Letters | 4 April 2019

About the Bible

Sir: I was confirmed by Richard Holloway as a schoolboy at Fettes College, and then taught by John Barton while an Anglican ordinand at Oxford University. So I was intrigued to read Holloway’s review of Barton’s latest book, A History of the Bible (30 March), and disturbed by their conclusions. Indeed, both the book and the review go a long way to explaining why the median size of a Church of England congregation is 28, and why numbers are at an all-time low. One doesn’t have to be an anti-intellectual fundamentalist to believe in orthodox biblical Christianity, or to realise that being a disciple of Christ means one cannot have a lower view of the Bible than he did. Jesus consistently upheld the Old Testament (including the early chapters of Genesis) as the word of God, and made provision for the authoritative New Testament (which Holloway dismisses as ‘an untidy bundle of writings’).

Of course the Bible must be read and interpreted carefully. Emptying it of its historicity, reliability and authority in favour of ‘a tolerant and ecumenical attitude’ will inevitably lead to Holloway’s depressing conclusion: ‘Which of us really knows what’s going on?’ Preaching like that empties churches. Churches like the one I serve, which seek to preach the Bible in line with the historic Christian creeds and the formularies of the Church of England, are the ones that are growing.
Revd Robin Weekes

Wimbledon, London

Not Cameron’s fault

Sir: Richard Liss asserts that David Cameron could have learned from Harold Wilson’s experiences in 1975 (Letters, 30 March). But the point is that in 2016 a significantly larger percentage of people voted to leave the EU than to remain. It is therefore clear that even if Cameron had heeded Wilson’s tactics, there was a reasonable groundswell of opinion throughout the UK in favour of Brexit.