Bible Version & Church Polity
- Thread starter larryjf
- Start date
- Status
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
Puritan Board Senior
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.
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 (in my opinion - 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.
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 (in my opinion - 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.
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".
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
Puritan Board Doctor
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.
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.
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
Puritan Board Senior
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.
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.
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)
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.
Excellent point, Rev Winzer.
Larry,
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.
Larry,
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.
larryjf
Puritan Board Senior
We were moving from the NIV, and the choice was between the NASB and the ESV. The decision was that it was the best all around Bible for church use, not necessarily that it was the best translation.
The thing is, when i approached the Session regarding me starting to believe the TR was a better Greek text and the KJV was a better translation, they asked me questions regarding if i would submit to the church's decision and use the ESV in my preaching, etc. and not cause division in the church regarding this issue.
BobVigneault
Bawberator
I preach in several different denominations and so I keep a list of which translation each church keeps in it's pew and I plan my references from that translation. If I really don't think a particular translation is carrying the meaning then I will refer to alternate meanings from the greek but I rarely mention greek from the pulpit.
Discussing translations is great among pastors and elders and on forums such as this. However, we must take caution in criticizing translations from the pulpit and here's why. Many of the listeners have already heard that "there are so many version's of the Bible that nobody can ever really know what it's supposed to say".
If we claim superiority of one translation over the other to a general audience we run the risk of strengthening this myth. I proclaim whatever translation I'm working from as The Word of God and expect reverence toward it. The average hearer hasn't a clue about textual criticism or the politics involved in editorial committees. In private I will certainly make translation recommendations.
In answer to the OP I would submit to the polity of the church for public reading and worship.
Discussing translations is great among pastors and elders and on forums such as this. However, we must take caution in criticizing translations from the pulpit and here's why. Many of the listeners have already heard that "there are so many version's of the Bible that nobody can ever really know what it's supposed to say".
If we claim superiority of one translation over the other to a general audience we run the risk of strengthening this myth. I proclaim whatever translation I'm working from as The Word of God and expect reverence toward it. The average hearer hasn't a clue about textual criticism or the politics involved in editorial committees. In private I will certainly make translation recommendations.
In answer to the OP I would submit to the polity of the church for public reading and worship.
Then it sounds like you already agreed, perhaps tacitly, to preach from the ESV.
larryjf
Puritan Board Senior
I did agree to preach from the ESV, but i did ask for the freedom to bring up better renderings or textual issues if they were pertinent to the sermon.
I guess i just wanted to know if i made the right decision. I am pretty sure that i did, but there is great wisdom in a multitude of counselors.
That's because, like it or lump it, I don't think I've ever heard of a group breaking up a church, or leaving in a huff, or denouncing the pastor because he would not use the NKJV, ESV or NASB. Stories of such by KJVO advocates (nuts like Riplinger, not sound pastoral men with an informed preference) are plethora.
I think this is an excellent point. In our age, we need greater knowledge of the Bible (even as a precursor to greater understanding) and greater trust for the Bible much more than we need laymen who are semi-informed about textual issues.
What do the 'regular' preachers do? Do they ever bring up alternate readings or variants?
JohnV
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Brother, I may have missed it: when or where did Mr. Kurschner respond to you?
Thanks,
Jerusalem Blade
Puritan Board Doctor
Chris,
I don't think he's responding directly to me, but possibly has me in mind in this:
http://aomin.org/index.php?itemid=2242
The former discussion, he probably lost interest in. That's fine with me; I'm working on a response to this, amid much busyness in my life. I suppose I was born for this.
Steve
I don't think he's responding directly to me, but possibly has me in mind in this:
http://aomin.org/index.php?itemid=2242
The former discussion, he probably lost interest in. That's fine with me; I'm working on a response to this, amid much busyness in my life. I suppose I was born for this.
Steve
larryjf
Puritan Board Senior
These are excellent replies. Can this be applied past the local congregation to the entire denomination? The OPC and the PCA have basically designated the ESV as their "default" Bible version.
From OPC Q&A...
Would it be beneficial to the polity of these denominations to officially declare the ESV to be the official version of the denomination?
If not, why the difference in polity between the congregational level and the denominational level?
From OPC Q&A...
Would it be beneficial to the polity of these denominations to officially declare the ESV to be the official version of the denomination?
If not, why the difference in polity between the congregational level and the denominational level?
- Status
Similar threads
