Among my collection of Bibles which I have acquired over many years, there is one that I do not often use. By chance I pulled this particular volume off the shelf when I was listening to a lecture on the Bible from youtube. I then remembered why this copy of the Bible had fallen into disfavour. The Bible, a RSV, was a version where some passages were printed in a much smaller font than the rest and to read these sections requires one to hunt around for reading glasses. I then began to consider why some sections of scripture were thought to be worthy of the small print treatment. It seemed likely that the editor of this edition was trying, maybe, to protect a reader from having to wade through the long boring sections of the Old Testament. Certainly, one can see good reasons to suggest that a typical reader might not want to be burdened by endless genealogies, the exact dimensions of the Jerusalem Temple and the precise instructions to be observed so that Temple sacrifices might be done properly and correctly. These sections require some determination to read in full. The RSV editor perhaps may also be saying that these sections are unsuitable to be read in church. The inevitable question arises for the conscientious student of Scripture: what do we do with these parts the Bible that do not edify or appear to have anything useful to say to a modern Christian?
The repeated refrain which we are hearing at Lambeth 2022 is an appeal to the clear teaching of Scripture from members of conservative groups, such as the Global South Fellowship of Anglican Churches. The leader of the group, Archbishop Justin Badi of South Sudan simply stated in an interview: “Being a Christian, you go according to what the Bible teaches.” His body claims to represent 75% of all Anglicans and thus their ‘biblical’ perspective on the marriage issue is the one that the entire Anglican Communion, including the Archbishop of Canterbury, who convened the Conference, should give way to. The problem for those of us who are trying to be good Anglicans, but who read our bibles noting the passages that are in some cases unreadable or even offensive, is that this statement will not do. If we base all that we think about marriage and sexual behaviour on the many models presented in Scripture, we get a very confusing picture. Should we aspire to the examples of David or Solomon who seemed to have made little effort to remain faithful to a single partner? Is not so-called Christian marriage a modern construct rooted in a few carefully selected passages from the Old and New Testaments? One of the great triumphs of the Reformation was that it offered the possibility of reading the Bible to ordinary people who possessed the ability to read. They would have been able to study for themselves the entire text. In spite of the ubiquity of copies of the Bible in almost every household, certainly in past generations, the knowledge of what the Bible, particularly the Old Testament, actually says is poor and frequently almost non-existent. Two sources of bible knowledge remain for those who attend church. One is a past exposure to books of bible stories for children. These were absorbed in their younger years. A second source of biblical knowledge may come from listening to a preacher who quotes texts to help undergird the various points of Christian teaching that are being expounded. Quoting the Bible in this way is of course a legitimate activity. The problem arises when the preacher goes on to imply that the text from either testament is susceptible to a straightforward and unambiguous interpretation as to what it teaches. In many cases there may be a lot to be unravelled before we can get to a meaning or interpretation. Because most people do little in the way of independent reading of Scripture, they are entirely dependent on leaders and preachers to interpret it for them. This is especially true when it comes to understanding what the Bible has to say about sexual behaviour. A convenient veil is drawn over the fact that the Bible is full of sexual behaviour that would be totally out of place, if not criminal, in today’s world. Bigamy and concubinage offend our civil and religious laws today. Many Christians seem able to glide over the things that indicate immoral behaviour as though they were not important. We seem fixated, as far as the OT is concerned, on the passages where same sex behaviour is mentioned in the book of Leviticus.
One form of sexual misbehaviour which today is universally condemned right across the world is the sexual exploitation of children. And yet in a ‘small print’ section of Scripture, Numbers 31, instructions are given by Yahweh for the treatment of virgin women and girls after a military victory. We are left to imagine this treatment of girls, some presumably barely in their teens, who had been captured in war. All the men who might have protected these unfortunate girls are to be killed alongside older women and presumably their very young children. It would be extremely hard, if not impossible, for anyone today to find a way of reading such a passage and concluding with the words ‘This is the Word of the Lord’.
Horror passages of grotesque abuses in the exercise of power can be found elsewhere in the Bible. It is not hard for the cruellest tyrants of history to find biblical examples of such things as genocide, mass slaughter and enslavement in the pages of Scripture. We can imagine how these examples of cruel behaviour were part of the culture known in biblical times. A certain ruthlessness would have been required to allow the ancient Israelites to continue to exist as a people. Kill or be killed was no doubt part of the ‘ethics’ of the time. The very continued existence of the people signifies that they were successful in the messy business of survival when so many of their rivals have disappeared into historical oblivion. We could argue about what laws of ethics might be considered appropriate for a Hebrew leader alive in 1200 BCE. We might even find some way of excusing this barbaric behaviour on the grounds that it has led to their survival. Even if we may possibly make some excuses for the utter barbarity of ancient Israelite soldiers, we will never conclude that this is in any way a pointer to what God requires of us today. In other words, the behaviour apparently commanded by God cannot be taken as an instruction across cultures and time. In short, the fact that certain behaviour is reportedly approved by God in the text of Scripture does not in any way necessarily justify it for us today.
The so-called liberals, especially those who have studied the text of Scripture at some depth, will be aware of these horror passages but still be able to speak of the Bible as a whole as revealing the word of God. The difference between conservatives and liberals in this context is that a liberal has a well-developed sense of historical context. A ‘rogue’ passage such as Numbers 31 is not to be for the liberal reader an infallible revelation of the will of God. Rather, we read it for what it is, the account of a tribal nation very slowly moving out of barbarity towards a semblance of humanity and just behaviour. We are also not tied, for the same reason, to Jewish dietary laws or sacrificial practices. When the Bible is read by liberals with careful attention to context, historical setting and a sense of theological development, there is never the same concern to swear any allegiance to these difficult texts and treat them as infallible. The ethical insights of the 21st century are, we believe, examples of God speaking to us today. Many conservative Christians are caught up with the idea that Scripture is the only medium through which God can speak to us. I recently listened to Archbishop Foley Beach, the presiding bishop over the network of Anglican churches known as GAFCON. He used the well-worn phrases when speaking about Scripture. ‘The Bible clearly states’ ‘God speaks to us in the words of Scripture’. These claims were being made in the context of the gay marriage debate. Has the Archbishop actually read the whole Bible? I can understand that a faithful member of a conservative congregation would only know the passages filtered to them through the leaders. The leaders themselves have no such excuse. They know or should know these horror passages, and these must surely still have the power to shock or stop all in their tracks whatever their theological background.
Lambeth 2022 is likely, on present showing, to be an unsuccessful attempt to bring together two tribes of Christians. The issue is, as many have pointed out, not the gay issue or the nature of marriage. The issue is about the nature of Scripture and the authority it has for us. Is our relationship with Scripture to be like a relationship with another person where the mutual discovery takes place over a number of years and is never complete? Alternatively, are we, like the conservative groups, going to retain the fantasy that we possess an infallible document, the meaning of which has already been fixed for all time? A quote from Scripture is thought to be definitive, unable to be interrogated or questioned. God does indeed speak to us through the medium of Scripture but the task of revealing that truth takes much effort and time. Even when we think we have the answer, that answer may not be fixed for ever. It is like a journey of discovery. The Bible is, as is true of the Christian life as a whole, a source of endless discovery, endless newness. We need often to ponder the meaning of Jesus’ words: ‘Behold I make all things new’.
Highly recommended viewing! Hope you can make it work. It is a three minute clip.
Masterful
One “text” which has often enouraged me is the homily preached by John Robinson, pastor to the “Mayflower” pilgrims, on the night before their departure: “I charge you before God and his blessed angels that you follow me no further than you have seen me follow Christ. If God reveals anything to you by any other instrument of his, be as ready to receive it as you were to receive any truth from my ministry. For I am verily persuaded that the Lord hath more truth and light yet to break forth from his holy word”. It’s that final sentence which I want to highlight: sadly (in my view) our conservative colleagues hold to much more ‘static’ view of revelation through Scripture.
I love that quote, thanks.
Most of the new insights are from what you call conservatives or at least from evangelicals, since they write most of the big critical commentaries, which are packed full of thousands of insights both old and new.
But John Robinson’s words can be mercilessly hijacked by anyone who wants a text to say what *they* wish it would say (a symptom of selfcentredness). So if Jesus (and critical scholars do not think his farewell discourses or much of John’s gospel were his own words) has the words ‘I have more things to say to you…’ then they simply – and utterly dishonestly – insert whatever their pet hobbyhorse is, however distant from the known teaching of Jesus, and from anything that is in the context. So Muslims insert the idea that the Paraclete spoken of here was none other than Muhammad; modern activists insert the idea that of course Jesus must have been talking about sleeping with one’s own gender, for nothing could be more obvious in context. (???) The context we are speaking of is that of an author who is shocked that a man would speak to a woman in public (John 4) and who commends that young males are virgins (Rev 14). He is full of agape and philia but I don’t recall that he mentions eros. But if eros is on people’s minds, they will insert the idea into absolutely any text. It reminds one of the man who had a cracking story about a gun. He would always try to work the conversation round to it – but if all else fails he would pretend to hear a gunshot – and then he was away in good raconteur mode.
For me, a culturally conservative but theologically radical, perhaps eccentric but certainly ancient Anglican priest (86) of the Diocese of Sydney, a long-time parish priest but for almost 25 years a volunteer hospital chaplain (that work keeping me grounded), the Scriptures (in the various canons) are obviously NOT the Word of God but I believe God can speak to us in many parts of the Scriptures. I have put 440 passages from the OT, Apocrypha, and NT, printed in full, in a book almost finished, “Around the Broad Land : with an agnostic adventurer : prayers and pocket parables for the journey”, in form a revision and extension of the BCP Communion lectionary (plus collects) but intended mainly for Matins and Evensong and other occasions – and in a way that might make the Scriptures and in turn their treasures more accessible. (The words “around the broad land” come from a hymn about the Bible written by Isaac Watts.) About two thirds of those passages are from the classic Authorised Version with which an educated person should be
familiar and with a translation that should not be too easily dismissed ; about one third is based on the RSV which is referred to in this article. The RSV was the preferred translation of Donald Robinson, a great scholarly and pastorally minded evangelical Archbishop of Sydney and it is still the preferred translation e.g. of Oxford’s Professor John Barton, and both AV and RSV are highly regarded by e.g. Hebrew translator, Robert Alter. BUT I don’t think the top scholarship today is Conservative Evangelical at all though C.E. books are by far the most numerous writings. I myself have been helped most by the too little read various works of, for instance, Geza Vermes, Mark Goodacre, Maurice Casey, recently Finkelstein and Silberman, and some under whom I studied at London and Durham (at the latter, e.g. C.K.Barrett), &c – even former Christians Bart Ehrman and Michael Goulder. (The c.65 books listed in the Biblical section alone of my book’s bibliography include even A.N.Wilson’s quirky but very intelligent study). Every day I endeavour to read Matins and Evensong from this book and from my earlier “Sing Heart and Mind” which arranged just 112 Coverdale psalms (an easier diet) for the days of the month, the BCP psalms unchanged but with unobtrusive corrections and annotations). How’s that for a free advertisement ? More important, my testimony that more than ever, ordained for over 60 years – preceded not by seminary but by five years as a part-time undergraduate Sydney catechist, and before that, a Sunday School teacher in a wonderful plain vanilla BCP parish, the Scriptures, with the inspired, unique and unending riches embedded int them, provide much joy – and so much still to learn. Thank you !
Hi John. I think you must have an imperfect memory of what was written. You intended to summarise but in so doing you lost precision at 2 or 3 points. It was not said that the top scholarship today is conservative evangelical but that
(1) critical commentaries are like a peak of scholarship because of the many different skills they require. And because the precision involved in writing them prevents lazy or vague thought;
(2) most critical commentaries are by evangelicals, obviously because they are the ones most familiar in detail with the words of the biblical books.
Like you, I rate the works of Barrett, Casey, Goodacre, Goulder and Ehrman highly. In terms of biblical scholarship I do not rate the works of A N Wilson (a nonspecialist) highly, but (which was maybe your point) I rate his intelligence highly.
Thanks for these comments. Sorry for not reading carefully what was written …am always racing with writing etc etc before I fall off the perch. I should have mentioned it was one particular book by A.N.Wilson that I had in mind, The Book of the People : How to read the Bible. (Of course he writes all kinds of books, fact and fiction : I enjoyed, for example, his recent nicely produced story of Norway and its King during the War and the Christmas tree. It makes a delightful gift.) And it is nice to find someone familiar with the authors
I mentioned. I do not know of many here in Sydney !
Hi John. I’m intrigued by ‘around the broad land’. Which Watts hymns it from? and have you got the rest of the sentence? Thanks.
Also, I’m intrigued that you say the Bible ‘is not the Word of God’ but also that it is ‘inspired’. I suspect that many people think the two terms are synonymous, although the Bible itself (I think) refers only to Jesus as the ‘Word’.
Thanks, Janet, for your comment. The words “broad land” come from Isaac’s hymn – Lord, I have made thy word my choice, his paraphrase of Psalm 119, v.111. I print only two verses in my book and they begin
I’ll read the histories of thy love, and, ‘Tis a broad land of wealth .. .
On YouTube just now for the first time I have heard it sung, to the beautiful Billings and to other tunes. Watts I guess would mean by “Word” the scriptures although the Psalmist did not mean that. Nor I. Nowhere in the Scriptures does the “Word of God” refer to the Scriptures though I need to ponder what it does refer to ! You rightly remind me that in S.John 1, the “Word” or Logos said to become flesh but I don’t suppose every reference to the Word means the Logos. For me parts of it are unequalled, wonderfully and providentially “inspired” by God, by the Spirit of truth, although in other, lesser ways, so too is so much in spiritual prose and verse, in Shakespeare for example or Wordsworth or Rossetti, and other words and thoughts and actions in life. A conversation on such matters as these is a blessing since here it is hardly possible, and without conversation, comment, and criticism one can easily go astray !
Thank you, I’m not familiar with that hymn. Here’s the link, for others who are interested, though the tune isn’t specified and the words aren’t clear: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okh2QOB-s7g
The term ‘the word of the Lord’ in the scriptures often refers to a prophetic word, and I suspect that for much of the Bible ‘God’s word’ does mean God’s voice or message as it comes to us. Which might mean directly (burning bush); in dreams (e.g. Joel, and Acts); sermon (Acts again); prophecy, interpretation of a tongue (Corinthians); or indeed through the biblical writings. Over time the latter became predominant, and ‘God’s word’ became the Bible itself instead of God’s word to us through the Bible. That’s just a guess, I haven’t studied the matter!
Stephen, I keep out of these sort of arguments, partly because I have no theological qualifications. And whilst I’ve never been part of the “conservative evangelical” grouping. I know they do emphasise study of the whole Bible, seeking to reconcile everything, old and new testaments, including the difficult bits (sometimes called “texts of terror” like Numbers 31), to produce reasoned doctrine. My understanding is that this is what protestants have been doing for 500 years!
It may be that there are flaws in the scholarship and reasoning, again, this is above my pay grade, but I am not sure that a conservative would disagree with your comments about Numbers 31. I’ve certainly heard them use phrases like “progressive revelation” to indicate that God’s teaching to the world becomes clearer as the Biblical narrative develops.
I share your concern about preachers saying things like “the Bible clearly states”. This is simply manipulative rhetoric designed to silence dissent. It could be called a “thought-terminating cliché”, a concept associated with mind-control and totalitarianism by noted psychiatrist Robert Jay Lifton. But our protestant tradition is one of dissent, of study, of strident argument over doctrine. I’ve no idea what goes on at a Lambeth conference, but I I suspect there’s far more ecclesiastical power politics rather than genuine theological inquiry.
You cannot say ‘the Bible clearly states’ without making it clear that the Bible is not a book but a library. ‘The Bible clearly states’ sounds like we are talking about a single author, which we are not.
But what on earth is wrong with saying ‘the Bible clearly states’ on those very many occasions where the biblical books always agree on a given topic? I am very puzzled by that idea that this sentence should not be used, since obviously it will often be appropriate. For example: The biblical books always agree that God is supreme; that stealing is bad; that idolatry is bad; that humanity is sinful (at this point in time); that Israel ranked/s as God’s chosen people; that David was a king. These are a few random examples among many.
There are oodles of things that ‘the Bible clearly states’. Has every one of these been forgotten, or has there just been some hasty thinking?
My tuppence is that we miss so much if we think it’s simple!
My threepence is that there is no ‘it’ in the first place, but a large number of separate topics that should not be confused with one another, else we lose the very nuance and precision which bring us in the direction of more accurate answers.
And, Stephen, I love the idea of our being in a relationship with the Bible that grows and develops. Thank you.
The texts referred to are largely in the Old Testament which is a different dispensation anyway. There are Christians among whom I count myself who would not subscribe to Judaism if we had only the OT and the NT and NT events had never happened.
Discussion of ”the Bible” (most of all among Christians) should not skate over the fact that postJesus is held to be something radically new!
So let’s stick to what the NT says. Who cares what the OT says that is not ratified by the NT?
As to ‘the clear teaching of the Bible’ there is a fundamentalism that says nothing at all is clear. Does that apply to other books too? Or only the Bible? Could it be that there are things we wish were not clear but are? Sensible people will realise that there will be examples of different degrees of clarity, on a sliding scale, from very clear and unanimous to very unclear. Those who claim that the very clear and unanimous does not exist (anywhere at all) have never sifted through the Bible to find whether this highly improbable totalitatian scenario actually holds.
But in that case why should not the very clear be totally absent from every letter or blogpost we write? So that nothing anyone writes can possibly be understood with assurance. Why single out the Bible in this respect?
Endless newness – as confirmed by new scholarly findings every month of every year. But the ‘endless newness’ perspective puts emphasis on the new only. The fact is that the Biblical texts are the most studied ever. That means that a high proportion of perspectives people think are new are probably not new at all. There is a human tendency to emphasise the new and the things of one’s own day, but often that equates to an unwelcome ignorance of things of every single other period in history (or something approaching that).
David and Solomon are not role models in Scripture but characters in scripture. Can’t any character appear in scripture without being thereby exemplary? And the genre of Samuel and Kings is legend/chronicle (part and part) which means that there is a bias towards the inclusion of anything that makes a roaring yarn. Some aspects of David’s and Solomon’s character and deeds are role-model. Some are strongly warned against and seen as warnings for the future. And so on.
The ethical insights of the twenty first century are not infallible! Far from it, since we live in a history-poor time obsessed with ‘progress’ (a term often used arrogantly and inaccurately) and with the idea that we in our culture are superior and on the right side of history (a history of which, alas, there is unparalleled ignorance at present). Sensible people set the bar high before they will believe in infallibility.
I am no literary scholar! But it seems to me that (i) every book is written in a particular context, with many spoken and unspoken assumptions behind it; (ii) every book of any age has a history: possibly it has been edited, almost certainly various “readings” or interpretations will have developed over the years; (iii) none of us come to any text objectively, even (say) a news bulletin: we filter it through our prior understandings, background and knowledge. That seems to prevent any “fundamentalist” approach to the Bible – which isn’t to say that “anything goes”, either! At its best there will be a dynamic, living (and, one hopes, Holy Spirit inspired) interaction with the text.
But why are you putting the Bible in a different category from other writings? How to justify that?
The Bible is a library not a book anyway!
Everything you say applies just the same to other writings too. Including your own comment.
So do you think that every writing in the world is very hard to interpret? That means that every saying must be too. That is a form of totalitarianism and extremism. All we need to say is that plenty of easy-to-interpret things exist.
I’m not saying that everything is hard to interpret. I would hope – for instance – that the service manual for my car is completely clear to anyone. On the other hand, “Western” advertisers have sometimes been surprised by the messages that have been picked up from their posters or videos in other cultures. And – to take a random example – I wouldn’t be surprised if modern folk read “Jane Eyre” (for instance) with different eyes to those possessed by Austen’s contemporaries. I’m not saying that everything is relative; I am saying that we need to think of the text – especially an important one such as the Bible – in the context of its time, its historical interpretations and our own cultural assumptions (of which we may be largely unaware).
Therefore defer to scholars because they are that much more aware of background and culture issues, linguistic and historical issues etc.. The present state where everyone thinks they have an equal right to an equally valid interpretation, training or no training, is the pits.
All you are saying is that many things are harder to interpret than we might imagine. This has never been denied.
The homosexuality texts are generally cited as an example of different almost polar interpretations. But this is sleight of hand – the only thing that is polar is the hoped-for outcomes, which can no way affect honest interpretation. The message is often that because this or that detail cannot be fully agreed upon, then the entire portion of text is up for grabs. The logic of that escapes one (or escapes scholars anyway). It is not unclear that the texts are strongly opposed to male-male sexual expression whenever they write about it (which is after all the main issue); it is some of the smaller details that are the ones that are harder to nail.
It is interesting that this post commends liberal interpretation – which is probably not a school at all, since the idea is that it can be whatever it wants to be. Critical commentary writing requires a large array of expertises, and it is praiseworthy to possess all of that array. The bulk are written by evangelicals, but those fewer by Vatican II Catholics are on average even better.
“Therefore defer to scholars because they are that much more aware of background and culture issues, linguistic and historical issues etc.. The present state where everyone thinks they have an equal right to an equally valid interpretation, training or no training, is the pits.” I agree entirely. Problem is (as you hint) the scholars don’t necessarily agree; nor (as you also suggest) are they necessarily objective.
(1) But they will be more objective than the person in the street. What is the identity of the authority to which you are deferring, if it is not scholars?
(2) Also, any agreement or disagreement they have will be much more informed agreement or disagreement.
(3) And sometimes the claim is that there is disagreement when in fact this is only because with so many individuals involved there cannot fail to be at least some. What else would anyone expect.
(4) Further, scholars are working at such a minute level, that they will lay great emphasis on what to the layperson seem tiny disagreements.
The main problem is that you are speaking at such a general level that it becomes almost meaningless. Things only become meaningful when we exegete texts with precision and weigh options.
Why are scholars more objective? They can be as wedded to an idea as anyone else!
You’ve asserted that, but what evidence have we that it is true? Secondly, it is a very broad assertion, and thirdly, it covers a large group of people.
The reasons for believing it is untrue are:
-If at the end of all their academic training the average objectivity and freedom from bias is no better than the general public, then every penny of that was wasted by the universities. So why do universities exist? It is a controversial point of view that all their training produces no improvement. What’s the evidence that the amount of improvement attained is zero rather than any other figure?
I did research for some years, and I can tell you that a man called Arnon stuck to his view of how photosynthesis worked, which he discovered, long after someone else had found it wasn’t quite like that. Rigidity of mind can be found anywhere.
He was emotionally attached to it, it was his baby. But what’s the relevance of your point? It doesn’t have bearing on the relative degree of bias as between the scholarly and nonscholarly communities (an impossibly large subject in the first place), because it refers only to one individual who may or may not be representative.
Universities teach critical thinking, and those able to think critically are those better able to avoid fallacies and selfcontradictions in their thinking. How can it be otherwise?
Um, Jane Austen died 30 years before Charlotte Bronte had ‘Jane Eyre’ published. But I take your point. Jane Austen’s satire was obvious to her contemporaries, but completely passes by many modern readers.
Whoops! You can see that I’m not a fan of ‘classic’ literature!
As to the small print:
It is partly a ‘costs’ thing – less paper required, Bibles can therefore sell to more people. When the Bible producers think they can thereby also have an eyecatching variation which marks out laws, rubrics, ceremonies, tables from other material at a glance, it is clear they will think this is win-win. RSV and Christian Community Bible both go down this road.
The best blog yet, Stephen. I do hope that the clip from “The West Wing” is shown at the Lambeth Conference! TWW is of course a work of fiction, though informed by real events and experiences, and the series confronts the viewer with a wide range of both human foibles and profound truths. However, the Bible is different …well, how, exactly?
The words ‘Behold, I make all things new’ come from God not Jesus. The 2 are indeed closely identified in Revelation (albeit not this closely). They don’t of course refer to revoking what has already been written (- or indeed to words at all). Any such revoking is treated (in the same section, the very next chapter) as being practically the unforgiveable sin.
Marvellous clip! Thank you.
Christopher, you are suffocating being left in the corner, where your colossal intelligence and learning have been overlooked deliberately. This isn’t the place to find what you seek. Professional help is available, but I accept is hard to find, but one rule must be observed for it to be effective: you cannot grasp its truths unless you lay to one side, for the at least some of the 50 minutes, your intellect. Otherwise it will get in the way. A crude heuristic in this place is that less is more.
A good few of us think of you and value you. In relationship, having the last word is usually detrimental. I cannot comment further after this, as I’ve already said too much.
Best wishes, Steve
This isn’t the place? Most of us move in many different places. But why say things that could (to the sensitive) come across as condescending? We all have a lot to learn from each other. I don’t think I understood 100% of what you said, particularly not the word ‘deliberately’. Being educated is, certainly, not a disease. Secondly, it is an asset rather than being something neutral. Rather than retreat to the ad hominem, the substantial issues raised in this post are absorbing, and (because of the need to clear away stereotypes and false binaries first) the surface has merely been scratched.
Hi, John Bunyan. I love the idea of rushing into writing before you fall off your perch! Who was it, died recently, said he’d stopped buying green bananas? The term “God breathed’ was suggested to us during my training to describe the Scriptures. Possibly because it’s meaning is not obvious! I was brought up fundamentalist. I found it basically unsatisfying in the end, but also surprisingly hard to let go of. After all, once you start looking for other meanings, where do you stop? Stephen’s idea of a developing and inevitably changing relationship is very helpful.
Excellent article, Stephen! Two things would prevent the lambda Bible reader from literalist hermeneutics, and so much more the bishop or priest. 1. A one-year lectionary for the divine office, like the one of 1552, or its amended version of 1871, which are still in the CofE BCP. 2. Non-edulcorated translations. I find interesting, every year, at this period of the year, how, in some French versions, the passage of the beginning of Ecclesiastes reads (translated): “I had servants and handmaids”, instead of “I bought slaves and bondgirls.” If we got disturbed more often by biblical immoral ethics, we would stop saying: “The Bible [clearly] says…”
Interesting, George. But could you explain what a ‘lambda Bible reader’ and ‘Non-edulcorated translations’ are, please, for those of us who are ignorant?
Hmmm. I suggest that this blog, although clearly of interest to a very small minority of you who might actually understand what in heaven’s name is being said, has strayed much too far from “Surviving Church”, and with respect to all involved, needs to stop. Nothing wrong with a robust theological debate, obviously, but not here, please. Shouldn’t we instead be asking why the churches are emptying, or doesn’t it matter? Perhaps another blog is needed, Stephen.
Why shouldn’t there be a theological debate here? The site is not about the survival of the church, but how to survive being involved with church. And, as Peter Reiss cogently explains below, concepts of truth are involved with how power is exercised, and over whom it is exercised. And how power has exercised has everything to do with whether it is possible to survive church involvement.
If it is something that simply needs to be survived then (since time is finite) it should be replaced with some of the many thing that can be actively enjoyed. However the apostles and saints, being proactive, did not view it as something that primarily needs to be survived. I doubt the thought entered their heads. It is a distinctive of our own age.
No, the problem of surviving church is not a modern one. Think of all the people over two millennia who have been denounced as heretics, had their books burned, excommunicated, banished, burned at the stake, tortured.
If you think that none of that happens today – I know a Roman Catholic nun who had her book pulped after failing to get the imprimatur, and countless people who have lost their ministry, their home, their whole social circle, their health. Then of course there are those who have been physically assaulted or sexually abused within church. The harm done often lasts a lifetime.
Surviving Church is for all these people – and many blessings be upon Stephen’s head!
Having been classified as being unaware of those things, it is certain that I neither am living under a rock nor was born yesterday, as most will already be aware. A common characteristic of apostles and saints is their positive approach. Endless suffering is part of the deal (Mark 10, 2 Cor 11) and is more intense not less when one is a Christian. However, it is not an all consuming picture since the positive side is so glorious. It is the idea that the negative side is all consuming and prime identity is victim that is new.
Suffering is part of the deal – but it’s not supposed to come from other Christians. I can’t think of any saints who thought there was a glorious positive side to suffering at the hands of other Christians.
Paul goes on about them in this same letter 2 Corinthians, and (a few months earlier) also in Galatians. But he maintained his victorious attitude.
Who are the other Christians or Christian movements through history who have spent a good proportion of their time moaning about other Christians? What positive things had they achieved by the end of their lives?
Christopher, Surviving Church is for (and sometimes by) people who are suffering at the hands of other Christians. If this strikes you as an unworthy aim and set of topics, there is no need for you to visit the site.
I agree, Janet. To which I would add that much of the apparently scholarly commentary in this blog now tells me a great deal about why our churches are emptying. There’s a place for such erudite discussions but it’s not here (as I suggested earlier); it is not what SurvivingChurch is meant to be about. What next? How many angels can stand on a pinhead without falling off? Should we care?
In other words, it is a safe and welcoming place for all.
Re Bob’s point, there are known correlates for church shrinkage: this is something that has been studied for half a century at least.
This is complex not binary; the psalms and Lamentations among other sections of Scripture certainly seem to speak with the voice of victims, and to accentuate what is negative, and with differing glimpses of hope. Some of the voices of Scripture are all but consumed by their suffering. Many of the narratives do not provide resolution to the suffering, though commentators may try to (eg Abel, Jephthah’s daughter, the horror of starvation in 2 kgs 6)
Some psalms speak of betrayal; the gospels in different emphases try and come to terms with Judas and his actions, and the impact of abandonment on Jesus.
The extended drama of Job leaves us possibly as confounded as when we started.
Some voices speak of a glorious and transcending victory found in and through suffering, but they are not the only voices in Scripture.
I am grateful that our Scriptures include incomplete and pained voices, anger and despair, and I see pain, anger and despair in Jesus (sometimes with the gospel writers trying to soften the edges!)
In case you didn’t notice, Christopher, for many people, church is a place of pain. That’s how this blog started.
But the blog is meant to be welcoming and safe, rather than condescending.
Exactly. And I’m afraid, Christopher, that your comments do at times seem condescending. Perhaps you aren’t aware that that’s how you sometimes come across?
But even if I were (examples?) how would two wrongs make a right?
I think the discussion is relevant because truth and power are closely linked. There is a group who hold to the view that the Bible does teach, categorically and clearly, that not only are certain sexual relationships and behaviours wrong, but – and this is where the deeper division occurs – that God has made us male and female and heterosexual in our orientation. Those who dispute this are accused of denigrating Scripture. And an honest answer has to be that a plain reading of the various texts in the Bible supports such a worldview.
There is a second group which disagrees and which argues that we need to read the various texts with an eye to history, context, and using reason to re-interpret texts from a different culture / world. A sub-group would argue that the tools for such deconstruction are to be found within the canon of Scripture. There are I am sure other approaches too, but all are claiming not just a “truthfulness” but also that their way of thinking should be accepted by others / even imposed on others.
In each case those in the congregations will be subject to the presence of / absence of certain teaching and approaches, whether it is the confident “The Bible says” (implication being listen to me who will tell you what it does say), or the (equally confident) language of inclusivity with its underlying constructs. This second group – as the Church of Wales has exemplified – sees the first group to be un-Christian in its condemnation of gay people and their loving relationships. The first group- as exemplified by the GFSA – sees the second group as un-Christian in that they have deliberately deviated from Scripture. I think Justin Welby captured the division well in what he said recently at Lambeth.
Many in the Global South are in cultures that condemn homosexual relationships; we in the liberal West are in cultures, which now condemn the “traditional” view. All of us operate within wider “truth-cultures”, just as did the Biblical writers, and resisting some views is more costly than resisting others.
Both claim truth, or how to understand truly – but an exploration of power dynamics would give – I think – an insight into the impact of both approaches, and there are different constructs around truth that need to be teased out. The Bible is weaponised, but actually it always has been – just by different groups for different purposes
Stephen is right that the “The Bible clearly says” approach leads to a model of power exercised by the leaders. Some would argue that this is a biblical model. Power always has its shadow side; the exercise of power rewards some over others. By their fruits .. .
Certain groups of people become the battlefield over which the fight is waged (220 years ago it was slaves). The cost is different if your (sense of) identity is challenged, compared to if your view of truth is denied.
Well said. “The Bible clearly says” has become a cliché trotted out unthinkingly, which is why I dislike it. And one of the reasons the view that God created male and female is wrong, is because it’s wrong! Intersex people exist. So any discussion on sex and gender has to include the facts.
I don’t think the view that God created male and female is wrong. It can be read more than one way. We are all a mixture of male and female traits and some people, as you say, are born intersex. They are physically, as well as psychologically, both male and female. Of course all women have a certain amount of the ‘male’ hormone testosterone.
If the phrase ‘the Bible clearly says’ precedes something that the Bible does not clearly say (of which there are many), then the phrase should not be used that time round.
If it precedes something that the Bible does clearly say (of which there are many) then it should be used that time round.
And the proviso should always be made that ‘the Bible’ is a library not a book.
The present proposal is that the phrase should never be used in any context. But that would be gagging people (which would be bad enough) from telling the truth (which would be even worse).
Your comments about power structures resonate with my church experiences. In the 1980’s, when ‘Dales’, ‘Restorationism’ and Arthur Wallace were very popular and influential I noticed that ‘The Bible says’ type pyramidal power structures were invading the organised charismatic renewal movement which had previously been much more open and tolerant. The pyramid was also, very obviously male dominated, at a time when I felt the Spirit was clearly teaching me more tolerant, open minded attitudes. As I understand things, the scriptures are guidelines, not rigid tramlines, and as a fine minister said to me, need to be reinterpretted according to the culture and the times in which we find ourselves. (Within reason, of course) Put simply, I keep returning to the basic fact – God in Christ accepted me, a sinner, just as I am. He expects me to do the same for others, even those who I find hard to understand or empaphise with. I have enough problems with my own prejudices as it is – what I do not need is divine authority for them!
Amen, brother!
What is normal is not necessarily normative – and as my Ethics Tutor asked us to consider – ‘is’ does not generate ‘ought’; but for those of us who believe in a Creator, the definition of, and relation between, normal / abnormal and what should be affirmed / what should be challenged, is more problematic; equally the way that ‘ought’ is developed, whether from sacred Scripture alone, or with the aid of reason and knowledge and experience (and tradition whatever that is) is more complex.
Belief in a Creator who has revealed theirself, and an acceptance that Truth is revealed at least as much as discovered, requires us to grapple with the idea of revealed truths – a magisterium if you like – whether that is a pope, a scholarly caste, a priestly caste, a prophetic caste (who have the gift of the Spirit) an authorised text and or authorised interpretation.
Does a post-modern world constrain how the Church might speak or should speak? is it fair to say that the Global South is still more ‘modern’ or even ‘pre-modern’ in how it understands Truth and truths?
The bishops of the Anglican Communion are currently divided – is that a terrible sign of division or a risky point of deeper discovery? Is good disagreement a fudge and / or the invitation of the Spirit? When does Paul rebuke Peter, on what, why, and how?
The Archbishop of Canterbury quoted the Bible and speaks about safeguarding in his second keynote speech to the Lambeth conference. I advise survivors not to read it unless they are feeling very robust. Later in the piece the Archbishop quotes Peter in regard to looking after the flock. Before that the Archbishop says “Wherever abuse takes place it is the gravest abuse of power. It is the darkest of dark sins … And I will continue to apologise with tears in my eyes for the church that let them down so terribly … As you know until the recent past abuse very often covered up by the authorities in the church …” I wonder if the Archbishop is shedding crocodile tears. I have waited for many months with tears in my eyes for him to provide assistance for me to file cdm because I am blind. My current emails asking him for assistance are ignored . And many survivors are currently waiting with tears in their eyes for justice.
Sandi Toksvig wrote an open letter to him, which I saw on Twitter. It was obviously well-written, as you’d expect, it produced a warm reply from him offering to meet for coffee.
Of course this will be triggering to the many of his flock, like Mary and Matthew Ineson, who’ve had almost zero or actually zero response from said arch bishop.
He had to reply to Sandi obviously, because of her widespread popularity. I’m being charitable to him here, and assuming his responses are dictated to him by his PR advisors. Personally, it appears to me that he has almost no power, and that his role is one of a ceremonial patsy. Can he admit this to himself? Given his background, he will find it hugely difficult to.
I find his talk of tears embarrassing. We saw this at the IICSA, but again nothing changed. I think there’s evidence that he is a man of feeling, but he’s trapped in a role where everything is stage managed.
I’m not a huge fan of resignations per se, because you can only do it once, and impact can rapidly vanish away, but how about his accepting the damage to his health of the role (and certainly his reputation) and a full exposé of the toxic inner sanctum driving him from Church House, along with his early retirement? There will be opposing PR and other firms able to assist.
Good idea. That’s one way he could make a difference.
And Justin needs to make a full apology to Matt Ineson for refusing to apologise when asked to do so at IICSA, with Matt sitting behind him. As so often, the archbishop’s public statements are at odds with his behaviour and the reality.
Perhaps the Archbishop could not see Matt because he was shedding tears!
His unguarded remarks (such as we’ve heard) are at variance with the staged performances. 50 years ago, without the modern media scrutiny this wouldn’t present a problem to ABC, but the way public leadership is done now has completely changed.
You only have to witness the Sunak-Truss debacle to understand how damaging media appearances are, or can be, to even loyal supporters.
It’s immensely difficult getting the politics right, even when you’re good at it, and enjoy it. Welby is neither, as far as I can see. A “good” departure from him could help bring about a much needed restructuring of the way the Church does business. There’s no way, for example, that one person can do all the different roles, with no power, in the current climate.
Abuse is still being covered up by Church authorities, and Welby appears to have done little or nothing to help survivors of John Smyth, whom he knew personally. As far as I know he hasn’t even told what he knew himself, and the bishops and clergy who are implicated in the cover-up have escaped without discipline. He’s good at shoving blame onto his predecessors, but the tears in his eyes are unconvincing without action.
He has several times told what he knew himself, though over decades full of busyness one needs to jog one’s memory (at least, 99% of us do) and some things are not known so much as intimated anyway. Further, he is not remotely a central figure in the events.
That is also my understanding, having covered the whole history from the television revelations in 2017 supplemented by earlier local knowledge (including seeing Smyth in action in Court in the 1970s). I’m afraid a lot of the commentary has been rather superficial, made without detailed knowledge or chronology, just one example being claims about the Archbishop long before his ordination and when he was actually working abroad. One hopes that the Makin report will dispel any further speculation, but it is certainly a long time in coming.
Excuse me, Christopher, but Archbishop Welby has neither told all he knew, nor done anything to ensure this engaged in cover-up are held to account, not extended any worthwhile support to Smyth victims. Furthermore, at least one statement he made – saying he had had no contact with Iwerne while he was working in Paris – was proved to be false.
sorry, ‘those engaged in cover-up’.
I have seen the Iwerne camp programme which listed Justin Welby as a speaker during the time in which he said he had no contact with the camps.
No – the longer one talks the more specific one is able to get. You are expecting a single sentence to contain every iota of information? ‘No contact’ is a conventional summary that would not include every single personal contact; he needed his memory jogging (who doesn’t?), but was correct on the broad brushstrokes (division of his life into periods). At least once he made a flying visit, I remember, and was notably a small minority in doing so; so speaking and attending a full camp are 2 different things. Because there were 3 different summer camps at Clayesmore sequentially, the information that he spoke at the same camp as JS (as opposed to the same year, in summer) and on the time of day were both inaccurate. So I imagine they did not cross paths that year either. Which could also have been less than likely even if they had been at the same camp, given numbers and seniority.
You make 4 points. Points 2-3 are newly introduced, and have more to be said for them; the assumption that ‘cover-up’ is all and confidentiality is nothing would need arguing for. On point 1, you have extra information? I already addressed point 4 (which falls in the category of things both (a) remembered later and (b) involving hints, generalisation, and less clear information).
Yes, I have a considerable amount of detailed information on the Smyth case. I am not speaking out of ignorance or casual assumptions.
It’s fine, because the Makin report will coordinate that.
Though obviously the very public abuse case like Smyth are dreadful but they do serve a purpose for the church by covering up the myriad smaller abuses that go on daily. I am constantly shocked by the dishonesty of those who clearly once had good reputations as senior police officers and social workers but who seem to lose their moral compass on joining the church. Where does their integrity go? It is most puzzling. These abuses don’t make the headlines and have become the accepted language of the church but they damage people just as much as the very public cases.
Church used to be an ideal place to launder your reputation as a senior leader from an outside occupation. I’m not sure it is anymore.
Yes. It’s very difficult for the rest of us to get any air time. And am I merely being cynical in thinking the cases involving boys and men get more attention than the ones involving girls and women?
I’ve never done a survey, but I’d guess so. Abuse of girls and women can easily be assumed to be “normal” consensual sex.
One of the women I admire is Vivienne Neville, in her work with clergy spouses (mainly, but not exclusively women) left homeless when a marriage breaks down. I had the good fortune to meet her on an evening train, and we just got chatting. I believe her organisation is doing great work to right a profound wrong by joining forces with many others.
Little people like me, with hardly any “public profile” have hardly any chance in succeeding in a counter-abuse action whilst acting individually, but we can in concert.
Movements like Vivienne’s or like this one, are generally a source for good.
Abuse of women over the age of 18 is still routinely seen as an ‘affair’ little slip-ups in an otherwise unblemished record! Even if the vicar is married, so it is clearly adultery, and he has hurt not only his victim but also his family very little is done. He is given some counselling maybe and shuffled away quietly, while his victim is touted as a Jezebel and a temptress, yet looking at the CDM (even the draft new one) adultery falls under the category of serious misdemeanour.
What a load of nonsense and PR just so the secular world can still think of the clergy as somehow better than a mere man.
Returning to the theme of the blog post.
Prof Rev John Behr, a Patristic Scholar, recently appointed in Aberdeen, proposes a view of how the Scriptures (OT) were the primary basis for understanding the life, death and resurrection of Christ for the first generations of christian believers.
Indeed the Gospels are written with this presupposition and each in their own way can be thought of as summaries of the reasons to believe Jesus is the Christ.
Although Paul knew the Scriptures back to front, his meeting with Christ resulting in him seeing them “in a new light” – with a veil removed.
A search for meaning in the text itself is not enough…….
An shorter example of John Behr’s views can be seen on
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-1h13GAOlA&t=11s
He has written a number of books and speaks well.
Moving away from the current issue of ‘what constitutes marriage’, Stephen’s comments can apply to other major issues too. Through I and my wife’s involvement with Elim and ‘restorationist’ churches, and fundamentalist Bible colleges, I’m very much aware of similar attitudes towards the present nation of Israel – there is a tendency to say ‘God give them their land – it’s tough luck for anyone else who’se sitting on it. Get them out.” That’s a crude assessment, but a reasonably accurate paraphrase. So, in the name of a God of love, large parts of his family justify oppression, land grabbing, hostility and ultimately genocide. The trouble is, it sounds good, is simple and appeals to limited intellects wanting black and white understanding. My wife’s ‘Bible in a year’ reading notes are currently wading through Job, Numbers and Chronicles, and she’s understandably asking how much of their message is really relevant for today.