gray_robe

I'd like to take a moment to remind people that the topic of this thread is about rejecting the teachings of Jesus (the new wine). New wine skins are soft and flexible. They change with the new wine. Old wine skins are hard and inflexible. They do not change. . Shiloh brings up "leading in prayer" and asks me about it. He clearly makes a connection between "leading in prayer" and the words of Jesus. This "words of Jesus" thing is something Shiloh has consistently expressed concern over, not only as the basis for his own right interpretation, but as the basis for my wrong interpretation. In other words, he's not shy about expressing the importance of Jesus' words in a way which implies credibility to his argument. Okay, so I ask him about it... Where did the teaching come from? I've set Shiloh up with the perfect opportunity to back up his claim with the word's of Jesus. I was expecting that Shiloh would post a Bible verse or two with an explanation clearly showing the words of Jesus. After all, he consistently made an issue of the words of Jesus being so very important, right? This was his response... Wait a minute? What about all that inspiring talk about how important it is to get the words of Jesus right? Here I am, inviting Shiloh to let us know what Jesus said about it, to get the words right, and he says he's not interested in that part? Weird... Then Shiloh gets a bit of help... Fez is addressing me here and my attempt to get some clarification from Shiloh about where the "leading in prayer" teaching comes from. Of course, I didn't refuse anything. I asked for clarification on Shiloh's topic but Fez doesn't seem to think that's important. He says suggests it's a deflection, but a deflection from what? Addressing where the teaching comes from? But isn't that really important? Wasn't that the topic; to know what Jesus said about these various teachings so we can know if we've got it right or not? Why would Fez imply that it is a deflection to want to know what Jesus said about it? And why would Shiloh support him in this stance? Shiloh responds, Not interested in discussing where the teaching comes from? What a confusing thing to say, considering we're talking about what Jesus taught. From the same post: You get to talk about "Jesus' words about prayer", but when I ask you about Jesus' words on prayer regarding "leading in prayer" you're suddenly not interested. I don't really see that as a problem for me, though, but it does sound awfully suspicious. Didn't you just answer your own question, though? Is it wrong for a person to stand in front of others, praying a prayer which is meant for God, for the purpose of them all listening to that prayer when Jesus said that we should not pray in front of others for the purpose of being heard by them, but rather that we should pray in secret so that only God hears? Are you suggesting that you cannot compare the two statements and make your own decision? Why don't you try it? Post the two teachings side by side, what Jesus actually said, and what the "leading in prayer" teaching says and let's compare them to answer the question.

You want to talk about prayer, I'm talking about prayer. You expressed concern about getting the words of Jesus right so that's what I'm attempting to do. You asked me about "leading in prayer", I'm also asking you about" leading in prayer". What is your understanding of where this teaching about "leading in prayer" comes from? Can you compare this teaching about "leading in prayer" to anything Jesus said about "prayer and show us a comparison between the two which is consistent? "Leading in prayer" is your topic. It's your responsibility to defend it.

You're kidding, right? Anyway, first off I'm not refusing anything and secondly, seeing as how Jesus did the same thing, I'd say I'm in pretty good company with my "classic deflection". Fez, what are you really arguing here?

Shiloh, earlier you accused me, several times, of "adding to Jesus' words". Now, when it comes to your interpretation, you quite plainly tell me you don't care where the concept of "leading in prayer" comes from (i.e. whether it's supported by Jesus or not). Your standards seem to change quite easily depending on which interpretation you choose to support.

Hi Fez, How about you? Do you know where this concept of "leading through prayer" started?

Shiloh, do you have any idea where this concept of "leading in prayer" (as you describe it) started?

And yet, in all the examples you gave, there was nothing life threatening or so important that you should feel a need to talk about your fasting. You said that if someone invites you to dinner then you have "no choice" but to tell them you are fasting. Those are your words, Shiloh. A invitation to dinner is hardly a situation where you NEED to talk about your fasting. Sure, and the organizer of the party didn't say Steve could not find out about the party, only that you shouldn't draw attention to it. Of course, when you tell Steve about the party, drawing attention to the party is exactly what you're doing. You just refuse to see it. The instructions on fasting were not addressed to the Pharisees. They were addressed to anyone who would follow Jesus. The reason Jesus gave such teachings is becasue he wanted to communicate to us the values of Heaven. The reason we apply Jesus' teachings is because we want to be a part of the Kingdom of Heaven. Even back in his day, when he was treated as a criminal, Jesus knew people would be attracted to issues like grace, mercy, love, immortality and eternity. But he also knew that people would reject things like discipline and self sacrifice. This is why he asked, "Why do you call me Lord, but do not obey me"? The problem I see in your approach to this issue is double minded. I don't know anything about you outside this forum, but based on what you've said here, your position is lukewarm. You talk about really caring about the words of Jesus, but then you disregard them for the flimsiest of reasons. Shiloh, take a moment to think about your own examples. You said that if someone invites you to dinner, then you have no choice but to tell them about your fasting. You said that. No choice. Doesn't that tell you anything about your position on secret fasting? You suddenly have no choice but to go against what Jesus said about secret fasting simply because someone asks you if you want a sandwich? You're really standing by that argument? All someone needs to do is to be a bit nosy and you'll tell them about what Jesus said is meant to be "only for God"? Those are the actual words of Jesus, Shiloh. "so only God knows". There's nothing in Jesus' words about exceptions or circumstances where people invite you to dinner or get a bit nosy. You are adding those conditions to what Jesus said, because they are convenient. Jesus said "wash your face so only God will know". Even IF what you are saying is an accurate representation of those who have viewed this discussion, I suspect it would only be an indication as to why Jesus said the way is narrow. Convenient doctrines are just too popular.

Hi Shiloh, Well, you don't know if it's boasting or not for sure, since you don't know what's in the heart of each person each time they "mention" their fasting to others. However, I have suggested that it IS a "backdoor" approach to gaining praise, based on what Jesus said. I could be wrong about that, but then again maybe Jesus was wrong to suggesting keeping quiet about it, too? You say it's not boasting, but when I look at the examples you give for why you mention fasting, I just can't see them as good enough reason to go against the instructions Jesus gave about keeping it secret. Let's take another look at what Jesus said: "Anoint your head with oil and wash your face so it will not be obvious that you are fasting and only God in Heaven will know". Anointing your head with oil and washing your face are not metaphors or stories. They are literal, physical actions which have specific purpose. The purpose is to give the appearance that one is NOT fasting. It would make no sense for Jesus to give these instructions, only to have someone go talking about their fasting. Washing your face to appear as though you are not fasting, and then talking about your fasting are two contradictory actions. Your interpretation, that it IS okay to talk about fasting, makes Jesus' instructions of no effect. In essence, you have side-stepped the spirit of the teaching on the basis of a technicality that Jesus did not use the exact words, "you should not talk about your fasting even if someone invites you to dinner". Lets pretend it's Steve's birthday and his friends want to throw a surprise birthday party for him. You are invited as well, but they know you have a tendency to talk a little too much, so the organizer gives you these instructions, "We're having a surprise party for Steve. If you see him, don't act suspicious. Just act normal so he won't suspect something is up". Later that evening, when Steve shows up for the party and is NOT surprised, he explains to everyone that you told him about the party. When they ask why you told him, you explain, "Steve asked me what my plans were for tonight and if we could hang out so I told him. You didn't say I can't tell him about the party! Only that I should not act suspicious around him". When people express how disappointed they are that you so obviously misinterpreted the instructions, you can ask them,"Why are you being so hyper-literal"? Of course, your friends would not be stupid enough to fall for such an argument because the instructions were meant to be literal. They literally wanted the party to be a secret which is why they literally instructed you to literally not talk about it. The fact that you use "hyper" in front of "literal" suggests that you are trying to make a literal interpretation sound ridiculous or exaggerated. You do this because you can't just come out and say that Jesus was never literal in anything he said; you're at least smart enough to know how ridiculous that would sound. Sometimes he was literal and sometimes he used metaphors and/or stories. However, when it comes to a literal teaching you disagree with, you conveniently add the clause, "hyper" to dismiss the literal intent, spiritualizing the teaching to the point that it no longer has any practical application. The result is that even when Jesus says, "keep your fasting secret" you end up doing the opposite. Some of your justifications for talking about your fasting are based on the flimsiest reasoning. Someone invites you to dinner and you see that as a reason to disregard "wash your face so ONLY God knows you're fasting"? Someone is a bit nosy so you give in and tell them about your secret fasting just to get them off your back? What kind of faith is that? My goodness, we're talking about laying our lives down for the gospel's sake and all it takes for you to go against what Jesus said about secret fasting is for someone to be a bit nosy!? The logic here is astounding in it's disregard for any character or backbone when it comes to taking Jesus at face value. In conclusion, the fact that you are so insistent that it IS okay to talk about your fasting to others indicates to me that Jesus knew exactly what he was doing when he gave these instructions about keeping it secret.

At one point Jesus said something like, "I have many things to tell you, but I only speak what my father tells me to". It must have been so frustrating for him to be able to see the problems so clearly and yet the people just just too stubborn to hear it. He also said some confusing things like, "The father has entrusted all judgment to the son" but then in other places, "The son judges no one, but the teachings I give will judge you". After putting all the various bits of information together, the lesson I get is that Jesus is the Word of God, and while Jesus the man was giving the teachings, it's not Jesus the man who will judge us, but the teachings Jesus gave will judge us, because those teachings are the values of the Kingdom of Heaven. It's an interesting paradox because we sometimes talk about God's spirit of grace, mercy, and forgiveness, and yet, Jesus also compared his teachings to the holy spirit on several occasions. So it seems like the spirit offers forgiveness and judgment at the same time depending on the circumstances of each individual.

Hi giggling. Thanks for your comments. It's been suggested, to me, several times now that what's most important when trying to interpret the meaning of what Jesus taught, is to look at what he's actually said. Otherwise we could become guilty of adding or taking away. I don't see Jesus saying anything about "telling more than just a friend or family" when it comes to fasting. Sure the hypocrites would "disfigure" their faces or keep an untidy appearance to let others know there was a problem, perhaps in the hopes that someone would either ask them, "ohh what's wrong" or even just to assume they were fasting. But what's been suggested here by some people goes well beyond implying assumptions. Skip the assumptions and just come right out telling people that we are fasting. The point of anointing the head with oil and washing the face etc is so that others will not know. These actions presume that you will not also go out and talk about your fasting, otherwise the oil and washing of the face become pointless. The heart is deceitful above all things. We tell ourselves that we're not boasting or trying to convince others to think well of us by telling them how we suffer for our faith. We just "mention" our fasting to friends and family, and maybe co-workers, and maybe church members, oh yeah and maybe complete strangers if we feel the circumstances call for it. We tell ourselves it's not really boasting if the correct circumstances come along. For example, it's not really boasting if someone asks us if we want a soda pop, and we say, "no thanks. I'm not eating or drinking anything today". Perhaps some of us may even convince ourselves that such a confession could lead to a chance to witness to the person we're talking to. We COULD just say, "no thanks" or "nah, I'm trying to reduce my sugar intake today" or whatever. But instead, we choose to say "confess" that we are suffering for our faith. Why? Think about it. Just because the opportunity presents itself doesn't mean we have to talk about it and yet we still do. Isn't it because we convince ourselves that it's not really boasting if someone else brings it up first? Look deep down inside and ask yourself if you really believe that's what Jesus meant. Also, Jesus was not only addressing the bad old pharasees or the religious leaders of his time. This is from the sermon on the mount; teachings for those who would be his disciples. That means these teachings are specifically for those who want to follow Jesus. These teachings let us know what kind of behavior Jesus expects from his followers.

I usually read the KJV, which uses "bottles".

I'm glad you mention this, because I think it gets back to my original point in the OP. Before Jesus gave this instruction about keeping a fast secret, it was common for people to talk about their fasting. Perhaps some people realized, as a result of their own sincerity, that they should keep their fasting secret so that they don't fall into the trap of talking about it for the respectability that comes from letting others know of our spiritual disciplines. It's so easy to convince ourselves that we have good reasons to talk about our self discipline. It's not like we're boasting about it or anything. We're just letting people know about it within certain contexts. For example, if someone asks me if I want a sandwich then I can tell them I'm fasting. It's not like I'm boasting. I'm just letting them know that I'm currently suffering for the sake of my spirituality. But Jesus could see the problem. He could see how easy it is to lie to ourselves about how innocent our motives are when most of the time we're just subtly boasting while disguising it with convenient doctrines about how we have "no choice" but to boast...err..not boast...I mean, to "mention" it. Yeah that sounds better. When we have no choice but to "mention" it. So he made a rule about it. When you fast, take steps to keep it secret. What a shocking rule, though. How will people know that we are spiritual if we're not allowed to talk about our fasting or charitable giving? What if people assume we don't do those things? We can't just let them assume something untrue about us. We have to tell them that we DO fast and give so they won't think unwell of us. People want his grace. They want his peace. They want his forgiveness, his salvation and his eternal life. But they don't want his discipline. They don't want the "literal" part where he says "do this" or "don't do that". The double mindedness leads to cracked bottles because they refuse to expand with the new wine.

Nope. There's no misrepresentation. Here's what Jesus said: Anoint your head with oil and wash your face so it will not be obvious that you are fasting and only God in Heaven will know. Here's what you've said: post#25 I see no problem if someone mentions the fact that they were fasting. Put them together and you get the statement I made in an earlier post: Shiloh's position in a nutshell: "Anoint your head with oil and wash your face so it will not be obvious that you are fasting and only God in Heaven will know. Oh, and also feel free to tell others that you are fasting if a convenient opportunity comes up." The problem, for you, is that I've taken out all the jargon and just put the most basic, simple concepts side by side. What Jesus said and what you say. The quotes are not taken out of context. They are very much in context. It's just that without all the justifications clouding the issues, the contradiction in your argument becomes glaringly apparent. That's not a misrepresentation. It's discernment.

No, it only appears contradictory because you are not really being honest about what I said. It's not a matter of being honest or dishonest, but rather just looking at what you've said. You feel I've misrepresented you, so I'll post some direct quotes from you. -------------- post# 45 Jesus didn't say you can't mention it [personal fasting]. He never said that. post# 25 ...if we are placed in a position that we have to decline an offer of dinner or something and we have no choice but to be honest about why we are declining... post#25 I see no problem if someone mentions the fact that they were fasting. post#25 ...they get a little nosy, I see nothing wrong with politely explaining what you're doing and that you will be glad to join them when it's over. post#25 The Lord is pretty smart and he can tell the difference between the need to let someone know so that they don't keep bringing food around or tempting you to break your fast ------------- These quotes are only from two posts. I could probably list 20 examples of you saying the same thing all throughout this thread. In every case, you've got some convenient reason for why it's ok to let others know about your fasting. If they get a little nosy? Tell them about your fasting. If they invite you to dinner? Tell them about your fasting. If they eat in front of you? Tell them about your fasting. You've listed conditions where the only way you could possibly keep from telling others about your fasting is to shut yourself away in private the whole time, which makes Jesus' comments about anointing your head with oil and washing your face completely useless. You talk about having "no choice" but to tell about your fasting if someone offers you a bit of food. Really? No choice? Obviously there is a deeper issue here if you honestly believe that someone inviting you to dinner equates to forcing you to talk about your fasting. Even sevenseas, who quite strongly disagrees with just about everything I've said, still had enough sense to realize we could just make up some excuse like, "I've got other things to deal with at the moment but I'd like to take you up on the offer at another time". So, no, there's not the "appearance" of a contradiction in your words and Jesus' words. A side by side comparison shows the contradiction to be quite genuine.

Shiloh's position in a nutshell: "Anoint your head with oil and wash your face so it will not be obvious that you are fasting and only God in Heaven will know. Oh, and also feel free to tell others that you are fasting if a convenient opportunity comes up." These are two completely contradictory sentences. It's not me who's adding to Jesus' words.

But when you fast, put oil on your head and wash your face, 18so 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. Thanks for posting the verse. What's the point of anointing your head with oil and washing your face, so that your fasting will not be obvious, if you're just gonna tell people about it anyway. Sure, they may ask if you want a sandwich, but that's hardly reason to go against what Jesus is saying here about NOT making the fast obvious. It's also interesting to note that he says "but only to your Father". I don't think I'm adding or taking away anything here; just looking at what's actually written. The adding and taking away is what happens when people say, "but that's not what Jesus meant" and the proceed to do the exact opposite of what he's said.

Hi Seven To me, this approach is consistent with the spirit of what Jesus was getting at with regard to efforts to make sure others don't find out. I'm happy to see we could find at least some agreement on this topic.

Regarding "corporate fasting", the same principle still applies. Let's say you have 3 friends who agree to fast together. You'd still want to keep it quiet from anyone NOT participating in the fast. Jesus' teachings are spirit; that means he gave general principles which act as guidelines for how we should behave as Christians. He did it this way because it's simply not possible, or practical for him to give a rule about every single situation for every single person in creation. So for example, lets say you give someone a nice compliment. You don't go around telling other people about the nice compliment you gave. You just give the compliment for the intended recipient and then keep quiet about it to others, since there's no real need for them to know that you complimented this other person. Even though Jesus didn't specifically mention compliments, the spirit is still the same; if you tell others about the nice thing you did then you lose your reward in Heaven. You can still teach that it's good to give compliments, but there's no need to mention your own specific examples to prove the point. If someone finds out about the nice thing you did without your intention for them to do so, then that's different. As Shiloh said, God isn't stupid. He knows the difference between people who respect Jesus' teachings and those who give lip service.

Nah, I'm not talking about traditions or laws, either; just an attempt to apply the lessons Jesus taught In particular, I focused on the "breaking" aspect of these old, hard, inflexible wine skins, precisely because they were not able to change according to the new wine. I believe this "breaking" is a metaphor for the kind of double mindedness that comes from claiming to follow Jesus, but then explaining away his teachings. At times this dissonance can cause people to become irrational and quite angry, like what happened with the pharisees when Jesus exposed their various convenient doctrines and traditions of men. Look at Shiloh's example. He's created a situation where he's practically obligated to talk about his fasting simply because talk of food and/or health of some kind is pretty much a normal, every day occurrence and according to him, if someone brings up food while he is fasting then he feels some kind of responsibility to let them know about it. In this context, Jesus' command about taking steps to avoid letting others know we are fasting becomes pretty much useless since it doesn't matter how much oil we anoint ourselves with if we're just gonna talk about it anyway at the first mention (by someone other than ourselves, of course) of any topic which may even remotely relate to food. I've experienced this kind of convenient doctrine making with lots of different teachings of Jesus. When it comes to discipline and obedience most people seem to have all these reasons for exceptions to the standards. The exceptions become the rule and all you end up with are claims of Christianity without the substance. "There lips draw nigh to me but their heart is far from me". Interestingly enough, Jesus mentions another kind of breaking, where he talks about falling on the rock of his teachings and being broken, (presumably so that God can put the pieces back together again into a new creation). So there is a bad kind of breaking (i.e. the old bottles breaking as a result of resisting change) and a good kind of breaking (i.e. accepting the teachings of Jesus despite how painful the change may be for us).

Yeah so is most of the world, which is probably why Jesus felt a need to make an issue of it in the first place.

Not the same exact thing, sure, but the lesson is the same. Just because someone asks you a question doesn't mean you have to say all that is in your heart. I'm not "characterizing" anything. I'm just looking at what Jesus taught and trying to get the spirit of the teaching. He talked about taking steps to ensure others would not find out. What's the point of making efforts to look happy and healthy (to avoid people realizing that you are fasting) if you talk about your fast the first time someone asks if you want some lunch? I suggested earlier that such reasoning amounts to little more than a convenient doctrine. In other words, you see opportunities to talk about your fasting while remaining innocent behind the excuse that you're not the one who brought it up. Even in your own examples, it's not like people are assuming you are fasting and asking about it. Sure, you have your "reasons", but the fact remains that you are volunteering the information when you don't need to. It depends on the context. If they found out because you told them, then yeah, you do lose your reward.

Ok, lets pretend that you shared a bit of sensative personal information with someone, and they agree to respect your privacy. However, you later find out that person did NOT respect your privacy and ended up telling someone else about your personal information. When you confront them about it, the person says, "why are you upset? It's not like I set out to tell anyone about your personal issues, but then someone asked me about what's happening with you. I couldn't just ignore them, could I? I had to tell them what was happening with you because they asked." Just about anyone would be smart enough to see the problem, there, and yet when applying this same lesson to the issue of secret fasting, you suddenly can't see the problem anymore. You just see it as normal to tell a secret simply because someone asks you , "do you want a sandwich"? You could just say no thanks. Even if the person asks you 100 times if you want a sandwich, you have the freedom to say 100 times, "no thanks" without getting into the reasons why. After all, when you are doing a secret fast for God, you don't owe that explanation to anyone. If they can't be satisfied with, "I'm not hungry right now" or whatever excuse you feel comfortable with, then that's their problem, isn't it? It's not like you are denying them necessary information which they just can't live without. After all, if all it takes for someone to crack our faith is a bit of badgering about why we're not eating, then how can we ever expect to lay our life down?

That's good to hear, Shiloh. I'm happy to hear that. Jesus said we should take steps to give the appearance that we are not fasting, for the express purpose that people will not know. It may not be "top" secret, but the context clearly indicates he meant for us to keep it secret. But I can accept that we see different things when we each read the same teachings from Jesus. IIf people didn't care, I don't think Jesus would have felt it necessary to make a point of this issue. Maybe you've not experienced the same things I have, but I've been in many circumstances where Christians casually (or officially) talk about their fasting, as though they'd either never heard, or just never seriously considered Jesus' instructions to keep it secret. Why should you explain that you are fasting? Can't you just say something like "I'm not hungry" or "I need to deal with some other issues at the moment" or "I'm feeling tired so I'm just going to rest, but what about next time"? But like I said earlier, it's a matter of perspective. Some people see Jesus comment's about annointing one's head with oil so as not to give the appearance of fasting and see a lesson there, that we should not only just not talk about our fasting, but take steps to keep it secret even when around other people. Other people see Jesus' teachings and take a much less...ummm...serious approach, where talking about one's fasting isn't a problem so long as the opportunity presents itself as a circumstance where someone feels there is a good reason to talk about their fasting rather than brining it up on their own without any convenient excuse to do so. In other words, I see this kind of discussion of private fasting as a kind of self deception where the person thinks, "well, it's not like I'm the one bringing it up so I'm not guilty of tooting my own spiritual horn by mentioning my fasting".

Hi Salty. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I really enjoyed reading this paragraph from you, especially the part about an unwillingness to change, as that's the lesson which most resonates with me about the parable. I think there can be different reasons for why people don't change. Maybe ignorance, or bitterness, or fear or just plain stubbornness, or perhaps a combination of these. I know there are times when I can feel myself resisting some particular discipline mentioned in the gospels. I'm lazy in some areas and I end up cheating a bit here or there to make up for it, rather than being faithful in the little things, and I wonder if all these "little areas" where I resist change start to add up and without realizing it I've become a hardened wineskin. I know no one is perfect, but I think what God is really looking for is a sincere desire to change, even if we make mistakes along the way. I think Paul described something similar to the breaking wine skins metaphor when he talked about searing the conscience with a hot iron. When we argue away the teachings of Jesus and/or refuse to change we start to crack or burn a little piece of our conscience. It's a bit of a scary thought that we could someday get to the point that we don't even realize we can't hear from God anymore.

Oh, that's interesting and good to hear. What happens if someone doesn't follow the rule (i.e. someone gossips about a problem they have with someone else, rather than going to that person directly)? Agreed. It certainly can be a nice feeling when someone discovers our discipline and thinks well of us. Perhaps there are times when it could be relevant or even important to let others know about our fasting, and yet the command is still there; when you fast, do so secretly, even making efforts to deceive others about it by giving the appearance that you are happy and healthy rather than hungry and haggard. I think the point of the command was because Jesus knows how strong our vanity can be at times. We don't always just naturally do what's best for ourselves spiritually, so the command is there to help us when we feel tempted. For example, you're in a situation where others are talking about their fasting and how wonderful it's been for them, but you feel left out. If you keep quiet, it could give the impression that you don't fast (even if it's just in your own imagination that people are looking down on you). You may feel tempted to just casually mention your own fasting, not in a vain way, but just in a kinda simple way that lets them know you're spiritual too, but not boasting about it or anything. Reminding ourselves that Jesus said to keep it secret could be just the right thing we need to stop ourselves from spoiling the secret of our fasting. "I want to let them know that I'm spiritual too, but I won't because Jesus said not to do that". Who cares if it gives the impression that we don't fast if we never mention it to others. Often it's only our pride that wants us to mention the fast so that people will not think we're spiritually lazy, or, as you mentioned, vanity that wants them to recognize our sacrifice and spirituality. The example of the inflexible wine skins becomes relevant when, even after hearing Jesus' command about keeping the fasting secret, people still argue that's not really what Jesus meant or that there are exceptions to the rule. Eventually, the exceptions become the rule. I've seen examples of this where a person's personal fasting is publicly questioned as a point of measuring one's spiritual progress, i.e. fasting becomes part of a testimony which only "edifies" others if it's made public. The same happens with secret giving, very similar to what Willa described where people are encouraged to make a display of their giving to "increase the blessing". If you question them on this, they often become angry. They could even accuse you of being un-christian or not really caring about what the Bible says. They all have their various proof texts to back it up, too. The harder you push them, the more the cracks start to appear and I believe this is true whether it's a person who is trying to correct them or the Holy Spirit attempting to convict them about how they've ignored Jesus' instructions.