• Where to get started with the Bible

    Reading the Bible isn’t optional for Christians – it is part of what makes us who we are. However, there’s no doubt that some people find it daunting and don’t know where to start.

    Personally, I wouldn’t recommend starting at the beginning and working through to the end. It starts OK with some interesting and apparently familiar stories about creation and a load of stories about Abraham but soon veers off into purity codes and punishments and what can seem like interminable records of who gave birth to whom.

    Better to begin somewhere else.

    Start with one of the Gospels

    I’d suggest starting with one of the gospel books – that means one of the following books – Matthew, Mark, Luke or John.

    (By the way, I recommend the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible. Get one of the ones with the Apocrypha and look for one with British rather than American spellings if that matters to you).

    You’ve got the idea that the Bible is really a library of books written by different people at different times and in different places, right? Well the gospels are four different accounts of the life of Jesus told by different writers for different audiences. If you look carefully you’ll see that there are what appear to  be discrepancies between them but essentially they all clearly tell you about the life and death of a man who told stories, healed people and befriended an unlikely crew before being killed in Jerusalem. These books were all written after Jesus’s death and crucially after those who knew him best spread the story that death had not been the end of Jesus but that in some way they were still encountering him in a way which changed the world.

    If you want a short one to start with I’d suggest Mark – just 16 rushing chapters where we find Jesus portrayed as a healing holy man. Note how the action flows from the desert to the city. Note also that there’s nothing much about Jesus’s birth in this one. It is all about his life and teaching. If you want to find the Christmas stories you need to look in Matthew’s gospel for the story of the Magi (aka the Wise Men) from the East or in Luke’s gospel for most of the stuff about Mary, Joseph and Bethlehem. Matthew was trying to relate Jesus’s life to a community who were working out the relationship between their Jewishness and the rest of the world which is perhaps why he presents the Magi coming from outside the holy land to worship at the crib. Luke, traditionally thought of as a doctor has more about Jesus’s relationships with women and the amazing song of Mary that teaches us that spirituality and justice are inherrently bound together.

    John’s gospel, meanwhile was written after the others and the big theme is to try to explain what it all means rather than simply to tell a story. Symbols are hugely significant to John and whoever wrote it (no, we don’t really know) plays around with time in order to make his point.

    All human life is found in the Psalms

    After reading one of the gospels, I’d suggest that someone heads over into the Psalms and starts to dip in and out. All human life is there. These are spiritual songs which form a collection of spiritual writing which goes from anger to joy, from despair to compassion. Most people already know Psalm 23 because of the comfort that it has brought through many centuries to those being bereaved. But check out Psalm 121 for inspiration, Psalm 139 for a meditation on what it means to be human and the final psalms at the end of the book for fabulous images of praise and worship.

    People still read the psalms as a bedrock for prayer and they form the core of Daily Prayer in just about any Christian tradition. We sing them every week on a Sunday at St Mary’s and recite them every other day at Morning Prayer.

    Maybe now it is time for Genesis and a bit of Job

    Remember the first book of the Bible that we glossed over at the beginning  – well maybe it is time to give it a go now. Start with the creation stories at the beginning and remind yourself that there’s two quite different accounts in the first two chapters. They are obviously not worth reading if you think that they are either a replacement for a scientific understanding of the world and nor if you think they are irrelevant now we have a scientific understanding of the world. They are a good deal more subtle than that – they are attempts to prompt reflection about the way humans experience the world. It is the big – “what are we doing here?” question turned into stories and pictures. These texts still provoke a response even now.

    Whilst we are on the “What are we doing here?” question, you might like to take a leap into the book of Job – a story of someone who is trying to work out precisely that. He does what he thinks is right in the world and ends up leading a miserable life. A bunch of friends come along who say, “well, that sucks, God’s been horrible to you” and from somewhere inside himself, Job seems to conclude that this is just the way it is and that God is to be blessed and praised anyway. It is a good one for psychologists (amateur or otherwise) is Job.

    Back in Genesis, you’ll find the sagas of Abraham and of Joseph taking up a good deal of the space. Worth a go, not least as they start to establish the theme that God blesses unlikely people. (Abraham sells off his wife to save his own skin not once but twice and you already know the story and the songs from the Joseph stuff from a certain musical).

    A bit of prophecy now – Isaiah but start in the middle

    Take a leap into the prophets now by reading a few chapters from the book of Isaiah. But don’t start at the beginning, start at chapter 40. Isaiah was written by at least two people at different times. Pick it up in the middle where there’s this soaring and wonderful prose which will again sound familiar but this time it is Handel who is giving you the tunes to hum over as you read rather than Andrew Lloyd Webber – we are in Messiah territory here.

    Read some tricky stuff

    Oh, don’t neglect the tricky stuff. You know fine well that this was written a long time ago and that our culture and society has moved on now, right? Well, it is still worth reading about Sodom and Gomorrah and that pesky verse in Leviticus 18 about men not lying with men and having a think about the sexual morality of godly people has changed and is still changing. Nowadays, we tend to think of the Sodom stuff as being about the crime of being inhospitable rather than an injunction against faithful, stable gay lives. Similarly, you want to read a few verses either side of the Leviticus verse and you’ll find that eating shellfish is condemned with as much ferocity as gay sex. The day an evangelical church launches a campaign against prawn cocktails is a day to take them more seriously in wanting to limit the human rights of gay people today.

    Don’t miss the stuff about women and men either. We’ve already encountered some of it in the second chapter of Genesis but you want to take a look at St Paul’s stuff about women being quiet in church (1 Corinthians 14) and keeping their heads covered (1 Corinthians 11). Again, we have to see this in its historical context and murmur to ourselves that even in its historical context it was wrong, it kept women silenced and recognise that not everything in religion is good.

    But don’t miss the best bits of Paul

    Oh heavens, right in the middle of all that stuff about women you get one of the best bits of St Paul’s writings – 1 Corinthians 13. It is such a fabulous celebration of love that it still gets read frequently (and often very badly) at weddings.

    Love is patient and love is kind, but if you want something a bit erotic you need to dip back into the Hebrew scriptures and read the sexy Song of Songs.

    And end up with Revelation

    The last book of the Bible is the Revelation of St John. It is a wacky read at first sight. You’ll find yourself asking “what was he on?” Is this drug induced writing or something that comes from a mystical state. Whatever it is, you find, amidst some rather gory stuff which is probably an allegory of how people thought the world was ending at the time it was written, some glorious images of what heaven is like – fabulous food, music and sex are the basic images of heaven that run through a lot of biblical thinking.

    Then start reading it systematically

    Once you’ve got a basic idea of what’s in it, reading a few short passages a day is a good idea.

    Any member of the clergy in any church in any part of the world is delighted when someone asks for suggestions on how to read the Bible. Go on, if you are short of ideas yourself, make their day complete.

37 responses to “The Peace and Unity and Order of the Church”

  1. Ross Kennedy Avatar
    Ross Kennedy

    Kelvin,
    I should, of course, have written ‘on this site’ rather than ‘appear in this blog’ because such derogatory terms have been used in the main by some of the correspondents.

    However, as to your use of the term ‘misogynist’, while certainly not applying it to any individual you seemed to be suggesting that all who held such views on headship were misogynist – a word which my dictionary defines as a hater of women. I happen to know a number of clergy who take this view and while agreeing that they are seriously mistaken , in no way can they be described as women haters – a serious and unfair accusation.

    Your also referred in your comments on the Bishops’ New Statement to ‘homophobic bullying’ which I also find objectionable. Today, of course if one dares, even with good reason, to remonstrate with anyone it is very likely that an accusation of bullying will be made and if they happen be gay then it is just as likely to be accused of being homophobic.

    Finally the term ‘arch conservative’ was used by someone who contributed a comment. I apologise for giving the impression that it was a term used by you.

    The point I was trying to make is that the use of such intemperate language cannot be conducive to reasoned discussion or argument. It reduces the whole thing to name calling.

    1. Cynthia Avatar
      Cynthia

      “It reduces the whole thing to name calling.”

      What is church leadership calling ME when they treat me as lesser in the eyes of God and the church? What is the result of hateful and hurtful language? Depression, LGBT teen suicide, homeless LGBT teens who are cast out by their religious families, sexual abuse of these homeless LGBT teens, hate crimes, human rights abuses…

      The truth of the suffering caused at the hands of the church needs to be told. It isn’t a pretty story, nor is it a polite one.

  2. Kelvin Avatar

    Ross, I’ve done an electronic search and I can’t find many instances of the term arch conservative on this blog. I happen not to think it too terrible, not least because I can imagine people using the term arch liberal to describe me. Although that would be inaccurate, I’m not sure that I’d be that offended to be honest.

    But that’s not the point. I can find only one instance of someone commenting on this blog using that phrase. That’s one comment in 10500 comments. It doesn’t seem to me to be a phrase particularly commonly used on this blog.

    The terms homophobe and misogynist have sometimes been used, but I’m struggling to find any instances of them being used to describe any individual. Again, I’m not of the view that they’ve been particularly commonly used in those 10500 comments. There simply aren’t that many instances of the words being used on this blog at all.

    Generally speaking, I think it is OK to debate ideas – it seems to me to be reasonable to be able to describe homophobic ideas or actions. Generally it is not helpful to call people homophobes. There is a difference that I know and tend to be quite careful around.

    I stand by my description of last week’s guidelines as homophobic bullying. Indeed, I can’t think of a better example of such behaviour. However, I’m not in the business of calling people homophobes and the accusation that I am and even that I do so habitually, seems to me to be far from secure.

  3. Ross Kennedy Avatar
    Ross Kennedy

    Kelvin

    I accept your comment about my comment about the use of the word ‘archconservative!! Apologies for overstating the case.

    Having re-read the Bishops’ statement I cannot for the life of me understand how you can suggest that any part of the document can be suggestive of homophobic bullying. Its obvious intent is to clearly state what the current situation is which is important given that there could be legal implications for any clergy who decides to act outwith the confines of the stated law of the land (i.e the Act permitting same sex marriage.)
    I’m not really sure what you expected the Bishops to do.

    I appreciate how emotive and divisive this whole issue is. Inevitably the peace and unity of our church is going to be (and is) seriously disturbed to the detriment of its mission.

    1. Kelvin Avatar

      No-one can be surprised at the bishops letting people know they should not do anything illegal.

      However the surprise has come from clergy being told that they themselves should not marry. If the bishops knew they were going to say this previously then they should have said so before the General Synod and particularly before the Cascade Process began. Both the debate at General Synod and the Cascade would have been different if this had been known.

      It particularly targets anyone who is in training to become a priest or lay reader who may have been accepted for that training whilst being open and honest about being in a civil partnership. To publish this with just one week to go before the law changed was, to say the least, unhelpful.

      People make plans. Most things to do with marriage are planned more than a week in advance.

  4. Ross Kennedy Avatar
    Ross Kennedy

    My final comment -you’ll be pleased to know!

    But surely any ordinand who is in the situation you describe will be fully aware of the doctrine of the SEC regarding Christian marriage as expressed by Canon 31. At their ordination/licensing they can hardly promise to render due obedience to the Code of Canons if they plan not to abide by them.

    When I was ordained in the Church of England candidates for ordination were barred if they were divorced and had remarried. Through time the situation was changed. I would not be surprised if, in a few years time, the SEC changes its stance on same-sex marriage – I wouldn’t be surprised but I would not be happy. As I have commented before, as an Anglican my faith is based on Scripture, Reason and Tradition, all three of which bear witness to the truth that Christian Marriage can only be between a man and a woman.

    1. Kelvin Avatar

      If someone in a same-sex marriage cannot subscribe to the Code of Canons because their manner of life puts them outside of the definition of marriage in Canon 31, then I can’t see any way that someone who is divorced can subscribe to the canons for the same reason.

      I personally think that someone’s subscription to the canons represents them accepting that this is the doctrine of the church. It is on that basis that I can subscribe to the Canons. Clearly I don’t believe the definition in Canon 31 to be adequate and have said so many times and very publicly.

    2. Lawrence Rosenfeld Avatar
      Lawrence Rosenfeld

      Ross, Parts of various articles in Ian Bunting’s collection, Celebrating the Anglican Way, can be paraphrased thus:

      “Anglicans understand the Old and New Testaments as “containing all things necessary for salvation” and as being the rule and ultimate standard of faith. ‘Reason’ and ‘Tradition’ are seen as valuable means to interpret Scripture (a position first formulated in detail by Richard Hooker), but there is no full mutual agreement among Anglicans exactly how Scripture, Reason and Tradition interact (or ought to interact) with each other.”

      To the best of my understanding, it is Tradition alone (and not a terribly old one, when compared with the Hebrew Bible as “Scripture”), that declares “that Christian Marriage can only be between a man and a woman,” given that for a great deal of the past millennium there may, indeed have been one man and one woman, but the rest of what was called “marriage” bore no resemblance to what we in the late 20th and early 21st Centuries recognize. I refer to women as chattel, marriage for political purposes, etc.

      I’m sorry that you are not happy, but I’m sorrier that you are subtly suggesting that, since I affirm that my Reason and reading of Scripture trump “Tradition,” that I am somehow less of an Anglican than you.

  5. Rosemary Hannah Avatar
    Rosemary Hannah

    Surely the Canons are not articles of faith. They are laws to be abided by, not a creed to be believed. There is a huge difference between the two.

    1. Kelvin Avatar

      My understanding is that it is something of an anomaly to have a doctrinal statement in a canon. The canons should indeed be regarded as the law of the church and not a doctrinal statement.

  6. Ross Kennedy Avatar
    Ross Kennedy

    Apologies for making another comment after I stated that I had made my final one on this issue.

    I agree that canons are not doctrinal statements or articles of faith but they must and do reflect the belief of the church. As the Bishops’ Statement puts it ‘The doctrine of marriage of the SEC, as currently expressed in Canon 31 of the Code of Canons, is that marriage is “a physical, spiritual ad mystical union of one man and one woman.”

    I would, therefore, have to disagree with Rosemary’s claim that there is a ‘huge difference between the two.’ They are obviously very closely linked to each other and with the practice and life of the church

    1. Kelvin Avatar

      The important point to remember is that the statement regarding marriage in Canon 31 is “The Doctrine of this Church is that Marriage is a physical, spiritual and mystical union of one man and one woman created by their mutual consent of heart, mind and will thereto, and is a holy and lifelong estate instituted of God.”

      If it isn’t possible for those who advocate same-sex couples being able to enter marriage to edit that definition to suit their own ends then it can’t be possible for anyone else to do so either.

      If it isn’t possible for someone to subscribe to the canons because they happen to be in a marriage with someone of the same gender then it can’t be possible for someone to subscribe to the canons who is in a second or third marriage either.

      The way our church has dealt with divorce (which is also controversial for some people) has been to allow people to minister who are in relationships which fall outside the definition of marriage in Canon 31.1

    2. Lawrence Rosenfeld Avatar
      Lawrence Rosenfeld

      “Huge” or not “huge”? Rather than debating the size of a subjective term, perhaps we can try to find a more objective method for determining the relationship between the two.

      It seems to me – and I welcome debate on this point – that the Canons ought to flow from our faith (“reflect the belief of the church”). Assuming that is the case, then after we deal with the question of “what IS the belief of a church that encourages reason over dogma?”, we get to wrestle with the potentially circular nature of putting statements of belief into a governance document.

  7. Ross Kennedy Avatar
    Ross Kennedy

    Not so. Canon 31.4 allows for a Diocesan Bishop to permit the marriage of person/s whose previous marriage has been dissolved and where one of the previous partners of that marriage is still living.

    1. Kelvin Avatar

      Yes, Ross. The Canon allows for a bishop to permit a marriage after divorce.

      However, that says nothing at all about subscription to the canons or anything about whether such a person should be fit for ordination.

      If it isn’t possible for someone to subscribe to the canons if they happen to be marrying a person of the same gender due to Canon 31.1 then I can’t see how a person can subscribe to the canons if they are in a second marriage which also falls outside the boundaries of Canon 31.1 regardless of whether such a thing was permitted in church.

      I think that a second marriage should not be an impediment to ordination. However, the Bishops’ recent guidelines have implications beyond those who happen to be gay and lesbian.

      These are all inconsistencies that come from a time when the Canon was revised to suit some circumstances (divorce) but before other circumstances (marriage of same-sex couples) were even thought about. We shouldn’t expect such Canons to answer questions they were never designed to ask.

      Notwithstanding that, one of the reasons that it was presumed by many that being in a same-sex marriage (which does indeed fall outside the doctrinal definition of marriage in the canon) would not be a bar to ordination is precisely because being in a second marriage (contrary to the doctrinal definition of marriage) isn’t. One can’t have it both ways.

  8. Seph Avatar
    Seph

    It seems to me that a bishop can either be a ‘focus for unity’ (a seriously dubious phrase in my opinion) or show real leadership—I don’t see how it is possible for one person to do both.

    I can’t see much evidence of either from the SEC bishops at the moment.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Previous Posts

  • Advent 4 – The Annunciation

    Here is Sunday's sermon A few months ago, I was waiting to begin Evensong and my attention was drawn by two children. They had been cycling on small bikes outside, watched by their father. Can we come in, they asked. Of course I said, and beckoned them all in. The father introduced himself as a…

  • Carol Service

    It was extra seats to pack them in tonight at our Nine Lessons and Carols Service which was wonderful. I’m very grateful to all those who took part. The music was such a treat. I used to be firmly of the view that the Nine Lessons service was grim, but I guess that it because…