Lent, the Liturgical Calendar, and the Unintended Baggage of Manmade Traditions

As I write these words, Lent season is upon us. In case you didn’t know, Lent is a tradition that developed in several high church, denominational traditions sometime in the period after the Council of Nicaea (4th century A.D.). It involves prayer, meditation, and fasting (though typically partial fasting) for forty days in the lead-up to Easter. In the United States, a society in which people frequently find themselves floundering in a sea of chaotic cultural change, high church denominations and their comparatively stable, century-old traditions are growing in popularity. I know a few Christians who have left the Lord’s church for these denominational groups and know of several others who are dabbling more and more in the times and seasons these groups hold dear, including Lent. Recently, a brother I know even encouraged Christians to engage in Lent. When I spoke to him about it, he affirmed that it was 1) totally optional but 2) very meaningful and 3) would not hurt anyone.

As one looks at the constituent parts of Lent and other days and periods of the various high churches’ calendars (often called liturgical calendars) very broadly, it may be true that this brother was at least partially correct. In the case of Lent, what could be wrong with prayer, meditation, and full or partial fasting in light of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus? Brethren tend to see the value of these things in isolation, and, with 1) an awareness of the reality of Christian liberty regarding days and periods observed “to the Lord” (Romans 14:5-6) and 2) a respect for the antiquity of high church traditions, they determine to test the waters. Sometimes, they discover depth and meaning, leading them to take what Paul envisioned as being private and “to the Lord” and broadcast it openly. Sometimes, this leads to fruitful discussions; at other times though, it leads to bitter debate and division and, for a few, departure from the faith.

There’s a lot that’s worth considering here. For now, I’d like to dwell on the third thing the brother affirmed. Do the traditions of men really not hurt anyone? I’d like to suggest that though the constituent parts of a tradition may be lawful and even good, manmade tradition often comes with unintended baggage that is in fact quite harmful, as the Bible frequently describes.

For starters, rather than being rich with meaning, manmade tradition as discussed in the pages of the Bible often has a way of robbing things of their meaning. During their wilderness wanderings, the Israelites complained about the food God provided and were punished for it through an infestation of biting serpents (Numbers 21:4-6). After they repented, God told Moses to make a bronze serpent as part of a solution to the serpent bites (Numbers 21:7-9). Later in Israelite history, this bronze serpent transformed from being an object that could have given testimony to God’s salvation on that day in the wilderness to becoming an idol that people worshipped (2 Kings 18:4). While the Bible doesn’t record the steps of this transformation, one can speculate as to the shape it took. The bronze serpent likely went from being an object that inspired remembrance like the memorial stones at Gilgal (Joshua 4:19-24) to being an object revered in its own right. The added focus the Israelites placed on what was initially something good caused it to become something bad.

Someone might argue here that 1) while the serpent’s transition to an idol wasn’t good, utilizing the serpent for a memorial wouldn’t have been bad, and 2) the times and seasons prescribed in the various high churches’ liturgical calendars offer no bronze serpent for people to idolize. I have to admit, I agree with the first point to a degree. However, I can’t help but note that while God authorized the memorial stones at Gilgal (Joshua 4:1-3), He did not authorize any such memorial usage for the bronze serpent.

This of course does not imply that it would have been wrong for them to use the bronze serpent that way. Whenever the question of manmade memorials comes up, particularly as relates to days, many people are quick to point out Jesus’ presence in the temple at the “Feast of Dedication,” a festive tradition that arose during the Intertestamental Period after the ministry of Malachi and the close of Old Testament inspiration (John 10:22-23). While I could argue that Jesus’ mere presence at this feast does not demand His participation, I don’t really need to do so. I’m not aware of an Old Testament policy forbidding additional feast days. In fact, God purposefully wove days and periods that He designed into the Jewish calendar. However, I think all of the following considerations ought to at least promote some pause for thought regarding creating a so-called Christian calendar or adopting a denominational one:

• While God did weave special days and periods into the Jewish calendar, similar days and periods are noticeably absent from the New Testament. There is no Christian calendar that marks the passage of years in the New Testament, and only one day that matters, “the first day of the week” (Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 16:2), “the Lord’s Day” (Revelation 1:10), Sunday.
• God did make allowance for special religious days in the New Testament, but His stated instruction through Paul was for these days to remain private (Romans 14:5-6). While this was encouraged in light of the potential for division, should the absence of division allow what is described as personal to be elevated to a communal or a congregational practice? And what impact would such an elevation have on other congregations and the broader brotherhood that we are commanded to love (1 Peter 2:17)? 
• It could be argued that the tendency in Judaism that led to the creation of the Feast of Dedication became a tendency that gave rise to other traditions that Jesus interacted with negatively (more on that later). After the destruction of the temple, this tendency also gave rise to a religion that in no way resembles the one prescribed in the Law of Moses.
• In the same vein, it could (and even should) also be argued that the churches that crafted and adopted liturgical calendars were also adopting unbiblical and even anti-biblical beliefs and behaviors in the period after the close of the New Testament. Lent and other such calendar events certainly have a long history, but so do other aspects of faiths that ultimately represent clear departures “from the faith” (1 Timothy 4:1-3). Knowledge of these departures ought to lead us to be more cautious as we evaluate the steps they took in liberty.  

What about the second objection to my comparison between the bronze serpent and Lent and other special days and periods, namely, that there isn’t the same opportunity for idolatry? As I think about Lent in particular, I can’t help but be drawn to another Old Testament account. When the Babylonian empire carried the Jews into captivity, they enacted two fasts: one in the fifth month seemingly to commemorate the destruction of the temple (2 Kings 25:8), and another in the seventh month that many people tie to the assassination of Gedaliah (Jeremiah 41:1). When the Jews returned from Babylonian captivity, they wondered whether they should continue these fasts. Listen to what Zechariah said on behalf of God:Zechariah pointed out two things very clearly: 1) fasting can be tied to an idolatrous past, and 2) such fasting can be more self-honoring than it is God honoring.

My aim in saying all of this is to provide food for thought. As long as I am doing so, I should point out one more absolutely vital point. While manmade traditions frequently do no harm and sometimes even do some good, they are 1) too regularly confused with God’s traditions and 2) too regularly the source of much real harm to be allowed to go totally unchecked.

I wonder sometimes if the first Jews to exercise an abundance of caution by washing their hands, cups, pitchers, copper vessels, and couches intended to bind that practice on anyone else. I wonder too if the first one to label his offering to the temple as Corban really intended to find a way to get out of taking care of his parents. I don’t think that any of these things were categorically wrong; each of them may have served some beneficial purpose. However, by the time these practices reached Jesus, they became traditions that men clung to instead of God and forced upon others. I’d argue that this happens more frequently with the traditions that we create than the ones God does. And when it happens, men find themselves at one time or another effectively forced to pick one. Too many choose to do as Jesus said, “For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men” (Mark 7:8). Too often, the unintended baggage that travels with manmade traditions becomes the thing to which men cling even as they let go of God.

Let me suggest one more thing in closing. Could it be that those who have dabbled in traditions that encourage prayer, meditation, and fasting have found value in these things not because of a manmade tradition but because there really is value in prayer, meditation, and fasting? And could it be that some of that value is perhaps lost when we ignore what Jesus specifically said regarding two of those things, i.e., that they should be done “in secret” (Matthew 6:6, 18)? As relates to the present season, it’s discouraging watching people kick off Lent with Ash Wednesday, a custom that involves disfiguring one’s face with an ash cross that effectively signals the beginning of one’s fast to the world, when the Lord said, “But you, when you fast, anoint your head and wash your face, so that you do not appear to men to be fasting” (Matthew 6:17-18). Wouldn’t it be better to cast off the baggage of human traditions, and instead of committing to a season of fasting cumbered by customs and surrounded by periods of excess (Fat Tuesday before and Easter Sunday with its meals and chocolates after), choosing instead to incorporate prayer, meditation, and fasting organically into your life as God intended?

-Patrick Swayne  
patrick@tftw.org