Importance of the Authorised Version for the Church in Britain
The Authorised Version (AV) is often promoted and defended on the grounds of its accuracy and of the Greek text (the Received Text) underlying its New Testament translation. The Received Text is the “Church text” of the Reformation, adopted by the Reformers and the Churches, whereas most or all modern versions use Greek texts which, it is not unfair to say, have been cobbled together by unbelieving scholars and are heavily dependent on a few grossly erroneous early manuscripts which these scholars insist on referring to as “the best”. This in itself should make English-speaking Christians wary of abandoning the AV in favour of modern versions (was Satan inactive in the preparation of these new Greek texts?), but there are a host of other reasons as well.
One of these is the distinct patterns of behaviour that accompany the use of the AV and of modern versions. It is a general rule, for instance, that in churches that use the AV, the men will be wearing suits and ties, and the women hats and skirts; whereas in churches that abandon the AV these things tend to disappear. It can hardly be the case that all the women in these churches have re-examined 1 Corinthians 11 and concluded that head-coverings are not in fact obligatory: what has obviously happened is that the nature
of the worship has changed. It is no longer as solemn as it used to be and people feel comfortable coming to church in more casual clothing. But if the nature of the worship has changed, then the view of God must have changed. He has lost (in the minds of these people) something of the awe and respect that is due to Him. A further indication that this is so is that the doctrine of hell tends to be less explicitly preached in churches which use modern versions. The experience of the last 50 years has shown that modern versions are a slippery slope in matters of worship, conduct and doctrine.
Another reason is that no modern version is able to command the field, so the adoption of a modern version inevitably opens the door to multiple versions. The NIV, the NKJV and the ESV are all popular at the moment in different circles in Britain. This multiplicity throws away the great advantage of having a single version, because when there is one accepted version we can all recognise quotations from the Bible and in the course of a lifetime we can memorise large parts of it. The effect of having multiple versions has been to make church-goers relatively ignorant of the Bible. Users of modern versions often do not recognise passages familiar to AV users, because what was striking and memorable in the AV may be bland and unmemorable in their current version (which may soon be superseded anyway). The resulting ignorance of the Bible makes the Church vulnerable to error and to false teachers.
A third reason is that the use of the AV marks a different view of the Church and of divine providence. The AV was the culmination of the various English Reformation translations (Tyndale, the Great Bible, the Geneva Bible, etc), and for three centuries it was the English-speaking version. The AV is a principal part of the Protestant heritage of Britain and it provides an entrance to the writings of the Reformers and Puritans, to the English Protestant confessions (the Scots Confession, the Thirty-Nine Articles, the Westminster Confession, etc), to the history of God’s dealings with the Church in Britain, and to the example and experience of English-speaking forefathers in the Church. All this is very precious, and it is something that we should wish to profit from and to transmit to future generations.
The unhappy tendency of modern versions is to distance people from all these things. The very decision to use a modern version carries with it an implicit rejection of this heritage: the person has decided to make a fresh start and not to walk in the old paths of the English-speaking Church. Such a mindset is in itself unwise, and the decision has the further consequence that the writings of the past soon become “difficult” because people are less familiar with their language. In a little while, the whole heritage may be lost, not excluding Bunyan and M’Cheyne, and people approach church issues as if they were the first generation of Christians and it was their place to lay the found-
ations. The resulting ignorance, weakness and chaos can be seen throughout the Evangelical church in Britain.
Experience suggests that the choice of a Bible version is as much a spiritual matter as a rational one, and that some people are wedded to modern versions because they are deliberately escaping from the Protestant heritage of Britain: they do not wish to be part of it. Others may adopt modern versions because they think, misguidedly in our view, that modern versions are more effective for evangelistic purposes. But whatever the reason, such people cannot be allowed to drag the rest of the Church with them. We regard the step that they have taken as dangerous (for the reasons given above) and divisive, and we cannot imperil the well-being of the Church just for the sake of unity with them.
DWBS
Reform of the Public Order Act
A recent high-profile campaign has resulted in the Westminster Government removing the word “insulting” from Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986. In December, the House of Lords voted by a substantial majority to amend the Act, and the Government has agreed not to challenge their lordships. As this Act has been used against professing Christians over the years it is heartening to find a positive decision being made in the Houses of Parliament when much that has happened there recently has grieved the people of God.
This section of the Public Order Act has been used to arrest and prosecute Christians who spoke the truth in public; many have seen it as a means of restricting Christian expression, especially when the evil of homosexuality is being exposed. The Act came into being as a response to disorder around the time of the Brixton riots of 1981. Undoubtedly such disturbances required action, but here the criminal law moved beyond normal breach of the peace and violence to cover areas of “annoyance, disturbance and inconvenience”. It became an offence to use “threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour” in the hearing or sight of a person who was “likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby”. Police did not even need to identify the alleged victim of the insult. The fear was that this was a “catch all” offence to be used by over-zealous policemen to arrest people without real grounds. Those who preached the gospel and spoke out against sin in public were left in a vulnerable position.
For example, in 2002 some members of the public reacted angrily to a street preacher in Bournemouth who carried signs saying, “Stop Immorality”, “Stop Homosexuality” and “Stop Lesbianism”. They called the police, who charged the man. He was later convicted and fined several hundred pounds under the Act. He died before an appeal was heard, when the High Court
upheld the conviction on the grounds that his conduct was deemed to have been insulting to homosexuals.
There were several other cases of unjust arrests. A street preacher, who is autistic, read out passages of the Bible against homosexuality; a complaint was made and police took him away in handcuffs. He was later released and compensated for the trauma, as the events had “made him anxious, shocked and very humiliated”. Another street preacher, Michael Overd from Somerset, preaching the love of God for sinners stated, “Even these dear men caught in homosexuality, if they ask God for forgiveness of sin, can be forgiven”. Two men listening made an official complaint over these words, resulting in his being charged. He was later able to prove that his behaviour was not insulting but was meant to show hope for such people in Christ. However, the danger of arrest for preachers, under this Act, was always very real. In 2010 one was arrested and charged though he did not even mention homosexuality in his preaching. A police officer questioning him afterwards asked if he believed homosexual acts were sinful. The preacher was imprisoned for his honest response, though later cleared and compensated for wrongful arrest.
Again a hotel owner was arrested who had a seemingly-innocent religious discussion with a Muslim guest, as was a cafe owner who displayed Bible verses on his premises, and a teenager demonstrating outside the London headquarters of the “Church” of Scientology with the words, “Scientology is a dangerous cult”.
Such arrests can no longer be made under Section 5. The Home Secretary has stated: “Using insulting language will no longer be illegal in cases in which a specific victim cannot be identified”. This allows a little more freedom to proclaim the Word of God faithfully in public places. We know that Satan desires with all his malevolent heart to close the mouths of those who declare God’s name and he will use any means to achieve that goal. However, we are to take encouragement when the Lord says concerning the Word that goes forth out of His mouth: “It shall not return unto Me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it” (Is 55:11). KHM