Showing posts with label King James. Show all posts
Showing posts with label King James. Show all posts

Thursday, June 16, 2016

What Fundamentalists Think about Themselves

I wrote the following as an introduction to a book I am working on. I decided to not use it, since it has a very negative tone. But I believe it is true and I will post it here for you to look over briefly if you wish.

The term fundamentalist was first used in the 1920s in a series of books, The Fundamentals, published in the United States, which clearly outlined the beliefs that a Christian was supposed to have, based upon a “literal” reading of the Bible. All around these authors, the world was changing rapidly, and they had to figure out which of their beliefs were fundamental, and which could be surrendered. The authors were reacting against a tide of loose morality that they believed was sweeping the country during what we still call “The Roaring Twenties.” The Roaring Twenties came to an end not so much because fundamentalism triumphed but because the Great Depression brought an end to exuberant and spendthrift living.


But “fundamentalist” has come to mean something very different today. It no longer means someone who simply believes the Bible to be literally true. It has come to represent a person who almost treats a Bible as a talisman that makes them superior to other humans—spiritually superior, as if it makes Satan flee from them in terror, and mentally superior, as it makes their minds capable of understanding all eternal truths. It also serves as a badge of membership in an elite society of God’s very, very special Elect. It no longer represents a person who humbly accepts the Word of God; it has come to represent a person who considers himself or herself to be personally inerrant and commanded to be ready for action in God’s name. They may not literally make these claims about themselves, but if you listen to what they say and look at what they do, this is the conclusion that you will have to reach. I used to be a Christian fundamentalist and I did not literally make these claims about myself. I was hesitant and quiet about asserting myself to be superior to non-Christians, and even to non-fundamentalist Christians, in this way. But I knew plenty of other fundamentalists who were neither hesitant nor quiet. Eventually my level of discomfort was so great that I left fundamentalism. I was quite aware of my own imperfections, and finally decided I could no longer place myself in a superior position of authority over other people.

First, consider the unspoken fundamentalist belief in personal inerrancy. They hold their Bibles in the air, and believe that they know the answer to every question about the history of the universe, the story of mankind, and the meaning of life. They know the single correct answer to every political question. They don’t even have to read that Bible. They would be hard-pressed to tell you very many things that are, in fact, in that bible. Ask one of them what the prophets Joel or Amos or Obadiah said. Most of them have never read the entire Bible, or even very much of it, which is strange since they say that a Christian has to live by all of those words. But just having it in their hands gives them the power to know everything, at least everything that matters.

I used to admire my fellow fundamentalists whose Bibles looked well-worn with study. Then I saw one of them, after church, talking with others. He held his soft-leather-bound Bible in his hands and bent it back and forth in a harmless and meaningless manner. So that’s why it looks well worn! Not because he reads it, but because he bends it back and forth whenever he talks to people after church! My Bible looked unstudied, because I kept it in the blue box in which it had originally been given to me and took it out only to use it. My badge of distinction was, of course, the deep stains from the oil on my fingers on the box. This Bible, by the way, was a gift from the other fundamentalists. They were tired of me using my Revised Standard Version. They insisted, quietly since they could not prove it, that the only version of the Bible that was really valid was the English translation that was made in 1611 under the oversight of a king, King James (who was a closet homosexual and had a lover’s-tunnel built between his room and that of his male partner.)

Second, consider their unspoken belief that God has commanded them to be ready for action. They are legislators, or vote for legislators, who want to enshrine a special status for fundamentalism, even if not by name, in state laws. And not just for fundamentalism, but for a whole bushel full of conservative laws that have no direct and clear connection with fundamentalism. Take, for example, gun rights. Nearly all fundamentalists believe that Americans should have nearly unlimited access to firearms. Where did they get this idea? They cannot show it to you in the Bible. Jesus even told his disciple Peter to put his sword away because “those who live by the sword shall die by the sword.” This was clearly meant by Jesus as disapproval of weapons.

At the moment, most fundamentalists believe that all of their actions should be within the law of the land. But I would like to point out how tenuous this belief is. It is based upon only a few scriptures, each of which can be interpreted differently than what fundamentalists currently believe. Jesus said to render under to Caesar what is Caesar’s, so they pay their taxes. The Apostle Paul told them to be subject to the government authorities, so they obey the law. But they all know that there are limits to this authority. Jesus testified during his trial before Pontius Pilate that “My kingdom is not of this world; if it were, then my servants would take up arms.” Nevertheless, when the Roman government or its local subsidiaries commanded Christians to worship Caesar or local gods, they refused. At some point, a line is crossed.

And it is a moving line. Sometimes the line moves back. Fundamentalists find themselves spending less and less time opposing things that they used to consider utterly fundamental, such as racial segregation in the past and gay rights at the present time. Sometimes, as with racial segregation, they will even admit that they have learned some things and that fundamentalists in the past had been wrong. In other cases, as with gay rights, they still believe the same things they did before but are now unwilling to make such a big deal about it—so long as gay people stay out of their churches and don’t teach school and don’t run for public office.

But the line can, under the right circumstances, move forward. Fundamentalists have immense numbers of firearms which they claim they will never use against any human who simply disagrees with them. They want their assault weapons only to play with them, and their handguns only for self-defense. But they are ready. All that is needed is for the religious leaders whose commands they follow to say, “The time has come for us to use those guns.” You think it can never happen, and I hope it can never happen. But there is nothing to prevent it from happening during a time of social disruption, when the government that they claim to respect in God’s name appears to not be functioning in a manner they consider viable. They are ready, at least many of them are.

Many fundamentalists consider themselves commanded to be ready for action because they believe themselves to be personally inerrant. If and when the time comes, they will not have time to consult a Bible for answers about what to do. Should they support Texas secession from the Union, as hundreds of thousands of them now do, or not? Should they oppose government-mandated or even government-encouraged measures for energy efficiency, or should they continue to insist that God wants us to burn up all the oil and coal we can, right now, as millions of them believe? Should they join a militia, as thousands of them have, or not? And should such a militia take up arms against the government, as claimed by one local elected official in Texas, or not? The Bible, which they haven’t read anyway, has no clear answers spelled out to such questions. They have to use their own judgment which they believe is inerrant, so long as they hold that Bible up over their heads.

Wednesday, May 26, 2010

The Cannons of Canonicity

Conservative Christians, such as those among whom Frank Schaeffer used to operate (see previous entry), claim that the Bible is the supreme source of authority. But this is not really the case at all. I will explain three ways in which this is so.

First, there is no clear “revelation from God” as to which books should be included within the New Testament “canon.” For centuries after Jesus, there was dispute among different factions concerning which books should be included. “The New Testament” consists of 27 books that one of these factions eventually chose for inclusion. But even in this faction, which eventually became “The Church,” there was a little disagreement. The first list that has all 27 books, and only those books, that was “universally” accepted was the list prepared by Athanasius in 327 CE. Athanasius was one of the men chosen by Emperor Constantine to help resolve disputes within the church that Constantine had joined and which became the official religion of the Roman Empire. (See Bart Ehrman’s book Jesus, Interrupted for more information.) Therefore, the authority of this list largely depends on the authority of Constantine. While he was far from being the worst Roman emperor, he was by no means someone who would be considered godly by today’s self-appointed Christian leaders. For example he had his wife Fausta and his son Crispus executed as political opponents. Before he was emperor he had vanquished Frankish kings and troops fed to beasts as entertainment. He had the decomposing body of a challenger, Maxentius, fished out of the Tiber and decapitated, and then had the head sent to Carthage. At about the same time that he was building the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, he also built a pagan monument, the Arch of Constantine. He was not baptized until just before he died. Jesus said, “By their fruits you shall know them,” but the life of Constantine was not particularly holy—not enough to give him the authority to have established by decree which books should be in the New Testament. So conservative Christians apparently accept Constantine as the supreme authority, since he (as Emperor) determined the canon.

Second, there is no clear “revelation from God” as to which exact wording should be accepted for the canonical books. There are several versions of each of the New Testament books, and it is not clear which, if any, is original. It is difficult to believe in “the exact words of Jesus” when the gospels that are in the Bible today, and the ancient variations of those gospels, contain words that are not exactly the same. Many fundamentalists solve the problem by simply declaring that the 1611 King James Version is the true Bible. What about all of those years before King James? Well, I guess those people had no hope of being Bible-believing Christians. King James I was not a particularly bad king, but he was not someone whom modern conservatives would consider to be a good one either. He initiated the first formal series of witch hunts in Scotland. Conservative Christians believe his version of the Bible but not, apparently, his book Daemonologie. Perhaps most astonishingly, conservative Christians embrace his version of the Bible yet overlook the clear possibility of King James’ homosexual relationships. Conservative Christians consider homosexuality to be the worst thing in the world, worse even than murder and torture and rape. There were rumors throughout James’ life of his affairs with male courtiers such as Esmé Stewart, later Duke of Lennox; Robert Carr, Earl of Somerset; and George Villiers, Duke of Buckingham. A restoration of one of James’ palaces in 2004-2008 revealed a previously secret passage linking the bedchambers of James and Villiers. Perhaps, to conservative Christians, James’ homosexuality is made up for by his affair with Anne Murray (not the singer, but Lady Glamis). King James was most likely a practitioner of a lifestyle that conservative Christians consider most despicable, yet they base their faith on the Bible translation that he commissioned. James’ express purpose in having this translation done was to establish the divine right of kings. James was particularly bothered by egalitarian Presbyterians; he said of them, as I recall reading someplace, that “every Tom, Dick, and Harry tell me and my council what to do.”

[But you have to grant that King James got one thing right. He considered smoking to be morally bad and unhealthy. Here is a quote from a treatise he wrote in 1604: “Have you not reason then to be ashamed and to forbear this filthy novelty, so basely grounded, so foolishly received and so grossly mistaken in the right use thereof. In your abuse thereof sinning against God harming yourselves both in person and goods, and raking also thereby the marks and notes of vanity upon you by the custom thereof making yourselves to be wondered at by all foreign civil nations and by all strangers that come among you to be scorned and held in contemp; a custom loathsome to the eye, hateful to the nose, harmful to the brain, dangerous to the lungs, and in the black stinking fume thereof nearest resembling the horrible stygian smoke of the pit that is bottomless.”]

Third, there is no clear guide as to how the Bible should be interpreted. Each conservative Christian leader considers himself or herself to be the ultimate authority on how to interpret them. I do not have time here to mention the numerous ethical offenses of leading Christian Right preachers of the present day.

If we are to accept Constantine, or King James, or Christian preachers as authorities for what to believe about the Bible, then their lives should (as Jesus said) be exemplary. They were not and are not. Instead, Christian preachers merely enforce their own preferences about the Bible by sheer force—the cannons of canonicity.