I was listening the other day to a satirical comedy show on British Radio. The presenter was making a point about human relationships. The bulk of his satirical piece consisted of a reading from Genesis 2:18-25, in full, from the King James Version of the Bible (“And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him …”). He read it slowly and theatrically in a fake American accent. During the reading, the audience laughed uproariously. When the reading was finished, the skit was effectively over; the point was made. The show moved on to the next topic.
What grieved me most about this piece wasn’t the presenter’s viewpoint on the particular issue under discussion. Nor was it even the fact that the Bible was being ridiculed. The saddest part of the skit was the fact that the presenter chose an American accent for his reading of the King James Version of the Bible.
It’s not (I hasten to add) that I’ve got a prejudice against American accents; I myself spoke with a broad Californian twang up to age four. But why did this English presenter choose an American accent for his Bible reading? The King James Version of the Bible is, after all, a very English product. It was commissioned by a King of England, created by English scholars, and influenced, in a large part, by the English martyr William Tyndale. It is generally regarded as one of the greatest crowning achievements of English literature. Some even regard it as the greatest literary work of all time. The presenter could have chosen to read it with a voice sounding like a Shakespearian actor, for example—or an upper-class, holier-than-thou bishop. Then, at least, his ridicule of the Bible would have had some connection with its English heritage. Why on earth did he choose to read it with an American accent?
I can only conclude that, in the view of the presenter and his audience (which consists of a substantial cross-section of well-educated Brits), the Bible is no longer something that belongs in Britain at all. This is the assumption behind the satire, and it’s the reason that an American accent for a Bible reading has instant comedic value. The Bible is not just seen as historical, archaic, sentimental or vaguely quaint; for a substantial proportion of British society, the Bible is seen as something over-the-top, crazy and, above all, foreign. The Bible is no longer at home here; it belongs across the Atlantic. This is, of course, a great testimony to the biblical faithfulness of many of our American brothers and sisters. But for British society, it is a great tragedy.
On Thursday, the UK will elect a new parliament, and the results are very hard to predict. Please pray for the election and the resulting government. From all reports, all three major parties are trying to distance themselves from the Bible to one extent or another. There are particular ethical stances that are causing concern to many Christians here. Above all, please pray that the Bible itself—the word of God that brings eternal life, hope and peace through Jesus Christ—is not lost to the hearts and minds of this nation.
Hi Lionel, some of your old friends at St Michael’s prayed for the UK election this morning at our monthly parish prayer meeting.
Thanks for the classic cultural critique contained in your observation about people thinking reading KJV in an American accent is so funny. Very telling about UK.
Thanks for the link to the concerns about ethical issues – the paper in the link gives some helpful thoughts about thinking biblically about various social and electoral issues.
Never having been, but reading fairly widely though my various newsfeeds, it strikes me that the UK gives Australians a glimpse of our possible future in regards to the erosion of religious freedoms.
Off the top of my head (and I could link to the stories in each case, if I had time), I can think of the following in the UK:
* Christian civil celebrant in trouble for refusing to bless same sex unions;
* Christian pastor interrogated by police for handing out invitations to a church service because of a complaint that this was homophobic (although the occasion was something like Easter and had nothing to do with that particular ethical issue);
* street preacher fined for saying homosexuality was wrong;
* both an airline steward and a nurse refused permission to wear a cross around their necks in their workplace;
* Christian counsellor told by courts he had no right to refuse to offer sex therapy to a same sex couple, which had led to his sacking.
This Daily Mail article details the latter case and briefly mentions most of the earlier cases referred to above.
We often say we don’t get much formal persecution in Australia, but perhaps the UK shows how this could change.
What do you think now you live there?
One other things, a bit tangential, is to remind everyone that next year is the 400th anniversary of the publication of the King James Version of the Bible back in 1611.
I have blogged before about making the most of anniversaries to teach a bit of theology and church history in accessible ways.
The UK’s David Banting of Reform wrote to Matthias to let us know of two websites celebrating this fact.
1. 2011trust.org approaching from the perspective (not necessarily believing) of the KJV’s impact on history and language in English speaking world.
2. biblefresh.com a more grass roots Christian UK effort to use the anniversary year to get people excited about reading the Bible again.
Hi Sandy,
Good on everyone for praying! Your list is pretty representative – and the stories you mentioned aren’t just media beat-ups. The issue of homosexuality really is very significant in the UK; nobody wants to be seen to be opposing the majority opinion of the “cultured” elite in this regard (especially the politicians, amongst whom I would include many church of England bishops!) There seems to be a general popular view in the UK that assumes a polarisation between two types of people: on the one hand there is the rational, culturally sensitive, peace-loving nice majority who accept homosexual behaviour completely and who are the only hope for the long-term prosperity and stability of the UK; on the other hand there are “those” bigoted, dangerous, archaic, fringe-dwelling, Bible-reading, hate-filled people who really should be locked up.
I reckon that one thing that Aussie Christians can and should do is to work against this stereotype so it doesn’t become more entrenched. We need to hold fast to the Bible’s teaching on this issue (and other issues); but while we do it we need to show genuine love to people who struggle with homosexual desires, avoiding name-calling, and insisting that we are all sinners in need of forgiving and transforming grace. In other words, we need to keep the big concerns of the Bible, with its richness and depth and breadth, central in all we do.
Ahem, Lionel, King James Version is the American term for what British and Australian people called The Authorised Version.
But, I think the Americans have won!
Lionel, you’re quite right. The mother country has reached a sorry pass, and things can only get worse before they get better.
Meanwhile, I bet no one would dare read the Qur’an in a fake Pakistani accent to take the mickey out of it. Not on the BBC, anyway!
I agree with Sandy, though. The anniversary is a great opportunity.
Hey David, greetings from a fellow pedant! I was in a bit of a quandary re: my nomenclature before I wrote the article, so did a bit of web surfing to see what term the Brits, Americans, and Aussies tend to favour. I decided, in the end, to go for the KJV because this title seems to be quite popular in all three countries, even though AV is still the “official” title. Hey, if “King James Bible” is good enough for the British Library, it’s good enough for me! But do feel free to send a friendly note to the BL informing them of their complicity in yet another capitulation to American cultural imperialism.
Ha! Ha! David, I used to work with Lionel and I know how hard it is to out-pedant him!
As a Brit, I agree, that there are many curtailments to freedom of expression for Christians in Britain today, but parts of the rest of Europe are further down the road than us (Sweden for example), however, there is one area where Brits have more individual liberty than Australians do: in voting.
I’m just about to go out and vote now, and its very important for everybody to participate, not least because sufferage was extended through blood and toil, but its a right not a duty. Indeed, there are few democracies in the world that have compulsory voting, and the Netherlands abolished compulsory voting in 1970.
I am aware of the pros and cons arguments for compulsory voting and voluntary voting.
Here in Britain voting is voluntary; you can freely choose to vote, or not to bother. This is better than Australian compulsory voting as voting is a right but not a duty that people should be forced into doing. Compulsion and liberty do not work together. Thats one thing we in Briatin trump Australia, – in individual freedom!
Lionel, I was reflecting on you bemoaning the American accent, and then giving this Bible its American name.
But I admit that I also capitulated many years ago!
How much of a pedant are you? I think that a real pedant cringes when people say “you and I” where it is appropriate to say “you and me.”
Ninety-nine per cent of the population no longer know the difference. [Peter O’Brien is an exception.]
Sandy, I’ve been enjoying the resources at The 2011 Youtube channel and also at 2011 Trust which you referred us to.
The best readers at the Youtube channel are, hands down, Richard Dawkins and Patricia Routledge. Richard can’t resist giving us a free commentary as well, but his reading of Song of Songs 2 is very well done. Patricia’s rendition of John 20 is absolutely superb. She captures every nuance.
Hi David, when I’m picking up the toddler from pre-school, and the teacher has written a possessive singular impersonal pronoun on the whiteboard WITH AN APOSTROPHE, and I feel an irresistible urge to rub out the apostrophe when nobody’s looking… Very sad, I know.