What was that?
I’m sorry. I was distracted by the pretty, pretty, glittery… golden… shiney……

Speaking from the perspective of a former Southern Baptist, who is now a confirmed member of the LCMS, I believe that what is so harshly being viewed as a “double standard” is indeed, more acurately described as a clarity in the distinction between Law and Gospel.
While Baptist, I lived in great oppression under the guilt and shame of the Law, having been beat over the head with it to the point of spiritual discouragement, hopelessness, and a sense of defeat due to the uncertainty of my own worthiness as a poor sinful being.
There is great freedom and healing from sin that comes with living under true Grace through the Gospel. It’s like being taken by the hand and led from a very dark place into the light and love of Christ through His Gospel. I cherish my Baptism and the sacrament of the Altar.
We former evangelicals identify this within ourselves. We know what a precious treasure we have in the Lutheran Confessions. Likewise, we have a greater appreciation of what we have because of where we came from.
McCain: So very well said. Thank you.

If I may venture a guess, our double standard is based on the different goals of the Baptists and Orthodox. Baptists use their extra-Biblical legalism primarily as a “litmus test“ to judge if others are true Christians. They might claim their adherence to legalistic rules is done to insure their conduct honors God, but that quickly gives way to judging others who do not follow the same rules. Their motivation is less about nourishing their own spiritual state and more about concerning themselves with the spiritual state of others. The result is a very prideful and unloving attitude. (I too am a former Southern Baptist and concur with everything Ramona wrote.) I know far less about the Orthodox, but it appears their motivation is completely personal. They don’t desire to judge others; they desire to grow in their spiritual closeness to God. Because their goal is quite the opposite of the Baptists, their commitment to their extra-Biblical legalism results in greater humility and love toward others. Christians have a hard time condemning the legalism of the Orthodox because the results can be so positive! But as a Lutheran, I reject the legalism regardless of the goal. Whether one embraces legalism out of bitterness and pride, or love and humility, it will never give the righteousness of Christ, nor calm the fears of an anxious conscience.

Linking onto what Stonechurch said, might it also be that the Baptist legalisms (don’t drink any alcohol; no pants for women) simply aren’t attested to in Scripture, while commands and examples of fasting are numerous?
McCain: Pastor Fenton, would you please provide the Holy Scripture in which our Lord Christ commands fasting? Thank you.

As I read the posts on fasting, I couldn’t help but think how the issue illustrates what’s wrong with Lutheranism: We spend countless hours debating things that don’t really matter.
Whether we fast or don’t has NOTHING to do with our salvation. I agree there are abuses on both sides, but surely there are more important issues, such as individual vs. common cup? (sarcasm intended)

To Rev McCain:
If you’re asking specifically where, in His 33 years, the Incarnate Logos directed or commanded us to fast, I would say Mt 6.6. The rejoinder I often hear ranges from “That doesn’t count” to “That’s only one, and weak at that.” But it seems that one is enough, and that “when” assumes “you will” (as in, “when you pray”).
Yet if we allow Our Lord’s commands to include all of Scripture, then in line with the church fathers, I find Gen 2.17 to be the first, and laws and examples of fasting continuing even into the Pauline epistles. The rejoinder I hear to that argument ranges from “fanciful exegesis” to “Christ abolished OT laws” to “find that in Luther.” But it seems to me that a careful reading of the Augustana and Apology indicates that the Reformers are opposed to “fasting-for-earning-favor” rather than “fasting,” as I’m sure you’ll agree.
To Mr Leininger:
I would humbly suggest that the Holy Spirit didn’t waste his breath on adiaphora.
McCain: Pastor Fenton, if I understand your post correctly, you believe that Matthew 6:6 is a command, for Christ says “When you fast” just as he says, when asked by His disciples about prayer, “When you pray.” I would respectfully suggest however that the verse you cite is not a command, for in the passage re. the Lord’s Prayer our Lord does in fact use an imperative, “When you pray ….. say….” and then proceeds to give the Lord’s Prayer. I find no command from Christ on fasting. As I’ve said numerous times in this discussion on fasting, fasting is a good thing, and clearly is regarded as part and parcel of the Christian’s life, but there simply is no command from the Lord about it and for a church to lay down requirements, rules and regulations and such on fasting is legalism and is contrary to the Most Holy Gospel. I asked you for text of Holy Scripture to sustain your claim that we have commands from our Lord in regard to fasting. You provided, in my opinion, no command at all and certainly nothing by way of Scripture to justify the sort of intricate prescriptions and requirements created by the Eastern Orthodox Church re. fasting. You are straining to provide text from Divine Truth to justify the laws laid down by some church re. fasting. I believe there is no such text in Holy Scripture. Therefore, you must finally rely on “Holy Tradition” for such extra-Biblical teachings. That is, of course, a perfectly acceptable thing for an Eastern Orthodox priest or layperson to do, but not for a Lutheran. My position on fasting has been made clear in these several blog posts, so I won’t repeat myself.

Rev. McCain:
Thank you for your respectful reply. I understand your position: you don’t agree with the traditional exegesis. I’m not sure you understand mine. I’m not defending Eastern Orthodox practice. I’m defending the western catholic practice–which the first Lutherans claimed to maintain. (AC XXI)
But you’re right, we’ve both made our positions clear and further debates would require one of us to “give.”
McCain reply: Pastor Fenton, to “defend the western catholic practice” is fine, as far as it goes. But to defend error in that tradition is quite another. The Lutheran Confessions are very clear that to attempt to establish rules and regulations in regard to fasting is wrong and contrary to the teaching of Holy Scripture and ultimately harmful to the Gospel. You are, in my opinion, and again, with respect to you John, not fairly presenting the whole picture here. You seem to want to play one point in the Confessions off the other.

I’m curious, Rev McCain, why you’ve deliberately changed the title Zion Church has graciously afforded me. Not that I’m opposed to the word “Pastor.” But I’ve not chosen or granted myself the appellation “Father”–it has been given to me by my parish. Now I don’t wish to be snide, but such a deliberate change on your part suggests a contradiction to the “legalism” against which you often rail.
I don’t expect you to post this message–in fact, I would not if I were you. I’m simply writing you here because I’ve misplaced your non-cph edress.
A response would be appreciated but not necessary.
McCain response:
Pastor Fenton, while your congregation may choose to refer to you as “Father” such a choice does not require me to do the same. I prefer to refer to you as “Pastor” a title that has much more Biblical warrant and support than “Father.” To my knowledge, throughout most of the Lutheran church since soon after the death of Luther, pastors were referred to not as “Father” but by the title of Pfarrer, Pastor.

Amen to Pastor McCain’s comments on fasting in the Scriptures. The only “commands ” about fasting I find in scripture (excluding the Mosaic regulations abolished in Christ) are those given by St. Paul against the false apostles who were oppressing the churches with dietary laws (Col. 3):
16.Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
17.Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.
18.Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,…
20.Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances,
21.(Touch not; taste not; handle not;
22. Which all are to perish with the using;) after the commandments and doctrines of men?
Fasting is a good and salutary practice too often neglected today, but when the church begins legislating on such matters without God’s mandate, this is the work of Adversary.

To those who post without identification: Your words are empty.
McCain: Words posted without identification are empty?
On the EO fasting: The problem with the LCMS is that it is a mere adolescent child compared to the longer lived Orthodox. They have had many centuries to refine the suggested guidance on fasting and other forms of personal piety. As a result we see what they do as “legalism”. When it could be that the guidance is to protect the over zealous from personal harm, and to give opportunity for the whole body to act as one.
McCain: Karl, perhaps you can point me to the source in EO literature, or writings, that indicates that the EO regulations concerning fasting are “suggested guidelines” and not in fact prescriptions or preconditions for participation in their sacraments and cermonies. I’m not sure from whence you derive your position that the EO rules on fasting are “suggestions” or “guidelines.” I’ve not been able to find any such language in any EO sources I’ve consulted, from Greek, Russian or elsewhere. The only ones I find that seem to try to “tone down” the “mandate” aspect of the EO fasting policies are converts to EO.
It is rather entertaining to watch the convulsions among Lutherans at the suggestion of personal piety which does not flow out of the pious person’s heart. Because we Americans rebel against any authority, it is natural we rebel against the idea of an authoritarian church.
McCain: I’m not sure what “convulsions” you are referring to, or where you found a Lutheran suggesting that personal piety flows out of the pious person’s heart, but you won’t find it on this blog, and you won’t find it in the Lutheran Confessions. In fact, the Lutheran Confessions fairly rail at “piety” flowing from a person’s heart. In fact, this is precisely the objection we have to laws about fasting. They are humanly derived, not Divinely mandated, a point seemingly lost on some of our Eastern-leaning folks.
Shame on us for deriding any person’s piety. Perhaps we would better serve our neighbor if we lovingly taught fasting and other pious acts in light of the Confessions and Holy Scripture. But of course, we cannot really talk about fasting because to do so brings attention to it and that is “bad” according to some people.
McCain: I encourage you to read quite a bit more carefully what I’ve actual written There is no “derision” of anyone’s personal piety. There is rejection of any church’s attempt to make a “Thus saith the Lord” out of custom or tradition that does not find its source in our Lord’s mandate, but only in human tradition.
This is only the second year that I am aware of the conflict created by the suggestion of fasting. There are many things of personal piety and operation of the church which are not mentioned in Scripture, why don’t we scream bloody murder at other forms of personal piety? Nobody anywhere is saying that fasting, prayer, and alms giving justifies the sinner. Nobody. So why oh why do we say they are?
McCain: I’m now left wondering if you actually even bothered to read the posts on this blog site about fasting. I believe you are confused and I hope you can come to some resolution of your misunderstandings.
The point is this. Fasting is indeed fine outward bodily preparation. It is a good thing, It can be a good thing. But it can never be a good thing when it is put forward to our people as a command, with regulations concerning the when, how, and what….that is neither Biblical nor Confessional.
Mr. Gregory, may I ask that you please read the posts on this blog site before commenting on them?

In response to the original question, I can only point you to the exacting and precise instructions given by God to Moshe as to how to construct the furnishings for the Mish’kan, keil’im for the Divine Service performed by the Kohen’im, and be’gad’im to be worn by the Kohen Gadol. See Se’fer Sh’mos for details on these commandments.
These commandments, given by God in His great mercy, cannot be construed as “Law” (in the Lutheran sense) pointing to sin and condemnation, but are INSTRUCTIONS, given by Divine Mercy to the Children of Israel as to how to worship Him. We are to LEARN about God from the furnishings of the Tabernacle and Holy Temples.
McCain: It would seem that the EO church is then quite selective about which Old Testament ceremonial worship laws it follows and which it does not. St. Paul makes it clear in the New Testament that all such laws are but shadows of the reality which is Christ. There are no such “laws” placed on Christians anymore. EO false doctrine is the source of the practices you seem to be advocating.
For, (and I’ll translate to English here) the specific and exacting specifications given to Moses for building of the Tabernacle (and later the two Holy Temples), the furnishings used for Divine Service, and the vestments of the priest were given as a visible sign to our human senses so that we understand in whose presence we are standing. To deny that the furnishings of the Holy Temple (with all their “glitter” and whatever other idiotic adjectives you used)is to deny God’s mercy.
The Orthodox Church furnishings, with all their “glitter” etc are EXACT REPRESENTATIONS of the furnishings in the Tabernacle and Holy Temples. Look through the Book of Exodus and see the exact correspondence!
McCain: The problem however is that the New Testament knows of NO such regulations, rules and requirements. Christ fulfilled all such shadows and types. There is absolutely no evidence from “Holy Tradition” that the early church tryed to imitate Old Testament tabernacle worship. This “development” came about as a sad result of faulty theology and understandings which developed later in the Early Christian era.
Thus, even though the Tabernacle and Holy Temples need not exist any more, The furnishings of the church, and especially the Holy Altar in our churches, where we partake of our God’s Body and Blood still “explains” the Divine Presence to us by using the same visual and sensual tokens that existed in the Holy-of-Holies during the Tabernacle and Temple times.
McCain: In Christian freedom there may be room for such “imitation” but there can be nothing by way of requirement, rule, regulations and law. This is precisely anti-thetical to the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Karl, forgive me for not identifying myself above. I was in a bit of a rush and must have forgotten to provide my name. I also made an error in my scripture citation. The quote is from Colossians 2, not 3
Here’s some more guidance from the Apostle (1 Tim.4):
“1.Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
2.Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
3.Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
4.For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:
5.For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.”
1 Cor. 8:8: “But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither if we eat are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse.”
Rom. 14:3: “Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth, for God hath received him.”