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of my knowledge, this isn’t published anywhere now but I don’t think that I’m aware that it has ever been changed or withdrawn.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 “Have you no scriptural basis though?”

Jackson

15/02/2012

Hello,
If this blog were a talk radio show, I would say something like â€˜long time listener, first time callerâ€™. I found this article very interesting and the role of the Bible in the 21st century is something that many people are hesitant to enter meaningful discussion about. Being brought up in an Evangelical tradition I was taught to hold the Bible in very high regard. However Iâ€™ve come to realise in recent years that Scripture, Tradition and Reason is the only tenable way to approach oneâ€™s faith. Old teachings do run deep, though, and the question needs to be asked, when is it appropriate to look to the scriptures as a source of authority? The flagrant abuse of the Bible to further dogmatic agendas is undoubtedly a source of frustration to many Christians, but what do we do when reason seems to lead to a stalemate? A prime example will be when Margot MacDonald eventually revives her End of Life Assistance Bill. Many Christians in Scotland will be lobbying against and undoubtedly no small number for. Now scripture and tradition would affirm the sanctity of life, but that wonâ€™t stop quite a few people allowing their opinions to be moulded seemingly by reason alone. Meanwhile there will be a great many caught in the middle of very persuasive arguments, struggling to make up their minds while desperately looking for something authoritative to cut through the confusion. Are we too scared of fundamentalism to look to the Bible for guidance in such scenarios?
Cheers!

Reply
Neil Oliver

15/02/2012

Kelvin, I’m fascinated by your blog posts this week and encouranged that your statements make such sense to me and my view of my faith and the world. Great stuff.

Reply
Helen

16/02/2012

I too have followed your blog this week with interest and have found that it has encouraged my broadening faith, stimulated by St Mary’s. Thanks for the effort and thought you have applied. Dont be too hard on Evangelicals though.

Reply
1. kelvin
  
  16/02/2012
  
  Being an Evangelical taught me so much of what I know…
  
  Reply
Akma » On Miracles

17/02/2012

[…] that the BIble holds a primary place of reference for Christian life (and I acknowledge that my boss doesnâ€™t*, in the sense I propose here), one ought to have something to say about the prminence of […]

Reply
Brother David

21/02/2012

Being an Anglican educated in a United Methodist seminary, my stool has four pegs; scripture, tradition, reason, and experience, the Wesleyan Quadrilateral.

I have enjoyed these fireside chats good Padre.

Reply
Melissa Holloway

28/02/2012

This reminds me of a funny conversation I had with my 20 yr old son – we found ourselves discussing whether or not Kelvin was an evangelical?!!

He had taken a university course on Evangelicalism in America and I suspect it was taught by a (perhaps undercover) evangelical. Seems that one of the ideas that my son came away with was that being evangelical was more a way of doing things – an idea that we did indeed hear from Kelvin – that one has the good news and is eager for the world to know.

Of course my argument was that evangelicals do have to believe certain things, that I remember realizing I wasn’t an evangelical anymore when I couldn’t believe that there was a certain group of people, however they were defined, for whom hell was reserved. I feel there are parts of the movement that are just not benign.

But anyways, it is remarkable that someone somehow trying to put evangelicalism in the best light caused him to conclude that Kelvin fit the bill.

I think in the end we came up with the conclusion that Kelvin is able to hold a distinct theological vision in a perhaps evangelical way, having taken the best from his roots. I hope I won the day.

The whole conversation felt a little like the Twilight Zone.

Reply