FBFI and the KJV

[TylerR]

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.

In my local ministry, I do almost all the things you say. I happen to use the NASB as my pulpit Bible, we have a variety of others used by various members of our congregation, including the KJV. But when you are ministering on a wider basis, as the FBFI does, we need to be sensitive to the worries and concerns of good friends who are not sinning when they prefer the KJV, use it in ministry, and so on. I am not ready to just cut them all off as in error. That’s why I say it isn’t quite as simple as it looks.

[Don Johnson]

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.

Why all the dithering (or “tap dancing” per Tyler)? Why is so much “time” (which appears to be of an indefinite or indeterminate length) needed to counter their confusion?

Kevin Schaal is quoted by Mark Ward as saying in reference to KJVOism: “We have a lot of fundamentalism that, whether ignorantly or deliberately, has stepped outside of the realm of [bibliological] orthodoxy.” What other excursions from orthodoxy (whether ignorantly or deliberately) would be coddled or compromised with for so long (decades!) within Fundamentalism? If “people in the pew” were confused about Modalism or Arianism, I would expect the response from the pulpit to be swift and decisive (and rightly so)!

It seems to some observers that the tap shoes are exchanged for work boots when it comes to “convergents”.

At my last pastorate, a couple wanted to speak about joining the church. The wife said she believed the KJV was the only English bible translation that was appropriate. She asked me what I thought. I said this, almost verbatim:

I think King James Onlyism is a dangerous idea, and unbiblical one. I use the KJV at this church, but you’ll never hear any form of KJVO-ism taught or encouraged. My authority is the Greek text, not an English translation. If that’s a deal-breaker for you, I understand, and I’ll help direct you to church that agrees with your understanding of English bible translations.

She said she appreciated my honesty, that most pastors tap-dance and are vague when she asked the question, and they joined the church. What can pastors do?

• Don’t talk about textual criticism unless you’ve had a few years of NT Greek and actually use it enough to understand the issues
• Give people Ward’s book, and James White’s, too
• When candidating, be honest with the pulpit committee about where you stand. Don’t straddle the fence; there’s nothing to be gained (and much to be lost) by being less than candid when you’re thinking of taking a pastorate
• Chat with Bro. Overmiller (message him on SI) about how he managed to lead his church away from the KJV to the NKJV, and copy his approach as you’re able
• Be blunt and honest. Would you tap-dance about the Trinity? About the incarnation? About charismatic madness? Why tap-dance about KJVOism? The truth hurts sometimes.

What can the FBFI do? Who on earth knows. But, there’s the rub. It’s a parachurch organization that functions as a pseudo-denomination.

[TylerR].

What can the FBFI do? Who on earth knows. But, there’s the rub. It’s a parachurch organization that functions as a pseudo-denomination.

That is simply not true, Tyler. You statement shows you don’t understand the FBFI very well at all.

I meant no disrespect. Even Ward referred to the FBFI in that fashion:

A few prefatory comments: this is inside baseball that readers who do not share my background will not understand; the FBFI is my “denomination.” It is one of the institutions that is trying to preserve the heritage I was handed. And I’ve had legitimate concerns about it for a long time—along with genuine appreciation for what it has given me.

I genuinely don’t know what the FBFI will do with this issue. I don’t think it can make the kind of clean break Ward recommends without destroying its base. I think it will continue to tap-dance forever. I’m not sure it can do much else. The fact that Schaal put out this article shows this is an issue for its constituency. That’s why I prefer the GARBC; a real association! Just kidding … kind of ….

Why tap-dance about KJVOism? The truth hurts sometimes.

Yup. At the end of the day KJV Inspiration / Preservation is either a damnable heresy or it’s not. If someone is acting like it’s not, then that’s fine - but I’m not going that way, and I’ll break off any ties with anyone who insists that it’s not. I’ve seen enough of the KJVO teaching to have no tolerance for it.

Dr. Moritz is right - we are supposed to have titanium backbones on doctrinal matters. So why is everyone selling out on this? Because people actually believe it?

This is not about translation preference. This is about translation onlyism…whether someone wants to argue that the KJV is divinely preserved for today or divinely inspired in history is practically irrelevant. It’s the landing place that’s what matters.

“Clean Break” is the best way to describe what needs to happen if fundamentalists want to root out KJVOnlyism. My last church was TRonly. The pastor was very careful to distinguish his view from KJVOnlyism which he regularly identified as heresy. He would tell KJVOnly people that they would be happier somewhere else. But you know what? Even with all that vigor against KJVOnlyism the church still had “associations” with people holding that view. I finally realized that no matter how much you want to nuance your particular brand of KJVOnlism, you are still going to be under the basic umbrella. When I left there I made the decision that I would never step foot in a church that mentions the KJV in their doctrinal position. I am now a dispensationalist attending a Reformed Baptist Church and the pastor just started a series on Revelation. That’s going to be tough but every fundamentalist church in my county in KJVOnly and I refuse to give that a hearing again. I see the concern that Don is talking about. I have friends who are in their 80s and are KJV preferred but are attending KJVOnly churches. They want me to go to church with them and it’s difficult to explain why I won’t.

How is the leadership chosen in the FBFI? I used to be a member, but I never received a ballot. That’s the main reason I decided to discontinue paying my dues. If there is no direct input by the membership when it comes to the leadership, then is it really a fellowship (especially a Baptist fellowship)?

Direct involvement in choosing the leadership on the part of the membership would, of necessity, build healthy relationships within the FBFI. With their ear to the ground, I don’t think the FBFI would have invited a man like Mark Ward to address its annual meeting. Ward’s sarcastic remark about good men who disagree with him on the KJV issue (Clarence Sexton and Paul Chappell) was uncalled for — and offensive to many dues-paying members of the FBFI. Ward’s open association with The Gospel Coalition is also a cause for concern for those of us who rejoiced at the “Convergence” issue of Frontline Magazine.

Bro. Cauthorne’s remarks represent the divide that, again, perfectly illustrates that we’re talking about two very different philosophies of Christian life and ministry. It’s why I’m happy in the GARBC.

[Jim]

• It’s a magazine | membership required / because one is subscribing to a magazine!
• A directory | membership required
• A website | membership not required
• Rotating meetings | membership not required

The problem is that there is a spectrum of belief on the KJV side, some of it is heretical, some is simply confused. All very well to talk slash and burn here on SI, but you have to consider the “collateral damage” here. I think some of you are quite arrogant in your pontificating about what to do. I think our friends who are confused or mistaken deserve patience and respect.

[Don Johnson]

The problem is that there is a spectrum of belief on the KJV side, some of it is heretical, some is simply confused. All very well to talk slash and burn here on SI, but you have to consider the “collateral damage” here. I think some of you are quite arrogant in your pontificating about what to do. I think our friends who are confused or mistaken deserve patience and respect.

I do think this mentality right here shows the lack of belief within the FBFI that KJVO is really a dangerous position. The call for patience and respect is generally saved for those who are ultra-conservative in all other areas (dress, music, etc). In my experience, the KJVO position is incredibly dangerous and far reaching. I will never forget the conversation I had with a missionary who wanted to present his ministry in the church I pastor. I read in his material that he was KJVO, so I asked what translation he would be using in his non-English speaking mission field. After he stumbled around for a bit with my questions, he came to the conclusion that he would out of necessity teach the nationals to speak and read English so they could use the one true Bible. That is the end for the KJVO crowd, unless they don’t believe God loves the non-English speaking people enough to preserve a translation for them. I will also never forget a FBF meeting in Wisconsin I attended in 1993. A case was made in a well done presentation by a special speaker (I don’t remember who) about the folly of the KJVO position. At the end of the presentation, Dr. Rod Bell, then the leader of the FBF stood up and said, “Well, I don’t care what he just said, I still love and will only use my King James Bible.” That statement was met with groans from some and applause and cheering from most. I believe that sums up the struggle within the FBFI both then and now.

By the way, that was the last FBFI meeting I attended.

[Don Johnson]

The problem is that there is a spectrum of belief on the KJV side, some of it is heretical, some is simply confused. All very well to talk slash and burn here on SI, but you have to consider the “collateral damage” here. I think some of you are quite arrogant in your pontificating about what to do. I think our friends who are confused or mistaken deserve patience and respect.

I think you are correct that it is a hard task to move forward on this issue and has the potential to really cause damage in a church. Having grown up in a KJV preferred church it was apparent that although the the pastor was not KJV only, there was a number of vocal members who were. For them the KJV issue is on the level of inerrancy- there will be no amount of patience or respect that will help them see things differently, and they view anyone who disagrees with KJV onlyism as compromising and in error. To use a different version for preaching would be to split the church. Since those who are not KJV only can give up using other versions to keep the peace, they are the ones who always end up needing to acquiesce. I don’t think there is a resolution that will work for the churches in this situation. This leaves the pastor with the decision of whether this is a battle he wants to fight, and in many cases the answer is no.