A RESPONSE - Part 1 of 4
To Dr. Kennedy's Report on the Ron Minton Controversy
By Michael D. O'Neal, Pastor, Gospel Light Baptist Church
P.O. Box 3071, Albany, GA 31706 (912) 432-0039 Church / (912) 698-2127 House
Email: brothermike@brothermike.com
8/19/97
LRK- A report on the Ron Minton controversy
By Leland R. Kennedy, President
Baptist Bible College
Springfield, Missouri
MDO - Our church does not financially support BBC (Baptist Bible College), so Brother Kennedy may not consider me a friend of the school. However, I will acknowledge that in years past some of the greatest church builders in America were trained at BBC. Additionally, some of these men were and are strong on the KJV.
LRK - This is a report to the pastors of the Baptist Bible Fellowship International on the controversy regarding Baptist Bible Graduate School of Theology Professor Ron Minton that was discussed at the recent May Graduation Fellowship Meeting in Springfield, May 19-22, 1997. As you may know, questions have been raised regarding Dr. Minton's position on the King James Version of the Bible. This matter has been investigated by me, Dr. Parker Dailey and our trustees and a presentation was made before the Committee of State Representatives of the BBFI at the May meeting. This report is to inform you of our work on this matter.
MDO - My comments are based upon my personal involvement in public and private correspondence with Brother Minton on the Internet on the subject.
LRK - Materials contained in this report
The materials enclosed include four items. First is my personal report, followed by a letter from BBGST Executive Administrator Parker Dailey, a statement from Dr. Minton regarding this matter and a report from former students of Dr. Minton.
MDO - My responses will be given to the four items as separate units.
LRK - Questions at issue in this controversy
When this matter was brought to my attention, I determined therewas one basic question that had to be answered. Does Ron Minton by his life, teachings and writing conform to the policy of the BBFI and BBC/BBGST in regards to the King James Version?
MDO - This question is legitimate, and it's not easy to be dogmatic about it, because BBFI and BBC policy on the King James Bible, with the exception of perhaps one or two statements, is written in such a way that it may be interpreted to favor both anti-KJVO (King James Version Only) and pro-KJVO camps. Some good men in the BBFI believe BBC's position is KJVO; others believe the written policies leave room for men of other convictions. My opinion is that the policies are written in such a way to favor the King James Bible, but not explicit enough to convince everyone that it excludes those who believe it is merely a translation which is not necessarily any better or worse than other translations.
LRK - More recently, another issue that has surfaced is his failure to obey certain advice and instructions by me and BBGST Executive Administrator Parker Dailey.
MDO - This spirit of insubordination is one of Brother Minton's problems which was evident while he participated on the list. When he was a participant on the BBFI list, he clearly disobeyed a ruling by the moderator about discussing the subject of the King James Version (particularly the controversy around Brother Minton's review of Riplinger's book), and he was given a one-week suspension.
LRK - In this report, I will present background information, our policy, how I have administered it during my eleven year tenure as President of BBC/BBGST, the investigation of Dr. Minton on these matters and our conclusions.
Background of the BBFI and the King James Version
I have been a part of the Baptist Bible Fellowship International since it was begun in 1950. My father was one of the founders of our movement. These men paid a price to establish our fellowship. In regards to the Bible, I do not know of one of our pastors who didn't preach from and use the King James Version. It is a fact that Noel Smith, founding editor of the Baptist Bible Tribune and others quoted from other translations besides the King James Version. The points were made to me that the Bible was originally written in Hebrew and Greek and that those languages were more graphic and complete than English.
MDO - From what I have read, Brother Kennedy's comments about Brother Noel Smith are accurate. Certainly there was a time when at least one of the most revered founding fathers of the BBF quoted other versions without rebuke. Of course, the atmosphere of fundamentalism has changed over the last half century on the subject. In the days of Brother Smith, the typical fundamental Baptist leader felt it was perfectly acceptable to USE the King James Bible because of its appeal to common people, but also to CORRECT it when he felt necessary. The practice of many preachers was to follow their seminary teachers' advice: "Use the King James Version in the pulpit, and use the American Standard (Revised Standard or New American Standard) in your study." Anyone who insisted on believing the King James Bible was perfect in those days was labeled a "Ruckmanite," whether or not he knew what a Ruckman was. John R. Rice referred to those of us who believed our King James Bible is infallible as "The King James Cult." Over the years there has indeed been a shift, so that a much larger percentage of men and schools exist who take the KJVO position, some of who will actually refer to the New American Standard, New International Version, etc. as "the devil's bibles."
LRK - I was taught that the Bible as originally written was inspired, infallible and inerrant; that these documents as originally written didn't merely contain and convey the words of God, but were in very fact the words of God. It was understood that our beloved King James Version was a translation of the words of God into our language. Because of this, we said that our translation is the word of God. As a student at BBC, in classes and in sermons, I remember hearing, "a better translation from the original language might be, or could be or would be ..." This was not to demean our translation but to demonstrate the superiority of Hebrew and Greek over English.
MDO - Brother Kennedy's recollections are no doubt accurate. Fundamental schools in the 50's, 60's, and early 70's had a common practice of USING the King James Bible without BELIEVING in its infallibility. They were staffed with teachers who believed, as Professor Minton believes today, that since the KJV is a translation made by sinners, it had its problems, shortcomings, and places in which it needed to be corrected. As a result, many men trained at BBC parroted the instruction they had received and taught their congregations, for example, that the word, "baptize" should have been translated, "immerse." It was common for men to stand in the pulpit and publicly correct the English KJV Bibles of their church members with the Greek lexicons they had purchased in Bible college.
LRK - This made me desirous to study these languages myself. Along with my King James Version, I still spend time with my Strong's Concordance, the five volumes of The Expositor's Greek New Testament and Vine's Dictionary of New Testament Words to learn from the very words God gave in Hebrew and Greek.
MDO - Brother Kennedy was taught that the TRUE scriptures were the original manuscripts. Probably no one told him in class that there was no such animal as "the original Greek text" or "the original manuscripts." He just heard his teacher say something like (for example), "The King James Version in 1 John 5:7 is not found in the original manuscripts." When he purchased Greek text tools, he thought he was working with something superior to the King James Version. By the time he finally heard that no one possessed the original manuscripts, it was too late; the hook had already been set.
LRK - These experiences and instructions are in harmony and somewhat paraphrase our Articles of Faith which read, "We believe that the Holy Bible was written by men supernaturally inspired: that it has truth without any admixture of error for its matter; and therefore is, and shall remain to the end of the age, the only complete and final revelation of the will of God to man; the true center of Christian union and the supreme standard by which all human conduct creeds, and opinions should be tried.... By The Holy Bible' we mean that the collection of sixty-six books, from Genesis to Revelation, which as originally written does not only contain and convey the Word of God, but IS the very Word of God."
MDO - One key expression of contention in the above quote is "as originally written." Up until the mid-70's, nearly all fundamental schools used that expression to limit inspiration and infallibility to "the original autographs." That meant that the only perfect Bible was "the original manuscripts." The ironic thing about that is that in such case, no perfect Bible ever existed, because the original manuscripts, to the best of our knowledge, were never gathered together into one book! Mike Randall ran in the July/Aug., 1997 issue of The Baptist Preacher a reprint of an article by him which appeared in the April 22, 1988 issue of the Baptist Bible Tribune. In that article he stated that copies made of those manuscripts allow us to have the Bible today "as originally written." Thus, he said, the expression refers not to the original writings themselves, but what the writings SAID. Therefore, he indicated the expression could be used to represent copies made of those original writings. KJVO advocates would say that Bible, "as originally written," in English is the King James Bible. Bible-rejecting fundamentalists would say that no translation is perfect, but that they are each the word of God insomuch as they are faithful to the original writings.
LRK - The BBFI policy on the King James Version
When translations began to multiply, it was fundamental Baptists like Noel Smith and other of our leaders who denounced the corruption of the text and message. In time, it was felt necessary to make a statement about translations in our Fellowship. At the September 1979 meeting of the BBFI in Bangor, Maine, this matter was discussed. The result was the adoption by the BBFI of a resolution in support of the use of the King James Version. It became part of Article X of theBBFI Constitution and Bylaws regarding Education Policy. It appears under the heading of Educational Philosophy, point Ic. It reads, "We believe that our students should be undergirded by an unshakable faith in the Word of God. We believe that the King James Version is God's Word preserved for the English-speaking people."
MDO - Although I have in mind what I consider a more likely reason for the adoption of the resolution, the statement was worded in such a way as to placate the masses of people who were, in the eyes of some brethren, becoming infected with "Ruckmanism." On the surface, the resolution was a good one. I could easily have made the same statement. At face value, it takes the KJVO position, that the King James Bible is the word of God and that students should be undergirded by an unshakable faith in it.
LRK - The BBC policy statement regarding the King James Version
In 1983, the administration and trustees of Baptist Bible College felt the Fellowship education philosophy on this matter should be reflected in a statement of policy for the school. As a result, they composed a seven point statement. Although I was not part of the body who established this policy, I have to the best of my ability tried to understand it, administer it and enforce it. I want to present my understanding point by point.
- 1. We agree that the Bible in its original languages was inspired by God. This statement is a recognition of a relationship between this policy and our Articles of Faith. Whatever policy we adopt must be in harmony with these statements of faith.
- 2. By the 16th century, Wycliff and Tyndale had both translated the Bible into the English language. These were both considered acceptable translations. This statement recognizes that other translations into English were and are acceptable as the Word of God. Although we believe that the Word of God is preserved in the King James Version, we don't believe that God's Word doesn't exist in other translations. It existed in the Wycliff and Tyndale versions. In fact, the text underlying our translation is 95% or more the same text in more recent translations as well. So, to that extent and the extent to which they accurately render the original writings, they are the Word of God also. What makes a translation acceptable is its accurate rendering of the original writings into English.
MDO - The second point, as interpreted by Brother Kennedy, leads the way to weakening a good position on the King James Version. The statement, "So, to that extent and the extent to which they accurately render the original writings, they are the Word of God also," leaves it up for discussion as to what parts of those versions are the Word of God. According to Brother Kennedy, they were the word of God to the extent that they accurately rendered the original writings, indicating there were places in those versions which might not have done so. In linking these versions to a statement regarding the King James Version, the idea is suggested that the King James may be the word of God, but only to an "extent." King James Bible believers feel the word of God may be found in the other versions, too. That is, we believe the other translations CONTAIN the word of God. We believe, however, that the King James Bible IS the word of God, from cover to cover.
LRK -
- 3. Through the efforts of the King of England, a new English translation was placed into the hands of the common man. This is another statement regarding the history of Bible translation.
- 4. In the process of time, the changes in word usage and punctuation necessitated several revisions. This statement recognizes that the King James Version has gone through several revisions. Research reveals that there were four that were considered significant. They occurred in 1629, 1638, 1762 and 1769. The King James Version we all use is essentially the 1769 revision.
- 5. We believe that our students should be undergirded by an unshakable faith in the Word of God. We believe that the King James Version is God's Word kept intact for the English-speaking people. This is almost word for word the philosophy statement found in the BBFI Constitution and Bylaws. The word "preserved" in the BBFI statement is replaced by the words, "kept intact" in our school statement. I am not sure of a real difference in meaning here.
Because of the previous statement regarding revisions, it is obvious it can't mean it hasn't been changed at all. A dictionary definition of the word "intact," that I found says, "having no relevant component removed or destroyed." This is how I perceive the words, "kept intact."
MDO - I don't believe the substitution of the words, "kept intact," for the word, "preserved" in the BBFI statement is a big problem, although the word, "preserved," is more scriptural (Ps. 12:6-7). Point 5 is actually a good statement. Students SHOULD be undergirded by an UNSHAKABLE faith in the word of God. Since the King James Bible is God's word, a student should have an UNSHAKABLE faith in that Book. Any teacher who questions the integrity of the King James Bible IN ANY POINT is transgressing the BBC policy.
LRK -
- This statement does not preclude the study of the individual Greek and Hebrew words in the original languages for the clarity of meaning. This statement also related the BBC/BBGST policy to our Articles of Faith, which declare that the Holy Bible, "as originally written does not only contain and convey the Word of God, but IS the very Word of God." Baptist Bible College and Baptist Bible Graduate School of Theology trains people who minister in many other languages besides English. Any translation in any language should be accepted only to the degree that it accurately translates the original languages. It is therefore important that students at schools like Baptist Bible College and the Baptist Bible Graduate School of Theology study the individual Greek and Hebrew words God
gave to the writers of the Bible.
- 7. The Textus Receptus is the approved Greek text of our curriculum. This statement corresponds to our Articles of Faith, and the educational philosophy of the BBFI because it recognizes the basic text underlying the King James Version of the Bible. It is also a logical follow-up on statement six.
MDO - Points 6 and 7 are not terrible, except for the fact that a teacher would not be as likely to undermine a student's faith in the King James Bible, if he agreed to a statement in point 6 concerning Hebrew and Greek, such as, "At no point shall any Hebrew or Greek text be used to undermine the student's faith in the King James Bible by pointing out any alleged problems or shortcomings in the English text."
LRK - My administration of our policy
My administration of this policy has involved several steps which I want to outline briefly. When I became President of BBC in 1986, I instructed that the above statement be placed in the college catalogue. Since that time, it has appeared in every catalogue and can be found on page 26 of the current catalogue. I also spent time interviewing all our Bible faculty when I became president. I reviewed the policy and obtained their feelings concerning it. Each of them subscribed to our position. In the process of time, I became aware that one of our faculty members covertly acted contrary to our policy. I investigated this matter, interviewed the faculty member, made a decision and told him his services would no longer be needed.
MDO - For years Pensacola Christian College had a statement in its catalog which was favorable to the King James Bible. It said only the King James Version was used in the classroom and that the Textus Receptus was held as a superior Greek text. It was not until recent years, however, that the school actually began to take a clear-cut stand on the King James Bible. At that time a video tape was produced by the school and sent across the country.
LRK - Faculty candidates are screened in relation to our policy
When hiring new faculty members, a screening process takes place that involves training, reference and experience checks. Our policy on the use of the King James Version is part of the process. Several administrative staff are involved. Interviews are made by executive administration, department leaders and me. Even our trustees are involved. I had it placed in the BBC Bylaws that, "Members of the full-time faculty of Baptist Bible College shall be appointed by the President of Baptist Bible College after deliberation with Trustees." This was to protect the school, to keep the trustees informed and to obtain their input should they know of a reason someone should not be hired, such as their variance from our position on the use of the King James Version.
MDO - I see no problem with that. Someone needs to call the shots, and it might as well be the college President. In this case, I do not believe Dr. Kennedy's screening will satisfy the most ardent KJV Bible believers like myself, because he does not believe as we do on the subject. That is why Brother Minton is still on staff. His only offense in Brother Kennedy's eyes was insubordination.
LRK - The 1994 leaders conference on the King James Version
Following the Global Fellowship Meeting in May of 1994, I led a two day conference on our position and defense of the King James Version. My goal was to call leaders together to discuss the best scholarship supporting our position. Members of our administration, faculty, trustees, Fellowship officers and pastors were invited. Besides myself, those who attended were Parker Dailey, Sam Davison, Dave Hardy, Don Elmore, Mike Randall, Eli Harju, Robert Terrey, Russ Dell, Kevin Kennedy, Ron Storz, Ed Egbert, Bill Dowell Jr., Ron Minton, Ray Pratt and Joe Gleason. We came away from that meeting confident that our position could be defended with scholarship that was accurate and factual.
MDO - I am not acquainted with the positions of each of these men on the King James Bible. However, from what I have read in this report and in private correspondence with Ron Minton, it appears to me that Brothers Kennedy, Dailey, and Minton do not believe in the infallibility of the King James Bible to the exclusion of other English versions.
LRK - Faculty retreat and chapel presentations of our position
That conference was followed by a presentation of our policy and its defense in the faculty retreat that preceded the beginning of the Fall semester of 1994. Why we use and defend the use of the King James Version was clearly reinforced to all our faculty. After school started, I commissioned special chapel services to present our position and defend our use of the King James Version, Bill Dowell Jr. and Ron Minton spoke in these special chapel services. I have provided tapes of their addresses to pastors on several occasions. The unanimous response has been positive.
MDO - Judging from the fact that Brother Kennedy found no fault with hearing his own BBC teachers say, "a better translation from the original language might be, could be or would be ..." (See Brother Kennedy's statement under "Background of the BBFI and the King James Version," paragraph 2) and that Brother Dailey found no fault with Brother Zimmerman's occasionally saying, "At this point a better translation would be ..." (See Brother Dailey's letter of June 13, 1997) it is obvious that a faculty retreat might not present the King James Bible as 100% pure, and that Brother Kennedy not be aware of the implications made by some of the men's stated positions.
LRK - Background information regarding Ron Minton
Before I pass on to the controversy surrounding Ron Minton, I want to supply some information regarding the decision to hire him in the first place. He has been associated with our movement since infancy. This began when he was one year old and his family placed him in the nursery of a BBFI church. He was saved at age 13 through the ministry of the Bible Baptist Church of Dumas, Texas, when Clyde Spain was pastor. After surrendering to the ministry, he desired to learn Greek to defend his independent Baptist faith against R.B. Thieme.
MDO - This is not a main point, but a person need not learn Greek to defend the faith against a heretic like R.B. Thieme. The King James Bible is sufficient a weapon to do the job, especially since we believe it is God's word "preserved" and "intact," and we have an unshakable faith in it as the word of God. Brother Minton's departure from the KJV to look for additional ammunition to use against Thieme may have led to his downfall.
LRK - He attended Grace College and Seminary in Warsaw, Indiana, graduating with honors in New Testament Greek. He and his family served in the Faith Baptist Church of Columbia City, where the late George Ruyle was pastor. He has been a BBFI Navy Chaplain and served on the faculty at Baptist Bible College East and Baptist University of America. He completed his Th.D. program through Central Baptist Seminary of Minneapolis with an overall average grade of B+ and A. We hired him in 1987 after appropriate screening, interviews and a face to face interview with the college trustees in accordance with what I have already said. In his interviews, he was specifically asked about his views on the King James Version. I and the trustees were pleased with his answers. He uses the King James Version in his ministry, memorizes from it and uses it in personal devotions. I was especially pleased with his views on the text that underlies the King James Version and how it is superior to the Alexandrian text. We were comfortable that Dr. Minton was in harmony with and defended our position and policy regarding the King James Version.
MDO - According to Brother Kennedy, Brother Minton:
- USES the King James Version in his ministry
- MEMORIZES from it
- USES it in personal devotions
What's missing? There is no statement that he BELIEVES the King James Version. He uses it, memorizes it, and obviously likes it. But does he BELIEVE it? Does he believe that it can be said of the King James Version, "Every word of God is pure" (Prov. 30:5)? Could he say of the King James Version, "Therefore I esteem all thy precepts concerning all things to be right; and I hate every false way" (Ps. 119:128)? Does he believe "baptize" should be "baptize"? Does he believe "church" should be "church"? Does he believe "Easter" should be "Easter"? Does he believe Titus 2:13 should say, "of the great God and our Saviour" rather than "of the great God and Saviour"?
LRK - Events leading up to the current controversy
In the fall of 1995, I received a letter from a pastor who questioned the scholarship of an author who wrote a supposed defense of the King James Version. He wondered if one of our faculty might review the book from the viewpoint of a scholar with extensive training in Hebrew, Greek and Textual Criticism. I consulted with Dr. Parker Dailey and Professor Minton to consider such a review. After consulting with Dr. Mike Randall, he agreed to publish such a review in The Baptist Preacher if it could be limited to two pages. The review which criticized the scholarship of the book in question was published in March/April 1996.
Some readers objected strongly to Dr. Minton's article and he began to be targeted for the opinions he expressed. Those opposed to Baptist Bible College, the Baptist Bible Graduate School of Theology and the Baptist Bible Fellowship International joined in on the attack. Articles were written against him, us and our school and published in periodicals not friendly to our work.
In the Fall of 1996, discussion of the use of the King James Version and Dr. Minton's book review began to take place on the Internet. Dr. Minton became aware of this and felt the questions were sincere and began to answer them. Soon the communications became a debate. Some got involved who are not friends of our work and they misconstrued, misrepresented and used statements out of context to draw the conclusion that Ron Minton doesn't defend the King James Version and doesn't hold the position of the BBFI or BBC/BBGST on this issue. I have even been informed that some may have taken personal, privileged correspondence without Dr. Minton's permission and attempted to use it against him.
MDO - This is not exactly the way it happened. As early as June, 1996, Brother Minton was actually initiating correspondence with pastors on the Internet about the KJVO controversy. I have been told this by other men, but I know it to be a fact concerning Brother Minton and myself. Brother Minton seemed to take some kind of eerie joy in questioning the faith of men in their King James Bible. He was and is, in my view, obsessed with the subject. The moderator of the Internet discussion list put his foot down and said that Dr. Minton's review of Riplinger's book, the response by Waite and Beebe, and Brother Minton's counter-response were not to be discussed on the list. Brother Minton ignored him and continued to post. The moderator, with regret, suspended Brother Minton from the list for one week.
I had no part in the supposed accumulation of Brother Minton's Internet notes which were brought to the Springfield meeting. However, I see absolutely no reason why anyone would think it to be a surprising thing for a man's words to be used against him to show his errors. Rather than "he said - he did not - he did, too" arguments, copies of the notes would stand for themselves. Brother Minton could answer for himself in person at the meeting, and he could use his own resources (fairly considerable, such as The Baptist Preacher, The Baptist Bible Tribune, and mass mailings such as this one of his position) to explain, expand, or deny the quotations for the general BBBI public.
LRK - Sometime before the new year, I became aware of questions being raised because of the use of the internet and advised Dr. Minton to discontinue using the internet because I believed some would misuse his postings and misrepresent his position.
MDO - To my knowledge, no one has misrepresented Brother Minton's position. His defenders on the Internet knew that his position was not sufficient to satisfy the King James Bible believing pastors in the fellowship.
LRK - I didn't explicitly forbid his using it, but I assumed he would quit. Because I anticipated this matter being discussed in the February national meeting in California, I asked him to prepare a statement of his position on the use of the King James Version. This he did. I was not informed of any discussions about this issue in February by the state representatives. I did review it with the trustees, but that meeting was taken up with other matters, as most already know.
After the first of the year, Dr. Dailey, knowing of the continuing controversy and questions being raised on the internet spoke to Dr. Minton and told him to quit posting. He says he understood this to mean quit posting on the issue of the King James Version, not to quit using it altogether. As a result, he continued in the internet discussion group, not discussing the King James Version issue, but answering a few questions. He also answered personal email.
MDO - Another incentive for Brother Minton not discussing the King James Version issue on the Internet list was that he had been suspended by the moderator. Additionally, the moderator insisted that all members of the list abstain from discussing the controversial subject. The truth is, at the moderator's request, NO ONE was discussing the issue after that time. It was not until much later, that the issue was opened for discussion again. At the date of this writing, it is still a "hot topic" on the Internet list.
LRK - The meetings in May
In communications between Dr. Dailey, the trustees and myself, it was concluded that this was a matter of continuing controversy and I had it placed on the trustees agenda to be discussed on Tuesday of the Graduation Fellowship Week. In the Committee of Representatives meeting on Monday night, the men in the standing Committee on Education informed me of a recommendation to investigate Dr. Minton's postings on the internet that they passed in February. As I had not been informed of this, all I could tell them was that I was working with the trustees on this and had a meeting scheduled with Dr. Minton the next morning. Second Vice President Dave Brown apologized for not informing me in a timely manner and the committee acknowledged that matters like this are under the authority of the trustees and administration not them.
On Tuesday, we met with Dr. Minton and discussed with him his position, his failure to follow instructions and the need to clear all these matters if he was to continue on the faculty of our school. He explained his position in detail, the events of the past year and his use of the internet. He restated his motive to help and not hinder our movement, our school and its work. He said he had misunderstood the advice I gave him and the directive from Dr. Dailey and asked forgiveness. He pledged to remove himself from the discussion groups on the internet. He also expressed willingness if called upon to meet with the state representatives of the BBFI to explain his position on the King James Version.
MDO - All of the men I know of who were upset with Dr. Minton's postings were strong King James advocates. If the school has a strong KJVO position, why were all of Dr. Minton's critics KJVO people? If Brother Minton has a strong KJVO position, why were all of his critics KJVO people? Answer: The school's PRACTICAL application of the fairly good policy on the King James Bible has been weak, and Brother Minton's personal position on the King James Bible issue is also weak. His position is stronger than that of men at some colleges, but it is certainly not as strong as it should be. Months before the showdown at Springfield, one pastor rebuked me, saying that BBC had as strong a stand on the KJV as any school in the country. If that had been the case, the interrogation of Brother Minton would have never been necessary. The fact that his position on the issue has been approved by the school administration, contrary to the desires of nearly 1/3 of the state representatives present, demonstrates the position is, for all practical purposes, still questionable.
LRK - On Wednesday night after the services, BBFI President Sam Davison called a special meeting of the state representatives to take care of one small item of business and to hear the BBC trustees report on their inquiry of Dr. Minton. That meeting began at approximately 10:30 PM and continued for over three hours. The trustees reported to the representatives on their meetings with Dr. Minton and their conclusion that although he had been insubordinate toward instructions given him, it was their opinion that he was not in violation of the BBFI, or BBC/BBGST position and policy regarding the King James Version of the Bible. Dr. Minton was allowed to speak and answer questions. He was under extreme pressure because of the situation. Questions asked him were sometimes very technical, difficult or maybe critical. He made some obvious misstatements, especially regarding the matter of the autonomy of the local church. Following his presentation, the trustees asked the representatives for any recommendation they may have on this matter. The minutes of the meeting read, "A motion was made to recommend to the Administration that Brother Ron Minton be dismissed." It failed by a vote of 26 to 10.
MDO - Brother Kennedy omitted from the report that an attempt was made to read to the trustees and state reps actual postingsBrother Minton had made on the Internet list. Billy Hamm, who owns the Internet list, said something to the effect that such an action was illegal, and the posts were not read. In my opinion, if the posts had been admitted into the session, more of the trustees and state reps would have been aware of the provocative nature of Brother Minton toward men who believe the King James Bible. These were public posts on an Internet list open to anyone in the BBFI directory who had access to the Internet. The men should have been allowed to hear Minton's Internet statements.
Privately, although not confidentially, Brother Minton approached me by email on June 13, 1996, with the questions, "Do you feel God is the author of other English Bibles? Is the KJV the only one that is the Word of God?" My answer was, "The only book in print which I believe, in any language, is the King James Bible. I don't accept the KJV as being just better' than the others. I believe it's THE Bible and the others are not." Brother Minton's reply: "... it seems like your view is based on bad information." The next day he said to me, "Pastor O'Neal, I personally think your view of the Bible does not reflect a determination to proclaim the truth. I fear that your view is emotional and is the same as the Mormons and JW'S proclaim to me about their writings." Would it surprise Brother Kennedy that a Bible-believing pastor such as myself would be alarmed at a professor at BBC who tells the pastor his view is the same as the Mormons and JW's proclaim about their writings? Is it a cultic mentality for me to believe my Bible is God's Word preserved in English?
He added, "We correctly acknowledge that the KJV is unsurpassed in some areas, but it has shortcomings just like any other Bible that was the product of sinful men." We King James Bible believers don't think the KJV has ANY shortcomings at all. Yes, it was the product of sinful men, and so were the "original manuscripts" in "the original languages." However, we King James Bible believers (in contrast to Ron Minton, you understand) believe that the same God who was powerful enough to see that the original manuscripts were what He wanted is also powerful enough to PRESERVE His word today through copies and translations AS HE SEES FIT!
LRK - After that meeting was adjourned, I and the administrators present met with the trustees until around 2:30 AM. The trustees present in that meeting recognized that Dr. Minton made some misstatements, but they felt his presentation was in harmony with the BBFI and BBC/BBGST policy concerning the King James Version. Consideration of dismissing him could only be based on grounds of insubordination and/or if he could not satisfactorily clarify the obvious misstatements made in his presentation.
MDO - The "misstatements" were in reference to the local church, not specifically the King James Bible issue itself. Brother Minton's beliefs and teachings on the King James Bible controversy are in opposition to point 5 of the BBC policy on the KJV (which is almost exactly the same as the wording of Article X of the BBFI constitution), that "our students should be undergirded by an unshakable faith in the word of God. We believe that the King James Version is God's Word kept intact for the English-speaking people."
He wrote to me on June 14, 1996, "For example, Titus 2:13 is a strong declaration of the deity of Jesus, but some of the Grammar involved was not known in 1611. Thus the conservative newer translations are more accurate and boldly proclaim Jesus' equality with God at that passage (See the NASB, NIV, NIV, NKJV.)" We King James Bible believers do not believe that any of the translations mentioned are more accurate than the KJV, period.
He made further efforts to shake my faith in the KJV two days later when he wrote to me, "If you don't realize that the three translations I mentioned above are clearer on the deity of Christ at Titus 2:13, you are too prejudiced to see the truth. They clearly proclaim that Jesus is God. The KJV does not at this passage." I am a KJV believer. I believe Titus 2:13 in the KJV is exactly as it should be. I believe the other versions he mentioned are corruptions of scripture. To hold them up as he did as superior to the King James Version has NO OTHER PURPOSE THAN TO SHAKE THE BELIEVER'S FAITH IN THE KING JAMES TEXT.
LRK - A few hours later, before the Graduation ceremonies on Thursday morning, Dr. Dailey, Dr. Randall, and I met with Dr. Minton. I told him that he made serious misstatements the previous night. He apologized as best he could with tears. He told me he was off the internet. I have placed him on probation for the time being. I asked him to prepare a document voicing his apology for disregarding advice and instruction, clarifying his thoughts on the autonomy of the local church and presenting his defense of the King James Version.
Since the May meetings
In June, Dr. Dailey, Dr. Randall, Dr. Christopher and I have met with Dr. Minton to review the document he has prepared. It is included at the end of this report. I have also investigated his students and former students to see the fruit of his teaching and whether it has undergirded them with an unshakable faith in the Word of God and has strengthened their position on the King James Version or not. In the Wednesday night meeting with Dr. Minton, one of the state representatives told how a former student, now a pastor testified how Dr. Minton's teaching reinforced and built his faith in the King James Version. At the end of this report are testimonies of other of Dr. Minton's students that corroborate that same point.
MDO - It might be interesting to get the testimonies of men who have corresponded with Dr. Minton who feel his teaching undermines faith in the KJV rather than reinforces it. Six testimonies of students were given. I can furnish the names of solid, seasoned BBFI pastors on the Internet who would testify to the contrary of what was in the attachment by students.
LRK - The decision we have reached
These matters have been part of my life for months now. They have been a burden. I have prayed about them daily. I have thought long and hard. I have tried to turn over every stone to discover the facts. I have attempted to exercise patience, wisdom and love. I value individuals and I cannot cast a person on the ash heap unless I am convinced in my heart and mind that they are truly guilty of heresy.
MDO - I can certainly understand Brother Kennedy's position, especially since his own view on the King James Version is probably no stronger than that of Brother Minton. He does not believe Brother Minton's beliefs and teachings on the KJV issue are detrimental or objectionable. The only real reason he has been under pressure is that there are apparently many King James Bible believers in the BBFI who have no tolerance for a teacher who will criticize the King James Bible and suggest that other versions are more accurate in places. Why should these men teach their young church members that the KJV is God's perfect word and then send them to a school where they will be taught that no translation is perfect and that the KJV has definite "shortcomings"? I, for example, would not send one dime to BBC with men like Brother Minton on staff. Neither would I send anyone there to train for the ministry.
LRK - Like all of us, Ron Minton is far from perfect. In the ten years I have known him, I have concluded that sometimes he can be abrasive, argumentative, stubborn and even combative. He can be excessively verbal and sometimes extremely technical. He likes to debate and often uses pointed questions, ridicule and the absurd to make his point. These techniques can be good tools for teaching in the classroom, but on the internet and in dealing with persons who are trying to get him to make a statement to be used against him, they serve his adversaries. I believe that he is extremely intelligent and gifted, but has not always acted wisely. I can't say I agree with him or anyone else on every point or statement he makes. However, I don't believe he is guilty of heresy or non-compliance to our policy on the King James Version. His statement, attached to this report verifies this.
MDO - While the school policy could be clarified to avoid such controversies as this, I personally believe Brother Minton's beliefs do indeed conflict with the college policy on the issue, especially point 5, which states that the "students should be undergirded by an unshakable faith in the Word of God. We believe that the King James Version is God's word kept intact for the English-speaking people." This is just my observation, as a pastor happily active each month in our state BBFI meetings and rejoicing in the BBFI's emphasis on worldwide missions and church planting in the states. It is not my business to run the schools of the BBFI. I am merely giving my observations as one who was directly involved with Brother Minton in Internet discussion.
LRK - In the time I have known Dr. Minton, I have discovered that he goes regularly to Victory Mission on his own time to preach, witness and minister to the down and out. I have personally seen him and his family marching in the rain in Pro-Life rallies to stand against the awful evil of abortion. He served our country as a Chaplain during the Gulf War. He has been part of our fellowship and local churches all his life. I don't believe he has completed his ministry with us.
MDO - I have a feeling that if Brother Minton continues on staff at BBGST that the college as a whole is going to lose support from good men and churches of the BBFI. Whether or not that happens remains to be seen. Some pastors may send their students to alternative BBFI colleges such as Pacific Coast BBC or BBC East. Others may start sending them elsewhere. If enrollment suffers over the next couple of years, Brother Kennedy may have to reevaluate his decision. This will be difficult, indeed, for it appears that for all intents and purposes Brother Kennedy and Brother Minton agree on the KJV issue.
LRK - The leader God honors must be honest, just and filled with the fruit of the Spirit. I have asked God to fill me with His Spirit and make me that kind of leader. I want to assure you that this matter has been prayed over, investigated, discussed, analyzed and reviewed. Even this document and related materials were sent to the trustees and other officials. In a conference call, after discussion, it was decided to retain Ron Minton as a faculty member of the Baptist Bible Graduate School of Theology. Because of his insubordination, his permanent faculty status has been changed to probationary faculty status as outlined in the Faculty Handbook. His probation will be under the supervision of Dr. Parker Daily.
MDO - It is clear that the probationary status of Brother Minton is for one reason: he did not get off the Internet when he was told to do so. Now I ask: what was the harm in his Internet participation if his stand on the issue was CLEARLY in agreement with the BBFI and BBC policies on the King James issue? Answer: It WAS NOT. Brother Minton was praised on the Internet list by men who openly used other versions. It is true that he was also praised by men who use only the King James Version in the pulpit, although they would not be classified as King James Bible-believers. He was condemned, almost without exception, by men who believe their King James Bibles are God's preserved, intact, inerrant word. If Brother Minton clearly and consistently represents the school's position, I think the administration should be overjoyed that Brother Minton would so freely express his "wisdom" wherever possible, including the Internet.
LRK - Concluding Thoughts
Because of the nature of the vote of the BBFI State Representatives in the meeting last May, whatever decision we make on this matter will create displeasure. The decision has been made and with it I expect criticism by good men not privileged to all the information and proceedings as I am. I appeal to those who may disagree to exercise understanding, goodwill, patience and trust that the Lord will help us through this. Before I release any faculty or staff for not holding our position, I must have convincing evidence for that accusation. Also, I must do all I can to protect our faculty and staff from misrepresentation and unfounded attacks. I have tried to present the facts as I know them, our actions, evaluations and decisions in this report. I pray you can see that.
I am determined to the best of my ability to maintain our position on the use of the King James Version that is in harmony with the stated philosophy of the Baptist Bible Fellowship International and consistent with the history of both Baptist Bible College and our Fellowship. We stand for what we believed and originally stated in 1950. I am equally committed to resist any attempt to modify or change our school from its historic position on these matters. I ask the pastors who have stood with me and placed their confidence in me for these past eleven years to continue to trust me, pray for me and help me to do the best job I can for the Lord at Baptist Bible College.
MDO - My Own Concluding Thoughts. What should be done? Well, the college needs to "spell out" its policy on the King James Version in clearer language. It's easy enough to put a statement in the policy such as, "We believe the King James Bible is without proven error. To this date, no other written authority is of apparent superiority so that it is able to correct' the King James Bible on any verse. We believe that any study in Hebrew and Greek should result in the student's belief that his King James Bible is translated exactly as God desired."
Otherwise, the policy could read, "We prefer the King James Bible to be used in our school. It is beautiful and has stood the test of time. However, it has numerous errors throughout its pages, which are not of major significance, but which can be cleared up by a study in the original languages."
Trustees, teachers, and school officers could be selected on the basis of their adherence to the explicit school policy on the matter.
A clear-cut stand one way or the other will enable pastors to know the school's stance and give them a clear basis upon which they can make a decision about financial and student support of the school. An ambiguous stand will continue to produce confusion and contention.
In lieu of a clarification in the policy statement of BBC, BBFI pastors could call upon the school administration to strictly adhere in practice to Article X of the BBFI Constitution and Item 5 of the BBC statement on the King James Version. If necessary judgments are not made, pastors could send their students to BBCE, PCBBC, or some other Bible-believing school.