Principles for Disagreeing with other Christians on Conscience Issues (Part One)

Principles for Disagreeing with other Christians on Conscience Issues

These twelve principles originated in a book entitled Conscience by Andy Naselli and J. D. Crowley. In a previous thread (here), I used principles extracted from a book written by Tim Keller to address the most divisive issue among American Christians that I'm aware of, the Bible text and translation issue.  In that thread we were more focused on accurately representing the theological positions of other believers (would they agree with my representation, etc...).  Personally, I'm still certain no matter how accurate you try to be in representing others there is always a caveat or exception to a particular position (you probably even have an objection to my exception). Here we shall use Naselli and Crowley's principles to readdress this issue from a conscience perspective. These principles are extracted from Romans 14. A good overview of these principles is available online here.

My comments with each principle are areas of application I am trying to work out both theologically, practically, and an honest attempt to not be hypocritical in application. Again, my applications are entirely wrong if the text and translation issue does not belong in context of Rom 14 or even an overly-gentile understanding of the text may also be in error. Again, if certain positions on the text and translation issue are in theological or practical error, then it would not fit within the context of Romans 14. For a very thorough understanding of Romans 14, I recommend Mark Snoeberger's article, "Weakness or Wisdom? Fundamentalists and Romans 14.1-15.13" DBSJ 12 (2007): 29-49.
My applications for this post will be listed as sub-points A. B. C. etc.... Please note I am trying to personalize them with the first person pronoun "I" while the Bold points are produced by Naselli and Crowley. Here are the twelve points (pp. 96-115):

1. Welcome those who disagree with you (Rom 14:1-2).

     A. I am to be personally kind and gracious to every believer regardless of their position on the text and translation issue, I'm afraid I struggle with this more than I want (too much John Owen I think).
     B. As much as it depends on me, I am to live at peace with everyone who holds to a different position on the text and translation issue. I may not be able to attend their church, definitely not membership, but I'll try to live at peace (just by way a reminder, this still implies they are holding to a historically orthodox position).
     C. At what point, theologically or practically, am I welcoming those with a different position on the text and translation issue an endorsement of erroneous teaching or practice? Let's flesh this out a bit with some illustrations (some of these should be easy to answer but I'm typing or "thinking" out loud):
          a. If I am a guest preacher at a local church should I be required to adhere to their public policy for preaching? If so for how long? Would addressing a wrong position be considered divisive? What false beliefs and practices might they have that are too taboo to speak against? Texts? Which ones?
          b. If I am sitting in the pew during a worship serve, and not preaching or teaching, should I still carry with me the same translation as the one being used in the pulpit? I've been through scores of churches and not done this and I had no following along. There was no confusion.
          c.  If I am joining a church, and the church's position is XYZ, must I agree with position XYZ? Similar issues to sub-points a. and b. above: preaching/teaching, sitting in the pew, etc.... Would it not be easier to simply attend a church that agrees with a certain position? Here's a thought: Is it wrong or even sinful to impose an English translation position on church members? I suggest listening to Mark Dever's sermon on the sinfulness of requirements like this before answering (I found it helpful).

2. Those who have freedom of conscience must not look down on those who don't (Rom 14:3-4).

     A. I am not to look down on those who who hold to a different position on the text and translation issue.
     B. So let's expand on the scenario from Rom 14. Using the text, the advocate who can only use or will only use one English translation is in which category: strong or weak? The strong have liberty to use any English translation. The weak feel compelled by theology, culture, family, traditions, familiarity or a potential host of other issues to only use one English translation: the King James Version.
     C. Again, I'm not quite sure this issue belongs here but for sake of exegetical consistency, which side of the argument does Paul come down on?  Was he weak or strong? Rom 15:1 states, "We who are strong..." Seems as though both here and as his consistent practice he falls down on the strong side. I know these because he freely quotes from both the Masoretic text and the Septuagint. Also he does not slavishly follow either one verbatim.

3. Those whose conscience restricts them must not be judgmental toward those who have freedom (Rom 14:3-4).

     A. I am not to be judgmental toward those who have even more liberty than myself on the text and translation issue.
     B. At what point do I begin to struggle with point A, users of the NASB, ESV, NIV, tNIV, RSV, NRSV, NLT? At what point based on my current understanding of the academic facts on this issue do I personally feel a person, church, or denomination has gone too far? When does theological or practical compromise begin?
     C.  Am I willing to acknowledge that simply because I personally may not be able to use a certain translation does not mean others will share my concerns?

4. Each believer must be fully convinced of their position in their own conscience (Rom 14:5).
   
     A. Am I fully convinced theologically and historically on the text and translation issue?
     B. Am I fully convinced that my position is the historical position on the text and translation issue?
     C. Am I academically willing to admit I may be wrong on the text and translation position?
     D. Am I willing to admit that the historical position on the text and translation issue might be wrong--basically meaning the vast majority of historical Christianity is wrong on this issue?
     E. What do we do when church members are not given the opportunity to be fully convinced or to have consciences that are truly informed on the text and translation issue and can function in a healthy manner?

5. Assume that others are partaking or refraining for the glory of God (Rom 14:6-9).

     A. Am I using or not using a particular English translation for the glory of God?
     B. Am I reading or not reading my Greek New Testament for the glory of God?
     C. I must assume that those holding to a different position on the text and translation issue are doing so to the glory of God. I must admit it is hard to grasp how some can hold to false historical position on this issue, refuse to be teachable, and yet still do this to the glory of God.
     D. Do I believe every translation in any language can be used to the glory of God? Or do I believe that only English can be used for God's glory? Oh what should we do for world missions?
     E. If I can't say "yes" to letter D. above then which of the four principles above am I struggling with? Not welcoming? Judgmental? Looking down? Not fully convinced?
     F. Have I crafted my own standards for what makes a good translation, then using my own standards for determining what translation I can use for God's glory (translations philosophy, grammar, vocabulary, etc...)?

6. Do not judge each other in these matters because we will all someday stand before the judgment seat of God (Rom 14:10-12).
   
     A. Am I judging (looking down on) others for their views on the text and translation issue?
     B. Do I realize I will stand before God alone concerning my own position on the text and translation committee?
     C. Do I realize every member of our congregations will stand alone concerning their views on this issue?
     D. Since I will alone answer for my position on this issue, can I justly or honestly impose my standard on other members in a local church?
     E. I pray God's church is not try to bind the conscience of unsuspecting believers with their own personal views on this issue.
     F. People in our pews should have liberty to read their own Bibles without persecution (a Bible they can understand).

Well this has gone rather long and there are twelve principles. I guess that means I'll need another post to complete all twelve of these principles. in the end, read your Bible and see all the God asks of us.  See how he has revealed his mind to us on the pages of scriptures. At a minimum, God desires that all repent and come to a saving knowledge of the truth. He has made a relationship with him possible, through the sacrificial death of his son, to pay the pentalty our sins deserve.

Read your Bible. Comment as needed.

Principles for Disagreeing with Others by Tim Keller (My Personal Applications to the Text and Translation Debates)

Principles for Disagreeing with Others by Tim Keller 

(My Personal Applications to the Text and Translation Debates)

I've come across several books that include means and/or different methods for disagreeing with other people's theological positions. I would suggest these could be equally applied to other people's theological applications (at the risk of ad hominem name calling). Today I'm attempting to apply six principles from Tim Keller to the Bible text and translation debate. These six principles are taken from Tim Keller's book Center Church: Doing Balanced, Gospel-Centered Ministry (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2012), pp. 376-38. Keller's points are in bold and my comments follow each point. These principles are as follows:

1. Take full responsibility for even unwitting misrepresentation of others' views.

I'm am fully convinced it is not possible to perfectly reflect the views of others no matter how hard we try. Perhaps you are able to do this. But it seems as though no matter what is written down, said, or practiced, there are always a series of caveats to every definition. For example try arguing with a dispensationalist on some issue (and I'm one of them), even listing off scores of quotes by leading dispensationsalists of the past. It seems as though there is a continual shift to "that's not  what I believe." Transfer this to the text and translation issue, phrases used by the KJV only position leave you wondering what they actually believe and practice. I have repeatedly requested individuals to clarify what they actually mean when they say, "we believe the KJV is God's preserved word for the English-speaking people" and no response given. Its hard not to understand things any other way without clarification in both writing and practice. This doesn't sound like preference, familiarity, or a Greek text argument. If your argument is simply, one Greek text is preferred and then we should produce translations from that text, then let's be consistent and produce a modern English translation from that text you believe is correct. If not then you really are in practice KJV only. I am left with no other acceptable alternative then to think that preaching from the ESV, NASB, or NIV is wrong to these people. This is not a difference of opinion or liberty but to them it is erroneous. If simply a preference, then why all the fuss? Is it remotely possible that a secondary or tertiary preference or application has been raised to a point of orthodoxy or the only acceptable practice? If I'm wrong in this understanding, please tell me what it means. Please explain to me in history when this different understanding (both belief and practice) started. I would suggest neither one Greek text nor the language of English has ever been a historical standard for the doctrine of preservation.

2. Never attribute an opinion to your opponents that they themselves do not own.

I personally have a hard time trying to apply this point to the text and translation issue. It seems as though over the years there are so many versions of the King James Only position its getting harder and harder to figure out at what point error actually begins. As point one above tried to express it is very hard to understand a person's view if they will not elaborate on it. Obviously, we don't want to appeal to straw man arguments (see #4 below), definition hedging, or the like but this example phrase is directly from multiple websites, "we believe the KJV is God's preserved word for the English language."  How else can I understand this? I am left to believe that the doctrine of preservation not only depends on the English language, but also on a 400+ year old version in English. I have tried contacting many of them but to no avail nor clarification. Where does error begin? 

3. Take your opponents' views in their entirety, not selectively.

It is too common to make comments either positively or negatively about others writings but not comments on everything they say on the topic. Consider some examples, first in relation to MacArthur and term blood. Much ink has been spent by well-meaning conservatives on this issue. What becomes apparent is that these critics have not (for the most part) read everything he has written or said on this issue. A simple preview of every sermon or comment he has made on this issue is available (he actually has an entire page where he compiles all his comments on this issue). Perhaps ideas like hendiadys, synonym, or metaphor (you'll have to research this one) would help his detractors. Consider terms like repent or believe. Rarely do they occur in the same sentence in the biblical text. Yet at the same time they both are true and necessary for salvation. Or consider terms related to salvation such as Savior and Lord. Yet how often do people claim or deny one or the other because they simply don't reference every side of the coin every time the topic appears. Apply this to the text and translation issue and see where it leads you. How often do well-meaning people selectively pick words (present or not) or even verses to attack particular English translations or their particular translation philosophy? 

4. Represent and engage your opponents' position in its very strongest form, not in a weak "straw man" form.

I would suggest this is very similar to number one above. Trying to use the exact wording of the opposite position is usually not enough. There will always been a rebuttal to falsely representing the other position(s). I see this all the time (you probably have too). Try explaining a variant in the Greek or Hebrew text without getting accused of tampering with the scriptures. Try teaching your people on issues like this one. For example, try using the NIV as a Christian fundamentalist without getting that weird look (or even the NASB or ESV) in some circles. I've seen time and time again the same strategies used to attack the NIV as those who attack English translations printed after 1611. They quote some verses here or there then they criticize the translation for doing so--as if their (or my) academical credentials were asked to be on their committee (sarcasm intended). 

5. Seek to persuade, not antagonize--but watch your motives!

Unfortunately, past generations got more liberty here than we do today. Simply read past historical works by John Owen or Charles Spurgeon. People weren't always the most polite or congenial toward their opponents (who were professing believers too). Yes our mannerism count. Yes our speech counts. How many arguments (positions) get dismissed by a bad disposition. But even the best, well-organized arguments will face the same fate as the rest, "well that's your opinion." At what point in the text and translation issue are we willing to call historical errors and false teaching what it is? Error. We proudly call worldliness as such. We sadly in love have to correct disobedient professing believers in our churches. If this error festers in our own camp then shame on us for not trying to persuade them for not continuing down a road of error. To say nothing and to simply "agree to disagree" has done what for our local churches? Evangelicalism has moved on from this issue but it seems as though my bible-believing fundamental brothers are struggling with this one. Will the millennials share your view? Have they also moved on already to the NASB, ESV, or even NIV? 

6. Remember the gospel and stick to criticizing the theology--because only God sees the heart.

Clearly the text and translation issue has been raised by many to a gospel level issue even to the point of requiring that particular English translations be used alone for preaching, teaching, evangelism, and memorization (many other positions can be just as guilty). This appears is scores of churches. Just look at the multitudes of church, camp, and para-church ministry sites. On the other hand, if the gospel can be preached or taught from any translation in any country then why limit it to one English translation? Inspiration and preservation are historic doctrines defended throughout church history. But for the sake of your own personal research, I invite you to study the theological views of those who prefer a one English only position (see if can you notice any trends concerning the gospel itself). Carefully exegete the text and declare the gospel to all who will hear. Christ died for their sins according to the scriptures and he also bodily arose for their sins according to the scriptures. These scriptures are not limited to a translation in English, Spanish, or French.

With a clear conscience and pure heart motive preach and live the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Read. Enjoy. Comment.

Don't forget (whatever your view on the English Translation issue) we should be on the same side

Don't forget (whatever your view on the English Translation issue) we should be on the same side

The disciples were faced with a similar issue in the first century while traveling with the Messiah.  They wanted to destroy everyone who did not cross every "T" and dot every "I" the way they did.  However, I would suggest we don't always treat each other as if we are.  Of course, it goes without being said, doctrine does exist on many different levels.  Some are non-negotiable while others are open for disagreement.  I would suggest that the translation issue has been lifted up by some here in America to the level of primary importance.  Not just inerrancy or inspiration but an actual English translation.

Jesus' response is very applicable to us today,

"And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us.  And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us."  (Luke 9:49-50)

That being said it should help to provide some motivation for how we handle those who disagree with us on the English translation issue.  Or for that matter the underlying Greek and Hebrew texts.

Do both sides hold to inerrancy?  I would suggest, yes (although I think we have different definitions at times).  Please note, I am not including in this category those who deny Biblical inerrancy.

Do both sides hold to plenary verbal inspiration?  I would suggest, yes (although I think we have different definitions a times).  Please note, I am not including in this category those who deny plenary verbal inspiration.  

Do both sides believe God has preserved his word?  I would suggest, yes (although they will disagree as to the "means" of preservation).

I could be wrong in applying these verses to the translation issue (and for that matter any other issue).  Perhaps it is wrong to apply this to doctrinal areas (depending on the level--primary, secondary, etc...).  But it does help provide a simple theological grid for dealing with others who are actually doing something to expand the Christ's Church.

This doesn't mean stop preaching and teaching the truth.  Warn and instruct you congregation (and your family).  Just don't forget we are on the same side.

Comments encouraged.