Reading Dogged Issues
During Dogged Days
The habit of reading is absolutely critical today, particularly for
Christians. As television turns our society into an increasingly
image-dominated culture, Christians must continue to be people of the Word.
When we read, we cultivate a sustained attention span, an active
imagination, a capacity for logical analysis and critical thinking, and a
rich inner life. Each of these qualities, which have proven themselves
essential to free people, is under assault in our TV-dominated culture.
Christians, to maintain their Word-centered perspective in an image-driven
world, must become readers.
Gene Edward
Veith, Jr.1
This is the time of year when a rocking chair, a glass of lemonade
and a good book may be all the exercise one can take. But it also seems to be
the time of issues, boycotts, resolutions and conflict within many bodies of
believers. Maybe it’s just the sultry weather that makes us all irritable and
we’ll all cool down eventually. Perhaps a vacation, a little time away and some
reflection on the issues is what we need. Vance Havner wrote, “It is good to
get away from it all now and then, for we cannot run well in the midst of it all
unless now and then we run away from it all.”2
This issue of ALETHEIA will depart somewhat from the usual format.
I have been reading in a few various controversial areas and would like to
respond to each of these. My study of these is certainly not complete but
ongoing as must be the case with such things. By responding to particular books
in these areas, I am not responding to everything that has been written or that
I should have read by now. However, when a book is published you figure that
the author has said all that he wanted to say about the subject and so comments
about it are justified.
The first area of controversy is over Charles Swindoll’s The
Grace Awakening, and Ernest Pickering’s response to it, Are
Fundamentalists Legalists? The second area is the hot topic of The Bible
Code, the discovery of coded messages about our present day within the
Hebrew text of the Old Testament. The third area is the ongoing problem of
Bible versions and the new book from Central Seminary, The Bible Version
Debate. I think all of these are interesting and, depending on one’s point
of view, critical to the present life of God’s church. I hope this change of
format is profitable to you.
1. The Struggle For Biblical Grace.
Charles Swindoll published his book The Grace Awakening in
1990 & 1996. Not being a big fan of Swindoll’s writing style, I just got around
to reading the book because I was given a copy of a rebuttal by Ernest Pickering
which he decided to title Are Fundamentalists Legalists? I wondered if
Pickering’s title was a fair evaluation of what Swindoll was trying to say. I
even thought to myself, surely Swindoll doesn’t use such caustic language as
Pickering quoted in his review.
Actually he does. Though Swindoll is careful to refer to
“legalists” not “fundamentalists,” the connection is hard to miss. The terms
were such things as “grace-killers,” “religious killjoys,” “cramped, somber,
dull and listless,” “rigid, grim, exacting and lawlike,” “cramped, closed,
dirty, emotionally crippled,” “suicidal,” “look alike, talk alike and act
alike,” “petty, so unbelievably small-minded,” “tactless, blunt, accusatory, and
sometimes sarcastic.” Those were the few that I marked. That hardly sounds
like a book on grace!
Swindoll makes no bones that his purpose is to expose legalism for
the danger it is to the church. I found, however, the problem to be (as it
always is) the definition of legalism. I thought Swindoll did a good job of
defining grace in salvation and even in pointing out legalism for salvation and
within those parameters I had no problem. But what Dr. Pickering became alarmed
about (and I also) was not that standard theological fare, but the stretching of
that definition to include an indictment as legalism of most preaching done in
order to encourage Christian works. At that point there seems to be a definite
division between the vernaculars “legalism” and “license.”
Ernest Pickering has been one of the bright stars in Fundamentalism
due to his writing and teaching ministries and his personal integrity. He
objects strenuously to Swindoll’s caricature of conservative Christianity. I
have to admit that Swindoll leaves little space for the adherence to personal
separation. But even Pickering would have to admit that there is such a thing
as “legalism” in the vernacular, an attempt to control the conscience of others
by mere rules rather than the Word of God and the Holy Spirit.
But I cannot agree with Swindoll that any admonition from one
Christian to another in order to apply biblical principles to worldly situations
constitutes legalism. Swindoll leaves one with the definite impression that no
Christian should ever tell another Christian what is right and wrong unless it
is specifically mentioned in so many words in the Bible.
Many of Swindoll’s own peers have warned about making this sweeping
generalization.3
My disagreement with Swindoll would be that I think he gets people
up on the wrong side of the bed. I mean that we all agree we must come to the
end of ourselves in order to be saved by grace and not works. In this sense we
die or are crucified with Christ. (There are true legalists today trying to
work their way to heaven. Interestingly, Swindoll favorably quotes Catholics
such as Richard Neuhaus and compliments his charismatic friends. Are these not
working for their salvation? Then they are legalists in the biblical sense of
the word! Yet they never receive the same criticism). But once we die with
Christ in salvation, we are raised to walk in a new life. We are not raised
back out of the “death bed” on the same side we got in! We are raised to live a
new life of holiness. Whether Swindoll intends to or not, I think he definitely
encourages new converts to walk old paths where they have walked before, not the
new paths of holiness. Yes, there is liberty in grace, but there is also grace
in liberty. Admonishing oneself and others is stewardship, not legalism.
2. The New Bible Code
In 1988 a paper was published by Doron Witztum, Eliyahu Rips and
Yoav Rosenberg of the Jerusalem College of Technology and the Hebrew University
on what was called “Equidistant Letter Sequences in the Book of Genesis.”
Within the last couple years articles have appeared in Bible Review and other
magazines giving certain credence to the “discovery.” More recently (1997,
Simon & Schuster) Michael Drosnin, a former Wall Street Journal reporter has
published a popular book, The Bible Code and has appeared on many
television and radio programs.
What would you think if someone told you that major events in
history, with definite names and dates, were present in coded message within the
Hebrew text of the Old Testament? Adolf Hitler, John Kennedy, Yitzhak Rabin and
others were foretold down to some amazing details. Drosnin also claims that
future events can be gleaned if one can enter the right information into the
computer.
The process goes something like this. Starting with the Masoretic
Text, each letter is entered into a computer in order as it appears in the Old
Testament; no punctuation, spaces between words or vowel pointing. When asked
for a reading of any entry (such as a specific name), the computer searches the
entire text, arranges it into a huge crossword-like grid or puzzle with the word
“Kennedy” for example (in Hebrew, of course), in a lined sequence along with
related words such as “Dallas” and even exact dates. In this way the “Bible
Code” contains predictions of current events in a text compiled thousands of
years ago. The computer rearranges the grid depending on what word has been
entered.
Drosnin is convinced that this “Code” is actually the seven sealed
book of Revelation which could not be opened until the technology was in place
to open it. Now, he says, it is our responsibility to use what we know to avoid
destruction. The next predicted dates for global disaster are 2000 and 2006.
There are more than a few obvious concerns about the code. 1) The
Masoretic Text is a compilation of textual traditions and cannot be said to
represent the originals exactly. There are many Masoretic Texts containing
hundreds of variants, any one of which could change the code. 2) The Hebrew
language seems more given to such usage than others because it has only 22
letters and no vowels. This would greatly enhance such “sequences” that appear
in a line. 3) This reduces the understanding of the Bible to mere mathematics
rather than faith. Drosnin, admittedly is not a Christian or a Jew, and yet has
become a prophet. 4) The Bible code has not been 100% accurate and that was the
mark of a false prophet. 5) There seems to be little regard for what the text
of the Old Testament actually said in the words of the books themselves. 6)
Revelation specifically says that Jesus himself opens each of the seals on the
seven sealed book.
It will be interesting to see how much publicity the Bible Code
gets. It certainly is a more interesting approach than previous date-setters.
I am waiting to hear from Christian Hebrew Scholars on the merits of using the
sacred text in this manner.
3. The Bible Version Debate
I was very glad to see a Baptist Seminary, known for its fundamental
and conservative position, publish a straightforward, scholarly position on this
divisive issue. The Bible Version Debate is written and published by
Central Baptist Theological Seminary in Minneapolis, MN. The chapters were
written by President Douglas McLachlan and three professors. I especially
enjoyed reading the book because Central is my Alma Mater and these professors
were classmates of mine.
The book begins with a quote from the late founder and president of
the seminary, Richard Clearwaters, from his book The Great Conservative
Baptist Compromise, “Honesty compels us to cite the 1901 American Revised
as the best English Version of the original languages which places us in a
position 290 years ahead of those who are still weighing the King James of 1611
for demerits.” Also, “We know of no Fundamentalists . . . that claim the King
James as the best English translation. Those in the main stream of
Fundamentalism all claim the ASV 1901 as the best English translation.” That
sounds amazingly like my old college professor, Noel Smith who used the ASV 1901
in class at Baptist Bible College.
I personally agree with the conclusions of this book. I have never
been a majority Text or Textus Receptus fan. Although I grew up hearing Pete
Ruckman speak at my church, I was not taught a KJV Only position at church, at
Baptist Bible College (68-72), at Central Seminary (72-75) or at the GARBC
seminary I attended (82-84). As Dr. Clearwaters’ quote points out, the KJV Only
position is a recent intruder into Fundamentalism.
There are a few valuable contributions that this book from Central
Seminary makes to the overall discussion. 1) Roy Beacham, professor of Old
Testament, points out the inconsistencies of the Old Testament texts,
specifically the Masoretic Text. It is wrong merely to assume that all Old
Testament texts agree. 2) W. Edward Glenny, professor of New Testament, shows
the unreliability of the Textus Receptus, especially when arguing for divine
preservation. 3) Glenny has an excellent chapter on Biblical preservation and
the misuse of “preservation texts” by KJV Only advocates.
The seminary’s position on Bible translations is set forth in three
criteria for what can be called the Word of God. “They must be (1)
translations, (2) nonsectarian and (3) made from the original language
manuscripts. We can be confident that any nonsectarian translation of
manuscripts of the original languages is the Word of God” (p. 119).
This book is a welcomed step for Baptists to return to their roots
as Bible believing people.
Rick Shrader
Notes:
1. Gene Edward Veith, Jr. Reading Between The Lines
(Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1990) xiv.
2. Vance Havner, Rest Awhile (New York: Fleming H. Revell,
1941) 23.
3. See J.I. Packer, Truth & Power (Wheaton: Harold Shaw,
1996) 145. Also, Charles Ryrie, Balancing The Christian Life (Chicago:
Moody Press, 1994) 160.
|
