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of my knowledge, this isn’t published anywhere now but I don’t think that I’m aware that it has ever been changed or withdrawn.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 “The BA Cross Story”

Tim

25/11/2006

Hmmm. You’re the first person I’ve seen to view it this way around.

Different, and I agree about “witnessing to the passengers” (I don’t particularly want proselytising, least of all on a plane) but I’m not sure I agree with your conclusion.
A cross need not be particularly outlandish; many people wear them, some of whom don’t even regard themselves as christian (heirloom, etc), and who’s going to ask their motives before declaring it still a religious symbol?

It’s unfortunate that this has come about with someone who sees the cross as her witness, but if this stands, companies will be allowed to have discriminatory uniform policies, and it doesn’t matter who the parties are, it’s just discrimination whichever way I cut it; all the more so when it leads to *a society* in which one hides from others rather than embracing them.

Reply
kelvin

25/11/2006

As I understand it, the BA uniform policy has applied to all jewelry hanging around someone’s neck. It would not be fun to get one’s Cross, Crescent, Star of David or string of pearls caught in the check-in machinery.

It is interesting that the principle sign of Christian membership in most parts of the various churches is essentially ephemeral – baptism by its very nature is invisible in material form once performed.

When I was in Egypt, I was quite impressed with the tattoos that many Christians had done in order to identify themselves to one another. At more than one Christian gathering I went to, the locals were vetted at the door by showing their tattoos – the presumption being that no member of any group that the Church people were frightened of would ever have a cross tattooed on their skin.

Reply
Anonymous

26/11/2006

Yes, you’re quite right. A uniform is a uniform. If one absolutely wanted to wear something other than a uniform at work, then joining the Army mightn’t be the best place for me.

Similarly, if joining the BA ranks implies wearing a uniform, and I insist on wearing some additional contraption, then , patently, possibly a position without a uniform would be better. Possibly as a clergy person?! That is if I were a compulsive proselytiser.

Anent compulsive proselytising. There is this church building on the facade of which a sign threatens one and all with everlasting hell fire. No doubt those of that congregation consider it to be their loving duty so to do. However, to my mind, it is a most egregious assault on the urban landscape … and myself, every time I have cause to walk by.

Yes. Yours is a most refreshing viewpoint. All the more so as it comes from within the ranks of the clergy. Possibly a reason why I’ve kept on coming back to this your blog…

All the very best,

Clyde Lad

Reply
Alex

26/11/2006

The real problem is that BA’s policy is inconsistent: turbans are allowed, hijabs are allowed and apparently Hindu bangles are allowed.

For a uniform policy to be reasonable I think it either has to allow all, or allow none. I’m not fussed which they choose, but consistency is important.

Reply
Ali

26/11/2006

I think the difference between turbans, hajibs and bangles are the difference between a requirement of following a particular faith (or, rather, a conservative branch of a particular faith as with the hajob and the bangle), or a desire because of one’s faith. A cross is worn out of choice, rather than a requirement of orthodoxy.

I talked a little about this in the sermon this morning – on a day where the church celebrates the feast of Christ the King, surely a greater sign of being a member of that Kingdom, or a follower of Christ, is the way in which we treat this planet given into our care and all who inhabit it, rather than becoming sidetracked in petty bickering about which poppy is the most Christian or the “right” to wear a cross at work regardless of uniform policy.

Reply
Alex

26/11/2006

“A cross is worn out of choice, rather than a requirement of orthodoxy.”

I’m not sure that this is a difference that removes the inconsistency from BA’s uniform policy. Whether or not the turban, hijab or bangle is perceived as a ‘requirement’ of membership of a faith, it is still my choice whether or not to observe it.

This is not to say that I think Ms Ewelda has taken the best course of action. My personal view is that she has made a mistake – instead of a greater witness, she has contributed to the perception of Christians as petty and whinging. I may have my differences with Paul(!) but I think his “Greek to the Greek, Jew to the Jew” approach has a lot to be said for it.

But our disagreement with her position on how crucial to the Christian life is the wearing of the cross doesn’t change the fact that the policy applied treats her differently from members of other faiths.

Reply
Mysterious stranger

27/11/2006

I am with you on this one.I do not like all the badges,ribbons,bands etc with uniforms.I also felt extremely uncomfortable with yesterdays interview.She has been offered the right to wear the cross on her lapel not round her neck.She can wear it inside her uniform and go with the lapel badge.

Her fundamentalism grated.Sorry.

Reply