• Which bits of the Bible do you miss out?

    Which bits of the Bible do you miss out?

    Oh, if you are starting to huff and puff about that question, I hear you, I really do. After all, once you start to edit the Bible you’re making God in your own image, putting up idols of your heart and mucking about with the eternal truth of the ages which will stand undiminished, unchanged and with everlasting immutability forever and ever, Amen. Right?

    But seriously. Which bits do you miss out?

    Unless you are keeping kosher in the kitchen, don’t borrow or lend with interest and are prepared to take off all those mixed fibre clothes you are wearing now (yes, right now, take them off!) then you are doing it already.

    I preached last Sunday morning all about how I believe women and men to be created with equal dignity and worth. I said I would believe it whether I was a Christian or not because it is right anyway.

    Then by the evening I found myself in a church full of wandering eyes, sniggers and general incredulity as someone read the second lesson at Evensong.

    It was this passage from the letter to Titus.

    But as for you, teach what is consistent with sound doctrine. Tell the older men to be temperate, serious, prudent, and sound in faith, in love, and in endurance.

    Likewise, tell the older women to be reverent in behaviour, not to be slanderers or slaves to drink; they are to teach what is good, so that they may encourage the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, to be self-controlled, chaste, good managers of the household, kind, being submissive to their husbands, so that the word of God may not be discredited.

    Likewise, urge the younger men to be self-controlled. Show yourself in all respects a model of good works, and in your teaching show integrity, gravity, and sound speech that cannot be censured; then any opponent will be put to shame, having nothing evil to say of us.

    Tell slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect; they are not to answer back, not to pilfer, but to show complete and perfect fidelity, so that in everything they may be an ornament to the doctrine of God our Saviour.

    For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all, training us to renounce impiety and worldly passions, and in the present age to live lives that are self-controlled, upright, and godly, while we wait for the blessed hope and the manifestation of the glory of our great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ. He it is who gave himself for us that he might redeem us from all iniquity and purify for himself a people of his own who are zealous for good deeds.

    Now, there we have a passage where women and men certainly are not regarded as equals and where slave owning is not so much as challenged but supported directly by the text.

    You know, the “so long as you are nice to them” argument in favour of slavery just ain’t kosher around here. It ain’t halal to us in St Mary’s. It ain’t righteous, godly or holy. And neither is treating women and men as anything other than of equal dignity and worth.

    Now, as a result of that, I found myself doing some quick mental editing to the prayers and giving thanks to God that we have learned so much more about the world since the letter to Titus was written.

    But what would you do? Would you put a note in the lectionary to ensure this isn’t read out loud the next time we get to that place in the cycle of readings that we use for Evensong? Unless I’m much mistaken, the compilers of the Revised Common Lectionary that we use in the morning have carefully and quietly nudged that passage out of use – it simply isn’t read once in the three year cycle. The last paragraph can be read on Christmas Day. But not the rest.

    So, what should we do with it when it comes up in the evening lectionary that we use? Read it and roll our eyes knowingly? Read it and denounce the things it represents in sermon, deeds and action?

    Or quietly cause it not to be read at all?

    Over to you.

5 responses to “St Strumpet?”

  1. Mary Brown Avatar
    Mary Brown

    How about the wife of Jesus, airbrushed out of the story by later misogynist Christians? See Starbird, M “The Woman with the Alabaster Jar” and other books by her. She is an ex-Catholic who set out to refute the Holy Blood, Holy Grail story and ended by being convinced that Jesus and Mary were a married pair (and an archetype of the male/female balance principle). There’s a wonderful window in Kilmore Church, Mull. Check it out – whoever created it intended it to represent J and M as husband and wife, and M is clearly pregnant. Of course, there is no unchallengeable evidence that Jesus was married, but what I would like to ask the sceptics is why, given that He was the word made flesh and dwelt among us, is it unacceptable for Him to have been a sexual being? Why have later Christians considered sexuality, even in a loving relationship, to be something disgusting? Because they have, we are now stuck with the nasty views of the NotW brigade that sex is either an acceptable leisure activity or something gross. As Margaret Starbird points out, if we restored Mary as Jesus’ beloved consort we would be creating a much more wholesome myth!

    1. kelvin Avatar

      It is a little like the arguments that might be made of the relationship between Jesus and the beloved disciple though, isn’t it? All very attractive and neat if you come from a particular point of view but not really backed up with enough evidence apart from modern presumption, presupposition and desire.

  2. ryan Avatar
    ryan

    I think the arguments on Jesus being married are very far from being liberationary. Rather, they’re the natural end-point of the Evangelical mindset that homophobically (and unbiblically) divides the world into Normal Heterosexual Married types and the demonised Other. “It is better to marry than burn” might have some mysognistic readings conducive to the fundamentalist world-view, but it hardly most naturally supports the idolatarisation of particular heterosexual relationships.

    If I had a pound for every time a nominal Sola Scriptura type had told me that St.Paul had to have been married (presumably because Our Lord’s asceticism and disinterest in heterosexual marriage is bad enough) then I would be a very rich man indeed ๐Ÿ˜‰

    Interesting post Kelvin! Had no idea that St.Mary M even had red hair Perhaps she could be reclaimed as the Patron Saint of Gingers and Other Persecuted Minorities? ๐Ÿ™‚

    1. kelvin Avatar

      Oh, her hair was red, Ryan. Flaming Red I believe.

  3. ryan Avatar
    ryan

    How reginal! ๐Ÿ˜‰

Leave a Reply

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

Previous Posts

  • O Radix Jesse

    O Root of Jesse, that stands for an ensign of the people, before whom the kings keep silence and unto whom the Gentiles shall make supplication: come, to deliver us, and tarry not. Amen.The antiphon for the Radical. Getting to the root of the matter is the central theme of the day. O­nly when we…

  • New Commission

    I've commissioned new artwork from a local artist to put o­n the Church website over Christmas. “The Holy Nativity” is o­n display from now until new year, after which it will change to “The Glorious Epiphany”.Take a look – www.saint-saviour.org

  • O Adonai

    O Lord and Ruler of the House of Israel, who appeared to Moses in the flame of the burning bush and gave him the law o­n Sinai: come, and redeem us with outstretched arms. Amen.The same o­ne who is known as Lord, flickers in an unsteady fire – a fire extinguished neither by our own…

  • Advent

    I am indebted to Maggi Dawn for reminding me of this poem which makes me quiver. It will be o­ne of the readings at the Carol Service o­n Sunday evening at St Saviour's. The Scottish Vienna Horns will be playing, the choir have prepared carols, the church will be decorated and I will be singing…