THE MISSING PAGES

By Roland Morant

In one of the memorable phrases to be uttered recently by a Christian, an African archbishop said that Western churches were "tearing pages out of the Bible" in pursuit of their liberal agenda. What this means in practice is that large swathes of Holy Scripture have become consistently ignored or deliberately rejected. Selectivity has become the order of the day. You pick what you like and ignore or reject the rest. You may even seize on individual words or phrases and construct a new system of belief or religious practice

With some honourable exceptions many of the mainstream churches are guilty of tearing pages from the Bible. The Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches have for a very long time taken stances on the matters discussed below which are in accordance with accepted and traditional belief and interpretation. They seem to be the only churches (at least in the West) that take the whole of scriptural authority seriously. It is difficult to avoid concluding that our own church the C. of E.(as with other members of the Anglican communion) is quite possibly among the worst of the offenders.

If any supporting evidence is needed for an assertion of this kind, we only have to remind ourselves of the findings of the Cost of Conscience surveys on the beliefs of priests and lay people. These findings showed that in many areas of belief, there were found to be disturbing retreats from traditional beliefs among sizeable minorities of respondents, male and even, more so, female.

It goes almost without saying that the pages are not actual ones, except in a few cases where individual topics have been considered within a single chapter. Most topics however have been dealt with in a thematic way by a succession of writers and therefore are dealt with in many books of the Old ands New Testaments.

So what 'pages' have been torn out of the Bible? On reflection the full list of topics is actually quite long. All readers will no doubt have decided on topics they would include in their own personal list. The items identified here constitute a list which cannot be claimed as exhaustive, but which probably includes most of the more obvious ones. The order in which these topics is presented has some significance, but should not be taken as hard and fast.

For convenience we have categorised the 'pages' into four groups: doctrinal beliefs, sexual morality, personal behaviour & appearance, and church order. We start with 'pages' involving doctrinal beliefs.

1. THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD

Taken as a whole the Bible is unambiguously patriarchal, both in its description and treatment of relationships between members of families and communities, and in its references to God the Father. The notion of patriarchy is reinforced from the book of Genesis onwards where woman was formed out of a rib of Adam to be his companion and helpmate (Gen. 2. 20-23). In the New Testament in particular, God has revealed Himself as Father not mother. To start calling Him mother - as leading members of some Western churches have been doing - is to change the very nature of the Christian religion. Let those who wish to worship a mother-god start their own religion, but not confuse it with Christianity!

2. THE PERSON OF CHRIST

The Cost of Conscience survey mentioned earlier touched on the uniqueness of Christ as our Saviour, the Virgin Birth and His Bodily Resurrection, all of which beliefs are "the essence of what historically sets Christianity apart as the world's major faith and the only sure foundation of its claims to offer Salvation to Man". The beliefs are enshrined in unambiguously worded writings in the New Testament and have been shown by the survey to have been disregarded by many clergy and lay people to the detriment of their souls.

3. SIN

The Bible teaches us that from the time of Adam's downfall sin is disobedience to the laws of God. It is a topic that is returned to time and time again in Holy Scripture. Today, a recognition of sin is frequently downplayed in the churches. Older readers will perhaps remember the funny little men of years ago who used to carry billboards proclaiming the biblical injunction "The Wages of Sin is Death" (Rom. 6.23). How many churches take sin and the consequences of sin as the major cause of the world's problems? In many churches surely, sin is downplayed as the outcome of social and material deprivation, a matter requiring counselling and guidance rather than repentance.

4. JUDGMENT

We are told in the Bible that "the Son of Man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels: and then he shall reward every man according to his works" (Matt. 16.27). Like sin, this is a matter that is frequently downgraded in many churches today. Either its importance in Christian theology is regarded as significantly less than in previous times, or the prevalent attitude is that everyone whether they strive or not will make it to the pearly gates. Judgment and all its unpleasant outcomes will be avoided as a loving God will see everyone into Heaven. The Christian religion is not cosy and never has been. Jesus himself said, "The gate to life is narrow and the way that leads to it is hard, and there are few people that find it" (Matt. 7.14 NEB).

5. SATAN

Quite a lot is written about Satan in the Bible. Jesus undoubtedly saw him, not as a vague wishy-washy disembodied spirit, but as a hard-and-fast solid figure who tempted him (Matt. 4.1), the personification of evil. Much of modern criticism directed against the Bible however seems to suggest either that he does not exist or that he is a mental construct in the mind of the biblical reader. The Old and New Testaments are peppered with references to Satan, describing how he originated, what caused his downfall and what happened to him subsequently. Sin and the Devil go together. You cannot abolish one without abolishing the other.

We now consider the missing 'pages' involving sexual morality:-

1. FORNICATION

There is a wide scattering of references in the Bible to this subject in both Testaments. Cruden's Concordance, for instance, provides twenty seven direct references to it - as well as many other, indirect ones too. A serious charge which might be levelled at the churches of the West is that they have all but given up the battle to convince people that sexual immorality is sinful. Living with an unmarried heterosexual partner and begetting children is not now regarded as contrary to what the Bible teaches.

2. HOMOSEXUALITY

This sexual practice is explicitly spoken against in the Bible - especially in Leviticus (No man is to have sexual relations with another man; God hates that. 18.22 NEB) and by St. Paul (e.g. I Tim. 1.8-10). It is referred to much less often than heterosexual immorality (fornication and adultery). Yet if news reports are accurate, the current outcry of evangelicals appears to be more strident than against heterosexual misbehaviour. The reason for this disproportionate response is not obvious.

3. MARRIAGE

The clear message of the Bible from beginning to end is that marriage represents the normal condition between adults of the opposite sex who are not closely related by blood. The only other permitted lifestyle is single celibacy. So the question has to be asked why the churches have not been shouting from the housetops that a lifelong relationship entered into through marriage is the only one that can sustain a strong and stable family life.

4. ADULTERY

The Bible has plenty to say about this. Cruden records forty nine references to the words: adulterer, adulteress, adulterous and adultery, these references being quite distinct from those to fornication. In the modern western world, as we have only too readily seen, attitudes have changed dramatically towards the notion of stable partnership in marriage. Wife swaps are now regarded as a new form of entertainment (as is sexual intercourse itself), and the pursuit of happily married spouses by third parties is not seen as particularly detrimental to family stability. Is it saying too much that churches seem to wish to avoid the accusation of being "moralistic" if they speak up about adultery?

5. DIVORCE AND REMARRIAGE

Jesus put a great restraint on divorce, saying that it was only permitted for unfaithfulness i.e. fornication (Matt. 5.31-32, 19.3-9). The remarkable increase in divorce in the West which is now permitted for many reasons besides adultery, has led to what is now belatedly being recognised as a very real breakdown in society. It is a sad fact that some of the mainstream churches - including the Church of England and Methodists - have actively colluded in widening the grounds for divorce. There is little evidence that they have tried to stem this scourge of society.

In our third group of missing 'pages' we turn to matters involving personal behaviour and appearance:-

1. PARENTS

We are enjoined by the fifth of the Ten Commandments to respect our father and mother (Ex. 20.12 NEB), a precept that is strongly endorsed in three of the Gospel accounts and in St. Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians. In the past this respect was observed in a practical manner by children taking responsibility for their parents' wellbeing in old age. But with many women out at work and many families living at a distance from their parents, this biblical precept no longer commands the response that it once did. We have to ask whether the churches have been as diligent as they might have been in emphasising the importance of caring for our parents.

2. HUSBANDS AND WIVES

St. Paul stresses that husbands and wives should submit themselves to each other. He also goes on to instruct wives to submit themselves to the ultimate authority of their husbands, as the Church submits to the ultimate authority of Christ (Eph. 5.21-24 NEB). St. Peter writes in similar vein (I Pet. 3.1). These remarks are tempered by the further observation that men must love and take care of their wives as they love and take care of their own bodies. Husbands are to love their wives and not be harsh with them (Col. 3.18 The Bible teaches that from the time of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden absolute equality is an illusion, and that when differences occur or final decisions have to be made, husbands should have the last word.

Today customs are very different from what they were in the past, and women are far better educated and therefore in a much stronger position to take important family decisions. What St. Paul was preaching was that there has to be mutual respect, concord and love between husbands and wives. It therefore follows that where initial decisions are made by a wife or children, as the husband is head of the family, action on such decisions should be taken in his name and with his concurrence. Such instructions might sit uneasily when placed side by side with demands of the feminist lobby concerning absolute equality between the sexes in and out of marriage. Readers here may have to decide for themselves whether they think that the churches have adopted a too neutral position on feminism.

3. PERSONAL APPEARANCE

St. Peter wants wives to present a modest outward appearance, not trying to be beautiful by the use of outward aids such as the way one does one's hair, the use of jewellery or by putting on special dresses. He says that true beauty comes from the inner self, the beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit (I Pet. 3.4). All this of course is at variance with modern life where women, married or not, are encouraged to do their own thing, to get out of the home and compete actively with men in order to get to the top of the greasy pole.

4. BEHAVIOUR DURING PUBLIC WORSHIP

It is stated by St. Paul that a man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonours his head. And conversely every woman who does the same with her head uncovered also dishonours her head (I Cor. 11.4-7 NIB). Thirty or forty years ago nearly all women wore hats when they came to church. How many do so now, except at weddings? St. Paul also says that women should be silent in church; it is not permitted for them to speak. If they wish to learn anything, they are to ask their husbands at home (I Cor. 14.34-38 NIB). This injunction appears to be totally ignored at the present time.

All this is strong stuff, given that it is counter to modern attitudes. We must concede however that customs may change over the years, a trend which is quite different from that of conforming to the world which St. Paul condemns. In his writing he distinguishes between the Lord's ruling and his own preferences. We must therefore be careful to give appropriate weight to all his utterances, noting that all he writes is still the word of God and must not be disregarded.

Our last group of missing 'pages' is concerned with orders in the church:-

CHURCH ORDERS

The first epistle of St. Paul to Timothy lays down the qualities that a bishop should possess (3.1-7). It is axiomatic that the bishop or overseer should be a man, the husband of one wife. He should be able to rule his house well, and his children should be well behaved. There is no suggestion that a bishop should be female. Were there however such a requirement, it would be negated by the Pauline injunction that a woman should not teach nor usurp authority over a man but to keep quiet (I Tim. 2.12). Moreover, within the context of marriage, a female bishop would have to defer to the headship of her husband.

Similar instructions by St. Paul in I Timothy apply to the appointment of deacons who are also assumed to be married men (3. 8-13). His epistle to Titus also gives similar instructions for the ordination and appointment of elders (probably presbyters) in every town (Tit. 1.5).

POSTSCRIPT

It is undoubtedly true that Christians are increasingly coming to understand that what might be called the dismantling of the Bible, has gone far too far in recent years. This dismantling process is one for which the agents of higher biblical criticism who have been active for most of the last century, must share a large part of the blame. The other negative influence has been the unparalleled drive by Western secularists to attack many of the ethical and moral standards in ordinary life that Christians had thought would be secure for all time. Christians are now finding belatedly that in many walks of life the Christian view no longer predominates and is under attack. They now find that they have speak up to defend what they believe to be right.

This Christian view has to be squarely based on what the Bible says, not on what a half or a quarter of the Bible says is true. People who regularly read the holy scriptures whether at home or at church, want to know that that the words they read mean what they say, and not something different or even opposite. The Bible is a package that has to be taken and understood as a whole. Given this, certain sections - especially of the Gospel narratives which record the words and actions of Jesus - carry greater weight. They provide the focal point of the whole biblical revelation. One could add that the purpose of the remainder of the Bible is to help readers understand the Saviour's words and actions.

It may also be said that the different church traditions - Evangelical and Catholic - each have their teachings based on this biblical revelation, and where they disagree they should be able to listen to each other's emphases and be willing to talk. Sometimes they arrive at similar conclusions by different routes, for example over opposition to the ordination of women. Sometimes they remain pro tem far apart for instance over aspects of sacramental worship.

On one of the blogs an unknown writer is quoted to say, "There is no hope or future for a liberal church. Basically it strips more and more of the fundamental beliefs of the faith away until there is nothing left. No one is interested and its flock will eventually decline and completely disappear". We may be certain that this process is well advanced in many of the mainstream churches, a progression which is accentuated and speeded by disregarding more and more of the Bible.


---Roland W. Morant is a cradle Anglican who has spent his professional life as a teacher, and latterly as a principal lecturer in education in a college of higher education, training students as teachers and running in-service degree courses. He is based in Canterbury, England.

------------------------------