# No Bible Sunday



## VirginiaHuguenot (May 4, 2005)

In the interest of reminding Christians what life is like for those who lack Bibles, Wycliffe Bible Translators is sponsoring a "No Bible Sunday" in May 2005 wherein Christians and churches are urged to do without their Bibles for one Lord's Day (and even have ministers preach to their congregations in a foreign language) in order to make a point about the value of having a Bible. I find myself doing this:  as I think about it.

UK Churches to Observe Wycliffe "No Bible Sunday"
Posted: Wednesday, May 4 , 2005, 16:58 (UK)

UK Churches to Observe Wycliffe
(www.nobiblesunday.org)


Wycliffe Bible Translators, based in the UK is calling on churches across the world to participate in "No Bible Sunday". The initiative challenges Christians to apply the Holy Scripture in every aspect of their lives and to spread God's life-giving word to all people in the world while realising the preciousness of the Bible. In the UK, the official date will be 22nd May.

On the "No Bible Sunday" website, some downloadable free resources are offered for churches who want to organise a "No Bible Sunday" service to give them some ideas to emphasise the importance of the Bible.

All Bibles will be taken away from the congregations as they come in for service. The churches are advised to have the Bible reading in a foreign language so that the congregation can understand the difficulties of those who cannot read the Bible in their native language because the translation is not completed.

Many other activities are recommended, such as prohibiting any hymns with bible verses, replacing the sermon with inspiring stories about how the word of God has moved lives, and prayers to offer for all those who are without a Bible.

In Canada, "No Bible Sunday" is observed as part of the mission event called Celebration 2005 organised by the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada. In the US, there is no official date but there will be a number of promotions for the website throughout the year. Wycliffe Norway is translating resources for promoting the event in 2006, but a number of churches will start this year. Kenya, South Africa and Australia are expected to take part as well.

Last year, churches around the world marked "No Bible Sunday" on 16th May. No Bible Sunday is being sponsored by Wycliffe Bible Translators, the world's leading Bible translation organisation.

"We hope that No Bible Sunday will help the Christians in the UK appreciate and value the feast of resources God has provided us with from his word. Many people groups only have crumbs," explains Geoff Knott, Executive Director of Wycliffe UK. "We are doing this because we love the Bible too!"

"No Bible Sunday is to remind us in the church - no Bible, no life!" Mark Brown from Granshaw Presbyterian Church in Northern Ireland said.

Please visit the No Bible Sunday website for further details.

[Edited on 5-5-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]


----------



## SolaScriptura (May 4, 2005)

As I think of the plight of our brothers and sisters who have to live their lives without access to the written word of God while I sit here with over a dozen English Bibles on my shelf... I find myself  at how I take such a blessing for granted all too often.


----------



## Arch2k (May 4, 2005)

Yes, and let's reinact the crusades to help us appreciate life.


----------



## SolaScriptura (May 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> Yes, and let's reinact the crusades to help us appreciate life.



How does that in any way relate?

While I think it is not necessary to follow all the recommendations of Wycliffe, I do believe that in our self-absorbed materialistic culture many people would benefit - yes, benefit - from having their routine broken up a little bit.
On the other hand... that which Wycliffe recommends for purpose of educational effect is, unfortunately, the de facto norm at many "evangelical" churches for purpose of not wanting to offend "seekers" !!!


----------



## Arch2k (May 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by SolaScriptura_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> ...



My point is that the Wycliffe's idea is horrible! While I am all for increasing our thankfullness for the abundance of God's Word today, I believe that this method is not only ineffective, but sinful (it is surely sinful to neglect the Word of God, especially during the Lord's Day).

The comparison is drawn in that they would like us (for a short time) resort ourselves back to a time in which God's Word was not abundant or clear, just to appreciate it! This is not looked upon as a "good" time in history (comparitively speaking). In the same way, we could make other analogies that show the ridiculousness of this idea. The Crusades were a time of persecution, and not looked upon by Protestants as a "good" time in history. But, in order to appreciate life, I would not wish to see them reinacted.

We are called to fast in Scripture for many purposes, one of which (In my humble opinion) would be to increase thankfullness to God for his provision. Fasting from the Word of God is not included...


----------



## Authorised (May 4, 2005)

Silly ideas and even worse threads are an unholy alliance...


----------



## Bladestunner316 (May 5, 2005)

Cant we get a foreign language and no bible at the local penteocstal church?

blade


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (May 5, 2005)




----------



## SolaScriptura (May 5, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> The comparison is drawn in that they would like us (for a short time) resort ourselves back to a time in which God's Word was not abundant or clear, just to appreciate it! This is not looked upon as a "good" time in history (comparitively speaking). In the same way, we could make other analogies that show the ridiculousness of this idea. The Crusades were a time of persecution, and not looked upon by Protestants as a "good" time in history. But, in order to appreciate life, I would not wish to see them reinacted.



I think you misunderstand. They aren't wanting saying that it was a good thing that Bibles weren't available nor are they saying that it is a good thing that presently there are many who don't have access. They aren't wanting us to appreciate the "olden days" in which we had no access to the Bible. 
On the contrary, they're wanting us to appreciate what we have... the Bible... by showing how its absence makes what we normally take for granted impossible.
As the saying goes, "absence makes the heart grow fonder."


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (May 5, 2005)

It would be sin to do what Wycliffe wants. Taking away people's Bibles, reading to them in a foreign language (contra 1 Cor. 14), prohibiting the singing of psalms in worship -- these are not Biblical or responsible activities. God has ordained lawful worship to be centered on his Word and we may not tinker with his ordinances even if our motives seem good in our sight. Let us not do evil that good may result. 

We ought to work and pray for the spread of God's Word among the nations. The Trinitarian Bible Society and other organizations are active in this effort without the ridiculous call to abstain from our Bibles on one Lord's Day a year. Wycliffe too does good work, but this idea is contrary to the Bible which they purport to value so much. 

It is as if someone were to say, We don't appreciate our families enough. Let's require men to stay away from their wives and children for a day so that men will appreciate their families more. What foolishness! 

It is not materialistic to have Bibles. Those who have "too many" may feel free to send them to a Bible society for distribution without requiring others to give up their Bibles for a day. A godly routine of using our Bibles in worship is not something that we have Biblical warrant to interrupt. Let us hold on to our Bibles and not abstain from them for a Lord's Day. And let us do all that we can to encourage the spread of God's Word in lawful ways.

[Edited on 5-5-2005 by VirginiaHuguenot]


----------



## Arch2k (May 5, 2005)

Well said Andrew


----------



## bond-servant (May 6, 2005)

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> It would be sin to do what Wycliffe wants. Taking away people's Bibles, reading to them in a foreign language (contra 1 Cor. 14), prohibiting the singing of psalms in worship -- these are not Biblical or responsible activities. God has ordained lawful worship to be centered on his Word and we may not tinker with his ordinances even if our motives seem good in our sight. Let us not do evil that good may result.
> 
> We ought to work and pray for the spread of God's Word among the nations. The Trinitarian Bible Society and other organizations are active in this effort without the ridiculous call to abstain from our Bibles on one Lord's Day a year. Wycliffe too does good work, but this idea is contrary to the Bible which they purport to value so much.
> ...



I agree Andrew. It IS vital to increase awareness, but I don't agree with the means they are suggesting. I desperately wish that we would stop producing new English translations, and marry the talent involved in our translations with men trained to produce forign translations, so there would be very accurate and readable Bibles in places that have none.

We as laymen should be a part of the solution rather then despising the gift of God's Word that we have... even for a day.


----------



## fredtgreco (May 6, 2005)

At the risk of getting jumped on, I think this would be a good idea if the preaching was not in a foreign language. It might compel people to pay closer attention to the reading of the word (i.e. they could not "follow along in their Bible" )

It might also compel preachers to use more of the Biblical text in preaching. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with such a thing - so long as the Word of God is still present. There is a difference between a famine of the Word and a dearth of printed Bibles. Just ask Amos.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (May 6, 2005)

Fred, 

Please tell me you don't agree that this is in keeping with the regulative principle of worship:



> *All Bibles will be taken away from the congregations as they come in for service.* The churches are advised to have the *Bible reading in a foreign language* so that the congregation can understand the difficulties of those who cannot read the Bible in their native language because the translation is not completed.
> 
> Many other activities are recommended, such as *prohibiting any hymns with bible verses, replacing the sermon* with inspiring stories about how the word of God has moved lives, and prayers to offer for all those who are without a Bible.


----------



## fredtgreco (May 6, 2005)

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> Fred,
> 
> Please tell me you don't agree that this is in keeping with the regulative principle of worship:
> ...



No. And I am not proposing that the day be observed as they have suggested. But I do think it would be appropriate (and even helpful) to have an entire service with no Bibles, and maybe even have the preacher use a large pulpit Bible. Again - the focus should be on the availability/unavailability of the written Word of God contained in the Bible - not the in the availability of the Word itself. Of course the early church had no Bibles (for the average person) but they certainly had the Word.

So for example, my suggestion would make hymns _even more important to listen to_ because that would be a way of getting the Word without a printed Bible.

I hope that is clearer.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (May 6, 2005)

I think I understand what you are getting at. What Wycliffe proposes I believe is sinful, but the suggestion you have put forth with good intentions I think is merely unadvisable. Yes, people can worship God in their pews without a Bible in hand, but I truly think there are better ways of encouraging people to appreciate God's Word then by taking away their Bibles for a day in the worship service.


----------



## Arch2k (May 6, 2005)

I'm just gonna let Andrew do all my talkin'!


----------



## Myshkin (May 6, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> At the risk of getting jumped on, I think this would be a good idea if the preaching was not in a foreign language. It might compel people to pay closer attention to the reading of the word (i.e. they could not "follow along in their Bible" )



I agree with Mr. Greco here. About 3-4 months ago, I quit reading along as the sermon text was read, and it has made a difference. I find it is much easier to criticize the pastor, get distracted, "sit in judgment of the Word", think about systematic theology, etc. when I read along. It has been quite a blessing to actually sit back and listen; not just hear but _listen_. As I have done so, I have been less distracted, less critical if even at all, and find myself being judged by the Word rather than vice versa. I have found that reading along and studying seem to be inseparable, so by not reading along I "feel" as if God is pronouncing His study of me and I can't escape it. In an ironic way, reading along in the scriptures was a stumbling block for me to actually being fed, changed, and taught by the scriptures. I now do my Berean "reading along" and examining after church when I get home. 

I may get jumped on here also, but I think this is one area where we can learn from the charismatic type groups who want the Holy Spirit to just "flow" over them in their music without being critical of what they are actually singing. Perhaps we should put our reformed tendency for studiousness to the side during sermons and let the "water" (Holy Spirit) "flow" over us instead of examining it as it comes to us. As I examined myself during this change, I found a corner of my heart so to speak that showed me deep down my reading along was really a mistrust of my Pastor by focusing on him and his faithfulness to the text. By really listening now, my focus is off him and his accuracy, and turned to God instead. I examine the scriptures afterward to confirm what has been preached, not to find holes in the man's sermon anymore. I also found in my heart that this refusal of mine to "just listen" was a reflection of how we treat others in conversation. So few of us are really listeners; all we want to do is respond and correct and fix what we're hearing, but by doing so miss what has actually been said. Two things in the bible as I meditated on this really stuck out to me. 
1.) The emphasis on "listening". The bible is also called the Vox Dei, or "voice of God". I realized I had forgotten this and kept my focus solely on an equally true truth that it is the _written_word of God. I have reserved focus on the scriptures as the "voice" of God for sermons, and focus on the scriptures as the "word" of God for study outside of sermons (a disctinction, not a separation).

2.) James 1:19- "...let every person be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger..." In pondering this verse I realized two things: 1. that hastiness in listening is commanded, and hastiness in speaking is not.
and 2. when I am not quick to hear, I automatically become quick to speak. When I am reading along during sermons, my reading gives me more opportunity to want to speak (speak a correction usually). By not reading along, I have found it easier to just listen and not interrupt God when He is talking to us through his undershepherds.

But as for doing the service in foreign languages as Wycliffe is calling us to do, I don't think we need to do this to appreciate something, there are better ways to do so. (perhaps just thinking about it for more than 10 minutes may be a good start) And secondly, this violates the WCf, chapter 1. section 8, footnotes 19-22.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (May 6, 2005)

There are those who benefit during a sermon from taking notes and there are those who find note-taking distracting. There are those who may have their hands full with little children and can't even hold a Bible or those who wish to give their full attention to _hearing_ the Word rather than reading along. And there are those who can't read and therefore require, for example, the _lining_ of psalms to be sung. In the midst of all these various approaches to the written word of God in the service, I am fine with the use of personal judgment in regards to these various situations. This is different from a church making the decision for the people to take away their Bibles. 

I do believe however that one of the primary keys to Reformation was putting the Word of God in the hands of people, not taking it out of their hands.


----------



## JohnV (May 6, 2005)

I was chairman of the Evangelism Committee of my former church some time ago. I had to introduce a speaker for a Bible Society who was promoting a fundraising for Bibles for China. I called him up and got some info beforehand. He said that there was one Bible for every hundred people, or so (I can't remember the exact ratio. ) 

So I did it this way, to get the point across: I counted all the Bibles and New Testaments (Gideon NT's that they give out in grade 5) that we had in the house. I counted thirty five, just in my house alone; and later I found I had missed a few. It made quite an impression as I introduced the speaker, as he referred more than once to our affluence when it comes to Bibles compared to what was available to the Chinese churches.

So doing the opposite has an effect as well: instead of a Sunday without the Bible, just having a Bible count in our own homes can leave the same impression. And that's just Bibles. What about all the copies of the Confessions, the catechisms that we have collected all these years, both our own and our children's, etc. We've thrown away more than some dream of having. 

I just can't imagine a church that has Bibles in every pew taking them out even for a minute, much less one service, or even one day. Certainly I would encourage the appreciation of how hard it is for Christians who yearn for even a percentage of what we have, but not at the expense of deliberately taking for granted what we have received by grace. And that is what this gesture seems to be.


----------



## fredtgreco (May 7, 2005)

Moving to Worship


----------



## SolaScriptura (May 7, 2005)

Just as a matter of integrity...
I didn't read the piece very thoroughly... I just skimmed it.
I would say that the parts about speaking in a different language, prohibiting the singing of songs with scriptural references and abandoning a sermon are nonsensical. It is not only biblically and theologically wrong to do so, but practically it is nuts: they want to us to do these things to give us a taste of what it is like to be in a "Bible-free"/persecuted church environment. However, even in those environments they speak the language of the people and they have some knowledge of scripture (or how else would they even be Christians!) from which to draw a sermon or songs.

However, I do think that simply taking Bibles away for a Sunday and holding the service in such a way as to "mimic" a service in an environment where the church is persecuted or where a written Bible just isn't available would be a potentially helpful exercise on a number of levels.

[Edited on 5-7-2005 by SolaScriptura]


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (May 7, 2005)

Should regenerate people need the bending of an arm to get them to appreciate God's Holy Scriptures?


----------



## SolaScriptura (May 7, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> Should regenerate people need the bending of an arm to get them to appreciate God's Holy Scriptures?



_Should_ they?
No.
But even Christians sin by not desiring God or His Word.

Unfortunately there is sometimes a big difference between what is and what ought to be.

By the way - that's a cool avatar! It would make a great t-shirt! 



[Edited on 5-7-2005 by SolaScriptura]


----------



## alwaysreforming (May 7, 2005)

Hmmmm... I guess I'm just not getting it. I don't think not having Bibles for a day would be ANY problem at all in most churches. At most of the churches I've been to the preacher hardly compasses more than a line or two at a time. Why carry a large Bible to church just to look up one or two verses (that are inevitably in a different version), when the same is ALWAYS printed in the "handout" given at the door? And if they're not in the bulletin, they'll surely be on the big screen above the "stage."

I haven't found one's Bible to be primarily "for church" as much as "for home". And even if you removed the Bibles from homes, how much interruption do you think that would cause in the families' weekly routines? About nill. (Thank God for the many exceptions!)

In an affluent, unpersecuted society like ours, I don't think the lack of Bible can be truly appreciated without the years of cooresponding persecution and hunger for Truth that has happened in these overseas lands. If we did it even better than the main example above, and instead of having no Bible, we had a guy on a bicycle from a neighboring church ride in and deliver the Bible for our use that day, or perhaps even a page or couple of pages, then that would probably be closer to reality. Even in that situation, if the guy on the bike failed to deliver, I think most congregations would be unfazed. Who sits on the edge of their seats anymore hungering and thirsting for God's Word? 

And as far as removing any Biblical references from hymns, this idea sounds ridiculous. Surely even that is not done in persecuted lands. And besides, I'm not sure if  "I want to see you, I want to touch you, I want to see your face"  is even IN the Bible (certainly not in the context its sung today).

<rant over>

not to sound too self-righteous, but I guess I've just been exposed to too much contemporary evangelicalism in the last few years!


----------

