Bible Version & Church Polity

larryjf · #1 (**permalink**) 09-03-2007, 10:03 AM

If one believed that the KJV/NKJV was the best available version but the church they went to officially held that the ESV was the best available translation, would it be better to submit to the church's stance for church polity sake?

JM · #2 (**permalink**) 09-03-2007, 10:22 AM

One believer put it this way "...for to act against our conscience is neither safe for us, nor open to us."

NaphtaliPress · #3 (**permalink**) 09-03-2007, 10:47 AM

Do you mean submit as in acting like you didn't believe what you believe? Or simply for harmony not to go out of your way to make trouble?

larryjf · #4 (**permalink**) 09-03-2007, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NaphtaliPress

Do you mean submit as in acting like you didn't believe what you believe? Or simply for harmony not to go out of your way to make trouble?

Excellent question.
I mean by being in harmony and not trying to cause division. As i am an officer of the church i also mean only using the ESV during church-related functions...including worship service. So that if i prepared a sermon i would use the ESV.

The question is both real and hypothetical as my church does hold to the ESV, but i haven't come to a concrete decision yet as to which version i prefer....i have been back and forth on the issue for a while.

fredtgreco · #5 (**permalink**) 09-03-2007, 11:39 AM

I believe (strongly) that you should submit. The damage that would be done to the sheep by seeing a shepherd break unity and fellowship over such a point would be far greater than any damage done by using a translation you would not choose.

I was in this same position before our church changed its policy - and as the pastor I submitted and preached from the NASB, even though it made it (in my opinion) significantly more difficult to preach from because of its wooden quality. Unless there were issues of deception and sin (IMO - the TNIV is guilty of both here), I would simply use the translation of the church.

And I have done that: preaching at times from the NKJV, from the KJV when in a church where that was the pulpit Bible, the ESV and NASB. I also think that there is a value to not "distracting" people in the pews with a different translation. So I always try and use what the people have in their hands.

NaphtaliPress · #6 (**permalink**) 09-03-2007, 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by larryjf

Quote:

Originally Posted by NaphtaliPress

Do you mean submit as in acting like you didn't believe what you believe? Or simply for harmony not to go out of your way to make trouble?

Excellent question.
I mean by being in harmony and not trying to cause division. As i am an officer of the church i also mean only using the ESV during church-related functions...including worship service. So that if i prepared a sermon i would use the ESV.

The question is both real and hypothetical as my church does hold to the ESV, but i haven't come to a concrete decision yet as to which version i prefer....i have been back and forth on the issue for a while.

And they would insist on this? If you were to preach you will need to reserve the right to question the reading for a better one; otherwise if they insist to the point of not questioning the ESV at all, it is either go along or "go".

fredtgreco · #7 (**permalink**) 09-03-2007, 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NaphtaliPress

Quote:

Originally Posted by larryjf

Quote:

Originally Posted by NaphtaliPress

Do you mean submit as in acting like you didn't believe what you believe? Or simply for harmony not to go out of your way to make trouble?

Excellent question.
I mean by being in harmony and not trying to cause division. As i am an officer of the church i also mean only using the ESV during church-related functions...including worship service. So that if i prepared a sermon i would use the ESV.

The question is both real and hypothetical as my church does hold to the ESV, but i haven't come to a concrete decision yet as to which version i prefer....i have been back and forth on the issue for a while.

And they would insist on this? If you were to preach you will need to reserve the right to question the reading for a better one; otherwise if they insist to the point of not questioning the ESV at all, it is either go along or "go".

Just a quick addition: I believe that the preacher must retain the right (using wisdom related to the true purpose of preaching, which is not to show people you are a Greek/Hebrew scholar, but to feed their souls) to comment on the translation's choice of words. I did this in fact just this past Lord's Day with 1 Peter 1:13. The ESV translation of "prepare" is insufficient to make the pastoral points afforded by the metaphor "gird up" (e.g. action, cross reference to John 13, etc). So I pointed that out. If you want to hear how I did that, you can do so when the sermon is up on our webpage (http://www.cckpca.org/sermons/1peter-sermons-series/)

Jerusalem Blade · #8 (**permalink**) 09-03-2007, 02:50 PM

Larry,

I think I would go along with the counsel of Fred and Chris here. I think it is clear which Bible I hold to (AV), though if the Lord gets my wife and me back to NYC we will likely attend Redeemer PCA in Manhattan, or one of its plants, Astoria Community Church (PCA) in Queens. Last I knew (I have been away five years) Redeemer used the NIV, but seemed to be moving toward the ESV, and I'm not sure of ACC.

I have great respect for the godliness of the pastors of both these churches. It is unlikely I would be preaching in either of them, for my eldership pertains only to this mission-church plant I care for now.

While at Redeemer, hearing Tim Keller refer to a verse omitted by the CT as likely rightly omitted, during his Q&A after the sermon I challenged him on that and he sincerely and graciously listened and asked me to provide him with textual evidence on the matter, which I put together and later gave to him.

While there I was leading one of the Fellowship Groups (in those days there were some 150+ FGs, likely many more now) -- considered "the first line of pastoral care" -- and I used my KJV, though I often modernized the language. I did not push my view, but did not make an issue of it, unless a variant / omission was significant, and then gave a brief summary of the textual considerations. I was in the minority, using the AV.

Here in Cyprus, as the only acceptable version (to those funding the planting endeavor) besides the ESV, I strongly insisted on the NKJV instead. So the NKJV is the pew Bible, and the pulpit Bible as well, though I sometimes read from the KJV, as I did while reading (for the other elder) Romans 5:12-21, as the AV is far clearer than the NKJV, especially in verse 15. I almost always preach from the AV, as that's my Bible.

If I were an elder in a strictly ESV church, and were to preach, I would read from the ESV, and preach from it, although, as Fred said, I would want to be free to comment on the translation's choice of words, or on preferable variants in the underlying Greek. I know Tim Keller often does this (I listen to his sermons here), and he uses his best judgment (I gather he carefully considers the original languages). He will occasionally indicate he prefers an AV reading.

If I were not allowed to discuss translation issues, or variant readings of great significance -- that is, not allowed to render a godly and well-informed judgment on the explication of a text -- perhaps it were better for me to decline appointment to the eldership. I would want to have the issue of my liberty in such matters clearly understood and agreed upon before installation. I would not want to disrupt the unity of the eldership, nor give the flock any appearance of rebellion.

I should say also, there are godly and powerful preachers -- and who have done me great good in Christ -- who use versions other than the AV, NKJV, or MKJV, i.e., the CT versions. So, although I hold to the superiority of my Bible, I may acknowledge them as better men than I. I am not of a mind to push an agenda as concerns Bibles; my agenda is to see Christ formed in the hearts of His people, and they rooted and grounded in His love.

Here at PB, where open discussion concerning "translations and manuscripts" is invited, it is another matter entirely. With this proviso: that we seek to edify in love and respect, as in the presence of Christ, for so we are.

Now I must go to prepare to answer Alan Kurschner of aomin.

fredtgreco · #9 (**permalink**) 09-03-2007, 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jerusalem Blade

If I were not allowed to discuss translation issues, or variant readings of great significance -- that is, not allowed to render a godly and well-informed judgment on the explication of a text -- perhaps it were better for me to decline appointment to the eldership. I would want to have the issue of my liberty in such matters clearly understood and agreed upon before installation. I would not want to disrupt the unity of the eldership, nor give the flock any appearance of rebellion.

I think Steve's answer here is a good one. I would also add that if one were forbidden from discussing translation issues (as opposed to simply being dissuaded from harping on them constantly to the detriment of application and explication), then one would rightly refuse to listen. That would be a matter of liberty of preaching, not a translation per se. In other words, a preacher must have the ability to expound the Word of God, and that includes commenting on translation, since the Greek and Hebrew are the court of final appeal on any doctrine. I would insist on that liberty, even if I were using the translation of my conscience's choice.

larryjf · #10 (**permalink**) 09-03-2007, 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NaphtaliPress

And they would insist on this? If you were to preach you will need to reserve the right to question the reading for a better one; otherwise if they insist to the point of not questioning the ESV at all, it is either go along or "go".

They may insist on the version to use as the basis for the sermon,they would not insist that i not talk about variants or better readings. They would probably frown on trying to tear down the underlying text as a whole, but generally would not mind bringing up better readings on a case by case basis.

KMK · #11 (**permalink**) 09-03-2007, 05:48 PM

What's interesting is that if a certain church demanded that every one use KJV and did not allow anyone to cause division by questioning its underlying Hebrew or Greek, it would be labeled a cult.

larryjf · #12 (**permalink**) 09-03-2007, 06:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KMK

What's interesting is that if a certain church demanded that every one use KJV and did not allow anyone to cause division by questioning its underlying Hebrew or Greek, it would be labeled a cult.

That's a good point, but our church doesn't dictate what folks in the congregation use. This is more of an issue in being a church officer and exhibiting a united front to a degree.

fredtgreco · #13 (**permalink**) 09-03-2007, 07:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KMK

What's interesting is that if a certain church demanded that every one use KJV and did not allow anyone to cause division by questioning its underlying Hebrew or Greek, it would be labeled a cult.

Yes. But there is a difference between saying "this is our official version for church functions, so that people can follow along in pew Bibles and so that we show visible unity," and "you may only use this version in public or private, because all other versions are anathama."

KMK · #14 (**permalink**) 09-03-2007, 08:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by larryjf

They may insist on the version to use as the basis for the sermon,they would not insist that i not talk about variants or better readings. They would probably frown on trying to tear down the underlying text as a whole, but generally would not mind bringing up better readings on a case by case basis.

I was referring to this idea.

I have no problem with a church having a unified front... but if a KJV church refused to allow anyone in the pulpit who would question the reliability of the TR that church would probably be villified. I could be wrong.

KMK · #15 (**permalink**) 09-03-2007, 08:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by larryjf

If one believed that the KJV/NKJV was the best available version but the church they went to officially held that the ESV was the best available translation, would it be better to submit to the church's stance for church polity sake?

Do you, Larry, believe this to be true? Are you an elder?

I would say that if an elder did not agree that the ESV was 'the best' then it cannot truly be the 'official position of the church'. It could be a compromise for the sake of unity, but it couldn't be an 'official position'.

Unless there is something about Presbyterian polity that I do not understand. (Which is likely)

fredtgreco · #16 (**permalink**) 09-03-2007, 09:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KMK

Quote:

Originally Posted by larryjf

If one believed that the KJV/NKJV was the best available version but the church they went to officially held that the ESV was the best available translation, would it be better to submit to the church's stance for church polity sake?

Do you, Larry, believe this to be true? Are you an elder?

I would say that if an elder did not agree that the ESV was 'the best' then it cannot truly be the 'official position of the church'. It could be a compromise for the sake of unity, but it couldn't be an 'official position'.

Unless there is something about Presbyterian polity that I do not understand. (Which is likely)

Presbyterian polity does not require unanimity (neither does congregationalism). When the majority of a church court decides, the court speaks.

larryjf · #17 (**permalink**) 09-03-2007, 10:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KMK

Quote:

Originally Posted by larryjf

If one believed that the KJV/NKJV was the best available version but the church they went to officially held that the ESV was the best available translation, would it be better to submit to the church's stance for church polity sake?

Do you, Larry, believe this to be true? Are you an elder?

I would say that if an elder did not agree that the ESV was 'the best' then it cannot truly be the 'official position of the church'. It could be a compromise for the sake of unity, but it couldn't be an 'official position'.

Unless there is something about Presbyterian polity that I do not understand. (Which is likely)

The office that i currently hold is Deacon, but i occasionally preach (exhort).
The ESV is official for our church in that it was set forth by our worship committee and upheld by the Session.

armourbearer · #18 (**permalink**) 09-03-2007, 10:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KMK

What's interesting is that if a certain church demanded that every one use KJV and did not allow anyone to cause division by questioning its underlying Hebrew or Greek, it would be labeled a cult.

I suppose those who prefer a single modern version have the advantage that they don't feel they need to provide rationale for their preference, and so there is no conviction associated with their behaviour. I think they label preference for the AV as cultish because the preference is based on a genuine conviction that reliability is more important than readability.

KMK · #19 (**permalink**) 09-04-2007, 12:06 AM

Excellent point, Rev Winzer.

Larry,

Quote:

Originally Posted by larryjf

The ESV is official for our church in that it was set forth by our worship committee and upheld by the Session.

Did they set it forth because they believed it was 'the best translation available' or just because they had to pick one and this is the one they settled upon?

I think the answer to that question might solve your dillema.