The concept of self-denial is foreign to most American Christians who, in our consumer culture, as as well conditioned as the rest to indulge and spend, to consume, consume, consume. We consume food to the point that most of us are overweight. We consume so much food that many chronic illnesses are all directly related to consumption of too much food, and unhealthy foods at that, over consumption of alcoholic beverages and over consumption of tobacco products. [Disclaimer: This is not a post intended to spark debate over drinking and smoking.]
What about it? Is American Christianity at all open to the rigorous spiritual disciplines practiced throughout the Church’s history? Are we ready for fasting during Lent? Can we forego a meal and cut down on food for six weeks? Is fasting good for the soul? If so, how?
On the other hand, what drives many Christians away from acts of self-denial are stories of going too far and doing things that strike us as bizarre. Witness the recent story of Pope John Paul II’s practice of whipping himself. Christianity Today has a great story out on this today. Even as we rightly criticize this kind of practice, one reason Western Christians, and particularly Protestants, recoil in such horror is because we have lost sight of the proper place of self-denial and self-mortification in the Christian life. Our Lord Christ assumed His disciples would fast, even as He assumed they would pray. There was no “if” about it, for Christ. It was simply assumed we would fast. Here’s that quote from the CT article that really got me thinking:
“Christians in a gluttonous, denial-less, self-indulgent society may struggle to accept and to begin the practice of fasting,” Don Whitney writes in Spiritual Disciplines for the Christian Life. “Few disciplines go so radically against the flesh and the mainstream culture as this one. But we cannot overlook its biblical significance. Of course, some people, for medical reasons, cannot fast. But most of us dare not overlook fasting’s benefits in the disciplined pursuit of a Christlike life.” Do you want to strengthen your prayer life? Discern God’s leading? Find an outlet to express your grief to God? Confess your utter dependence on God? Whipping is not necessary, but self-denial is a vital means of Christian growth. As Jesus prepared for his earthly ministry, he fasted. His example compels us to do the same.
February 9th, 2010 | 2:09 pm | #1
Rev. McCain,
I wrote a little post about this myself. (I won’t link so as not to shamelessly self-promote.) I would be interested to hear what you believe fasting does that is different from what the pope was doing. In other words, why is fasting acceptable, even assumed, and self-beatings aren’t?
February 9th, 2010 | 3:03 pm | #2
“Even as we rightly criticize this kind of practice.” I do not practice this form of fleshly mortification myself, and I agree it seems strange. But I do not operate under the assumption that “we rightly criticize” it, either. What are the reasons for the criticism?
February 9th, 2010 | 3:27 pm | #3
The CT article points out the theological errors behind the practice, so I’ll just refer you to it.
The point of the post was actually to point out a weakness among us Protestants when it comes to any talk of spiritual disciplines involving self-mortification. The degree to which we recoil in horror at the Pope’s practice might not be merely or only a reaction to the theological errors it involves, but may well have to do with general antipathy toward any thought of self-mortification.
February 9th, 2010 | 3:28 pm | #4
I have a post on fasting I’ll be putting up next week.
February 9th, 2010 | 3:37 pm | #5
Among evangelicals like ourselves, I think the loss of the practices of self-denial is rooted, among other issues, in bad theology and bad culture.
Bad theology:
Obviously, this theology is guilty of historical ignorance as to the practice of the Church (which is often dismissed as mere tradition) and is basically Gnostic in character, denying the biblical vision of discipleship as the redemptive shaping of the whole person in its reductive focus on an internal-only “faith.”
Bad culture: the cultural institutions we participate in, the commercials, the media we consume, the kinds of food we eat, are driven by the goal of convenience. “Everything should be easy, quick, and painless” and Americans live our lives, outside of Sunday (maybe), like this is true.
Evangelicals believe that by the sheer force of will (helped by the Holy Spirit’s work in motivational preaching, especially of good theology) we can live, work, play, eat, etc. by the norms and practices of Convenience-Land 24/7 and then flip the switch and choose to deny themselves when Jesus calls us to. Why? Because “the truth will set us free” and we know the Gospel and decided to follow Jesus, so we should be free to be able to flip the switch, right?
Some strong-willed Christians are able to do so, so everyone else believes the reason they cannot is because they don’t have enough faith and aren’t “spiritually mature.” So, more preaching and bible studies are called for, until more Christians are able to will themselves to break out of the Monday-Saturday mold of self-comfort to obey Jesus.
That, in the end, precious few Christians have that kind of willpower and so most fake it does not seem to raise concerns. Perhaps for the sake of the many, we should live lives that don’t form a mold of self-comfort in the first place.
Nah, that would be inconvenient. And that would mean that a lot of our evangelical leaders, esteemed for their great will-to-holiness (at least until their wills falter because of sex if they’re politically conservative, money if they’re liberal), would lose some of their “freedoms” to pursue and enjoy “adiaphora.”
February 9th, 2010 | 11:01 pm | #6
“The CT article points out the theological errors behind the practice, so I’ll just refer you to it.”
Hardly. Does McCain mean this?
“Paul did not harm himself in pursuit of this union. Suffering found him, and he even pleaded unsuccessfully with God to relent (2 Cor. 12:7-10).”
That following an admission that the verse in question is vexing?
All the arguments of error are from silence, and ignore centuries of evidence found in contrary tradition. Let’s call it straight: Protestants don’t like the idea of physical mortification because it is just too medieval and too Catholic. Period. Even is a very Protestant pope like JPII.
February 9th, 2010 | 11:27 pm | #7
Mentioning about Evangelicals, some of the older penecosticals had a montanists practice of modern ascestism. They didn’t believe in dancing, women never cut their hair, no smoking or drinking. Tertullian mentions about local montanists wanting to be martyed and practicing virginal marriages, and lots of fasting. Penecosticism is closer to Montantistism than the other early christian movements. The Monstantists were in the Millenium return of Christ and heavy into prohency.
February 10th, 2010 | 3:03 am | #8
From NewAdvent.org (Catholic Encyclopedia http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06092a.htm )on Flagellation:
“It is held by some interpreters that St. Paul in the words: “I chastise my body” refers to self-inflicted bodily scourging (1 Corinthians 9:27). The Greek word hypopiazo (see Liddell and Scott) means “to strike under the eye”, and metaphorically “to mortify”; consequently, it can scarcely mean “to scourge”, and indeed in Luke 18:5, such an interpretation is quite inadmissible. Furthermore, where St. Paul certainly refers to scourging, he uses a different word. We may therefore safely conclude that he speaks here of mortification in general”
February 10th, 2010 | 3:06 am | #9
from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortification_of_the_flesh ) on “Mortification of the Flesh” we read
“The term “mortification of the flesh” comes from Saint Paul in this quote: “For if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body you will live”.[ Epistle to the Romans 8:13]
The same idea is seen in the following verses: “Put to death what is earthly in you: fornication, impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry”.[Colossians 3:5] “And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires”.[Galatians 5:24 ]“
February 10th, 2010 | 3:08 am | #10
So, my question is, we as Protestants … what do we do about the topic of “mortification of the flesh” as it relates to the BIBLICAL texts and verses below ?
1 Corinthians 9:27
Romans 8:13
Colossians 3:5
Galatians 5:24
February 10th, 2010 | 9:50 pm | #11
I don’t say physical mortification is “right,’ exactly. I think it is a strange brew. And I can appreciate why it may be only for some. But to call it unbiblical or wring seems offbase. Best retort would be the Bible says nihl on it, and people ARE subject to extremes. But if a pope pratices it PRIVATELY, we should hardly insist it is wrong.
February 11th, 2010 | 12:55 am | #12
Mortification of the flesh simply means not doing what our flesh (the natural man) wants to do.
So…when we want to steal, we mortify the flesh by not stealing etc etc.
I agre with Joe, I think. If a guy beats himself privately, Pope or not, it’s probably wrong to insist that it is wrong.
On the other hand, being as Scripture doesn’t tell us to do it, or what benefits it might have, it is equally or even more wrong, in my view, to claim that it provides and spiritual benefit.
I think one could even argue that in the claiming of benefit, it can cause one to sin, because it could direct one away from real biblical moritification and bible study and such like, because of some imagined benefit attain by a whip.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact