for fasting goes for prayer.
It does appear if we follow our quest to not be bridled with community regulated fasting, then we open ourselves up to not being bridled with any community regulation at all. It all becomes suspect.
What then is the point of community, of church and for that matter the body of Christ?
LikeLike
Okay, Michael, I want to gore your ox: what about tithing? Church-mandated almsgiving? Discuss 🙂
LikeLike
Requirements = legalisms . . . I don’t know a way around it.
I’ve been required to 1) have quiet times, 2) memorize two verses/week, 3) run three miles/week, 4) wittiness once/week, 5) . . . well you get the point. Always ends up with a group of legalist.
Except for To do Justice, love kindness and walk humbly with God (my paraphrase).
LikeLike
I would point out that neither this post nor any previous post has questioned the value of fasting. Inventories of scripture on the value of fasting can be found in my second “Puritan Lent” post, and it seems to be assumed here by everyone that fasting has value.
As you say, we are discussing the regulation of fasting by various churches.
I hope the discussion will not proceed as if the topic were “fasting is bad,” because I’d regret the loss of the actual topic that was requested by the audience.
peace
ms
LikeLike
Interesting articles are, but as I’ve said elsewhere we Protestants do a great job finding fault with and pointing our errors in regard to fasting, but do a fairly lousy job helping Christians understand the value of fasting and how to go about it in a Gospel-centered way.
We Lutherans, in point of fact, have a long honored tradition of fasting, which, like many things, dropped out of fashion due to what I term “Romaphobia.”
While we do correctly point out false teaching and practices such as making regulations over such things, lets be careful that we do more than condemn abuse, but point out and commend proper use.
In the portion of the Lutheran Confessions my good friend Pr. Cwirla quotes, from the Augsburg Confession, Article XXVI:
“Every Christian ought to train and subdue himself with bodily restraints, or bodily exercises and labors that neither satiety nor slothfulness tempt him to sin, but not that we may merit grace or make satisfaction for sins by such exercises. 34] And such external discipline ought to be urged at all times, not only on a few and set days. So Christ commands, 35] Luke 21:34: Take heed lest your hearts 36] be overcharged with surfeiting; also Matt. 17:21: This kind goeth not out but 37] by prayer and fasting. Paul also says, 1 Cor. 9:27: I keep under my body and bring it into subjection. 38] Here he clearly shows that he was keeping under his body, not to merit forgiveness of sins by that discipline, but to have his body in subjection and fitted for spiritual things, and for the discharge of duty according 39] to his calling. Therefore, we do not condemn fasting in itself, but the traditions which prescribe certain days and certain meats, with peril of conscience, as though such works were a necessary service.
LikeLike