What is the Protestant way to mark Lent?

Origins

While Jesus is recorded as having fasted for 40 days, the Bible does not record his followers adopting this practice, and as such we have to look at other records to see where the practice began. One useful collection of sources, although not necessarily an unbiased one, is the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia which has an article about Lent. It says that in the fifth century, Saints Leo and Jerome claimed that observance of a 40 day fast was a tradition that had been instituted by the Apostles, but it also admits that these saints were probably just guessing, as other historical records give a different picture. Despite controversy regarding the timing of the fast, though, the idea of celebrating Pasch and fasting beforehand dates back at least as far as the second century, establishing a very strong precedent.

Admittedly, the Biblical precedent might be to celebrate Easter weekly, on the first day of the week, Sunday, meaning that each Friday would symbolically represent Good Friday. The connection between the references to “40 days” in the Bible and a possible 40 hours of Jesus in the tomb is then another intriguing dimension to this. Even just in terms of 40 day fasts, however, there are the examples of Moses and Elijah in addition to (and in a sense prefiguring) the 40 day fast of Jesus, suggesting that this is the most appropriate duration.

The next controversy, however, was about the nature of the fast, that is which foods should be excluded. Originally it seems everyone had different rules regarding items such as bread, eggs, fruit, fish, cheese, wine, birds, milk, and flesh meat, until a standard was set (originally, the article says, in a letter from Saint Gregory to Saint Augustine of England) forbidding “flesh meat, and from all things that come from flesh”. It is from this prohibition that the tradition of Shrove Tuesday arose and apparently the tradition of giving eggs (nowadays chocolate eggs, which can still make sense) on Pasch.

Relaxations

Just as the practice may have shifted from no food(?) all week, to one or two meals a week, to one meal a day, the types of food allowed and the times when it was permitted to be eaten also increased. At one point water was allowed during the day, then water and a few bites of solid food became acceptable (apparently according to Saint Thomas Aquinas), then a meal not more massive than eight ounces. This meal was in addition to the one meal allowed in the day, which was supposed to be held in the evening, but due to successive shifts in reference point, that main meal moved to as early as lunchtime.

Perhaps the biggest relaxations of the rules were in actually allowing meat to be eaten during Lent, first on Sundays, and then on two, three, four, and five weekdays. These relaxations have been officially sanctioned by the Pope, but not for everyone and not without any timing restriction. The article says “In the United States, the Holy See grants faculties whereby working men and their families may use flesh meat once a day throughout the year, except Fridays, Ash Wednesday, Holy Saturday, and the vigil of Christmas. The only compensation imposed for all these mitigations is the prohibition during Lent against partaking of both fish and flesh at the same repast.” There is something to be said for keeping the fish-only rule on Fridays, especially if this rule is suspended between Pasch and Pentecost, because with 52 Fridays in the year, the fish-Fridays can be thought of as a tithe of the (365/366 days of the) year.

Protestant influence

With the article using the term “indulgence” to describe the Pope permitting meat to be eaten on certain days, though, this is probably a good point to mention some useful Protestant doctrine. In “A Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope”, the theologians assembled at Smalcald in 1537 wrote that the Pope “adds also that by divine right he has both swords, i.e., the authority also of bestowing kingdoms [enthroning and deposing kings, regulating secular dominions etc.].” and condemn the Pope’s political meddling. The idea that the Pope should be able to dispense with rules for people in one country is just the sort of abuse of power that the early Protestants were trying to prevent, and I think it would be reasonable for a Protestant today to treat the so-called Pope’s policy as allowing any Christian anywhere to eat flesh meat on those days.

There is the bigger issue here about why the Pope should be able to decide the rules at all, and indeed a significant principle of Protestantism is the “liberty of conscience”. Along these lines one could argue that a Christian should be able to decide for themselves how to mark Lent, perhaps by giving up a favourite food or hobby in order to practice focusing the mind on God more. This liberty is at least implicitly recognised in the lectionary of the Church of England, where the weekdays of Lent are called “days of discipline and self denial” without specifying what this entails. Another popular choice for Anglicans is, instead of giving something up, to take on a virtuous habit, such as reading the Bible more, praying more, or giving to charity more.

Although this approach may have gained sufficient acceptance by the Church at large, it does lack the additional strength of being based on a long-standing tradition. This is in comparison with the original Lutheran view, which can be seen in article 15 of the Augsburg Confession, where it is admitted that “Of Usages in the Church they teach that those ought to be observed which may be observed without sin, and which are profitable unto tranquillity and good order in the Church, as particular holy days, festivals, and the like.” Aware of how these practices can lead to confusion, though, article 15 also contains the following proviso: “Wherefore vows and traditions concerning meats and days, etc., instituted to merit grace and to make satisfaction for sins, are useless and contrary to the Gospel.”

Perhaps as a result of trying to balance these two important principles, there does not appear to be a standardised Lutheran view on observing Lent, at least in terms of fasting and discipline. I was surprised, though, to learn one distinctly Lutheran practice which was to sing a hymn containing a large number of “Alleluia”s on Shrove Tuesday, to make up for the fact that during Lent the word is avoided in the liturgy and hymns.

Other influences

In order to regain a historically legitimate view of fasting, it is worth examining the Eastern Orthodox practice and tradition. The rules prohibit animal products, alcohol and oil, but the strictness of applying these rules is up for interpretation. While talking to a friend with a Greek Orthodox background, I heard the slightly amusing story about attending a meal on a day of fasting, and he noted how people were trying to sound serious about their fasting while they were dining on lobster, which wasn’t forbidden on that day. I don’t think that fasting should require abstaining from all enjoyable things, so I don’t think the diners were necessarily doing anything wrong, although as an extension to this anecdote I heard that there were apparently two types of dip available at the meal, one with olive oil and one without, and the one with olive oil was forbidden although this wasn’t labelled, making it hard for any visitors to know what the rules were.

To go a step further when considering Eastern fasting practices, though, one could consider the ascetic tradition, where not only would meat and alcohol be forbidden, but also sexual intercourse and the wearing of comfortable clothes. These last two might seem outside the scope of fasting, but they do, like fasting itself, have Biblical precedents. I’m not sure how easy it is to purchase sackcloth t-shirts, but as for the ashes, that shouldn’t be hard to experience, and in fact ashing is practised by Lutherans and Anglicans alike, so could almost be considered mandatory.

One extra Eastern Orthodox tradition that I could appreciate is the Greek celebration called “tsiknopempti”, which roughly translates as “smoke Thursday” or “barbecue Thursday”. This day is technically not within Lent, but like Shrove Tuesday (“Fat Tuesday”) it is still worth mentioning, and the two are related in that this day is equivalent to Fat Thursday which is celebrated outside Greece. The idea of having a barbecue in the week before Pancake Day sounds like fun, even if February / March is not the most meteorologically appropriate time of year. I actually found out about Fat Thursday through a Polish friend with a Roman Catholic background who helped me discover an article on Wikipedia about faworki. I hope I find an opportunity to try some of that amazing food, without having to wait until next year.

That does lead to the question of when it would be appropriate to eat pancakes, and whether faworki or other similar foods should be classed as being the same as pancakes. I think that it is too late to bring back a prohibition on butter and eggs during Lent, as even the Roman Catholics have given up on that, but giving up pancakes and all food made from the same ingredients during Lent would appear to make sense if someone is claiming any sort of religious significance to eating pancakes on Shrove Tuesday. This would possibly outlaw Yorkshire puddings with Sunday lunch, which might be a stretch too far, so alternatively the rule could be that food made from pancake batter has to be savoury and not sweet. That would mean that waffles are acceptable, depending on what you put on them.

So the question is, what would Presbyterians do to mark Lent? Would they re-read 1 Timothy 4:3 or Luke 5:35?