An Important Letter From Pastor Stam... Sept. 1, In the second paragraph, Stam paints the following picture regarding Richard s view on the KJB.

Transcription

1 1 Sunday, February 23, 2014 Grace Life Schl f Thelgy Grace Histry Prject Lessn 128 The Life and Ministry f C. Richard Jrdan: Leaving the Bible Sciety Intrductin The past cuple lessns have been devted t setting frth sme histry regarding the Discvery, Disclsure, and Dissent f the Grace Alternative Dctrines (GADs). We bserved at the clse f Lessn 127 that Pastr Stam rejected these dctrines. This, f curse, created an awkward situatin fr Pastr Jrdan as he was beginning t rejice persnally in what he and the ther men were studying tgether; Stam did nt share his sentiments. Yet, during the early part f this prcess, Richard was still wrking at the Berean Bible Sciety (BBS) and, by 1986, had been made the editr f the Searchlight and was running the ministry. In the meantime, Grace Schl f the Bible (Pastral Training Class then) was beginning t take ff via vide and Pastr Jrdan s influence cntinued t grw. The last Cedar Lake Cnference (Berean Bible Fellwship s (BBF) annual meeting) that Richard attended befre resigning frm the BBS was in the summer f By this time there were nearly sixty men at the cnference wh were students f the Pastral Training Class (PTC). It was nt lng after this cnference that Richard resigned his psitin at the Bible Sciety. During my interview, Richard stated that his cnversatin with Stam prir t his resignatin was abut the subject f prayer nt the King James Bible (KJB). Hwever, as I stated in a previus lessn, Jrdan and Stam never agreed n the King James Bible. Stam was fully aware f what Richard believed n this matter when he ffered Richard a psitin at the Bible Sciety in the late 1970s. The tempest within the BBS/BBF circle f the Grace Mvement in the secnd half f the 1980s that led t Richard s resignatin frm the Bible Sciety was largely ver the Bible issue and, t a lesser extent, the GADs. Please recall frm the testimny f Pastr Ted Fellws that it was in 1986 and 1987 that the GADs, such as Pauline Prayer, were just beginning t be understd. There were sme within the BBS/BBF wh never agreed with Richard s stand fr the KJB and resented his grwing ppularity as a Bible teacher. Cnsequently, the Bible issue tk center stage in the public discurse that preceded Richard s resignatin frm the BBS in August f 1987 and immediately fllwing his resignatin. We have befre us An Imprtant Letter Frm Pastr Stam and the Bard f Directrs dated September 1, The main functin f this letter, amng ther things, was t annunce t the cnstituency f the BBS that the relatinship between Richard and the BBS fficially came t an end n August 29, The gal f the current lessn is t explre the factrs that led t parting f ways between Stam and Jrdan. We will d this primarily by lking at the fllwing three dcuments:

2 2 The Reverence Due The King James Bible: Let s Clear the Air by Richard Jrdan in the Nvember, 1986 issue f the Berean Searchlight An Imprtant Letter Frm Pastr Stam and Bard f Directrs dated September 1, 1987 Here I Stand by Richard Jrdan in the inaugural issue f The Grace Jurnal frm December, 1987 Please nte that we will cnsider Stam s letter f September 1, 1987 as a means f setting the stage s that we might better understand what ccurred and why. An Imprtant Letter Frm Pastr Stam... Sept. 1, 1987 In the secnd paragraph, Stam paints the fllwing picture regarding Richard s view n the KJB. Sme time prir t the Fall f 1986 Brther Richard Jrdan, ur president and gifted teacher f the Wrd, came t believe and teach (thugh nt in the Searchlight r ver Bible Time) that ur English King James translatin f the Bible is the abslute, inerrant, final authrity fr faith and practice, being the very W-O-R-D-S f Gd, preserved wrdfr-wrd frm the riginal Hebrew and Greek manuscripts. This naturally stirred up much cntrversy and caused serius divisin in the Bdy f Christ, even resulting in a split in sme lcal assemblies. It was distressing t learn f heated arguments, especially amng the yung men, disrupting the fellwship f the saints and, n questin abut it nw, this crusade was spearheaded by Pastr Jrdan. Please nte that Stam s cmments imply that he did nt knw prir t the fall f 1986 what Richard believed abut the KJB. Please nte als that Richard tld me in ur interview that Stam knew where he std n the issue when he first came t the Bible Sciety in late 1970s. Bear in mind that Stam gave Richard permissin t teach the PTC as early as One f the first classes in the first year f the PTC was Manuscript Evidence in which Richard presents his case fr the KJB. In the next paragraph Stam claims t have talked Richard ut f this extreme psitin with respect t the KJB. By the grace f Gd, I was able at length t cnvince ur Brther that Hebrew and Greek manuscripts culd nt pssibly be preserved in English, and that therefre this translatin culd nt pssibly be inerrant. We agree that while the KJV was indeed a faithful translatin, it did nt and culd nt cntain wrd-fr-wrd the riginal w--r-d-s f the ancient manuscripts. Stam then speaks f an article Richard wrte fr the Nvember, 1986 Searchlight at the bard s request explaining why his frmer psitin n the KJB was errneus.

3 3 At the Bard s request, Brther Jrdan wrte an article fr the Nvember, 1986 Searchlight, explaining that his frmer psitin had been errneus. Als he wrte a tuching letter f aplgy t the Bard and t me fr all the truble caused prmising t d all I pssibly can t set them (these things) right. Nte that the Bard f the BBS asked Richard t write this article fr the Nvember, 1986 Searchlight. It was nt smething Richard did f his wn accrd. Mre n this later. In the fifth paragraph Stam accuses Jrdan f making purpsefully misleading statements t Stam in rder t save face with the men in his Pastr s Class. This, regrettably, he has nt dne but has rather, by many misleading statements, sught t satisfy us and at the same time keep the many students and graduates f his Pastr s Class champining the inerrancy f the King James Versin. This has caused us much truble here at Berean Bible Sciety, and has brught us many letters f cmplaint, sme blaming me, persnally, fr nt ding smething abut it. Actually many persnal discussins and sme bard meetings had been held abut it, each ne leaving us hping that therefrth Brther Jrdan wuld take a mre cnsistent stand fr the translatin we have used and lved s lng. By nw the cmplaints have piled up s, hwever, that the Bard has felt that fr the sake f the Bdy f Christ as a whle and the testimny f Berean Bible Sciety in particular, this situatin shuld n lnger be tlerated. That Jrdan was in a tight spt plitically is beynd dubt. He had taught the men in the PTC that the KJB was Gd s wrd fr English speaking peple. On the ther side, he had Stam and the Bard f BBS putting pressure n him t renunce THEIR UNDERSTANDING f Richard s psitin. The Grace Histry Prject is cnvinced after analyzing all Stam wrte abut this issue in the Searchlight thrughut 1988 that he never fully understd Richard s actual psitin. In the next sectin f the letter, Stam turns his emphasis against sme f the early thinking n the GADs. Jrdan is accused f teaching far ut dctrine utterly devid f Scriptural fundatin. Sme mnths ag Pastr Jrdan began teaching anther far ut dctrine, utterly devid f Scriptural fundatin: the dctrine that Gd des nt heal the sick in answer t prayer during this dispensatin, and that ur prayers shuld be nly fr spiritual blessings, nt fr physical r tempral nes. In light f Philippians 4:6-7 and related verses, f curse, this teaching als stirred up much cntrversy, with many gdly saints deeply discuraged. In discussing the subject with Brther Jrdan I was again, by the grace f Gd, able t shw him that he was in errr, making it Gd s plicy nt t heal the sick in answer t prayer in this dispensatin, and that in light f Philippians 2:25-27 alne this culd nt pssibly be s. He acknwledged this and wrte a letter f aplgy t ne family wh

4 4 had strngly prtested this teaching and had wndered hw we culd permit it, indirectly helping it t gain grund. The sad fact is that we d nt knw f ne persn whm Brther Jrdan has dissuaded frm either f the abve errrs. Indeed, nly n August 21, less than tw weeks ag, did we learn that Brther Jrdan has been circulating a set f nine tapes teaching the very subject he had acknwledged t be in errr, and that many f his students and/r graduates were advancing this dctrine with great zeal. Cnsidering what a discuraging dctrine this must be t any saint with physical r material prblems, and what divisin these tw errrs have already caused amng grace believers, ur Bard f Directrs has felt cnvinced that Brther Jrdan and Berean Bible Sciety must cme t a parting f the ways, and his services here have been terminated as f August 29, 1987, with sincere regret and the earnest prayer that Gd will yet bless and use him t make knwn the glrius message which He has s graciusly cmmitted t us all. Stam claims that the BBS terminated Richard s emplyment status while Richard maintains that he resigned his pst. Twice Stam claims t have straightened Richard ut with respect t dctrines that Richard still hlds t this day nearly thirty years later. Speaking frm experience, I can understand why sme wuld have perceived Richard and thers t be teaching that ne can nly pray fr spiritual things fr we urselves nce thught this after being intrduced t the GADs. In additin, this thinking was fresh in the minds f the men teaching it and they were still struggling t put int wrds what they actually believed. As a result, sme manners f speaking with respect t the GADs were n dubt refined and restated as the thinking arund them became mre fcused and precise. Searchlight Article frm Nvember, 1986 Using Stam s cmments as a back drp, we nw cnsider Richard s article frm Nvember, 1986 titled The Reverence Due the King James Versin: Let s Clear the Air. This was the article which the BBS Bard asked Richard t write n the Bible issue. The article is nt lng and addresses three basic issues with respect t the Bible versin debate: 1) KJV translatrs were inspired; 2) KJV is a wrd-fr-wrd preservatin f the riginal manuscripts; 3) the KJV is a perfect translatin. Richard warns that KJV supprters need t be careful nt t verstate their case lest we becme its wrst enemy. He presents his first illustratin. A few KJV supprters claim that the Kings James translatrs were inspired in the same sense as the riginal writers f Scripture. This is nt nly untrue it is dangerus, fr it threatens the cmpleteness f the very cannn f Scripture itself with a dctrine f cntinuing inspiratin. True friends f the KJV will nt lng be fund in the ranks f thse wh thus leave us at the mercy f the Charismatics and the cults, with their extra-

5 5 biblical revelatins and inspiratin. True, the translatrs were singly aided by the Hly Spirit in their wrk, but divine inspiratin is quite anther matter. ( ) In making this statement, Richard was distancing himself frm the mre radical elements in the KJV nly mvement, hwever, he was nt backing dwn frm smething he himself ever believed. In shrt, Richard never taught that the KJV translatrs were inspired in the same sense as the writers f scripture. The secnd pint that Richard made in this article was that the KJV is nt an infallible wrd-frwrd preservatin f the riginal manuscripts. Others wuld cntend that the KJV is an infallible, wrd-fr-wrd preservatin f the riginal manuscripts. Here the writer can speak frm persnal experience fr he t nce held this view. Further thught and study, hwever, has shwn that this is simply nt the case. N translatin can be said t be a preservatin f the riginal manuscripts that is self-evident. (237) In a recent phne cnversatin with Richard regarding this article, he stated that at ne time he did believe that the KJV was a wrd-fr-wrd preservatin f the riginal manuscripts, as he suggested in the article. Later, hwever, he realized that it did nt make sense t say that a translatin was a preservatin f the manuscripts. Rather the KJV is a prper translatin f the preserved text int English. The third pint is by far the mst cntrversial and it revlves arund whether r nt it is apprpriate t claim that the KJV is a perfect translatin. Nr is it apprpriate t claim that KJV is a perfect translatin, fr that wuld be t ask the impssible! It is simply nt pssible t translate any extended passage frm ne language int anther wrd-fr-wrd. Language limitatins alne simply d nt allw any translatin t carry the title perfect! T claim therwise is duble talk. (237) It may be subtle, but careful readers will bserve that Richard never says that the KJV cntains any mistakes. In a recent phne cnversatin with Richard I asked him abut this subtlety. His statement that the KJV is nt perfect was made frm the pint f view f Stam s psitin n the matter. Stam and Jrdan were talking past each ther when it came t the questin f what cnstituted an errr. Stam s Psitin perfectin meant n errrs f any kind: typs, misspelling, r punctuatin mistakes. N variatins f any kind in the varius editins. Jrdan s Psitin perfectin meant there were n bad translatins r clear mistakes like Mark 1:2 in the KJV Bible. When cnfrnted with a s-called mistake in the KJB, what Richard fund was that smene did nt like hw the verse read because it did nt fit their dctrinal statement, nt that the translatrs actually made a mistake in hw they

6 6 rendered smething in English. In shrt, peple were altering the KJV t make it fit their thelgy and then calling it a mistake. Errrs such as typs, spelling mistakes, r punctuatin errrs were nt the fault f the translatrs wrk but the typesetters and the printers. Richard said that cming ut f the 1986 Cedar Lake Cnference sme f the ld guard within the BBF, such as Win Jhnsn were pressing Stam and the Bard f the BBS t d smething abut Richard. It was this utside pressure that was the impetus fr the article. Jrdan tld me that when he submitted the Nvember, 1986 article t Stam, he said t Stam that it was as far as he was willing t g and that if it was nt gd enugh they wuld have t part ways. In the end, what Jrdan did is draft a much nuanced article that distanced himself frm aspects f the KJV nly mvement, with which he did nt agree, in rder t appease Stam and the BBS bard. At the same time, he tried t craft a statement that wuld nt verthrw his wn cnscience with respect t what he actually believed abut the KJB. It is equally imprtant t nte what Pastr Jrdan DID NOT say in his Nvember, 1986 article. He NEVER SAYS that he DID NOT BELIEVE the King James Bible is the Wrd f Gd fr English speaking peple. Richard s editrial Here I Stand in the inaugural issue f The Grace Jurnal frm December, 1987 cntains the fllwing statement: Fr many years I have believed that the King James Bible is the Wrd f Gd fr English speaking peple. I came t Chicag with the clear understanding that I firmly held this cnvictin. I als understd that the ministry that brught me here was nt designed t champin this cause. Since the preaching f Jesus Christ accrding t the revelatin f the mystery has lng been the ne great passin f my heart, I was willing t place my fcus there and let thers fight the Bible versin battle. I did nt and have nt changed my cnvictin, hwever, abut the KJV. I believed then and cntinue t believe nw that the KJV is the Wrd f Gd fr English speaking peple. On that pint, I have never wavered. These cmments are cnsistent with what Jrdan DID NOT say in his Nvember, 1986 Searchlight article. Richard never said that he DID NOT believe the KJV t be Gd s Wrd fr English speaking peple. Cnsequently, given all the factrs, the Grace Histry Prject believes that Richard crafted a nuanced statement renuncing certain aspects f the KJV Only platfrm while at the same time nt verthrwing his cre belief regarding the KJV being Gd s wrd fr English speaking peple. We will cnsider mre frm ur third piece f dcumentatin, the inaugural issue f The Grace Jurnal in ur next lessn.