“The first responsibility of a leader is to define reality. By making it clear what is really happening in your church with your leaders is the first step to making an impact in your community. I’ve seen many church leaders try to convince themselves and their people that they are growing which is dangerous because then you won’t be motivated to change or do what is needed to reach the people God is calling you towards. Let’s be honest…do you sense that you’re trying to convince yourself you’re growing when you really aren’t?”
Let’s Make It Simple: The Christmas Angels & Bible Translations
The key question that must be resolved concerning translations is what “Greek Text” or manuscripts do you rely upon for the translation (into the English language, in our situation).
#1 – Do you rely on the TR (Textus Receptus / the Majority Text)
or
#2 – Do you rely on the CT (Critical Text / the Sinaiticus – Vaticanus) manuscripts?
The Critical Text is called the “Sinaiticus – Vaticanus” because the name indicates locations. One was found in the Sinai (in 1844), and the other was discovered in the library of the Vatican.
In 1881, two prominent scholars, Westcott and Hort, declared and dismissed the Textus Receptus as inferior and created a new Greek text based on the Critical Text.
If you do not rely on the Textus Receptus, then you must explain how God allowed this set of Greek manuscripts to be the basis of all New Testament translations for almost two thousand years (until 1881 and after).
So until 1881, God left the Greek manuscripts that Westcott and Hort decided were superior, hidden in the Sinai and tucked away in the Vatican?
For 1881 years, Bible scholars, church fathers, pastors, and God’s people relied upon the TR, which was an inferior set of manuscripts?
Joe Shakour provides another prime example of what happens when you abandon the TR / Majority Text and use a translation that is dependent on the Critical Text.
The Path To Pastoral Corruption
The ministry continues to be littered with examples of pastoral failure — moral, criminal, ethical, and personal. What are the dynamics that are playing out that are producing this?
When people say that so-in-so is “living in a bubble,” or they are working in an “echo chamber,” They are referring to an isolation that occurs between the average and ordinary person in their world and those in positions of leadership. They are referring to an isolation that repeatedly occurs when leaders and pastors no longer live with an understanding of where the people are. They are living their lives in and among those who occupy the same “offices” and “offices” they occupy.
There is a self-governance and individualism that walks alongside leaders who believe that they are leaders because they are at least slightly, if not significantly, superior to those they are leading. And while they may have some skill sets that have propelled them into leadership, they begin to believe their own press clippings.
In the ministry, these press clippings come from those who sit in the pews. God’s people compliment and share their appreciation of the pastoral staff. No matter how poor a sermon is, there will always be someone who offers words of appreciation to the pastor or other members.
There is an environment that surrounds a ministry and the local church. God’s people attend the services and honor their leaders because they want to support their pastoral leaders. No one wants to be critical. All want to believe the best of their pastoral staff. A great deal of grace and kindness is extended when mistakes are made. Forgiveness is quickly and easily extended to church leaders. It is all part of the biblical environment that we all believe in and seek to emulate.
However, leaders are also complicit in promoting that environment. That world of self-governance allows little to no room for any criticism — legitimate or illegitimate. Criticism is knocked down by such biblical concepts as “back-biting,” “gossip,” “disrupting the unity of the church,” etc. Church by-laws and constitutions are more than a church’s statement of faith and some general structure on its operation. The church constitution becomes a protective handbook. and self-serving changes are made by the leaders.
The church constitution can be a means of protecting the pastoral staff from criticism as well as dismissal. Most pastors never face dismissal. As is generally known, pastors spend about 3-5 years at a local church before THEY decide to leave. While a pastor may be reading the tea leaves and decide it is time to move on to another ministry, they are rarely fired outside of moral, criminal, or ethical issues. You can throw in a few cases where pastors decide to move on because of a terrible decision or event that will follow them for years to come.
Now, add to all this the genuine reality that the church by-laws and constitution may delegate more power and self-governance to the Sr./Lead Pastor. He may be given the authority to recommend the removal of staff or pastors. Even though the church voted to hire, the Lead Pastor can, for all practical purposes, be dismissed. If that staff is not dismissed, he may suggest to the staff member or pastor that it is time for them to leave.
Some Lead Pastors even have the sole power to dismiss another member of the pastoral staff without congregational or board approval! Some Lead Pastors will even have the church constitution rewritten to give them this power and more! That is not a hypothetical but a reality that could easily be demonstrated if needed.
All of this feeds into the self-governance or autonomy that leaders and/or pastors experience, and that self-governance becomes the means of their ineffectiveness or, worse, their downfall. They do not have anyone who can talk to them.
Those on the payroll have an interest in currying the leader’s favor. That favor means opportunity, promotions, salary increases, as well as job satisfaction. You compliment the Sr./Lead pastor, and he will support your employment and standing. Which feeds into the danger even more!
The members are at work all week, and they have little idea of what takes place in ministry. They believe that the Lead Pastor is taking care of everything! In fact, they are counting on him to hold the staff accountable. Those in the “pew” also believe that the staff’s support of the leader is born out of agreement or approval. Those closest are satisfied and supportive, and therefore, all must be well. The dynamic of self-governance is playing out.
√ When you as a leader do not have people in and around you who can honestly and candidly talk to you.
√ When you do not encourage those around you to speak up.
√ When you do not have people who have no vested interest and/or drive to curry your favor.
√ When you do not give people who don’t work for you a place at the table.
. . . . ineffectiveness and/or worse damage will ultimately result.
While there are other mitigating factors that can be in play (and there are), self-governance is a killer. Anyone who has taken the time to read the accounts of so many Lead Pastors and ministries that bear out this assessment knows how truly dangerous and damaging self-governance / autonomy is.
Another by-product of “autonomy” is unchecked ineffectiveness. One might think that “ineffectiveness” is far less a concern compared to ethical/moral failure. “Ineffectiveness” when leading a local church or ministry is only less of a concern because it leaves the leader’s reputation untouched. While men like RaviZ, the SBC, Dave Ramsey, James MacDonald, Matt Chandler, et al. have been severely damaged personally, their effectiveness was diminished long before it all came apart. Others around them lack the courage to graciously speak up about other smaller practical concerns. Those smaller concerns were not moral or ethical, but revolved around the practical. Things said or left unsaid. Things done and undone. They all ate away at the effectiveness of the ministry as a whole. Visit were not made. Comments from the pulpit were unchecked. Programs were less effective than they could have or should have been because of no one wanted to say anything to damage their relationships.
When leaders and pastors have no one who can speak truth into their lives, the ministry or church loses its effectiveness. When staff members, fellow pastors, church officials, or members are compromised by their need for employment or their desire to find favor, and they say little to nothing because of those and other factors, then what could have made a difference, and even a significant difference, is lost.
The answer to “self-governance” is accountability. While that word is in the mouth of most “autonomous” leaders, it is knowingly compromised.”Accountability” is for others. We are slightly or significantly superior to others.
There are ministry leaders and pastors who are not fit to lead because they cannot even lead themselves. They make self-serving decisions and know that they will not be checked on because those who work in the “King’s Court” will support them, or they will find themselves on the way out of employment or a church office.
They do not have people who will tell them what they need to hear but what they want to hear! The voices that need to be heard are ignored, muffled, or dismissed. That damages and kills ministries, if not ultimately the leader himself!
Oh, I know that right now, in many, or even most cases, there is no need to be concerned. Nevertheless, not one of the above examples (along with many others) thought they were in danger of making a terrible decision, as others around them remained silent (and complicit). But the “Hemingway law of motion” is clearly at work, given enough time, with far too many church leaders . . . .
“How did you go bankrupt?”
“Two ways. Gradually, then suddenly.” 1
♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦
- Hemingway makes the point that things happen slowly, and then the collapse takes place suddenly. That “Hemingway Law Of Motion”may also explain what happens with some ministries and local churches.
After a series of actions and decisions, over a long period of time, suddenly an action or decision is made that precipitates a sudden collapse that “no one” saw coming. The avalanche was building over the months and days of winter, and finally, a snowflake landed on the accumulation, and the vast movement of snow was triggered.
That might describe what takes place in ministries and local churches. It is not this-or-that event or decision, but the building of events and decisions that finally result in a sudden avalanche or collapse.
What About Andy Stanley’s Arguments
While I am only one voice among many, and a very small voice at that, I would like to provide some analysis that I have yet to see provided by the many larger voices that have critiqued Andy Stanely’s recent message.
Let me begin with some positive comments that may be lost in the noise.
#1 – There is a need for programs that help parents through the minefield that surrounds families with children who are sexually confused, homosexual, bisexual, etc. Apparently, Andy Stanley recognized that need long before many others, maybe even up to this point in time. He has been on a long road to provide that, and that is not only worth noting but commending.
The church is too often late to address such needs. Stanley’s parents’ conference may be just the catalyst needed to provide such programs in local churches. “Knowing that you are not alone” in dealing with this as a family and as parents is indeed a needed breath of fresh air! Let’s pray to that end!
Stanley is so very accurate when he states that if you as a parent are facing such an issue in your family, you will be the first one to find help as Christian parents — helping parents understand what is going on in the minds of gay kids.
#2 – Andy Stanley has always been driven by an evangelistic zeal to reach people with the Gospel. This is merely one more example. What has made Stanley’s ministry different is exactly as he states when commenting on Al Mohler’s response. Stanely and Mohler are in two different camps when it comes to reaching out with the Gospel. Not only is Stanley methodologically different, but seemingly passionately divergent from many local church pastors.
♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦
The most repeated criticisms are about the use of gay speakers (gay “Christian” speakers) and the metaphor of “circles and lines.”
√ Having gay “Christian” speakers is a real concern. To listen to gay individuals who claim to be Christians has strong influential implications, especially for those who are personally driven to want that to be true.
√ Stanley also argues that he draws circles and others draw lines. Stanley employs the “false dichotomy/dilemma” argument when he argues that he draws circles, not lines. as if it must be one or the other. As most point out, both circles and lines are needed, and Jesus drew both — “Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more.”
♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦
Now for some assessments that seem to be missing in many critiques.
#1 – “Same-sex Attracted”: There is a subtle argument being made by the adoption and use of these words. Such terminology slices between action and desire. Apparently, “action” and “attraction” are defined as “sinful” versus “sinless” (or, at best, far far less serious).
In fact, that very argument is made when Stanley repeatedly makes it clear that 85% of those who are same-sex attracted have not acted on their attraction. . . . Most “rarely, rarely” engage in sexual behavior.
The use or the adoption of such terminology may be a subtle way of redefining the sin of homosexuality. I realize that attraction is not action. I also realize that hatred is not murder and that viewing pornography is not adultery.
I also realize that actions are more sinful than feelings. Hating someone is far different than actually murdering someone, and the social, psychological, and legal implications are far different. There are degrees of sinfulness and its impact on lives.
I also realize that there is a clear, known path that exists between any of these bifurcations.
While there may be many who have felt the same-sex attraction (or illegitimate opposite-sex attraction), such sinful attractions, left unaddressed, becomes a path that leads to a terrible place — Proverbs 4 and 5 . . . .
Take firm hold of instruction, do not let go;
Keep her, for she is your life.
Do not enter the path of the wicked,
And do not walk in the way of evil.
Avoid it, do not travel on it;
Turn away from it and pass on.
Who would talk about “opposite-sex attraction like “same-sex attraction?” As long as we don’t act on “lust,” we need not address it as biblically sinful and destructive to one’s life, marriage, and family.
#2 – “God Did Not Answer”: One of Stanley’s recurring comments revolves around the repeated prayers of those who were “same-sex attracted.
“They don’t embrace it. They resist it. . . . Something is deeply wrong, even though I haven’t done anything wrong. . . . They find themselves in a battle, not against a behavior, but against a defining attraction that they did not choose, but somehow has chosen them, And they pray, and they pray, and they pray.”
It was “not something they chose . . . .somehow it has chosen them, and they pray. Take it away. They beg God to take it away. . . . . they asked God to change them, and God did not answer their prayer.”. . . .They are literally afraid that they are going to Hell. . . . not because of anything they have done but because of who they are
Let me mention that such an argument gives a sense of relief and even an excuse. Rather than fighting the battle and/or accepting personal accountability, maybe I need to accept what is happening.
Imagine making the same argument about marital failure, divorce, recreational drugs, sexual promiscuity, children-sex-attraction, unseemly grief of the loss of a loved one, unremitting anxiety, etc. — “It was not something they chose . . . .somehow it has chosen them, and they pray. Take it away. They beg God to take it away. . . . . they asked God to change them, and God did not answer their prayer.”
Stanley’s argument also clearly implies that God is responsible. God did not answer their prayers, and their prayers were good, right, just, appropriate, and sincere! Why didn’t God deliver them from such feelings and a dire personal impasse?
How about those seeking and praying for help in their marriages, finances, fears of loneliness, singleness, and childlessness? What would we say to those who are facing unrelenting disease, life-threatening sickness, a battle with alcohol/drugs, the loss of a husband, a mother, a father, a child(ren), etc.? What should be the response in these situations? What would we say to these individuals when their prayers are not answered?
#3 — “Our Decision Is The Response” : Andy Stanley states that once two people decide to enter into a same-sex relationship and/or to marry, that is “their decision. Our decision, as a group of local churches, is how are we going to respond to their decisions.”
Again, this is the “false dichotomy/dilemma” argument. It is not either/or or “one over the other.” Pastors, parents, and Christians have a responsibility for both challenging others to make responsible decisions and ALSO to respond as Christ when they do not make good decisions!
We are our brother’s keepers! We are to speak the truth and also love when the truth is ignored. The words of Jesus to the woman taken in adultery are, “Go and sin no more.” Sounds like he is speaking to her decision-making!
#4 — Story Arguments: The power of stories and letters is compelling! Andy knows well that a story can support any biblical or non-biblical position. He multiples personal accounts, letters, stories of missionaries, and a variety of situations — I.e., A well-known author who backed out and said, “I just can’t drag my family through this.”
Bible-momma: Another is the story of a mother who is pelting her same-sexed-attracted child with biblical passages. It is a straw-man argument. It is a straw-man story because few would agree that such a mom’s approach is the way to deal with the issue. Be assured that Andy Stanley knows the power of anecdotal argument.
In another example, Stanley refers to a pastor in Virginia, who in the sermon stopped and said, “I hate to say this . . . ” Stanley goes on to say, “Now whenever a pastor says I hate to say this, they can’t wait to say this.” That is not true, and worse! The story and implicit argument is ad hominem — attack the person.
The story of an attempted suicide is tragic but does not justify taking a position that is not supported in the Scriptures. As soon as you inject a child’s suicide into the equation, we all, as parents, are so moved that we may want to relent on what we know the Scriptures teach! Andy understands that!
#5 – It Wasn’t For You: Andy Stanley states that the conference was . . .
“to equip parents to connect and to reconnect with their kids and to stay connected, so that they would have influence could keep their kids connected to their faith and keep their kids connected to Jesus. . . . .
Justin and Brian were invited — two married gay men . . . .Their stories and their journeys of growing up in church and maintaining their faith in Christ and their commitment to follow Christ all through their high school, and college and singles, and all the time they were married. . . . their story is so powerful for parents, especially of gay kids . . . . need to hear.
They (Brian & Justin) like you, like me, like compassionate Christians . . . . . These guys are bridge builders. . . They know that I don’t line up with everything with them theologically or the way they interpret certain passages of Scripture. But hey . . . The conference wasn’t for me. The conference wasn’t for most of you. I guarantee you that the conference wasn’t for any of the critics . . . .because the moment or the day that they discover that one of their children or that one of their grandchildren claim to be gay or transgender or questioning, they are going to scramble for people that who can help them get inside the hearts and minds of their children, That’s what good parents do. [1]”
√ First, the fact that the conference is for parents who have gay children does not mean that what is said to these parents may or may not be biblical, accurate, or true.
√ Second, the unmistakable implication (if not actually stated) of such statements is that you can be a Christian and maintain a gay lifestyle. Brian & Justin were and are Christians, and they are married. If they are powerful speakers, as Andy Stanley assures his audience, then they are even more hazardous to the spiritual, emotional, psychological, and sexual health of the audience!
♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦
While I am critical of Andy Stanley’s sermon, let me close by saying that what Andy Stanley has chosen to tackle is extremely difficult in very practical terms. There are some very difficult questions that are even more difficult to address without being misunderstood, no less charged with error and even malice, as has Andy Stanley.
As Andy Stanley stated, when a parent faces this issue in a very personal way, they are looking for answers from their church and their pastor. Being a pastor and holding to the Scriptures is at one of the highest tension points when dealing with a family facing issues of same-sex-attracted and/or homosexual children! I can tell stories that would break your heart and stress your mind for biblical answers. There needs to be a lot of Christian grace extended when ministry leaders like Andy Stanley seek to address such issues. Being less judgemental and kinder would not be a bad biblical recipe in such situations.
♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦
1 . The “No True Scotsman Argument”: The stories and appeals to parents who are struggling are found throughout. If you are a good parent, and good parents want to get into the hearts and minds of their children . . . . you would be at this conference and not a critic of it because that is what good parents do.
i.e. — They (parents) are parked in their car. They had to decide if they would join 150 other parents. Pull up in the parking lot, behind the building, and they sit, and they have to talk themselves into going in . . . .”What am I saying about myself as a parent? What am I saying about my children?
2. Other analyses worth making?
√ Separating his church from himself: Andy repeatedly implies that it is his church, not him, that has taken this position and is promoting this position through a conference.
I have worked with “the greatest staff in the world” / “I’m so proud of our church.” / “So proud of what you do.” / I’m so proud of our church, our volunteers, this incredible system engineers all those years ago that relationally pivoted . . . what a win for a church.”
“This is not new. This is who we are and always been and why I am so proud of you. . . . We are restoring relationships and saving lives.”
Let’s be clear; it was not the “church.” Andy’s church is not a congregational organized ministry. Andy Stanley has and continues to establish the direction of the Northpoint ministry.
√ Humor As Answers: Andy Stanley is an effective and powerful communicator! That is undeniable, and that is what makes his words worthy of analysis and criticism.
Hold your boos and your applause (not booze).
Glad you are here to hear my response. Come next week, and there will be even more room.
I’m glad Heaven is a big place.
You may be saying, “I read those articles and/or critiques, and I’m sure it must be true.”
√ His “use” of Scripture: As will those on both sides of the issue, some of Andy Stanley’s uses of Scripture are questionable
His reference to Nehemiah (We are not coming down to talk to you) — Andy stated he typically doesn’t respond to criticism . . . . but because of how widely it (the Mohler article) was circulated, he is going to respond.
While there may be times when an enemy is seeking to stop the work of the Lord, and it may even be unwise to engage, the use of Nehemiah’s words does not justify refusing to address legitimate questions by brothers in Christ. Any has used too often refused to address real biblical issues!
Jesus drew circles; He drew circles so large and included so many people that included people like me and people like you . . . circles and that make the religious leaders nervous.
This has been previously addressed, but the calling up of the nervousness of the religious leaders adds a new unfair wrinkle to Stanley’s point, which is a comparison of his critics to the Pharisees.
For all of you who are weary and burdened, may you find rest for your soul . . . .That’s the invitation of me. That’s the invitation of the church.
Wowwww — What a use of Scripture! To make the claim that you are providing a place of biblical rest commensurate with the offer of Jesus is rather bold.
√ Separating Theology and Practice: “This isn’t a theology conference.” — as if you can separate theology from practice!
√ Statistics: I question some of the so-called statistical numbers cited. Not that there might be an article posted somewhere that suggests such a number or percentage, but because of the legitimacy of that article and statistic.
√ Deflection: “What do we believe — What do we teach?” — When asking and answering the question of what Northpoint believes, Stanley diverts to three points they have historically taught. None of the points have any impact on same-sex relationships.
Honor God with your body
Don’t be mastered by anything
Don’t sexualize relationships outside of marriage.
√ The Uniqueness Of Same-Sex Attraction: One way to prevent a comparison between sinfulness, temptation, the Scriptural difficulty of providing an answer, et al. — is to claim that this is a unique area from all other areas of life. Andy makes that claim concerning same-sex attraction. He states that same-sex attraction is an issue like no other issue because it involves one’s identity.
If you want to see where that leads, here is an example!
I was seated at a breakfast table with a fairly notable college president and a friend. A young man who had joined our table that morning was impressed by the opportunity of being there. He expressed his feelings after being seated, then standing, and then stating . . . .”We are honored to have the opportunity to be with you Dr. (so-in-so)!”
It was but a few moments until the young man posed a question to the college president . . . . “What do you believe is the most important trait that marks a man in a leadership position?”
I was interested in the answer myself! His answer was . . . . “Loyalty.”
He went on to say a few more words about loyalty, but I was disappointed but not surprised. The college president had gone through many hard days over the 14 years of leadership, and those loyal to him were much appreciated. Loyalty meant something to him on a very practical level!
However, it was a wrong answer, and the proof has been seen once again in what is happening in the political world. Here is what you hear said over and over, “Those democrats sure know how to stick together.” There is a reason for that seeming reality — loyalty to leadership and each other.
When you prioritize ” loyalty, ” there are few causes that one is willing to break ranks over. The notable men of history (who did good) broke ranks for something they believed in more deeply than their personal or corporate relationships. Sooner or later, they had to break ranks because they believed in something greater than loyalty.
When loyalty trumps personally held convictions and/or personal integrity, little to nothing else is worth breaking ranks. As long as loyalty to a person or a party is on top, integrity is sacrificed. We stick together because we are able to hold all convictions loosely. They must be held loosely if one is to be consistently loyal.
Every so often, one or two political leaders break rank with the party and are vilified or even demonized. Why? They could no longer go along to get along, and they violated party loyalty.
If you want to see where the “priority of loyalty” leads, we can see it in the world of politics — a setting aside of personal convictions and integrity.
Men and women of integrity or conviction will sooner or later be forced to break ranks! “Loyalty” is not an absolute virtue. It may be a vice because it will side even with evil if not checked by integrity.
We could point to what too often happens in the local church setting, but that’s another story for another time . . . . .or is it?
Let’s Make It Simple: Our 27 N.T. Books
The New Testament
#1 – All of the original manuscripts of the 27 books of the New Testament are extinct. No translation of the Bible can claim that it is derived from the original “autographs” or the original manuscripts written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, Jude, or James.
#2 -The first mention of what we would call a Bible is in 367 A.D. A first mention of a compendium of all 27 books of the Bible, as we speak of it today, was in 367 A.D., by Athanasius
Keith & Roth maintain that it was around 250 A.D. and state that Origen likely produced a complete list of all 27 New Testament books – more than a hundred years before Athanasius.
#3 – The evidence suggests that there was a recognized “canon” of New Testament books that were used long before the 4th century, which was understood as the New Testament books, in distinction to the Old Testament canon, which had already been recognized as God’s Word for centuries.
#4 – We have over 5000 complete or partial copies, or copies of copies, of the 27 N.T. books of the New Testament, in the Greek language.
#5 – The accuracy of the copies between each other is rated at 99.5%. Some of the differences involve and include whether it was “verily” or “verily, verily.”
Note: For an important comparison . . . .
#6 – We also have early 1st-century commentaries and writings that quote verses and portions of the New Testament in Greek and other languages.
#7 – We also have copies of the 27 books of the Bible in other languages. There are over 19,000 copies of the Greek New Testament manuscripts in other languages. The most well-known is the Latin Vulgate translation completed by Jerome in 382 A.D.
#8 – During the first century, the primary way that the Word of God was communicated was orally. The Lord’s apostles and other church leaders were the “walking” and “talking” communicators of God’s Word. John, the last apostle, died around 100 A.D.
We are no different than the believers of the Lord’s day.
They relied upon the Old Testament Scriptures, written by men, affirmed by His people to be composed of 39 books, written over decades of time by vastly different men, declared to be authoritative and true, and relied upon by His people for centuries.
That is as simple as it gets!
Let’s Make This Simple: Preservation & Inspiration
#1 – Jesus clearly spoke about the continuing ministry of God’s Word, through His disciples, after He departed — John 17:20.
“I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through THEIR word.
#2 – During Bible days, and throughout the first centuries, the culture was overwhelmingly oral. There was no New Testament Bible as we think of it today. But there were the “Scriptures” of the Old Testament that we read, taught, and preached before, during, and after the ministry of Jesus.
In Old Testament times, the prophets verbally communicated God’s Word before an Old Testament compendium of Old Testament “books” was ever established. The culture was oral, and men like Ezra publicly read the Scriptures (Nehemiah 8).
Personally possessing a copy of an Old Testament “book/scroll” was unlikely, and few copies were accessible or attainable to God’s people.
Over time, a compendium of 39 Old Testament “books” was established as the authoritative Word of God by His people.
In the early years, there was no New Testament “Bible,” as we know and think of it today, until decades after the death of the last apostle. The preaching and teaching of the apostles, disciples, and church leaders was the Word of God to His people.
Paul’s various letters were sent to various churches across Asia and Europe. Those letters and copies of those letters moved from church to church, and from generation to generation. Centuries later, various church leaders had copies of those letters, quoted them in their original Greek language, translated them into the language of the people, and included them in their writings. They believed that those copies and words were accurate and authoritative.
As with the Old Testament Scriptures, the New Testament writings, written by the disciples and apostles, were recognized by “the church” as the Word of God within the first centuries. They were believed to “God-breathed,” and “sufficient to guide one into all godly living” when read or heard.
Inspiration Without Preservation Is Meaningless
√ There is no value in having an inspired, authoritative, and inerrant Word if it has not been preserved.
If the “Bible” never makes it past a century or two, and surely is not preserved for today after 19, 20, or 21 centuries, of what value is it?
√ Likewise, if it was preserved, but it is not the breathed-out Word of God as originally established, what value is it.
Jesus declared that the Old Testament Scriptures were both inspired and preserved. He quoted and cited them as the authoritative Word of God after centuries of producing and handling scribal copies.
Without inspiration, preservation is meaningless.
Inspiration and Preservation must travel together on the road of time!
That is as simple as it gets!
Let’s Make This Simple: The Written Word – Old & New
The Old & New Testament Writings
#1 – Jesus Addressed The Writing Of The New Testament Scriptures:
Jesus clearly spoke about the continuing ministry of God’s Written Word, through His disciples, after He departed.
“I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through THEIR word.
-John 17:20
Some might argue that he was only speaking about “those who will believe,” meaning those who would directly hear “their word” orally from the mouths of the disciples and apostles. That Jesus was not speaking about the written Word. That understanding would limit who Jesus prayed for to those who were living in the first century and who heard “their word,” the disciples’ and apostles’ words, directly.
However, that would be a strained understanding of the Lord’s words since, through the first century, there were New Testament books written and read in local churches during the first century. Many, if not most, of these churches never “heard their word,” the disciples’ or apostles’ words, in person. They heard the words of various letters and books that had been written by the disciples and apostles. One simple example is the book of Acts, by Luke, who never “spoke” in person to Theophilus. . . . . .
“The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach,
Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen.” — Acts 1:1-2
Surely, part of the promise given by the Lord in John 17 included the reading and hearing of the various letters and accounts written down.
That is seen again in the words of John . . .
This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true. And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen. — John 21:24-25
John knowingly wrote these things to be read and heard read. He well knew that many would believe through the written words of his Gospel and the book of Acts.
Many and even most of the unbelievers and believers who heard the words of the disciples and apostles heard it orally and from the scrolls and manuscripts that were preserved then and throughout the ages.
#2 – In the Lord’s Day, the common culture was an oral culture.
During Bible days and throughout the first centuries, the culture was overwhelmingly oral. There was no New Testament Bible as we think of it today.
But there were the written “Scriptures” of the Old Testament that were read, taught, and preached before, during, and after the ministry of Jesus.
In Old Testament times, the prophets verbally communicated God’s Word before an Old Testament compendium of Old Testament “books” was ever established. The culture was oral, and men like Ezra publicly read the Scriptures (Nehemiah 8).
Personally possessing a copy of an Old Testament “book/scroll” was unlikely, and few copies were accessible or attainable to God’s people. Those books were read aloud in the hearing of God’s people, as recorded in the books of the Old Testament.
Over time, a compendium of 39 Old Testament “books” was established as the authoritative Word of God by His people.
In the early years, there was no New Testament “Bible,” as we know and think of it today, until decades after the death of the last apostle. The preaching and teaching of the apostles, disciples, and church leaders was the Word of God to His people.
Paul’s various letters were sent to various churches across Asia and Europe. Those letters and copies of those letters moved from church to church and from generation to generation. Centuries later, various church leaders had copies of those letters, quoted them in their original Greek language, translated them into the language of the people, and included them in their writings. They believed that those copies and words were accurate and authoritative.
As with the Old Testament Scriptures, the New Testament writings, written by the disciples and apostles, were recognized by “the church” as the Word of God within the first centuries. They were believed to “God-breathed,” and “sufficient to guide one into all godly living” when read or heard.
That is as simple as it gets!
A Deeper Dive #1 — Example Of Different Bible Translations Of The Same Passage
Here are four translations of Revelation 1:1
(There is a reason I used a verse like Revelation 1:1, that I will explain shortly)
KJV:
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John.
NKJV:
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show His servants—things which must shortly take place. And He sent and signified it by His angel to His servant John
NIV:
The revelation from Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John
ESV:
The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants the things that must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John
Below Is The Original Greek and English Word for Word Interlinear Translation
That Also Reflects The Original Word Order.
You will probably recognize some of the Greek words since many of our English words come from the Greek — revelation = apocalypse / Christ = Christos / God = Theos / servant = doulos / angel = anggelos —
Word Order Is Also A Translation Issue.
There is one translation that is focused on word order — The Emphasized Bible
The “Let’s Make This Simple” Series
I have been working on a series that I have titled. . . . .
“Let’s Make This Simple”
WHAT IS THAT ALL ABOUT?
What’s That All About?????
Sometimes, the subject is secular, and at other times the subject is religious.
-
What is “cryptocurrency” and/or “bitcoins?” Can you buy them at some retail store, bank, or website?
-
Why are all these CBD stores popping up around town? What is that all about? What is “CBD, and should I consider taking it medically or recreationally?
OR
-
What Bible is the best Bible? Which one should I buy? Are there really that many differences between this-or-that translation?
-
Why do people get so worked up when talking about “predestination?” Does it really matter as long as you are going to a Bible-believing church?
-
Does it really matter if I attend a church? In fact, some pastors have even canceled some of their Sunday services! Can’t I just watch online or stream one or more church services?
-
Isn’t church music just about different tastes? Some like traditional, and others like contemporary. Part of reaching this generation is adapting our music!
-
How come our church does not believe in speaking in tongues? Do we believe in divine healing? Why don’t we anoint sick people with oil like it says in James 5?
-
Can’t we all just get along? What should be the reason a person leaves a church? Why do some churches change pastors?
Bible teachers and pastors spend a lot of time answering questions!
Sometimes the question is more complicated and takes more than a short answer.
At other times, the question has been asked over and over, and a new Bible series of lessons or messages emerges.
It is not uncommon for people to say to a pastor or fellow believer . . . . . “I don’t know if I really understand what that all means . . . . what the difference is . . . . or why that matters.”
You will find answers to these kinds of religious questions and more.
First Question:
Have you ever wondered . . . .
Which Bible should I purchase or own?
Does It really matter?
Is there any real difference?
Bear with us as we add material that answers this first question,
and as we try to “Make It Simple” on other common biblical issues of our day.
♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦
Feel Free To Propose A Question You Would Like “Simply Answered.”
All Things Church 