Fundamentals

Yesterday, I was reading the leaflet for Evensong that our vicar put together. It’s got a good introduction to the service, explaining where it came from, as well as explanations throughout the text of what’s going on. The thing that interest me, though, was talking about one aspect of the Book of Common Prayer and Thomas Cranmer’s intentions for it. One big part of the introduction of Common Prayer by the Anglican church was that everyone should take part, not just the clergy or monks – it was to be common prayer. As part of this, Cranmer was determined that everyone should be exposed to the Bible, all of it. Every morning and evening, as part of common prayer, there was set a chapter each of the Old and New Testaments. This meant that, over the course of a year, the pray-er would be exposed to the whole of the Bible. This was Cranmer’s plan for the conversion of England!

Interestingly, the text in the leaflet goes on.

Angela Tilby, in speaking about the Prayer Book, said that the Church of England couldn’t possibly ever have become fundamentalist, because this continuous reading of the whole of scripture, warts and all, would stand as a warning against taking everything too literally. If you only read the bits of the Bible which suit your own opinions, or only read those bits which re-inforce your own doctrine, then possibly you can take a very different attitude. But read the lot and you start being a bit more critical and a bit more open to the variety of voices you hear.

It’s an interesting point, because one of the characteristics of Christian “fundamentalism” is that it is very selective in the parts of the Bible that it listens to. This allows it to be very firm in the interpretations that it offers. But once you’ve faced up to the huge array of voices, opinions and teachings contained within the Bible, you have to start to think much more carefully because, all too often, the nice easy moral law you see in one section is condemned in another; see, for example, this section of Amos, which condemns people for bringing the prescribed offerings. Your attitude, the prophet says, is more important than keeping the letter of the law – even though the letter of the law was set out very firmly elsewhere as the basis for all righteousness.

pax et bonum

Article posted at 1:29pm on 22 August 2005
Category: Faith, Musing

John,
I’m not sure how it is in the UK, but there are two definitions of “fundamentalist” here in the US. The first is the words as defined by those who call themselves such. They would fit the description you mention – choosing what parts of the Bible to emphasize, and beign concerned with things that are anything but “fundamental”.

The second defintion is what is meant when you see the word in the US press or used by liberals. To them, a fundamentalist is anyone who believes that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, crucified and risen again, and the only way to the Father.

“Newspeak” was the Orwellian word, yes?

Peace,

Hammertime () (URL)
3:31pm on 22 August 2005

Well, there are various uses of “fundamentalist”, as you say. However, I am here talking about the first group – those who claim that they are based only on the Bible, and who insist on “literal” and “inerrant” readings of the Bible to address any and all questions, from morality through politics to science.

“Fundamentalist” in the second sense is vacuous – it just means “someone I don’t like who I want to characterise as a religious fanatic”. The only way to talk sensibly about “fundamentalism” is to use the label in context, and the best way to address it is to show how their “fundamentals” are really nothing of the sort and that their alleged “Biblical basis” misses out huge swathes of the Bible, as well as misinterpreting many of the parts that they do listen to! (See this article for one example.)

pax et bonum

[John] () (URL)
4:15pm on 22 August 2005

As a devotee of Evensong and BCP, I’d love to see that leaflet if the text is available? I thoroughly agree about the importance of reading the whole Bible: that’s what’s wrong with the ghastly mess of a daily lectionary that our liturgical lords and masters have imposed on us at present, not least in the evenings right now, when the OT is “thematically” linked with the NT. (Who chooses which text is thematically linked? They do, of course!)

I always felt at theological college that the best preparatory reading was actually to have read the Bible from cover to cover. It didn’t save me from being a prat at the time, but eventually the cure worked. (Or, is working, I suppose I’d better say.)

tony () (URL)
12:00pm on 23 August 2005