In his discussion of penitential seasons, Doug Wilson also offers this argument: “what gospel is implicitly preached by the practice of drawing out the process of repentance and forgiveness? It is a false gospel. Now I am not saying that fellow Christians who observe their church year in this way are preaching a false gospel, but I am saying that lex orandi lex credendi—the law of prayer is the law of faith, and over time, this liturgical practice will speak very loudly to our descendants. If we have the opportunity to speak to our descendants, and we do, then I want to tell them that the joy of the Lord is our strength.”
This is linked with his earlier comment, “Over time, as a system of works-righteousness began to establish a deeper hold on the minds and hearts of many professing Christians, the church calendar began to reflect a false understanding of the nature of the gospel.”
Putting these together, Doug’s point appears to be that observing penitential seasons teaches that we need to go through some form of self-affliction in order to gain forgiveness. By drawing out penitence over the 40 days of Lent, we are implying that forgiveness needs to be earned. This is a serious charge. Let me offer several responses.
1) One way to test Doug’s thesis is to ask what happens to churches that observe penitential seasons such as Lent. Do they fall into works righteousness or undermine the proclamation of free forgiveness? I grew up observing Lent in the Lutheran church, and Lutherans universally (so far as I know) observe Lent. So do Anglicans. Have Lutherans and Anglicans tended toward works-righteousness? At least for Lutherans, the answer is No, if we are looking at official documents. (On-the-ground piety is harder to assess, of course, and one might say that the somber atmosphere of some Lutheran bodies has some connection with Lent - as if Lent spread out to cover the entire calendar.) Conversely, one might ask whether churches that don’t observe Lent have avoided works-righteousness. The answer again seems to be No.
2) The lex orandi, lex credendi argument cuts both ways, of course. If a church has no periods of self-examination, reflection on Jesus’ death, or penitence, then she might miss or minimize a crucial aspect of Christian faith - sharing in Christ’s sufferings. Jesus seems to assume that fasting will be a regular part of the church’s life (“when you fast . . . .”), and the evidence in Acts suggests that it was for the early Christians.
3) It might be argued that trying to get God’s attention by fasting and abstinence is itself a form of works-righteousness (I don’t think this is Doug’s argument). But there is biblical evidence to the contrary. David fasted and lay on the ground after the birth of his son, in the hope that “Yahweh may be gracious to me, that the child may live” (2 Sam 12:22). When the Ninevites turn from their wicked deeds and fast, Yahweh relents; to be sure, their fasting was combined with sincere repentance from evil deeds, but their fasting and sackcloth was one of the “deeds” that Yahweh saw (Jonah 3:7-10). When Jerusalem came under attack, Jehoshaphat called for a fast “to seek help from Yahweh,” help that He provided (2 Chronicles 20:3-4). The sequence of Joel 2:15-20 suggests that Yahweh responds by being zealous for His land when Israel keeps a fast. Yahweh responded to Mordecai and the Jews who humbled themselves with fasting and sackcloth (Esther 4:1-4). Yahweh is aroused to pity by the affliction of His people (Judges 2:18), and it seems reasonable that He would be aroused by self-affliction. God responds to prayer; and He responds with pity and compassion toward those who, with sincere hearts, turn to Him in sackcloth and fasting. There is no implication that seeking God’s favor with such penitential practices is a form of merit-mongering.
4) Doug’s argument does assume that fasting and penitential rites are inconsistent with confidence that we are forgiven. Over time, long penitential seasons teach people that they have to do works, particular works of penitence, to be forgiven. That is certainly a danger of penitential practices, and it’s not a hypothetical one. Yet, there is no necessary conflict between confidence in God’s mercy and penitential practices. In part, this is due to the fact that fasting is not always directly connected with confession of sin. Sometimes it is (Nehemiah 9), but other times forgiven people fast to entreat the Lord to act. Nathan tells David that Yahweh has taken his sin (2 Sam 12:13), and David no doubt believes it. But that doesn’t keep him from fasting and afflicting himself as an intensified appeal for the Lord to remove the consequence of his sin - the death of his son. We can see a similar point from Daniel 9: Daniel fasts in sackcloth not because he doubts his standing before Yahweh but because he wants the Lord to fulfill His promise to restore Israel to her land.