Prime Minister David Cameron delivered a speech yesterday in which he praised the impact of the King James Bible, stamped all over the nonsense assumption of secular neutrality, and called for Christians to be confident about their faith, the Bible and their right (nay, responsibility) to speak into public life. Not surprisingly, it has caused a bit of a stir amongst the commentariat whose assumptions got a bit of a kicking.
Cameron was speaking in an Anglican cathedral, so was duly confident in his laudatory observations on the impact of the King James Bible. He also used the occasion to give the Church of England a bit of a kick in relation to its wrangles over women and sexuality. Fair game, I say. And it was good to hear a British politician ‘do God’ without embarrassment, hesitation or self-exonerating caveat.
But, having praised the phenomenon and some of the content, I am still left with a cautious hesitation myself. And I think I know why this is.
He managed to talk up the language of the Bible without really referring to the content of it. Yes, the KJV has powerfully influenced our language and, proclaimed by the Church, has shaped our culture and law as well as our worship. But, we can’t just leave it there.
It reminds me of a rude remark I made recently at an interfaith gathering. I said that many of the global interfaith conferences I attend are a bit like a glorified BT commercial: ‘It’s good to talk’… provided we don’t actually talk about anything. Yet, avoiding ‘content’ is a sure way to waste time and money on non-engagement and the fostering of a false sense of coherence when all we have done is avoid speaking about ‘content’ that might prove contentious. Of course, this is a caricature, but it made the point: we have to move beyond talking about talking to talking about something.
Well, Cameron lauded the language and spoke eloquently about the need for moral codes and ethical foundations in private as well as public life. He argued for a thought-through moral and spiritual basis for our ethics – rather than just assuming one.
But, the problem with the Bible is that as soon as you get beyond the language to what it says, you begin to find it challenging – on lots of fronts. Beautiful language is a means to comprehension, not an end in itself. And it’s taking a bit of a risk challenging the Church of England on its ethical conflicts when those conflicts arise precisely from going through the language and on to conflicted ways of reading the text in its integrity. So, it is alright for the Prime Minister to “recognise the impact of a translation that is, I believe, one of this country’s greatest achievements” and to claim that “the King James Bible is as relevant today as at any point in its 400 year history” as long as we don’t delve too deeply into what it says. He goes on:
One of my favourites is the line “For now we see through a glass, darkly.” It is a brilliant summation of the profound sense that there is more to life, that we are imperfect, that we get things wrong, that we should strive to see beyond our own perspective. The key word is darkly – profoundly loaded, with many shades of meaning. I feel the power is lost in some more literal translations. The New International Version says: “Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror”. The Good News Bible: “What we see now is like a dim image in a mirror”. They feel not just a bit less special but dry and cold, and don’t quite have the same magic and meaning.”
I take the point (and basically agree with him), but the Bible isn’t meant to dazzle us with poetic magic; it is meant to open us to the mind of God… which tends to be a little bit challenging.
Like Shakespeare, the King James translation dates from a period when the written word was intended to be read aloud. And this helps to give it a poetic power and sheer resonance that in my view is not matched by any subsequent translation.
Again, point taken. But, resonance isn’t enough. It isn’t a performance prop. Like with Shakespeare, it is possible to enjoy the spectacle and experience of a play while going home oblivious to the point of it all. It won’t kill you, but you are missing out on rather a lot.
Cameron (or whoever wrote the basic text) does a good job of exposing assumptions of neutrality, affirming the role of the Bible in the development of British politics and culture, the fundamental power of biblical anthropology in shaping what would now rather weakly be called ‘human rights’, and the importance of biblically informed theological and spiritual motivation in social altruism. He says:
The Bible has helped to shape the values which define our country. Indeed, as Margaret Thatcher once said, “we are a nation whose ideals are founded on the Bible.” Responsibility, hard work, charity, compassion, humility, self-sacrifice, love… pride in working for the common good and honouring the social obligations we have to one another, to our families and our communities… these are the values we treasure. Yes, they are Christian values. And we should not be afraid to acknowledge that.
I didn’t know we were afraid to acknowledge that. But, we are not told which biblical origins these virtues are derived from… or just how to deal with the fact that some people who read that same Bible will not recognise in the same way Cameron does how those virtues should be worked out in concrete priorities, policies or practices. He is absolutely right to knock on the head the utter nonsense that confident Christianity confounds those of other faiths – usually a patronising and ignorant gesture from secular humanists who think they know better than Muslims what offends them. Christianity has indeed created the space in which all people can freely worship or not.
However, Cameron’s conclusion made me wince a little – not at what he said, but at the unarticulated assumptions behind it:
I believe the Church of England has a unique opportunity to help shape the future of our communities. But to do so it must keep on the agenda that speaks to the whole country. The future of our country is at a pivotal moment. The values we draw from the Bible go to the heart of what it means to belong in this country
…and you, as the Church of England, can help ensure that it stays that way.
And what might the ‘agenda that speaks to the whole country’ actually be? I suspect it has to do with stuff that some Christians, precisely because of their reading of the Bible – in whatever translation – believe is contentious on moral grounds. I am not saying they are right or wrong; my point is simply that Cameron’s point is itself contentious… as soon as you move beyond vague generalities about ‘values’ and ‘magic’ and into the text itself.
But, maybe he has just opened the door a little to a willingness to take the content of the Bible seriously and invite people to look at the text itself rather than some general or selective bits of nice language. (‘The Word became flesh’… which is when it all got a bit difficult…)
Two cheers for a brave and serious speech. One cheer reserved for the reservations above.
Nick Baines's Blog 
December 17, 2011 at 9:06 pm
“Rich blowhard PR man throwing folk out of work seeks support of traditional conservative religion shock horror!”
December 17, 2011 at 9:09 pm
Thank you Nick. Having been flamed for voicing the same cautious welcome to a politician even beginning to (rather falteringly) talk about God, you have put eloquence and sense to the situation. As always I appreciate your wisdom. I wish others were less militant in their blind hatred and allowed themselves to see the positive as well as the negative or slightly ‘negotiable’ that was presented in the speech.
December 17, 2011 at 9:25 pm
Bishop Nick, I am glad to see you giving even two cheers for what I believe to be a sincere attempt on David Cameron’s part to express ‘the average Englishman’s’ attachment to the King James Bible, the Book of Common Prayer and the Church of England.
December 17, 2011 at 10:52 pm
Agree, some cheer and some suspicion.
Cameron’s speech tries to “spin” the King James Bible as a textbook for pluralism and equality – which it certainly is not. Politicians try to cynically co-opt what they think they can control. Nobody else dared make much of the KJB’s 400 year anniversary – knowing how “dangerous” that book is. Even the archbishop had to damn it with faint praise – putting it on the level of any other translation. But the MP sees a win-win political opportunity – playing the “traditionalist” and the “pluralist” – by marching the AV out as a prop to tell the Anglican church to preach universal “values” according to the “the agenda that speaks to the whole country.” He has certainly underestimated the power in that quaint old book: “Come, behold the works of the LORD, what desolations he hath made in the earth.” Psalm 46:8.
December 18, 2011 at 12:07 am
Great blog that echoed my own thoughts – was really expecting a few quotations from the Bible.
December 18, 2011 at 4:31 am
I think it was a B+ speech, more significant for the fact of delivery as for its theological content.
I regret that in praising the King James predecessors he neglected Miles Coverdale but that is a minor point.
If he centred on the language, we ought not to forget that he was there on the occasion of a celebration of that specific text so if he had gone too “sermonistic” on the content he would have courted criticism for opportunistically high jacking the occasion to put his politicised spin on the message ( which many of us do)
I rejoice at his willingness to “Do God”.
I recall Edmond Burke ” No man made a bigger mistake than he who did nothing because he could only do a little”.
I am sure you ( and many others) would have made a better job of it
( seriously – not sarcasm 🙂 ) but lets apply the old Catholic principle ” never quench a flickering flame.
I did like the hint at addressing the problem of evil ” you can’t fight something with nothing”.
December 18, 2011 at 8:41 am
“Do not resist evil by force” has been impotently rendered “resist not evil” in the Authorised Version. No wonder Cameron is happy for us to read it. Did you know that in British India, In Bangladesh at least, the Magnificat was omitted from Evening Prayer, for fear it would rouse the masses?
December 18, 2011 at 2:47 pm
” It reminds me of a rude remark ……….‘It’s good to talk’… provided we don’t actually talk about anything. Of course, this is a caricature, but it made the point: we have to move beyond talking about talking to talking about something. ”
It is not a caricature, I have experienced it myself many times in engineering. There are plenty of people who want to talk around an issue, debate the generalities, without actually addressing the specifics or the detail.
December 18, 2011 at 3:08 pm
When reading the speech, I thought… be careful what you wish for…
Kelvin Holdsworth wrote an interesting blog piece on the speech:
http://www.thurible.net/20111217/a-response-to-the-prime-minister/
December 18, 2011 at 8:32 pm
““Do not resist evil by force” has been impotently rendered “resist not evil” in the Authorised Version.”
But it’s not about deciding which of the two version we find more meaningful by comparing them to each other. It’s more about finding out which one is closer to the meaning of the original text.
I don’t happen to know the answer.
But it’s like Cameron preferring “For now we see through a glass, darkly” to “Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror.” I have just spent 2 weeks translating various biblical experts’ analysis on this particular verse for someone’s PhD thesis and most of it centered around mirrors and poor reflections and the origins of the metaphor.
Just because we have been taught to consider something to be more profound doesn’t mean it’s necessarily “better”.
December 18, 2011 at 11:00 pm
Standing up to the EU, cracking down on immigration and appealing to the national identity (christian identity). Which audience is the PM speaking too? Looking at a piece of research that was published earlier on this year gives a clue!
http://www.fearandhope.org.uk/executive-summary/
December 19, 2011 at 1:05 am
Anybody with an agenda can come along and say, “I think the verse should be rendered as …” and thus every AV rejecter makes himself his own god.
December 19, 2011 at 10:43 am
I was struck by how little of the speech was about the King James Bible – therefore I took it, I thought not unreasonably, that he was using the opportunity to set out a political message.
I was also flamed because – Heaven forfend! – I made the utterly cynical assumption that if a senior politician makes a public speech she or he has most likely thought about its political effect.
I am surprised to see people attributing ‘bravery’ to a Prime Minister making a speech in a democratic country saying that he is a not very enthusiastic Christian. I’ve still not been able to work out what was ‘brave’ about it – though I have been accused of having a ‘pathological dislike’ of Cameron because I asked the question.
I really and truly don’t think it is defamatory to ask what political purpose a senior politician had when he made a speech which he knew would be reported.
December 19, 2011 at 1:12 pm
Cameron’s faith seem to me to be pretty much like that of a lot of very genuine people who vaguely believe in, or hope for, God without being able to get their heads round the Christian doctrines, but whose God is still shaped by Christian ideas, not by Muslim or Hindu ones.
To speak out like that is brave, because atheists will come down on you like a ton of bricks for believing in fairies at the bottom of the garden – and how can we cope with a politician who has a serious job to do if he turns out to believe in fairies!
While Christians will come down on you like a ton of bricks for not being a “real” Christian, for daring to have a view, any slightly positive view at all of Christianity without being a full card-carrying member.
I would be surprised if Cameron had anticipated the political effect of this speech. It’s quite likely that he thought he was saying something that was genuinely non-objectionable to anyone apart from the “true atheists” on the one hand and the “true Christians” on the other.
And possibly to anyone else who doesn’t like his politics anyway and who will seize on anything he says to take a swipe.
December 19, 2011 at 1:54 pm
MackQuigley I have no idea what you mean. I suspect we have that in common.
December 19, 2011 at 3:13 pm
A good analysis and I agree with the sentiment; however, I must correct you on one minor comment you make about secularists (echoing Mr Cameron), and point out an underlying falsehood of Mr Cameron’s speech.
A secularist believes everyone is entitled to express their faith freely. In fact, an essential aspect of secularism is defending that right.
There is an incorrect idea going around – do not be misled! – that secularists want to marginalise religion, or to bury Christianity to make way for minority faiths (a “patronising and ignorant gesture”); this is completely untrue!
The reason some people make this mistaken assumption is that when secularists campaign to make our laws more fair for everyone, it often involves removing discriminatory religious privileges, or putting the greater good above individuals’ demands. This is misrepresented by some groups as an attack on faith, when in fact it is defending the right of everyone to live in a free and fair society, regardless of their personal beliefs.
After the 50% who have no religion, Christians are by far the biggest religious group in the UK.* The Church Of England has a privileged place in our government. Christianity has a strong influence through the media, is held in high regard by society, and controls a large proportion of our schools. Mr Cameron’s underlying implication that Christians are marginalised and need to speak out more is simply not true.
*http://ir2.flife.de/data/natcen-social-research/igb_html/pdf/chapters/BSA28_12Religion.pdf
December 19, 2011 at 4:01 pm
Erika, you said
“To speak out like that is brave, because atheists will come down on you like a ton of bricks for believing in fairies at the bottom of the garden – and how can we cope with a politician who has a serious job to do if he turns out to believe in fairies!”
I really can’t accept the premise that to face the overworked strawman ‘memes’ criticical of religious faith (spaghetti monster – check; sentient puddle – check; sky fairies – check; stamp collecting – check) trotted out all over the internet by a small minority of atheists is ‘brave’.
What sort of wimps are we if we can’t face up to a bit of ill informed mockery from a very small minority of atheists who find other people’s faith threatening?
And I don’t buy into this idea that Cameron is the first prime minister to nail his colours to the Christian mast either.
Thatcher notoriously quotes St Francis on the threshhold of No 10 on taking power, and is also well known for her ‘Jesus said – and I think he got it just about right…’ quote. Blair’s religious affiliation was well known and discussed, particularly his move towards Catholicism, and treated with great suspicion. Brown is a son of the manse and very publicly a Christian.
What Thatcher, Blair and Brown have in common of course is that none of them would have said they were ‘vaguely practising’.
December 19, 2011 at 5:23 pm
@Pam Smith — I’m not sure how you define “political” but any comment about morality has political aspects. The Bible surely is politically subversive to pretty much anyone’s politics.
I can’t speak to your pathological dislikes, but as a self-confessed “recovering cynic” who will be in rehab my whole life, I suspect, allow me to suggest that cynicism is not in asking the question, but in portending to know such an answer (someone else’s thoughts and motives) before asking. Only God can rightfully lay claim to such insight.
Blair got hammered by some in the press for being too religious. This seemed to make him very cautious about “doing God” while in office, which saddened me. I do find it refreshing for a PM to speak about God, and I always find it refreshing for anyone to admit they have doubts. If I’m not mistaken, both Clegg and Ed Miliband are on public record as being atheists. That doesn’t mean their politics are worse (or better) than Cameron’s, but I wonder if they have doubts.
December 19, 2011 at 8:45 pm
Pam,
I don’t think I said that Cameron was the first prime minister to speak about his faith.
And I didn’t say that Christians should be scared of atheists.
But I think that for a politician to speak in favour of faith is politically dangerous – as the responses to his speech from most of the press, in most of the comment sections and from many many Christians have shown.
Tony Blair got into hot water when talking about his faith, President Bush was forever ridiculed because people interpreted his actions as if he believed he had a direct hotline to God.
Cameron is getting stick for saying that he is “vaguely” Christian, a stance I personally admire for its honesty. And one that he shares with the vast number of peopel in this country, quite probably including a large number of church goers.
As a father with a severely disabled child who then died he is more likely than many to have thought about the purpose of life and the possibility of a loving God. That he is still searching, only vaguely sure of anything, but willing to say that has a huge amount of integrity.
December 19, 2011 at 10:41 pm
I think it was notable in the last Parliament that two party leaders had lost a young child – and I found the way the House of Commons met to express condolences to David and Samantha Cameron very touching.
However, politics is David Cameron’s job. I personally would be more concerned if I thought the Prime Minister had made a speech without considering the political consequences than I am to think that he thought there was some political advantage in saying what he said,
I don’t think that’s cynical. Surely we want and expect our politicians to be good at politics?
December 20, 2011 at 9:00 am
Promoting “gay marriage” is hardly a Christian value. Sexist mocking of Nadine Dorries and blocking even modest attempts to roll back abortion are hardly Christian values.
How different things might have been if a public schoolboy had been introduced to real Christian faith during his education – something that is possible even in Eton (or Westminster School). Maybe his conservative liberal education inoculated him against discovering what millions poorer and less privileged than he have found: the reality of God and the love of Christ in our hearts. Quien sabe?
At least Cameron understands a little more than his atheist partner in politics “Shagger” Clegg, who doesn’t even understand the social purpose and function of marriage. If you have boasted of sleeping with 30 girls while at university, I guess matrimony must seem rather dull.
As for Brown and Christianity, I can’t recall him ever saying he was personally a Christian, whatever his upbringing. He lived with his wife before marriage, and on abortion and homosexuality his views are identical with atheist humanists (as are Blair’s, whose Catholicism is decidedly a la carte, in a very US Democrat way).
December 20, 2011 at 1:26 pm
To be “good at politics” surely takes more than politricks? I hate the stuff.
I share Nick’s 2 cheers. I can only be thankful he has opened the debate, or brought it more Into the public consciousness.
But he is a politician. So he sees through political paradigms. How can he be”vaguely practising?” OK that may sound honest but…does he still labour under the concept that practicing Christian rituals and going to church every sunday = “practicing christian?” How can one “vaguely practice” kindness, love, peace, patience, joy, goodness, compassion etc…? Surely this Is what it Is about…and I know many self-confessed atheists who practice and proactively pursue these qualites in their lives, which in a sense, to me, makes them “practising christians!”
We all get so caught up in labels and details. It’s deeper than that. Jesus saw into, adn spoke into the hearts Of men, not merely their labels and affiliations.
Actually, I reckon Alastair Campbell was right. I Was always appalled at both Blair and Bush calling upon “God” to justify their hypocrisy, warmongering, self-interest and patriotism, whcich I have long seen as a dubious virtue – “the last refuge to which a scoundrel clings” as Bob Dylan said.
God is not American, British, Iraqi, Muslim, Anglican, Catholic, or anything else. It is we who create these labels and distinctions, and the political world seems to thrive on upholding these differences, rather than Removing them.
As Bob Marley said: “Every man was a baby one time…”
But as I said. I’m glad he raised the subject so publicly. Yet it so provokes in me the words of Gandhi “You have to be the change you wish to see in this world.” DC could begin by berating those who have made the words “”Happy Christmas ” politically incorrect!
December 20, 2011 at 1:45 pm
Gordon Brown has quite a lot to say about the role of faith in politics and his own faith experiences in his Lambeth Lecture, ‘Faith in Politics?’ in February this year:
http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/articles.php/903/faith-in-politics-lecture-by-gordon-brown
As far as Tony Blair’s faith goes – that’s really between him and God I think. However I think it’s hard to say that he didn’t make his faith position abundantly clear while he was Prime Minister. I’m not attacking or defending anyone for their position, I’m just arguing that David Cameron is not being uniquely brave in declaring his affiliation to Christianity while PM.
December 20, 2011 at 6:31 pm
Tim Hain: “God is not American, British, Iraqi, Muslim, Anglican, Catholic, or anything else.”
Well said. Cameron does a good job of persuading us that Christian/ Moral/ Right = the KJV/ Anglican/ British. So what’s new there then? In fact this whole debate rather glosses the fact that the KJV is, in the playwright David Edgar’s words, “spattered with blood and scorched with fire”. No less lyrical for that. His excellent play “Written On The Heart” [produced to mark the 400th anniversary] is showing at the Swan Theatre in Stratford at the moment. Well worth seeing. Also, for anyone interested in the KJV’s complex history, his Guardian article is entertaining and informative: –
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011/feb/19/bible-king-james-version-david-edgar
December 23, 2011 at 3:11 pm
It is interesting Cameron is trying to woo CHristians ahead of his big gay marriage push in the Autumn.
Let’s see if any Bishops are prepared to stand up and gainsay him then.
The Anglican silence on this so far has been deafening.
December 23, 2011 at 3:13 pm
Sorry I meant the Spring.
I have heard gay marriage will be pushed in the Spring.
And for Anglican, of course I meant CofE.
Anglicans around the world are v critical of gay marriage.
But they tend to be the non-white Anglicans. (with the exception of Sydney)