The Weird and Wonderful World of “REALLY Protestant”

On the platform formerly known as Twitter, I came across this post from Scott Aniol:

It appears that it is now cool for Evangelicals to observe Lent.

Children of the Reformation have traditionally rejected Lent. In fact, eating sausages on Lent was Swiss Reformer Ulrich Zwingli’s “95 Theses moment,” signaling his break from the Church of Rome, and other Reformers and Protestants after them have almost uniformly repudiated the observance.

It can be very profitable to set aside times in the year to remember various aspects of Christ’s life, as long as we do not add any extra-biblical elements to our worship. The Church Year can be a tool that guides Scripture readings and hymns, directing our attention to the coming, life, sufferings, death, resurrection, and ascension of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

But during the middle ages, Lent in particular grew to embody legalistic heresy that should give pause to any Bible-believing Christian. Practices like penitence, fasting, putting ash on one’s head, abstaining from meat, etc., developed with the understanding that such observances earn us merit and favor with God.

This clearly contradicts Scripture. Christ sufficiently suffered on our behalf, and therefore those who believe in him need not “participate” in his suffering in any way, especially not in an attempt to earn favor with God. We are fully favored by God in Christ! So we ought to deliberately avoid any notion of Lent that creates theological confusion.

We certainly may use the weeks leading up to Good Friday and Resurrection Sunday to intentionally remember various occasions in the life of Christ that led him to suffer for us on the cross.

But we do so, not to participate in his suffering or earn merit with God, but remembering that Jesus cried “It is finished,” having accomplished all the suffering necessary for our redemption!

Scott Aniol’s Perspective and Its Implications

Now, this is interesting, not only because Aniol is the Vice President of G3 Ministries and a professor at Grace Bible Theological Seminary (and thus a voice in the Reformed Baptist world). It also encapsulates several dynamics of the moment that create confusion rather than clarity, and they have been deleterious to the Church’s health. Broadly speaking, I see a church history problem and a spirituality/discipleship problem.

Navigating Historical Dissonance

Let’s go to the history problem first. For one, it is rather unseemly for a credobaptist to make a strong claim to the Protestant Reformers when he in fact embraces a sacramental position that they rejected (many of them quite forcefully). With regard to post-confessional/conversion baptisms (and rebaptisms for those that were christened as infants), the Baptist falls in line with Radical/Anabaptist thinking, at least on that front. I know that English Baptists derive ultimately from the various Dissenter traditions of the 1600s, NOT the Radicals of the Continent, and so they enjoy a strong Puritan/Genevan-party influence. Nevertheless, if you were to ask a historically aware Anglican (for instance), he would see a lot of overlap in thought between English Baptists and Continental Radicals on issues regarding theological anthropology, sacramental theology, and even some aspects of political theology (though there are some really important divergences there). Interestingly, we can see a similar dynamic with Radical Pietism in the Lutheran world–folks that aren’t the original Anabaptists but end up taking on several of their values and practices, forming what are now the German Baptist and/or Brethren bodies. The overlap became more obvious in the United States–these groups share important assumptions and interpretations of the Bible that set them apart from and against the original Protestant Reformers.

Interdenominational Conflicts and Perspectives

However, that doesn’t keep certain of them from zealously claiming the Protestant mantle and label, and this is where we run into some painful conflicts because lots of people believe them. And that creates dysfunction within (often immature, romantic, and fiery) members of other Christian traditions. For example, have you met Anglicans and Lutherans who refuse to call themselves Protestants? I have. In the Anglican world, this trend started in the 19th century, but I don’t know the Lutheran history of this tendency. Have you ever wondered where the impulse to do that came from? Isn’t it a kind of confused self-loathing to be an Anglican or Lutheran who turns up his nose to the Protestant Reformations? What’s going on here?

Impact of Modernity and Evangelical Movements

While there are some good critical questions to ask about the Reformations, and concern over modernity/”disenchantment” was very strong in the 1800s (another post for another day), one of the things we’re also seeing in the age of the internet is that many Anglicans and Lutherans are ceding the question to the various Baptists. They allow the Baptists to be the heirs of Protestantism and accept their Baptist-imposed exile from the Reformational world. Baptist practices and values ARE Protestant ones, or perhaps where Protestantism inevitably or logically leads.  And, oftentimes (I hate to say it), Reformed folks like the Presbyterians can act as enablers. At least in American evangelicalism, conservative Presbyterians tend to be more comfortable around conservative Reformed Baptists than they are around Lutherans and Anglicans. I’m sure there are a lot of reasons for this, and a big one has to do with the aesthetic consequences for various principles of worship, as well as how various traditions AT THE MOMENT relate to revivalism. I emphasize “at the moment” because plenty of Episcopalian low churchmen were comfortable with the various awakenings and their dynamics, but nowadays many conservative Anglican converts seek an escape hatch from revivalism (I am one of them).

Navigating Theological Tensions and Aesthetic Preferences

But, again, take note of the aesthetics, i.e. the “vibes.” Unfortunately, they wield a lot more influence in these internet scrapes than patient analyses of the primary sources do. A more capacious and long-suffering perspective would indicate that both Anglicans and Lutherans are thoroughly Protestant and have continued to practice Lenten disciplines ever since the Reformation, although contexts of frontier life or widespread social laxity certainly may have let some of this fall by the wayside. Nevertheless, look at the front matter of the historic prayer books–the prescriptions for seasonal abstinence, fasting, and extraordinary discipline are there. In fact, what Aniol has done is exclude two of the three Protestant Reformations from the table, all while holding a sacramental position repugnant to all three. He has decided that Anglicans and Lutherans don’t count as “children of the Reformation.” Yes, Zwingli represents a legitimate strain of Protestantism that has wielded much historical influence, but the two more conservative Reformations aren’t chopped liver. I don’t much care for fights over labels, but I do care about honesty. Kicking out the more “normative Protestant” traditions is incorrect and unkind, especially considering how some of their early leaders were martyred by Roman Catholic authorities.

As others have noted, guys on the internet like to compete and/or prove that they are more “hardcore” than others. Aniol has sought to display how hardcore Reformed/Protestant he is, and he objects that Lent-observant evangelicals are soft, Oxford Martyrs be damned. Vibes are king.

A Balanced Critique of Spiritual Practices

I would have more sympathy toward Aniol had he been historically accurate. After all, there is a sort of socially-aspirational evangelical (perhaps even a convert to the ACNA) that publicly preens about their bespoke Lenten regimen, especially over social media. Add to this flippant observations of Ash Wednesday, with “ashes to go” and “ashtags.” We could also note that, for Protestants, imposition of ashes didn’t make much of return until a century or two ago, even though such a practice (in various forms) is very ancient. It’s good and necessary to criticize these dysfunctions and abuses. Lenten fasting should fall in line with our Savior’s instructions regarding the danger of showmanship-piety. It’s also to be a common or communal devotional practice. If a parish, diocese, or province simply assigns some straightforward rules (with sane exceptions) for the fast, the more baroque choices for disciplines tend to mellow out. It’s not so extraordinary when everyone’s expected to do the same thing, at least within your parish.

Moreover, let the record show that today’s fasting expectations (at least for Westerners) are much lower than they tended to be in parts of Europe during the 1500s. That, plus conflicts regarding soteriology, indicate that Zwingli was clashing with something quite different than Aniol is, which is evangelicals that WANT to observe Lent. I don’t believe anyone is forcing these evangelicals to engage in these forms of ascesis upon threat of church discipline. They actually desire them, and they may be inspired (not forced) to do so by their pastoral leaders.

Spiritual Significance of Communal Practices

Moreover, those communal acts of penitence cannot help but reveal to the world some sobering realities with regard to sin and death, which ultimately turns our eyes to Christ for merciful redemption. Notably, one of the lectionary readings for Ash Wednesday is from Jonah, where the entire city of Nineveh dons sackcloth and ashes, with the king prescribing a penitential fast. The result is that God spares the city in His mercy.

Does that offend you?

This is where we get into the spirituality side of things. There’s a certain kind of evangelical that finds spiritual disciplines offensive, particularly when they are prescribed by pastoral-ecclesiastical authority. They immediately default to concerns about liberty in Christ, legalistic works-righteousness salvation, and, sometimes, really intricate hermeneutics that conveniently excise or downplay the biblical legitimacy of assigned public fasting. Lutherans and Anglicans embrace Christian liberty and justification by grace through faith–they wouldn’t observe Lenten fasting if they thought it would endanger these doctrines. As an REC parish recently summarized, we fast due to the following reasons:

Justification for Fasting

1. To chastise the flesh, that it be not too wanton (unrestrained), but tamed and brought in subjection to the spirit. This respect had St. Paul in his fast when he said, “I chastise my body, and bring it into subjection”’ (1 Cor 9:27).
2. That the spirit may be more fervent and earnest in prayer. To this end fasted the prophets and teachers that were at Antioch before they sent forth Paul and Barnabas to preach the Gospel (Acts 13). The same two Apostles fasted for the like purpose, when they commended to God by their earnest prayers the congregation that were at Antioch, Pisidia, Iconium, and Lystra (Acts 14:23).
3. That our fast be a testimony and witness with us before God of our humble submission to his high Majesty, when we confess and acknowledge our sins unto him, and are inwardly touched with sorrowfulness of heart, bewailing the same in the training of our bodies.

Interdenominational Dialogue and Doctrinal Intersections

I do not see the Baptists refuting these goals or values. In fact, they rarely interact with these defenses at all. They dismiss public penitence out of hand as pharisaism and a rejection of justification by faith, but they do not explore or wrestle with what, exactly, is going on with ascesis. They’ve not much to say on the subject (more on that later).

What motivates this kind of misfire? Aniol’s tweet might give us a clue: “[T]hose who believe in him need not ‘participate’ in his suffering in any way, especially not in an attempt to earn favor with God.” Again, Anglicans and Lutherans (and evangelical imitators) aren’t trying to earn favor with God. No one is doing that. Stop saying that we are, because we’re not. That’s a false witness.

Theological and Doctrinal Reflections

However, I think the rejection of participation in Christ’s sufferings is a significant error or at least a dangerous statement without some significant qualifications–it’s rhetorically pleasing to make such a claim, but it can lead to a seriously deprived devotional life, for discipleship is taking up our crosses to follow our Savior. The afflictions we endure in this mortal life for Christ’s sake are in Christ, cf. Col. 1:24 and Acts 9:4. I don’t think that’s something Aniol would deny, but I don’t like how that is left hanging there. Our godly sufferings are participation in the life and suffering of the Lord Jesus. We are never without Him in our suffering, but, rather, we are called to draw near Him. I’m sure Aniol would affirm this when such deprivations come from “the outside.” I think he strongly dislikes freely or voluntarily choosing deprivation as something of spiritual benefit, as in, “It’s fine if Caesar locks you in a dungeon and deprives you of food, but it is not fine if you (at the behest of your ecclesiastical authorities) choose to deprive yourself of food.” Again, why? And this is besides the fact that Christians have long reported that fasting helps with prayer and curbing various lusts/appetites.

More pointedly, Aniol qualified his statement: “We certainly may use the weeks leading up to Good Friday and Resurrection Sunday to intentionally remember various occasions in the life of Christ that led him to suffer for us on the cross.” How, pray tell, does the man of God remember such sufferings? Meditation upon them, obviously, but I think most voices in Church history would also say that seasonal fasting falls within the category of faithful memorial (consider, for example, the instructions for Yom Kippur). The abstinences and other disciplines are, in fact, “intentionally remembering.” What is being assumed by Aniol, perhaps, is that “remember” is mostly–purely?–cogitation. There’s not a lot of “doing” in terms of liturgical acts–not just recitations of specific passages of Holy Writ but also embodied things, like avoiding certain things at certain times OR (when feasts roll around) doing celebratory things at certain times. I don’t want to read too much into the statement there, but it certainly struck me as odd. For this Anglican, at least, the fasting IS a form of remembrance. It is how we do the thing that Aniol commends (or at least allows).

Cultural and Spiritual Observances

But let’s get to a final, foundational issue: there are a lot of Christians that have nothing to say about ascesis and don’t “do” it. They either reject it out of hand or pay it mere lip service, as in, “It’s fine for a believer to fast when he chooses,” and, lo and behold, the believer never chooses to do so. Is this an outworking of “Christian hedonism”? Is it just soft westerners being soft? And what’s the cost of this lacuna regarding ascesis? Robin Phillips had an interesting article addressing one of those at Touchstone recently. I think this is one of those silent crises afflicting the church at the moment: not just loosening up spiritual discipline/ascesis but jettisoning it altogether. This is where Anglicans and Lutherans have something to offer because we instruct our people to fast at least at certain times a year together (while allowing them to fast at other times, as well). What we’re facing is a flood, and I think folks like Aniol are rushing to the scene with fire extinguishers. Could it be that Lent-observing evangelicals aren’t just shopping around for novel spiritual experiences but are simply starved for spiritual discipline?

Author

-The Rev. Barton Gingerich, 2/15/2024