Why Do Some Christians Reject Lent? Understanding the Misinterpretation Behind the Objection

Some Christians reject Lent not because it lacks biblical foundation, but because of misunderstanding Scripture, misinterpreting Christian history, or reacting against certain denominational traditions. In many cases, rejection of Lent arises from a sincere desire to follow the Bible faithfully. However, sincerity does not guarantee correctness. When examined carefully, most objections to Lent are rooted in narrow readings of Scripture and, at times, an implicit anti-Catholic bias rather than sound biblical reasoning.

A common argument against Lent is that the Bible does not command Christians to observe a forty-day season called Lent. This objection assumes that anything not explicitly commanded by name in Scripture must therefore be unbiblical. Yet this standard is not applied consistently. The Bible does not contain the word “Trinity,” yet the doctrine is undeniably biblical. The Bible does not prescribe a formal New Testament canon, yet Christians universally accept one. Scripture teaches through patterns, practices, and principles, not only through explicit labels.

Another frequent objection is that Lent promotes works-based salvation. This reflects a misunderstanding of what Lent actually teaches. Lent does not claim that fasting, prayer, or almsgiving earn salvation. Scripture clearly teaches that salvation is the gift of God (Ephesians 2:8–9). At the same time, Scripture also teaches that believers are called to repentance, self-discipline, and growth in holiness (James 2:17; Philippians 2:12). Lent fits squarely within this biblical framework as a response to grace, not a replacement for it.

Some Christians reject Lent by citing Jesus warnings against hypocritical fasting. In Matthew Gospel, Jesus criticizes those who fast publicly to gain attention, but He does not reject fasting itself. In fact, He assumes His followers will fast, pray, and give to the poor, instructing them on how to do so properly and sincerely (Matthew 6:1–18). Rejecting Lent because of abuse is equivalent to rejecting prayer because some pray insincerely.

There is also a historical misunderstanding. The early Church observed extended preparation before Easter long before later denominational divisions emerged. Fasting, repentance, and almsgiving were central to Christian life from the earliest centuries, especially for those preparing for baptism (Acts 2:42; Acts 13:2–3). Lent developed organically from this biblical and historical context, not as a medieval invention detached from Scripture.

In some cases, rejection of Lent is shaped by reactionary theology. Because Lent is strongly associated with Catholic practice, it is dismissed not on biblical grounds but as part of a broader rejection of Catholic tradition. This approach often replaces careful scriptural study with inherited denominational suspicion. Ironically, many Christians who reject Lent still affirm fasting, repentance, prayer, and charity individually, while rejecting the idea of setting aside a season to practice them intentionally.

Scripture consistently shows God’s people observing appointed times for repentance and renewal (Joel 2:12–15; Zechariah 7:5). What Scripture condemns is empty ritual without conversion of heart, not disciplined devotion itself (Isaiah 58:3–7). Lent, when properly understood, calls for exactly the interior conversion Scripture demands.

In conclusion, Christians reject Lent largely because of misunderstanding rather than biblical necessity. Lent aligns fully with Scripture, reflects early Christian practice, and focuses believers on repentance and preparation for the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Dismissing Lent often reveals more about denominational reaction and misinterpretation than about faithfulness to the Bible itself.