Self-identified recovering KJVO-ist, freelance youtuber, and now
ardent critic of the King James Version, Mark Ward recently issued a call on his youtube
channel for a new “translation” of the 1689 Confession (as well as the Savoy
Declaration and WCF) into modern English.
Ward begins this call by noting, “In 2021 in preparation for
my ordination I translated the 1689 LBC into modern English.”
Ward, somewhat unsurprisingly, notes that he found “dead
words” and “false friends” in the Confession, terms those familiar with his dogged
attacks on the “intelligibility” of the KJV will quickly recognize.
Ward says he dealt with such terms in his “translation” of
the Confession using modern language as he prepared for his ordination to
pastoral ministry at the now defunct Cornerstone BC of Anacortes, Washington.
We’ll return to this statement later to examine Ward’s RB ministerial
credentials.
Ward gives five examples of supposedly outdated words in the
Confession that, he insists, need to be “translated.”
I found no merit in any of the five examples that would
justify this. More importantly, I found that two of Ward’s examples are
theologically problematic.
The first of these is “circumstances” from 1:6. Ward says
this term is “obsolete” in the modern context. He makes no mention of the fact,
however, that “circumstances” has long been a technical term among Reformed
theologians in discussions especially over the Regulative Principle of Worship.
He does not draw attention to a classic distinction between
“substantial” (essential) elements and “circumstantial” parts of worship.
Michael Bushel in his book Songs of Zion, explains:
Circumstances are defined by [James
Henley] Thornwell as “those concomitants of an action without which it either
cannot be done at all or cannot be done with decency and decorum.”
Bushel continues:
The time and place of worship, for
instance, may be seen as a circumstance of worship, because one cannot worship
God without doing so at a specific time, and yet the aspect of time does not,
and need not, be considered in a definition of what constitutes an act of
worship (29).
In Ward’s so-called “translation”
of the Confession, he says he rendered the word “circumstances” as “extraneous
details.” This does not, however, accurately convey what the framers of the
Confession meant by the term “circumstances.” The time when the church meets
for worship is not an “extraneous detail,” but a part of worship which is not
“substantial” or “essential.”
The second example is Ward’s handling of the word
“authentical” in 1:8. According to Ward this word has nothing to do with the
contemporary word “authentic,” meaning genuine or matching with the originals,
despite the fact that in context the framers refer to the text as immediately
inspired and “kept pure” in all ages (i.e., the true text is consistent with
the originals).
Here Ward’s bias towards the “reconstruction” method of
textual criticism shines through. “Authentical,” for Ward, can’t mean that the
text kept pure in all ages by God’s singular care and providence matches the
original, because, according to Ward, they did not have the originals. So, it
can only more vaguely mean something like an approximation of the text which
is, nonetheless, still “authoritative.”
New Zealand Reformed theologian Garnet Howard Milne, however,
in his book Has the Bible been kept pure?, a monograph dedicated to WCF
1:8 cites the 17th century definition of “authentical” by the
English divine Edward Leigh (1602-1671). Leigh said:
The question betwixt us and the
Papists, now cometh to be considered, which of these Editions is authentical,
that is, which of it self hath credit and authority, being sufficient of it
self to prove and commend it self, without the help of any other Edition,
because it is the first exemplar or Copy of divine truth delivered from God by
the Prophets and Apostles (133).
Milne concludes, “In other words, the authentical edition is
the correct copy of an author’s work” (133). Such a definition does not fit
with Ward’s “translation.”
The other three examples Ward offered [“private spirits” in
1:10; “opposite to all good” in 6:4; and “necessities” in 27:2], as noted, IMHO
do not warrant any adjustment in the text, but can be more than adequately
understood by the mature reader.
Ward’s approach to the Confession recalls some of the
problems evident in his approach to the AV, as pointed out by James Snapp, Jr.
in an
October 29, 2024 blog post, which Ward, has, thus far, completely ignored.
Snapp, BTW, is hardly a proponent for either the traditional text or
traditional Protestant translations.
Snapp’s article is titled, “Mark Ward and his Ridiculous
Claim About the KJV,” and was written to respond to a now rather infamous
statement made by Ward that it would be sinful to give the KJV to a child. Here,
in part, is what Snapp wrote:
Mark Ward seems to have missed a
fundamental point about the intelligibility of Scripture. No Scripture
was ever written with the understanding that its readers would be in a literary
and educational vacuum. Christians are instructed to worship
together. Christians should consider the Scriptures together…
We are expected to mature. With
maturity comes new understanding of what was once unintelligible. We are
expected to fellowship together. We are expected to learn…. The fact that
children can read as children and misunderstand things does not render the King
James Version full of shortcomings. The shortcoming is in the
individual's level of comprehension - which is constantly changing.
Dr. Ward seems to think that
the Bible should be translated so plainly that it is incapable of being
misunderstood. Unfortunately such a translation has never existed and
never will exist on earth….
I encourage Mark Ward: come out of your
fantasyland in which children never grow up and are incapable of learning new
things.
Snapp makes the valid point that Ward
advocates for an impossible goal of “absolute intelligibility” in a Bible
translation, for any reader, of any age or maturity.
Snapp’s critique of Ward’s views on
English Bible translations is also applicable to his newly expressed views on
the Confession. No substantial and significant written document will ever be “incapable
of being misunderstood.”
What is more, the case can be made
that the historical Confession in its original form is not unintelligible to
modern readers, who approach it with humility in the context of Christian
community, instructed by teaching elders, and informed by a tradition of classic
Protestant interpretation.
Oddly enough, after covering his five examples of
supposedly “outdated” terms in the confession, Ward proceeds to justify
revision of the Confession based on how the Anglican Book of Common Prayer
(1662) was updated after WW2. The Anglicans did it, so why shouldn’t we?
This seems to be a peculiar argument, because it was,
in fact, the liberal mainline factions of the Episcopal denomination that
embraced revision to the prayer book on their way to liberalizing church
practices relating to issues like ordination of women.
It has been the conservative and orthodox Anglicans
who broke away from the liberal mainline that have held fast to the 1662 prayer
book.
I can tell you that if there ever comes a time, in my
lifetime, when a group of Reformed Baptists reject the original text of the
1689 Confession in favor of a modern “translation” of it, I and my church will
be among many that will be forced to separate from them.
I have no doubt that if any church were to accept even the
few changes Ward suggested in his video, they would be at risk of departing, at
the least, from the classic confessional view of the regulative principle of
worship and from the classic confessional view of the immediately inspired and providentially
preserved Scriptures as “authentical.”
Eventually, Ward proposes that a set of recognized experts
should get together, and, according to Ward, they should invite “a red-headed
word nerd” to join them and help them with all his vast knowledge and
expertise.
He adds, “it will take big names and institutions.”
Ward proceeds to say that he offers this counsel “from my
tiny little spot on the Reformed spectrum as an independent—and I’ve been
independent since I was born.” That last statement, oddly enough, does not seem
very Baptistic.
So Ward sees himself a “Reformed” independent. But what
exactly does that mean?
He continues, “I’m issuing this call. I think Reformed
denominations should hold a sort of ecumenical council and translate the
confession—not revise it.”
By using the word “translation” Ward thinks he can head off conservative
opposition to any efforts to “update” or “revise” the Confession. But by “translation”
Ward, of course, means “interpretation” and “change” (see the examples of “circumstances”
and “authentical”).
Ward insists he only wants to make the confession more
accessible to the ordinary reader. He adds that this would especially fit with
the concept of the “priesthood of the believer,” a phrase more familiar to
twentieth century SBC moderates than to 17th century Particular
Baptists.
As I listened to Ward’s unsolicited call to change the
Confession I began to wonder about his confessional convictions, his
ministerial standing, and his ecclesiastical commitments. Until recently I did
not know that he even claimed to be a “Reformed Baptist” of some sort.
As a guest on the podcast of Covenant Baptist Seminary (an RB
seminary) on October 21, 2024, Ward said (c. 17:56 mark), “I was ordained according to a
lightly edited (by myself) [edition] of the 1689 Confession…” He adds, “I also
took some minor exceptions, but we can get into that in another interview…”
The podcast host did not follow up on this statement, and did
not ask Ward to explain in what areas he does not fully subscribe to the
confession, or what these so-called “minor exceptions” might be.
Ward was a guest again on the Covenant Baptist Seminary
podcast on December 17, 2024. In this episode, Ward said (c. 18:43 mark), “I am sort of a Reformed Baptist,
because in God’s providence I’ve never been near enough to a 1689 congregation
for it to be a reasonable option for me…”
So, by Ward’s own admission, he has never actually been a
member of a confessional RB church.
What is more, he gives further explanation in this episode about
his inability fully to subscribe the 1689 Confession. He states,
“I’m probably just a little bit different on eschatology than
the standard 1689 guy.” Yet, he adds, “I’m a confessional guy.”
Neither of the podcast hosts expressed any curiosity about
what Ward meant by this statement. What is his position on eschatology? Where
does his view on eschatology depart from the 1689 Confession to which he cannot
fully subscribe and to which he takes exception? Is he a dispensationalist? If
so, can he fairly be said to be a “confessional guy”?
This conversation sparked my curiosity about Ward’s
ministerial and ecclesiastical standing.
So, I took a look at the “About Me” page on Ward’s blog
(By Faith We Understand) where I read the following:
I attended Mount Calvary Baptist Church for
18 years while in Greenville, SC, and I “pastored” an outreach congregation
there Sunday mornings for the last (almost) six of those years.
MCBC is a well-known
Independent Baptist Church but certainly not a confessional RB church. Notice
Ward only says he “attended” this church but not that he was a member of it. Notice
also the nuanced language. Ward does not say he served on the staff or as a
recognized pastor in this church. In fact, he puts the word “pastored” in
quotes, indicating his role was not officially pastoral. He continues:
After moving to Washington, I
was something of an assistant pastor for six years—though ordained for only the
last 9 months of that time—at Cornerstone Baptist Church of Anacortes. The
church voted to close toward
the end of the COVID era.
Presumably Cornerstone BC of
Anacortes was also an independent Baptist church and not a confessional church.
Again, Ward’s language here is unclear, He does not say he served as elder in
this church or as an assistant pastor, but that he was “something of an
assistant pastor” for nearly six years and was ordained nine months before the
church dissolved. Was he ever installed as an officer in this church? He
concludes:
My family now attends Emmanuel Baptist Church of
Mount Vernon, WA, where we serve in various capacities.
This church is also an independent Baptist congregation. I
find it interesting that Ward only says he “attends” this church and does not
say he is a “member” of this church. The church’s leadership page lists seven
elders and six deacons. Ward is not listed as a church officer. I did not
locate any sermons or teaching by Ward that were posted on this church’s
youtube page (but, admittedly, my search was not exhaustive). What are the
“various capacities” in which he has served in this church?
The church’s belief page lists twelve brief doctrinal points,
but it offers no mention of any classic Christian creeds or Protestant
confessions. The statement on “The Last Things” reads, “We believe in the personal and visible return of the
Lord Jesus Christ to earth and the establishment of His kingdom. We believe in
the resurrection of the body, the final judgment, the eternal felicity of the
righteous, and the endless suffering of the wicked.” Though vague, it might
indicate belief in dispensational premillennialism and a millennial kingdom,
and I did run across one sermon preached by the lead pastor titled “The Rapture
of the Church.”
So, at this point I am unsure of
Ward’s confessional, ministerial, and ecclesiastical standing.
Confessionally, he does not
fully subscribe to the 1689 Confession.
Ministerially, he was ordained
to the gospel ministry by an independent Baptist church within nine months of
its closing but does not say he served as an elder in this church.
Ecclesiastically, he states that
he has never been a member of a confessional RB church and only says he presently
“attends” an independent Baptist church (that
apparently holds to some form of dispensationalism).
I want to be clear, I am not
criticizing Ward for the convictions which he holds. I do not believe that the
kingdom of God begins and ends with confessional RBs. I have many friends who
are not confessional RBS.
I am concerned, however, by the
fact that Ward is suggesting not only that the 1689 confession be “translated”
(i.e., changed) but also that he would offer himself up as a candidate to be on a
committee to do this work.
I’m also concerned that he
claims to be a “confessional guy” even though he does not fully subscribe to
the 1689 confession, has never been a member of a confessional RB church, has
never served in the office of elder in a confessional RB church, and he may be
only “attending” a church at present.
I also wonder what Ward would
make of Confession 26 on each Christian’s duty to give “up themselves to the
Lord, and to one another” in particular churches (26:6), where the bishops or
elders are given “the peculiar administration of ordinances, and execution of
power or duty” (26:8), it being “incumbent on the bishops or pastors of the churches,
to be instant in preaching the Word, by way of office,” while others “also
gifted” might also preach only if they are “approved and called by the church”
(26:11). I wonder how Confession 26 reads in Ward’s “translation” of the
Confession.
Has any church at present
approved him as a public preacher and teacher, or is any church giving
oversight to the teaching he now offers in various venues, including on his
youtube channel and especially behind the paywall in the courses he now offers
and charges his patrons to access? I wonder also whether this teaching adheres
to any confession that might be examined.
I also wonder about the fact that at least one Reformed
Baptist Seminary has welcomed Ward as a lecturer and lists
him on its faculty page. I even wonder that an RB seminary would welcome him as a podcast
guest to speak to areas of interest to confessional Baptists.
In the end, I want to give my
answer to Mark Ward’s call to “translate” the confession and his offer to serve
on a committee which would take up such a work. My response, quite simply is,
No.
The better option, IMHO, for one
who considers himself to be confessional (and Baptistic) would be to join a confessional RB
church and to sit under the teaching and instruction of that church to grow in
one’s knowledge of Scripture, as well as in his understanding of corresponding confessional
RB beliefs and practices. If one aspires to teach and interpret doctrine,
including that found in the confession, he should express these desires to the
elders of his church so that he might be examined as a candidate to become an
elder or sanctioned as a “gifted brother,” and only then to exercise his
ministry not independently but under the authority of a particular church.
JTR
