All Southern Baptists (to my knowledge) would afford me the liberty not to observe Lent. In a development that most of our predecessors would find surprising (bizarre?), however, an increasing number of Southern Baptists embrace the practice of Lent for themselves, or even encourage it in others as a good, spiritually meaningful practice.
I’ll be uncharacteristically brief about this: Lent is not in the Bible, nor anything resembling it. Movement toward Lent is movement away from the idea that the New Testament should give us the pattern for ecclesiastical celebrations or individual spiritual formation.
I’ll fully grant that Lent is not the first item to move us in that direction. It joins a number of other items on the calendar of the generic Southern Baptist church but absent from scripture—Mother’s Day, Father’s Day, Independence Day, and Veterans Day come to mind. Nonetheless, I argue that having taken some steps in a bad direction is no good reason to continue further along the path. Also, Lent is alone among these events in claiming for itself that it is of important spiritual value.
Fasting, repentance, and reflection are good Christian pursuits. Some would argue that Lent, if it encourages these things, ought to be embraced, or at the very least, not eschewed. I would counter that whatever benefit may accrue from these activities, one must tote up in the other column the harm done by the presumption that we lost something important—that it was a mistake—when we moved to a more biblical ecclesiology, including a more biblical ecclesiological calendar.
I do not observe lent, but I do have a question. In your encouragement to move to a more biblical ecclesiological calendar, would you suggest we also give up Christmas, Good Friday, and Easter?
Christmas, Good Friday, and Easter are commemorations of events that actually are in the Bible. True, the way of celebrating them is not given, nor is the time nor frequency of celebrating them, but that the Incarnation happened and is worthy of celebration, that the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus happened and are worthy of celebration—those things are expressly biblical.
And we generally do not mandate any particular form of celebration for these events. A great many churches do nothing for Good Friday but close their offices. Different churches celebrate Easter on different dates. All we can really say about Christmas and Easter is that Jesus was born, was crucified, was raised from the dead, and Christians celebrate these biblical events at a similar season of the year.
One significant difference I will mention to close this comment: Evangelicalism generally derides rather than extols Christmas and Easter attendance as spiritual formation. These new Lenten Evangelicals promote the celebration of an unbiblical season as valuable for spiritual formation. I think the complete recipe for spiritual formation is in the New Testament.
Jesus’ 40 days in the desert led by the Spirit to face temptations common to man and to overcome by depending on God.
I am anti-sacrament and am fully Protestant/Evangelical, but I see no problem with the liturgical calendar mirroring sections of Scripture and embodying the story of the gospels. Does Lent mean what I just compared it to? Not necessarily. But, if you set aside an extended period to fast and repent and learn dependence upon God and you use Jesus as your model, I do not see how it is “unbiblical.” If you do it with Catholic sensibilities in a sacramental sense, then okay. I get that. But, I think that there can be good, grace-filled, Biblical ways to practice Lenten renunciation for a time.
As a life-long Baptist I agree with Alan Cross.
Great question, Todd; although I don’t observe Lent either. Quite foreign to my Arkansas Baptist background. Like Bart, I am beginning to see Lent get some traction in Baptist & Evangelical circles.
Met with two pastors at a Papadeaux Restaraunt in Dallas just this past Tuesday. We met at 3: 30 in part because we knew that we’d have no problem getting seated. Much to our surprise, the place was jammed packed. We had to park on the extreme back forty. When finally seated, we asked our waiter, why the large crowd at 3:30? He said it was “Fat Tuesday”; never heard of that Holiday. He then explained it was the day before Lent begins & everyone would come & eat & drink to ’till their hearts were content, before they gave up their more choice & tresured foods & drinks for Lent. And of course by “drink” they meant alcohol. The three off us had Baptist folks to stop by our table to speak. Some of them were there to celebrate Fat Tuesday, and they were going to participate in Lent. I was really, really, schoked.
Dwight,
If the idea of “fat Tuesday” bothers you – make sure you are not in New Orleans on that day!
Tarheel, unfortunately, I experience a Fat Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday….?
That’s hilarious.
Lol.
You are absolutely right. I was born and raised into an Italalian Roman Catholic family who did not read God’s Word because of church teachings. When I gave my heart to Jesus I received Life. Lent is a Catholic teaching and observance. I should, because of what He did for me, be daily giving up for Him, as Luke 9:23 says,and pick up my cross and follow Him and His Word daily.
The argument in your last paragraph is certainly one to be considered. Still, the Lenten fast is modeled after Jesus’ 40 day fast in the wilderness, so it too has a biblical origin and fasting itself is a spiritual discipline most evangelicals affirm. I guess I don’t see how observing Lent is so markedly different than observing other dates on the liturgical calendar — just newer.
If the Lenten fast were modeled after Jesus’ forty-day fast in the wilderness, Lenten Evangelicals would be much, much skinnier.
Touché
I hear a lot about “fasts” these days and people get to eat all kinds of great foods on their “fasts.” I always thought fasting was not eating but I think fast has become a new term for “dieting for spiritual purposes.”
Bart are you simply saying “regulative principle”
I guess it’s sort of a regulative principle of discipleship rather than a regulative principle of worship.
That’s exactly what I thought of Mike when I read the article.
Interesting. This used to be a source of conservative Southern Baptists’ criticism of moderates. Now, I see observances of Lent in some sense in a lot of regular, conservative SB churches, proving (perhaps) that SBC cons are just slow mods and libs.
I never did Lent or anything close to lent.
I personally gave up Lent for Lent many years ago.
😉
First, Brother Bart, you succeeded in being “uncharacteristically brief”. 😉
Second, Amen and amen.
Third, I provide another old Southern Baptist quote: “…The average Baptist takes no stock of Easter, and the like, not that he does not believe in the resurrection; not that people may not observe days; but, like Paul, he is skittish of these extras and prefers the plain, old, level Jordan road, with a steady incline up, all the way till it reaches the city of God.” — J. B. Gambrell, from The Baptist Standard, May 1907
Amen, Bro Gambrell!
I’ll have you know lent is in the Bible:
And this is the form of the release: Every creditor who has “lent” anything to his neighbor shall release it; he shall not require it of his neighbor or his brother, because it is called the Lord’s release. -Deuteronomy 15:2
“You shall not charge interest to your brother—interest on money or food or anything that is “lent” out at interest. -Deuteronomy 23:19
Therefore I also have “lent” him to the Lord; as long as he lives he shall be “lent” to the Lord.” So they worshiped the Lord there. -1 Samuel 1:28
David R. Brumbelow
To me Lent implies the work of Christ is something we should be sorry about to the point of sacrificing instead of rejoicing about because the sacrifice was made in full by Christ in the cross. The only formative thing I can see Lent contributing to is self-righteousness and pride. To OBEY is still better than sacrifice….the thought of over indulging in everything over Mardi Gras, carb overloading without a 5k to run the next day on Fat Tuesday and then giving some silly little thing up for Lent diminishes sin, salvation, the cross and repentance. Never observed it…not a fan!
Allen,
Not agreeing to Fat the idea of Tuesday, but Lent could be observed with this is mind: Jesus gave up His place in Heaven to walk a rough road and then suffer and die for us on the cross.
And He tells us to pick up our cross and follow Him. Lent fasting ~could~ be a time where one fasts and prays and reexamines their life in this material world in the light of the cross.
To obey is better than sacrifice. But many times obeying is sacrificing one’s wants and desires and repenting of one’s ways and habits that, in light of the cross, are selfish and not honoring of God.
Lent begins, if I remember my Catholic upbringing, with Ash Wednesday, which, I believe, is meant to signify humility before God, humility and repentance. And the American church sure needs a good dose of humility and repentance.
To set aside a day in a Community of Faith to pray, fast and reflect on Jesus’ sacrifice might have value…perhaps it could be included in the observance of Good Friday. But to give up chocolate, TV, video games or some other silly thing that is not vital to life to begin with and feel proud if you have enough will power to do it for 40 days does not encourage anyone to reflect, pray or draw closer to Jesus. It just gives them something to help them feel superior to others….not much humility in that.
Allen, with all due respect…
“…does not encourage anyone to reflect, pray or draw closer to Jesus. It just gives them something to help them feel superior to others….not much humility in that.”
How do you know this?
Wouldn’t Rom 14:5-6 apply here (rather directly, in fact), whether you’re pro or anti Lent?
I would suggest reading well past verse 6.
But Bart is not telling people to not observe Lent, he is suggesting they don’t.
This gives them a place to examine their own heart and motivations [especially if they go that excellent passage Ben brought up].
If they are just observing Lent to justify an extravagant self indulgent lifestyle the other 315 days of the year, maybe between Bart’s suggestion and the Word, they will repent.
By their master they stand or fall, but we are our brother’s keeper.
Parsonsmike beat me to the punch. I spent some brain cells writing the title.
Thanks, Bart!
And if people were merely following Jesus’ example in fasting, we’d likely not hear about it nor any ashes.
Bingo!
One of the great appeals of Baptists to me as a young teenager was the authenticity of a religious group trying to stay as close as possible to the founding principles and doctrines.
I do not get worked up about Mother’s Day, Father’s Day, Easter, Christmas etc. I enjoy them. I do not celebrate them because they are required or suggested. People who avoid these days are basically kill joys.
But the practice of Lent, self-denial for a 40 day season to get closer to Christ etc. is nowhere in the Bible.
Lent and related practices strike me as creations of ecclesiastical traditions and rules.
I am concerned that Baptists are becoming more comfortable with the local church looking like a mini Catholic Church, with rules, authority, submission, church made law etc. Our churches begin to look like something other than Baptist churches when we do this. And we end up talking about “sacraments” and doing things like Lent.
Other churches can pursue this.
Let’s pursue simplicity and major themes. Not ecclesiastical complexity, even if it sounds and looks really cool to some people.
A Methodist pastor turns to his Baptist pastor friend and asks, “So what are you giving up for lent?” The Baptist pastor responds, “Papist tradition.”
I put up this Facebook status once. “I’m giving up meaningless religious ritual for Lent.” It offended some of my friends from other traditions.
Yeah, I stole it from a meme that a friend posted on Facebook. There was at least one person offended by his post.
I, of course, went ahead and posted the meme. Frivolity ensued.
Well done.
I agree that Lent is not found in the New Testament, but neither are Experiencing God, Beth Moore videos, or Matt Chandler podcasts. I would say the same thing about Lent as I would about those other things- if these materials or activities are helpful in drawing you into
a closer relationship with God and are conforming you into Christ’s image than you should pursue them. None of them are a replacement for reading and living out the instructions found in the New Testament, but they are a supplement to it.
My question is what makes Lent different than these other things? Maybe it is my own ignorance, but I don’t see a difference in saying that practicing the Lenten season has been helpful for many people attempting follow the NT pattern of discipleship and and saying that reading the Lifeway daily devotional has really helped me to grow in my walk with the Lord, except that one has a much more characteristically Baptist flavor to it.
To say it a different way, I see Lent as an optional means to the end of Biblical discipleship, not a replacement of it. In this way it is very similar to many things that are commonly found in Baptist churches. I am curious to see why people who view it as something to be avoided think that it is fundamentally different.
I really should proof read better so that I don’t have to nit pick my own posts, but I am posting from work.-
I do not mean to say that any of these activities directly conform you into Christ’s image, despite what I said in the first paragraph. I just mean that they are tools that God can use.
Nathan,
Beth Moore’s videos are a tool God can use to draw one closer to Himself?
Maybe, but in my opinion, only in a negative way.
That is why I included that “if” at the front of the sentence in my original post. I am not necessarily a fan of any of those things, just wanted to include some things you might see your “typical Baptist” engaging in. Your mileage may vary.
Nathan I don’t do lent. I have godly friends who do. But I am with you on your observations/question. I just don’t see the issue here if a believer or a church wants to encourage this for the right reasons.
We do observe an advent season at our church. It is very meaningful. And often misunderstood by my free church friends. They think we’ve gone RC.
Nathan,
“I am curious to see why people who view it as something to be avoided think that it is fundamentally different.”
Why?
Because it is easier to point fingers at the traditions of other faiths or faith movements than one’s own.
Is Lent kind of like reminding people to change their batteries in their smoke detectors twice a year…when the time changes? You know, every year, check the lent in your dryer, and in your belly button, and inbetween your toes? Kind of like a reminder to do that? Is that what yall are talking about, here???
I also cleaned the ashes out of my fireplace, this past Wednesday. It seems that they recommend that, once a year, as well.
David
Bart Barber,
Please tell me how, if I do not observe “lint” to get it out of my dryer filter. Are you peddling some kind of new automatic lint remover from the dryer? If so, how much is it and how much does it cost?
I’ve noticed the number of Baptist Churches observing Advent is on the rise. I’ve also seen a number of blog articles encouraging celebrating Advent. What’s the difference between observing Advent or Lent?
To this old Baptist layman, Advent and Lent are equally unbiblical and smacks of their Roman Catholic origin.
If this keeps up, maybe we will start baptizing babies.
Ken, you are on to something. This past Christmas, my cousin, a PCA pastor tried to convince his sister that she shouldn’t let her 12 year old daughter be baptized because she had been baptized as a baby and therefore there was no need for her to be baptized again. In fact he regretted his baptism at a Baptist church during his college years (after he had made a profession of faith in Christ) because he had been baptized as an infant in the Methodist Church. He (and he implied the PCA denomination) believe that infant baptism is a sign of God’s Covenant like Jewish circumcision and the children are born into the covenant and therefore don’t need to be baptized again when they are older.
He further went on to say that John Piper has come out against non-infant baptism and he was appalled that Piper couldn’t convince the elders of his church to stop adult or teenage baptisms.
I can see this becoming a real issue in some SBC Churches as there are many in the Reformed community in the SBC who are greatly influenced by his teaching. I will not be surprised if some churches adopt this practice because it will be the logical conclusion of those who have followed the teaching with Piper, and Tim Keller. Why will they stop at baptism.
Regarding Lent and Bart’s original comments. When I was growing up, I never knew what Good Friday was (until I became an adult) because in the Baptist church we didn’t want to do anything that was similar to the Catholics. However, now I believe it is important to reflect on Christ’s suffering on the cross for our sins. To me, I think we miss the importance of Easter without the reflection and I am glad that there are now Good Friday observances in most Baptist churches.
The rationale for doing or not doing observances shouldn’t be “If the Catholics do it, it must be wrong.” I don’t see any difference between the Lenten fast and the 40 day fast which Jentzen Franklin observes with his church every January. Granted he doesn’t have a “Fat Tuesday” precursor (unless you count New Years Eve) before the fast begins. I haven’t heard any one question the validity of the fast he encourages. The only difference seems to be that Lent has its origins in the Catholic church and Jentzen Franklin is a charismatic protestant.
Or that I don’t know who Jantzen Franklin is.
Bart,
If you truly don’t know who he is – consider yourself blessed by that ignorance.
Yep. And don’t buy his books either.
David, I have been a pastor in the PCA in the past. I’m an elder now in the PCA. You wrote,
“He (and he implied the PCA denomination) believe that infant baptism is a sign of God’s Covenant like Jewish circumcision and the children are born into the covenant and therefore don’t need to be baptized again when they are older.”
Yes, God’s covenant promise. PCA churches baptize infants and very young children and later when they publicly profess their faith they are not baptized again. Adults who have never been baptized are also baptized after professing faith.
You said, “He further went on to say that John Piper has come out against non-infant baptism and he was appalled that Piper couldn’t convince the elders of his church to stop adult or teenage baptisms.”
I do not believe that is correct. As I read on Piper’s church website back at that time, he was trying to convince the elders to accept people who had been baptized as infants in some circumstances. He was not proposing to do away with adult and teen baptisms.
Les, thank you for your reply and clarification. However, how do the PCA answer for the fact that Jesus was baptized as an adult? It is assumed that Jesus was circumcised as an infant as a Jewish baby boy. This would be essentially the equivalent for what the PCA performs in infant baptism.
Yet, despite that, Jesus publicly chose to be baptized as an adult. It seems to me that those, like Piper and the PCA, are saying that Jesus got it wrong when he chose to do so and further more he specifically commands to baptize in the Great Commission. I don’t see him meaning infant baptism.
Furthermore, if you look at Baptist history in Europe, the Baptists in Holland were known as “Anabaptists” because they were opposed to infant baptism. Now it seems that Piper (whose church is Baptist) and others have in some ways ignored their roots as Baptists when they say that if a child was baptized as an infant, there is no need to baptized again. However, in some ways I’m not surprised because many Baptists today have no knowledge of Baptist’s theological history, so if some esteemed teacher like Piper teaches something, they will willingly follow it without taking into consideration what has been the distinctive Baptist beliefs for hundreds of years.
Back to the situation of my cousin, the PCA pastor, I was amazed at how he would strongly discourage his 12 year old niece from being baptized just because she had been sprinkled as a baby in the Methodist Church. I asked him how does he get around the fact that Jesus did so as an adult and his explanation of Covenantal theology didn’t hold water in my book when Jesus did so himself. Obviously, he thinks the Baptists are wrong! (in a passionate way).
I know a couple very good Baptist history scholars who would disagree with you and would say that today’s baptist can be traced back to New England Seperatists and the Menoknights can be traced back to the Anabaptists. Two different strands traced back to two different groups.
However, I think that conversation will get us a little off track.
There are also several very good scholars who would teach the Anabaptist connection to modern Baptists.
John,
Be careful, or you will be lumped into the “mean old BI crowd, who just wants to fight wars” label!!
David 🙂
David: I have already labeled you that a long time ago.
Debbie,
Don’t you think that’s a little judgmental?
I always find it a little ironic that someone can disagree with someone else, and because you don’t agree, then you are mean and ugly and worthy of harsh criticism. But, the other person is right, pure, and is just an overall great guy or gal. And, if anyone who agrees with the right and pure, then they are also great people. Sigh
Vol,
I think you are dead wrong about a great number of issues we have discussed on this forum – but I do think you are a good guy. I like you. I do not think you are mean.
I am not sure I would go as far as “pure” though.
Ugly? Well, no comment.
🙂
Debbie,
I do not think VolFan deserves that comment.
I think, he deserves an apology from you though.
Thanks, Heel.
God bless you, Bro. And, God bless you, too, Debbie.
I don’t know who the “BI crowd” are, but if they believe we came from Anabaptists I doubt their interested in fighting any ways 🙂
LOL! Good one, Tyler!
(BI stands for “Baptist Identity” – I’ll let one of them explain what they believe.)
Tyler,
I have to give you props for that one, sir.
Yeah. That was pretty good.
Tyler,
Lol
Basically, the so called BI crowd just believes that Baptist doctrine is Bible doctrine. And, that it’s important for us to hold to those doctrines, as being critical to being considered being truly Biblical and Baptist. Some of the doctrines that we spoke out for were Believers baptism by immersion, Congregational church govt, and against some charismatic issues, as well.
Tyler,
Rather than ask any of the BI guys to explain what they believe, just read the works of the founder of the BI. You will find his writings in the New Testament under the name Paul. 😉
Oh my, CB.
Oh, my.
CB,
Amen!!! Woo hooo!
David
Hahah! Nice, CB!
Well, boys,
It was like Bear Bryant used to say, “The D Line had shifted and the Secondary had fallen back, leavin’ a hole you coudda drove a Mack Truck through so we just run it in for a TD.”
No apology forthcoming.
“Rather than ask any of the BI guys to explain what they believe, just read the works of the founder of the BI. You will find his writings in the New Testament under the name Paul”
Where CB, under Paul Smith? Paul Jones? Because I don’t agree it’s the Apostle Paul. I already created a rabbit trail, so I will not discuss further, but David opened the door, I walked through it.
The subject however is lent, which I do not celebrate but would not encourage or discourage someone not to do it. That is under the heading of liberty. Freedom to do what one’s convictions are without forcing my conviction on them and vice versa.
“No apology forthcoming”
Not surprising. In order for you to do that – you’d have to come off the smug, self righteous platform you constantly rest yourself upon and humble yourself.
We’ve all come to not expect you to do that, sadly.
“Menoknights”? Shouldn’t that be Mennonites?
Ben Coleman,
No, the spelling is right. Menoknights. You find their story in Two Corinthians. Donald Trump referenced the last night on Fox.
He want peole who have the hearts of the Menoknights to be in his cabinet. Except, of course, not over the War Department. There he wants a Mormon Danite.
Sighhh….Yes sorry. “Menoknights” is somewhat of a contradiction. But at least it wasn’t the Armenians this time.
The latter is part of the reason I favor using the term Hermanszoonian rather than Arminian.
And that is in the New Testament under Paul. The Apostle Paul.
“Liberty”
Debbie,
Do you mean “Lady Liberty,” “Liberty and Justice for All,” “Liberty Missouri,” “Liberty University,” or do you mean “The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance”?
If that is who you mean, you are talking about John Wayne.
Debbie, if you are talking about John Wayne, I agree with you. “The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance” was one of the best movies he ever made.
“Debbie, if you are talking about John Wayne, I agree with you. “The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance” was one of the best movies he ever made”
CB: I agree. 🙂
And I do have a deep respect for you CB. What you did and went through in the not to distant past was in my book, wonderful. I hate the price you paid, but you did it anyway.
Confession Time: I’ve never seen a John Wayne movie o:
that should be too distant past.
Tyler,
How did you grow up in this country and never see a John Wayne movie?
Have you ever seen an Alan Ladd movie?
Thank you, Debbie. I appreciate your kind words. God has done a great work in our lives in the aftermath. All is well.
Never seen a John Wayne movie???!!!???
A. Are you an American?
B. Are you of sound mind?
C. Do you have Asian bird flu, mad cow, or some mind altering disease?
D. Were you raised by wolves?
E. Lived in a cave or bomb shelter your entire life?
Please, do yourself a HUGE favor…leave this sight…rent Hondo…and watch it immediately. Once you’ve done that, then get The Searchers. After that, you will want more, so see The Man who Shot Liberty Valance.
You can thank me later.
Vol,
I don’t think he was raised by wolves. ‘Cause if he had been that would make him a BI guy and BI guys have watched every John Wayne movie at least five times. That is one of the qualifications to be a BI guy.
I am convinced we will watch Rio Lobo at the Marriage Supper.
David,
I try to be very careful to not come on here and argue for covenant baptism vs credo baptism. We are now off the Lent topic and I’d rather not get into an even friendly back and forth about covenant baptism. My point in commenting about it in the first place was to clarify about what Piper was trying to do and to say that PCA churches do in fact perform adult baptisms.
If you’d like to continue to discuss off site please feel free to email me at Les at haitiorphanproject dot org.
Thanks brother.
I would suspect that Lent is more appealing to the Reformed guys than the Trads. I have several Reformed friends who like the Lectionary, Lent, and Advent. While I am not a Landmarker, I do deny that Baptists were of the Reformed line. It is for this reason that I look at all these things as being foreign to the Baptist church.
But hey, if you like these things, go for it. I personally don’t like anything that points Rome-ward.
John,
My experience in knowing fellow baptist pastors who use the lectionaries and encourage lent is quite different than your generalization.
These practices, again in regards to baptist pastors I know, are much more common (all but exclusively, actually) in liberal leaning baptist circles than they are with Cals or “trads”.
Tarheel,
I was speaking from experience as well. And while it is common among more left leaning pastors, there are a lot of Reformed guys who get into these things. But, as I said, if they like it then go for it. I personally don’t think any of those Catholic or Reformation rituals have a place in a Baptist Church.
Some of us still have an age-old hangup about Catholicism that prejudices our ability to understand and learn. The Church turned to Lent hundreds of years ago in order to build the personal walk of believers around the 40 days of our Lord’s own journey. Having such a journey to lead us to the cross and the risen Christ could not be more meaningful to many Christians who welcome the discipline of building renewed spirituality. Tainting such a practice with a sniff toward Catholicism is a weak put-down. Our Lord set the example…Maybe we should devote ourselves to it, and then see if it does not make our Easter experience even more joyful.
“Some of us still have an age-old hangup about Catholicism that prejudices our ability to understand and learn.”
Richard,
Let me firs state that not all Catholics are without an experience of grace. Some Catholics have been born-again. For an assortment of reasons they do not leave the Catholic Church.
Now, with that being stated, It is not a “hangup,” “age-old” or otherwise to reject a false theological predisposition as as the theology of the Catholic Church.
Catholic theology is not a biblical theology. It is due to a lack of biblical and theological “understanding” that one would believe otherwise.
AMEN!!
Well said, CB.
God’s grace can save people out of Catholicism, but it is in spite of it, not because of it. We cannot recognize Catholicism as a true Christian expression without compromising the gospel. We can recognize a few Catholics as brethren – by God’s grace.
C.B. , What do you say about the members of the PCA who are opposed to adult baptism and believe that in infant baptism and say that children of believers are born into God’s Covenant in the same way that the Israelites were. I don’t how they get around the fact that Jesus was himself baptized and specifically gave the command to baptize in the Great Commission.
I mentioned in an earlier post my cousin, a PCA pastor is anti- adult baptism and I have serious disagreement with him on that point. However, I don’t hear anyone saying that the PCA has the wrong theology on baptism, in fact, it is quote the opposite: Many in the SBC would like to be more like the PCA and are greatly influenced by Tim Keller and John Piper who is for infant baptism and tried to convince his church to get away from adult baptism.
In other words, why does the PCA get a free pass on theology? (I get the concerns over Catholicsm.)
David, PCA churches also baptize adults as Jesus commanded.
You said, “John Piper who is for infant baptism and tried to convince his church to get away from adult baptism.”
That is not correct brother as I pointed out in my other comment.
David,
There are some PCA pastors who do not oppose adult baptism.
I am fairly sure that most Baptist pastors, at the present time, do not agree with infant baptism. We do differ with the PCA on the candidate and mode of baptism as a whole. I am sure there are some who would differ.
(Baptists believe in believer’s baptism and PCA do practice infant baptism. Baptist practice immersion and PCA practice sprinkling, although some pour, and there are some who will immerse a candidate if he/she makes such a request.)
As to your question about PCA getting “a free pass on theology.”
I will venture an answer here that will be somewhat insufficient. Nonetheless, and in short (way short), Baptists and PCA generally have orthodox, biblical theology in common. We both (PCA and SBC) differ greatly regarding what would be orthodox, biblical theology with the Catholic Church.
David, this answer is really incomplete, but I hope it gives you some understanding as to why Baptists generally oppose Catholic theology and why we generally have a great degree of theological commonality with PCA.
David,
I see in reading my response to you that I made an error (probably more than one).
I stated: “There are some PCA pastors who do not oppose adult baptism.”
I meant to state: There are some (probably most) PCA pastors who do not oppose adult baptism.
I also did not address something else in your comment.
Generally speaking, I think most all PCA and SBC guys would consider Jentzen Franklin beyond the parameters of orthodox theology.
C.B., I don’t expect you to agree with my use of the word “hang-up.” That is a personal assessment, borne of growing up in an old southern city with evangelicals who were prone to have suspicions about my Catholic and Jewish friends. It has been my experience for the 73 yrs. of my life that there remain some Baptists who would just as soon be around other Baptists more than Catholics. My point remains, however, that local Baptist churches have the right to employ various emphases to guide their members in growing in spirituality, be it revivals, disciple now(s), or Lenten studies. To criticize these emphases just because they are something Catholics do is a very weak point, ably addressed by several previous writers. Bart’s point re. not finding enough verification of Lent in scripture does not take into account the example of a 40-day spiritual journey, as mentioned previously. The “age-old” part of my comment comes from studying church history and 17th-18th-century southern folk hymns, some of which referenced the “popery” which they feared was embedding their doctrine. I don’t think such old attitudes help us today.
Life got in the way. Sorry for disappearing out of the thread.
Summary comment, then back to a full day of stuff:
Whatever benefit one sees in Lent (and in the original post I acknowledged that one might identify some), generations ago our spiritual forebears saw value in having a simpler concept of the Christian calendar stripped bare of the embellishments that had glommed onto the basic rhythm of Christian life. Ought we to listen to them and try to understand them before we rush headlong back into the space they happily vacated?
Before adopting Lent, shouldn’t we try to know full well what we’re losing in order to compare it to what we are gaining?
For my part, to add a “for instance,” I’ll say that every “special season” that we add onto the calendar imposes a pressure upon the pastor to set aside the unfettered weekly emphasis upon biblical exposition in order to pursue the imposed theme. I’ve rebelled in part (somehow remaining employed along the way). I do not preach about mothers every May. I do not preach about fathers every June. I basically ignore the accretions onto our calendar. I do give attention to Christmas.
I am tracking the coverage that the Bible is getting in my preaching. I know the chapters out of which I have never preached in thirty years of preaching. I have come to the realization that my life will not be long enough for me to preach the Bible well. Stir in Advent, Lent, et al, and you’re taking as much as 20% of your lifetime preaching opportunities off the table for tending to the whole counsel of God.
One reason, in my opinion, why the high churches are generally not places where one can find good preaching is that sometimes their pastors are fettered to a preaching of the calendar so much that they do not have liberty to pursue a preaching agenda driven by the text.
So, that’s one example of something that can be lost in this embrace of these extra-biblical seasonal themes.
Bart,
I agree with what you just said, above. My thoughts exactly, except you presented them in a much smarter, more intelligent way than I am capable of doing.
Thanks.
Honestly, I believe that someone could preach on a different topic that’s emphasized on the calendar, just about the entire year. It’s always some “Day.” It’s Grandparents Day; Children’s Day; Mother’s Day; Father’s Day; Valentine’s Day; Lent; Advent; Donut Day…. well, I celebrate Donut Day.
David
I refuse to limit the celebration of donuts to just one day.
Here, here! Bart for President!
Bart, I appreciate your articles, especially your very excellent series you wrote about Slavery a year or two ago. They always provoke thoughtfulness and re-examining of our commonly held beliefs.
However, I think you are wrong on this issue: It seems You are seeking to say something is wrong or sinful that scripture doesn’t say is wrong or sinful. It is often related to those who try to hold to a regulative principle or worship, or of anything else. For several years, I was really “into” studying the regulative principle, but in the end I simply had to reject it on the grounds of Biblical sufficiency: specifically, that if God did not see fit to forbid something, who are we to say it is forbidden. In addition, such a principle is impossible to practice in reality. The truth is, we do things everyday that are not prescribed by scripture. I’ve come to believe it is very dangerous for us to start calling things sinful that scripture doesn’t.
I do think you are absolutely right that we should examine what we might gain or lose by practicing lent, but I don’t think we can look at another person who comes to a different conclusion and say they are sinning.
Finally, I should add that I don’t believe you have actually said someone practicing lent is sinning…if you did I missed it. Perhaps you are simply saying you would encourage a brother not to observe Lent, but would not consider it sinful to do so. In much the same way I might encourage a brother not to drink alcohol, because of the danger of abuse…while at the same time I do not believe it is necessarily sinful to do so. Perhaps you can clarify this a bit. However, if you believe it is ALWAYS an unbiblical choice to observe Lent, then we disagree. 🙂
God Bless,
-andy
And I appreciate your music, Andy Williams.
I have all of your Christmas Albums. And I am really thankful to you for discovering the Osmonds. That is the greatest bunch of little singers I ever did hear.
Andy,
It is not sinful to practice Lent. It would be sinful to require others to do so. It would be sinful to require others not to do so. But within that space in which we all have freedom in this regard, I am happy to encourage others to refrain.
Bart,
I agree with what you just shared here.
I can think of lots of issues that fall into what you just typed. 😉
Historically, Lent has been associated with “penance”. If we DO decide to participate, we need to make sure folks know that is NOT why we are doing it.
So, Adam G. in NC, are you saying that if for some reason I do decide to observe Lent, I do not have to kneel with my knees on a broomstick?
You can if you want to. It’s the “why” that matters…and the “why” that is communicated.
In the comments it has been pointed out that it is not sinful to practice Lent. But observing Lent can be a sin. For some it is a theologically errant religious ritual rising from a works-based philosophy. For others it is an empty religious ritual engaged because others say so and do so. Whatsoever is not of faith is sin. It does not follow that it is inherently sinful to make a sacrifice or fast for forty (six) days, and those days happen to precede Easter. But we can realize that observing Lent can be a sin. A person might voluntarily choose any day or set of days to fast (or give up something). Ideally, we should not make a display of it (see Jesus’s words in Matthew 6:16ff. “When you fast…”
Observing of days (or not) should be a private matter of the individual and not a public imposition on others (see Romans 14). This at the least calls in question the advisability of church-wide observation of church-sanctioned days that are not commanded — whether they be Lent or Independence Day or Christmas. Let every one be fully persuaded in their own minds.
Eloquent. True.