John Vaughn: Whither from Here? A Way Forward on the Text and Version Issue

I own a restaurant. I ask that the customers dress formally when they step into my restaurant. I don’t believe there is anything wrong in dressing casual, I am not against restaurants that let you dress casual, I, myself, am casual most of the time when not in the restaurant. I just prefer a certain style of dining at my restaurant.

I am not offended, but a little surprised at your claim that these churches act out of fear when alot of them, including mine and a few of your colleagues in the FBF, stood up to KJVOs and lost good portions of their congregation.

OK, are there churches out there which have (a) suffered after standing up to KJVO and yet (b) insist that the KJV be used? No kidding? I’d be interested to know the reasoning, as a rejection of the KJVO arguments as I’ve seen them would necessarily entail a recognition that the NASB, ESV, and other “essentially literal” modern translations are indeed the Word of God. Hard to get offended over that one, and even if there are a lot of KJVs (like my 1611) in the pews, that often enhances understanding, because the hearer can see that he’s not just pulling a fast one with the particular wording of the translation.

Along the same lines, maybe it’s time for some of us to start working on how the differing text families actually enhance our understanding of how God preserved His Word. I can point out from a linguistic basis how a declined language like Greek would be very robust to copy errors, since it tends to say a lot of things several times (noun/adjective ending, verb tense/ending, context, etc..), and then maybe we need to do some thinking about how the Scripture is structured as one book, and hence an error in text A will not necessarily change the overall meaning of the Scriptures.

I don’t have any firm conclusions on this, just thinking….

Even though we believe that there are other good translations, we prefer to use the one that the majority of Christians still use. That makes sense, doesn’t it? In fact, I would think that the use of a version used by less than 10% of Christians would require more of an explanation as to the reason of its use.

Barry,

I acknowledge a church’s right to choose to use the KJV for reasons expressed by Dr. Kevin Bauer et. al. No problem there. Again, I believe there is a default position in Fundamental parachurch organizations toward the KJV motivated by fear of offense toward the KJVO constituency.

Mike, I suppose that some might fear offending a constituency, but love could be another motivation, no?

[Mike Harding]

Barry,

I acknowledge a church’s right to choose to use the KJV for reasons expressed by Dr. Kevin Bauer et. al. No problem there. Again, I believe there is a default position in Fundamental parachurch organizations toward the KJV motivated by fear of offense toward the KJVO constituency.

Joking aside, Pastor Harding hits the nail on the head. No one is storming out of meetings or withdrawing support of organizations because they use the KJ. However, there is consistent noise whenever an organization “abandons” use of the KJ. Frankly, it is the exact same kind of intimidation tactic being used to push the homosexual agenda and promoting the race mongering among portions of the African American community.

I think some of you are a bit over the tip in becoming Anti-KJV. I don’t think it is all that helpful, nor should we be so militant against the KJV. It is still an extremely useful translation and, despite the archaisms, still accessible by most people in North America. In my opinion, a modern translation is better and is more accessible, but the way you guys talk it is like you think some are persisting in using Latin only.

Don,

No one here has been militant against the KJ. All of the conversation has been focused on those in militant opposition to everything other than the KJ.

[Mike Harding]

Barry,

I acknowledge a church’s right to choose to use the KJV for reasons expressed by Dr. Kevin Bauer et. al. No problem there. Again, I believe there is a default position in Fundamental parachurch organizations toward the KJV motivated by fear of offense toward the KJVO constituency.

i will have to defer to you on that since I don’t have inside information on parachurch organizations, but I do have to ask a question. If you are scheduled to speak at a place where the majority of folks use the KJV, why wouldn’t you want to use the translation that is in most laps and phones of the majority of people you are speaking? I understand using an alternative version in your church since you have it in your pews and the folks know that’s what is normal, but when visiting another venue, why wouldn’t you use the version of the audience?

[Don Johnson] I think some of you are a bit over the tip in becoming Anti-KJV. I don’t think it is all that helpful, nor should we be so militant against the KJV. It is still an extremely useful translation and, despite the archaisms, still accessible by most people in North America. In my opinion, a modern translation is better and is more accessible, but the way you guys talk it is like you think some are persisting in using Latin only.

Don,

That kind of is the point. How long have you been using the KJV? Probably more than 20-25 years, right? You’ve probably grown up on it and are very used to it.

When I try to introduce others to the KJV - and even two weeks ago when I referred back to some of my KJV study bibles - I’ve been surprised at just how difficult it can be at times to read and understand. I made the move away from the KJV in college (so 15 years ago or so), and while I still have a substantial portion committed to memory, I often find that I am fumbling to explain it to others. When I taught youth groups with the KJV, I spent a significant portion of time re-translating on the fly for teens and children and putting it into the modern english for them anyway. So what is the point in using the KJV if it hinders communication? Is the purpose to communicate what God says, or to use a translation that is pretty and familiar to me?

BarryL said:

If you are scheduled to speak at a place where the majority of folks use the KJV, why wouldn’t you want to use the translation that is in most laps and phones of the majority of people you are speaking? I understand using an alternative version in your church since you have it in your pews and the folks know that’s what is normal, but when visiting another venue, why wouldn’t you use the version of the audience?

Our church is a NASB church. A few years ago, when I started preparing a message for the church, I asked our pastor if I could preach from the ESV. He started laughing and I became very confused at that response. He looked at me and said something along the lines of, “Jay, the purpose of preaching is to teach people. As long as you are teaching the truth, I’m happy with it.” Then he followed up by saying that the only people he’d ever met that ran into that issue were usually people who were off-balance in some area and they were raising issues that didn’t need to be dealt with.

When I started teaching the adult sunday school class last month, I mentioned that I would be teaching from the ESV because that’s what my personal preparation and devotions are typically done in (via Logos and E-Sword), but if it became an issue, I would change over to the NASB for them. No one in the church batted an eye, and a few people let me know that they had ESVs. No one in the class (probably 30-40 people) complained about it or asked me to use the NASB.

Sometimes I think that these issues are far more important to the ‘leaders’ (pastors/deacons/teachers/people on SI) than they are to the people in the pew…and frankly, I prefer it that way. I’m not out to convert people to a ____ only position. I’m out to teach people about God.

One of the most effective ways I’ve found for pulling myself out of a spiritual rut is to move to a different translation for a while—the different wording can wake me up. So in certain cases, I would recommend deliberately using a different translation than was used by a majority of attendees, no matter how good that translation is, simply so that there is something to “catch” the mind of those listening. At 4th, that was often, ironically, the KJV—at least for younger people. For me, it’s at times been the NIV, at times the KJV, the NKJV, and even Luther’s translation (modernized and ancient versions).

And as predominantly a “listener” and not a “teacher”, I’ve also got to encourage people to ask why a particular venue requires the KJV. Some are most likely appeasing the KJVO or “near-KJVO” faction, others are simply using a translation that people are comfortable with, others probably have other reasons. But that said, I’ve rarely met a person below the age of 50 who really, really understands Elizabethan English. So I would suggest that even in churches where most congregants use it, there may be a very, very strong reason to use a modern translation like the NKJV, ESV, or NASB—simply that people think that they’re understanding, but in reality, they’re in a “rut” where God’s Word is not communicating with their heart.

Barry,

I always defer in these situations out of respect for the leadership in charge. The problem is with the clarity and accuracy of the text. When I am preaching an expositional message, I want to be careful with the Greek text and Hebrew text, the original reading, and the most accurate and clear interpretation of that text. Other translations greatly help in that regard. Frankly, the preaching at some Fundamental gatherings is so poor, so unprepared, so theologically and technically weak, it doesn’t matter what translation they are using. As long as I have freedom to cite other good, accurate, translation of the text while I’m preaching, I don’t mind having to use the KJV for my main text. If they do have a problem with that, then I won’t write or preach for them, because they are more concerned about appeasing the KJVO crowd than actually handling the text with precision, clarity, and accuracy.

respond to this question addressed to Mike:

[Don Johnson]

Mike, I suppose that some might fear offending a constituency, but love could be another motivation, no?

Sorting out the motivations of fear vs. love/consideration for others can be tough. In the local church context (my realm of experience), fear takes the form of, “Who and how many will leave the church if I implement this change?” Love/consideration sounds like, “I want to effectively impact one subset of people in the congregation or community but I don’t want to alienate another group.” In making the change to a current English translation in our church, we landed on the NKJV as the primary preaching text. I probably would have preferred another translation, such as NASB, but I knew we had a large number of people, especially older believers, for whom that would be difficult. I knew some would keep carrying their KJV, and would have a hard time following the preaching if I used a translation with significantly different phraseology. At the same time, we emphasized the value and “acceptability” at Calvary of other accurate current English translations. Looking back from the vantage point of 5 years later, I think it was a good choice for us. The compelling motivation in making the change was our belief that people should have the Scriptures in their spoken language. This should take priority over the motivation of fear, and even the motivation of consideration which takes the form of allowing church life, especially preaching and outreach, to be shaped around the preferences and comfort of people who are emotionally attached to a certain familiar translation. I believe the people who are attached to the translation with out-of-date vocabulary and phraseology can and should be taught and exhorted to demonstrate love and show consideration for the next generation, both inside the church and in the community, who need the Word of God in an understandable form.

In a parachurch organization such as the FBFI, the leadership/board members may be motivated by either one or both (fear and love). I would think there is a realistic fear, or at least apprehension, of losing constituency that takes the form of, “Who will drop their membership? Who will resign from the board? Who will not preach at our meetings anymore?” And I’m sure there’s love and consideration for the board members and Fellowship members who would be uncomfortable hearing a message from the NASB or ESV at a fellowship meeting. My perspective is that Fundamentalist organizations such as the FBFI, mission boards, camps, and colleges need to be proactive in using a current English translation in their public gatherings. The alternative, in my view, is to minister to a shrinking constituency. Or (no disrespect intended) at least an aging one.