FBFI and the KJV

Ward asked Kent Brandenburg if he’d accept the MEV, and Brandenburg responded along the same lines as Dave suggested a TR-guy would - he’s for a new translation of the TR in theory, but he has real ecclesiastical concerns about what such a translation project would look like and how it would come about. I talked to Kent about this specifically. It’s important to remember (if any discussion on this ensues) that Kent identifies as a TR guy; not KJVO.

John - no, I’m not ESV only! I have the NKJV, NET, NLT, NIV, NASB, KJV, RSV and ESV active on my BibleWorks page, and consult Greek at appropriate points. I really like the NEB and the NET; they’re very good translations. Every translation has weak points. I only meant I’ll stick with the ESV as my English version!

Ron Bean,

Some churches actually state this within their constitution. In those cases, constitutional changes can be very difficult. In my current church, this is not the case, but we do ask speakers to utilize the KJV to avoid unnecessary offense to some attendees who prefer the KJV for traditional reasons (Bible Belt).

Brother Peet,

You ought to do your research. You say: “I also find it hard to believe that 17½ years into the 21st century they haven’t positionalized themselves on this subject!”

“The FBFI only speaks officially in official statements and position statements.”

I don’t know where you’ve been or what you’ve been reading. In 1994, 1995, 1996, 1998, 2002, and again in 2008 the FBFI repeatedly spoke to this issue by standing resolution. Those resolutions are on the record and available. I have them on my computer and I’m sure Dr. Schaal can provide them for you. They may all be archived on the FBFI website.

I’m an FBFI emeritus board member. I’ve been in some of the intense discussions in committee and full board meeting on this subject. The misrepresentations ought to be corrected.

In regards to requiring the use of the KJV in the pulpit, Ray Arnett wrote:

[Ray Arnett]

Some churches actually state this within their constitution. In those cases, constitutional changes can be very difficult. In my current church, this is not the case, but we do ask speakers to utilize the KJV to avoid unnecessary offense to some attendees who prefer the KJV for traditional reasons (Bible Belt).

––––––––-

If you will recall, this was exactly Mark Ward’s first point:

“1. Why do the institutions of non-KJV-Only fundamentalism still insist on the use of the KJV?”

https://byfaithweunderstand.com/2018/06/21/the-legitimate-concerns-of-the-next-generation-an-objective-analysis/

Here is what he said (in its entirety), with bolded highlights from me:

“A son of GFA missionaries listed as his first “legitimate concern” about our crowd, “Continued preference for the KJV in spite of not being KJV-only.”

And I’m flummoxed. Our group has firmly and unequivocally condemned King James Onlyism ever since it became an -ism. BJU has always opposed it. And the FBFI has also done so for many years. This is from an official FBFI resolution in 1995:

Any attempt to make a particular English translation the only acceptable translation of Fundamentalism must be rejected.

I was a 14-year-old KJV-Only kid who’d never heard of the FBFI when the board wrote that. Now I’m a 37 not-KJV-Only not-kid who’s been in FBFI circles for 20 years. My generation just doesn’t understand why our supposedly non-KJV-Only institutions (again—not just the FBFI) still insist on the use of the KJV in public settings. My job for nine years was to write Bible textbooks for high school students, and the KJV was—to use a word Mark Minnick once used to describe the KJV—an “impediment” to my work. It isn’t always possible to explain Elizabethan English, as I discovered over and over. When you’re in the middle of a paragraph for ninth graders about eschatology, it’s very awkward to have to explain that “the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption” (Rom 8:21 KJV) actually means “the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption” (my translation). This is not a made-up example. Repeatedly I had to choose not to quote the Bible in my writing because I knew my readers would not understand the KJV.

Jim Berg is one of our most gifted Bible teachers in non-KJV-Only fundamentalism. And the Bible quotations in his books are dotted with brackets explaining KJV words to his readers. He apparently thinks they won’t understand the KJV without help. I checked with him, and he confirmed my interpretation of his brackets.

The KJV is not entirely unintelligible, but neither was the Latin Vulgate when it was translated. The Vulgate became unintelligible to normal people over time. The battle for a Bible in our language is not something you win once and then move on from; it’s a value you have to keep fighting for. The KJV is a revision of a revision of Tyndale’s work, so a good deal of it is 500 years old. English has changed a great deal in that time—as my new book, Authorized: The Use and Misuse of the King James Bible, has tried to show. Every besom, every chambering, every wantonness in the KJV is a “dead word” taken out of the hands of today’s readers. And the special burden of my book is to show that there are many “false friends” in the KJV, words we don’t even realize we’re misunderstanding—words that have changed their meaning in 400 years. Even a statement as simple as “Remove not the ancient landmark,” ironically, doesn’t mean what you think.

Paul in 1 Corinthians 14 ties edification to intelligibility. Reasonable people can disagree about how unintelligible a Bible translation should be permitted to become before we revise it or make a new one. But my generation is asking: why wouldn’t Bible people, of all people, be first in line to promote a more understandable but still accurate Bible? Why would evangelistic people make bus kids and our own kids learn Elizabethan English in order to read God’s Word? Particularly when the older generation has repeatedly insisted that they are not KJV-Only?

I’d love to see our crowd do what Fred Moritz recommended in a FrontLine letter to the editor last year:

[The] FBFI should have quit dancing around the KJV-only issue long ago.

We are fundamentalists. We’re supposed to have titanium backbones. Why do Clarence Sexton and Shelton Smith and Paul Chappell make our spines turn to jelly? It’s because of the masses they represent—masses to whom the KJV is a totem, a symbol of a set of values. When I proposed dropping our KJV-Only policy for FrontLine and conferences, a courteous FBFI board member shot straight with me, and I appreciated it: he said, “If I give in to the desire of younger people in my church to use the ESV, I feel like I’ll be indicating that I’m going to give in on other things, too. It’s a package deal.”

But it just can’t be; we can’t let it be. KJV-Onlyism is a direct challenge to the Bible-centered nature of fundamentalism, because it makes void the Word of God by our tradition—by forcing people to read that Word in a language they don’t and can’t fully understand. It also treats the KJV as perfect and inspired, as an act of divine revelation. This is very serious.

Kevin Schaal said at the Gospel Proclaimed conference, “We have a lot of fundamentalism that, whether ignorantly or deliberately, has stepped outside of the realm of [bibliological] orthodoxy.” And I’m thinking: we’re supposed to defer to them on precisely the point at which they’ve stepped outside orthodoxy? Schaal said, “We have to stand for…biblical truth about the Bible…. What we’re supposed to believe about the Word is what the Word says about the Word.” Amen.

KJV-Onlyism has picked a symbol of doctrinal faithfulness that has come to violate that doctrinal faithfulness. Ask them, as I have done: they won’t even change amongst to among; “You can’t change the Word of God,” one of them told me recently. They have built their institutions on the “perfectly preserved” KJV; they can’t change without splitting their churches and schools. Their movement is past the point of appeal.

Practical Steps

Here’s what I think we should do:

Separate from KJV-Only institutions. No platform fellowship. As musician Ben Everson, who is himself KJV-Only, said on Facebook,

The two sides…will never meet. Never. Won’t happen. As an evangelist ministering in churches on both sides of this issue…. I’ve prayed with men on BOTH sides who simply can’t understand the other side and beg God to heal the rift.… These efforts simply can’t work. More than music or even Calvinism, the two underlying philosophies/theologies of Bible translation…are diametrically opposed to each other.

I have prayed those same prayers, and I agree with Ben. The debate is over. Compromising with KJV-Onlyism won’t win them; it will only drive young guys in our own circles away—and hurt our own evangelism and discipleship.

Nonetheless, we must adopt a compromise within our own not-KJV-Only crowd. Here’s what I propose: 1) I think the older generation should give liberty to men in our public gatherings and publications to use other good translations. And I’m not just talking about the FBFI; I’m talking about camps and colleges. A young pastor friend of mine just said to me this past week, “If our crowd could drop its KJV-Only policies, that would be huge for us.” Another said to me, “The younger generation wants their children to actually understand the verses they’re memorizing in AWANA.” And 2) I think the upcoming generation should do what I myself have done: stick with and continue to support non-KJV-Only fundamentalist institutions that nonetheless still feel they need some time. Every institutional leader is, understandably, afraid to make this move. I’m not demanding an instant decision. But I say to pastors and presidents: let 1 Corinthians 14 drive you on. Do right and let the stars fall.”

––––––––-

This is my conclusion: STOP BEING AFRAID! Go ahead, risk offending those “attendees who prefer the KJV for traditional reasons.” Particularly if they are older and supposedly more mature Christians, they ought to be at a point in their Christian faith where they can selflessly look past their own preferences to be able to better reach, disciple, and minister to others who don’t share those same preferences. And if they are not, then choose to not be held hostage by their recalcitrance.

Being non-KJVO but yet still requiring the use of the KJV is a stopgap, a sham, a choice made by fear. It’s a bad compromise. But as Mark Ward stated: “Compromising with KJV-Onlyism won’t win them; it will only drive young guys in our own circles away—and hurt our own evangelism and discipleship.”

I recently gave a Bible to a lady at work who I’ve been witnessing to, and who has begun coming to church. I would NEVER give her a KJV. It’s well-nigh indecipherable to someone who isn’t steeped in its language. I gave her a genuine leather NKJV I found at Goodwill for $2.00, mint-condition and never opened. Verily I say unto you, there is no reason on God’s green earth to put a linguistic barrier between people and God’s word. The tap-dancing on this issue is ridiculous, sounds insane to anyone who isn’t part of Baptist fundamentalist sub-culture (because it is insane), and reveals the worst tendencies about the dangers of “tradition.”

I suspect many, many churches and para-church organizations from this corner of Baptist fundamentalism will continue to tap-dance because of the political realities of the KJV issue = if they make a clean break and stop using it they’ll drive people away. I get it. I just don’t like it.

I’m glad I left that ministry context behind a while ago. The GARBC, from my perspective being in the MidWest and now the PNW, doesn’t major on the usual hobby horses of alcohol, music and KJV. I am so glad I found a more balanced group of fundamentalists. If you’re reading this, you should consider fleeing for saner pastures. Contact the local GARBC association and find sanity … and bring your NIV with you.

I mentioned, above, that the FBFI cannot afford to stop tap-dancing with the KJV (e.g. “we’re not KJVO, but we cherish and honor it and we’ll always use it,” etc.) because of the political reality that, if they stop straddling the fence, they may drive away their base. Behold this case in point from FBFI’s Facebook page:

Don graciously responded, and the FBFIs resolutions do indeed condemn KJVO-ism. But, a proportion of its base just isn’t comfortable moving away from it. Perhaps they never will. It’s a cultural thing, not a biblical thing.

Larry,

As a first time pastor who has been in my church less than a year, I do not lack courage, but do recognize the need for timing. As Mark has stated, work toward it - don’t blow up the church over it. We are handing out the CSB as part of outreach, but a proper process of change takes timing and tact.

Ray

You’re right about timing!

I originally said this, and then real life got in the way:

Yes, Tyler, we should be long past this. But the decisions were made not to rock the boat and to preserve “unity”, which allowed the cancerous teaching to quietly spread and take further root.

The FBFI needs to amputate that teaching out.

JohnE asked this:

Unless you’ve read the forthcoming statement, how can you have such epistemic confidence about what “decisions were made?”

If you had told me yesterday that I would’ve started Monday by defending the FBFI, I may not have gotten out of bed.

Well, it was a Monday, so that accounts for some of it. ;)

I started to reply last night, but the last couple of posts have summed up my ‘argument’ that the FBFI needs to cut this teaching out of their fellowship rather nicely. First of all, Dr. Moritz is correct - there have been FBFI resolutions (or whatever they are) on the use of the KJV since, I believe, 1979. I read many of them last night. In most of them there has been special and specific wording to make it clear that the KJV is a solid translation, worthy of respect and reverence, and that to insist that KJV Onlyism in the sense that nothing else is usable is heretical and wrong. All well and good. What I had been concerned about (and what I indirectly alluded to) is what was illustrated in Mark Ward’s message (which, by the way, was almost perfect, very encouraging, and desperately needed)…that in our haste to defend the KJV, we weren’t paying enough attention to the incipient heresy creeping in on our flanks. Heresy brought in by men like Clarence Sexton and Jack Schaap.

As someone noted, - that the FBFI had allowed people within it’s ranks to be KJV Preferred uptoandahairsbreadthfrom KJVOnlyism to remain in their fellowship (and yes, I have to note that the FBFI is a fellowship of people and not organizations). Even within the Board level, there are some that would vocally decry KJVOnlyism but were in practice actually there. This meant that some churches and pastors were put in Ray Arnett’s situation. Others told fellow believers that “we will use only the King James” but who would not come out and explicitly say that they were KJVO. To tell the people in a congregation that we will only use the KJV is to ipso facto insist that the KJV is the only valid Bible. That is not a position that is Biblical. The fact that someone got on Facebook to decry the push towards a ‘convergent position’ because of this talk about the KJV and Don felt the need to respond is more proof that some of these people are quite comfortable within the FBFI. These arguments about ‘cultural fundamentalism’ happened for a specific reason, although it appears to me that the ‘convergents’ are not welcome within the FBFI. Which leaves moderates like Brother Shumate and others and….people further to the right. People who come from KJV Only camps like Schaap or Sexton. People that were at one point and who may still be helping the FBFI.

I spent many, many, many keystrokes arguing this in the KJV Only section of SI, and it wasn’t because I was a brawler. It’s because I could not in good conscience allow others here to get online and spew their heresy unchecked and unchallenged. I didn’t see the FBFI doing that, and in some cases, saw the FBFI leadership cuddling up to KJVO teachers like Schaap and Sexton. Here’s an illustration of what I said from 2010:

Jim and John shouldn’t be associating with Jack - that’s the thrust of my complaint.

I don’t think that I’ve ever said that we (speaking for YF’s) shouldn’t practice secondary separation. What I see here is the unholy commingling of a Bibliology that is wrong [Schaap] with a place/institution that has a correct Bibliology [FBF / BJU]. The fact of the matter is that the latter institutions are then warning people of the KJV position taken by Schaap et al while joining hands with them. After all, Schrock and Vaughn were both invited to attend and speak at the conference. I’m just as concerned about Binney, Garlock, and Hamilton’s associations as well with Schaap, but that’s outside of the discussion on this thread. If someone wants to look it up, I’ll bet the comments on that thread are very similar to what I’ve said on this one.

If Schrock and Vaughn do believe what their organizations teach, then they shouldn’t be attending. That would be consistent. It’s either that or change their position on Bibliology, which they could also do.

Sometimes I think we confuse Fundamentalism (the idea) with Fundamentalist Culture, and that’s why things are the way they are.

Does what I said then make more sense now, JohnE?

Let me just quote this section from what Mark said - and note that it was the part of his lecture that I wanted to stand up and cheer when I heard:

Practical Steps

Here’s what I think we should do:

Separate from KJV-Only institutions. No platform fellowship. As musician Ben Everson, who is himself KJV-Only, said on Facebook,

The two sides…will never meet. Never. Won’t happen. As an evangelist ministering in churches on both sides of this issue…. I’ve prayed with men on BOTH sides who simply can’t understand the other side and beg God to heal the rift.… These efforts simply can’t work. More than music or even Calvinism, the two underlying philosophies/theologies of Bible translation…are diametrically opposed to each other.

I have prayed those same prayers, and I agree with Ben. The debate is over. Compromising with KJV-Onlyism won’t win them; it will only drive young guys in our own circles away—and hurt our own evangelism and discipleship.

Nonetheless, we must adopt a compromise within our own not-KJV-Only crowd. Here’s what I propose:

1) I think the older generation should give liberty to men in our public gatherings and publications to use other good translations. And I’m not just talking about the FBFI; I’m talking about camps and colleges. A young pastor friend of mine just said to me this past week, “If our crowd could drop its KJV-Only policies, that would be huge for us.” Another said to me, “The younger generation wants their children to actually understand the verses they’re memorizing in AWANA.” And

2) I think the upcoming generation should do what I myself have done: stick with and continue to support non-KJV-Only fundamentalist institutions that nonetheless still feel they need some time. Every institutional leader is, understandably, afraid to make this move. I’m not demanding an instant decision. But I say to pastors and presidents: let 1 Corinthians 14 drive you on. Do right and let the stars fall.

Ben Everson is a good man - we roomed together at NIU. The fact that he has chosen to embrace the KJVO position is grievous news to me. He is/was my friend, although we don’t talk much anymore since we aren’t in the same circles anymore. I also worked with Mark at BJU. Mark is also a good man, and his statements thrilled me, although they do make me sad as well.

All of us agree - you can’t try and split the baby on this topic. You have to pick a stand and defend it. We cannot coddle an errant Bibliology. It’s wrong, and it’s heresy. And we need to stop treating it like it’s something harmless and inert. It’s destructive and deadly, and in opposition to God. Some of us saw this long ago, and some are beginning to see it now. I want to encourage those who see it now to lock arms and draw swords. There’s a war on, and it’s time to make your position clear and known.

Perhaps the saddest thing of all is this article and others like it, which are really irrelevant to the real lives of ordinary Christians (or should be) has garnered nearly 2200 reads and 41 comments, while:

• a discussion on the primacy of Scripture only has 279 reads and one comment
• a discussion on Christology has 303 reads and no comments
• a story of a church plant has 810 reads and two comments
• a story about religious liberty has 341 reads

We ought to discuss things that actually matter. Yet, here I am posting yet another comment in the FBFI thread …

There are many brothers who are confused on the issue. I mean especially people in the pew. Surely we have a duty of care in our ministry to be careful not to hurt these people along with taking our bold stands.

You can help people by giving them Ward’s book, and follow up with James White’s book if that doesn’t do the trick. Bro. Overmiller recently led his church away from the KJV to the NKJV (I believe) and posted extensive discussions on his blog about how he accomplished this. His approach is a good model for folks who think they’re in a place to lead their churches away from this silliness.

My wife and I were recently doing a bible study with a lady who recently came to faith. She asked me why she couldn’t find Acts 8:37 in her Bible. I explained when verse numbering and chapter divisions came about, explained how immediate post-Reformation English translations relied on fewer and later manuscripts, explained textual criticism in very broad strokes, and explained why Acts 8:37 wasn’t original, and directed her to the footnote in her ESV which told her it wasn’t in the best manuscripts. then I took her to Jn 7:53 - 8:11, and 1 Jn 5:7-8 and explained the same things.

She was fine, and the issue hasn’t come up since.