Matt Chandler Endorsing Lent, Acknowledges Mysticism

Evangelical hipster, and the go-to boy when it comes to building the bridge between pop-culture and mainstream evangelicalism, Matt Chandler, is at it once again. While he is well known for dabbling in questionable theology, and promoting mysticism within the church without pushing the envelope far enough to make the good-ole-boys too uncomfortable, he's not stopping short of once again encouraging his followers to slip into a state of mindless buff. In a recent Village Church podcast he discussed with the host, Josh Patterson, the applicability of the season of Lent in his congregation. While he says his church is not officially observing Lent, he does speak very positively of it, while putting out an official church publication guiding his congregation in the observance of the Catholic tradition. This is the typical double speak we've come to expect from Chandler, practicing and promoting questionable things while standing on his "safe place" of "not officially endorsing."

While promoting on the podcast that Lent is a good way to think about laying some things aside, and focusing on the sacrifice and salvation of our Lord, Jesus, he fails to understand the true history of Lent, and larger ramifications of observing an unbiblical tradition in unison with a religion that is the enemy of the Gospel. He acknowledges the arguments against the practice, and states that the arguments just aren't convincing enough for him to condemn the practice. According to Catholicism, Lent is observed in respect to the 40 days that Jesus spent in the wilderness fasting, however, there is no observance of Lent for several centuries after the crucifixion. Usually the observance of Lent is connected with giving up some kind of food, a television show, or some other bad habit for the 40 days before the Easter holiday. It is alleged that Lent is a form of self-denial, and a way to connect with the experience of self-denial that Jesus went through.

But there is absolutely no mention of a season of Lent in Scripture, and never were Christians or Jews commissioned to observe such a tradition. The true history of Lent can actually be traced back to the worship of the Babylonian goddess Ashtoreth, or Ishtar. Alexander Hislop, in his classic work, The Two Babylons, in the section entitled, Easter, explains the origin of the Lenten fast:

The forty days' abstinence of Lent was directly borrowed from the worshippers of the Babylonian goddess. Such a Lent of forty days, "in the spring of the year," is still observed by the Yezidis or Pagan Devil-worshippers of Koordistan, who have inherited it from their early masters, the Babylonians. Such a Lent of forty days was held in spring by the Pagan Mexicans, for thus we read in Humboldt, where he gives account of Mexican observances: "Three days after the vernal equinox...began a solemn fast of forty days in honour of the sun." Such a Lent of forty days was observed in Egypt, as may be seen on consulting Wilkinson's Egyptians. This Egyptian Lent of forty days, we are informed by Landseer, in his Sabean Researches, was held expressly in commemoration of Adonis or Osiris, the great mediatorial god.

Hislop also states:

Among the Pagans this Lent seems to have been an indispensible preliminary to the great annual festival in commemoration of the death and resurrection of Tammuz, which was celebrated by alternate weeping and rejoicing, and which, in many countries, was considerably later than the Christian festival, being observed in Palestine and Assyria in June, therefore called the 'month of Tammuz;' in Egypt, about the middle of May, and in Britain, some time in April. To conciliate the Pagans to nominal Christianity, Rome, pursuing its usual policy, took measures to get the Christian and Pagan festivals amalgamated, and, by a complicated but skillful adjustment of the calendar, it was found no difficult matter, in general, to get Paganism and Christianity -- now far sunk in idolatry -- in this as in so many other things, to shake hands. 

It is no doubt that Rome is a melting pot for world religions, and still is today. It is well known for mixing Pagan idolatry, observed through the veneration of the saints and Mary, with a Christian theme. However, there is no saving Gospel within the doctrines of Romanism. Rome, since ancient times has been nothing more than a religio-political system with the aim of world domination through whatever means necessary, be it politics, violence, or total control of your soul through religion. It is no different now, and Rome's agents are working hard to blur the lines of mainstream Evangelicalism with Catholicism.

While listening to Chandler's podcast, and his reasoning on the subject, on the surface it seems that his motives for doing so are benign. He takes the stance that the observance of Lent can be good if done so with Scriptural motives, and prayer and fasting are almost always considered worthy undertakings in Scripture. However, Scripture never calls for a public or corporate form of fasting, and those who fast are supposed to look and act as though they are not (Matthew 16:16-18). However, this observance of fasting during the season of Lent has become a commercialized mockery of biblical fasting, with people plastering advertisements all over social media of what they are "giving up for Lent," and "how hard it is" to do so.

Click for Larger Image

Traditionally, the celebration of Lent is more than just fasting and prayer. In Catholicism, there are a number of mystical aspects that also are at play. During this Catholic season, a mystical custom known as The Stations of the Cross are practiced. It's a method of going through a series of artistic representations of the steps Jesus took while carrying his cross to his crucifixion. The idea behind the practice is that through these artistic representations, often un-biblical, one's emotions are supposed to be evoked to the point of sorrow, and identification with Christ. However, this practice is condemned in Scripture. Sadly, many Evangelical churches, including Rick Warren's Saddleback, are adopting a form of this practice today, further muddying the waters between Catholicism and Christianity.

I also find it rather interesting that Chandler's Lent guide put out by his church is filled with Puritan prayers from the Valley of Vision. Considering it was the Puritans stance to abstain from man-made traditions such as Lent, I find it highly suspect that Chandler would use these as a means to observe. It's not that the substance of the guide itself is merely unscriptural, in many ways it is perfectly fine, and would otherwise be a great devotional, but the bigger issue here is the attempt to connect Catholicism with Biblical Christianity through this tradition. The Protestant reformation was based on the view that the Roman Catholic church was apostate, and that Biblical Christianity should stand apart from, and distinct from the Pagan traditions of Rome. However, Chandler, (and he's not the only one) seem to have lost their grasp on this highly important historical concept, and without second thought, are helping to reverse the Reformation.

For more information on why Protestants shouldn't observe Lent, see Entreating Favor's article: Five Reasons Not To Observe Lent


**UPDATE**
For those of you who are having a hard time grasping the point of this posting, many of you are emailing, tweeting, commenting, etc asking my what my problem is with how the nature of how Chandler or Protestants in general are observing Lent. Please do not email me with this question, as I have already addressed, it isn't necessarily the substance of Chandler's guide, or the nature of how someone who is Biblically focused "might" observe the Lenten season as much as it is the ecumenical nature of promoting the event. The problem herein lies that by publicly condoning a traditionally Catholic event, especially one that has no Biblical basis for observing, puts out the perception that Evangelicals and Catholics are growing closer, coming together, and joining together in the same types of worship. But this is far from the truth. As subtle as it may be, it's just another example of Evangelicals capitulating to Rome. Soon, it will be okay for Protestants to have statues of Mary around their campuses, "so long as they don't bow down or worship it." Protestants and Evangelicals are slowly moving away from, and beginning to defy "Sola Scriptura," and this is a serious problem. People will come up with any excuse that they can to defend something that pleases them, rather than stand on the Word of God as their absolute authority. I don't have a problem with the substance of Chandler's guide, I have a problem with what it represents.