What is in Kelvin's Head?

The Bishops’ Instruction on Fasting and Abstinence

09/02/2016

I happen to have in my possession a couple of copies of the Scottish Episcopal Church’s Kalendar (as it was called in those days) from the 1990s. I’m interested that they include a section called “A Summary of the Bishops’ Instruction on Fasting and Abstinence”

To the best of my knowledge, this isn’t published anywhere now but I don’t think that I’m aware that it has ever been changed or withdrawn.

Here’s what it says:

DEFINITIONS

Fasting: A reduction in the quantity of food and drink consumed during the day.

Abstinence: Abstaining from some particular kind of food – traditionally meat.

Note. The Bishops consider that changing circumstances and social habits necessitate adjustments from time to time in the practise of these disciplines. Present circusmstances tent to make abstinence from meat unreal, but this ought not to mean that Fasting and Abstinence should cease to be practised.

THE BISHOP’S RECOMMENDATIONS

i. That Fasting be observed by partaking of only one solid meal in the day; other meals to be of a light character.

ii. That Abstinence be observed by abstaining from some form of food or drink which is normally enjoyed. It is to be noted that for this purpose tobacco and sweets may be considered as forms of food.

iii. Ash Wednesday and good Friday are to be regarded by members of the Church as of obligation; and as days of Fasting and Abstinence.

iv. That other days ought to be observed in a spirit of voluntary devotion. These are:
Days of Fasting:
The Vigils of Christmas, Easter, and Whitsun.
The Fridays in the four Ember Season.
One of the Rogation Days.

Days of Abstinence:
All other Fridays throughout the year, except Christmas Day, Epiphany and the Fridays in the Octaves of Christmas, Easter and the Ascension of our Lord.

v. The whole of Lent, except the Sundays, is a time for special self-denial, which should find expression in Prayer, Fasting and Almsgiving. We encourage all members of the Church to make their own rule of general self-discipline to be observed throughout this season. Such a rule would include additional time for prayer and Bible reading, greater frequency in receiving Holy Communion, and increased giving to the service of Christ by spending less on self.

I’d be interested to know what people think of these, looking at them now.

You can see clearly that circumstances were changing from a time when the church laid down rules to a time when the bishops were trying to get people to make their own decisions about religious devotions.

Is it helpful to see these guidelines? Have we got far enough away from the old rule-based religion to find it helpful to have some guidelines to think about? I’ve no doubt that some people still keep to these guidelines because it was the way that they were taught the faith. However, I don’t think I’ve heard anyone ever mention them to me since I joined the church over 20 years ago.

Does our consciousness of the way others fast through greater awareness of the Muslim faith make us more willing or less willing to have a go nowadays? Does the emergence of the 5:2 diet make us want to go back to look at our spiritual practises afresh?

Thoughts and comments welcome.

7 responses to “Newsnight Scotland”

ryan

15/02/2011

Great stuff! Compares favourably with Fr.Gadgetvicar’s Holy Week appearance a few years back although I’m not sure if, personally, I’d rank it up there with Italian Vanity Fair 😉

Good to see the LGBT Network and Stonewall too – and encouraging that, unlike what would have happened a mere five or six years ago, the BBC didn’t feel the need to rope in some spokesman for a homophobic lobby in the interests of ‘balance’.

Reply
1. kelvin
  
  15/02/2011
  
  Thanks Ryan
  
  On your last point, I think its interesting that in those five or six years, the opinion polls have been overturned. (That’s what John Curtice was telling us). The BBC can deal differently with the issue now because its not just a hypothetical issue that holy people are arguing about but a mainstream issue that the majority want but which politicians are wary of.
  
  I took the view a few years ago that campaigning for these issues was more fruitful within society generally rather than simply going over the same ground again and again in the church. I’m proud to be a tiny part in the process that has brought about that change in opinion. That’s a process that is now bearing fruit. The end of the process is equality and justice for all inside and outside the church.
  
  There are still debates to be had in the media where a pro/anti debate is what they are looking for and the balance argument comes into play. Indeed, I’ve turned down a request to do just such a media debate this week. I don’t think it takes people very far. Incidently, that was my view 6 years ago when I turned down the chance to debate with Fr Gadgetvicar on Newsnight during Holy Week.
  
  Reply
SomeRandomBint

15/02/2011

I very much enjoyed your discussion last night – especially when you re-iterated the fact that being against homosexuality ISN’T the standard Christian view of the matter. I’ve been told I’m not a true believer because I refuse to see the harm in others being in relationships with others of the same sex. I also don’t see the validity of the argument that it’s the thin end of the wedge, and opens churches to the possibility of legal action if they refuse to perform these ceremonies. I don’t see the difference between this choice, and the choice of celebrates as to whether they perform ceremonies of divorcees. There’s much talking still to be done on the issue, but I wanted to thank you for presenting such a measured view of the opinions of those of us who are Christians AND inclusive of all sorts of people.

Reply
David McCarthy

16/02/2011

Kelvin was standing as a candidate in the election when Newsnight called me in 2005 – as it happens I was at his house drinking tea. They were very surprised that we were being quite so convivial.

I felt it a pity that an another point of view was not represented the other night – it was hardly a discussion, more a presentation of one side’s opinions.

Reply
kelvin

16/02/2011

Sides? When did we begin to have sides?

Reply
ryan

16/02/2011

”If you are not with me, you are my enemy!” as Darth Vader and evangelical posterboy George W Bush are fond of remarking 😉

Also , even you, David, say you are in favour of civil partnerships, a view shared by many conservatives. So despite the presence of ‘Christian’ Institute lying bigots, they are largely a loud insignificant minority (even, happily, in your congregation!) and not the legitimate ‘opposing point off view’ . Curious (or not so much) that the BBC had stephen green on in the past, but never felt the need to have antisemitic, racist or sexist speakers to provide ‘balance’ on certain issues.

Reply
Sammi del brocco

16/02/2011

Really enjoyed watching that, and thankyou for standing up. I am gay and have been with my partner for 7 years and to me civil parnership is not a marriage we should be able to get married just like everyone else. as for me marriage is all about committing,loving and spending the rest of your life with some one you love regardless of gender, are we all not human beings and supposedly have human rights? Once again thankyou very enjoyable viewing.

Reply