Reformed fear of fasting

June 5, 2010 in Church Year, food, Liturgy

Update: Matt Petersen points in the comments to a series of podcasts on Lent from the folks at “Trinity Talks” that are a much more balanced Protestant perspective on Lent, which I’m happy to hear. You can find them here, here and here.

Since I’m making an attempt at reinvigorating the old blog, here’s a thought I had during Lent that seems particularly appropriate since we’re currently in another season of fasting for the Eastern Churches, the Apostles’ Fast which runs from the second Monday after Pentecost till the Feast of Ss. Peter and Paul.

I was happy to observe that this Lent, many Reformed pastors with blogs took up the subject of the Church’s foremost penitential season. But most of their thoughts were filled with trepidation about the practice of fasting.

Posts like Steve Wilkins’ here and Doug Wilson’s here and here are more open than usual to the idea of observing Lent and Advent, but the idea of their communities actually setting those seasons aside for actual physical fasting from food seems to fill them with fear.

Reformed Objections to Fasting

They cite many potential pitfalls to the practice. Wilkins says that fasting like the Catholics, by which he means giving up a particular thing a person is attached to like a food or drinking, isn’t really fasting at all since, according to him, biblical fasting is going without any food at all.

This is a bit unfair since that practice is more of a modern American Catholic piety than the sort of fasting the Church has encouraged in ages past and still does in may places.

In the East, the Lenten fast consists of giving up meat, eggs, dairy and, for those with a vocation to marriage, often sex as well, for the entire period of Great Lent, which actually runs more like 55 days by our calendar. And even in the Roman rite, fasting has typically been more rigorous than simply giving up chocolate or suchlike.

Wilson fears that if we fast for an entire season we will be doing more fasting than Israel did in the Old Covenant. Why, he reasons, would we fast more after the resurrection than before?

Both seem to fear that physical fasting will somehow detract from spiritual penitence. Don’t fast from food, many in this camp say. Repent from your sins instead.

They both give nods to the idea that fasting might be something that Christians ought to do sometimes, maybe for a day or so, but only for a specific purpose and only for a short time.

The Devil’s Greatest Triumph Since Luther

Why this avoidance of fasting when the practice has been fundamental to the spiritual life of the Church since the earliest times? My take—it’s the best trick the devil has pulled on Reformed folks since they broke ranks with their bishops.

Jesus fasted for 40 days before the beginning of his public ministry. St. Paul buffeted his body to make it his slave for ministry. Christ told his apostles that even the strongest demons are made weak in the presence of the fasting faithful. The writings of the Fathers of the Church are filled with exhortations to deny the body. And of course, the liturgical life of the Church has long revolved around periods of fasting.

Why would the devil want Christians to cease fasting collectively? Why would he want Christian ministers to teach their flocks to avoid extended periods of fasting? Because Christians who have trained their bodies to resist temptation are among the greatest threats to his dominion that could ever exist.

Reformed Christians are closer to the fullness of the Catholic faith than most Protestant groups. What better way for the devil to cripple their effectiveness than to convince them that fasting together profits them nothing?

It’s particularly strange that the CREC, of all denominations, would be leading the charge against corporate fasting. The Christians in the CREC are keenly attuned to the importance of corporate, liturgical acts. They’re no strangers to the idea that what God’s people do together, in the liturgical context, moves mountains in the world.

The CREC is also a denomination that has worked hard to recover traditions of the Church that many other Protestants have jettisoned. Of course, they still reject any traditions they perceive to be “unbiblical,” but what could be more biblical than corporate self-denial?

So What About Those Objections?

Let me take Wilson’s objections to Lent one by one.

First, if we were to adopt this practice, we would be in worse shape than our Old Covenant brethren, who had to afflict their souls only one day out of the year. Why would the time of anticipation of salvation be so liturgically celebratory, while the times of fulfilled salvation be so liturgically glum? Instead of establishing a sense of longing, it will tend to do the reverse.

This perspective fails to understand that everything gets more intense after Christ’s incarnation, death and resurrection. It’s not just the joy that grows in intensity, the fight against evil does as well.

Israel only fasted one day every year. Why? Because they couldn’t handle it any more than they could handle the Christian teaching on divorce. Moses allowed for divorce because of Israel’s hardness of heart. But Christ forbids it because now we have the Spirit. We have the strength to do things Israel never dreamed of.

His examples also fail to take into account the many accounts in Scripture of spontaneous collective penance, like the people of Nineveh when they heard of God’s impending judgement.

Granted, it wasn’t a liturgical celebration of God’s people, but it does clearly show the value of a community coming together to perform works that express their contrition for their sin and their desire for repentance. This is exactly what the Church’s penitential seasons seek to instill in us.

Second, each penitential season keeps getting interrupted with our weekly Easters. Many who relate exciting movies they have seen to others are careful to avoid “spoilers.” Well, these feasts we have, according to God’s ordinace every seven days, spoil the penitential mood.

They do indeed. And each Eucharistic celebration is indeed a breaking of the fast in a certain sense. And we couldn’t get through Lent if it weren’t for the joy we find in the weekly Eucharist.

But Father Alexander Schmemann in his book Great Lent: Journey to Pascha relates the idea that the breaking of the Eucharistic fast does not necessitate the breaking of the fast from food.

In fact, continuing the fast, even on Sundays, is necessary for the kind of sustained effort that the penitential seasons are trying to produce in us. It is through this sustained fasting that we realize that our life is not sustained by food, but by God himself.

Schmemann points out that the first sin was that of eating, of Adam and Eve thinking they could sustain their own life through food. This is the common assumption we all labor under—until we go without food.

When we undertake the kind of sustained fast the Church requires of us several times a year, we get to the end of our ability to sustain our life. At the most intense points of the fast, it starts to feel like we’re losing control of our life, like we’re coming apart at the seams.

And that’s exactly the point. We learn what we are really capable of through the power of the Holy Spirit when we stop trying to sustain our lives on our own steam. We learn that God is capable of sustaining our lives even when we don’t succumb to our belly-gods. And when we learn this lesson, heights of holiness we never imagined can be opened to us. It should be no surprise that the greatest saints in Church history are usually great fasters. (I should add that I lay no claim to having reached these vistas of holiness, only that I believe they exist and have caught glimpses of them during seasons of fasting.)

And last, what gospel is implicitly preached by the practice of drawing out the process of repentance and forgiveness? It is a false gospel. Now I am not saying that fellow Christians who observe their church year in this way are preaching a false gospel, but I am saying that lex orandi lex credendi—the law of prayer is the law of faith, and over time, this liturgical practice will speak very loudly to our descendants. If we have the opportunity to speak to our descendants, and we do, then I want to tell them that the joy of the Lord is our strength.

As do I. And I also want to tell them that if they resist the devil, and he will flee. But without sustained resistance, his attacks will come apace, as they always do. It is only through the long effort of learning to control our passions that we can finally accomplish that work of resistance.

Finally, Wilkins alludes to the idea that we shouldn’t do some petty fast from some food, but rather seek to cultivate true repentance for sins.

But this misses the point. We are not abstaining from certain foods as an end in itself. We are abstaining from certain foods to cultivate the habit of repentance, of turning from the desires of our sinful flesh to the selfless service of Our Lord.

Give it a Try

My recommendation: if you’ve never fasted seriously for an extended period of time, why not try it? WWJD, after all. Want it to be more effective? Do it with as many of God’s people as you can gather. Your whole Church if you can pull it off. During Lent or Advent? All the better, since God’s people all over the globe are doing it to varying degrees during these seasons.

Never separate fasting from prayer, almsgiving and repentance. These are considered the “pillars” of the penitential seasons of the Church and without them, fasting is nothing.

The Reformed objections to sustained, collective, liturgical fasting are strawmen, because true fasting is not opposed to joy, true repentance or a firm knowledge of the post-resurrection era in which we live. Rather, fasting is a strong support of all these things. Without it, we can never attain the heights of spiritual joy that Christ intends for us. Who would oppose such a thing except Old Scratch himself?

Blogroll

61 comments

Comments feed for this article

June 5, 2010 at 8:02 am

Sarah

Excellent post! Looking forward to more!

June 5, 2010 at 11:46 am

mattyonke

Sarah — Thanks for the kind words! I do hope to resume posting more regularly. Were you a reader before when I was posting more regularly, or are you new to the blog?

June 5, 2010 at 1:00 pm

Remy

Glad you’re kickstarting the ole blog again, Matt. And aside from some rhetorical gamesmanship (they don’t fear fasting, they’re on guard against certain sins), I don’t think we’re that far apart.

I think the central point is that a modified fast is not the fasting of the Bible. To reduce the nature of the fast doesn’t result in a reduction of the effects of the fast it’s to eradicate it. It’s like trying to build a house but instead of driving in the nails, you only tap them into the surface. Even if that’s done for 39 extra days it won’t result in a house.

This is not to say that a modified fast is worthless, only that pointing to the Biblical practice isn’t enough to justify it.

Of course, there’s the other question of whether we get to waterdown Biblical practices and act like we’re fulfilling them. I’ll be honest, I’m against that.

June 5, 2010 at 1:15 pm

mattyonke

Remy — Glad to have you back in the game. Thanks for the kind words.

I would submit, as I alluded to in the post, that the “giving up chocolate” routine does water down the idea of fasting and is unhelpful from a certain perspective. Though, seen from another angle, some penance is preferable to no penance.

But that aside, I address the issue from my position as an Eastern Christian. When we fast from meat, eggs and dairy for Lent, we fast hard. We eat only enough to sustain ourselves in our daily endeavors. The reason for that is that we are not prophets or monks. We are people with vocations to family and various forms of labor to which we must be faithful even when we fast.

So we can’t subject ourselves to the extreme measures that those free of attachments can do, but we go as far as we can. And I can only say that, in my personal experience, it’s extremely helpful to push those boundaries as far as we can a few times a year.

That’s generally how the Church has preached its message of fasting. The ascetic tradition is there to show us what is possible, just like Jesus’ own fast. Almost nobody can afford to go without food and water completely for 40 days, but Jesus did and that’s an example, a benchmark for us all to pursue.

Likewise, when the monks fast, they’ll often eat only a handful of nuts or something like it every day to push themselves to the end of their self-sustainability.

We are not all called to fast like that, but giving up our typical forms of nourishment and going without as much as we can is a great challenge that calls us to further detachment from the world and deeper commitment to Christ and to the ones we serve in our family and work.

Anyway, great to have you back. Reading our old conversations on contraception and what not made me really nostalgic for our old interactions. I’ve missed you, friend.

June 5, 2010 at 1:20 pm

mattyonke

Remy — By the by, I’m curious about your take on the eschewing of liturgical fasting. Doesn’t this seem like something the Church is both called and suited to, especially when one considers the testimony of the Church throughout history?

June 5, 2010 at 4:02 pm

Remy

“We are not all called to fast like that”

Exactly. The forty day fast of Jesus is a rare once in a lifetime event and not one for everyone.

Biblical fasting is intense and brief and something the church can and should do. Making it less intense and longer doesn’t have the same effect.

I have an extremely high view of fasting, it’s a weapon in the arsenal of the Christian that the church militant should never abandon. But it is a scalpel, not a broadsword. It’s for incisions not ditches.

My chief problem with much of the fasting talk stems from it being so aimless. Fasting is an arrow that must be aimed at something. Or rather, fasting is an arrowhead attached to the shaft of prayer, without prayer fasting is nothing. I should say that without prayer fasting at best is nothing, at worse it’s guilty of calling unclean what God has called clean.

Also, “subduing the body” or some such nonsense is not an “aim” in fasting. We subdue sins not the body, the body is good. And since we should always be taking aim at our own sins and not waiting around for some fasting season the sins we take aim at need to be external to us, this is the whole point to corporate fasting, to take aim at a specific sin in the church, culture, or world.

I’m always dissatisfied with treatments on fasting because I feel that there’s so much more going on than we realize. I’m fascinated by the topic and I’d be happy to take some batting practice with you on the topic. Should be good times.

June 5, 2010 at 7:41 pm

colinclout12

I thought however that the three talks at Trinity Forum were rather good.

You can’t neatly link to the series, but here’s the archives.

June 5, 2010 at 8:10 pm

mattyonke

Matt — Thanks for pointing those podcasts out. They are much more balanced than Wilson’s and Wilkins’ perspective, IMHO. Though there were a few oddities. Pastor Lusk talks about a feast his church has on Holy Thursday, which seems an odd time for feasting and both pastors seem to be grasping for the right term for the mood that should dominate the season.

They talk a lot about the seriousness that should be a part of the season but that it should not be “sad.” That’s a shame because Schmemann’s got a term for that: bright sadness. It’s a glorious tone that permeates all of Lent in the Eastern Churches, especially in the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts, which, if you’ve never attended one of these services, I cannot recommend it to you strongly enough. It’s one of the most beautiful services of the entire year and it’s held every Wednesday and Friday of Lent at most Orthodox and Eastern Catholic parishes.

More on Schmemann when I reply to Remy.

June 5, 2010 at 8:12 pm

colinclout12

Also, I think a couple of points are worth mentioning, and both of these come up in the Trinity Talk program, though I did not get them there.

First, greater celebration means greater fasting. As a musician, this is really clear and easy to see. If the whole piece is fff, it’s monotonous, and boring. The way to make the fff section loud and exciting is to precede it with a ppp section. Look at the Messiah: “for man came also the resurrection of the dead” is preceded by “for as by man came death.” We don’t make forte by screaming our lungs out. We make forte by making the piano’s extra quiet.

Similarly, it is not humanly possible to make super loud celebrations. the way to make a celebration joyful is to precede it by fasting. I’ve teared up at the approach of Easter and the Resurrection before, but only because I’d been fasting, and my body was longing for Easter.

Second, what would any Christian think of a gospel message that never mentioned the Cross, or that quickly glossed over the Cross? I suppose Osteen would like it, but I don’t imagine anyone else would. And we would quickly recognize that such a message takes salvation out of the message. A Christian who does not know Christ and Him crucified knows nothing.

But liturgically we are doing precisely this if we refuse to celebrate Lent, the celebration of Christ’s death. I suppose this isn’t true if we destroy the church calendar entirely, and only minimally celebrate Easter. But if we want to have a full Easter celebration, as we should, we gloss over the Cross, and thus liturgically preach a false gospel, if we do not celebrate Lent.

June 5, 2010 at 8:19 pm

mattyonke

Also, I bristle a bit at Wilson’s canard that we should not “play act” like we don’t know that Jesus hasn’t risen from the dead and was glad to see Lusk and Roorda get away from that.

In the Eastern tradition, all of our liturgical services are phrased in terms of “Today.” Like on Holy Friday when we sing “Today He who hung the earth upon the waters is hung upon a tree.”

We enter into the mystery of Christ’s passion on that day and for us, it IS happening now. Like Fr. Neuhaus talked about in Death on a Friday Afternoon, we have to tarry a while at Christ’s death before we can really understand the resurrection.

Frankly, I see little point in celebrating Lent if you’re just thinking Pascha the whole time.

EDIT: Matt — It seems we crossed paths on our last comments. You’re saying a lot of the same things I was. Good stuff, I’m glad you see the importance of it.

June 5, 2010 at 8:28 pm

mattyonke

Remy,

My chief problem with much of the fasting talk stems from it being so aimless. Fasting is an arrow that must be aimed at something. Or rather, fasting is an arrowhead attached to the shaft of prayer, without prayer fasting is nothing. I should say that without prayer fasting at best is nothing, at worse it’s guilty of calling unclean what God has called clean.

I couldn’t agree more about the arrow that needs to be aimed. Like I said in the original post, fasting is nothing without the other two “pillars” of Lent, prayer and almsgiving.

Also, “subduing the body” or some such nonsense is not an “aim” in fasting. We subdue sins not the body, the body is good. And since we should always be taking aim at our own sins and not waiting around for some fasting season the sins we take aim at need to be external to us, this is the whole point to corporate fasting, to take aim at a specific sin in the church, culture, or world.

Perhaps “subduing the flesh” would have been a better choice of words, but to some extent it’s a distinction without difference. I agree that the body is good. What we’re aiming at during Lent is reducing our focus on ourselves and our wants and needs and re-focusing that energy on giving ourselves for each other. Fasting helps us do that by training us in the practice of self-denial.

I really would recommend you to Schmemann’s “Great Lent: Journey to Pascha.” He treats a lot of the themes you seem to be concerned about. Since he’s writing to what seems to be an Orthodox community that treats Lent like a set of dietary restrictions with no greater purpose, he really lays into the need for our fasting to be connected to a spiritually greater purpose.

As for the need for a specific focus, I’ve nothing against that, and if my parish priest told us to focus on some particular thing next Lent, I’d be happy to do so. But even if he doesn’t, Lent serves as a sort of spiritual boot camp, a hard-core immersion in denying ourselves and living for others that we, hopefully, carry with us through the rest of the year.

June 5, 2010 at 9:45 pm

joshuagibbs

Fasting can’t be divorced from fasting prayers and a fasting liturgy. Fasting and the liturgies of fasting go together hand in glove. As such, I don’t blame Protestants for finding little value in fasting or abstaining from certain foods.
Fasting apart from the fasting liturgies, the Church calendar, etc. is like spinning an old LP on your finger and expecting to hear something.

June 5, 2010 at 10:51 pm

mattyonke

I agree with Josh, I don’t know how I would get through Lent without the deep liturgy the Church has woven around it over the millennia. The aforementioned Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts is a particular boon when the soul wearies from Lenten efforts. The Great Canon of St. Andrew of Crete is another mainstay of Lenten liturgy that really roots one’s penitential efforts in the history of salvation and the focus on self-denial for the good of others.

I also wanted to address Remy’s earlier point about a “diminished” fast not being a real fast. Rems, I think you are really underestimating what goes on during a serious Lenten fast, though I don’t blame you as you have no point of reference. I don’t mean that to be derogatory, only to say that you can’t really understand what you haven’t done, which is no fault of yours.

Done correctly, the Lenten fast puts one on the perpetual verge of hunger for its entire duration. That’s the point. To always be as close to the end of your capacity to sustain your own life by means of food. Lent properly observed is full of moments of barely being able to maintain concentration because of hunger and longing for one’s normal diet, and that hunger drives you to sustain your life by prayer and acts of self-giving.

But those considerations aside, I’d be interested in where Scripture lays out that the only form of fasting that “counts” is a total abstaining from food of any kind. Even if the only examples we have in Scripture are of total fasts (of which fact I’m not yet convinced) does that necessarily imply that’s the only kind of fasting God’s people should pursue?

We seem to agree that Jesus’ 40 day total fast was unique (how could it not be?), but Jesus did a lot of other unique things that don’t imply that lesser versions of his heroic exploits would be without merit.

Jesus spent entire nights in prayer before embarking on jam-packed days of ministry. Does that mean that if we only spend an hour in prayer before an important day we’re failing and our efforts in prayer are worthless? Of course not. We pray, fast, serve, give and do everything else in the Christian life in accordance with our capacity to do it. The fact that Christ and the great saints did more doesn’t mean our lesser efforts are worthless. And fortunately, our High Priest knows our weaknesses and bears with us.

And besides, these “lesser” efforts of fasting have reaped great spiritual rewards for God’s people throughout Church history and I can certainly attest to their effectiveness in my own life. So don’t knock it till you’ve tried it, as the saying goes.

June 6, 2010 at 4:31 pm

Remy

This is good, we’re getting into some of my questions here.

So just to be clear, we aren’t talking about Biblical fasting. We both agree that the church should fast and I assume you believe that a Lenten fast doesn’t satisfy that. We’ll hold discussion on what is accomplished in a Biblical fast for later. Right now we’re talking about the symbolic fasts, Lent and Advent. I’m waiting on why these symbolic fasts are to be emphasized over the Biblical fasts and so far I have not been convinced that they’re worthwhile. But as always I am open.

“That’s the point. To always be as close to the end of your capacity to sustain your own life by means of food.”

First of all, that’s not what fasting is for. Secondly, I think not eating any food does a better job of that than eating food, even if it’s only a little. Besides, if someone really were to fast this way and is constantly asking himself “how much do I need to eat to keep going” over forty days that would mean thinking about food more than one normally would. Talking this way makes Lent about food and not about prayer. I seem to talk about food and fasting thrice a year, but I’m still waiting around for that conversation on how best to aim our prayers. And thirdly, for good measure, the way God has designed us to be reminded that all life flows from Him is eating. Our life is sustained by Him alone, because only He brings life out of the dead things we eat.

Also, maybe you’re job is cushy enough that you can do a rigorous symbolic fast and not have it affect your job. I think I might be able to do it in my job, but neither of us are going to be at our full capacity and neither of us will be able to give of ourselves charitably in the rest of our lives. I wouldn’t be able to help the new neighbors move in, I wouldn’t be able to play in the yard with my boys, or clean my gutters, or any number of things that are good and beneficial for the world. But then there’s the rest of the church, mothers and lawyers and road workers and doctors and all the physically grueling jobs that the people of God are doing. This is not the fast that we’re called to do, it hinders us from faithfully doing our jobs, so why do it?

Imagine if the church really were to do a rigorous forty day fast, that’s forty days where the church is not worth a damn to the world. I thank God that the church doesn’t do something like that and in comparison I much prefer the believers who give up chocolate for forty days thinking that God’s happy for them to pass up on things they like. It’s bonkers too, but at least they can do the strenuous work of kingdom building.

“Fasting helps us do that by training us in the practice of self-denial.”

Actually, no, it doesn’t. As good as it might be to pass on that second slice of pumpkin pie it isn’t what Christ meant by “deny yourself”. Subduing the flesh doesn’t mean watching your weight (and it is a good thing to watch your weight, that’s not what I’m saying, it’s just that dieting is not a sacred act). Subduing your flesh doesn’t mean not liking your iPod too much (though, again, don’t be stupid with your things).

Subduing the flesh/ denying yourself is the strangulation of sin. “But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you.” -Rom 8:9. Denying yourself means, as Jesus goes on to explain, taking up your cross and following Him. Not eating very much for a short period of time, as hard as that might be, is not the same as taking up the cross and following Jesus. As I mentioned above, a rigorous symbolic fast actually incapacitates someone from fully and ably serving the world, it hinders someone from denying himself. If symbolic fasts did that, shoot, sign me up for the eighty day version.

As for the “don’t knock it till you try it” defense, yeah, you can stoop to that one but I better not hear you criticize that holy tradition of self-flagellation. They say beating yourself within an inch of your life does wonders for your spirituality, you try it first and let me know how it is.

June 7, 2010 at 12:58 pm

Matthew N. Petersen

Remy,

It’s not like we are debating traditions of fasting. We’re debating traditions of fasting, and traditions of not fasting. That those who hold to a position of not fasting have a high theoretical view of fasting doesn’t change anything. Individual Protestants may fast. But the Protestant Church doesn’t fast.

(I’m using Protestant of course not quite accurately, because large sections of the Protestant church do fast–Lutherans, Anglicans, some Presbyterians etc. But they fast by observing Lent and Advent.)

I seem to talk about food and fasting thrice a year, but I’m still waiting around for that conversation on how best to aim our prayers.

That’s probably because everyone says “a good way to aim your prayers is to fast and pray with the Church” and you say “no, fasting that way isn’t right.”

Lent isn’t about fasting, it’s about Christ. Advent isn’t about fasting, it’s about Christ. But the method is fasting.

Or from a slightly different angle, it’s like you said “everyone’s talking about food and feasting during Eastertide; but what I really want to know is how to celebrate Christ.” Uh…yes.

At best your point is “make sure that as you fast during Lent, you make it Lent, not fasting.”

Secondly, I think not eating any food does a better job of that than eating food, even if it’s only a little.

You know this from some sort of divine illumination? Seriously, you aren’t qualified to make statements like this.

Second, I suppose you could say I’m just saying “don’t knock it till you’ve tried it.” But it is rather obvious you haven’t tried it, and you have lots of silly conceptual errors. You sound kinda like a eunuch talking about love.

And thirdly, for good measure, the way God has designed us to be reminded that all life flows from Him is eating. Our life is sustained by Him alone, because only He brings life out of the dead things we eat.

Seriously? The way we learn we are dependent on God is by being constantly full? This is just silly. Intellectually, sure. As a parable, sure. But it’s something we need reminded of, constantly, because it isn’t obvious. But when we fast it is obvious we depend on God alone.

Subduing the flesh/ denying yourself is the strangulation of sin.

Yes. And fasting is a workout. It isn’t the game itself, but no one would dream of playing without ever working out.

As I mentioned above, a rigorous symbolic fast actually incapacitates someone from fully and ably serving the world, it hinders someone from denying himself.

Again, this is just silly. The exact same argument can be raised against any spiritual discipline. Praying, attending Church etc. “I only have so many hours in a week. If I waste all my energy in Church (or praying etc.) I won’t have time to help anyone. Praying, receiving the Sacraments etc. are actually a form of self-indulgence, and hinder someone from denying himself.” Except it’s atheists like Christopher Hitchens who make that argument.

Also, you seem to want it both ways. If someone says “we fast not terribly strictly, so we can be charitable, but for an extended period of time so we feel it” you say “it isn’t intense enough.” If someone replies “It’s actually rather intense” you say “It’s too rigorous.”

June 9, 2010 at 1:14 pm

Remy

You keep talking about fasting, but you keep meaning symbolic fasting. I don’t honestly care that a tradition of “fasting” has been practiced that isn’t actually fasting. To fast means to not eat food.

I suppose the church is authoritative enough to say that fasting now means fill-in-the-blank. I suppose you can make an argument that now in the New Covenant we no longer have to fast in the Biblical sense and that now partial/modified/symbolic fasts are enough. I’m pretty sure I’ll disagree, but you still need to make that case.

If you want to talk about fasting, let’s do it. If you want to talk about symbolic fasting, that’s fine too. But we can’t muddy the waters with such a sloppy use of the terms.

June 9, 2010 at 4:09 pm

mattyonke

Remy — You’re the one claiming that the total fast is the only thing that can fit the definition of the word fasting, and the analogy certainly doesn’t hold true for any other spiritual discipline. You can pray a little or you can pray a lot. More prayer will be of greater benefit to you, but that doesn’t mean that if you pray less you’re not praying or saying “symbolic” prayers.

Fasting is going without food. You can go without food all food, you can go without most food, you can go without certain food but in all three instances you’re going without food. You’re not doing a different thing, you’re doing the same thing differently.

Anyway, I asked you to back up your claim about the definition of fasting above and you haven’t. Everyone else in the room seems to understand fasting as something that can be done differently over a continuum of intensity. Where’s your definition come from? Show me THAT in the Bible! as my protestant brothers like to say.

June 9, 2010 at 11:30 pm

Matthew N. Petersen

I think next year for Lent I’ll abstain from “wine and strong drink, I shall drink no vinegar of wine, or vinegar of strong drink, neither shall I drink any liquor of grapes, nor eat moist grapes, or dried. All the days of Lent I shall eat nothing that is made of the vine tree, from the kernels even to the husk. All the days of Lent there shall no razor come upon my head.” I suppose that’s rather a bizarre Lenten fast, but it is Biblical. And one can relate it to the passion quite easily.

On the other hand, if you want to say it isn’t a fast but a consecration, I’ll say you’re just arguing semantics.

Now, as Matt asked, can you provide Biblical proof that all fasting must be total. I suppose quoting a dictionary doesn’t prove anything, but the OED defines fast as “To abstain from food, or to restrict oneself to a meagre diet, either as a religious observance or as a ceremonial expression of grief.” If you want to say “fast” must mean total deprivation, you have English usage against you.

Also, “symbolic fast” would be a fitting term if we gave up something easy to give up–say I “fasted” from sugar, but really just switched to Splenda. But if someone decided to only eat rice, they’d still be able to get enough energy to be charitable, but they could definitely feel it. Or say someone decided, as the Orthodox do (unless thy are given economy, which is relatively common–one friend of mine was even commanded to take economy) to be vegan the whole forty days. Again, you can still be charitable. But it’s a really difficult fast.

June 10, 2010 at 12:01 am

Remy

If you guys want to say that fasting includes eating food I can only say that you’re wrong. If you eat food you are breaking the fast, hence breakfast. I understand that there are other things that aren’t strictly fasts that are being called fasts. Partial fasts, symbolic fasts, whatever, they aren’t fasts.

Honestly, I’m not sure I could prove that fast means “not eating food” anymore than I could prove up is up.

Up is up. To fast means to not eat food. The word in Greek means “not eating”. I just poked around in the etymology of the Hebrew word and it apparently conveys the idea of a “shut mouth”. I was going to say that I don’t know what more can want, but I’m guessing what you want is to be able to eat during your fast.

This is getting a little embarrassing, but since you keep mentioning prayer, let’s say that the word “pray” meant “speaking to God all night” and every time someone in the Bible prayed they prayed all night.

Now say someone prays for twenty minutes one afternoon and was acting like he was doing what the Bible required of him and acted like all the benefits and powers of prayer were wielded by him. I would say that he needs a better argument for claiming such things than to do what you two guys are doing here.

I’m beginning to suspect that it is you who is FEARFUL of fasting. And I’m certain that you need to think a little bit more about these things.

June 10, 2010 at 12:08 am

Remy

I guess I should add that “symbolic fast” isn’t necessarily derogatory. The Lord’s Supper is a symbolic meal.

Like I said, I’m skeptical toward the idea that symbolic fasts do something, but I’m open to being convinced. But I’m not open to equating fasts with symbolic fasts.

June 10, 2010 at 12:22 am

Remy

The problem with hinging your argument on the English is that English is alive and changing. Heck, Fast Food. I think a fast means you have to eat at McDonald’s all Lent long. Prove me wrong.

Also if your going to take English as the arbiter for this argument, which is shamefully unscholarly, then “fasting” from M&Ms and iPods is totally legit.

Who are you to say that it isn’t a real fast?

June 10, 2010 at 12:25 am

Matthew N. Petersen

You did notice that I quoted a Scriptural partial fast, and the OED. I’ve at least provided evidence that fast isn’t necessarily total. It’s good if it is. But it isn’t necessary. Strong’s does say tsum is related to shutting the mouth–I’ll look it up in my BDB when I get home, but Strong’s Greek says “to abstain as a religious exercise from food and drink: either entirely, if the fast lasted but a single day, or from customary and choice nourishment, if it continued several days.” LSJ isn’t helpful here. In spite your insistence, you are strictly out of accord with both Greek and English usage. And, the Biblical practice, as I showed earlier.

But anyway, you haven’t interacted with what we said, except to make the wholly unsupported point that asceticism accompanied by prayer (or whatever you want to call it, though the correct English word is “fast”) only counts if it is total abstention from food.

I still don’t understand why I have to prove that if the Bodhisattva Gautama ate only one grain of rice per day for a year he wasn’t fasting. Even the Buddhists know what fasting is better than you.

June 10, 2010 at 12:32 am

Matthew N. Petersen

You also put us in a rather difficult position with your last jab. Are we supposed to whip out lists of how often we have fasted, and how much? If that’s what you demand, I’ll concede the debate. Such things are not your business.

June 10, 2010 at 1:28 pm

Matthew N. Petersen

A couple of thoughts. First:

It is good to fast entirely for a long period of time. But as you pointed out, this is impracticable for most people. Therefore, if we restrict “fast” to mean only total abstinence from food, we:

1) Create a sort of ugly monasticism where only some Christians are able to fast, only some Christians are able to live up to the ideal, but most of us here do not–only the monks are the perfect Christians. On the other hand, if we allow partial fasts that are demanding and rigorous, but not excessive given requirements for charity, we say each person is called to fast, but due to different situations, each person is called to fast differently. In other words, inasmuch as you glorify fasting, you deny the priesthood of all believers, and fall into the exact same traps the pre-Vatican II Catholic Church fell into.

2) Essentially proscribe fasting. It’s a simple psychological rule that if you tell someone “it doesn’t count unless you go all out” everyone will give up. You have to be able to give little steps. And second, without a culture that promotes something, it will never happen. Catholic culture (“catholic” would be lowercase if it weren’t at the start of a sentence) encourages fasting, in the full sense. First, it allows, and even encourages beginners to do beginners work, while providing them something to strive for. And second, though less strenuous exercises are advised, the more strenuous exercise of a total fast is, culturally, treated as something good and to be aspired to. Thus keeping Lent and Advent encourages total fasting, whereas refusal to keep them discourages total fasting. Your position is almost like the position of someone who loves good food so much he refuses to eat, because nothing lives up to his standards.

So I looked up the Hebrew in the BDB. It says tsum means “abstain from food.” If you read my second post, replacing “fast” with “abstain from food” nothing will be changed. I suppose you could object that Matt’s points would be, but he was responding to criticism, and you should respect that he is taking his talking points from your side. If you want to change the discussion, fine. But change the discussion. He isn’t at all at fault for answering your (pl) objections.

June 10, 2010 at 4:34 pm

Remy

“In spite your insistence, you are strictly out of accord with both Greek and English usage. ”

Strong’s points to Jesus’s 40 day fast as an example that food may be eaten in a longer fast. The Bible doesn’t say that Jesus ate food that’s an assumption that a dictionary makes. Since it doesn’t jive with every single fast in the entire Bible and since the Greek word itself means “to not eat” I’m going to stick with what I’ve said. Fasting means to not eat. If you eat you are breaking the fast.

I understand your defensiveness about this and I’m not discounting your religious observance but when the Bible says “fast” it means “not eating”. You keep mentioning the English, but that doesn’t matter. The Greek and Hebrew are clear.

For your points:

1) A Biblical fast is indeed something everyone can do. It’s 24 hrs of no eating. I know people who do that sort of thing on accident. The ugly monastic version is actually Guido’s version that he mentions above.

It’s not good for kids to fast, but if you want to give them a symbolic fast as kind of a training wheels for fasting I don’t suppose I’d have a big problem with that. Or if there’s someone that can’t go 24 hrs without eating then I’m fine with easing him in with a symbolic fast. Sure.

But I don’t think we get to willy nilly change what God has prescribed, making it more difficult or less.

Honestly, the Lenten “fast” was probably more than a little influenced by Ramadan. In that “fast” they eat. The church probably took their cues from that practice.

2) Far be it from me to go up against simple psychological rules, but how much do you have to love Christ? All out or only a little bit?

June 10, 2010 at 6:05 pm

Matthew N. Petersen

“I don’t think we get to willy nilly change what God has prescribed, making it more difficult or less.”

Neither do I. But when we asked you to show us where God has prescribed fasts like you advocate, exclusively; you said it is super obvious and anyone could see that it was true. In other words, you said you had no proof, and could offer none, but we should all bow our judgment to yours.

“Honestly, the Lenten “fast” was probably more than a little influenced by Ramadan.”

No it wasn’t. By the time of Muhammad, Lent already existed. And anyway, the fact that they eat during Ramadan proves that fast doesn’t necessarily mean complete abstinence from food. You need a little more than hand waving to prove the universal understanding of fasting is not only mistaken, but completely and radically false. You say it’s as obvious that fast means total abstinence as that up means up. But evidently it isn’t. Not to me, not to Matt, not to Catholics, not to Orthodox, not to Muslims, not to Buddhists, not to Hindus, really not to anyone but you. I am tempted to tell you you have the whole human race testifying against you, and so you are simply wrong.

“Far be it from me to go up against simple psychological rules, but how much do you have to love Christ?”

This is silly. Unless whether we fast is a measure of how much we love Christ…but Christ knows how weak our powers. To whom much is given much is required.

“The ugly monastic version is actually Guido’s version that he mentions above.”

It would be if it weren’t regularly accompanied by economia. But even if so, tu quoque isn’t valid.

2) But sure, for the sake of argument, let’s, contrary to the universal human understanding of fasting, without a shred of Biblical evidence, decide “fast” means not eating at all. Let’s refer to Lenten fast and any other such partial fasts as tsafs. Everything we said stands.

3) To use your analogy above, it’s like you believe all night vigils are good, but think four hour vigils are merely “symbolic vigils”, and of questionable worth. If there were merit attached to the all night vigil, if there was an indulgence attached to the all night vigil, you’d have a point. But life isn’t like that. It isn’t nearly so scientific. And merit has no place in the Gospel. There is no plenary indulgence attached to a complete fast. We don’t fast to receive merit.

Or I suppose if all that matters in a fast is “not eating”, so say someone who sucks on a stone (it helps) and receives intravenous fluids so they don’t feel hungry is fasting; maybe you have a point. But fasting isn’t simply “not eating” it is all the hunger and desire etc. that goes on because we aren’t eating. There is no magic in not eating, not even magic that helps our prayers. There is, however, magic in the hunger. There is magic in resisting the desire for food. There is magic in the sublimated desires. Magic, of course, that kills without prayer, as all magic does; but magic nonetheless.

You still haven’t responded to any of our points.

June 10, 2010 at 11:18 pm

Remy

I haven’t responded to any of your points?

Every fast in the Bible is without food. It’s not like that’s a secret or anything either. If you don’t care enough to read the Bible on the very topic you’re discussing then you probably shouldn’t be in this conversation.

The Hebrew word has an etymology meaning “a shut mouth”.

The Greek word means “to not eat”.

You’ve pointed to a worldly practice, to an English word, and to a badly exegeted footnote in a Greek dictionary.

I’ve tried to be nice, I’ve tried to avoid bombast, but I can’t stand it any longer. There is a word for abstaining for certain foods for a time. It’s called a diet. What you and Guido are arguing for is a sacred diet. I’m agnostic to its benefits, but I can’t tell you how silly I think it is to say that you can eat during a fast.

You keep pointing to the world, what the world does. If you want to call what you’re doing the Worldly Fast and separate it from a Biblical Fast that’s fine.

I’ve heard this sort of thing before. I’ve heard it argued that a handshake is no different than a holy kiss. I don’t care if you line up every single American Theologian and a book ten thousand pages long of theologians from every age you will not convince me that a holy kiss is the same as a handshake.

Your point on 3) is missing the argument. It’s not like I’ve said there’s no benefit to a symbolic fast. I’m open to the idea. And I don’t discount the prayers offered during a symbolic fast. But that’s something that must be argued. You can’t assume that if fasts accomplish one thing a sacred diet can accomplish half that.

It’s like seeing a car with four wheels can roll down a hill, and then thinking that a car with two wheels could roll halfway down the hill.

I have a particularly powerful view of fasting and tinkering with the process doesn’t get the same affects. Like serving Big Macs and Cokes at the Lord’s Supper. Not the same thing. It’s like baptizing by blowing bubbles. Not the same thing. A sacred diet and fasting are not the same things.

Read the Bible and get back to me.

June 11, 2010 at 10:40 am

Matthew N. Petersen

You keep talking about these commands, but you haven’t produced one. And I have produced an example of a Biblical partial fast.

June 11, 2010 at 10:50 am

Matthew N. Petersen

Also, whatever it is, Lent isn’t a diet, anymore than a hunger strike is a fast.

Is it strictly not eating that counts in a fast? And why have you attached merit to fasting?

June 11, 2010 at 3:39 pm

Remy

What do you mean commands? There aren’t any commands to fast, but the implication of Christ’s words is that we should fast. Every fast in the Bible is an abstaining from food. The Hebrew and Greek words both mean “to not eat”.

Are you calling the Nazaritic vow a partial fast? Because that’s not what it is. Finding some similitude for what you’re arguing for and then calling it a fast is not going to work. But if you want to say Lent is a Nazaritic vow then I’ll add that you’re doing that wrong too.

I haven’t attached merit to fasting. I just feel like we should fast correctly.

It feels like you’re floundering. Once we agree on what a fast is then we can get to what a fast does.

June 11, 2010 at 8:28 pm

mattyonke

Remy — Fasting is “not eating” and “shutting of the mouth” whether that fasting is total or partial and directed. In a total fast, one looks at all food and says “I’m not eating that.” In a partial fast, one looks at some food and says, “I’m not eating that.” In both instances, it’s not really the food that’s the point. It’s the act of self-denial that allows the will and the heart to redirect its energies elsewhere, to prayer and acts of love.

That’s why, when I look at some of my Roman rite brethren giving up ipods or candy for Lent, I don’t discourage it, as much as I wish they’d do more, because what they’re doing is an act of self-denial with a goal to increase prayer and charity. Any increase in prayer and charity is better than continuing to focus that time and energy on oneself.

But, let’s get past the semantic divide that seems intractable at this point. What is the goal and benefit of fasting as you understand it? Perhaps if we can get to that we can get to what might connect the total fast and the partial fast.

June 11, 2010 at 9:31 pm

Remy

The problem is that a misunderstanding of what a fast is leads to a misunderstanding of what a fast does.

I’ve already mentioned that “self-denial” is not giving up things you want. It is important to live the life of the cross full time, one hundred percent. That’s what denying yourself means. It does not mean giving up chicken or chocolate for a short time. Nor do I not grant that giving up chicken or chocolate for a short time is practice for denying yourself.

I’m fine with someone dedicating themselves to prayer and charity. Let’s just call it something else, because it isn’t a fast. I would object to a soup kitchen calling their daily offering the Lord’s Supper for the same reason.

As I’ve expressed, I’m dubious of the benefits of doing something that is nowhere mentioned in the Bible. My fear is that this sort of thing -abstaining from dairy products or Mexican food for Lent- distracts us from dealing with sins.

If prayer and charity are the point then why not set your watch to go off every ten/fifteen/ thirty minutes and pray each time it goes off. Why not earmark your entertainment fund for a charitable giving? Why do we need to add other things to the duties God gives us?

My fear is that people would rather give up coffee and soda for forty days and feel pretty holy for doing something that God does not require and is pretty useless toward the world.

Also, I find the expression “partial fast” to be along the lines of “partial virgin”.

June 12, 2010 at 6:54 pm

Matthew N. Petersen

Remy,

Christ commands us to fast, but he doesn’t say “do it like this.” But it feels like we’re debating semantics.

First, what differentiates a fast from a hunger strike? And why is a fast valuable?

Second, we aren’t really on the topic of Lent. If you decided to keep Lent by fasting Fridays and Holy Saturday so you ended on Easter (and maybe Ash Wednesday so you started with us) no one would object.

Third, even on topic, it seems you’re making an ad ignoratium. No one knows Greek or Hebrew well enough to know if fasts could be partial in Greek or Hebrew. The primary meaning is not eating. And we don’t know if partial fasts existed. Therefore they did not.

Also, that the primary meaning is not eating at all isn’t different from English, but English still admits partial fasts as fasts. Moreover, looking at other cultures, the evidence would be that though the primary meaning is a total fast, a partial fast can also be a fast. It can be in English. It can be in Hindi. It can be in Arabic. I don’t think there would be many people who said that when the Buddha ate one grain of rice per day for a year that he wasn’t fasting. In fact, I think most people would say that’s a rather astonishing fast. That is to say, the evidence we can gather about languages in general would suggest that fasts need not be total, though in the first instance fast means complete abstention. That means that your statement about Greek and Hebrew is on very shaky linguistic grounds. And strong conclusions–the Church has probably invented something new and called it a fast distorting the Biblical witness–cannot come from shaky premises.

June 12, 2010 at 10:47 pm

Remy

I don’t quite see the wriggle room that you do. The Greek and Hebrew word for fast -which is pretty clearly “no eating”- is used over fifty times in the Scriptures. It can go from a night to forty nights.

An argument from silence only gets you so far. If the words mean “no eating” and all of the examples in the Bible reveal no eating you can’t really say that you get to eat during a fast simply because it wasn’t explicitly forbidden.

You keep hiding behind this “partial fast” phrase. Consider this: Christ commands us to be virgins prior to marriage, but He didn’t forbid us from being partial virgins. Does that make sense?

I can’t help but think you’re being tricky with words just to save face. A temporary abstaining from certain foods is called a diet. I’m content with symbolic fast, but I’m about to start insisting on calling it a sacred diet.

Another trick used here is saying: if x does z then half an x does half a z. But the walls of Jericho don’t halfway crumble walking around them three times. A car with two wheels doesn’t roll halfway down the hill.

The final trick is claiming the effects of X for Y like the following argument: a holy kiss is a cultural form of greeting. A handshake is our cultural form of greeting. Therefore we can just shake hands instead of greeting each other with a holy kiss.

I think doing such things is dangerous. I don’t consider this to be semantics.

Having said all that I’m not saying that people who practice fasting incorrectly are evil or are sinning. If God won’t accept the people who fast correctly with an incorrect heart, He can certainly accept the people who fast incorrectly with the correct heart. Or if the attitude is entering the shallow end of the pool, doing a symbolic fast in preparation for a fast, that’s fine too. People make mistakes, people mature, God is gracious. But that doesn’t seem to be the attitude you guys have here. It looks to me like, “no big deal, eating no food, eating some food, it’s all the same to God.” Again, that’s an attitude that can lead to some big big problems. I want to take the Biblical evidence seriously.

As for your points : 1) a hunger strike is not anchored with prayer and presumably aimed at some political purpose. As for why a fast is valuable, does it matter? A fast is commended to us by the Lord, it is exemplified throughout the Bible.

2) I’m not concerned about how acceptable a fast is in the face of Lent’s symbolic fast. Why on earth would anyone object to a Biblical fast anyway?

3) You seem to think “to not eat” is more ambiguous than it is. What about “to not worship other gods”? Or “to not commit adultery”? What are the secondary meaning to those?

4) Honestly, appealing to the world on the basis on English seems to be the shakier premise. You can’t get eating things from the fifty plus times fasting appears in the Bible. I freely admit that the cultural understanding of fasting does not live up to those standards. I believe the church can mature. Bad ideas fall away, better understandings develop. There are innumerable areas where I can point to the history of the church is absolutely missing the point.

I can even look back and see the fruit of such a progression. Would the church have been able to accept the standard of the ascetics? Obviously not. Could the church accept a symbolic fast? Yes and they did. Hallelujah. I look at my children and have the same bright hope. I can be happy with their sanctification for today and still hope it grows tomorrow.

Even your preferred term “partial fast” implies partial obedience. It’s partial, honestly, I think it’s distracting. It’s led to a incorrect view of denying one’s self and causes confusion over the blessing of food and the goodness of the body. Again, I’m not discounting the good intentions of Christians, but I feel like it’s our duty to live up to what is revealed and not permanently lower the bar.

June 14, 2010 at 1:25 pm

Matthew N. Petersen

Remy,

Something needs cleared up before we continue. We don’t think Christ commanded fasting, and that means if you want to forgo chips and salsa, you’ve kept the command. Keeping Lent does not satisfy the requirements for fasting. But we would contend that partial fasts are the same sort of thing as full fasts. This is why it seems you’re arguing semantics, and pointing to bizarre non-existent commands. We say “But whatever word you want to use, you haven’t shown that partial fasts are not the same sort of thing as full fasts. Proving that the Greek or Hebrew word mean this or that is merely semantics.” And “Yes, there’s a command to keep the full fast. But why is it offering strange fire to observe a partial fast?”

I think this point is important, so I’m going to repeat it. I take it you’ve heard us saying “When Christ tells us to fast, he means skip Mexican food.” Which would be monstrous. And an excuse. But we aren’t saying that. We think total fasts are commanded, and that if we don’t fast, in the full sense, we are missing the command.

But we think that a partial fast (I know you don’t like the term) is the same sort of thing as a full fast. (At least it can be, I don’t suppose anyone would suggest feasting on Greek rather than Mexican food for a month is at all like a fast.) So we hear you saying “all that matters in a fast is not eating food. The hunger and exhaustion etc. are all unnecessary byproducts that contribute nothing to the benefit of fasting.”

To you it sounds like we’re looking to make excuses; to us it looks like you think fasting is all about getting rid of that poison called food.

Just to be clear, both sides think total fasts are required. The question isn’t whether we can get away with partial fasts instead, but whether partial fasts are the same sort of think as full fasts. (And you should admit that Pr. Wilson’s arguments against Lent were objections to seasonal fasting.)

So it sounds to us like, on an analogy from above, there were lots of all night vigils recommended throughout Scripture. And we said “all night vigils are good, and for the same reason, three hour vigils are good too.” And you responded “no, the only sort of vigil that counts is an all-night vigil. A three hour vigil is of questionable merit, shouldn’t be called a vigil at all, and is similar to keeping your marriage vows, three quarters of the time.”

My questions that you brush aside are actually quite on point. I’m trying to get you to tell us what makes a fast good. That’s where the real issue is. What about a fast makes it valuable. Full and partial fasts have almost everything positive in common. (“Hunger” is positive, “not eating” is negative. Etc.) Almost everything you do or experience is the same in a full and a partial fast. The difference is in not doing something. Other than that, the full fast is more intense, and a lengthy partial fast is more like a one day fast than a lengthy fast–weird stuff starts happening when you don’t eat for more than two weeks.

So yes, it matters why a fast is valuable. You continue to insist that a grain of rice kills everything that matters in a fast. But you haven’t even begun to show it does.

I’m fine with “sacred diet” (so long as we understand it means diet anchored by prayer etc. and not a diet based on religious taboos) if you’re fine with calling a fast a “sacred hunger strike.”

Also, given the parallel between Jesus’ fast and the wandering in the wilderness, I think it would be legitimate to say “Israel fasted in the wilderness for forty years.” But, as you know, they ate food.

June 14, 2010 at 7:24 pm

Remy

Yeah, I made that distinction in my third response, but you kept insisting that Lent qualified as a fast. But I’m glad we’re finally here.

So you want to say that a symbolic fast is the same sort of thing as a fast. That’s fine, I’m open to something like that, but it takes an argument.

But the onus is not on me to prove why a symbolic fast is not that same, that’s your job. You have to show me 1) where modifying a Biblical practice is legitimate and 2) you have to prove to me that in modifying it the act still retains some effectiveness.

A legitimate defense is not “I can’t think of any reasons not to.”

Other questions would be, why do symbolic fasts and not do fasts?

For example, why can’t we change the elements in the Lord’s Supper to Bread and Beer? You drink both beer and wine, both are intoxicating, et cetera.

Now you and I could both come up with reasons for why in needs to be wine, but I honestly think that’s beside the matter. You don’t change things willy-nilly. There’s a reason God has us do things a certain way even if we don’t know it.

As for sacred hunger strike, my initial thoughts are that it isn’t correct. The fasting isn’t aimed at God, it’s not a threat like a hunger strike is. Hunger strikes are defensive, but I tend to think of fasting as an offensive weapon. So I don’t think that fits as well as sacred diet does to symbolic fasts.

June 14, 2010 at 10:16 pm

Matthew N. Petersen

Yeah, I made that distinction in my third response, but you kept insisting that Lent qualified as a fast. But I’m glad we’re finally here.

No, this isn’t what you did. I said refraining from some food is the same sort of thing as refraining from all food. You said, and continue to say, there is so much poison in one grain of rice that it completely obliterates the whole nature of the fast.

Other questions would be, why do symbolic fasts and not do fasts?

Hmmm…I said at least three times in my last post we both think complete fasts are required. Let me try again. Complete fasts are required. We shouldn’t do partial fasts and no complete fasts. Even following the traditional calendar everyone would fast completely from Maundy Thursday till Easter.

Or you mean at all. Well, grant for a second that partial fasts are a type of fast.

The point of the Liturgical year is to recapitulate the life of Christ. Advent relives the hope for his coming. Christmas is the celebration of his coming. “God is with us and is our friend.” Epiphany is the celebration of his revelation as God. Easter is the celebration of his Resurrection. Ascension is the celebration of his Ascension. Pentecost is the celebration of the sending of the Holy Spirit. But one crucial–pun intended–thing is missing. There must be a recapitulation of the Cross, otherwise we liturgically preach a false gospel.

Now that day is of course, Good Friday. And thus, traditionally, Good Friday is a total fast. (Actually, so is Maundy Thursday and Holy Saturday.)

But the liturgical year isn’t a season of individual feasts in a vast sea of ordinary time. We celebrate Christmastide. And the Epiphanytide. And Eastertide. etc. Each of these seasons is brought together most sharply in a single day, but that day should not be isolated. Easter should be the high point of a season of feasting.

Following the same logic, there should be a season of meditation on Christ’s passion. But just as Eastertide is not continually a feast on the level of Easter day–it would be overbearing if it were–so Lent cannot be a continual fast on the same level as Good Friday. You said yourself that it would be impossible for most of us to be charitable during Lent if we never ate at all. And so some form of lessened fast is given for the season.

That doesn’t, of course, show that lessened fasts are fasts; but it does give rational for holding lessened fasts, given they are a sort of fast.

So you want to say that a symbolic fast is the same sort of thing as a fast.

Well, first, though there is the positive command to fast; there isn’t a negative command not to fast in some other way, or not to call it a fast if we lessen a fast. We have examples of people fasting, and we have injunctions for complete fast. But unless we are strict regulativists, there is no injunction against partial fasts. Second, every culture agrees it is. Third, as I said in my previous post, they have everything positive in common.

Meanwhile, though you have argued that when the Bible says fast it means a complete fast–something neither side has ever disputed–you have not offered any evidence that a fast cannot be lessened.

Yes, there is a reason God has us do things a certain way. But God hasn’t commanded that fasts cannot be lessened. And, I think if I have people over for beer and hotdogs, I am doing something similar to the Lord’s Supper. Not the same, of course, but similar. But the Lord’s Supper, and Baptism are unique, and thus do not make good examples.

June 14, 2010 at 10:26 pm

Matthew N. Petersen

So how would I define a fast? A fast is a recapitulation of Christ’s fast and Christ’s passion. Since Christ did not eat food during his fast, in the first instance, this is achieved through complete abstinence from food. But Israel recapitulated Christ’s fast by wandering in the wilderness. And there is no command to recapitulate Christ’s sufferings by complete fasting. We can, following Israel’s example, fast through other means than a complete abstinence from food.

There’s also the example of John the Baptist. Though, of course, his diet and cloths are not called a fast; they are portrayed in contrast to a feast, and the point of Lent is the contrast to the feast.

June 16, 2010 at 4:01 pm

Remy

Reflecting yesterday, I also came to the conclusion that it isn’t fair to put fasts on the same level as Baptism and the Eucharist. But I’m still at a loss to think of taking a sacred act and lessening it.

I mentioned Jericho, walking around seven times was necessary and three or four would not accomplish anything. Moses changed the formula for getting water out of the rock, and was still successful, but I’m not sure you’d want to take that as an example either. Consider the highly symbolic act of Ezekiel, would switching human dung with cow dung be okay since they have everything “positive in common”?

I am by no stretch a strict regulativist, but there must be something to point at, some symbol. The church has gotten into all sorts of goofiness using the argument that something isn’t “explicitly forbidden”.

I don’t agree, by the way, that a fast and a symbolic fast share “positives”. Obviously I wouldn’t say eating one grain of rice a day is poison, but it isn’t a fast. I wouldn’t call it a symbolic fast either though, I’d call it a symbolic meal. Doing something like that shifts the meaning. I believe the world is the sung words of God, I believe symbols have meaning that can’t be muddled with. An electric guitar means something totally different than the timbrel, a synthesizer means something totally different than a cymbal in worship.

A handshake may have everything positive in common with a holy kiss, and while I think it’s perfectly fine to shake hands, like it’s perfectly fine to symbolically fast, it isn’t the same thing and one accomplishes something the other cannot.

And I still maintain saying things like “lessening the fast” is along the lines of “lessening virginity”. The light is either on or off, you cannot “lessen the offness of the light”.

Aside from the hasty rhetoric of “preaching a false gospel”, I’m with you totally on the Liturgical season. My complaint has always been with the way Lent is celebrated, particularly the misunderstanding of what a fast is and does. (Oh, also, Israel didn’t symbolically fast, but they did suffer and their souls were afflicted so I’m keen on the comparison, but claiming it as a symbolic fast and then using that to justify your position is pretty weak).

But we are getting to some good stuff. You mentioned John the Baptist’s symbolic fast. This was something I was trying to suss out above. Symbolic fasts emphasize something. Actually, I’m realizing that while symbolic fasts accurately describe the brainless “fasting” of Lent it doesn’t accurately describe what John is doing. That is a symbolic meal.

Eating locusts and honey has a significance that not eating chicken just doesn’t have, but to see this you have to have a more sophisticated understanding of fasting and of symbolic meals than abstaining from food or certain foods. You have to speak in the symbols of the Bible.

June 17, 2010 at 12:53 pm

Matthew N. Petersen

A couple of thoughts:

First, it still sounds like you think a Lenten fast isn’t supposed to be much. Like if I decided not to eat at Patty’s for Lent, and to eat at Gambino’s instead. My avoiding Patty’s is then a symbol if a full fast.

But that isn’t how it should work. A Lenten fast should be physically demanding, in itself, like a full fast is. It should belong to whatever category John the Baptist’s life in the wilderness, and Israel’s wandering in the wilderness, and Ezekiel’s year strapped to a board, and Christ’s fast belong to. Yes, it’s often done poorly, but that’s neither here nor there.

This is probably one of the more important points. You keep insisting on “symbolic fast” as if a Lenten fast is a symbol of a fast. I suppose I could symbolically fast, setting something aside and using the fact that I’m not eating it as a symbol for a full fast. “Remember children, we don’t eat those tortillas because Christ fasted in the wilderness.” But that isn’t what Lent is. No one approaches it as a symbol of a fast. They approach it as a little fast, over a long time–something that is strictly impossible for you.

On your understanding, a fast can be made small or great, but the only way to change its intensity, the only dimmer switch, as it were, is time. And so you have ruled out the possibility of physically recapitulating Christ’s fast, and Christ’s suffering, for a season. You said you are with me on the Liturgical season, but unless you allow for physical recapitulation, you make the season entirely mental; that is, works righteous, and Gnostic.

Second: It really doesn’t work to point to places where there are specific commands–unless your point is we are Jews, and can only do what is commanded. Yes, it would be wrong to avoid a holy kiss. But that doesn’t mean I’ve violated God’s command if I shake someone’s hand.

Regarding lessening a fast: If a partial fast were a different sort of thing from a fast, yes, a fast could not be lessened to a partial fast. But if a partial fast is the same sort of thing as a full fast, then it can. So this argument is circular.

And anyway, you believe sacred acts can be lessened. Feasting is a sacred act. And we can have feasts that pull out all the stops; but we can also have lesser feasts.

Third: I don’t think you’re understanding my point about “positive content.” I mean affirmative, in the grammatical sense. It’s easy to make say something affirmative about a holy kiss that is not true of a handshake. Likewise Ezekiel’s eventual fast while lying on his side is different from what it was to be originally. Originally, there was the revulsion for human excrement, and violation of Torah. After God changed it, there wasn’t.

But to say something true of a fast that is not true of a partial fast, we must use negative sentences. Everything a complete fast has, a partial fast has. (Well, except maybe hallucinations and similar results of extended fasts.) A complete fast does not have something a partial fast has. The difference is entirely negative, and not at all affirmative.

I challenge you: affirm something of a complete fast that is not true of a partial fast.

And this is an important point. The power of fasting does not consist of a negative. Fasting is not good because it is a getting away. Fasting is good because it is a getting to. Fasting is not good because it is a rejection of creation. Not fasting is bad because it is a rejection of that part of creation which is encountered only in a fast. When we fast we find creatures to love and enjoy, gifts from God we would not receive if we did not fast.

And in a partial fast we find those same gifts.

June 17, 2010 at 1:04 pm

Matthew N. Petersen

Also, when you say “Obviously I wouldn’t say eating one grain of rice a day is poison, but it isn’t a fast. I wouldn’t call it a symbolic fast either though, I’d call it a symbolic meal.” the antecedent of “it” changes. First, “it” refers to to the whole program. Then “it” refers to the eating during the program. Surely you wouldn’t call the whole program a symbolic meal! What would you call the whole program? And why is it a completely different sort of thing from a fast? Why can’t one physically meditate on Christ’s fast and suffering while eating (symbolically or otherwise) a grain of rice a day?

June 17, 2010 at 4:35 pm

Remy

“A Lenten fast should be physically demanding, in itself, like a full fast is.”

Why? Where do you get that? You said fasts can be loosened, and now you’re saying that they can only be loosened so much. What’s you’re standard?

“It should belong to whatever category John the Baptist’s life in the wilderness, and Israel’s wandering in the wilderness, and Ezekiel’s year strapped to a board, and Christ’s fast belong to.”

That would be convenient for you if it were true, but John’s life in the wilderness was not a fast, but a symbolic meal. Israel’s wandering was due to sin and also not a fast, Ezekiel wasn’t fasting either. Jesus was fasting, but it cannot be compared to what is done during Lent.

“you have ruled out the possibility of physically recapitulating Christ’s fast, and Christ’s suffering, for a season. You said you are with me on the Liturgical season, but unless you allow for physical recapitulation, you make the season entirely mental”

Bah, prayer is physical and fasts are physical. I don’t need to cheapen either of those to recapitulate the forty days of Jesus.

“that doesn’t mean I’ve violated God’s command if I shake someone’s hand”

I very clearly said it’s fine to shake hands, just don’t call it a holy kiss. It’s fine to do these sacred diets, just don’t call them fasts.

As for feasts, the sacred feast is the Lord’s Supper. Don’t loosen that please. The other feasts of the Old Covenant are no longer required. Past that Paul tells us not to judge another man’s feast.

“A complete fast does not have something a partial fast has.”

Then why do “complete fasts”?

For someone who doesn’t know the difference between a fast and a sacred diet I would certainly be careful making such assured statements.

June 17, 2010 at 6:05 pm

Matthew N. Petersen

““A complete fast does not have something a partial fast has.”

Then why do “complete fasts”?

For someone who doesn’t know the difference between a fast and a sacred diet I would certainly be careful making such assured statements.”

You aren’t understanding my point. I’m tempted to say you aren’t listening.

Why do complete fasts? Again, as I have now said at least four times: They are commanded.

But maybe my statement was vague. (Re-read it in context about the difference between an affirmative and a negative statement, and affirmative and negative properties. The rest is clear even if that sentence isn’t.) A complete fast is lacking something a partial fast has. But it doesn’t, so far as I can see, possess anything a partial fast does not have. You can make “complete fast” the subject of a negative statement which differentiates it from a partial fast; but I cannot see how to make it the subject of an affirmative statement which differentiates it from a partial fast.

But prove me wrong. Give me an affirmative statement that is true of a complete fast, but not true of a partial fast.

You said fasts can be loosened, and now you’re saying that they can only be loosened so much. What’s you’re standard?

One wonders whether you have been paying attention. The point is a recapitulation of Christ’s fast and Christ’s passion. If you do so little that there is no suffering it cannot be a recapitulation of Christ’s fast or passion. We know food is not the critical element for two reasons 1) we have examples of prefigurings of Christ’s fast and passion that are not based on a complete lack of food–Israel’s wandering in the wilderness, and Ezekiel’s year on his side. And 2) a complete fast does not possess anything which a partial fast does not possess. (Prove me wrong! Name something.)

“I very clearly said it’s fine to shake hands, just don’t call it a holy kiss. It’s fine to do these sacred diets, just don’t call them fasts.”

Yeah, that was a weak point in my post and I’ll concede it.

“As for feasts, the sacred feast is the Lord’s Supper. Don’t loosen that please. The other feasts of the Old Covenant are no longer required. Past that Paul tells us not to judge another man’s feast.”

This is entirely off point. Fasts do not correspond to the Lord’s Supper, but to the Sabbath feast. We can pull out all the stops for a Sabbath feast, but we can also have small Sabbath feasts.

“Bah, prayer is physical and fasts are physical. I don’t need to cheapen either of those to recapitulate the forty days of Jesus.”

Umm…you’re obfuscating. By the same logic we don’t need to cheapen prayer by feasting during festal times. We should feast in our hearts and our prayers; but actually feasting is merely optional.

And, you don’t really want a season of fasting. So bringing up complete fasts is entirely aside the point.

“That would be convenient for you if it were true, but John’s life in the wilderness was not a fast, but a symbolic meal. Israel’s wandering was due to sin and also not a fast, Ezekiel wasn’t fasting either. Jesus was fasting, but it cannot be compared to what is done during Lent.”

First, on a merely grammatical point, John’s life in the wilderness was not a symbolic meal. It may have included symbolic meals, but it was not a symbolic meal. As I asked in my previous post, what is the name for his life?

Second, Israel’s wandering was due to the Incarnation and Christ’s fast in the wilderness.

Third, Jesus’ fast cannot be compared to what is done during Lent? A rather bold assertion, with absolutely no evidence. And also entirely off the point. The question is whether what ought to be done during Lent can be a recapitulation of Christ’s fast and passion. Without evidence, and in the face of evidence, you continue to maintain it cannot.

Finally, no, they aren’t fasts. But they are recapitulations of Christ’s suffering through affliction (or some such, the exact name here isn’t my point). What is the word that you would give to recapitulations of Christ’s suffering through suffering and affliction of the soul? Whatever that word is, the fact that not only complete fasts should be described by it proves that not only complete fasts should be described for it. We can suffer and afflict our soul to recapitulate Christ’s fast and suffering through other means than mere complete abstinence from food.

Naturally, I want to say “be creative” “use your imagination”. It’s good to meditate on Christ’s passion and suffering through suffering and affliction of the soul. Be creative to see how you can do it. Just as I would when telling people to recapitulate and celebrate Christ’s resurrection. But for some reason that I still cannot understand, you insist that the only possible mean of recapitulating Christ’s fast and passion are ones directly contained in the Bible. As if you were a strict regulativist.

And in English the proper word for a recapitulation of Christ’s suffering and fast through suffering and affliction of the soul, brought about by a change of diet is “fast”.

June 21, 2010 at 7:21 pm

Remy

“Give me an affirmative statement that is true of a complete fast, but not true of a partial fast.”

For one, there is no such thing, Biblically speaking, as a “partial fast”. It is an invented thing. I think it is a watering down of the Biblical act. We can talk about sacred diets or symbolic meals or immature fasting, but I think this very misleading title, “partial fast”, is leading you to some pretty shoddy theology.

“we have examples of prefigurings of Christ’s fast and passion that are not based on a complete lack of food”

This is like saying we have prefigurings of Christ’s crucifixion in the three days Jonah spent in the belly of the fish. We have prefigurings of Christ’s passion in the forty years in the wilderness, but we do not have prefigurings of Christ’s fast.

“We can pull out all the stops for a Sabbath feast, but we can also have small Sabbath feasts.”

I see that once again you’re talking about our feasts and not the Biblical feasts. Okay, whatever, that has nothing to do with loosening divine acts. St. Paul still says not to judge another man’s feast and I’ll add that a feast is only part of the festival. The festive spirit should always be high.

“By the same logic we don’t need to cheapen prayer by feasting during festal times”

No, my point was that we can still recapitulate the forty days by fasting and prayer. This argument would truly take a turn to the bizarre if you want to argue that the only way we can recapitulate it would be to diet for forty days.

Why do something that isn’t fasting and call it fasting? Why not intersperse three or four fasts during Lent to go along with an increased and pointed corporate prayer service? I think this would be far better than blithely assuming no difference between a fast and a diet.

I’ve already shown how such a poor understanding of fasting has lead to all sorts of bad ideas. There’s more to talk about under the symbolic meal end of things, but we can’t do that under the banner of fasting.

June 21, 2010 at 9:38 pm

Matthew N. Petersen

“For one, there is no such thing, Biblically speaking, as a “partial fast”. It is an invented thing…”

You’re avoiding my question through linguistic quibbles. Whatever you want to call it, name one positive thing that a fast has that it does not.

“we have examples of prefigurings of Christ’s fast and passion that are not based on a complete lack of food”

You’re again avoiding the issue. And actually, quite clearly, Israel’s time in the wilderness prefigures Christ’s fast.

“I see that once again you’re talking about our feasts and not the Biblical feasts. Okay, whatever, that has nothing to do with loosening divine acts. St. Paul still says not to judge another man’s feast and I’ll add that a feast is only part of the festival. The festive spirit should always be high.”

Again, you’re not on point. Fasting is not on par with the Lord’s Supper, fasting is on par with the Sabbath feast. If having lesser feasts has nothing to do with loosening divine acts, neither does having lesser fasts.

“Why do something that isn’t fasting and call it fasting? Why not intersperse three or four fasts during Lent to go along with an increased and pointed corporate prayer service? I think this would be far better than blithely assuming no difference between a fast and a diet.”

On the first point, I wouldn’t have any problem with that. But just as Easter season should constantly be festive, in the outward actions, so Lent should constantly be the opposite of festive. If we aren’t acting out the opposite of festive, we aren’t actually doing anything.

“I’ve already shown how such a poor understanding of fasting has lead to all sorts of bad ideas. There’s more to talk about under the symbolic meal end of things, but we can’t do that under the banner of fasting.”

No I don’t think you have; and I object to the names “symbolic fast” and “symbolic meal.” A Lenten fast is not conducted a symbol of a fast; nor is a Lenten meal eaten as a symbol of a meal. But that’s perhaps aside the point. What more do you think there should be talked about there?

June 21, 2010 at 11:25 pm

Remy

“name one positive thing that a fast has that it does not.”

Here’s the thing. You clearly are looking for a defense of a practice you already approve of, that you already think highly of and you haven’t demonstrated the sort of thinking that will help you understand what a fast does. Plus you have a pretty blithe attitude of “who says I can’t”. I think it’s a poor way to do theology and I don’t believe I will waste my breath on something you don’t honestly care to think about.

“And actually, quite clearly, Israel’s time in the wilderness prefigures Christ’s fast.”

I think you’re out of your element.

“fasting is on par with the Sabbath feast.”

You’re equating feasts with Sabbath feasts. There is an enormous difference. Once again, I think you’re out of your element.

You need to read my response to Guido if you don’t think I’ve pointed out the sort of misunderstandings that accompany this weak view of fasting. You need to look at the cultural understanding of Lent if you don’t think this sort of view leads to bizarre and damaging views of food, the body, holiness, and prayer.

And I know you think this is just quibbling with words, but I think a high view of words is of utmost importance in such matters, there’s no room for careless terms. I’ve been racking my brain for an example and it struck me today, tithe. Your arguments for a “partial fast” could work as arguments for a “partial tithe” but of course that’s absurd.

June 22, 2010 at 11:21 am

Matthew N. Petersen

Regarding all but your last point. Uh…ok…and “You clearly are looking for a rebuttal of a practice you already disapprove of, that you already think low of and you haven’t demonstrated the sort of thinking that will help you understand what a fast does.” Ad hominem attacks like this are pointless. And just engender strife. Knock it off.

Partial tithe doesn’t work for practical reasons. We aren’t commanded to fast always. So it’s possible to say “I’ll fast completely now, I’ll fast partially later.” When I fast partially I am not breaking the commandment to fast. But we are commanded to tithe always, so if I tithe partially sometimes, I am at that time, breaking the commandment to tithe.

I remember your response to Matt. I think he gave benefits of fasting and you took it as the core reason for fasting. But that’s really completely aside the point. abussus non tollit ussus. Nor have you even attempted to show that Lent is responsible for any supposed errors he made.

Words are important, but your terms are merely asserted and insisted upon without a single argument, and are moreover, inaccurate–Lenten fasts are not symbolic, nor are Lenten meals, even when the Lenten fast is intense, symbolic. But my point there is that you are hiding from my arguments. You haven’t addressed any of my arguments, except with ad hominem, and non sequitur.

June 22, 2010 at 6:52 pm

Matthew N. Petersen

Also, from the linguistic standpoint, I might say “a partial tithe isn’t a tithe”–though, as I said above this is because partial obedience is disobedience, whereas someone who fasts partially isn’t necessarily being disobedient–but I definitely wouldn’t call a partial tithe a symbolic tithe.

And I would also recognize that it has something of the character of a tithe. If some group (for some reason) had decided they should tithe 5% I wouldn’t say they weren’t tithing, but that they were tithing incompletely. And moreover, I may in some cases look at a partial tithe as a positive thing–for instance, if someone hadn’t been tithing at all and decided to tithe 5%.

(And I believe this would be the relatively universal practice. If you want to establish some alternative terminology, you would have to argue for it.)

A partial tithe is a sort of tithe, but since someone who only tithes partially is not being obedient, a partial tithe is not sufficient. But someone who fasts partially, may nevertheless be fully obedient. A partial fast is not a substitute for a fast, but the two are not mutually exclusive, as partial tithes and full tithes are.

June 22, 2010 at 10:44 pm

mattyonke

Remy,

I’ve let you and Matt duke it out here for a while, partially because I’ve found it so hard to wrap my head around your criticisms of fasting. I understand your desire to do things right and to do things biblically, but it seems like you’re disregarding completely over a millennium of the Church’s clear testimony that fasting from some food is fasting and is beneficial to the soul.

The Reformers and their followers are the minority report on this subject by a good sight and even some of their descendants in your own FV circles are coming round to the practice again.

If you think this is the place to stand contra mundum and the hill to die on, I guess I can’t stop you. But do you really think the generations upon generations of heroic Christians who have practiced this form of fasting, benefited from it and preached it to others just had it stone cold wrong, while you, against ministers in your own denomination and the great cloud of witnesses that surround you, have it right?

Again, I can’t stop you and I doubt I can convince you if that’s how you want to play it, but isn’t it possible that your interpretation of the Hebrew is wrong, or at least not taking into account all the possible meanings? Isn’t it possible that there’s something to be learned from such a longstanding practice of the Church, even if it goes against the grain of your particular translation of a Greek word and a Hebrew word? There’s only one way to find out, and that’s to heed the Church’s call to what the Church calls fasting.

By the by, I strongly contest your litany of evils that follow from the form of fasting the Church has called us to. I would challenge you to find someone who fasts this way regularly who falls prey to them. I know a pharisaical faster or two, but the great majority of the people I know and have read who do this on a regular basis are people with the most balanced understandings of food, the body, the material world and prayer.

June 22, 2010 at 11:37 pm

Remy

You somewhat miss my meaning with my term “partial tithe”. It is impossible to give a “partial tenth”. A tenth is a tenth and not any thing else. A fast is a fast and not anything else. You can give seven percent, five percent, or two percent, but there is no such thing as a “partial tenth”. You can either fast or not fast, but you cannot “partially fast”. You can either be a virgin or not, but you cannot be a “partial virgin”.

I have heard on the radio several times over the last couple of weeks the misuse of “decimation” to mean “annihilation”. To use it that way is illiterate and I don’t care if that is common use or not.

I wouldn’t call it an ad hominem attack to say that you’re highly defensive of this practice. I can tell by your insistence to use a nonsense term for your argument rather than use a much clearer term like symbolic fast or sacred diet. Like I said, symbolic fast isn’t a derogatory term. The Lord’s Supper is a symbolic meal. I understand your nervousness to use either of those terms, but the goal of these discussions is not to win but to gain truth. Put down the rhetoric. A temporary abstaining from certain foods is a diet. To say that their are mysterious divine benefits for it makes it a sacred diet. If I were you I’d go with symbolic fast, but I honestly cannot express to you in stronger terms without engendering strife, I suspect, that partial fast is a ridiculous term.

So there’s a lot of abandoned arguments for this sacred diet up there but I still haven’t seen a reason to do it. All you’ve done is tried to redefine fasts, quote an English dictionary, point to a series of things in the Bible that aren’t fasts and act like they are, tried to argue that we can lessen Sabbath Feasts, and then argue that these diets recapitulate Christ’s season of fasting even after acknowledging that a series of fasts and corporate prayer accomplish that. Oh, and I forgot the defense of “nobody says I can’t fast this way.” (aside, of course, from the words themselves and the example of the Bible).

As for Guido’s “benefits” it is true that I said sacred diets lend themselves to abuse in a way that fasts do not, but his “benefits” were so off base that I could not have invented a better examples to serve my purpose. I don’t want to argue that Lent is responsible for those errors, my point has always been the way Lent is done is responsible for those errors.

Now, to be clear, I think there is something to consider about sacred diets and I’m open to a Lenten practice that includes them, but we have to clear away the bad ideas, the harmful practices, and return to a much more Biblically sound method.

June 23, 2010 at 12:02 am

Remy

Guido, to be clear I wouldn’t want to castigate the early church for its practices. But I can talk about the right way to draw a horse without ridiculing a child for a poor attempt. I truly believe that God is pleased with the efforts of the church throughout history even as it is growing out of childish understanding.

And as I said above, at least I think I’ve said this above, God certainly is more gracious to someone who fasts incorrectly with the correct heart, than one who fasts correctly with an incorrect heart.

Like Matt mentioned above, someone who didn’t tithe but starts giving 2% can be encouraged.

It’s good to add how people have been blessed by the practice as well. I believe it, but I continue to be amazed at how people are not screwed up despite awful awful things. Start talking spanking stories and you’ll hear some harrowing stories, but coming from people who love their parents and hold their discipline in high regard. I believe that sort of thing happens all the time and I believe God works in those things and gets amazing results from horrendous situations.

I’m pretty sure we’re all on board on this point. I’m also pretty sure that we agree that the church’s tradition is rife with gnostic, anti-body teaching. My point has been that it stems from somewhere and I see clear ties to the Lenten practice, ties that we’ve all seen the abuse of.

Self-flagellation is something that I don’t see too many people calling for or defending as a sacred act, and yet it has a tradition in the church and a clear testimony. Thankfully, it’s -broadly speaking- gone. I see the incorrect practice of fasting to be along similar lines. Certainly it causes some damage, and I won’t deny the benefits you’ve seen. But my view is how much more effective it would be to have the church fast correctly.

The ancient church was an absolute mess, a bloody mess, and it conquered the world. Hallelujah! But just because God can hit straight with a crooked stick won’t cause me to praise a crooked stick.

It’s not arrogant, it’s not dismissive of the church or her traditions, it’s a matter of being ever faithful to the Word of God. It’s about growing in knowledge. I think we agree on all of these things.

June 23, 2010 at 12:02 pm

Matthew N. Petersen

Remy,

When it seemed like you were against Lent, I argued for the importance of Lent. I did for a minute argue from linguistics, but I then realized it’s merely semantics. The linguistic argument is only important if we were arguing the Bible only requires a partial fast, and not a sacred hunger strike, or if you were a strict regulativist. But neither of those is true. So the linguistic argument is pointless.

You whole argument depends on the wholly unargued point that if I eat one grain of rice a day, there is nothing of the character of fast left in my action.

You insist on novel terminology, and pretend that the only objection I may have to it is that I’d concede the rhetorical point. But you overlook the point that I have made several times, that they are inaccurate. Why would I want to adopt silly terminology that is completely inaccurate and which has not been argued for at all but only insisted upon, insisted upon so strongly that you ignore any argument that does not adopt your silly terminology.

Moreover, I have argued that the terminology is inaccurate. A partial tithe isn’t a symbolic tithe it is an incomplete tithe. And neither Lenten fasts nor Lenten meals are treated as symbolic. I can understand what a symbolic fast is–if say we canned peaches on Ash Wednesday, set the peaches on the table, and said “we are fasting from these till Easter” before dinner each night. But that isn’t what Lent is. It’s bad and inaccurate terminology.

And as I said above, Lenten fasts are no more sacred diets than full fasts are sacred hunger strikes. It’s poor terminology merely insisted upon. The only argument you have given for it is “There is a word for abstaining for certain foods for a time. It’s called a diet.” Which is the exact same sort of argument you dismiss as irrelevant when I say “And in English the proper word…is ‘fast’.”

Moreover, your tithe comment is aside the point. You concede that a incomplete tithe has something of the character of a tithe, but argue the word shouldn’t be used. But then your point is merely semantic, and though perhaps correct, is of no relevance to the discussion at hand. Because the word tithe means 10% fast must mean complete fast? Furthermore, it is proper to say something like “that is an incomplete tithe” and if there were no English word which would could be used for an incomplete tithe, tithe would be the correct word to use. And in the case at hand, there is no fitting word, for “sacred diet” is no more accurate than “sacred hunger strike.”

The crux of the issue is, are partial fasts of the same character as fasts? The answer that 100% of the human population gives, for one exception out of the countless billions does not add up to anything but noise, is yes. A partial fast is not a substitute for a fast, but it is a type of fast. Everyone but you knows this. Buddhists know it–they say the Buddha fasted by eating one grain of rice a day. Muslims know it–they call Ramadan a fast. Christians know it–we call Lent a fast.

Again, the answer is yes, a partial fast is of the same character as a complete fast. A complete fast possesses nothing a partial fast does not possess. The difference is in a negative.

Or again, you admit as much in your post to Yonke. “Like Matt mentioned above, someone who didn’t tithe but starts giving 2% can be encouraged.” But this only makes sense if they are doing the same sort of thing as tithing. If they are doing something completely different it wouldn’t make any more sense to encourage them than encourage them for breathing.

Moreover, you seem to feel free to deny basic basic typology as if it is obviously false. Read just about any commentary on Matthew and they will tell you that there is a typological link between Israel’s wandering in the wilderness and Jesus’ fast. Here’s Dr. Leithart’s sermon outline from then.

But my point isn’t that there is a prefiguration of Christ’s fast that is not a complete fast. My point is that a fast is a recapitulation of Christ’s passion through suffering and affliction of the soul, brought about by a restriction of diet. Christ’s own fast is an anticipation of his passion. But we know that there are other ways to anticipate Christ’s passion than complete complete restriction of diet.

You have also completely ignored the arguments that argue that a season of fasting is desirable. I’m all for having intermittent fasts during Lent–I in fact suggested it to you above, though you sneered when I suggested it–but there needs to be a constant spirit of fast during the fasting season, just as there needs to be constant festivity during the festive season. And one effective way of creating this is through a partial fast. Though I haven’t seen you begin to imagine what a partial fast would be like.

June 24, 2010 at 11:48 am

Matthew N. Petersen

Matt,

Remy’s point isn’t that fasting is bad, but that fasting must be total, and that eating anything so damages the thing that there is questionable value in it.

His point is, in the first instance, linguistic. The word “fast” means, in scripture, a complete abstinence from food. And since we don’t have authority to change what God has established, we don’t have the authority to make a fast something other than a complete fast. Thus if any food is eaten it isn’t a fast anymore, at all, and should not be called a fast. It is perhaps a “symbolic” fast, or perhaps it should be called a “sacred diet” but it isn’t a fast. And any argument that applies to fasting is no longer applicable.

On the last point I wonder if any argument at all is any longer applicable, as the arguments I have made in favor of Lenten fasting have not turned on the word “fast”, but on the contrast with feasts. Yet these arguments have been dismissed since our feast is the Eucharist. But the dismissal is only relevant if the Lenten fast (or the fast in general) is or should be on the level of the Eucharist, not the Sabbath and Easter feasts. Somehow the fact that I use “feast” to refer to the Sabbath feasts is a point against me, though I cannot for the life of my understand why. If the Lenten fast were on the same level as the Eucharist it would make sense, but no one has ever said it was.

On the earlier point, I, and I believe nearly everyone else, would concede that in the first instance “fast” includes a total abstinence from food. But words can and are extended to include similar things to their primary meaning. Higher notes, for instance, are not physically higher, but we still call them higher (probably because they are higher on the staff). So there shouldn’t be any problem extending the word “fast” to include partial fasts so long as:

1) There is no confusion of meaning. So long as the primary meaning doesn’t get obscured.
2) A partial fast is the same sort of thing as a full fast.

I have no idea why someone would say that something completely different is attempted if there is any eating at all. I have argued that a partial fast is the same sort of thing as a fast, though the arguments have been dismissed as not even worth answering; I have not however received any arguments that it is not the same sort of thing, except to be told that it should be obvious.

But I’m sympathetic to the first concern, though it doesn’t in fact seem to be a problem. And there is no appropriate English word, so the alternatives are a neologism, or some inaccurate phrase, like “symbolic fast.” But if there were confusion of meaning, I would be sympathetic to using some different word, provided it communicated that a partial fast were the same sort of thing as a fast.

But the language arguments are really aside the point. What we should call a partial fast is an important question, but it should be consequent on a discovery of what a partial fast is and what it’s benefits are. Adam didn’t name the animals and then meet them, he met them, understood them, and then named them.

And the fact is, a partial fast is the same sort of thing as a full fast, as experience, if nothing else, shows. And so for the same sort of reasons that we fast we can and depending on how we mean it, even should, have partial fasts. The same end can cause us to fast as to partially fast.

Moreover, partial fasts have something a full fast do not: they can be regularly and corporately extended through time. And thus they are able to do something a full fast cannot.

June 24, 2010 at 12:08 pm

Matthew N. Petersen

Remy,

They say you do not understand your opponent unless you can summarize his position. I believe I have just given a relatively cogent and accurate summary of your position (perhaps not). Can you give a similar summary of my position?

June 25, 2010 at 1:02 pm

Remy

If you’re willing to call it an incomplete fast I would be satisfied.

My point is not that an incomplete fast does nothing. Someone who gives 2% is doing something even if it isn’t a tithe. In some cases that would be a fine first step, in others it would be high handed sin.

But it isn’t a tithe, a tithe represents something that goes beyond a numbers thing. A tithe says something that 2% doesn’t. 2% doesn’t say two percent of what a tithe says, it says nothing. Not that it does nothing, not that God cannot or will not bless someone, it just -at best- says nothing.

Eating one grain of rice a day says something quite different than fasting. Sure, it’s like fasting, it might feel like fasting, it looks a whole lot like fasting, but it isn’t. It isn’t strictly a food thing, but that doesn’t mean that the food element doesn’t matter.

This is what I see you saying, that it doesn’t matter. Eat, not eat, that it’s all the same. Or rather, you keep saying “same sort of thing” but we aren’t called to do the same sort of thing. Where is that every okay? Pray to Dagon, pray to Yahweh, same sort of thing. Wine, grape juice, same sort of thing. Handshake, holy kiss, same sort of thing. I have a problem with this.

Marching around Jericho six times does nothing, blowing kazoos instead of trumpets does nothing, eating deer kabobs and sugar cubes in the wilderness while wearing bear skins says nothing. It doesn’t matter that they’re positively the same, it doesn’t matter that it looks similar, that it feels similar, that it is partial seven circles round, partial wind instruments, partial “fasting”. Because it isn’t about those things, it is about speaking the word God tells us to speak, it is about enacting the word God tells us to enact.

I can recapitulate Christ’s forty days by doing things God requires. It almost looks like you’re arguing we can’t recapitulate it unless we do an incomplete fast.

If you don’t like symbolic, how about typological? Locust and honey are a typological meal. Chicken and beans are not. Bread and wine are typological. Cupcakes and Coca Cola are not. It is about speaking in Symbol, the language of the Word.

I have an understanding of the practice of incomplete fasting that fits into the maturation of the church. That has no bearing on my arguments for the definition of fasting. Everyone grants my arguments, the church’s leadership, even unto today, have practiced fasting. The difference between us is that I am not impressed that the church has seen fit to loosen this meaning (or to speak more neutrally) the church has added on a similar practice under fasting. My contention is that this has no Biblical warrant and no Biblical root. My understanding is that this was a watering down for laypeople, an attempt to get the masses into some form of fasting, which I am happy with, but I want to move on. I want to take the training wheels off, I want to remove the scaffolding.

Of course, we all are assuming that the Church has officially declared incomplete fasting to be of similar benefits. I would like to see what was actually said. I know that St. Benedict held the fasts to be to the ninth hour, which, intentional or not, aligns with the Hebraic day and is therefore a fast. Since his Rule is the standard for the Medieval age that means a majority of fasting during the Middle Ages was done correctly. I’m wondering whether the shift from that to the modern concept of day has lead to this view of incomplete fasts. It’s one of those areas that reveals how poorly we understand this practice.

Like I said, I think there’s a very interesting conversation to be had about how to recapitulate the life of Christ in typological meals. But I find the current Lenten practice to be too lax, too vague, too misleading, too immature, too misguided, and in general lacking in Biblical potency. But better to walk with a crutch than to not walk at all. Lent has been a fertile pen to think in while I’ve studied this issue. I am grateful for it and thank God for how He’s used this practice to grow up the church. But I want more.

June 25, 2010 at 1:46 pm

Matthew N. Petersen

First, I have said repeatedly that incomplete fasts alone are not sufficient. I even said that if it were really an issue that people got confused, I would be in favor of using a different word for an incomplete fast. (I don’t think the word is perfect, but it is good enough.) I’ll say it again here. Incomplete fasts are not a substitute for complete fasts. And again. Incomplete fasts are not a substitute for complete fasts.

If I were to define fast for a dictionary it would say something lie:

1) A complete abstinence from food. This sort is commanded in Scripture.
2) By extension, an abstention from some foods.

I don’t know I have much more time to discuss this, but what do you think it is that a fast does? Why do we fast? Is it merely because it is commanded? Are we merely school children doing something we don’t understand because it is commanded? Why do we fast? I think if you can answer this question we would get somewhere.

Or do you really think that fasting does something only because God has told us to fast? It’s like marching around Jericho seven times–in itself useless and pointless and without meaning, but at God’s command useful? Is fasting not something like eating that God has commanded because he has already made it good. Eating isn’t an empty act given meaning by God’s direct command, eating is a powerful act, which God commands because he has made it good. Is fasting more like marching around Jericho, or like eating? Is it empty in itself, but given meaning by the command; or is it created good and commanded because it is good?

This also relates to the question of the nature of fasting. What is there in a full fast that is not in an incomplete fast? Or naturally, what is there in a full fast that is not in an incomplete fast?

Because, the reason for an incomplete fast–and you seem to consistently miss this paragraph–is that it allows us to fast a season. You yourself said a fasting season is too much. And I granted that some full fasts during Lent would be good–as is traditional. But just as the festal seasons must be festal even when not celebrating a feast–as you said–so the spirit of fasting must fill the whole season. Otherwise it is pointless to call it a fasting season. And the only way that can be accomplished, at least that I can see, is through an incomplete fast. Not as a substitute for a full fast any more than our little additions to the festal spirit are a substitute for the Easter feast; but as a way of extending a small fast through time.

You also seem to have some misunderstandings of Lent. It is true that current Lenten practice is lax, vague, etc. But this stems mostly from the reforms following Vatican II. It is very modern, and not at all traditional. As you yourself said, the Eastern Lent is not, in your eyes, too lax and vague; but too strict, and too specific.

June 26, 2010 at 5:51 pm

Remy

I know you say that incomplete fasts do not satisfy the directive to fast, but when you say that there’s no positive difference between a fast and an incomplete fast I wonder why you think they won’t satisfy.

The way I see things, man constantly wants to supplant Biblical things with their own inventions. Anytime something other than what can be argued from Scripture starts cropping up I get nervous, especially when it takes away from the things we’re commanded to do.

I think it’s fine to have your own traditions, personal, family, cultural, and I’m grateful for many of the traditions handed down by the church. But these need to be separated from what all of God’s people are called to do across history.

As to what fast does, first I’d like to point out that a sevenfold circumambulation is not “useless and pointless and without meaning”. I agree that it isn’t part of the design features of creation; meaning, we could not reenact Jericho around the fence of the White House and expect results. Leastwise, I wouldn’t think so. But to answer your question, I think fasting is a powerful act. I described it above as a weapon, a scalpel. That’s why I don’t think it can be tinkered with. It does something nothing else can. I feel the same way about the Holy Kiss.

As for the fasting season, I have noted it and I continue to say that a series of fasts and directed corporate prayer during Lent reenacts the life of Christ. I don’t see any reason to say that only an incomplete fast can do that. I haven’t seen any reasons to ever do an incomplete fast.

Perhaps I’ve misunderstood your point about feast. If you’re equating incomplete fasts with celebrations like Valentine’s day and July 4th then my only objection is that they not get blown out of proportion.

But even granting this doesn’t get you out of several objections I’ve raised. Why can’t someone give up soda for forty days? It’s like saying I have to take my wife out to dinner, a movie, give her red roses and chocolates in a heart shaped box for Valentine’s Day.

If it’s really something we elect to do you can’t object to how people do it. It’s all the same. Just as we’re not to judge how people keep the feast you don’t have any place to judge how people keep the incomplete fast.

As a side note, I don’t think a forty day fast is too much, but that the church as a whole is not called to that.

Another note, the Eastern Lent is vague and lax in that it isn’t aimed properly. If we’re reenacting the suffering of Christ then to act like that’s accomplished by abstaining from certain foods and making ourselves feel sad then it’s a horrible truncating of Christ’s actions. Lent isn’t about feeling sad. But that’s the sort of thinking you get when you start tinkering with what we’re called to do.

June 27, 2010 at 7:39 pm

Matthew N. Petersen

First, I haven’t heard you say anything intelligent about the Eastern Lent. You simply aren’t accurate in your assessment of them.

Other than that, you act like Church services and fast days is something new. Yes, Lent of any sort divorced from services is nothing. That’s why it isn’t divorced from additional services. See for instance, Matt’s comments about the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts. Lent is supposed to be a time of prayer aided by fasting. You aren’t saying anything new by saying there should be Church services. We agree there.

Likewise, you aren’t saying there should be complete fasts. It is traditional to fast, for instance, on Good Friday.

Would something like giving up a coke be bad? Not in itself. Just as I can’t say “you should drink good wine, not Budweiser for Easter” so I can’t say “don’t give up coke.” But that doesn’t mean there isn’t some standard. If someone ate plain rice and drank Bud on Easter and called that a feast, I would say “no it isn’t.”

Similarly here. I can’t say “that particular thing is not at all like a fast.” But that doesn’t mean that a pastor can’t say “no, that wouldn’t be a good fast for you.”

I still find your objection that incomplete fasts aren’t directly contained in scripture bizarre. I have reasoned from Scripture–we should seek to recapitulate Christ’s suffering for a season. And you aren’t a regulativist.

The problem that I see with having only some complete fasts is two fold.

1) For some people that is too strict. People with physically demanding jobs, say construction workers, couldn’t participate. Likewise hyperglycemics and diabetics couldn’t participate.

But more importantly, 2) I wouldn’t want to celebrate the Easter season as just a series of feasts. There should be some sort of higher festal spirit between the feasts themselves. It should be a festal season, not a series of feasts during a season. We aren’t very good at this, and need to work on it; but that doesn’t mean it isn’t true. But similarly, the fasting season should be a season of fasting. There should be some sort of fast that fills in between the fasts. And it builds well toward Easter that way, and gives us a real easy ability to celebrate Easter. We finally get back that thing we haven’t had for so long, and makes it easier to celebrate Easter as a season–we haven’t had any wine for a long time, now we drink lots, particularly in opposition to having given it up for Lent.

June 28, 2010 at 11:48 pm

Remy

I’d still like to hear why you think an incomplete fast won’t satisfy the directive if there’s no positive difference between a fast and an incomplete fast.

I’m pretty sure the Bible says not to judge another man’s feast. Perhaps beer and rice is a feast to that person. You can perhaps help that person grow, widen his idea of feasting, but you cannot say that he isn’t feasting.
Fasts, however, are easy to identify. Whereas incomplete fasts are unidentifiable. There’s no standard. There’s no model. To each his own.

My argument hasn’t been that “incomplete fasts aren’t directly contained in Scripture” it’s that I haven’t seen a biblical argument for them. Our hermeneutic cannot be “whatever isn’t explicitly forbidden is okay”. I just need good reason to do it.

Your last defense is that it’s the only thing you can think of that recapitulates Christ’s suffering. I’ve said fasting does that, corporate prayer does that. Abstaining from certain foods, sleeping outdoors, walking barefoot on asphalt, cartwheeling on gravel, all of that might, I suppose, recapitulate Christ’s suffering, but I certainly don’t want to emphasize that sort of thing.

As for the problems you have with fasting (you should really take this up with God, you know) I’ll reiterate. Fasting isn’t for everybody and there are seasons when someone will not be able to fast. That’s fine. It’s very American of you to what to do something everyone can do but it isn’t necessary. Might as well have puppets for the elderly and disabled so that they can “kneel”.

This drive for “participation” is what is behind women getting into the pulpit. It’s not preaching it’s “sharing”, it’s not fasting it’s “incomplete fasting”. I just don’t see the need to invent that sort of thing so everybody can get a purple ribbon. But this sort of response is more of a dodge. You aren’t arguing for “incomplete fasts” for diabetics, you’re arguing them for everybody.

As for your second comment, I agree whole heartedly about your Easter points. As for this “fasting season” if one of those exists I would argue that it should be a fasting season and not a “something that’s close to a fasting season”. But we aren’t talking about a fasting season, we’re talking about Lent.

As I’ve said time and time again, Christ’s life can be recapitulated (if that is indeed your concern) by fasting and by prayer. We don’t need some watered down version of fasting. If someone can’t fast, that’s fine. But they probably can join in corporate prayer. If they cannot be involved in that, then they can take up the suffering of the world in private prayer.

Imagine this, let’s say someone can’t make church for a season. Or that church is too strict or too hard. So someone comes up with something that is like church. They spread the service out over the week, a song every other day with a daily five minute Bible reading, and a ten minute sermon that you can download and listen to on your iPod at your convenience. Would you think this is a good idea? Would you defend it by saying it’s no where forbidden?

July 2, 2010 at 11:22 pm

Matthew N. Petersen

Maybe I’ll have time soon to put up a reply, but I thought this quote was apropos:

Christ fasted a little before His temptation, we before Easter. As far as the fasting days are concerned it is the same, but the difference in the seasons is no little one. He armed Himself with them against temptation; but to us this fast is symbolic of dying with Christ, and it is a purification in preparation for the festival. And He fasted absolutely for forty days, for He was God; but we measure our fasting by our power, even though some are led by zeal to rush beyond their strength.

St. Gregory Nazianzus (reposed 390 AD).

July 22, 2010 at 2:11 pm

Matthew N. Petersen

Daniel 10:2

Reformed fear of fasting

Reformed Objections to Fasting

The Devil’s Greatest Triumph Since Luther

So What About Those Objections?

Give it a Try

Like this:

Blogroll

61 comments

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Follow “Homesick No More”