God’s Secretaries (The Making Of The King James Bible) – Book Review

June 24, 2016July 9, 2016 Ryan A. French1 Comment

If you weren’t convinced that the King James Version of the Bible is the best English translation available you will be after reading God’s Secretaries (The Making of the King James Bible) by Adam Nicolson. At the heart of the “translation-wars”, are the questions of faithfulness to the original documents, understanding of the original languages, and submission to original intent. These are vital questions, especially in light of more modern translations that cut entire scriptures and even chapters from the text. Nicolson does an admirable job of historically demonstrating the faithful mindset that permeated the translation of the world’s most popular Bible. In my opinion, this book is a must-read for anyone who loves the Bible and considers it to be inerrant.

Interestingly, Nicolson is not a preacher, theologian, hermeneutician, or even a student of ancient biblical language. Neither, does he seem to be overwhelmingly pious or religious. In a refreshing way, this adds weight to his conclusions. He seems to offer an unbiased accounting of the historical context without the agenda that would naturally infiltrate the average person who would be inclined to write on such a topic. He is a historian of sorts and a gifted writer. Nicolson is thoroughly British (the 5th baron of Cornock) giving him a fascinating perspective of Jacobean England and the political and religious ideologies that produced the King James Bible.

This is not a boring retelling of the minutia of academic processes that birthed the King James Bible. It is a vivid historical portrait of England beginning in 1602 a full two years before the commissioning of a new and better translation by King James. The book draws you into the tapestry of political intrigue, religious fervor (both sincere and insincere), and the turmoil of the setting that birthed a timeless Bible translation that exudes the majesty of God. You will see as is so often the case with God, that human frailty is no hindrance to the ultimate plan of God in preserving His sacred Word.

“One of the King James Bible’s most consistent driving forces is the idea of majesty. Its method and its voice are far more regal than demotic. Its archaic formulations, its consistent attention to a grand and heavily musical rhythm are the vehicles by which that majesty are infused into the body of the text. Its qualities are those of grace, stateliness, scale, power. There is no desire to please here; only the belief in the enormous and overwhelming Divine authority… The Translators of the Bible clearly believed that the majesty of their translation stemmed from its loyal belief in Divine authority (page 189) .”

Even in Jacobean England, there was great pressure to translate a Bible that condescended into common vernacular and easily accessible language construction. In other words, like today, there were strong influences that wanted to “dumb down” the vocabulary of Scripture. This reasoning was flatly rejected on every level. The overwhelming consensus being that God’s Word is not common, trivial, or mundane. The King James translators were set upon preserving the poetic intensity of Scripture, and portraying the royal language of Divine inspiration.

“The King James Bible is about more than mere sonority or the …heritage-appeal of antique vocabulary and grammar. The flattening of language is a flattening of meaning. Language which is not taut with a sense of its own significance, which is apologetic in its desire to be acceptable to a modern consciousness, language in other words which submits to its audience, rather than instructing, informing, moving, challenging and even entertaining them, is no longer a language which can carry the freight the Bible requires. It has in short, lost all authority. The language of the King James Bible is the language of …patriarchy, of instructed order, of richness as a form of beauty, of authority as a form of good; the New English Bible is motivated by the opposite, an anxiety not to bore or intimidate. It is driven, in other words, by a desire to please and, in that way, is a form of language which has died (pages 153-154).”

Although, as Nicolson, does not try to hide, there were differences and skirmishes between the translators and the overseers, they were all united in the firmly held belief that every word of Scripture is God-breathed. They revered every “jot” and every “tittle” as sacred. This informed every aspect of the translation process giving rise to the masterpiece that is the King James Bible.

“[The King James Bible translators believed] the words of the Bible were the foundation of all understanding, [and that] nothing could be more important than a text that was both accurate and intelligible. Precision in Bible scholarship and in translation was the foundation stone of the Reformation. High fidelity reproduction was a moral as well as technical quality and it was axiomatic that Translators and scholars could approach the text only in a mood of humility and service. ‘He who does not believe one part of it,’ Luther had said, ‘cannot believe any of it. (page 183)’”

Bible historian Gordon Campbell, one of the world’s leading authorities on the King James Bible, has observed:

“The population from which scholars can now be drawn is much larger than in the seventeenth century, but it would be difficult now to bring together a group of more than fifty scholars with the range of languages and knowledge of other disciplines that characterized the KJB Translators. (Bible – The Story of the King James Version 1611-2011)”

Most notable is Nicolson’s spotlighting of the translators secretaryship mindset during the translation process. Over 50 men worked tirelessly from 1604 until it’s publication in 1611 to produce a faithful translation. They did so in a selfless, egoless, and humble fashion which was a direct result of the political and religious atmosphere of the era. That is to say, that a culture which understood kingly royalty in the natural, although far from perfect, was able to capture the kingly majesty and sovereignty of God’s Word. They internalized as a moral code the command from Revelations 22:19 that not one word can be added or taken away from Scripture.

“Those who originally wrote the words of the Bible had been God’s secretaries, as loyal, as self suppressing, as utterly disposed to the uses of the Divine call… self-abnegation in the service of greatness was the ideal… Secretaryship is one of the great shaping forces behind the King James Bible. There is no authorship involved here. Authorship is egotistical, an assumption that you might have something new worth saying. You don’t. Every iota of the Bible counts but without it you count for nothing. The secretary knows that… he does not distort the source of his authority. A secretary, whether of God or of king, is in a position of dependent power. He has no authority independent of his master, but he executes that authority without hesitation or compromise. He is nothing without his master but everything through him. Loyalty is power and submission control. For this reason, biblical translation, like royal service, could only be utterly faithful. Without faithfulness, it became meaningless (page 184).”

Recently, the King James Bible has seen a resurgence of popularity as this article outlines The Most Popular and Fastest Growing Bible Translation Isn’t What You Think It Is. The Washington Post even noticed this trend in an article entitled The Most Popular Bible of the Year Is Probably Not What You Think It Is. Their basic premise is that people are losing confidence in modern translations. Here’s another great article that tries to make sense of this seemingly countercultural rejection of modern translations entitled 10 Reasons Why The KJV Is Still The Most Popular Version. In essence, the King James Bible encapsulates the authoritative sanctity of the Holy Bible. It remains true to the Divine intent and literalness of the original texts. It exemplifies respect for the grandeur of the Author. As our culture has digressed into absurdities like an emoji Bible (The Emoji Bible, Reviewed), the King James Bible stands out from the crowd with increasing gravitas. With all of the swirling debates and controversies, God’s Secretaries brings clarity of thought to the discussion.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Related Articles: Is That Really You God? (10 Steps To Hearing God’s Voice – Book Review, Why We’re Not Emergent (By Two Guys Who Should Be) – Book Review, The Death Of Harambe (How Moral Reletavism Has Made It Controversial), Baptism “In Jesus’ Name” And The New Testament Greek, Is Technology Killing Theology?, Resist Irrelevant Relevance, Is Technology Hurting Our Worship?

Pray For Orlando (What The Christian Community And The Gay Community Have In Common)

June 13, 2016June 14, 2016 Ryan A. French1 Comment

The recent terrorist massacre at a gay club in Orlando is horrific, to say the least. My heart breaks for the victims and their loved ones. Every Christian of every denomination must stand in solidary condemnation towards this and every act of violence against any group of people. It is a quintessential biblical principle to be at peace with all men (Hebrews 12:14, Matthew 5:9, Matthew 26:52, Matthew 5:43, Romans 12:17). At the root of the Christian faith are the commandments to love, forgive, honor, respect, and live peaceably even with those with whom we disagree.

Disgustingly, tragedies like this usually become a political mud-slinging contest. Blame is spread like butter, nothing changes, no one finds peace, and history repeats itself. It is vitally necessary that Christianity as a whole demonstrates love and compassion to the world as it closely examines our reaction to this act of Islamic terror.

It’s important for us to help our communities understand that Christians can be opposed to sin and love sinners at the same time. Secular society genuinely struggles to understand this reality. For example, on numerous occasions, I have clearly articulated the biblical directives against sexual sin, which includes but is not limited to, homosexuality. I also stand against adultery, divorce, and premarital sex without hating the vast majority of people who have committed at least one of those sins.

The Gospel is for sinners and we are all born into sin and brokenness. If the Gospel was only for perfect people it would be irrelevant because there are no perfect people. Having said that, the Gospel does require us to follow God’s laws rather than our own. Much like the rich young ruler who came to Jesus and left despondent (Matthew 19:16-22), many people reject the Gospel because they value their lifestyle above following Jesus. Every one of us must submit ourselves to the Word of God or we will be lost. So, when I preach against homosexuality or any other sin, I do so because I love people enough to tell them the truth.

This is controversial because we live in a post-modern, post-Christian, morally relativistic society. Meaning, for the most part, people no longer believe in absolute truth, the inerrancy of the Bible, or the authority of God. This causes them to feel uncomfortable, defensive, and often hostile towards Christians. We Christians, in turn, become uncomfortable, defensive, and sometimes hostile as well. In many ways, modern Christians are struggling with how to appropriately react to the cultural shift away from biblical absolutes into full blown philosophical relativism. Christians often feel a sense of helplessness because we see the tragic fallout and the immediate and impending consequences of rejecting God. As a minister, I counsel with countless people who followed post-modern philosophies over the cliff and are struggling to put the pieces of their lives back together. Thankfully, Jesus is a mender of broken hearts, minds, and lives.

Warning someone that the wages of sin are death but the gift of God is eternal life (Romans 6:23) is the ultimate act of love. In fact, to not do so is just as reprehensible as watching a child run into oncoming traffic without crying out in warning. Ironically, noted entertainer and atheist Penn Jillette said it best:

“I’ve always said that I don’t respect people who don’t proselytize. I don’t respect that at all. If you believe that there’s a Heaven and a Hell, and people could be going to Hell or not getting eternal life, and you think that it’s not really worth telling them this because it would make it socially awkward—and atheists who think people shouldn’t proselytize and who say just leave me alone and keep your religion to yourself—how much do you have to hate somebody to not proselytize? How much do you have to hate somebody to believe everlasting life is possible and not tell them that? I mean, if I believed, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that a truck was coming at you, and you didn’t believe that truck was bearing down on you, there is a certain point where I tackle you. And this is more important than that.”

Underlying this entire tragedy is the simmering reality that all faiths and religions are NOT equal or peaceful. Furthermore, Christians and gays have a very troubling thing in common: both groups are hated and singled out by radical Islam for extermination. Gays, Christians, women, and children are systematically abused, slaughtered, and despised by Muslims around the world.

It is a fantasy to believe that Islam is a religion of peace. It is fundamentally a theocratic religion of violence. Islam’s holy book and holy prophet advocate, justify and require violence towards nonconformists. In other words, groups like ISIS have not hijacked a peaceful religion, they are complying with the original intent of their religious dogma. Thankfully, the majority of Muslims choose to ignore the violent fundamentals of their own religion’s doctrine.

Christians can and must compare and contrast the opposing views of their religion in word and deed. Christianity is not a religion of hatred. Regardless of how we are portrayed by the media and pundits, true Christianity does not advocate violence, retribution, or persecution of any kind. Consider Romans 12:21, “Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.”

Before sitting down to write this article I watched a video clip of a young gay man standing outside of the club in the early morning light just after the shooting. I’m not sure, but I think he witnessed the rampage, he was sobbing as he requested people everywhere to pray. He said (and I’m paraphrasing), “I’m not religious and I don’t even know who or what to pray to but we need something.” I desperately wanted to tell him that God has promised to be near to the broken-hearted and that he is able to save those with a crushed spirit (Psalm 34:18). So, today I am weeping with those who weep (Romans 12:15), and mourning with those who mourn. I denounce the wickedness that filled a young man’s heart with hatred and instigated an act of sheer terror. I am praying for peace. I am praying for the salvation of the lost. I am praying for my enemies. I am praying for my friends. I am praying for a messed up world full of confusion. I am praying for Orlando.

Related articles: The Death Of Harambe (How Moral Relativism Has Made It Controversial), A Pattern Of Persecution (What Does Hollywood Have In Common With ISIS?), Love Or Hate?, Spiritual Stockholm Syndrome, The Words We Speak, Why Do So Many Christians Support Same-Sex Marriage?

Right, Righteous & Self-Righteous Judgements (Knowing the Difference)

June 10, 2016August 28, 2021 Ryan A. French8 Comments

I’m ashamed to say that I was exposed in a moment of self-righteousness the other day. It was a moment of critical, mean-spiritedness over a situation that I knew little to nothing about. Ouch. It hurts to type those words. And then, as is often God’s way, I happened across two articles (here and here) that sent conviction running down my spine like an icy cold water challenge.

I frequently tell my church: Feeling conviction is not a bad thing. Uncomfortable? Yes. Fun? No. Necessary? Absolutely. The real danger isn’t feeling conviction but choosing to ignore conviction. Ignoring conviction for too long is essentially “quenching the Spirit (1 Thessalonians 5:19)” which leads to a hard and calloused heart, far removed from God. In fact, the ability to feel conviction is the hallmark of a true believer (consider King David’s confrontation with the prophet after his terrible sin with Bathsheba).

Let me clarify a few things right at the onset: I absolutely believe that a person must be confident and sure of their Christian faith. In no uncertain terms, God has called believers to be holy (Ephesians 1:4, 1 Peter 1:15-16, 1 Peter 2:9) and righteous (1 John 2:29, 1 John 3:7, Matthew 5:20, Philippians 1:11). Furthermore, righteousness is not just a state of mind; it is manifested in lifestyle and actions. For example, Paul commands us to “Flee youthful lusts (action): but follow (another action) righteousness (2 Timothy 2:22)”. We can and must “…rightly divide (an action that demands an action) the word of truth (2 Timothy 2:15)” and “judge [with] righteous judgment (John 7:24)”. In other words, godly people have a right to discern right from wrong, righteousness from unrighteousness, good from evil, etc. To say otherwise is, well, unrighteous.

However, we all know immature Christians who use “judge not that ye be not judged (Matthew 7:1)” as a mantra to justify every sinful and sin accommodating action. It’s fairly safe to say that Matthew 7:1 has become modern Christianity’s favorite verse. The implication is simple, don’t tell me what to do because only God can do that. This drives sincere Christians crazy and gives others (sometimes unintentionally) a false sense of biblical authorization for all kinds of unrighteous behavior. Furthermore, the “only God can judge me” crowd should really let that thought sink in because God will judge our every action. That alone should cause us to consider our lifestyles carefully.

So, was Jesus really condoning bad behavior, spiritual timidity, or telling us that no one has a right to call a spade a spade? If that is the case, Jesus contradicted the entire Old Testament, every other relevant event of the New Testament, and his own actions to boot. Remember the overturned tables in the temple where Jesus made a righteous judgment saying, “…ye have made it a den of thieves (Matthew 21:13)”?

Obviously, Jesus was not advocating turning a blind eye to sin or telling us that we cannot make spiritual judgment calls about ourselves and others. However, the verses immediately following bring clarity to the whole discussion: “For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye (Mathew 7:2-3)?”

The basic meaning here is that we are to judge ourselves before we judge others. There is an unrighteous and unholy brand of judgment that we can quickly allow to fester in our spirit that is harmful, hypocritical, and ungodly. If we condemn others for things we are doing ourselves, we bring condemnation upon ourselves (Romans 2:1-3). If we judge hastily, callously, contemptuously, carelessly, wrongfully, or prematurely we are guilty of judging with an unrighteous judgment. God will judge those who judge others in such a way in that same way (Luke 6:36-38).

Here’s a difficult question that God often drops into my heart like an atomic bomb during prayer, “Do you want to be right for the sake of being right or for the sake of being righteous before Me?” Here’s another cringe-inducing thought; you can be right and unrighteous at the same time. Yet, in many ways, that is the very definition of being self-righteous. I want to be right for the sake of helping others and pleasing God, not just to win arguments or rack up spiritual points. As a believer, I have the right to make judgment calls, but I want to do so righteously for the right reasons with the right attitude. Sadly, I often fail. Thankfully, I have wonderful godly people surrounding me who make righteous judgments about my unrighteous judgments and aren’t afraid to tell me so.

Some Introspective Questions:

Do I enjoy it when others are harshly judged?
Do I enjoy arguing more than truly helping?
Am I quick to judgment without having all the relevant facts?
Do I elevate my opinions above the Bible?
Do I judge myself as harshly as I judge others?
Am I doing the same things that I criticize others for doing?
Do I pray for the judgment or for the conversion of sinners?
Am I willing to admit when I am wrong?
Do I make judgments from a place of humility or superiority?
Do I realize that all righteousness comes from God?
Do I care for sinners or callously condemn sinners?
Am I manufacturing self-righteousness or exampling godly righteousness?
Am I jumping to conclusions or executing godly discernment?
Do I judge from a place of knowledge or from a heart of wisdom?
Am I unwilling to make righteous judgments for fear of confrontation?
Am I justifying sin with my silence?
Does my unwillingness to righteously judge harm my witness?
Will I accept righteous judgment as easily as I dispense righteous judgment?
Do I exemplify godly mercy in my interactions with people?
Have I replaced mercy and grace with acceptance of sin?
Do I righteously judge sin or unrighteously justify sin in my own life and in the lives of others?

The Death of Harambe (How Moral Relativism Has Made It Controversial)

June 7, 2016January 20, 2017 Ryan A. French4 Comments

Update: since posting this article in June of last year the controversy surrounding the singular specialness of human life has continued to rage. For many, the odd angst surrounding the death of a gorilla was their first contact with this unique brand of secular madness. Wesley J. Smith of National Review fame recently published an article entitled Now It’s ‘Posthumanist Ethical Pluralism’ that deals with this issue. The article is exceptional. I hope you’ll take the time to read through it. Below is my favorite quote from the article:

“If human life doesn’t have the highest ultimate objective value simply and merely because it is human–an equal value to be distinguished from all other life forms on the planet–there is no way to philosophically defend universal human rights. Moreover, if we can’t distinguish between our inherent value and that of animals, we will not elevate their status to our level but diminish our own to theirs.”

Unless you’ve been living under a rock, you’ve heard about the death of Harambe the gorilla. In case, by some blessed miracle you’ve been able to escape the media madness surrounding this story, I’ll give you a quick summary. A small boy recently fell into the gorilla enclosure at the Cincinnati Zoo; zoo officials, fearing for the child’s life, shot and killed the 450-pound gorilla and rescued the boy.

I’m not here to argue the merits of whether or not the parents were or were not at fault. Although, having two young children myself, I know just how quickly a child can slip from your sight and into danger. Neither do I have a solid opinion on whether or not the zoo was at fault for not securing the enclosure more adequately, what’s interesting to me is the bizarre social dilemma that has bubbled up to the surface because of this story. At the heart of the debate is a simple question: is a human life more valuable than an animal’s life (click here for a great article that details the ongoing debate)?

For most of my readership, this question is an absolute no brainer. Of course, a human child’s life is immensely more valuable than a gorilla’s life. But for many, this question is far from settled. We are trending on a societal trajectory that is going to wrestle with the question of the value of human life above animal life with increasing levels of intensity.

This should not be a surprise, it is, after all, the natural logical conclusion of a post-Christian, evolutionistic nation. If you reject a biblical worldview then you are left with a man-made, relativistic brand of morality. As my atheist friends would be quick to point out, it is possible to be an atheist and have morals. This is true. But their morality is subjective and open to interpretation, nuance, and circumstance.

For example, a moral relativist might say (and they often do) that war is immoral. But why? If there is no higher power who sets the standards of right and wrong than who gets to make the moral rules? Who gets to write the commandments that we all must follow? Without God, moral standards are chosen arbitrarily by those with the most power to impose their opinions. So, if human beings are just an accidental causation of a chemical reaction with no soul it’s only logical to wonder if we are really valuable at all? Why does any life have value for that matter?

Certainly, the slippery slope of evolutionary thought creates a moral conundrum; because if humans are just highly evolved animals what makes us better than lesser evolved animals? Without a higher authority, all actions are rendered nonmoral. Right and wrong, good and evil, etc. are completely idiosyncratic and without objective legitimacy.

Just to be clear, I really like animals. When Chip, my childhood dog died, I cried like a baby. I consider gorilla’s to be majestic and fascinating creatures, but they are creatures, not human beings. I think it’s tragic that circumstances caused Harambe to die. However, human life is immeasurably more valuable than animal life. The life of that one child is more valuable than every single animal in that zoo. Period.

My belief in the value of human life is deeply rooted in my biblical worldview. Human beings are created in the image of God and we are far more than flesh and blood. Our temporary bodies merely house our eternal souls. The soul is what separates us from the animals. God created animals and gave us dominion over them. Human versus animal equality should not enter into the picture at all.

But for those who have swallowed the theory of evolution and rejected the Bible, this question will continue to fester. As America becomes increasingly post-Christian, this debate will naturally rise to the forefront of the cultural conversation. This poses a tremendous opportunity for Christians because many who believe in evolution instinctively know that human life is superior to animal life. When they are forced to follow the logical conclusion of their belief system they find it hard to digest and repulsive to their sensibilities.

Even though we are living in a largely post-Christian culture there are still strong vestiges of biblical morality holding society together. In other words, many people have moral principles that are consistent with biblical principles rather than their underdeveloped post-modern beliefs. To clarify further, they still believe certain things that are consistent with biblical morality because they haven’t followed their own philosophies on down to their logical (or illogical) conclusions. Sometimes, helping to lead an intellectually honest and sincere person down their own philosophical sink hole shines a light on the real fallacies and dangers that lurk below.

In the meantime, if you don’t believe in God or the Bible you have no right to lecture me on morality of any kind. Your own belief system denies the reality of true morality and replaces it with social relativism. Social relativism is why the world has suffered genocide after genocide (including the mass genocide of unborn children) at the hands of godless governments. It also produces a growing segment of society that genuinely wonders if babies can be aborted (murdered) up to four months after birth, cheerfully sells aborted body parts over salad, and dryly kicks around the idea of population control because of an apocalyptic view of climate change (the secular version of the book of Revelations). When you lecture me (or anyone else) about morality you are playing God, and only the one true God gets to tell me what is moral and what is immoral.