This sermon is from the Rev. Charles G. Dennison sermon archive, part of the “Sermon on the Mount” series, and was preached at Grace Orthodox Presbyterian Church in Sewickley, PA, during a worship service on Sunday, June 25, 1989.
About this sermon
Rome’s theology of fasting mixes revelation with tradition until the two blur together. Catholic penance obscures what Christ’s death on the cross has already accomplished. A Protestant view of fasting has to clear that layer away first.
Sermon transcript
verses sixteen through eighteen in Matthew chapter six. Jesus is speaking here. And whenever you fast, do not put on a gloomy face as the hypocrites do. For they neglect their appearance in order to be seen fasting by men. Truly, I say to you, they have their reward in full. But you, when you fast, anoint your head and wash your face so that you may not be seen fasting by men, but by your Father who is in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will repay you.” I’m turning over to chapter nine, verses fourteen through seventeen. Then the disciples of John came to him, saying, Why do we and the Pharisees fast, and your disciples do not fast?
Jesus said to them, The attendants of the bridegroom cannot mourn as long as the bridegroom is with them, can they? Days will come when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast. But no one puts a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old garment, for the patch pulls away from the garment, and a worse tear results. Nor do men put new wine into old wineskins, otherwise the wineskins burst, and the wine pours out, and the wineskins are ruined. But they put new wine into fresh wineskins, and both are preserved.
We are thankful, Father, that your word has been heard today as it has been spoken forth in truth from those pulpits where that truth is honored and the gospel revered. And we thank you, Lord, for men who preach without compromise, who do so in love, who do so with evidence of great forbearing, like unto that forbearing that is evidenced from heaven.
And we ask, Father, that you would grant to them and to your people a great sense of contentment Not that there isn’t much to be done, many sermons and messages yet to be preached, much to be accomplished in the lives of your people. But Father, we ask that there would be a tremendous sense of satisfaction in what you have provided. And certainly, a great sense of delight in and satisfaction with the salvation that has been granted to us. Father, we pray that such contentment and satisfaction would be in itself a message that goes forth to the world. Encourage us, then, Lord, in our lives May we delight increasingly with you. May we be filled up to all the fullness of our God, through Christ Jesus our Savior. Amen.
We are looking at the practice of fasting as it has been observed by the Church. And this morning we threw a few rocks at our own house. We covered the territory that belongs to the Presbyterian and Reformed Churches. These are the things, in summary, that we observed. At one time, fasting was a common practice in Reformed and Presbyterian churches, both in the English-speaking world and amongst those churches of the Continental Reformation.
But fasting now, as I’m sure you know very well, has fallen into near total disuse. Practiced seldomly, if ever, in the life of our churches. Now, there are some who have judged this is a sign of severe spiritual decline, and from a certain point of view, it may well be. In the prose of charismatic renewal, there have been those who have suggested that because fasting has faded away, and because of a certain reading of Matthew 17, verse 21, The church now is in an age in which it lacks, in the most extreme form, any true spiritual power. Fasting gone, power is gone as well. So there are those who would suggest to us that the loss of fasting is a severe loss, and there is a certain perspective on the matter of fasting that would suggest to us that fasting is a proper enterprise, a proper activity for the Church and for Christian individuals. But the decline of fasting may well be not an altogether negative development. not an altogether negative development.
Not that there hasn’t been, in the history of the Presbyterian and Reformed churches, a grand effort made, at least originally, to be true to the Protestant and Reformational impulse. We pointed these matters out to you this morning. Originally, the Presbyterian and Reformed churches saw fasting as occasional and periodic events. with no prescribed times, no set occasions for their practice. Thus maintaining that very beneficial liberty with respect to the practice as a whole, and underscoring that essential liberty that was being expressed in the Reformation, Also. Originally, the Presbyterian and reformed tradition. Pressed very hard to maintain the connection between fasting and prayer. They went together. They were inseparable. And with respect to that yoke pair. Fasting and prayer.
Prayer, the prescribed means of grace, always received the greatest emphasis. Fasting, therefore, was an important exercise, resorted to often by the Church on particular occasions. It was an important exercise demanded of the church and the saint alike, but an exercise bound to and having its appropriate end in that means of grace prayer.
In other words, fasting had no independent value in and of itself. the mystics, and certain within the Catholic tradition, taught otherwise. But finally, the Presbyterian and Reformed Church upheld that Protestant impulse with respect to fasting by their insistence that the act of fasting was in no way penitential. That is to say, fasting as an activity had no power to absolve of guilt. And fasting had no inherent power by which it could positively commend us to God. It had nothing within it that communicated to the one engaged in the fasting a direct moral merit through which God’s favor was then gained. Now that’s what we said this morning with respect to the positive assessment of the practice of fasting within the Presbyterian and Reformed tradition.
But we also noted some unfortunate aspects in the tradition as it developed. Two, specifically. First of all, there was that movement from a sort of directed liberty to an oppressive obligation, in which fasting began to widen its purview and its application within the life of the Church. It may well be that the Protestants of Presbyterian and Reformed strife were not bound like others to engage in fasts at particular times of the year. Calendar bound, if you will. The fasts began to appear inevitably attached to specific practices like ordinations and installations, like preparations for the celebration of the Lord’s Supper. They avoided the prescribed fasts of the high church, but created a schedule for themselves. And the consequence? A predictable increase of legislation to oversee the fasting activity, as well as a rise in formalism and all of the dangers attendant thereunto. But that’s a minor point, compared to the next one that we laid out for you this morning.
You see, there was a flaw at this very point within the Reformation itself that was carried through into the confessional expressions of both the continental tradition and the English tradition. We can even hear it spoken of by Calvin in his Institute. For fasting, in the mind of the reformers, and as it was then treated by the reformed creeds, was seen to be a means by which we might tame the flesh.
Asceticism survives, still. So it was, you see, that that particularly problematic doctrine for us of reform strike, namely the doctrine of sanctification, has certain weaknesses even here attached unto it. For you see, the practice of fasting was worked into the definition of sanctification. Fasting was a means of sanctification, a means to holiness. The latent asceticism lingers.
An unfortunate, an unfortunate emphasis then that in its more offensive forms will concentrate itself in the development of the doctrine of sanctification itself. A weakness that is observed in which a practice, an activity such as fasting, is allowed to rise to the level where it actually threatens to obliterate the purpose of the practice. or the person behind the practice, the person to whom the practice is directed. Holiness then found in the activity and not in God Himself.
We ought to praise God for John Murray. Lawrence Ayers tells us, if I can put in a plug for the book, Pressing Toward the Mark, he has a little survey there of the life of John Murray. He suggests to us that the most positive contribution of John Murray to our understanding of Reformed Christians is in his doctrine of sanctification, the development, the explication of that doctrine of sanctification, and his emphasis upon definitive sanctification, the accomplishment of sanctification in and through Christ, which then becomes the ground and source of all the expressions of and demonstrations of holiness in us. our union with the one who is in fact sanctified perfectly and fully. Well, we have said then that fasting has not of late shared well among us, but that may well be providential. breathing, space, time to think, possibly to reformulate, to recapture the genius of biblical fasting for benefit to the church and to us.
But having said this now, we move on. And we look at the Roman Catholic tradition with respect to fasting and where that tradition presently stands, for we will observe similar things. There has been a radical decline. Fasting falling into disuse amongst Roman Catholics, less and less insistence upon it, That may be also calculating in the direction of something better still. Now the development of the fast for the Roman Catholic Church is something that is quite elaborate and complicated. In order to set the tone for our consideration of that development, I want you to listen to a modern-day Roman Catholic, Raymond Garrard, who presents a defense of Roman Catholic practice.
This is what he says. The Roman Catholic Church has remained faithful to the tradition. I want you to listen to this very carefully. The Roman Catholic Church has remained faithful to the tradition of observing Jewish customs in the spirit defined by Jesus. Listen carefully to what the man says. If I go through this, I want you to be reflecting on just how the words of this man bring to light the inherent weaknesses within the Catholic tradition and set up for us, through this matter of fasting, a paradigm, if you will, for analyzing, scrutinizing the Roman Catholic Church as a whole. The Roman Catholic Church has remained faithful to the tradition of observing Jewish customs in the spirit defined by Jesus, and seeks, by the practice of fasting, to place the faithful in an attitude of total openness to the grace of the Lord while waiting for his return.
Now, faced with that just at a superficial and innocent hearing, you may not be particularly distressed. But I want you to take note of two things here. First of all, what does he mean by Jewish customs in relationship to the spirit defined by Jesus? And secondly, what is involved in an attitude, quote, of total openness to the grace of the Lord.” What does this man mean by these things?
As to the first part, the Jewish customs spoken of by him, a survey of the history of fasting for the Roman Catholic Church may prove helpful. Early on, Christians from the second century, at least pockets of them, had entered into a practice in which they submitted to a prescription for fasts. There were Christians, end of the first century, beginning of the second, in which fasting was a prescribed activity. and they picked up on this activity because of their relationship to Judaism. In Judaism, the Pharisees had come to fast twice weekly.
I said this morning, Mondays and Thursdays. They fasted on those days because they related those days and the fasting involved to the ascent and descent of Sinai by Moses. Along came the Christians. They suggested a better practice would be to fast on Wednesdays and Fridays. Because on Wednesday, Jesus was betrayed. On Friday, he was crucified. That’s what they said. That was the prescription. Eventually, the Wednesday fast disappeared. The Wednesday weekly fast disappeared. Remaining intact was the Friday fast. This was a weekly observance.
There was also more than a weekly observance arising out of Jewish custom. Christians looking to their Old Testament and the customs of Judaism began to play with certain fasts that they found in the Old Testament, using them then in the setting of what they called Lent. Originally, Rome observed a 40-hour fast, stretching from Wednesday through Good Friday. A periodic, a calendar event every year, not just weekly, but this fast prescribed in the yearly cycle. Now that number 40 was significant because it was believed, of course, keeping with the Old Testament background that they were here capturing the sense of the forty-day fast of both Moses and Elijah. And by the fourth century, this forty-hour fast had become a forty-day fast, the entirety of the period of Lent leading up to Easter. But there is still more. Not just the weekly fast, not just then that calendar fast that was associated with that specific event important to the Christian church.
There arose quarterly fasts as well, and that on the background of Jewish custom. The exilic community, you know what I’m speaking of when I speak of the exilic community? The community of Israel that went into exile in Babylon. And the post-exilic community of Jews observed fasts in the fourth, fifth, seventh, and tenth months. So it was that the Roman Church devised a quarterly fast on the background of the periodic monthly fasts amongst the Jews.
This practice has fallen into disuse. I might say that there is something of a decline with respect to all of these aspects of fasting within the Roman Catholic Church. All that remains presently for prescribed fasting amongst Roman Catholics are the two days, Ash Wednesday and Good Friday.
Now, I think the instructive point at this juncture has to do with the marriage of custom with faith that then leads on to prescription, binding the conscience and the practice of the faith. The Roman Church has made no bones about it. It elevates custom and tradition. It binds that together with revelation, and in this it believes it has the adequate foundation for Christian practice and belief. A weakness for Rome exhibited here. Indeed, they may claim to have the new wine, but they seem to be keeping around the old wineskins. Another interesting feature of the Roman Catholic fast. Is this? It’s no fast at all! Are you aware of that? You remember the Puritan of the Protestants in the Reformation tradition? Total abstinence!
That was what was That was what was described or expected or demanded when a fast was observed. If the weakness of the Roman Catholic tradition is laid bare by the marriage of tradition to revelation, it is also laid bare by this feigned observance claiming that something, in fact, is being observed that isn’t observed at all.
Who abstains? Only the most extreme of the ascetics, only those who are in the monasteries and in the monasteries. Who abstains? You just refrain from certain kinds of food that you’re allowed to eat nonetheless. You have a meal at midday. You have little collations morning and evening. But a fast, a true fast?
Not at all. It was never in place. So you use the name, and you claim the benefit, and nothing of the sort, with respect to the thing in view, is in view at all. Why, it’s utter sham. It’s complete hypocrisy. The form stands now. Well, even more than that. Nearly the name of the form stands in the place of that form and its substance. There’s no true fact. There’s no abstinence. Why mature people would sit still for such things is beyond me. But finally, We want to consider this other matter, that we brought up in connection with the quotation from Mr. Gerard. That is, the attitude of total openness to the grace of the Lord through the medium of the fast.
This same Roman Catholic has said this, The first coming of Jesus cannot be read as absolving the church of its responsibility for penitential act. A.C.T.S. While waiting for the bridegroom to come back to us, penitential fasting has its place properly in the church’s practice.
Well, penance was never a part of fasting to begin with, and it certainly isn’t a part of fasting as it is surveyed and treated by Jesus, either in Matthew 6 or Matthew 9. Penance was never in view. The marriage of tradition to revelation. the preservation of the names of things when the substance is completely eroded. But here, the preservation of an entire system of religious activity and thought that is predicated upon the practice of penance. The only proper meaning of fasting is as it expounds penance. Do you understand the notion of penance in Roman Catholicism?
Do you understand it as foundational to the entirety of the discipline? The teaching is this. You, in part, pay for your sins. That’s it. You, in part, pay for your sins. And how do you pay for this? By denying yourself things. By engaging in certain activities. By doing what is prescribed.
Now the practice of fasting may be in decline. But beliefs and attitudes towards tenants are well in place. If we could conclude that with the decline of fasting in the Roman Church, there was also a weakening of a position with respect to penance, then we would rejoice. For liberty is not far, if that is the case. Part and parcel, then, of the Roman view of fasting is the propriety of penance. Penance!
An act whereby we contribute to our own forgiveness, by which we are absolved of our sins, by which we cultivate positive merit before God. This, you see, is the very thing against which Luther and Calvin invade. We know that any such view of fasting is utterly contrary to the gospel, for it suggests a method for forgiveness of sins that eclipses, that clouds, that obscures the truth that Jesus on the cross paid it all.
He was the sacrifice once offered for the satisfaction. Now if you combine these latter two observations A practice by Rome in which the word now stands in the place of the activity, and it’s supposed to be enough. And such activity is to be payment for sin? For my sin? You utterly trivialize the whole matter. seriousness of sin and payment for it. How do you begin in light of such trivialization to reconstruct the magnitude of what was going on at Calvary?
So, fasting a practice in decline. Amongst Presbyterian and Reformed, even amongst those who have boasted they know it so well, the Catholics. But is this a day of opportunity for the reconstruction of a proper view with respect to fasting and a renovation of that practice to the benefit of the church and even to us as individuals? As I said this morning, and say again now in conclusion, fasting was that minor aspect of the greater enterprise of meeting God never meant to obscure or eclipse that encounter so that It could well be that when the people of God are hungry once more to meet God, the fast will revive. That is truly beneficial.
One that is expressive of our liberty in Christ. of our desire to know him and our willingness to live for him. Our Father we would hunger for you and in our hunger for you we may find that we are forgetful of our hunger here and Lord we pray that the preoccupations of our meeting with you then would be that vantage point from which we observe all activities even the activity of fasting. But Lord, we ask you that you will preserve us from the faults of our fathers and from the faults of the church as she has expressed herself in times past. Be pleased, Lord, to strengthen us with a knowledge that arises from your words.
The sermon text provided above is derived from the sermon audio recording making use of generative tools. It has not been manually edited. While transcription tools have a high degree of accuracy, the output may include generative textual, punctuation, and/or formatting errors.

