Skip to main content

January Fasting

Are you doing dry January? Or vegan January? Or are you fasting? Perhaps your church or mission is organising a fast or encouraging supporters to fast at this time of year. It seems natural, after so much feasting, to begin fasting.

Is this biblical?

The only concern I have is that Jesus seems to teach that fasting should be done in secret:
"When you fast, do not look sombre as the hypocrites do, for they disfigure their faces to show others they are fasting. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. But when you fast, put oil on your head and wash your face, so that it will not be obvious to others that you are fasting, but only to your Father, who is unseen; and your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you." Mat 6:16-18
So, although fasting is a good thing, and I thoroughly encourage it, group fasting needs to be organised very carefully. Any encouragement to fast should be seen as optional, and private. It's better not to ask people how they are fasting. That is between them and the Lord.

I suppose Lent would come under the bracket of organised fasting (as would Ramadan, for Muslims, and Purim for Jews). Lent probably comes from the issue of not having enough food to last the winter, so people cut down the amount of meat, eggs, and so on they ate until Spring (actually Easter) arrived.

Ramadan is organised in such a way that it's easier to fast than not, as everyone (except pregnant women, those who are sick, the very young, etc.) fast during the daylight hours, then come together after dark (which is at the latest about 6-7 pm in most of the 10-40 window) for a big feast to break their fast. At the end of the fast is a festival called Eid al-Fitr (the Festival of Breaking the Fast). This is an even bigger feast.

Both these organised fasts have their pluses and minuses. But Jesus seems to be teaching us to fast alone, and in secret.


Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Flow Chart for Bible Translation (a Relevance Theory Approach)

One of the current theories behind modern translation work is Relevance Theory. [1] Here is a flow chart that explains the process often used to produce a draft when using such an approach: *Make sure your translation committee makes the decision as to what kind of translation they want. A domesticated translation is one that submits to dominant values in the target language [2] whereas a foreignized translation is one that is happy to import foreign terms and ideas from Hebrew, Greek, or the language of wider communication such as the Greek term baptizo . The chart looks something like this: Text                                   Communicated Ideas                  Context A sower went out to sow  A farmer went out to sow grain   People scattered/threw seed etc. The text has very little information, but behind i...
Post a Comment
Read more

Asset Based Bible Translation (ABBT)

Many of you will have heard of asset-based community development (ABCD). How can Bible translation programmes be asset based, rather than deficit based? The best way to look at this is a comparison table: Deficit based Asset based Driven by outsiders Driven by the community Outside funding Community funded Done to meet a need Done to help the community grow Quality control done by a consultant Community checked and approved Control from outside-in Lead by stepping back Products not accepted? Products are accepted Little engagement Engagement with products Scientific Organic Not sustainable Sustainable Of course many translation programmes these days are neither one nor t'other, they are somewhere between these two extremes. Nevertheless, this illustrates a point, and shows that the current ...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Problems and Pitfalls of Proof-Texting

Why is it wrong to proof-text when making an argument?  Proof-texting is when someone simply quotes a verse from the Bible, out of context, to make a point. This can be in a book, a conversation, an essay, or a sermon, to give some examples. I just did a quick read of some other blogs on this topic, and none of them wowed me, so I thought I'd write my own. Then I had an even better idea: why not get you to tell me why proof-texting is problematic? In other words, I want to crowd-source the problem, and get lots of input. Since it is my suggestion, and I already did some research, let me get the ball rolling. Proof-texting is problematic because: It ignores the original context of the verse. There are actually two types of context: The literary context of the verse, that is, the verse is situated in a passage (that might be making an entirely different point) of Scripture that has a certain genre. For instance, the book of Acts is narrative, which means it is descriptive of what hap...
3 comments
Read more