There was a time when political intrusion into religion was the norm - and one hugely positive outcome of that was the King James Bible, writes Ian Harris.
Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams raised eyebrows last month with some probing questions about democracy in Britain. He is troubled by the coalition Government's radical plans to devolve state responsibilities to local communities, and especially their implications for education, health and benefits.
Britain's political leaders responded mildly, but others trotted out the standard demand to "keep religion out of politics".
In a democracy even churchmen have the same right as any other citizen to comment on public affairs, though a contribution from an archbishop is more likely to be noticed.
There is a flipside to that demand for church leaders to steer clear of politics, which is to keep politics out of religion. In the West that happens most of the time, but not always. France, for example, has just legislated to ban the wearing of the burqa and niqab.
There was a time, however, when political intrusion into religion was the norm - and one hugely positive outcome of that was the King James Bible, a cultural and religious treasure whose 400th anniversary is being celebrated this year.
During the 90 years preceding its publication in 1611, Europe had been torn asunder by the Protestant Reformation.
In England, kings and queens had swung from a partial reformation of the English Church under Henry VIII, to embracing Protestantism under Edward VI, to reverting to Catholicism under Mary, to a Protestant-leaning compromise under Elizabeth.
In Scotland, King James VI was being buffeted by independent-minded Presbyterians in charge of an independent-minded Church. One churchman told the Lord's anointed that "thair is twa kings and twa kingdomes in Scotland: Thair is Chryst Jesus the King, and His kingdome the Kirke, whose subject James the Saxt is, and of whase kingdome nocht a king nor a lord nor a heid, bot a member." mall wonder that when in 1603 James was called south to become James I of England, he leapt at the chance to assert himself in this more compliant setting.
So when in the following year a Puritan delegation petitioned the new king to reform further the Anglican Church, James took great pleasure in rebuffing them - except on one point. He granted their request for a new translation of the Bible.
There were already seven versions available in English. But the Puritans wanted an official Bible closer to the distinctly Protestant translation published in Geneva in 1560 by Calvinist refugees from Mary's persecution. It would replace the Bishops' Bible, which had been produced as a counter to Geneva in 1568. The Puritans considered governance of the Church by councils or presbyteries superior to rule by bishops, and favoured words such as "elder" and "congregation" over "priest" and "church".
The very notion of presbyteries was like a red rag to James. He told the petitioners a Scots presbytery "agreeth as well with monarchie as God and the devil".
Presbyteries encouraged discussion and argument. The Crown felt more secure with bishops exercising control as part of the panoply of state. "No bishops," he said, "no king."
Notes in the margins of the Geneva Bible also irked James. Some approved of disobeying unjust rulers. The word "tyrant" occurred more than 400 times. James demanded "noe marginal notes att all". "Tyrant" appears nowhere in the KJB.
So the order went out that in translating from Hebrew and Greek, the scholars would work primarily from the Bishops' Bible, though all previous translations would be consulted.
And since James hoped that a Bible all could recognise would contribute to religious unity, moderate Puritans were invited to share in the task.
The project remained, however, a matter of state. The finished work was to be presented to the Privy Council, and ratified by royal authority.
In When God Spoke English, author Adam Nicolson sums up James' grand political purpose: to produce a Bible that would make "royal power and divine glory into one indivisible garment which could be wrapped around the nation as a whole". It was a noble and unifying vision.
Underlying it, however, lay a tension between divine kingly authority and the spectre of disobedience and revolt. That happened in 1642, when civil war broke out between king and Parliament, culminating in the execution of Charles I and the establishment of a Puritan Commonwealth.
The political hope James held for the new Bible was therefore not fulfilled. But its deeper value blossomed in the religious sphere, where it and its successors continue to generate distinctive Christian perspectives on social and political issues. Archbishop Williams's comment is just another example of that.
- Ian Harris is a journalist and commentator
