More Active Posts
Front Page
Super Fat Tuesday
 |
 46 Comments |
Happy Mardi Gras! For live music from New Orleans, enjoy this. For a live webcam feed of the (family-friendly) parades on St. Charles Avenue, enjoy this. In advance of Ash Wednesday, ye good Protestants: if you had to give up something for Lent, what would it be?
 |
Topic: WorldMagBlog |  |
Email a friend |
 |
Keywords: mardi gras |  |
RSS 2.0 |
 |
Both comments and pings are currently closed. |  |
Share this: |
Off the hook
I used to try to give up gossip. But now that I have so few adults to talk to, that would be too easy. Since I don’t work with Catholics anymore I haven’t thought about it.
Also it can’t be food. My Mother-in-law just called and offered to keep the kid for Valentines Day.
The Soduko game that takes an hour from each evening. (Of course I have to replace it with something …)
I gave up homework my senior year of high school. No, really. I liked doing my homework.
Maybe I should give up my New Year’s resolutions. None of them are working out anyway.
I give up chocolate every year. So, you can imagine what I’m doing today, and I already feel sick!
However, for the last 21 years, I’ve taken a dispensation on my son’s birthday in March. Afterall, it wouldn’t be fair and God wouldn’t want a mother to not celebrate her child’s birthday by abstaining from birthday cake.
This plan worked well for many years until his 18th birthday when he announced he wanted apple pie. “But you always have chocolate cake,” I reminded him with a tremor in my voice.”
“I want apple pie.”
He got it. With chocolate ice cream on top.
What did I give up for Lent? I gave up Romish holidays a long time ago.
I’d like to give up politics. I could use a little less grief and stress. I gave up 24-hour “news” stations a while back, and now I am considering getting rid of online news.
TJ,
I was waiting for the first “I gave up Lent for Lent” type of comment to come rolling along. Thanks for obliging, and Happy Mardi Gras!
I really should give up tv and, possibly, blogging. But whatever I give up, I should give it up forever, and not just for a 40-day period. Or maybe I could get my feet wet by trying to give up one of them for 40 days.
Well, HSK, since your post was addressed to “good Protestants”, I thought it might be good to point out that there are plenty of Protestants who don’t celebrate man-made “holy days” like Lent. Seems a bit much to assume that all Protestants do so; sort of like thinking all Protestants believe in “the Rapture” simply because a large number do.
I like Hughes Old’s comments about why Christians want to celebrate Lent and the like: somehow, deep down inside, there is the idea that what Christ has done is just not quite enough and we feel like we have to somehow add to that. No thank you.
Oh, TJ. It’s not such a bad idea to think about what liberties one might deprive one’s self, if only for 40 days. The Reformation is mostly over. Nobody’s going to think we’re Catholic for indulging in the idea, even as an imaginative exercise. Besides, my birthday is a man-made holiday, too.
“Besides, my birthday is a man-made holiday, too.”
Yes, but the last time I checked, we weren’t celebrating that in church as an act of worship and devotion before God. You are equivocating.
“The Reformation is mostly over.”
Ecclesia Reformata, semper reformanda
Many of Protestant forebearers bled and died so that we would not be under such Romish customs. I would not wish to trivialize them.
TJ - Or it’s possible that those of us who don’t choose to participate in this practice are not “good” protestants…according to HSK?
I hope you’re wrong, VS. I honestly don’t think HSK meant anything bad by the post. He may be, in fact, sincerely calling us to contemplate serious Christian disciplines, which is a good thing. In fact, I will give him the benefit of the doubt (after re-reading the original post a couple of times, coupled with his comments) and say that he probably only meant something along the lines of “Good Protestants” may not have thought about this or even practice this, but if you did, what would you give up? As food for thought, not so bad. But why not point us to take up our cross daily, as our Lord said? Or point out the necessity of the mortification of sin, as our Puritan forefathers taught us? Why limit such things to “only for 40 days”? Why do we have to seek to legitimize an event that Protestants should be running away from?
I still can’t get over this statement, though: “The Reformation is mostly over.” Someone might want to tell Benedict XVI, who’s beginning to sound more and more like Leo X. I blogged about that here:
http://gairneybridge.reformedblogs.com/2007/07/13/rome-again-rome-again/
I could be mistaken here, but I believe Lutherans, the original protestants, do observe lent. As do Episcopalians.
I’m Baptist. I gave up liver and onions long ago. It worked out so well, I made it permanent.
I’m not sure I see your point, Chas. Lutherans also adhere to the doctrine of consubstantiation. I don’t think you’d want to advocate that as well!
Your Baptist forefathers, in the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, rightly affirmed “the acceptable way of worshipping the true God has been instituted by Himself, and therefore our method of worship is limited by His own revealed will. He may not be worshipped according to the imagination and devices of men, nor the suggestions of Satan. He may not be worshipped by way of visible representations, or by any other way not prescribed in the Holy Scriptures.” They were right.
Of course, they got that from the Westminster Confession of Faith.
Chas, you’re right, there are Protestants who celebrate Lent. Not just Lutherans, either.
Here’s a question - and one that I’m totally asking out of ignorance and not from some desire to start an argument.
It seems to me that most Protestant churches who refuse to celebrate Lent because it is a “Romish” custom have no problem with Advent. From my understanding, they’re both seasons on the church calendar. So what’s the difference, then?
Who said there were no Protestants who celebrated Lent?
Alissa, that’s an excellent question! Since we (i.e., our church) celebrate, neither, I’m not sure I can adequately answer that. Historically, there were plenty of Protestants (Anglicans and Lutherans aside) who rejected both and for the same reasons, but I am not sure the reason that some celebrate the one and not the other today. My best guess (not worth much) is that some churches have a certain fondness for the Advent season; perhaps it has to do with Christmas, or maybe they just saw it done somewhere else and liked what they saw. I don’t know.
But I do know you are correct about the inconsistency, and I can think of one specific church, completely non-liturgical and even embracing contemporary worship, that still lit the advent wreath. I asked “why”, but never got an answer other than “we like it that way.”
Alissa,
The difference is that Protestants aren’t consistent. There is no biblical mandate for celebrating Christmas or advent either. Celebrating Christmas was illegal for a period of time in England during the reformation.
TJ:
Thanks, I think you’re right. I guess the difference between Advent and Lent to most churches is that Advent is pretty and involves lighting a wreath and reading Scripture, and Lent means giving something up?
I grew up in a fairly standard evangelical church that celebrated Advent, and we celebrated it at home during family worship time, so I never understood why we didn’t celebrate Lent as well.
To me (and I’ve not yet observed Lent but I’ve considered it), the two seasons are similar in that Advent is a season of anticipation that culminates in the celebration of the birth of Christ, and Lent is a season of anticipation that culminates in the celebration of the death and resurrection of Christ. The words we read and the candles we light during Advent symbolize the longing of the Jewish people for the Messiah, and the personal sacrifice of Lent helps me to understand in a tiny way the sacrifice that Christ made for me, and culminates in the joyous celebration of his victory over death.
Wiglaf:
Yes, I choked a little when I realized that Presbyterians historically don’t celebrate Christmas. I’ve always been bothered by these inconsistencies. I think I understand and sympathize with why they arose, but it still bothers me.
But as a Catholic when I read these questions by TJ:
But why not point us to take up our cross daily, as our Lord said? Or point out the necessity of the mortification of sin, as our Puritan forefathers taught us? Why limit such things to “only for 40 days”? Why do we have to seek to legitimize an event that Protestants should be running away from?
I have to ask: What about Lent is it that you feel Protestants should run away from?
The point of Lent to my understanding is exactly what you state: To take up our cross and follow Christ daily. Mortification of sin through denial of self, or even better, through calls to positive action rather than only as a giving up of something. A call to, and reminder of, the need for penance.
And this is offensive how?
And of course, you are correct. These are things we should be doing each and every day, not just these 40. But we are called particularly during these 40 days to reflect and focus on these things. The significance of 40 being of course the 40 days Christ spent in the desert, prefigured by the 40 years the Hebrews wandered in the desert following the Exodus.
As Chas points out, Lutherans and Episcopaleans observe (I would not say “celebrate”) Lent as well, as did my father’s UCC congregation. (Although they called it Maunday Thursday rather than Holy Thursday, and they didn’t get ashes).
Now although I know UCC is too liberal and Roman Catholicism too papish, do you have objection to setting aside a time specifically to call us as Christians to penance, and to reflection on Christ’s suffering and passion, in preparation for celebrating the joy of Easter?
We should be celebrating the Incarnation and the Death and Resurrection of Christ every time we gather for worship. Historically speaking (once again), the Puritans and Presbyterians recognized (rightly so, imho) that by gathering on the first day of the week, the Lord’s Day, Christians were affirming the day that our Lord rose from the dead. IOW, every worship service is a celebration of that blessed truth. Every time we celebrate the Lord’s Supper, we are affirming that our Lord became flesh and died for us.
These are wonderful spiritual truths that we should always (and often) be affirming. They are prescribed in Scripture. We don’t need to “add” anything to make them more meaningful. Too often we are content to leave the things God has given behind to chase after the things we think are better. May it no be so.
Christianleftist, I would distinguish greatly between “doing penance” and repentance. One is Scriptural, the other is not. It might depend, of course, on how you are defining “penance.” The Catholic Encyclopedia defines it this way:
“Penance is a sacrament of the New Law instituted by Christ in which forgiveness of sins committed after baptism is granted through the priest’s absolution to those who with true sorrow confess their sins and promise to satisfy for the same. It is called a “sacrament” not simply a function or ceremony, because it is an outward sign instituted by Christ to impart grace to the soul.”
Needless to say, I have HUGE objections to that defining, and it sort of embodies the differences between Protestants and Roman Catholics and why Protestants should be fleeing from such.
As for as the other portion of your question, I think I may have preemptively answered it in post # 25.
Lent is a time of contemplation and anticipation but as I have stated before, it doesn’t always have to be about denial and giving something up it can also be about taking something on. Reading extra scripture. Doing something extra for someone. It can mean many things. I currently am looking for a church that will celebrate the Easter Vigil on Saturday BEFORE Easter Sunday.
TJ, is it ever acceptable to fast? Assuming it is, how would you decide when and from what to fast? Good Friday? Every Friday? Fridays during Lent? Only when a loved one is really, really sick or I’m facing a difficult decision? I’d say that the problem isn’t giving stuff up, but the Church decree that you must give something up for this period. This thread isn’t about that.
If I were to go a-Lent-ing, I’d give up blogging. This is way too addictive for no more benefit than I get from it.
I was going to say I’d refrain from sulking, but that’s much too important to give up for 40 whole days!
Stubob, I’d be inclined to agree with your comments in your first paragraph. As fasting is obviously Scriptural, that isn’t the problem, and as you have stated, the mandate very much is.
However, there is a certain theology that lies at the heart of Lent (at least in the RC tradition). Lent is defined in RC circles this way:
Lent, then, is a time consecrated in an especial manner to penance; and this penance is mainly practiced by fasting. Fasting is an abstinence, which man voluntarily imposes upon himself as an expiation for sin, and which, during Lent, is practiced in obedience to the general law of the Church.
I’ve already discussed my problems with “penance” above. Here, I want to draw attention to that word “expiation.” Strictly speaking, expiation is a removal of guilt through the payment of a penalty. As I’m sure you would agree, this is problematic.
I agree completely. But, must we always be so serious? The question of “what would you give up if you observed Lent?” can be as harmless as “what would you eat if this was your last meal?”
I’d say fondue, because it takes so long.
“…must we always be so serious?”
I thought being “serious” was part of the point about Lent! Anyway, I tend to get a little riled up over anything that would detract from the sufficiency of our Lord’s atoning death upon the cross. That’s pretty serious stuff!
Thank you for your comments, TJ, I’ve never quite looked at it that way before.
I see my chocolate fast as serving several purposes. The first one is pure health, which has nothing to do with Lent, but because it is Lent and in my Lutheran community many are giving things up for Lent, I am encouraged in my deprivation.
The second is a spiritual one–that I willingly deny myself something. When I want it, the desire prompts me to pray and ask for strength. I fast once a week for the same reason–for my prayer life, on behalf of a child’s need, and because it puts me into closer contact with God when I deny my body.
Does this have to take place during Lent? No, of course not, but it works well for me.
I’ve attended church in 12 different denomiantions owing to our military moves. I like a liturgical church better, because I appreciate the beauty of the traditions in helping me focus my worship. I know they have nothing to do with Christ’s atonement, but I like them anyway.
I can see your point, however, if people didn’t know the truth and substituted the custom for a dynamic relationship with the Savior of the world. A church that doesn’t point out that difference would be remiss. That does not include my current Missouri Synod Lutheran Church. They use the customs and symbols to teach and point to Jesus.
TJ wrote: “I hope you’re wrong, VS. I honestly don’t think HSK meant anything bad by the post…”
(I don’t think he did either, TJ - that’s why I put the little smiley on my post.)
So the question, ” What are you giving up for Lent?” becomes equivalent in substance to, “What is your New Year’s resolution?”
I don’t have a problem with people choosing to observe the season of Lent as a time of greater devotion or meditation on the Lord’s suffering for us. If they choose to give something up, my question is “Why are you doing it? What do you hope to accomplish by it?” I ask the same thing about fasting. Yes, it’s Biblical and I believe that Christians should fast, but if it is done to try to gain greater favor with God or somehow pay for sins committed, then I have a problem with that. I’m with TJ. Anything that detracts from the sufficiency of Christ’s atoning death on the cross should be taken seriously.
Happy Mardi Gras everyone! I just came from Mardi Gras in New Orleans this weekend. I had a fantastic time and I got lots of beads. No - I didn’t have to do anything “naughty” to get them.
The parades were awesome and the crowds large and well behaved. I’ve never been to Mardi Gras before, so it was really exciting to get to go. In Louisiana, Mardi Gras is pretty much a statewide holiday. Most government offices and private businesses are closed today. They take the holiday very seriously there. Some of my fellow co-workers are giving up something for lent. Obviously, I’m not.
Hey Anlir…..welcome back! Hope your trip went well.
HSK, to answer your question…I try to live obedient to Jesus daily, therefore I regard Lent as I do New Year resolutions. I don’t bother with the “good works” part of the church calendar. However, I am conscious of the events than occur this time of year. Our church in Roe Dyelin (Chas, notice the accent?) hosts Bread & Broth on Wednesday evenings. Someone comes in and makes soup and others bring breads, for a community supper. Then we go to bible study.
Welcome back, Anlir!
In Louisiana, Mardi Gras is pretty much a statewide holiday.
Yea, St. Patrick’s Day was pretty much like that (city-wise) when we lived near Savannah. Even living 30+ minutes away, kids (and teachers!) would skip school to attend the parade (the second or third largest in the country, I believe). Finally, the local school board (different county, remember) decided to start making that day a general holiday each year.
I could make another Roman Catholic comment, but I won’t. I’m giving that up.
Just kidding. No offense intended.
One thing I liked about Presbyterian churches (we’re currently attending a Baptist church because the local Presby church is quite liberal theologically) is their observance of the church year. Both Advent and Lent are supposed to be times of self-examination and repentance. There is a big celebration for Pentecost as the birthday of the church (often with a big birthday cake). There is a Trinity Sunday, and at the end of the church year (immediately before Advent begins the new church year) is Christ the King Sunday. (There are others also, such as a Sunday recognizing Jesus’ baptism, but I don’t remember them all.)
It’s not that we don’t think about the Trinity the rest of the year, or the Kingship of Christ, or His incarnation or His passion. But people are by nature prone to emphasize some things over others, and the cycle of the church year ensures that over the course of the year each of these will get a special time of emphasis. People also tend to drift away from the things they know are important, and need to be called back. In many Baptist churches this was traditionally done with a yearly week of “revival” meetings. Liturgical churches provide that time of “calling back” at Lent (and to a lesser degree Advent). If we have not drifted and don’t need “calling back,” that’s great - we can use the special emphasis to try to dig deeper in our understanding and appreciation of what Jesus did for us.
I don’t accept the Catholic church’s teaching on the meaning of Communion, but I still observe it. And I don’t accept their teaching on “expiation” as part of Lent, but I see no reason not to observe Lent because of that. I don’t give up anything particular, but I often try to eat simpler meals (not that any of mine are fancy or complex these days), such as soup and bread. It’s more a time for more deliberate self-examination (that I intend to do year-round but can easily forget) and an emphasis on meditating on what Jesus did for me.
I don’t accept the Catholic church’s teaching on the meaning of Communion, but I still observe it.
You’re equivocating, Pauline. The Lord’s Supper is Scripturally mandated, Lent is not.
One thing I liked about Presbyterian churches … is their observance of the church year. …I see no reason not to observe Lent… .
Be careful about the use of “Presbyterian”, Pauline; there are quite a few Presbyterian denominations, and not all would fall into that category (our ARP church, for instance, does not observe Lent or Advent). Many would still hold to the Regulative Principle of Worship, for instance. Those that have adopted the Westminster Directory of Public Worship would eschew “holy days.” I quoted from the London Baptist Confession in post # 16, but the Westminster Confession of Faith reads the same way: the only acceptable way of worshiping God is the way He has revealed in Scripture. We don’t honor Him by “inventing” ways to worship Him.
#39
TJ,
I did not mean to misuse the word Presbyterian, I honestly didn’t realize that other Presbyterian denominations were so different in their worship. My impression had been that the conservative churches in the PCUSA were not much different from PCA or EPC except in allowing ordination of women and in their willingness to continue trying to work for reform from within the denomination rather than splitting from it.
As for “equivocating” - I wrote what I did because that’s how I see it. I am neither using words to deceive not to avoid taking a stand (which is what the dictionary tells me are the meanings of equivocation). I have never been part of a church that holds to the Regulative Principle and had never even heard of it before coming to this blog a few years ago. I’ve read some lengthy articles on both sides, and haven’t been convinced that it is correct, at least as I see it applied in eschewing special days and other “invented” ways to worship. (I don’t use your term “holy days” because that’s not how I think of them - every day is holy.) I wouldn’t argue against it (the Regulative Principle) with someone who is convinced it is Scriptural, but it doesn’t determine how I view Lent.
Pauline, this is one of the sad things about the PCUSA (I’m saying that as a former member myself): either an ignorance or a disassociation with the past to the point that the substance of the denomination’s own confessions are lost on the congregations (and, in many cases, the clergy). I don’t mean that to be offensive, only commenting on my own experience and what you have written in # 40. There are other serious problems between the PCUSA and the more conservative Presbyterian denominations, hinging, as I see it, on the authority and inspiration of Scripture. Sit down sometime and read the Confession of 1967’s view of Scripture and tell me you don’t see MAJOR problems. I’ve read the committee reports from when that Confession was put together and they made me want to vomit.
The equivocation that I referenced (as a logical fallacy) is your use of Lent and Communion as if they were equivalent religious observances. One is obviously Scriptural and ordained by our Lord; the other is not. I do not think you were being intentionally deceitful at all, just using a poor example (as we all often do). “Holy days” is not my word, btw, but I believe that terminology can be found in the WCF.
All Christians believe in a “regulative principle” of sorts. That is, they believe that Scripture is, in some way, supposed to “regulate” the way we worship. For some, this regulation means “not much at all.” I’m exaggerating, of course. However, when one’s confession explicitly states the following, it’s a bit hard to get around:
“The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.” (WCF 1:6)
“The acceptable way of worshiping the true God is instituted by himself, and so limited by his own revealed will, that he may not be worshiped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representation, or any other way not prescribed in the Holy Scripture.” (WCF 21:1)
If churches don’t wish to abide by the doctrines of the WCF, that’s fine I suppose — but they shouldn’t still be calling themselves Presbyterian (or confessional).
TJ,
You’re right, Lent and Communion are not equivalent religious observances. I suppose I could have picked a better example to make my point. But I still do not see the Catholic church’s teaching about Lent as a reason not to observe it. When I have attended PCUSA churches that practiced imposition of ashes, it was made quite clear that the meaning had nothing to do with expiation or merit on our part, only that it was an outward sign of repentance, as people in Bible times did with sackcloth and ashes.
I agree that the term confessional does not describe the PCUSA. As they have a presbyterian form of church government, though, I can’t argue with their using that name.
Pauline, I think you have highlighted the problem of ignoring the RPW. We cannot take a religious ceremony, one that we have not a hint that was observed in the NT, and begin observing it. Furthermore, we cannot justify the practice by figuratively applying a passage about repenting in sackcloth and ashes and the fact that Jesus was tempted for 40 days in doing so. If this were the case, it would be possible to justify virtually ANY religious ceremony. For instance, the KKK has used the cross in the past (and sadly, even in the context of churches and with the approval of ministers) to justify their causes. While that may be an extreme example, it is difficult to rebut this using a “whatever Scripture does not forbid is permissible” approach (that did not work with Nadab and Abihu in Lev. 10, for instance).
We cannot take something not prescribed in Scripture, slap a proof text on it, and then claim that the practice is legitimate. I cannot take the glass of water than I drink from prior to delivering the sermon (a circumstance of worship) and suddenly one Sunday morning say a blessing over it and pronounce it to be “holy water” using what Jesus says about living water as my justification. That a ridiculous example, of course, but what is there to forbid me of the practice. I could simply say that the fact that we have no positive command in Scripture to do so in worship, nor any example of anyone doing so, would be a good start. But, then again, I can say the same thing about Ash Wednesday and Lent. That is, show me Scripture — show me someone engaging in these ceremonies within the context of the NT church. Show me in the NT an incidence of palm leaves being burned and the ashes being applied to the heads of Christians in the form of a cross followed by a period of 40 days of fasting. If we cannot find such an example, I fail to see why it is practiced.
I’m not educated enough to argue theology, TJ, so I’m not going to try.
But with the imposition of ashes, I wear a symbol on my forehead that invites comment. When I explained to the grocery clerk yesterday that I could no longer buy M&Ms because it is Lent, she was curious as to why. We can use these man-made traditions as a jumping off spot to share the gospel, or at least some truth about how Jesus affects our life. I think good can come of that.
I’m reminded of 1 Corinthians 9:22, “To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some.” I think “celebrating” Lent can qualify.
Michelle, I have no problem with a Christian partaking a spiritual discipline such as fasting. My problem stems from a man-made religious “ceremony” (man-made in the sense that it has no biblical support as an observance) that has the added problem of theological confusion attached to it (the Roman Catholic dogmas of penance and expiation, for instance). A unbeliever, with a very negative RC upbringing, might see you wearing the ashes and have completely the opposite reaction that you suppose.
One could easily misuse 1 Corinthians 9:22. It would have been improper for a 1st century Christian to enter a pagan temple, burn incense, and proclaim “Caesar is Lord” — using 1 Corinthians 9:22 as a justification. And Jesus warns, “Beware of practicing your righteousness before men to be noticed by them.” Of course, your motivation is not that of the Pharisees, but there would have almost certainly been one or two in that day who might have made a similar argument to yours.
It all boils down to whether we can invent religious ceremonies or not. I think Scripture is pretty clear on the matter. I know that Lutherans have a different view on the matter (the Normative Principle rather than the Regulative Principle). I don’t think that makes you or anyone else less of a Christian. But I do think there is a better way of doing things.
So TJ, is it the fact that the ashes are put on the forehead as part of a church service that you see as the problem? If an individual believer did it on his own, would you still see it as an issue?