Reading the Bible (or not)

Reviewing a new book on the Bible for the New Republic, Adam Kirsch notes this:

While there is no denying that the Bible remains central—Beal quotes polls indicating that “65 percent of all Americans believe that the Bible ‘answers all or most of the basic questions of life,’ ”—he notes simultaneously that Americans are surprisingly ignorant of what is actually in it. “More than 80 percent of born-again or evangelical Christians believe that ‘God helps those who help themselves’ is a Bible verse,” he writes. Less than half of all adults can name the four Gospels; only one-third can name five of the Ten Commandments. In his own experience as a college teacher, Beal says, students “come to class on the first day with more ideas about the Bible derived from … The Da Vinci Code than from actual Biblical texts.”

Andrew Sullivan weighs in:

Count me unsurprised. Christianism is not Christianity; it’s a rationalization of a certain culture and politics.

Well, I’m not surprised either, but I am reassured. Ignorance is never to be celebrated, but in this case it beats the most likely alternative for many of the Bible’s would-be readers; the dreary and obsessive rote-learning, study and purported follow-to-the letter of sacred text that is a characteristic of, say, much of Islam and certain strains of Judaism.

The Bible certainly has its moments, but the West has benefited immensely from the way that Christianity has broken free from its ancient founding text into something infinitely more fluid, flexible and syncretic. If evangelical Christians wish to believe that ‘God helps those who help themselves’ is a Bible verse that is, I think, far from a tragedy.

It sure beats that whole ‘lilies in the field’ thing.

This entry was posted in culture and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Reading the Bible (or not)

  1. misterxroboto says:

    there is a certain irony that you castigate Islam for its rote memorization, however “God helps those who help themselves” comes from the Quran (13:11)

  2. JonJon says:

    Are you really this stupid? Really? Come on. This is a joke, right? Making stuff up and it’s okay, as long as it kinda sounds Kristian. Fluidity like you describe also brings us the GOD HATES FAGS group of Kristians. Get a grip.

  3. kj says:

    If evangelical Christians wish to believe that ‘God helps those who help themselves’ is a Bible verse that is, I think, far from a tragedy.

    Sure. The problem arises when those Christians who don’t understand their Bible decide to beat others over the head with it.

  4. Stu says:

    If you’d read the book – or even carefully read the review – you’d know that Beal’s major point is to take issue with the “follow-to-the-letter” crowd.

  5. Polichinello says:

    Making stuff up and it’s okay, as long as it kinda sounds Kristian. Fluidity like you describe also brings us the GOD HATES FAGS group of Kristians.

    A literal reading of Leviticus would actually support that view.

  6. Polichinello says:

    God helps those who help themselves is a pretty good summary of the Book of Proverbs. I don’t see how this sort of mistake is all that condemnatory. I’ve read through the Bible quite a bit, and if someone said the phrase was in the Bible, not knowing any better, I’d probably believe it.

    I’m more worried about the general ignorance of the Bible, since it is a foundational text for our civilization. Of course, ignorance of the Bible is no doubt a far smaller problem than ignorance of other foundational texts, like Homer, Plato or even Shakespeare.

  7. Contrary to @misterxroboto, Chapter 13, verse 11 of the Qur’an says (amongst a few other things) “Allah changeth not the condition of a folk until they (first) change that which is in their hearts.”

    This might justifiably be paraphrased as “God helps those who change their hearts,” but not, I think, as “God helps those who help themselves.”

    (Wikipedia, suggests that the phrase’s origins actually come from the moral to Aesop’s fable “Hercules and the Wagoner.”)

  8. Andrew Stuttaford says:

    JonJon, Polchinello makes the point that I would have done (for which I thank him) had I not been travelling.

    Stu, I did indeed read the review (although I have little intention of reading the original book)but my comments were more a response to Andrew Sullivan’s point than anything else. Culturally I think it’s a shame that more people are not better acquainted with the Bible: it forms a critical part of the western cultural inheritance. But so far as Christianity itself is concerned, the way that that religion has evolved makes familiarity with the founding text less of an issue than would be the case with some other religions. And, I would argue, that’s not such a bad thing.

Comments are closed.