Why I Don't Observe LENT

Gang,

I am writing this blog as a direct and intentional response to the entirety of the February/March 2014 issue of The Church Advocate whose cover features its lead article, Why I Observe LENT, by Ben Tobias.  (Ben capitalized Lent, not I.)

Blame for the promotion of Lent, however, does not extend to Ben alone.  His article is followed by one authored by Bill Shoemaker entitled, ONe Mission During Lent.  Additionally, the back cover of the issue features a recommendation of Todd Hunter's book, Our Favorite Sins, by Don Dennison.  Following the theme of the issue, Don says, "The season of Lent is a perfect time to address the temptations which lead to periodic and, all too often spiritual failure."  Hence, to read the book is consistent with a life of piety that includes observance of the season of Lent.

-----------------------------------------------

Below are three reasons that I do not observe Lent:

1.  Lent is the product of human tradition and the New Testament denounces human traditions.

  Ben Tobias' article asserts, "Lent was developed by the early Church..." and he is correct, so long as he uses the term early church not as including, by many decades, the New Testament church. 

To my knowledge, the earliest reference to a practice that, even in the most remote manner, resembles what, after numerous evolutionary twists, would become Lent, is in the early third century--about 200 years after Jesus was walking the earth.

  Think of it this way:  If 2014 is early American history, Lent was, indeed, as the article suggests, developed by the early church.

  Clearly, even by the account of advocates of the observance of Lent, Lent is a product of human tradition. 

There is no teaching to observe Lent in the New Testament.  There is no evidence of its observance in the New Testament.

I do not observe Lent because the New Testament does teach the observance of Lent and because the New Testament goes further and teaches that human tradition is evil because obstructs obedience to the commands of God (and of Jesus):

  Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, ² “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don’t wash their hands before they eat!”³ Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? (Mt 15)

  ⁸ You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions.”

⁹ And [Jesus] continued, “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions! (Mk 7)

  ⁸ See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the elemental spiritual forces of this world rather than on Christ. (Col 2:8)

  I believe, as, Paul says to Timothy, that it is "all Scripture that is god-breathed and is useful..."

  Scripture does not teach or model Lent.  Scripture also warns of the sort of human tradition that Lent represents.

  I have enough on my plate to love Jesus and to obey everything He commands.  I don't need to divert or dilute my focus by observing Lent.

  Because I love the Lord and His commands, I don't observe Lent.

2.  The doctrinal and faith statements adopted by the General Conference in session, the CGGC's highest earthly authority, in 2013 prohibit me from observing Lent.

  The new We Believe and the new 2013 CGGC Statement of Faith make similar but, (curiously) not identical statements, about the authority of the Bible in the CGGC.

  We Believe states:

We believe the Bible is the inspired, infallible authority, the Word of God, our only rule for following Jesus in every aspect of our life.

  The 2013 Statement of Faith says,

We believe that the Bible is the divinely inspired Word of God, the only infallible rule of faith and practice.

  In both authorities, the Bible is declared to be, for the people of the CGGC, its "only" "rule."

  This is radical language--much stronger than is taken by many other denominations.  It is language that traces back to John Winebrenner and the Church of God's founding generation.  (Though this is fuel for another discussion, it may very well be heresy.)  But, this language is authority in the CGGC. 

  Everyone in the CGGC, including Ben Tobias and Bill Shoemaker and Don Dennison, is bound to submit to it.  Everyone who doesn't submit to it is being insubordinate.

  Because words have meaning: If the Bible is our only rule, it is, therefore, our ultimate ruler. 

  And, since the Bible is out highest spiritual authority, based on the action of the General Conference in Session, our highest earthly authority, observing Lent is permissible in the CGGC only if it is taught and/or modeled in the Bible.

  Lent is not taught in the Bible.  It is not, in any way, modeled in the Bible.

  I don't observe Lent because I love the CGGC and I am, for the moment at least, still active in it.  Because I am, I am bound by CGGC human authority over me to do all the Bible teaches and not to do anything it fails to teach.

  Because I submit to the CGGC, I do not observe Lent.

3.  The Mission of the CGGC, adopted on the authority of the General Conference in session, forbids the observance of Lent.

  The Mission of the CGGC, adopted by the General Conference in session in 2010 asserts,

As witnesses of the Lord Jesus Christ, we commit ourselves to make more and better disciples by establishing churches on the New Testament plan and proclaiming the gospel around the world. (Matthew 28:16-20, Ephesians 3:8-11, Acts 1:8)

  To be on mission in the CGGC is to pursue the goal of making 'more and better' disciples through two means.  One of those two means is to establish churches on the New Testament plan.

  The term New Testament plan, again, traces back to our body's founding generation.  Any study of the history of that generation will reveal that the term means that the Church of God only teaches what the New Testament teaches and it only practices what the New Testament models.

  Again, Lent is neither taught nor was it practiced in the New Testament.

  I do not observe Lent because I am a good and faithful member of the CGGC and because I am deeply committed to the CGGC's mission.

  Because I subordinate myself to CGGC authority, I do not observe Lent.

---------------------------------------

There is a fruit that the current General Conference leadership produces, it seems, every time it produces a crop.  And, that fruit reeks of spiritual decadence and sin.

Understand this: 

It is because of Ed Rosenberry and his leadership team that the concepts of "the New Testament plan" and the Bible as the CGGC's "only" "rule" have reentered the CGGC dialog.  Ed and his staff have pulled these concepts from a Church of God history in which they had been buried, for all practical purposes, for more than an century.  Ed and his team fought for years to place those concepts in authority over them.

Here's where the decadence and sin come in: 

Having moved the CGGC body to make this vision and mission our authority, they, then, are the very people who lead defiance of those authorities.  The bold promotion of the observance of Lent in The Church Advocate is merely one of numerous examples.

My friends, they didn't have to initiate making only rule and New Testament plan authority over themselves and over all of us.  But, they went to great effort to do it!  Now it is THEIR authority, too.

This style of leadership is, simply, insane.  It defines dysfunction.

We must demand their confession of sin against the covenant we share.  We must demand that they repent and sin no more.

The CGGC Brand in 2014

Gang,

Very much against my will, I was essentially forced to write my dissertation, not on any topic that interested me, but on the practice of Feet Washing in the Churches of God, General Conference.  That project was distasteful to me and it was a struggle of many years to complete it and the result was dismal: A piece of writing I don't recommend to anyone.

Fifteen years after its completion, the only insight I drew from the project that still edifies me is a comment made by my third reader during my dissertation defense.

He had asked, "If you could boil your understanding of Feet Washing in the Churches of God down into one sentence, what would it be?" 

Actually my answer was one I was happy with because it was an insight of the moment.  I said, "It has evolved."  But he immediately corrected me.

He said pointedly, "It is evolve-ING."

Bingo!

And, I have come to understand that that reality: "It is evolve-ing," is true of the CGGC--and much more so in 2014 than it has been at any time in the CGGC's history.  The rate of our evolution [or, perhaps, de-volution] is increasing exponentially under the reign of the current leadership team.

Sadly, the change that leadership is shepherding propels the CGGC back toward the Middle Ages, not into a risky, Spirit-empowered and blessed, Word-informed future that is characteristic of movements participating in revival.

There are two major changes in my assessment of the CGGC Brand in early 2014 compared to my 2103 assessment.  First, I have kept the list of characteristics intact at thirteen but I have removed,

A Rodney King: "Can-We-All-Just Get-Along?" Doctrine of the Church.

And replaced it with,

Ecclesiolatry.  (I explore the depths of this sin on my Ecclesiolatry blog.)

I believe that that word came to me as a prophetic insight, though I have recently discovered that the word has been existence for years.

I still believe that can-we-all-just-get-alongism is an essential part of the CGGC's DNA in 2014.  However, it is not nearly as important in describing what defines the CGGC's uniqueness as is its choice to substitute veneration of the church for obedience to the Lord of the church.  Also, this characteristic is closely linked, in the CGGC micro-universe, to characteristic number 4, i.e., Traditionalism.

Second, I have tweaked,

Flock-focused Righteousness

So that it becomes,

False, Flock-focused Righteousness 

This tweaking highlights my increasing conviction that the CGGC is preparing the people who, blindly, accept its definition of Christian living to be numbered among the goats on the Day.  This breaks my hearts for the innocents in the CGGC's pews and fills me with rage toward the preachers of this false righteousness.

Here's the revised description of the CGGC Brand as it, and my own understanding of it, evolves:

---------------------------------------------

1. Decline.  In the first sixty years or so of its history the Church of God began from scratch and grew to approximately 800 active congregations. From that peak, the CGGC has declined to far less than half that number, losing a total of 60 congregations between 2001 and 2010 alone!

 

2.  Institutionalized "Churchianity," not Christianity.  With increasing fervor, the CGGC focuses on an institutionalized, parish priest-centered view that church is with parishes or flocks, led by clergymen, with an ecclesiastical elite ruling over all.  The CGGC now only pays lip service to what Jesus commands of His disciples. The CGGC today renews churches, makes transformational churches, adopts churches and plants churches yet only goes into the world to make disciples after all the headquarters and local parish work is thoroughly finished, therefore, never.

 

3. Ecclesiolatry.  Ecclesiolatry is the creation and veneration of the church as an idol, as opposed to love of and obedience to Jesus Christ, the Lord of the Church.  Idolatry is creating objects of worship to suit our own passions and prejudices.  The CGGC substitutes love for the church for love for the church's Lord.  Hence the obsession with planting, adopting, transformationalizing and renewing local churches while the Church's Lord's talk was about and His prayer and passion was to establish a His Father's Kingdom.  The church is the CGGC's Golden Calf.

4. Traditionalism. What the CGGC does is, no longer, rooted in love for, nor obedience to, Bible truth. These days, CGGC practice derives from the way of thinking that led to the rise of the church as an institution in the Middle Ages. The CGGC's founder, John Winebrenner, who saw even the Protestant Reformation as a failure, wouldn't recognize what has become of the movement he began.

5. Faddism. The CGGC shifts direction according to what is fashionable among other religious denominations. Hence, today, the people with offices in headquarters buildings fret over the CGGC 'brand.'  Most recently, with other trend-driven denominations, the CGGC has sought to embrace the  'transformational church' fad.  Currently fads such as this, not biblical truth, drive CGGC change.

6. Mellow Relationships over Truth. The CGGC has serious issues with truth primarily because it values, to the extreme, human relationships rooted in tolerance of others but does not value hunger and thirst for righteousness.  The CGGC no longer holds, as the most important relationship, love for the Lord, which Jesus called the greatest commandment.  The CGGC no longer takes firm stands on any biblical truth, as the recently adopted revision of We Believe makes clear.

7. A Middle Ages Approach to Leadership. Perhaps the most harmful achievement of CGGC elites is the creation of a 'laity.' In its early years, the Church of God had significantly attained the priesthood of all believers. Recently, however, CGGC higher ups have transformed the typical participant in a CGGC congregation into a mere consumer of religious products and services supplied by the parish clergy and their higher ups.

8. Strong Central Planning Coupled with Lower Level Clergy and Congregational Rebellion.  It is not enough to suggest that the CGGC is becoming clergy and higher up dominated. (See item 7)  Even in the expanding CGGC clergy world, there are extremes in power from the bottom of the clergy pyramid to its peak. Higher ups in denominational headquarters and in regional offices act from a sense of power that no Roman Catholic Pope would dream of.  However, in response, many pastors outside of the good-old-boy leadership network, and most local CGGC congregations, ignore and sometimes defy (always without consequence), the authority of the leaders located in the denomination's central planning offices. (See also, item 13.)

9. Cynicism. As much as our higher up are shepherds seeking peace, calm and quiet among the pastors and congregations of the CGGC, there is a stifling atmosphere of cynicism among our pastors and congregations toward those in CGGC seats of power.  (See item 7.)  There is also cynicism flowing from leadership down into the body.  This cynicism flows in every direction: From the top down, from the bottom up and horizontally among factions in the body.

10.  To Talk is to Walk-ism.  According to the New Testament, a follower of Jesus is one who possesses a faith that organically produces acts of obedience to God's will. (Matthew 7:21-23, 24-26, 25:1-46; John 14:15; 2 Cor. 5:10; Eph. 2:8-10; Jas. 2:12-26; Rev. 2-3).  However, CGGC faith is disconnected from action.  It is possible to talk CGGC talk without walking it.  Hence, for example, the GC Mission and Vision Statements that are not lived out--and virtually no one notices.

11. Cheap Grace.  The CGGC calls people to easy-beliefism. Jesus said that anyone who doesn't hate his father and mother isn't worthy of Him. There was a time, in its founding generation, that the Church of God called sinners to a radically changed way of life.  Dietrich Bonheoffer (who coined the phrase, cheap grace) could have been viewing today's CGGC when he wrote: "...cheap grace is the preaching of forgiveness without requiring repentance, baptism without church discipline. Communion without confession. Cheap grace is grace without discipleship, grace without the cross, grace without Jesus Christ."

12. False, Flock-focused Righteousness. One need only read the first part of the Sermon of the Mount to understand that right living, as radically defined by Jesus, is key to discipleship. In the CGGC, however, righteousness is defined as a local parish, or flock, achieving consistent growth in parish/flock-oriented activities such as 'worship service' attendance not, as Jesus taught, disciples serving each other and caring for the least of the brothers and sisters of Jesus and going to all nations making disciples.

13.  Organized Hypocrisy.  There is illogic and outright contradiction among the things the CGGC claims to be true about itself.  This illogic and contradiction is, in reality, deeply rooted, highly intentional and carefully executed.  A hypocrite is an actor: "...a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings."  It is a positive and essential value of the CGGC to speak one message and to, without qualm, act out another that is entirely disconnected from that avowed principle.

Francis Schaeffer on Faddism

Tell me what the world is saying today, and I’ll tell you

what the church will be saying in seven years.

I have often used the word, "faddism" to describe the Western Church's practice of adopting, willy-nilly, one new idea after another with the naïve conviction that each new idea will be the answer that will solve its problems and end its decline.

Francis Schaeffer died in 1984.  What a prophet! He absolutely nailed an important characteristic of Western Christianity's DNA that is more evident in 2014 than it was at the moment he drew his last  breath.

Though the issues of Schaeffer's era have faded at the ADHD pace that the church abandons one fad for another, one fad was taking shape near the end of Schaeffer's day which developed slowly into a mega fad which still continues to develop, especially in the Western Church in the U. S.  That is:

  The notion that kingdom expansion is synonymous with church planting.  The idea that Christ's Kingdom expands through the opening of new churches is now taken for granted.  The truth is, however, the New Testament never describes the planting of a church.  The New Testament passage in 1 Corinthians often cited by the planting movement speaks of Paul's planting of the message of the cross, or the gospel, in Corinth, not the planting of the church. 

  Where does the church planting idea come from?  The last decade of Schaeffer's life was the era of rapid business expansion through the opening of franchises.  Consider the explosion of national fast food chains in the last years of Schaeffer's life.

  Hence, what the business world was saying became precisely what the church began saying late in Schaeffer's time frame.

 Two more examples, in 2014, of this phenomenon:

1. The smothering avalanche of church programs, seminars and workshops on leadership.
     The words leader and leadership are virtually absent from the New Testament, while calls to serve and to being a servant, even a slave, infest the New Testament.  Where does today's focus on leadership come from?  Neither from the teachings of Jesus and the apostles nor the way of living together Jesus and the early disciples modeled.
     Rather, interest in leadership comes, as Schaeffer suggests, from what the world has been saying.
2. The fervid passion attached to training coaches and forming coaching networks.
     While the athletics metaphor is present in the New Testament, the focus is on the athlete and the competition, not the coach.  Jesus didn't incarnate Himself in the world as a Life Coach.
     Why is coaching so much the rage in the Western Church today?
     This fad comes from the very source Francis Schaeffer identified: The world.  Not from the Lord.

So, preach it, Frankie!  From the grave. 

May we be cut to the heart just as thousands were on that day of Pentecost when the Spirit filled the first followers of the Way.

We must repent.