In this discussion (one-sided, me talking to myself!), I’ve stated these positions:
- Translational variations within the range of meanings allowed by the original text are acceptable, keeping in mind current usage as our ever-changing environment.
- Significant textual variations in those original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts are relatively rare: where there is no variation, there should be no attempt to change the text. Where there is variation, we require diligent and skilled research to ascertain what text is original. We recognize that in some cases Bible believers will come to different conclusions on specific passages, but at all costs, the goal is the original. (Beyond this concept, I add no discussion as I am not capable of the definitive study required — I am merely stating the premises on which I rely.)
- When someone elevates any one translation (the KJV or any other) to the level where its words may not change, he steps into a fundamental bibliological error, ascribing to a translation an authority the Bible reserves exclusively for the originals.
In my last post, I asked:
What do we do from here? What decisions should we make with respect to allowing a preference for the KJV mean intolerance of other versions or the Christians who use them? Should we not speak out against this attitude?
I’m going to use the term “KJV infallibility” as a shorthand to name the errant position. We discussed previously a kind of preference for the King James that is a de facto “infallibility” position. It isn’t merely a preference like, “I prefer apple fritters over all other doughnuts at Tim Hortons”; it is an insistence that says, “No one should eat anything but apple fritters at Tim Hortons.” The exclusivity view is handmaiden of the infallibility view. What to do about the infallibility view is the question.
The answer, of course, will start with “It depends.” It depends on which “King James errantist” we are talking about. Many “people in the pew” hold a view of King James infallibility as we described. They follow their pastor, some previous pastor, or some book they read and so on. They don’t have enough training (even self-training) to have come to an independent decision on these issues. Our stance with them will be different from our stance with a college or seminary professor who has had the opportunity to study the biblical languages, has many hours of academic work, who is (or ought to be) familiar with the wide range of literature on Bible translation, and so on. There are gradations of responsibility between these extremes.
It also depends on who “we” are. If “we” means individual Christians relating to other Christians, we will answer differently than when “we” means individuals relating to institutions, or institutions relating to other institutions, or, indeed, to individuals. Separation questions (or “non-fellowship/non-cooperation” questions) are relational questions. The answers range from open relationship to no relationship. In other words, the first thing we should understand is that no one size fits all.
I want to leave aside questions of personal relationships. We should be open and kind to one another regardless of disagreements, even strong disagreements. Sometimes, however, institutional relationships cloud our personal relationships. In those cases, we may have to put some distance between ourselves, even when on a personal level we can maintain some relationships.
As the pastor of a local church, I set a guard on the “front door” relationship when people seek to join our fellowship. I don’t want the error of King James infallibility to exist in our assembly. Many who hold to it might immediately withdraw from us because of our use of the NASB, but some still will attend on a regular basis. As long as they are willing to attend without causing division, I welcome them. On occasion, I’ve made public corrections when someone expressed the error in one of our meetings. We can’t allow KJV infallibility to divide our fellowship, and we will not.
Likewise, as a pastor, I will not recommend schools that promote the KJV infallibility view. In fact, I would strongly discourage attendance at such schools. I would not let their representatives promote their ministries in our church; I would not endorse them in any way.
In general, I think we shouldn’t support missionaries subscribing to these views (though at present we may have some, and should continue to uphold our word to them unless they become divisive). Furthermore, we shouldn’t support conferences, fellowships, gatherings that promote these views, except perhaps in attending as an observer. It may go without saying, but we couldn’t host such a conference ourselves. Please note that I prefaced this with “in general.” I am not trying to create a hard and fast rule that governs everyone; I am just thinking through the practical implications of the doctrinal error we face in my role as a pastor.
Involvement in broader coalitions is more difficult. We who are independent Baptists tend to subscribe to the society model of inter-church interaction and involvement. Which is to say we don’t entangle our churches in denominational or convention-like alliances. Instead, we support agencies, societies, and educational institutions individuals. As individuals, supporting a society, we support a society that has specific goals and functions. We have a cause we are interested in, along with others, and we support that cause together.
One example of this is the various mission societies we support. Our church supports various missionary appointees of such societies; we don’t ask where all their support comes from. It doesn’t matter: we are supporting the missionary, to that extent we are making common cause with the society the missionary represents. If there are “KJV infallibility” supporters of that society, of that missionary, or of other missionaries appointed by the society, it is of little moment to me, or our church.
Other societies support other causes of a broader nature, but for specific causes. We don’t subscribe to a denominational connection (the “convention model”), so our independent churches have no ties to others who might also support the same society for various reasons. Mutual support doesn’t equal entanglement in ministry.
Nevertheless, those involved in such societies must soon make decisions about these matters. After all this time since the King James controversies began, some clarity is emerging. We are now at a point of understanding what is at stake. Since root level doctrines are involved, we have to make public decisions about what involvement and support can exist between us and King James infallible institutions or bodies. Some ties should be broken, or at least support no longer offered. Those involved in such groups must soon decide for themselves how to proceed. Positions like mine, as a local church pastor, can inform those decisions, or not. It is up to the societies to decide for themselves.
— Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Previous Posts in this Series
Why Can’t We Update the Words?
Switching Tools in the Translation Debate – Brent Niedergall
Comments