|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: OK to censor the reading?
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
I hope this doesn't become a dead horse as it has wider implications.
Radio3’s Choral Evensong on Wednesday afternoon (you can catch up on Sunday) waas frtom Guildford Cathedral in exile, while they refurb, from a nearby school.
The 2nd lesson was from 1 Cor. 6 (the Pillar Lectionary which is supposed to be user friendly for visitors but clearly isn't). It lists those who 'can never inherit the kingdon of God' and includes fornicators, idolators, homosexuals.
The reader paused before 'homosexual' and then omitted it. You could hear the awkwardness in her voice.
That raised some issues:
straightforwardly, surely she rehearsed it before going live - but she sounded surprised and perturbed as if she hadn't seen this bit before
couldn't the precentor have chosen a different translation? The RSV is very much a product of its translators - other versions, and revisions of the RSV later that 1951) have a more nuanced translation from the ambiguous Greek - malakoi μαλακοὶ ,arsenokoitai ἀρσενοκοῖται
this passage has caused a lot of hurt and still does - I applaud the reader for her sentiment - but in the light of our 'conversations' across the Anglican Communion maybe we should let Holy Scripture offend us rather than brush things under the carpet.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
I first heard the censor at work when (I think it was) 1 Kings 16.11 was changed to "leaneth against the wall."
The Worship Events Coordinator of the Daly Avenue Tabernacle (once Saint Vartan's, for shipmates with long memories) inserted Elijah's name into the text as he thought that the text was confusing and he needed to clarify scripture.
I have always been uncomfortable with the reader winging it as this can take us to unfortunate places; if a text makes them uncomfortable, they should (preferably) accept this and read on, or find a respectable or approved translation which doesn't bother them quite as much. Do we want readers to omit the rich from Luke 6.24 because there are stockbrokers in the congregation and they might be discomfited? Best that they read on and let the homilist get into the details.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
It does seem pretty bizarre to include the passage in question in a lectionary specifically designed for this sort of occasion, a point leo has made supra.
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Galilit
Shipmate
# 16470
|
Posted
I regularly listen to that Choral Evensong on Thursday evenings via the BBC website.
I follow along in my BCP, 1662 (yummy black morocco bound!); and the Bible readings in whatever translation is beside my computer - at the moment the REB).
I heard that hesitation too.
But since I was still in a trance from the Stanford Magnificat I was not actually following the Corinthians reading.
Good on her, I say
And as one who reads almost every week and changes readings to inclusive (or non-sexist) language I would add that even if you have previously read it through you still tense up inside before what you are going to change.
In her case I think she either took an almost involuntary deep breath (or conversely her breath caught).
--------------------
She who does Her Son's will in all things can rely on me to do Hers.
Posts: 624 | From: a Galilee far, far away | Registered: Jun 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
I agree. I don't approve of censoring scripture. I don't, for example, approve of the fact that the reading at Morning Prayer this morning left out Judges 18:21-26, though I can't see why unless it is just to shorten the reading as it isn't really any worse than the surrounding verses.
I'm much more uneasy that the lectionary omits completely the next three chapters, 19-21 which is a convoluted and very grubby saga. It's a bit long but it well illustrates the point with which it concludes, Judges 21:25:-
"In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes." (WEB version).
The practice also, to my way of thinking, infringes the principle with which the Bible ends, Rev 22: 18-19:-
18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. 19 And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book. (WEB version again)
I accept that some may argue that it only applies to that specific book and not the rest of the canon. Irrespective of that, if one is tempted to bowdlerise scripture, it is something which if done at all should only be done with fear and trembling. And that means 'not just because I don't like what that bit says'.
[ 25. June 2016, 16:37: Message edited by: Enoch ]
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spike
Mostly Harmless
# 36
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
IThe RSV is very much a product of its translators - other versions, and revisions of the RSV later that 1951) have a more nuanced translation from the ambiguous Greek - malakoi μαλακοὶ ,arsenokoitai ἀρσενοκοῖται
Any chance of a translation for us thickos what don't understand Greek?
--------------------
"May you get to heaven before the devil knows you're dead" - Irish blessing
Posts: 12860 | From: The Valley of Crocuses | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Garasu
Shipmate
# 17152
|
Posted
I suspect malakos essentially translates as "dude, you're a fag". Nyland translates it as "receptive male homosexual promiscuous cross dresser."
Arsenokoites includes "one who anally penetrates another [of whatever sex]", rapist, murderer, and extortionist.
--------------------
"Could I believe in the doctrine without believing in the deity?". - Modesitt, L. E., Jr., 1943- Imager.
Posts: 889 | From: Surrey Heath (England) | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
I suspect malakos essentially translates as "dude, you're a fag". Nyland translates it as "receptive male homosexual promiscuous cross dresser."
Arsenokoites includes "one who anally penetrates another [of whatever sex]", rapist, murderer, and extortionist.
No, that's scurrilously irresponsible - did you read the link?
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Garasu
Shipmate
# 17152
|
Posted
Yes.
--------------------
"Could I believe in the doctrine without believing in the deity?". - Modesitt, L. E., Jr., 1943- Imager.
Posts: 889 | From: Surrey Heath (England) | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
....malakos ... Nyland translates it as "receptive male homosexual promiscuous cross dresser."
Goodness, can they really get all that into one word? What a wonderful language Greek must be.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Graven Image
Shipmate
# 8755
|
Posted
Enoch stated quote:
I don't approve of censoring scripture
Well the translators often did, which leads us to the problems.
Posts: 2641 | From: Third planet from the sun. USA | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tibi Omnes
Apprentice
# 18608
|
Posted
Actually, Malakos means "soft", and as an adjective applied to males, means gay. Arsenokoitai is "sleeps with males". They are rather colorless terms, neither slang, obscene nor medical.It's a failure of historical sense to project our sense of profanity on a culture which, lacking our shame of the body, lacked the notion of obscenity.
--------------------
...mirate come'l tempo vole
E si come la vita
fugge et la Morte n'e sovra le spalle.
--- Petrarch
Posts: 23 | From: USA | Registered: Jun 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tibi Omnes
Apprentice
# 18608
|
Posted
As for censorship, it's always a sign of weakness. Quaint notions merit at most an indulgent smile. We wouldn't gasp and paraphrase when confronted with passages that advise us to stone our neighbors if they wear linsey-Woolsey
Part of creating the future you want is living in it now. That often requires us to stop looking back.
Or as mother used to say, if you keep pickingat it, it'll never heal
--------------------
...mirate come'l tempo vole
E si come la vita
fugge et la Morte n'e sovra le spalle.
--- Petrarch
Posts: 23 | From: USA | Registered: Jun 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
I say let the words stand. If they're there because God wants them there, then he's a jerk, and people should know. If they're there because Paul wanted them there, then he's a jerk, and people should know. If they're there because the translators wanted them there, then they're jerks, and people should know. In the latter two cases, if either Paul or the translators have given people the impression that God, rather than they themselves, is a jerk, then I imagine God will take the matter up with them at some point.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
It's not up to a reader to censor what's there to be read. If anyone's going to, it should be the rector who can then refer to that in the sermon.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
It's not up to a reader to censor what's there to be read. If anyone's going to, it should be the rector who can then refer to that in the sermon.
And you expect that the people will remain to hear such a sermon? Not likely where I live. It is an extreme lack of judgement of the effect of word to simply declare that they should stand as you might think God ordained they were translated or otherwise committed to paper. Scripture does not exist in a vacuum, apart from the People. It is irresponsible to simply read such words and to allow them to harm others. The reader in this case saved the situation.
I am reminded of a shooting scene in Pulp Fiction (caution: violence and I'd say quite disturbing) where some of Ezekiel 25 is recited, the victims are terrorised, and then the hit men kill them. I should say that if you're good with that, you might go ahead and condemn the list of people in the reading and proclaim it well.
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
bib
Shipmate
# 13074
|
Posted
If the reader had a problem with the passage then they should have either declined to read or asked the minister to censor it. It is not up to a reader to make everything politically correct otherwise we water down the Bible so much that it will become impotent and meaningless.
--------------------
"My Lord, my Life, my Way, my End, accept the praise I bring"
Posts: 1307 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
There is no sermon at weekday Sung Evensong.
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
In Brethren assemblies when I was much younger there used to be a lot of ministry on the typology of the tabernacle, in which the term "shittim wood" (AV/KJV) was always changed to "acacia".
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
I agree with bib - if a reader does not want to read a passage, she or he ought advise the rector well beforehand to discuss the problem. Ultimately, it must be the rector's decision and if the reader feels unable to read a passage in the day's texts, then someone else should be approached.
Yes, I would expect people to stay and listen to the sermon. They would then hear an explanation of it in modern terms - perhaps even a reversal of how it may have been explained 50 years ago.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tibi Omnes:
Actually, Malakos means "soft", and as an adjective applied to males, means gay. Arsenokoitai is "sleeps with males". They are rather colorless terms, neither slang, obscene nor medical.It's a failure of historical sense to project our sense of profanity on a culture which, lacking our shame of the body, lacked the notion of obscenity.
When Jesus used malakoi, in a conversation with John Baptist's disciples, he was referring to rich people who lived 'in kings' houses'.
artsenokoitai is rarely used in Greek literature - if it refers to sex, it is to rape of anal sex between a man and a woman
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
In Brethren assemblies when I was much younger there used to be a lot of ministry on the typology of the tabernacle, in which the term "shittim wood" (AV/KJV) was always changed to "acacia".
If that is a legitimate translation, then unless one is a KJV-only nutcase, that is not censorship.
[ 26. June 2016, 15:48: Message edited by: Enoch ]
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Going back to Leo's original link, one may end up having to say 'we don't know what it means'.
There are quite a lot of words in the OT that only appear there once, and nowhere else. Translators have to guess, using various techniques. One of them is if there is a similar word in another language. It's not that convincing a method.
I'd have thought it would be unlikely that Paul would have coined a new word unless he was fairly confident that his readers, being familiar with C1 vernacular Greek, would immediately get what he was trying to say. It's possibly more likely that it was already C1 slang.
We all now know what a Brexiteer is, but the word did not exist a few months ago. If I coined a word, 'scarapublicist', which as far as I know has never existed, you might have no idea what I meant, or it might be obvious from its context - e.g that it meant a person who spreads other peoples' lurid claims or that it was some sort of robot.
We aren't speakers of conversational koine. If the experts can't really tell us authoritatively, we may be stuck having to accept that we will never know.
What we actually need to be most careful of, is experts telling us something where the expert has a vested interest in the outcome. So an expert writing in Fundamentalist Weekly telling us it means sodomite or an expert writing in Gay Christian Weekly telling us that whatever else it might mean, that is not what it means both need to be treated with caution.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
I agree with bib - if a reader does not want to read a passage, she or he ought advise the rector well beforehand to discuss the problem. Ultimately, it must be the rector's decision and if the reader feels unable to read a passage in the day's texts, then someone else should be approached.
Yes, I would expect people to stay and listen to the sermon. They would then hear an explanation of it in modern terms - perhaps even a reversal of how it may have been explained 50 years ago.
The rector's responsibility is to have at least the tiniest bit of insight and sensitivity isn't it? The reader should not be put in the position of having to confront the issue. Rector fail I think.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og, King of Bashan
Ship's giant Amorite
# 9562
|
Posted
Oh, I know plenty of readers who go up there and just read without rehearsing- the shocked look when they get to something they weren't expecting is frequently the give away.
I can also see a situation where the Rector (Dean?) didn't have to prepare a sermon and spent so much time focusing on accommodating a live radio broadcast that he was caught whispering "oh shit!" under his breath when the reader started in and he realized what was coming.
I tend to be of the camp that thinks that the Bible is a product of the time and culture out of which it emerged, and that it is up to us to keep that in mind as we read it. That said, I am also in the group of folks who don't tend to have Bible passages thrown at us as justification for treating us as less than human, so my vote counts less.
Ideally, you read what is on the page, no more or no less (don't get me started on people who go rogue and add their own commentary- it happens) and deal with it in the sermon or in a discussion after the service. But I can't get too upset with someone who makes the split second decision to not say something they find offensive on an international radio broadcast.
--------------------
"I like to eat crawfish and drink beer. That's despair?" ― Walker Percy
Posts: 3259 | From: Denver, Colorado, USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
I agree with bib - if a reader does not want to read a passage, she or he ought advise the rector well beforehand to discuss the problem. Ultimately, it must be the rector's decision and if the reader feels unable to read a passage in the day's texts, then someone else should be approached.
Yes, I would expect people to stay and listen to the sermon. They would then hear an explanation of it in modern terms - perhaps even a reversal of how it may have been explained 50 years ago.
The rector's responsibility is to have at least the tiniest bit of insight and sensitivity isn't it? The reader should not be put in the position of having to confront the issue. Rector fail I think.
Of course the rector should be pastorally aware and alert. What rector fail is there though? The sermon can explore along the lines of Enoch's post, or others.
Our congregation is intelligent, well read and well educated. They would no more expect this reading to be censored any more than one extolling a great Israelite victory over the Canaanite tribes. Besides, there might be a little bit of innocent contemplation along the lines of how tricky the sermon was to have to been to prepare.
[ 26. June 2016, 21:30: Message edited by: Gee D ]
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
I suppose the underlying question has to be, if we believe scripture is in any way authoritative, are we entitled to alter the bits we don't like? Reading scripture has to imply that we accept that in some way it has that status. If we don't, why read it anyway?
So it's difficult to avoid the impression that changing, toning down, bowdlerising or altering the bits we don't like, is saying that if we don't like something that God might be saying to us, we're entitled to blank him out. Spiritually that is not a wholesome approach.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Glad your congregations are bright and familiar with the bible. Many people where I live aren't. Maybe bits like this play where you are. Don't here. And would encourage new comers and the unfamiliar to leavs.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og, King of Bashan
Ship's giant Amorite
# 9562
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Our congregation is intelligent, well read and well educated.
I think this might just be part of it, though. Might it be possible to be an intelligent, well read, and well educated person who nonetheless doesn't like hearing that passage because it caused you actual trauma or damage when it was used by a family member or youth pastor to cut you off from an important relationship? And if you, like me, never experienced that kind of personal trauma, who are we to tell others who did that they should be smart enough to not be bothered by hearing it?
--------------------
"I like to eat crawfish and drink beer. That's despair?" ― Walker Percy
Posts: 3259 | From: Denver, Colorado, USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
So it's difficult to avoid the impression that changing, toning down, bowdlerising or altering the bits we don't like, is saying that if we don't like something that God might be saying to us, we're entitled to blank him out. Spiritually that is not a wholesome approach.
"We" have decided that that passage does not refer to homosexuals. We (TEC) have decided to appoint gay bishops, and to perform same-sex marriages. We cannot simultaneously think that homosexuals cannot inherit the kingdom of God, so therefore it must either mean something else, or be wrong. And if we think it's wrong (either a wrong translation or just not the word of God at all), then why would we read it out?
If, on the other hand, we think it's correct and just don't like the fact that homosexuals can't inherit the kingdom of God, then we shouldn't be tolerating homosexuality any more than we tolerate fornication or idolatry.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Our congregation is intelligent, well read and well educated.
I think this might just be part of it, though. Might it be possible to be an intelligent, well read, and well educated person who nonetheless doesn't like hearing that passage because it caused you actual trauma or damage when it was used by a family member or youth pastor to cut you off from an important relationship? And if you, like me, never experienced that kind of personal trauma, who are we to tell others who did that they should be smart enough to not be bothered by hearing it?
Not really. My point is that it is not for the reader to make that decision, but the rector, even if the service is to be taken by someone else. It is the rector who is responsible for the parish (I'm talking in Anglican terms) and if thought necessary can move to an alternative reading for the day. If the reading remains, the preacher should exercise pastoral care to explain the passage in terms of modern scholarship. No matter what, it is not for the reader to censor.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
Two points it seems to me.
First, while scripture is challenging and the challenge needs to be faced by all Christians, context is everything. In the context of a service like Choral Evensong, attended by as many agnostics and doubtful Christians as instructed, committed believers, and without the opportunity for exposition or debate, it is unhelpful that ambiguous passages of scripture should be read. That's not to say that the lectionary should stick to bland extracts that encourage complacency, but ones that leave the hearer puzzled or angry are not helpful.
Secondly, in this specific instance, it is not a question of censoring scripture itself but of accurate translation. The word 'homosexual' cannot possibly be accurate, because it is a scientific (some might say pseudo-scientific) term invented little more than 100 years ago. The world of St Paul had no concept of 'homosexuality', or 'homosexuals' per se, but only of same-sex behaviour. But maybe that is a debate for dead horses.
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og, King of Bashan
Ship's giant Amorite
# 9562
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Our congregation is intelligent, well read and well educated.
I think this might just be part of it, though. Might it be possible to be an intelligent, well read, and well educated person who nonetheless doesn't like hearing that passage because it caused you actual trauma or damage when it was used by a family member or youth pastor to cut you off from an important relationship? And if you, like me, never experienced that kind of personal trauma, who are we to tell others who did that they should be smart enough to not be bothered by hearing it?
Not really. My point is that it is not for the reader to make that decision, but the rector, even if the service is to be taken by someone else. It is the rector who is responsible for the parish (I'm talking in Anglican terms) and if thought necessary can move to an alternative reading for the day. If the reading remains, the preacher should exercise pastoral care to explain the passage in terms of modern scholarship. No matter what, it is not for the reader to censor.
Oh, I agree that on the fly censorship is generally a bad idea, even if I get why the reader did it here, and that it should be the rector's call, assuming that the rubrics and cannons allow the rector to make such a call. I'm just saying that, if the rector has the authority to make the call, the rector should probably go beyond "how smart is my congregation" and into "will hearing this in worship trigger anything in my very educated and well read congregants that no amount of explaining will help."
--------------------
"I like to eat crawfish and drink beer. That's despair?" ― Walker Percy
Posts: 3259 | From: Denver, Colorado, USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
To be irrelevantly pedantic -
In the C of E, most parishes have vicars, not rectors (for historical reasons) and at a cathedral such as Guildford it has a Dean and Canons.
Presumably the person to make such a decision would be the Canon in Residence.
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
I think it behoves the clergy person in charge to know what is going to be read and, if it is going to create difficulties, to have a strategy for dealing with it. The two instances that stick with me are the "Women, know your limits" passage from 1 Timothy and the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. In both instances I preached on the passages concerned and pointed out that the obvious applicability wasn't as obvious as the congregation might have thought. In the unlikely event that Radio 4 turn up to record one of my services and there is a reading which might cause upset and no opportunity to explain it I might think about pushing the boat out and using another reading. I think that all scripture, even the most challenging bits, is written for our edification but reading out the challenging bits without an appropriate context may not, always, contribute to that end.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
wild haggis
Shipmate
# 15555
|
Posted
The dangers of word-for-word translations!
You need to look at the area of meaning of the word/phrase in that particular time frame, and the societal context for the time it was written in. Then you need to look at what it is saying for the society we live in today.
Otherwise we women would be locked up once a month, have to cover our heads when we pray and goodness knows what else ------ of yes, we need all to own slaves because we need to look after them well. You can't look after a slave well if you don't have one!
You either take the Bible literally or search for what God is saying to us today in the society we find ourselves in.
The Producer should have had their eye on the ball and spotted the problem and dealt with it.
--------------------
wild haggis
Posts: 166 | From: Cardiff | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
To be irrelevantly pedantic -
In the C of E, most parishes have vicars, not rectors (for historical reasons) and at a cathedral such as Guildford it has a Dean and Canons.
Presumably the person to make such a decision would be the Canon in Residence.
While I am aware of the former distinction in England between rectors and vicars, I can't speak of the history here. Rector is the description in NSW and vicar in Victoria. Other states seem to mix titles with most parishes using rector. Cathedrals have a Dean and Canons; the Dean or Canon Residentiary of the cathedral would be the one here to make a decision to censor.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
Back to the OP, a friend 'in the know' tells me that the reader has a speech impediment, which accounts for her pause, but she went on to say that the 'H' word wasn't in her bible. The latter sounds like a lie because no translation omits it or similar.
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
