Megan Basham and King James

A quick caveat for those readers who are wont to see everything even seemingly critical of Basham as an attack on "our side" (note the absolutely mindless blowback that Richard Barcellos got): that's not what this post is.

Megan Basham's book, "Shepherds for Sale," has elsewhere been answered as to Gavin Ortlund (first video, follow-up video) and as to JD Greear (link to Neil Shenvi's tweets) and more generally as to quality (link to Rev Reads video).  I myself highlighted an odd claim by Megan that she reached to out to Keller in advance of publishing her book (Keller was dying of cancer when Megan was still researching Keller's views, and passed away more than a year before she published).

As someone who has often advocated for improvements to the King James version, I was naturally curious about Basham's discussion of "King James."  The two references have virtually nothing to do with the central point of Basham's tome.  Nor is this post intended to address the central point of Basham's tome (just repeating this so that the ignorant folks can ignore it a second time).

Basham's reference to "King James" is found in two portions.  The first portion comes from a passage bridging pages xiv and xv, with the second portion constituting a call-back reference at page xviii.  In both portions, Basham refers to "King James." Her index refers to this person as "James, King of England." (As a side note, you will note other issues in her citations including her bizarre citation chapter 171 of John as well as her more understandable error of noting chapter 1 in her citations of Jude.)   

Let's consider Basham's claims:

• A couple of years ago, my husband and I took an anniversary trip to Boston and visited the King's Chapel.

There is no reason to doubt this particular claim.  The only thing of interest for our discussion purposes is that it sets the stage for which King's Chapel she has in mind.  It is this one (link to page, link to Wikipedia page).  As a minor point of historical interest, the building they presumably visited is the stone church that was built from 1749-54 around the previously constructed wooden church.  The previously constructed wooden church was then shipped to Nova Scotia, where it was rebuilt.

As of the preparation of this blog post, the church lists its clergy as "The Rev. Joy K. Fallon" as "Senior Minister" ("she/her/hers") and "The Rev. Sam Holland" ("they/them/theirs").  The website also provides some historical background (link to page).

• As our guide explained, the "King's" part of that moniker is noteworthy.

 Again, I have no beef with this claim.  I would note that tour guides are great starting points for research, but that they have a tendency to create or at least perpetuate legends.  As Basham only cites this anonymous guide for the moniker being noteworthy, it's hard to tell how much she was reliant on this source for her claims.

• The Lord Bishop of London established America's first Church of England congregation in 1686, in part to shore up the Crown's authority over belligerent Puritan colonists who had a penchant for defying English law.

Here's where we begin to diverge sharply with Basham.  

According to the Chapel's page: 

In response to petitions from a small group of Anglicans in Boston, the Church of England sent Reverend Robert Ratcliffe to Massachusetts, where he, Royal Agent Edward Randolph, and Royal Governor Edmund Andros established King's Chapel as the first official Anglican church in the Dominion of New England. 

(source)

We can certainly concede that the Bishop of London had some kind of jurisdiction over the colonies from the Church of England perspective.  The Episcopal Dictionary of the Church explains:

On Oct. 1, 1633, the Privy Council ordered with regard to the colonies that “. . . in all things concerning their church government they should be under the jurisdiction of the Lord Bishop of London.” In 1638, when Laud was Archbishop of Canterbury, he proposed sending a bishop to New England. 

(see more here)

As you may have guessed from reading between the lines, one glaring problem with Basham's characterization is that the first Anglican parish was founded in Jamestown in 1607 (William Sydnor, Looking at the Episcopal Church, p. 72).  The original Jamestown church building apparently burnt down the next year.  Nevertheless, a church tower dating to the 17th century still remains as a tourist attraction (see here). So, no.  King's Chapel was not America's first Church of England congregation.

Francis William Pitt Greenwood, in 1833, actually wrote the book, "A History of the King's Chapel in Boston." (link) As the subtitle explains, it was the "Introduction of Episcopacy into the Northern Colonies."  So, someone hoping to rescue Basham's claims might note that although not America's first, it was New England's first (as also noted on the Chapel's page, cited above).

Greenwood provides a more thorough background of the political machinations that motivated Ratcliffe's arrival and the establishment of an official Anglican church in Boston.  Greenwood suggests that Edward Randolph aimed to "destroy the ancient civil rights of the colony by taking away their charter, and setting them a governor appointed by the crown." (p. 20)  Moreover, Greenwood indicates that the funding for this church was proposed to be obtained by diverting funds that were intended to be for missionary work to the American Indians ("He then repeats his favorite project of laying hold of the money designed for converting the Indians; calls it a 'bank of money,' and doubts not that it amounts to at least two thousand pounds..." p. 30)

Basham doesn't explain the accusation that "belligerent Puritan colonists" had a habit of "defying English law." Greenwood, by contrast, notes that "the general court had declared in 1677, that no persons should be hindered from performing divine service according to the church of England." (p. 16) Greenwood's book provides the following contrasting account:

Having advanced thus far in our history, it is easy to perceive that episcopalianism in New England was in a great measure indebted to the efforts, official and personal, of Edward Randolph. Though he was not so bad a man as the colonists represented and believed him to be, yet he was arbitrary, selfish and grasping, and not a champion for a religious denomination to be proud of. But a cause cannot always choose its promoters and many promoters of this cause were highly respectable members of the community, fairly entitled from the first to the liberty which they won at last. 

(p. 32)

Moreover, reading through the background material provided in Greenwood's introduction, it seems that the issue of whether the religious services and practices of the Church of England would be permitted in the Massachusetts Bay Colony was one that was sparked by the fall of Cromwell's Commonwealth and by the ascension of Charles II.  It was in 1683 that Charles II sent Edward Randolph with a quo warranto against the colony's charter (pp. 11-12).  In 1685, Charles II died and was succeeded by his brother James II of England (aka James VII of Scotland). In 1686, the "Rose frigate" arrived with a commission to Mr. Joseph Dudley as the president of Massachusetts and the colonies to the north thereof (p. 13).  

The "Dominion of New England in America" established in 1686 upon the annulling of the Massachusetts charter was vigorously resisted by the colonists, in various ways, and only lasted three years (for more discussion).  It seems unfair, therefore, to cast the New England Puritans as the lawbreakers, rather than the Roman Catholic monarchs, Charles II and James II.

• Today, the media and publishing industries insist that the political right is playing the role of King James, leveraging churches to fulfill political aims.

Above all, it is confusing at best to refer to James II as "King James." The sovereign that is usually referenced this way, because of the King James Version, is King James I of England (aka King James VI of Scotland).  

More to the point of the attempt to springboard from the anecdote, neither Charles II nor James II was trying to "leverage churches to fulfill political aims."  It would be much more accurate to say that both of these Roman Catholic monarchs (the last two in England's history) attempted to leverage political power to achieve their religious aims.  Even on Basham's account, there was not a pre-existing Church of England congregation to leverage in Boston.   

Basham's final reference to "King James" (p. xviii):

• Keeping alive the spirit of American resistance to the agendas of the powerful that so vexed King James, evangelicals just won't get with the program.

James II was an unpopular king (with Protestants in Great Britain, especially), and was deposed in the "Glorious Revolution" of 1688, an action with which the colonies could not reasonably be blamed.  In November 1685, James II dismissed the English Parliament for its refusal to pass measures granting greater religious liberty, and he did the same to the Scottish Parliament in 1686.  James II presented the question in terms of allowing Roman Catholics and Non-Conformists greater religious liberty in England and Scotland, but the action in New England can be seen largely as an extension of his and his brother's attempts to reduce the Protestant establishment.  Resistance to Roman Catholic monarchs was hardly unique to America at the time.

Just so it can be ignored for a third and final time, this post does not aim to (nor does it) contradict the main point of Basham's book.  The main point of her book is sufficiently vague and general as to be indisputable, namely that there are some "evangelical leaders" who share in at least a part of the "leftist agenda."

Rather this post points out a few errors.  Basham, in a recent interview, suggested that they would be fixing "a few little errors" for a second print run (link to a few seconds before this assertion).  We will see if even the fairly non-controversial errors are fixed:

1. Definitely not first CoE congregation in the American colonies.
2. King James II should be differentiated from the famous King James.
3. There is no chapter 171 in John's Gospel
4. Jude should be cited by verse, not chapter/verse.

To which we could also suggest at least one trivial error in the formatting of 2 Corinthians and Genesis in the index (surely these are not too controversial to fix).  

Screenshots as "receipts" follow:

...