Tag: rant

The Two Big Questions About The Bible

Matthew Gage

There are two common themes in modern Bible scholarship that both underlie and undermine current trends in Biblical theology. Both are related to simple questions that sharply divide conversations over the past couple of centuries. When dealt with in both theological and philosophical arenas, I would contend the most important to how we approach God and His Word.

Photo by Tanner Mardis on Unsplash

The first question is this:

DO WE TRULY POSSESS THE WORD OF GOD?

The quick response would likely be, “Of course we do! I have a Bible right here in my hand!” On the surface this question seems that simple, but it is far from it as we dissect what it means to have the Word of God. What seems like a clear answer becomes far murkier the more most people discuss this.

The most common logic of today is ambiguous, claiming both that we do and we do not have the Word of God. One common argument made is the Bible was perfect in its original text, but that we have lost this perfect text over centuries of copying the text. The website Got Questions (which I do find to be very helpful in most cases) asks “Is the original Bible still in existence?” and answers: “The answer to this question is both ‘no’ and ‘yes.’ In the strictest sense, no, the original documents that comprise the 66 books of the Bible—sometimes called the ‘autographs’—are not in the possession of any organization.” After a lengthy discussion of how the text came to be and how it was passed down to today, the article concludes:

“In summary, while no one today possesses the original autographs, we do have many extant copies, and the work of biblical historians via the science of textual criticism gives us great confidence that today’s Bible is an accurate reflection of the original writers’ work. As an analogy, if the original and preserved unit of measure known as a ‘yard’ was lost in a fire in its holding place in Washington, D.C., there is little doubt that that measurement could be replaced with full assurance through all the exact copies of it that exist elsewhere. The same is true of God’s Word.“

This line of logic essentially flows like this:

  • God gave His perfect and complete Word to the original authors who faithfully and perfectly recorded the exact words.
  • These original records were copied before they were lost to history.
  • Errors and mistakes were introduced into the text through the process of copying and distribution by fallible humans.
  • Therefore, we do not and cannot possess a perfect and complete record of God’s Word.
  • The solution to this problem is to try to recreate the lost record through textual criticism, thus providing us with our best guess at what the original text contained.

This logic is in substance and application Theseus’s Paradox. It holds that both the original, “lost” text is the Word of God. It also holds that the modern reconstruction of the text is the same Word of God. It also adds an interesting variation in that is ongoing doubt as to what constituted the original form, so every effort to reconstruct the original may actually move it further from the original form.

The origins of this logic did not come from faith, but from applications of a secular science of textual criticism. In the late Middle Ages in Europe, there was a revival of interest in classical works of antiquity. This focused primarily on Greek and Latin texts that were not Christian. This developing science was eventually applied to the Scriptures, which The Encyclopedia Britannica states:

“From about 1350, however, a change in attitude is evident, particularly in the West. What is often called the revival of learning was in reality a practical movement to enlist the heritage of classical antiquity in the service of the new Christian humanism. In order to make them usable (i.e., readable), texts were corrected freely and often arbitrarily by scholars, copyists, and readers (the three categories being in fact hardly distinguishable).“

When dealing with multiple texts that contained different variant readings, certain rules were developed to help guide the critic. These are based on assumptions and continue to guide thought today. Some of these include:

The underlying problem with textual criticism is that it cannot be concluded. It claims to attempt to reconstruct the original text, but it is driven by the whims of scholarship and bias. Even though this practice has been in place for multiple centuries, it is no nearer it goal than when it began.

Two battle primary battle lines have developed. The first is around the Greek Textus Receptus and the Hebrew Masoretic Text, the second around the various critical texts that have been produced. The Textus Receptus and Masoretic Text represent an accepted standard, which the critical texts attempt to create a new standard. The debate around these texts is complex and not nearly as simple as I wish it were, and I am not even touching the debates about translation mechanics here!

But I return to my initial question: CAN WE TRULY POSSESS THE WORD OF GOD? One side (proponents of the Textus Receptus and Masoretic Text) profess that we can and do. The other side (proponents of textual criticism and critical texts) claim that we cannot. When you reduce the debate to its elementary essence, that is what you are left with.

My belief is that it really comes down to faith. I can build logical arguments for both sides of the debate, but Christianity is built on faith and not logic. Faith is not always logical. Faith is often found in trusting the unknowable.

Do we really believe what the Bible says? Do we believe that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent? Do we believe that He created all things? Do we believe He sent His Son to be die for our sins and that He rose again?

If we believe these things, do we also believe that God meant what He said about His Word being preserved for all generations (Psalm 119:89, Isaiah 40:8, Matthew 5:18, Matthew 24:35)? Do we believe that the God who gives us life and holds our salvation in His unfailing grace cannot also preserve His word faithfully through the ages? If God can keep you saved for eternity, can He not also keep His Word pure?

I am alarmed at the number of Christians who attest in faith that God can do anything yet so readily deny that He can preserve His Word. I grow tired of every time someone addresses the reliability of the Scripture that they feel like the must add a proviso that it was only pure in its original manuscripts which we no longer possess.

Friends, we can have a faith that is founded on God’s revelation of truth that His Word may be preserved pure for us today. That is not even a blind faith, as logical arguments can be made to support it. I am convinced that modern Christianity needs a return viewing the Bible as “Thus saith the Lord” and not continually asking “Yea, hath God said?” I am convinced that the confusion brought about by textual criticism in the past two hundred years is a symptom of a grievous error brought about by doubting God. Voices have continuously implicitly or explicitly stated that you cannot have God’s true Word, and now we marvel why so many do not view the Bible as authoritative.

I am going to take this one step further before moving on. I am becoming more and more convinced that this is the underlying debate about using the KJV. There is a direct correlation between trusting the KJV and rejecting the tenets of higher criticism that has developed since 1611. There is also a vast difference in how KJV users typically teach and preach because they present the text as the Word of God without adding qualifying statements undermining its authority.

If we can have truly possess the word of God, there there is one more question to address:

CAN WE TRULY UNDERSTAND THE WORD OF GOD?

Not only does modern Christianity doubt that we have the Word of God, but also that we cannot understand what it says. I am not here talking about the absurd arguments about archaic language of the KJV. I am talking the many new methods of Biblical interpretation that have arisen recently that seem to hold that you cannot really understand the truth of God’s Word.

One common method that does this is labeling portions of Scripture as figurative or allegorical. This is often used to attempt to reconcile the opening chapters of Genesis with modern theories of evolution. They will claim that God did not literally create the world in six days and that Adam and Eve may not have been literally the first humans. A corollary to this that I am seeing more and more often is labeling prophetic books (especially Revelation) as apocalyptic literature.

Something else that is growing in popularity is the idea that we must view the contents of Scripture through the culture and understanding of its original cultural setting. On the surface, I want to agree with this approach but the more I dig into it the less comfortable I become with it. It is intrinsically faulty because it is based on our own assumptions of the mindset and knowledge of people thousands of years before us and thousands of miles away from us. I feel that books like Misreading Scripture with Western Eyes are both helpful and hurtful. This is very tricky ground to traverse and its most logical conclusion almost has to be that we just cannot properly comprehend the Bible because our culture is so vastly different that it was in Bible times. But then again, we may counter that the essence of humanity is largely the same today as it always has been.

Another quite opposite tendency that is common today is the attempt to read modern thought and theory into Scripture. We see this in feminist theology and liberation theology. There are so many other absurd examples of this, including cannabis and UFOs. There are other less extreme examples, such as reading modern Western music theory into the music of the ancient Jews (I am putting together some material on this subject).

What these approaches and others like them do is create a break between modern Christianity and historic, orthodox Christianity. It exhibits chronological snobbery with a profound arrogance that assumes no one better understood the truths of Scripture before modern scholarship. There are so many examples of this, such as the so-called New Perspective on Paul, with more examples produced daily. I wish more people would stop and think that if you find something in the Bible no one else has ever found, then there is probably a good reason no one else has ever seen it!

Another problem I see that stems from this hubris is the assumption that the common person is helpless to understand Scripture on their own. This is one impetus behind the constant revisions and translations of Scripture, to try to keep the Bible “relevant” so that modern readers can comprehend it. It is also seen in the idea that you cannot truly know the Bible until you can read and understand it in the original Greek and Hebrew.

Friends, you do not need a master’s degree in theology to understand God’s Word. Christ Himself spoke to the common people and Paul wrote to the average Christian. David wrote songs that were sung by congregations of common people. Yes, there are infinite depths to the truth of Scripture, but there essential truths are so simple that a child may follow them.

I am afraid that academia has convinced us that we must be one of them to have true faith and understanding. This is counter to the clear teachings of Scripture, which entrusted much of the propagation of truth to common people (Deuteronomy 6:1-9). They have also convinced us that unless you are of their number or at least have their blessing that you cannot be successful in ministry. They have the same prejudice as the Jewish leaders in Acts 4:13.

Education is important, but it is far from the most important thing a Christians needs. We need faith to believe and trust in God. We need faithfulness to serve God and observe His commands. His truth is sufficient. We can grasp it, absorb it, and practice it. We can be honest in our lack of understanding in difficult areas, but we must be faithful to the truth we know.

The Misguided Virtue of Accessibility

Matthew Gage

One of the complaints that is hurled at the use traditional worship, hymns, and the King James Bible is that they create impenetrable barriers that prevent a person from truly knowing or experiencing God. This mindset takes many forms and has been a driving force in the reshaping of Christianity for at least the past century. This appears to be a peculiarly American innovation, as many other parts of the world seem content with their traditionalism.

Photo by Pete Alexopoulos on Unsplash

There are essentially two philosophical approaches in Christianity for bridging the gap between God and man. Note that I am not saying theological approaches here. From a theological standpoint, man’s depravity cannot be overcome in his own power to bring him into fellowship with God. God had to be the one that reached across the divide through Christ to create a means of reconciliation. Man can now approach God only because Christ’s atonement of his sins. Any other mean would be based on man’s works which can never atone for his sins. This is basic Bible doctrine.

The two approaches I am speaking of are more practical than theological. They are seen in both evangelism and discipleship. Here is an illustration of these two approaches before we discuss them in further detail:

The first attempts to bring God down to man’s level. This is accomplished by simplifying theology and practice or focusing only on what is deemed to be essential to Christianity . Many Evangelicals fall into this group with their willingness to focus solely on the Gospel message by downplaying the importance of doctrines and practices they see as secondary.

This approach is often seen as practical or pragmatic. It is “seeker sensitive” and relies on approach to evangelism that is built on consumerism and marketability.

One of the clearest signs of this approach is the language it uses. It simplifies the Christianity’s vocabulary and terminology for the sake of outsiders being able to understand it.

Other marks of this approach include:

  • Fraternity over fidelity in fellowship
  • Focusing on only Jesus and our relationship with Him while downplaying doctrine
  • Willingness to jettison doctrines and practices that are unpopular or unpalatable to the masses

The second attempts to bring man up to God. This is accomplished by discipleship and spiritual growth through which man increases in his knowledge of and obedience to God. This does not mean that man is made a deity, but that over time they increase in their faith.

This approach takes a long-term view to the Christian life. It recognizes that a child or new convert will not naturally understand every aspect of theology, but that as they grow and mature in their faith their understanding naturally increases. It allows advancement towards the goal lessening the goal.

When this approach is practiced, there is a high view of God and a concerted effort to moved towards His perfect image. Discipleship is practiced on freshly saved and seasoned saints. It does not rely on fads or marketing strategies. It allows the faithful presentation and practice of Biblical truth to shape and mold us.

A survey of Christian history would show that the second approach, moving man toward God, was the norm until the mid-1900’s. The book Lovin’ on Jesus: A Concise History of Contemporary Worship by Lim Swee Hong and Lester Ruth notes this shift in the 1960’s:

A change in the language by which English-speaking Christians spoke to God in corporate worship was a significant liturgical development in the second half of the twentieth century: The change was foundational: to move from archaic to updated English was considered the essence of making worship contemporary in the 1960s. To lose thee, thou, and thy as the way to talk to God was the first domino to fall on the path to today. To believe that we pray best to God in contemporary language is now a universal presumption of contemporary worship and one of its defining qualities. It is so much assumed and caught on so quickly, in fact, that most people would now point to other qualities like music or technology as the features that make worship contemporary. (p. 90-91)

This shift did not just affect prayer, Bible versions, or liturgy. It reflected a concerted change in approach by its leaders. Lim and Hong hit on this in their other book, A History of Contemporary Praise & Worship: Understanding the Ideas that Reshaped the Protestant Church, as they discuss the musical impact of Ralph Carmichael during that time. Note how the underlying philosophy matches what we saw in the above quote:

When Carmichael spoke of music as a language that needs to be in the “vernacular” of contemporary people, his concern was about the intelligibility of the music to those people. To make this point, he liked to use an analogy comparing the intelligibility of the Bible and the intelligibility of music: both need to be in an actual contemporary vernacular, he argued, so that people can understand them. Just as the church does not make Africans learn Latin to hear the gospel, and just as it does not make American Christians learn Hebrew or Greek to read the Bible in its original languages, and just as we applaud when new versions of the Bible leave behind the archaic expressions of the King James Version, Carmichael reiterated that the church in the same way should put its music into popular forms to use the understandable musical vernacular of people today. In the three minutes or so that it takes to play a song, he argued, the church does not have time to try music education to get a youth to appreciate a nonpopular form of music. What is better, he continued, is to “speak in a musical language” youth can understand. (p. 208-209)

This shift in the approach to Christian practice is indisputable, but its full impact is not often discussed. To many today who have bought into the modern Praise & Worship practices these leaders are heroes. To those like myself that try to hold to the older “traditional” practices there was irreparable harm done to Christianity through these changes. It was not just hymns and “archaic” language that was tossed out, it was the historic approach to Christianity that elevated God and sought to reach man in their sin, see them coming to a saving knowledge of Christ, then grow in their faith through consecration and sanctification. What it was replaced with is the approach that Christianity is a product that must be marketed to the masses and popularized by shedding anything deemed detrimental to its acceptance in popular society. Christianity, therefore, had to be repackaged and presented as “new and improved.” This was not a result of a demand by the public, but by Christian leaders trying to create a demand. In some ways they did, but the new form of Christianity they peddled was as close to classic Christianity as 1980’s New Coke was to Coca-Cola classic. The kept the name and some general themes but the product was radically different.

Today it is seen as a virtue to package or present Christian beliefs as inspired by cultural trends. Many leaders feel they are doing well by gutting divisive doctrines from their teaching. It is uncouth to take strong stands for issues that define denominations. I have even seen churches popping up that advertise themselves as being about “Just Jesus.”

While Christ is the center of the Christian’s love and mind, there is far more to Christianity that rests on Him. Christ Himself said, “If ye love me, keep my commandments.” (John 14:15). Those commandments are doctrine and practice. Every church has them, whether they want to admit it or not. To know Christ is far more than just the red letters in a Bible, it is a full revelation of truth from Creation in Genesis 1 to Eternity Future in Revelation 22. It is the voice of Christ that says, “in the volume of the book it is written of me” in Psalm 40:7 and Hebrews 10:7. To know Christ and to follow Christ must be founded on a knowledge of the mind of Christ that is found in thoroughly studying all the Scriptures. To jettison any aspect of Bible doctrine is to jettison part of what it is to be a Christian. By repackaging or reframing Christianity in effort to make it appealing to men, we have instead redefined what it is to be a Christian and what God expects from us.

The KJV, hymns, and other such elements were discarded by some because they were seen as barriers to knowing Christ. This is frankly absurd. The only barrier to knowing Christ is our prideful, sinful, fallen nature. Once we accept Christ as Savior, everything else is just details. We do not have to be able to understand every word in our Bible (by the way, why is the Bible the only book that must meet this impossible standard?), but we can learn it. We may not understand or appreciate the style of traditional, congregation singing in a church, but we can learn it.

I caution you, brothers and sisters in Christ, to avoid the temptation to of reshaping Christian doctrine and practice for the sake of making it more “accessible” to those outside our faith. We are called to bring men to Christ, not redefine Christ for men. The Great Commission is to present the truth of the Gospel to all the world, not contextualize it. Our goal should be develop a deep, thriving love of Christ and His truth in ourselves and in others around us.

We Need to Write More Books

Matthew Gage1 Comment
Image by Przemysław Trojan from Pixabay

I observed back when I was in Bible college something that startled me. When we were assigned textbooks for the various classes, so many did not fully align with the doctrinal position of the school. Even though the school was staunchly KJV only, many times the textbooks were not. The same can be said for books written by Baptists. This not be surprising if we were talking about a science or math textbook, but many of the Bible and theological courses resorted to using such books. I am not saying that the books did not have value, but that they somewhat undermined the position of the school.

I asked one of my Bible college professors about why people of our stripe did not write books. He replied, “I guess we are too busy soulwinning.” This idea scares me because while we are doing the work now we are not leaving a legacy for those that will follow us. We are already having to train our next generation of leaders with textbooks that do not fully align with who we are. Why are we shocked when these men do not stay Fundamental in their doctrine or practice when we have exposed them to things that run counter to it?

Sometimes Fundamentalism is described as being “all fun and no mental”. There are sadly those that fit that description, but I have also met some Fundamentalists with brilliant Biblical minds. Why aren’t they writing books?

One reason that I mentioned before is that we have not prioritized writing as a ministry. So much of Fundamentalism’s message of the past few decades has been very practical: “Go here, don’t go there. Do this, don’t do that.” We have neglected the theological framework that undergirds our actions. We know what to do, but we often neglect why we do it. This has led to many practical books on soulwinning, prayer, and separation, but it has not lead to deeper works on the theology and philosophy behind those actions.

Another reason is that we have devalued academic writing. This is in large part because we distance ourselves from much of the modern theological writings that are tainted by liberalism and destructive criticism of the Scriptures. This actually goes against the Fundamentalist heritage, which largely began as debates among academia. Many historic Fundamentalists were well-educated and possessed great theological knowledge. The problem they had was not with academia, but with the poisonous doctrines that had infiltrated it. In a tragic overreaction, most of Fundamentalism forsook academic pursuits for more something more practical. Again, the problem is that the practical is based on the theological. You cannot be sound in one without the other.

Another reason I think has to do with the small market size such books would appeal to. The giant publishing houses are not looking to publish anything by a Fundamentalist. Fundamentalism itself is so divided that it is difficult to reach the various camps with anything you put together.

A corollary issue to the small market size is the expense of printing. It is difficult for many people to put up the up front cost of printing through traditional avenues. This is because such small batch printing is deemed a “vanity” publication that the publishers do not believe will sale enough for them to make money. So they pass off the cost of printing to the author, who is required to purchase hundreds up copies up front.

I do not want to sound like an alarmist, but no movement can continue that does not develop its own theological writings and train their people using their own materials. We must overcome any aversions to writing as ministry and to the value of academic pursuits. If not, we will continue to bleed out people that are influenced by those who are writing and are writing well. As long as the Fundamental and Independent Baptist movements have been around, it is a shame that we do have a solid core of writings that define and inspire us.

We live in what is called the Information Age. With just a few keystrokes or taps we can find almost anything we want online. Where once broadcasting was out of reach for most people, anyone can now do a podcast. Where once publishing was out or reach for most people, anyone can now have a blog. Social media continues to develop and I do not think we have yet to harness its power for the Gospel.

It is not just the digital world that has been revolutionized, but the physical publishing world too. It is easier today to get a book printed than at any other time in all of history. It is also cheaper today than it has ever been.

I want to close by discussing just one of the multitude of possibilities for publishing good, solid books. Of course, they need to be written first. But once they are it is scarily easy to get them published and available to the entire world.

The one I want to focus on is Kindle Direct Publishing by Amazon. There is ZERO up front cost to create a either a physical book or a Kindle eBook. If you have a word processor, then you can create a book. There is a special application called Kindle Create that is used to format and create the Kindle eBook file. Once your book is created, Amazon will tell you how much each unit costs and they will take that for each unit sold. You choose an option for amount of royalties you will receive set the market price for the book, which must of course must be greater than the production cost. It costs you nothing up front and Amazon only gets paid when a book is purchased. They use a print-on-demand system so there is not an issue of paying for books that do not sale.

With such opportunities, why are we not taking advantage of them? I have been working on converting many of my sermon notes into book format and have a couple of books that I am working on besides those. I know that many pastors already have great material that just needs to be put into book form. Think of it as a ministry and devote some time to it. Even if only a few books are sold you have still made an impact. There are so many needs out there that we can help address.

Someone said that the radio preachers of yesteryear are all but forgotten but the preachers that wrote are still making an impact. In this day and age of podcasting and digital media, I still think the greatest impact we can make is with physical books.

It is time we get busy writing.

Rethinking the Reformation

Matthew Gage
Photo by Wim van ‘t Einde on Unsplash

I picked up my son from school and he started telling me some of the things they had learned about in his high school history class. He said that they had studied the Reformation that day. I joked and asked him if he wanted me to tell him everything they got wrong. He looked at me strangely so I spouted off a few tidbits that I knew didn’t match the perspective that most history textbooks take. Kind of surprised him I think.

The way many people present the history of the Reformation, its reasons and its impact, is tainted by overly-simplified historical narratives and denominational propaganda. Yes, even a lot of Baptists get much of the Reformation wrong.

What is the Reformation?

The Reformation is a period of great social, political, and religious upheaval that took place around the 1500’s in Europe. It is a period of transition from the Middle Ages into the Modern Age. Its scope is vast and there is no section of European society and culture of the time that is not affected by its influence. The term Reformation does not have a clear technical meaning. It could refer to attempts to reform Christianity and Catholicism or it could refer to the general way Europe was “re-formed” during this time.

The general narrative that is usually told is that Martin Luther disagreed with aspects of Roman Catholic doctrine and practice so he “protested” (that is the root of the word Protestant, those that “protest” aspects of Catholicism). It is often presented that the starting point of the Reformation is Luther’s posting of the Ninety-Five Theses in 1517. Then from Luther’s influence other leaders and groups emerge to challenge the Catholic religion and authority (which was also highly secular during this time).

A general timeline of the history of Christianity is sometimes presented as:

Countering the Narrative

If you spend any time studying history you will realize how vast and practically infinite the influence are that shape our world. As a Christian, I do believe that God’s hand is behind all of this (Daniel 2:21, etc.). Our finite human understanding tries to make sense of what appears to be turbulent chaos by detecting patterns, causes, and effects. We constantly reassess the story of humanity in light of new theories and discoveries. We are bound by our own times, mindsets, theories, cultures, languages, and a host of other factors. As much as we want to say that history is a fixed study, it is not.

I open with the above observation to show that anyone’s opinion on the Reformation must be flawed and differ from the true history. The one thing we have today that others have not had is five centuries of perspective and analysis. I am humbly adding my own to that multitude of opinions.

I have what I describe as a “low view” of the Reformation. While I acknowledge its importance in the development of Western Civilization and applaud some of the its core tenets, I do not see it as one of the greatest events in the history of Christianity. In fact, I think the wrong view of the Reformation greatly damages how that history is viewed.

Let me give you some points to consider to defend my position:

I. Catholicism did not have a monopoly on Christianity.

This is the oversimplified view illustrated in the diagram I presented before. It presents the Roman Catholic church as the only very of Christianity, even if you believe their teachings and practices to be false in the centuries before Luther.

The fact is that Catholicism was only a single branch of the family tree of Christianity. Granted, it became an extremely powerful branch (especially in Western civilization). A more accurate diagram of the history of Christian denominations might look like:

To view the Roman Catholic church as the primary expression of Christianity in history is to (1) have an extremely Eurocentric view of history and (2) buy into the Catholic propaganda that they are the one true church. There are countless other sects that have existed, some so small and so localized to have escaped the notice of historians. So many of these existed long before the true beginning of Roman Catholicism in the fourth century. So many of these were not birthed by opposition to Roman Catholicism. Millions of believers have lived that had no attachment to Roman Catholicism.

II. Protestantism did not discover anything new.

The most basic presentation of Reformation theology is the Five Solas: sola scriptura (Scripture alone), sola fide (faith alone), sola gratia (grace alone), solus Christus (Christ alone), soli Deo gloria (God’s glory alone). None of these positions were new, though men like Luther may have found them on their own. There is plenty of evidence for this for those who wish to study it out.

III. There were Reformers before the Reformation.

The date of 1517, when Luther presented his Ninety-Five Theses, is commonly given as the beginning of the Reformation. This is completely arbitrary. There were many so-called “proto-Protestant” leaders and movements before this date. Examples include Peter Waldo and the Waldensians, John Wycliffe, and Jan Hus and the Hussites.

IV. The Reformation was largely political.

This in part because the ideas of State and Church were so interwoven. But it cannot be overlooked that impetus behind the establishment of the Protestant Church of England had much to do with the politics of Henry the VIII. It cannot be overlooked that Martin Luther’s work was only successful because of the political backing of men like Frederick III, Elector of Saxony. It cannot be overlooked that John Calvin’s work was largely successful because of political intrigue in Geneva between the Grand Council and the Duke of Savoy.

I am not saying that the Reformation was completely political and ignoring any spiritual victories it gained. What I am saying is that it is not simply a grassroots theological movement that shook the world. Behind many aspects of the Reformation are kings and princes vying for earthly power and dominion. Many of these were simply tired of papal authority over them and seeing Rome drain their wealth and resources.

V. Some Reformers did not reform enough.

While some leaders like Calvin or Zwingli sought to establish a form of Christianity based solely on Scriptures, others kept much of the Catholic traditions and trappings. Lutheranism and Anglicanism are two that kept much of the liturgy and practices of Catholicism. Most of the most famous reformers still tried to keep a union of church and state.

VI. Groups existed that did not participate in reform.

As I mentioned before, the tenets of the Reformation were not new. They had both existed before historically and were actively held and practiced in Europe before, during, and after the Reformation. Often these are mislabeled as “Radical Reformers”, even if they did not directly attempt any reforming of Catholicism.

My contention is that throughout the history of Christendom that small, independent groups existed that help to a simple, orthodox Christianity like the Reformers promoted. These go by many names in history and are often lumped together with other groups the Catholics considered heretical. Yet, if you read carefully between the lines of history, it is clear that there always existed groups that held the Bible as sole authority, taught salvation by grace through faith, rejected infant baptism, and refused to pray to Mary. These groups did nor build grand cathedrals or run nation-states. They existed in the background of society and faced persecution and ridicule.

During the Reformation era, many of these were lumped into the Anabaptist category. That is such a broad term that it includes pacifists like the Amish and the warmongers that led the Münster rebellion. Many of these faced persecution and propaganda from both the Catholics and Reformers.

Misinterpreting the Reformation

I think one of the main reasons that the Reformation is misinterpreted is that of bias. For Americans, we owe a great debt to the spiritual, cultural, and political effects of the Reformation. For Protestants, they want to aggrandize their own history and accomplishments. If you are an Italian Roman Catholic I am sure you have a very different view. The same would go for many others across the globe.

The biggest problem I have with embellishing the Reformation is that it can actually weaken the positions held by Protestants. If you hold that true Christianity is based on Scripture alone, you must logically also hold that the truths of the Reformation preexisted it. You must hold that anyone with a Bible can and will come to the same conclusions about true Christianity. To hold any other position says that either (A) true Christianity was lost for centuries between the first centuries A.D. and the Reformation or (B) that the ideas of the Reformation are only another evolution of Christianity that was bred by discontent with Catholicism. Either of these greatly undermines the defense of Reformation ideas.

A Baptist Position

I am a Baptist. I cannot find from history how the Reformation invented the distinctive Baptist beliefs and therefore do not count myself as a Protestant. While I share many positions with my Reformed brethren, I do not count myself as a product of the Reformation. When I trace the history and heritage of Baptists, it is clear to me that men and women that believed like me existed during and before the Reformation. Whether or not you want to fully embrace Baptist successionism as found in J.M Carroll’s Trail of Blood is beside the point. It is clear from history that the core positions of the Baptists predate the Reformation, just as the Reformation’s own positions do.

While I am thankful for many of the benefits of the Reformation, especially the renewed call of salvation by grace through faith, I cannot ignore that not every aspect of it was positive. The ties of church and state were only strengthened in many areas. Some Reformers became persecutors of those that disagreed with them. Many errors in Catholic theology and practice were not completely eradicated in some denominations.

I would challenge the reader to research the full story of the Reformation. It is not nearly as simple of a story as a revival of true Christianity as many make it to be.

Physical Expression in Worship

Matthew Gage

There has been great debate throughout the history of Christianity on how to properly and acceptably express worship through physical expression. The debate is usually presented as a false dichotomy: you are either for physical expression in worship or you are not. Actually, there is a vast spectrum of opinions on the matter.

Photo by James Coleman on Unsplash

If we were to be honest, how we express our worship to God has much to do with our culture. Some cultures are far more physically expressive than others and it tends to bleed into how they worship. This is evident here in America, where many have observed that church services in the south are typically livelier than those in the north. A church service in Central America may be even livelier, while one in Europe may not be lively at all. Each of these situations is caused by the culture of the people.

Culture is something that must be considered when discussing this topic. Our modern American culture has some overlap with that of ancient Israel but there are also great differences. For instance, we do not express lament or mourning by tearing our clothes, wearing sackcloth, and putting ashes on our heads (II Samuel 13:19, Esther 4:1, Daniel 9:3, Jonah 3:6, etc.). Yet we know what these actions represent in that culture.

The bottom line is that physical expression is worship is an area of Christian liberty. There are many verses that condone it and few that condemn it. As Paul said in Romans 14:5: “Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.”

The issue today is that there is a great push for physical expression in worship that is not based on sound interpretation of Scripture. In this chapter, I want to look at four commonly promoted physical expressions and examine the Biblical case for each.

Bowing/Kneeling/Prostration

The primary Hebrew and Greek words used for worship carry with them the idea of bowing or prostration. The Hebrew shachah (Strong’s H7812) is defined as:

“A primitive root; to depress, that is, prostrate (especially reflexively in homage to royalty or God): – bow (self) down, crouch, fall down (flat), humbly beseech, do (make) obeisance, do reverence, make to stoop, worship.”

The Greek proskeneo (Strong’s G4352) is defined as:

“to fawn or crouch to, that is, (literally or figuratively) prostrate oneself in homage (do reverence to, adore): – worship.”

So obviously there is a connection between worshipping and humbling oneself by lowering ourselves toward the ground. I do not think anyone would deny that.

The issue then is whether that physical expression is figurative or literal for us today. Can this be done?

We must consider that in Hebrew especially there is a tendency to express abstract concepts with concrete imagery. That is, things that cannot be interacted with via our human senses are explained with things that are. A great example of this is the word qavah (Strong’s H6960) which is translated as “wait” in Isaiah 40:31. The Strong’s definition for this word is:

“to bind together (perhaps by twisting), that is, collect; (figuratively) to expect: – gather (together), look, patiently, tarry, wait (for, on, upon).”

Thus, the abstract idea of waiting is expressed in the concrete imagery of twisting and binding, such as braiding a rope from individual fibers. We see this meaning in Genesis 1:9 and Jeremiah 1:17 where qavah is translated “gathered”.

Does “waiting” (qavah) on the Lord mean that I must be twisting and binding? I do not think anyone would take those implied actions as literal. Instead, we would enhance our understanding of “waiting” to include preparing, strengthening, or producing so that waiting does not mean idleness.

So, does “worshipping” (shachah) mean that I must bow myself to the earth to truly worship? I would contend that it is a similar case to that of qavah, in that the implied action should be applied figuratively. It is therefore important to humble ourselves before God in our spirit, which may or may not be expressed physically.

Let me be honest here. I do not see any sort of command or precedent for physically bowing in our worship today. But of all the physical expressions we will discuss, this is the one that I would have the least problem with because it is the truest to the original sense of the words. Personally, I often lay prostrate on the ground in private prayer. I do think it would be out of place in corporate worship.

Clapping Hands

Clapping hands is a sign of joy or appreciation in our American culture. We may clap when our sports team wins or after a piano recital.

There is a little more nuance to the action when it appears in the Bible. It is chiefly an expression of joy or appreciation. However, it is also used in a mocking or derisive sense. Let’s look at the appearance of clapping and what each represents.

The first group are verses in which clapping hands is a clear expression of joy:

“And he brought forth the king’s son, and put the crown upon him, and gave him the testimony; and they made him king, and anointed him; and they clapped their hands, and said, God save the king.” – II Kings 11:12

“O clap your hands, all ye people; shout unto God with the voice of triumph.” – Psalm 47:1

The second group are verses in which anthropomorphic rivers and trees clap their hands in joy:

“Let the floods clap their hands: let the hills be joyful together” – Psalm 98:8

“For ye shall go out with joy, and be led forth with peace: the mountains and the hills shall break forth before you into singing, and all the trees of the field shall clap their hands.” – Isaiah 55:12

The third group are verses in which clapping hands is derisive or mocking, like gloating over a defeated enemy:

“Men shall clap their hands at him [wicked man], and shall hiss him out of his place.” – Job 27:23

“For he [Job] addeth rebellion unto his sin, he clappeth his hands among us, and multiplieth his words against God.” – Job 34:37

“All that pass by clap their hands at thee; they hiss and wag their head at the daughter of Jerusalem, saying, Is this the city that men call The perfection of beauty, The joy of the whole earth?” – Lamentations 2:15

“For thus saith the Lord GOD; Because thou [Ammon] hast clapped thine hands, and stamped with the feet, and rejoiced in heart with all thy despite against the land of Israel; Behold, therefore I will stretch out mine hand upon thee, and will deliver thee for a spoil to the heathen; and I will cut thee off from the people, and I will cause thee to perish out of the countries: I will destroy thee; and thou shalt know that I am the LORD.” – Ezekiel 25:6-7

“There is no healing of thy [Assyria’s] bruise; thy wound is grievous: all that hear the bruit of thee shall clap the hands over thee: for upon whom hath not thy wickedness passed continually?” – Nahum 3:19

Those nine references are all the references to clapping in the Bible. None of the five references in the third group are instructive for us as they do not relate to worship. Neither does II Kings 11:12. I would say that both Psalm 98:8 and Isaiah 55:2 are artistic representations of joy and not instructive to us.

This leaves us with one verse – Psalm 47:1 – to build a case for clapping our hands in worship of God. Here I believe we see the joyful praise of the Messiah in His Kingdom (see vs. 7-9) expressed through clapping (applause), shouting (vs. 1), and singing (vs. 6-7). Charles Spurgeon wrote: “The most natural and most enthusiastic tokens of exultation are to be used in view of the victories of the Lord, and his universal reign. Our joy in God may be demonstrative, and yet he will not censure it.”

I do believe that clapping is an acceptable means of expressing our joy toward God. I do think this refers to applause and not keeping rhythm to a song.

Raising Hands

Over the past few decades, the act of raising hands has become an almost ubiquitous expression of worship. Even in conservative churches there is often a grudging acceptance of the act even if it is not actually promoted or practiced.

I believe there is a great misunderstanding on the subject that is based on people reading a different definition or motivation into the appearance of raising hands in the Bible. To try to avoid confusion, we will look at the references to the practice grouped according to what the act of raising hands is referring to. I do acknowledge that some of these could fit into different or even multiple categories.

First, there is a group of references where raising hands is part of pronouncing a blessing:

“And Aaron lifted up his hand toward the people, and blessed them, and came down from offering of the sin offering, and the burnt offering, and peace offerings.” – Leviticus 9:22

“And he [Christ] led them out as far as to Bethany, and he lifted up his hands, and blessed them.” – Luke 24:50

Second, there is a group of references where raising hands is part of swearing an oath:

“For I [God] lift up my hand to heaven, and say, I live for ever.” – Deuteronomy 32:40

“And Ezra blessed the LORD, the great God. And all the people answered, Amen, Amen, with lifting up their hands: and they bowed their heads, and worshipped the LORD with their faces to the ground.” – Nehemiah 8:6

“And I heard the man clothed in linen, which was upon the waters of the river, when he held up his right hand and his left hand unto heaven, and sware by him that liveth for ever that it shall be for a time, times, and an half; and when he shall have accomplished to scatter the power of the holy people, all these things shall be finished.” – Daniel 12:7

Third, there is a group of references where raising hands is an act of violence or opposition:

“And Ahimaaz called, and said unto the king, All is well. And he fell down to the earth upon his face before the king, and said, Blessed be the LORD thy God, which hath delivered up the men that lifted up their hand against my lord the king.” – II Samuel 18:28

“Then the king Ahasuerus said unto Esther the queen and to Mordecai the Jew, Behold, I have given Esther the house of Haman, and him they have hanged upon the gallows, because he laid his hand upon the Jews.” – Esther 8:7

“Thine hand shall be lifted up upon thine adversaries, and all thine enemies shall be cut off.” – Micah 5:9

Fourth, there is a group of references where raising hands is an act of beckoning or welcoming:

“Thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I will lift up mine hand to the Gentiles, and set up my standard to the people: and they shall bring thy sons in their arms, and thy daughters shall be carried upon their shoulders.” – Isaiah 49:22

“I have spread out my hands all the day unto a rebellious people, which walketh in a way that was not good, after their own thoughts;” – Isaiah 65:2

Fifth, there is a group of references where raising hands is an act of prayer or pleading:

“And it was so, that when Solomon had made an end of praying all this prayer and supplication unto the LORD, he arose from before the altar of the LORD, from kneeling on his knees with his hands spread up to heaven.” – I Kings 8:54

“And he [Solomon] stood before the altar of the LORD in the presence of all the congregation of Israel, and spread forth his hands:” – II Chronicles 6:12

“And at the evening sacrifice I arose up from my heaviness; and having rent my garment and my mantle, I fell upon my knees, and spread out my hands unto the LORD my God, And said, O my God, I am ashamed and blush to lift up my face to thee, my God: for our iniquities are increased over our head, and our trespass is grown up unto the heavens. ” – Ezra 9:5-6

“Hear the voice of my supplications, when I cry unto thee, when I lift up my hands toward thy holy oracle.” – Psalm 28:2

“If we have forgotten the name of our God, or stretched out our hands to a strange god;” – Psalm 44:20

“Thus will I bless thee while I live: I will lift up my hands in thy name.” – Psalm 63:4

“Princes shall come out of Egypt; Ethiopia shall soon stretch out her hands unto God.” – Psalm 68:31

“Mine eye mourneth by reason of affliction: LORD, I have called daily upon thee, I have stretched out my hands unto thee.” – Psalm 88:9

“Lift up your hands in the sanctuary, and bless the LORD.” – Psalm 134:2

“Let my prayer be set forth before thee as incense; and the lifting up of my hands as the evening sacrifice.” – Psalm 141:2

“I stretch forth my hands unto thee: my soul thirsteth after thee, as a thirsty land. Selah” – Psalm 143:6

“And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you: yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear: your hands are full of blood.” – Isaiah 1:15

“Zion spreadeth forth her hands, and there is none to comfort her: the LORD hath commanded concerning Jacob, that his adversaries should be round about him: Jerusalem is as a menstruous woman among them.” – Lamentations 1:15

“Let us lift up our heart with our hands unto God in the heavens.” – Lamentations 3:41

“Arise, cry out in the night: in the beginning of the watches pour out thine heart like water before the face of the Lord: lift up thy hands toward him for the life of thy young children, that faint for hunger in the top of every street.” – Lamentations 2:19

“I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.” – I Timothy 2:8

Sixth, there is a group of references where raising hands is simply the act of raising hands with no clear meaning behind the act:

“And Moses said unto him, As soon as I am gone out of the city, I will spread abroad my hands unto the LORD; and the thunder shall cease, neither shall there be any more hail; that thou mayest know how that the earth is the LORD’S.” – Exodus 9:29

“Arise, O LORD; O God, lift up thine hand: forget not the humble.” – Psalm 10:12

“LORD, when thy hand is lifted up, they will not see: but they shall see, and be ashamed for their envy at the people; yea, the fire of thine enemies shall devour them.” – Isaiah 26:11

“The mountains saw thee, and they trembled: the overflowing of the water passed by: the deep uttered his voice, and lifted up his hands on high.” – Habakkuk 3:10

“My hands also will I lift up unto thy commandments, which I have loved; and I will meditate in thy statutes.” – Psalm 119:48

“For I have heard a voice as of a woman in travail, and the anguish as of her that bringeth forth her first child, the voice of the daughter of Zion, that bewaileth herself, that spreadeth her hands, saying, Woe is me now! for my soul is wearied because of murderers.” – Jeremiah 4:31

The sixteen verses of the fifth group regarding prayer are generally the ones used to promote raising hands in worship. This goes against not only a straightforward interpretation of the phrases, but also fails to discern how often these prayers are linked to lament or despair. I would challenge the reader to study out the setting for each of these verses, especially the ones from Ezra, Psalms, Isaiah, and Lamentations. What you will find is that the act of lifting hands in prayer is often tied to lament and desperation.

I firmly believe that careful study of raising hands in Scripture has little to do with worshipping or praising God. I believe that modern readers are reading a meaning into the action that is not consistent with a plain reading of the references.

Dancing

Dancing, like clapping or shouting, is a common expression of joy (Exodus 15:20, II Samuel 6:14). In Ecclesiastes 3:4 and Psalm 30:11 it is seen as the opposite of mourning.

Here again we need to consider the culture of ancient Israel and not let our modern actions creep into our understanding of Scripture. The dancing of the Jewish people is folk dancing. It is very different than modern or popular dances today. The emphasis is on communal activity and not individuals. It is to be participated in by a group of people and not for performance. It is also not so sexually charged as much of today’s dance is.

The question is not whether the Jewish people danced, but rather did they dance as an act of worship. There is little evidence from Scripture to suggest they did. The Mosaic Law has no mention of it. There are two commonly cited references that we need to discuss.

The first is the example of David, who danced when the Ark of the Covenant was brought to Jerusalem (II Samuel 6:14-16, I Chronicles 15:29). If seen through the lens of Jewish culture, this appears to be a celebratory folk dance like those following the Red Sea crossing in Exodus 15:20 or Goliath’s defeat in I Samuel 18:6. If it is an act of worship, it is the only record of such. Frankly, there is no indication this David’s dance is an example for us to follow.

The second is the final two Psalms. Those who defend the use of dancing say that these Psalms detail how we should worship and praise God because they begin with commands to “sing… his praise in the congregation of saints” (Psalm 149:1) and “praise God in his sanctuary” (Psalm 150:1). They will often claim this is descriptive of Temple worship.

However, Psalms 149 and 150 are not exclusively about Temple worship. They are the grand climax of the Psalms that extol all people at all times in all places to praise God. Psalm 149 is clear on this. Vs. 5 talks about praise in the nighttime – “let them sing aloud upon their beds.” Vs. 6 and following talks about praise in battle – “Let the high praises of God be in their mouth, and a twoedged word in their hand.” To be consistent, if you claim 149:3 commands or commends dance in worship then you should also see the same emphasis on using beds and swords.

Another issue with using Psalms 149 and 150 is the artistic language of the Hebrew poetry. Many well-meaning people misinterpret Hebrew poetry by taking it too literally or doing so inconsistently. Psalm 150 is a great example of this. It is not commanding us to praise God only with trumpets, psalteries, harps, timbrels, dances, stringed instruments, organs, and symbols. It is not even saying we must use those means. It is poetically imploring us to joyfully praise God with any proper means at our disposal. It is like the famous Winston Churchill quote about defending Britain from Nazi invasion: “We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender.” Churchill is not saying that beaches, landing grounds, fields, streets, and hills are the only places they would fight. He is artistically stating that they will fight the foe on any ground.

Why?

I have attempted to be honest and open-minded in approaching the subject of physical expression in worship. I cannot find a good Scriptural basis for the promotion of it as we see so much of today. However, I cannot find clear prohibitions against it.

Like I said in the opening of this chapter, we are dealing with a subject that is largely governed by Christian liberty. To each his own, right? Sort of.

The biggest issue is why would we encourage physical expression in worship. This question is often overlooked in the discussion as we chase down verses and definitions and such. We must address why to clear up the entire debate.

Some will claim that the why is an attempt to be obedient to the clear teaching of Scripture. I think I have demonstrated in this chapter that this is not the case.

Some will claim the why is an attempt to restore a true means of worship that has been forgotten or lost. I highly doubt God would let His people forget how to properly worship Him for over two thousand years.
Some will claim the why is breaking down barriers in our hearts so that we can experience unbridled worship. This is New Age philosophy and not Bible doctrine. We are nowhere commanded to “follow our hearts” because our fallen and depraved nature is untrustworthy (Jeremiah 17:9).

Some will claim the why is to allow the Holy Spirit to move believers. This creates something like a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you are promoting actions that you think the Holy Spirit would do, then you are also promoting people perform those actions as proof of the Holy Spirit’s working. You are getting what you expect and denying what you do not.

I think the why is that people are not satisfied with what God has already given them as means to worship. They want to worship God on their own terms. It is the same motivation as Caan’s offering in Genesis 4. It is the same motivation that led to the creation of the golden calf in Exodus 32. It is the same motivation that led Peter to want to build three tabernacles in Luke 9:33. It is the same motivation that led many early believers to be burdened with the customs of the Mosaic Law. All these thought they too had found a better, newer, more effective way of worshipping God.

Christian Maturity

Careful study of the Scriptures will show that it is not unbridled passion or exuberant praise that marks a mature believer. It is the opposite: temperance, sobriety, and soundness of mind. Note the following verses and the underlined words and phrases:

“But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.” – Galatians 5:22-23

“Likewise must the deacons be grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre; Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience.” – I Timothy 3:8-9

“For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.” – II Timothy 1:7

“For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre; But a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate; Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.” – Titus 1:7-9

“But speak thou the things which become sound doctrine: That the aged men be sober, grave, temperate, sound in faith, in charity, in patience.” – Titus 2:1-2

“For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world; Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.” – Titus 2:11-14

“Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour: Whom resist stedfast in the faith, knowing that the same afflictions are accomplished in your brethren that are in the world.” – I Peter 5:8-9

“And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge; And to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness; And to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity.” – II Peter 1:5-7

It is clear that a spiritually mature believer is not marked by reckless abandoning themselves in uninhibited worship. If anything, that description would apply to the weak or immature believer. These need to be encouraged “to put away childish things” and grow into richer and deeper understanding of worship.

Book Review – “Worship and the Ear of God”

Matthew Gage

Rarely do I read a book and immediately feel the need to review it. That is just what has happened as I finished “Worship and the Ear of God” by Dave Hardy, published in 2017 by The Global Baptist Times. The book is quick read at 87 total pages, 70 of which are to be read (the body and first appendix).

As I have been studying on worship during the past couple of years, I have been saddened that not very many books on the subject are written by Independent Baptists or even conservatives for that matter. I had heard mention of Bro. Hardy but had not taken the opportunity to buy and read his book until now. I hoped it may finally be a book from someone of my stripe that addressed worship in a meaningful way.

I was disappointed to say the least.

The major flaw of Bro. Hardy’s book is its fundamental premise: that worship and physically bowing are intrinsically connected. That overemphasis on a physical expression of worship influences every chapter and every argument made.

Much of Bro. Hardy’s vigor comes from the Greek and Hebrew words and their definitions. He is correct in highlighting the bowing aspect in both shachah and proskeneo. I cannot think of another author though that so stringently applies to us today the idea of bowing to the physical. Every author or resource I can recall highlights the idea of bowing as humbling oneself before God. The common approach is similar to the way we handle the ceremonial and sacrificial laws; that is, that we are not literally bound to obey them but there are principles we can learn from them.

I was taught that if you come up with an idea that no one else has had, be very careful. But I wanted to give this author the benefit of the doubt and see if he could back up this position. The entire book hangs on the assumption that to worship we need to physically bow. If that argument fails, the rest of the book has not foundation.

Yet, the argument fails.

First, the no clear argument is made for physical bowing outside of the Greek and Hebrew definitions. On p. 17: “Since the idea of bowing is inherent in the translation of the word worship, there should be no need for additional encouragement.” This fails to understand that one of the basic tenets of language is words can have ideas, pictures, or actions attached to them that are literally part of their meaning. The word qavah in Isaiah 40:31 is translated and understood to mean “wait”, yet Strong’s definition is: “to bind together (perhaps by twisting), that is, collect; (figuratively) to expect: – gather (together), look, patiently, tarry, wait (for, on, upon).” To follow the author’s logic, we should be twisting threads and winding rope as we wait on God, and if we are not twisting and winding we must not be truly waiting.

Why settle on bowing? He mentions being prostrate a few times, but wouldn’t that be better? What about the aspect of proskeneo that is related to a dog licking his master’s hand? Should we be licking in worship? How can we choose only one expression of these words?

Second, it is simply assumed the argument is correct. On p. 11: “The fact that so few Christians kneel in worship on Sunday during a service labeled as such suggest a lack of understanding of the primary application of the word.”

Third, the author continually undermines his own argument. On p. 15, he gives the Strong’s definition of proskeneo as “to kiss, like a dog licking his master’s hand; to fawn or crouch to; to literally or figuratively prostrate oneself in homage; to do reverence to; to adore.” [emphasis added]. This definition contradicts his assertion by acknowledging a figurative bowing/humbling is possible.

On p. 27: “I have heard a pastor or song leader say, ‘Let us worship the Lord in song, in our giving, in our praise, and in our prayers.’ I have no problem with worshipping the Lord in any or all of these ways…” This acknowledges there are many ways to worship besides bowing.

Fourth, the author acknowledges the novelty of his own approach: On p. 17, “Nevertheless, I confess to placing a greater emphasis on the physical act of bowing than most I have read so far.”

Fifth, the author states that worship is more than physically bowing, yet continues to focus on that aspect. On p. 17: “I have previously stated that I clearly understand that worship involves more than bowing the knee…”

Sixth, the author argues from the Bible’s silence to support his position. On p. 17: “…but I fail to see good reason in the Bible not to bow the knee.”

Seventh, the author does not consistently apply his approach to words other than worship. On p. 22: “The physical posture for praise is not as specifically articulated as it is for worship.” A lot of charismatics would argue otherwise. He argues against a straw man on p. 27 that inconsistently does word studies on baptize and not worship. I and many others have done both and are consistent in our approaches.

Eighth, the author acknowledges worship still occurred without bowing. On p. 25: “Did we never worship the Lord all those Sundays for sixteen years? I am convinced that we did worship, but with less than full understanding. I am also convinced that our Heavenly Father accepted and reveled in our worship.” So what does the bowing do? (I’ll answer that later).

Ninth, the author inserts his beliefs into the silence of Scripture. On p. 31: “That vision hit Isaiah like a stroke, and as some commentators suggest, he groveled in the dust of his unworthiness.”

Tenth, the author inconsistently identifies the first mention of worship in Scripture. On p. 9, he acknowledges the first appearance of the Hebrew word shachah in Genesis 18:2. On p. 35 when speaking of the “Law of First Mention”, he acknowledges the first appearance of the English word worship in the KJV.

Eleventh, the author downplays the act of bowing when it is not convenient. On p. 40 describing his feelings while on a plane: “I cannot bow during those times, though I prefer to, but there is definitely a connection with my Maker.” You cannot claim its importance and apply it at convenience.

Twelfth, the author appeals to pragmatic results. On p. 43: “After preaching on worship at our church and incorporating it into the Sunday morning service, I began to notice an increase in the number of people coming to the altar during invitation time at the close of our service.” I would argue for a practical reason for this: you expected and encouraged physical reaction and it took form outside of bowing in worship.

Thirteenth, the author appeals to a flawed illustration. On p. 46-47, we have the illustration of aliens visiting earth and not thinking what most Baptists do is worship. To be honest, I have used a similar illustration in the past. However, there is no impartiality of the aliens in his version. He says: “We will further assume that they have acquainted themselves with our theological jargon, which would give them an understanding of worship. They know that the original words mean to bow before their sovereign – their king.” So, if the aliens believed as the author did, they too would assume the same as him that our worship is flawed. Also in that scenario, he appeals to the example of Islamic practices of bowing as closer to true worship than most Baptists churches. That comparison is fraught with issues.

Fourteenth, the author claims that England has a better understand of worship because they have a king and they bow to him. On p. 49: “The point is, the people of England, under King James and later, understood the term worship.” I think I know what he is getting at, that Americans typically treat leaders more as equals, but that intent is lost in the content. (A) Why start with James? They didn’t understand it before him? Could anyone before 1611? (B) Back on p. 10, the author argues that our understanding of worship in English is flawed because of the word’s etymology. Is that not true in England? Did worship have a different’ etymology in 1611?

Fifteenth, all of chapter thirteen, “Worship and Revival” is based on misappropriating II Chronicles 7:14 to us instead of Israel. I have commented on that before.

Worship and the of God suffers from the same problems that most books on worship have that are written by charismatics.

First, it offers some new and exciting take on old and tired worship that somehow Christianity missed for a couple of millennia.

Second, it equates worship with physical action, even if the author denies it.

Third, it relies on flawed Greek and Hebrew word studies.

Fourth, it promotes “experiential” worship and feeling over substance.

Fifth, it downplays other forms of worship. I would argue that singing a hymn, giving an offering, praying, and listening to a sermon can all be acts of worship.

Sixth, it begs the slippery slope comparison. I recognize the weakness of this argument, but once you go down the path of physically expressive worship where do you stop? On p. 62 he endorses raising hands in praise while discussing Nehemiah 8:6. My careful study of that verse leads me to believe the raised hands were as part of an oath, not praise. The correlation between raising of hands and praise is a charismatic development.

I can not recommend this book. The few good parts are not worth it. Independent Baptists both deserve and need a better treatment of worship that this.

Is “Tyrant” Missing From The KJV?

Matthew Gage

From time to time I hear a claim that King James I interfered with the translation of the Bible he sponsored by demanding words or phrases not be used. There is no evidence of this ever occurring. The only directions we are aware of are fifteen guidelines for the translation process.

Today, I came across a claim on Twitter (original video above) that James did not want the word tyrant used in his translation. That video claims, “But King James didn’t like this word, so he took it out and replaced it with something different.” James was an advocate of the divine right of monarchy to rule (and wrote about it), and so it is claimed that he would be sensitive to criticism of a such a monarchy as “tyranny”.

Translation Comparison

The primary comparison used is KJV with the Geneva Bible, with some attention paid to other earlier translations like the Bishop’s Bible or the Coverdale Bible. Using BibleHub and BibleGateway, here are the relevant verses compared:

  • Job 3:17
    • Hebrew – Strong’s H7267
    • Geneva Bible – “The wicked have there ceased from their tyranny, and there they that labored valiantly, are at rest.”
      • Also in Bishops and Coverdale.
    • KJV – “There the wicked cease from troubling; and there the weary be at rest.”
    • Other translations use words like “trouble” or “raging”
  • Job 6:23
    • Hebrew – Strong’s H6184
    • Geneva Bible – “And deliver me from the enemy’s hand, or ransom me out of the hand of tyrants?”
      • In Bishops but not Coverdale
    • KJV – “Or, Deliver me from the enemy’s hand? or, Redeem me from the hand of the mighty?”
    • Other translations use “ruthless, except the NASB which does use “tyrant”.
  • Job 15:20
    • Hebrew – Strong’s H6184
    • Geneva Bible – “The wicked man is continually as one that travaileth of child, and the number of years is hid from the tyrant.”
      • Also in Bishops and Coverdale
    • KJV – “The wicked man travaileth with pain all his days, and the number of years is hidden to the oppressor.”
    • Other translations are mainly “ruthless”
  • Job 27:13
    • Hebrew – Strong’s H6184
    • Geneva Bible – “This is the portion of a wicked man with God, and the heritage of tyrants, which they shall receive of the Almighty.”
      • Also in Bishops and Coverdale
    • KJV – “This is the portion of a wicked man with God, and the heritage of oppressors, which they shall receive of the Almighty.”
    • Other translations: NASB has “tyrants” while others vary.
  • Psalm 54:3
    • Hebrew – Strong’s H6184
    • Geneva Bible – “For strangers are risen up against me, and tyrants seek my soul: they have not set God before them. Selah.”
      • In Bishops but not Coverdale.
    • KJV – “For strangers are risen up against me, and oppressors seek after my soul: they have not set God before them. Selah.”
    • Other translations mainly have “ruthless” or “violent men”
  • Isaiah 13:11
    • Hebrew – Strong’s H6184
    • Geneva Bible – “And I will visit the wickedness upon the world, and their iniquity upon the wicked, and I will cause the arrogancy of the proud to cease, and will cast down the pride of tyrants.”
      • Also in Bishops and Coverdale
    • KJV – “And I will punish the world for their evil, and the wicked for their iniquity; and I will cause the arrogancy of the proud to cease, and will lay low the haughtiness of the terrible.”
    • Other translations have a mix of words like “tyrant” or “ruthless”
  • Isaiah 49:25
    • Hebrew – Strong’s H6184
    • Geneva Bible – “But thus saith the Lord, Even the captivity of the mighty shall be taken away: and the prey of the tyrant shall be delivered: for I will contend with him that contendeth with thee, and I will save thy children,”
      • Not in Bishops or Coverdale
    • KJV – “But thus saith the LORD, Even the captives of the mighty shall be taken away, and the prey of the terrible shall be delivered: for I will contend with him that contendeth with thee, and I will save thy children.”
    • Most other translations have “tyrant”.
  • Jeremiah 15:21
    • Hebrew – Strong’s H6184
    • Geneva Bible – “And I will deliver thee out of the hand of the wicked, and I will redeem thee out of the hand of the tyrants.”
      • Also in Bishops and Coverdale
    • KJV – “And I will deliver thee out of the hand of the wicked, and I will redeem thee out of the hand of the terrible.”
    • Other translations mostly have “cruel”, “ruthless” or “violent”, but a few do have “tyrant”.
  • James 2:6
    • Not found in Greek.
    • Geneva Bible – “But ye have despised the poor. Do not the rich oppress you by tyranny, and do they not draw you before the judgment seats?”
      • Also in Bishops, but not Coverdale or Tyndale.
    • KJV – “But ye have despised the poor. Do not rich men oppress you, and draw you before the judgment seats?”
    • Most other translations do not have a parallel, a few have “exploit”

Regarding the Geneva Bible

The Geneva Bible was a tremendous achievement. It is essentially the world’s first “study Bible”, with notes, maps, and other features found in most Bible printed today. It did a great job of translation and was the primary Bible of English Protestantism for almost a century.

However, the downfall of the Geneva Bible is likely attributed to the added notes, in which are found many strong political statements. Remember that the Reformation was not just religious, it was political. For example of political commentary is found in a note in Daniel 11:36 states “So long the tyrants shall prevail as God hath appointed to punish his people: but he showeth that it is but for a time.” Simply put, the Geneva Bible was a politically disruptive force.

Historical Language Analysis

Today word tyrant might mean “an absolute ruler unrestrained by law or constitution” or “a ruler who exercises absolute power oppressively or brutally”.

In the ancient world it was a little different. The word tyrant comes from Greek, where it described opportunists that seized power with little or no right to do so. Originally it did have any connotation, good or bad, but developed a bad one over time.

As Western society progressed into the Enlightenment, tyranny became something to be despised. John Locke described it as “the exercise of power beyond right, which nobody can have a right to; and this is making use of the power any one has in his hands, not for the good of those who are under it, but for his own private, separate advantage.”

Old Testament Language Analysis

Because of the Greek heritage of the word and idea behind a tyrant, there really is not clear equivalent in ancient Hebrew.

Hebrew – Strong’s H7267

The Geneva Bible translated this word as “tyrant” only in Job 3:17.

Strong’s defines as “commotion, restlessness (of a horse), crash (of thunder), disquiet, anger — fear, noise, rage, trouble(-ing), wrath.”

Conclusion – Tyranny is probably not the best word here. It is describing the actions of the wicked as being turbulent, nothing inherently tyrannical here.

Hebrew – Strong’s H6184

This word is translated 7x in the Geneva Bible as “tyrant”. It occurs 20x overall

Strong’s defines as “fearful, i.e. Powerful or tyrannical — mighty, oppressor, in great power, strong, terrible, violent.”

Conclusion – Tyrant is not a bad translation of this word, but it is one application of a broader idea, which is “something to be feared that is mighty and oppressive”. Some appearances like Proverbs 11:16 or Jeremiah 20:11 do not contain the idea of being a tyrant. Again, “tyrant” is not an inaccurate translation in some cases but it is definitely not an equivalent for the Hebrew word.

New Testament Language Analysis

As we saw above, the only appearance of “tyrant” in the Geneva Bible’s New Testament in James 2:6 does not appear to have a textual basis. I’ll leave figuring that out to someone else, but I will show you the one time “tyrant” appears in the Greek New Testament: Acts 19:9. Yes, the name Tyrannus (Strong’s G5181) literally means “tyrant”.

Conclusion

So, according to the argument presented in the beginning, King James I did not like the word tyrant because it could be thought of as critical of his monarchy. He then supposedly directed the translators of the KJV to not use the word “tyrant”. We cited the references in the Geneva Bible (and others) that use the word tyrant where the KJV does not.

Case closed, right?

No, because the presented argument is critically flawed.

All we must do to utterly destroy the argument is show that the KJV does include the word tyrant. This completely undermines the foundation for the argument.

But didn’t we admit that the KJV does not contain the word tyrant? Yes and no.

What we proved above is that tyrant is not found in the Old or New Testaments of the KJV.

Here is the fatal flaw: no one that presents this argument bothered to look in the Apocrypha of the original KJV. If anyone had bothered to do so, you will quickly find that the word tyrant appears 3x in the KJV Apocrypha:

  • Wisdom of Solomon 12:14 – “Neither shall king or tyrant be able to set his face against thee for any whom thou hast punished.”
  • II Maccabees 4:25 – “So he came with the king’s mandate, bringing nothing worthy the high priesthood, but having the fury of a cruel tyrant, and the rage of a savage beast.”
  • II Maccabees 7:27 – “But she bowing herself toward him, laughing the cruel tyrant to scorn, spake in her country language on this manner; O my son, have pity upon me that bare thee nine months in my womb, and gave thee such three years, and nourished thee, and brought thee up unto this age, and endured the troubles of education.”

It should not be a surprise that Wisdom of Solomon and II Maccabees were originally written in Greek. The original writes used the Greek term for tyrant and the English translators used the English equivalent.

So, to counter the original argument:

  • King James could not have forbidden the use of the word tyrant because it does appear in the work of the translators within the Apocrypha.
  • The Greek etymology and heritage of tyrant makes it anachronistic to use in ancient Hebrew, meaning there is not equivalent that must be translated as such.

Oh, and I guess since the word “pudding” isn’t used in the KJV that James must have directed the translators to not talk about British desserts.

On Typology

Matthew Gage

I’ll be honest and say that when it comes to Bible study I have generally avoided the area of Typology. But recently I have been studying, teaching, and encountering this system of Bible interpretation more than before. I had a few thoughts that I wanted to share on the subject.

Lewis Sperry Chafer defines it well in his Systematic Theology (Vol. III, p. 116-117):

A type is a divinely purposed anticipation which illustrates its antitype. These two parts of one theme are related to each other by the fact that the same truth or principle is embodied in each. It is not the prerogative of the type to establish the truth of a doctrine; it rather enhances the force of the truth as set forth in the antitype. On the other hand, the antitype serves to lift its type out of the commonplace into that which is inexhaustible and to invest it with riches and treasures hitherto unrevealed.

For example, so many wonderful types are found in the Tabernacle and its services that point to Christ. Indeed, this is almost certainly the primary application of Typology that you will find today. We could go on to speak endlessly on how the Passover lamb pictured Christ’s sacrifice. The books of Romans and Hebrews are full of types that use Old Testament references to highlight New Testament truths. Typology is a cornerstone of New Testament theology and Biblical interpretation.

But it is not without its limits or problems. This system of study has been greatly abused over the millennia. Quoting Chafer again (Systematic Theology, Vol. III, p. 116):

Typology, like prophecy, has often suffered more from its friends than its foes. The fact that extremists have failed to distinguish between that which is typical and that which is merely allegorical, analogous, parallel, happy illustration, or resemblance may have driven conservative theologians from the field. When truth is tortured by faddists and extremists, an added obligation is thereby imposed upon conservative scholarship to declare it in its right proportions. It is obvious that to neglect truth is a greater error than to overemphasize it or to misstate it; and typology, though abused by some, is, nevertheless, conspicuous by its absence from works Systematic Theology. That typology is neglected is evident from the fact that of upwards of twenty works of Systematic Theology examined, but one lists this subject in its index and this author has made but one slight reference to it in a footnote.

The safest interpretation of types and antitypes is to only claim as Old Testament types that which is explicitly states to have an antitype in the New Testament. For instance, Paul uses the first man Adam as a type of Christ (I Corinthians 15:21-22 and Romans 15:14-17). Another is Melchizedek (Genesis 14) who in Hebrews 7 is used as a type to reinforce Christ’s priestly role.

Yet, there are New Testament verses that apply typology very broadly. In Hebrews 9:8-12, we find that entire system of Tabernacle worship with its systems of sacrifices and varied ordinances points to the antitype of Christ’s redemptive work. The details are not given of how this applies to every aspect of the Tabernacle’s construction or the multitude of commandments in the Mosaic Law. It is clear that the Paschal lamb represents Christ, but what about the shewbread or the regulations concerning the differing types of sacrifices? We certainly know that the Bible is HIS story (Psalm 40:7, Hebrews 10:7). So then we are evidently left to discern these ourselves by the guidance of the Spirit.

But not every allusion to the Old Testament in the New Testament refers to a type. There are also illustrations, allegories, and analogies, to name a few. We must carefully discern among these.

So, let us develop of working theory of Typology.

  • First, it must be a connection of type and antitype, generally found in the Old and New Testaments respectively.
  • Second, the foundation for interpreting the relations of type and antitype must come from an emphasis on the antitype. We do not judge any truth about Adam on his typological parallels to Christ, but we do perform the opposite reaction.
  • Third, any supposition or hypothesis regarding the interpretation of a type and antitype must harmonize with the preponderance of clear Scriptural teaching. Just because a connection can be logically construed between two subjects does not give it the power to trump doctrine that is definitively and inarguably taught in Scripture.

Which brings me finally to the reason for this post. There are an error I encountered in the application of Typology that I wanted to mention. I doubt that I will be able to conclusively disprove it here, perhaps at a future time I will further develop my arguments to that level.

I encountered this problem while reading A History of Contemporary Praise & Worship by Lester Ruth and Lim Swee Hong. While discussing the development of Praise & Worship music in the Latter Rain movement, the authors highlight that one of the theological bases was Typology, specifically concerning Tabernacle.

  • “The linchpin of theological development within the Latter Rian movement of this period was a liturgical theology based on a typology.” (p. 46)
  • “Because the theology behind Praise & Worship was a typologically based theology, the identification of the key Scriptures and their interpretation as types was critical.” (p. 46)

The basis for their worship theology was a typological interpretation of the “tabernacle of David”. This not the Tabernacle of Moses, but the temporary dwelling place of the Ark of the Covenant from its arrival in Jerusalem in II Samuel 6 and the construction of the Temple by Solomon. There are verses that speak of the “tabernacle of David” being restored in Amos 9:11-12 and the quotation of Amos by James in Acts 15:15-17. How was this justified? Another quote (p. 47-48)

The result was a more highly developed theology featuring praise as the key to God’s presence in the church. or example, an instructor at Bible Temple’s Portland Bible College, Kevin Conner, wrote an influential textbook, The Tabernacle of David, that provided the most detailed hermeneutic to this theology. The core tabernacle of David passages mentioned above – both Old Testament and New Testament – along with a handful of other passages led to an emphasis on divine presence at the place of worship. The identification of this place as Zion reinforced the connection to praise and liturgical activity through a range of scriptural associations. The centerpiece of the original tabernacle, the ark of the covenant, was likewise central in the interpretation by being a type of Jesus Christ himself, who is present among his people, especially in their praise. The lack of reference to bloody animal sacrifices in the liturgical activity of the tabernacle of David, apart from the initial arrival of the ark, highlighted the centrality of perpetual praise as sacrifice, especially by an arrangement of priests whose work was now musical. The connection of the tabernacle and its way of worship to David reinforced the propriety of fully engaged, physically expressive, and musically offered Praise & Worship. In other words, a theology based on the restoration of the tabernacle of David took the earlier emphasis on the sacrifice of praise as the key to experiencing God’s presence and raised it to the level of a highly developed liturgical ecclesiology in which the church is a corporate priesthood that is praise-oriented and fulfills its priestly ministry in a musical manner.

There are, of course, problems with the system of Typology they are using, including.

  • There is no antitype, violating the primary rule of Typology. All emphasis is on examining the type but here is no clear antitype in the New Testament.
  • It assumes the “tabernacle of David” refers to the place the Ark was kept. In context, I believe (and so do most commentaries I have referenced) that this instead refers to the house or kingdom of David.
  • It assumes that restoration was occurring through them. This is part and parcel with their Restorationism, that is their belief that God was bring back true Christianity that had been lost for since the days of the Apostles through special revelation through their movement.
  • It conjectures that the worship at the “tabernacle of David” was all about praise and not about sacrifice or rituals. We simply do not have sound information on the approximately 40 years the Ark dwelt there until placed in the Temple. Much of details we see of David organizing the priesthood during this time was likely preparing for the construction of the Temple.

Similar errors are made in this same movement using Typology and the Tabernacle of Moses as a basis for a worship theology. They are not the only ones to do so. I have encountered in my recent studies on the Tabernacle many differing takes on the Typology of the Tabernacle, not all being soundly based with its antitype, Christ.

I close by echoing the words of Chafer quoted above. Typology can be a field of study that bears rich harvests to the believer today. But we must be careful and consistent it its application, and above all not let its abuse cause us to neglect its study. I certainly have been guilty of doing so.

The Pseudo-Fundamentalism of Today’s Reformed Movement

Matthew Gage
Photo by Karl Fredrickson on Unsplash

As we look back over the centuries, we can discern movements and counter-movements in the history of Christianity. One that easily discernable today is the resurgence in America of Reformed theology and tradition. I believe this is largely a reaction to the theological drift of American Christianity toward liberalism, “wokeism”, and (dare I say it?) apostacy.

So many Christians today are seeking more from Christianity than what a modern seeker-focused megachurches are teaching. They want deeper theology and richness in their Christian walk. Just hop on any social media platform and see these modern day Puritans denounce men, movements, and messages they deem as heretical and unscriptural.

What are these people turning to? In turning from the modern they seek the ancient. In turning from the emotional they turn to the logical. In turning from the shallow they turn to the profound. They are turning more and more to the the tenets of Calvinism and Reformed theology.

The influence of Charles Spurgeon in this is tremendous. Spurgeon himself reacted to the theological drift of his day by embracing the past preachers and theologians. He promoted the writings of the Puritans like no one else.

I see a parallel to this modern Reformed movement in the Fundamentalism of the early 20th century. I am certain they will crucify me for even suggesting that if they ever read this. But at that time so many across a broad spectrum of denominations were rejecting modernism and liberalism while embracing the “old time religion”. Fundamentalism was and is a reactionary movement to the theological drift towards liberalism. It was a movement towards conservative theology and historical practice.

The same things are are driving the modern Reformed movement. They are embracing and promoting practices such as singing of traditional hymns (even resurrecting some long forgotten ones) and the use of the liturgical calendar. I like to joke that Fundamentalism wants to keep things like they were in the 1950’s, but the Reformed movement honestly tries to keep their faith and practice in the 1700’s if not the 1500’s.

The modern Reformed movement and historic Fundamentalism are born of the same desires, reacting to similar concerns of theological drift, embracing traditionalist forms of worship, and rejecting unorthodox teachings and practice. Both promote the basis of Sola Scriptura in defining faith and practice. Both embrace their heritage, some of which overlaps as in the case of Charles Spurgeon. Today both can be seen taking similar stands on issues such as the use church music or their stances on abortion. You can watch these new and upcoming Reformed leaders come to the same realizations that Fundamentalism did a century before.

While they are similar, there can still be quite a bit of difference depending on what group you are examining. I, for one, reject the liturgical calendar as an unnecessary and extra-Biblical tradition. I reject the practice of infant baptism as unscriptural though classic Reformed theology promotes it. I reject the entire Calvinist-Arminian scale for measuring theology as outdated, unnecessary, and impractical. I reject much of the ecclesiology (I find the Baptist positions more in line with Scripture) and eschatology. I would not define the doctrines of election, predestination, or atonement the same as any Reformed theologian though thankfully I believe we are in agreement in “salvation by grace through faith”.

As a side note, the one area that I am surprised that the modern Reformed movement has not taken is the promotion and use of an historic translation of the Bible such as the KJV or the Geneva Bible. They have no problem reading authors or singing songs that read more like Shakespeare than any modern literature. I find it odd that in so many ways they embrace the theology, writings, and songs from the past yet use a Bible that does not reflect the same traditions.

To conclude, I believe what we are seeing in American Christianity is another repeat of a reaction to theological drift. Just as the Fundamentalists took at stand in the early 20th century against liberalism we are seeing Reformed leaders take a stand against apostacy in the church. These two are not the same but the similarities are striking.

Book Review – One in Hope and Doctrine

Matthew Gage
Find on Amazon

I am always interested in new books about the Baptist Fundamentalism. I heard about this book a few years ago but only recently purchased it. The reason I delayed buying it was that it has remained fairly expensive and I had not found a copy at a price I was willing to pay.

One in Hope and Doctrine: Origins of Baptist Fundamentalism 1870-1950 is co-written by Kevin Bauder and Robert Delaney and was published by the Regular Baptist Press in 2014. It is only available in paperback I believe and is 396 pages.

My first criticism is the title does not match the content of the book. It should be titled Origins of the GARBC (General Association of Regular Baptists Churches). It excels in telling the story of the origins and early days of the GARBC. As someone who has studied far more about Southern Fundamentalist movements I found that information well done. However, this book does not fairly or adequately cover any movements that did not lead to the GARBC or arise from Northern Baptist heritage.

My second criticism is the authors show little or no objectivity in dealing with Southern Fundamentalism. These authors have an obvious axe to grind against Southern Fundamentalism and its leaders. J. Frank Norris is treated as an inhuman and immoral monster and John R. Rice is treated as a closet Pentecostal. If there is a chance to take a jab at Norris it is swung with gusto even if it has little or no bearing on the actual focus of the book. He is the villain of this story.

Admittedly Norris did bring much of this criticism on himself. He tried to join the GARBC and probably would have attempted to absorb it into his own sphere. He attacked Ketchum and others in print and private. While Ketchum chose not to respond, these authors have chosen to fire multiple broadsides in response. The bias and vitriol is overwhelming for a book supposedly written by academics as a serious historical study.

Some proofs of this unnecessary bias include:

  • In the Index you will find that there are more references to J. Frank Norris than any other individual. More than Ketchum, Van Osdel, Riley. You will also notice that John R. Rice (who really had little to do GARBC) has about as many references as W.B. Riley (who had a lot to do with GARBC’s history). Why are Norris and Rice mentioned so much when the narrative is supposedly about a group they had very little to do with?
  • Beginning on page 313 and lasting 16 pages, there is an absolutely unnecessary section dealing with controversies with John R. Rice. The first is an overblown dispute between Rice and Lewis Sperry Chafer on the role of an evangelist. The second is a critical review of Rice’s positions in his book The Power of Pentecost. Neither of these add anything to the narrative other than to glorify the author’s own movement and vilify Rice (and by extension Southern Fundamentalism). When one of the few GARBC controversies (women preachers) is addressed, it is covered with only seven pages beginning on page 199.
  • The use of unprofessional, unacademic, biased language. On page 253, Norris is described as acting “like a jilted teenager”. On page 258, the structure of the GARBC executive committee is described as “sheer genius”.

We can debate the actions of Norris and the positions of Rice and I have no issue doing so. What I take issue with is a book that proports to be a serious historical study yet constantly descends into petty partisan propaganda.

Related to this criticism, I find the section from pages 295-301 to be curious. It is an analysis of Southern Fundamentalism based on the thoughts of Jack Hyles. While every opportunity is taken to attack Norris and Rice, the authors are strangely silent about the accusations and legacy of Jack Hyles. While Hyles’ observations are interesting, their inclusion without comment on their source highlights how unfairly this book treats other Southern Fundamentalists.

My third criticism is that the writers arrogantly assume their own movement to be true Fundamentalism. From the title to the declaration on page 380 that “Thus ends this first part of the story of Baptist fundamentalism” there is a misguided attempt to make the GARBC movement to be the one true bastion of historic fundamentalism. Other movements are criticized, downplayed, or ignored. This book is more propaganda and claptrap for the GARBC than an honest history survey.

What is this book? It does not live up to its title in scope. It covers the origins and precursors of GARBC and other Northern Baptists Fundamentalists well. It is very unbalanced in how it treats Southern Fundamentalists.

Oliver Van Osdel appears is finally receiving the recognition he deserves. Robert Ketcham is presented as the “Great Man” of the movement despite such a philosophy being criticized on page 300. The interaction of Norris with the GARBC is inflated I think to manufacture a villain for the narrative. The coverage of Rice is unnecessary and barely fits the focus of the book.

In my opinion, this book should be edited into two separate works. The first, a scholastic history of Northern Baptist Fundamentalism and the GARBC. The second, an editorial work criticizing Southern Fundamentalism and its leaders. Both would be of value separately, but combined it makes for an uneven narrative told with inconsistent voice.

Students of the history of Fundamentalism deserve better.