Molehills: The Tradition Of Lent

One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind. Romans 14:5

With this simple verse we contemplate the reality and necessity of the tradition that is Lent. Following is a truncated history of Lent. Sparse historical context places early preparations to celebrate what would become Easter as far back as the second or third century, but not for forty days. In fact it was believed to be drastically shorter; merely a handful of days

By the fourth century it had become more regimented, closer to the 40 day observance, with the Council of Nicaea acknowledging a preparatory period prior to Easter, though not mandating its observance. By 601 AD Pope Gregory the I (the same man that laid the groundwork for Purgatory’s inception and entrance into the Roman church) established a 46 day preparation prior to Easter, also introducing Ash Wednesday.

But what is Lent? Lent is the 40 days of religious observance leading up to Easter, in which Catholic (and other denominational) faithful swear off certain foods or vices. This again is very truncated, but the concept is that the religious faithful will garner something from forswearing beef or alcohol or something they typically enjoy. But is Lent Biblical? The Roman church will argue that as Jesus fasted for 40 days in the wilderness, and Moses 40 days on Sinai, and Elijah traveled 40 days to the mount of God, so too is this the number of days one must fast before the memorial of Christ’s crucifixion. Yet Jesus our Lord, Moses and Elijah’s reasons were personal and specific; not a formula to be replicated but a choice made in a particular and unrepeatable circumstance.

So, is Lent Biblical? I do not find any evidence that the church should embrace or support, much less mandate their faithful to adjoin themselves to this tradition. In fact, it flies in the face of Paul’s teachings regarding the individual freedom of the believer, and how no other person or institution ought to (or can) impose upon their faith and what they do–or abstain from doing–in good conscience. When the institution begins to mandate observance it has overstepped its bounds in terms of what the church as an organism is for. It is an evangelizing engine, built to edify believers and reach out to the lost. Not dictate times and days and what a person may or may not do individually as a member of it in regards to their conscience.

Yes, we do follow the Lord’s Supper and baptism as traditions within the church; yet both of these traditions were founded in Scripture and practiced by the initial apostles and followers of the Lord. The Lord’s Supper is to memorialize and celebrate His triumphant death until He returns. Baptism is a public acknowledgement and association with Jesus, identifying with His death. Both have Scriptural precedent and practice. Fasting was not meant to be a ritual, seasonal activity, but something decided upon personally when an occasion required it for the individual. Such was the case with exorcising certain demons, whom our Lord said would only come out of those tormented through prayer and fasting, Mark 9:29.

Paul writes, “All things are lawful for me, but all things are not helpful. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any. Foods for the stomach and the stomach for foods, but God will destroy both it and them,” 1 Corinthians 6:12, 13. Later he writes, “But food does not commend us to God; for neither if we eat are we the better, nor if we do not eat are we the worse,” 1 Corinthians 8:8. In 1 Corinthians chapter 6 Paul refers to food as being temporal and for the body. It is for nothing else but to satiate human appetite. Ritual abstinence by church decree from it does not improve a believer, partially because it is not done from faith but by mandate that followers adhere to by order of church authority. In chapter 8 Paul is speaking about food offered to idols and if a believer may eat of it. Yet this single verse demonstrates the nonbiblical logic Lent is founded upon: Paul says that a man is neither bettered nor worsened whether he eats or fails to eat. Spiritual improvement does not come through bodily disregard; it comes from spiritual obedience as the believer yields: not to the institute but to the Holy Spirit.

Paul issues a warning about the ritual observance of days when he wrote to the Galatians, stating, “You observe days and months and seasons and years. I am afraid for you, lest I have labored for you in vain,” Galatians 4:10-12. The Galatian churches were slipping into legalism under the guise of Judaism and Paul was righting this erroneous notion. Mandated ritual observance is tantamount to a return to legalism because it impresses upon the believer the need for this day or days to be observed for the spiritual welfare’s sake. So why are baptism and the Lord’s Supper exempt? Baptism is supposed to occur directly after someone believes, immersing them in water to symbolize their association with Jesus’ burial and resurrection. The Lord’s Supper was not initially on Sundays only, but every time believers gathered into what we now refer to as “going to church,” see Acts 2:46, see also 1 Corinthians 11:17-34. When the church became larger it needed to formalize a day when the body could get together without fail, and chose the first day of the week, or Sunday. When they did this, the Lord’s Supper naturally fell into happening on Sunday when believers gathered, but it is really something that should be observed–per our Lord’s command–whenever believers come together, Luke 22:19, 1 Corinthians 11:25.

Adding to his message in Galatians, Paul wrote to the Colossians, saying, “why, as though living in the world, do you subject yourselves to regulations– “Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle,” which all concern things which perish with the using–according to the commandments and doctrines of men? These things indeed have an appearance of wisdom in self-imposed religion, false humility, and neglect of the body, but are of no value against the indulgence of the flesh,” Colossians 2:20-23. Paul’s indictment here once again is a cautionary tale about formula and ritual entering the church, breeding legalism that becomes tradition. Like Galatians, the Colossian believers were being counseled to abstain from certain things because it was spiritual–or so they were told. But Paul deflates that idea by emphatically stating that these commandments arise not from God but from men and do not actually help our spiritual growth or provide any succor from sin’s temptation. Fasting is specific, personal, and circumstantial; it not is meant to be global, seasonal, and tethered to specific promises of divine conciliation in certain churches.

Can a Christian fast? Of course. But it must be for a reason beyond, “My church says it is time and it is tradition, and I obey what the church dictates.” This type of fasting is like the vain prayers Christ warned were not heard by God, Matthew 6:7. It is of no value, either to God who does not want ritual but obedience born of love, or to the believer, who gains nothing through blind, repetitive performative action. I consider this a molehill, since every saint is allowed by our gracious God to make such choices themselves. But make an informed choice, understand what Scripture says about the matter, and then do–or do not–to the glory of God alone. As Paul wrote in Romans, if you are convinced that this is a valid way to honor God, understanding that you are not earning anything from Him by it, then go ahead and worship as conscience permits. If you do not want to, then no institution can tell you otherwise, because you have esteemed every day alike, and seek to please God daily, rather than seasonally.