Lent: Giving Something Up or Adding Something?
Somehow Christians managed to survive for over three hundred years without Lent. The original Apostles didn’t keep Lent. The Apostle Paul didn’t keep Lent. The early church “Fathers,” such as Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Origen, never kept Lent. My goodness, how did they all survive without Lent!
The formal observance of Lent as a forty day period of fasting and penitence arose in Rome in the 4th century. Fine. Religious observances are a good thing. Lent can be a good thing. We go with Jesus, so to speak, into the wilderness for forty days of fasting, prayer, and contemplation. This is a good thing.
It is good to remind ourselves of our finitude and limitations. It’s good to remind ourselves that we are sinners! We fall short of God’s standard of love. We need forgiveness. I’m on board with all that. I get it.
But people have this habit of giving something up for Lent. I’ve never given up anything during Lent in my entire life, even when I was a pastor. I don’t believe in giving things up for the sake of giving things up, and then taking them back again as soon as Lent is over! It strikes me as artificial and contrived. For example, I know some people who give up chocolate “for Lent.” Woo-hoo! Christ died on the cross and I’m giving up chocolate for forty days! Pretty impressive!
No, Lent is a time to take something on, to add something—as a sacrifice, as a way of breaking out of our entrenched selfishness. So, add more prayer time to your life. Add more people to your prayer list. Add a visit to someone who is lonely. Write a real letter to someone to cheer them up. Do something extra for Lent, and do it in the name of God.
I don’t think God needs us to give up a lot of stuff. I think God would be content to see us add a few more things that really make a difference in someone else’s life. That, to me, is Lent.
The whole fasting thing . . . it’s never impressed me. Fast all you want. I won’t.
February 21, 2010
February 12, 2010
Thoughts on the Apostle Paul . . .
A few words on the Apostle Paul, my favorite Christian theologian. This is isn't a head trip. It's about understanding freedom and the radical message of Christ for today.
Jewish theologian, Samuel Sandmel, wrote, “Paul did not create Christianity, he re-created it."
I have discovered that Jews are often the best interpreters of Paul. Why? Paul was a Jew, a rabbi, and the framework of Paul’s thinking is largely Jewish, including his apocalyptic world view. Paul never saw himself as deviating from “true Judaism.” To him, Jesus Christ had been revealed as the crucified Messiah, raised from the dead and exalted as Lord. Paul saw a continuous line from Abraham through Moses and the prophets to Christ and beyond. In his view, those Jews who do not accept the gospel are the ones who have deviated and gone astray.
Nevertheless, Paul is the great non-conformist of the early Christian church. We cannot place him in Palestinian Jewish Christianity. Paul represents Hellenistic (Greek-speaking) Christianity. Were it not for Paul, Christianity would have remained a sect within Judaism. Paul was called by Christ to take the gospel to the Gentiles, and this could be called “a second beginning” for Christianity.
This is the main reason we see such tension in Paul’s life and letters. He was breaking new ground, deviating from the Jewish Christian path into the wider Gentile world. Most of his enemies and opponents were Christians. Most of his arguments were with people inside the Christian movement. Thus in Paul we see the stress of a fledging religious movement trying to define itself. Paul is the “genius” behind Hellenistic Christianity, and he paid a price for this.
Paul is interesting, though not always likable. He is impressive, though not always convincing. He is wrong at times, but he is never shallow.
I'm convinced that the institutional church has never understood Paul and his gospel of freedom in Christ. The only way the institutional church can use Paul is by misinterpreting him! Otherwise Paul is too de-stabilizing. Church bureaucrats must water him down. Whenever Christianity gets dull and boring, you can be sure we've lost touch with Paul and that we don't understand him at all.
Jewish theologian, Samuel Sandmel, wrote, “Paul did not create Christianity, he re-created it."
I have discovered that Jews are often the best interpreters of Paul. Why? Paul was a Jew, a rabbi, and the framework of Paul’s thinking is largely Jewish, including his apocalyptic world view. Paul never saw himself as deviating from “true Judaism.” To him, Jesus Christ had been revealed as the crucified Messiah, raised from the dead and exalted as Lord. Paul saw a continuous line from Abraham through Moses and the prophets to Christ and beyond. In his view, those Jews who do not accept the gospel are the ones who have deviated and gone astray.
Nevertheless, Paul is the great non-conformist of the early Christian church. We cannot place him in Palestinian Jewish Christianity. Paul represents Hellenistic (Greek-speaking) Christianity. Were it not for Paul, Christianity would have remained a sect within Judaism. Paul was called by Christ to take the gospel to the Gentiles, and this could be called “a second beginning” for Christianity.
This is the main reason we see such tension in Paul’s life and letters. He was breaking new ground, deviating from the Jewish Christian path into the wider Gentile world. Most of his enemies and opponents were Christians. Most of his arguments were with people inside the Christian movement. Thus in Paul we see the stress of a fledging religious movement trying to define itself. Paul is the “genius” behind Hellenistic Christianity, and he paid a price for this.
Paul is interesting, though not always likable. He is impressive, though not always convincing. He is wrong at times, but he is never shallow.
I'm convinced that the institutional church has never understood Paul and his gospel of freedom in Christ. The only way the institutional church can use Paul is by misinterpreting him! Otherwise Paul is too de-stabilizing. Church bureaucrats must water him down. Whenever Christianity gets dull and boring, you can be sure we've lost touch with Paul and that we don't understand him at all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
