Theologians and scholars,
I write not to condemn, but to ask questions that many in the pews are too afraid to voice. Your work shapes minds, steers institutions, and defines what “truth” means for countless believers. But a troubling pattern has emerged: the rise of doctrines like Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP)—the belief that every word of Scripture has been perfectly preserved in specific modern translations—and the fractures it creates in the Body of Christ.
This compels me to ask: What drives the pursuit of a “perfect Bible”?
Is it truly for the edification of the church, as you claim? Or does it mask a deeper hunger—for control, for institutional power, or even self-gratification through intellectual supremacy? When you insist that only one translation or textual tradition is “divinely preserved,” are you elevating God’s glory… or your own authority?
Let’s be clear: the desire to honor Scripture is noble. But when the doctrine of VPP becomes a litmus test for faithfulness, it breeds division, not discipleship. Congregations split over which Bible is “inerrant.” Brothers and sisters accuse one another of heresy for reading a different translation. The message of Christ—a call to unity in love (John 17:21)—is drowned out by debates over vowels and scribal traditions.
Why teach a doctrine that prioritizes textual perfection over spiritual fruit?
History shows us that the church has thrived for centuries without consensus on every textual variant. Early Christians spread the Gospel using copies of copies, trusting the Holy Spirit to work through imperfect human hands. Yet today, VPP is weaponized to alienate those who dare to ask questions. Critics of this teaching are labeled “compromisers,” while doubters are shamed into silence. Is this how we steward the “ministry of reconciliation” (2 Corinthians 5:18)?
And to what end? The fruit of this doctrine is undeniable: broken relationships, dwindling congregations, and a generation of believers who equate faith with rigid certainty. When people reject VPP, it’s not because they’ve abandoned Scripture—it’s because they see the dissonance between a God “rich in mercy” (Ephesians 2:4) and a theology that leaves no room for grace in the face of mystery.
So I ask you, theologians: Are you being honest about why you teach this?
Is it to protect tradition at the cost of truth? To satisfy academic pride? Or have you, too, fallen into the trap of conflating human interpretation with divine mandate? The classroom of a Bible college is not a courtroom; it’s a nursery where fragile faith is nurtured. When you present VPP as non-negotiable dogma, are you equipping students to shepherd souls… or to police boundaries?
Consider the cost.
Every time you dismiss a skeptic, you alienate a seeker. Every time you prioritize textual purity over communal unity, you scatter the flock Christ died to gather. The world watches as the church fractures over disputes that mean nothing to the single mother seeking hope, the addict craving redemption, or the doubter longing for a faith that makes room for questions.
To those who teach: Think twice. The God who inspired Scripture also entrusted it to fallible humans. If the incarnation teaches us anything, it’s that divinity works through the ordinary, the messy, and the imperfect. Why, then, insist on a doctrine that demands the opposite?
Let us return to the heart of the matter: Scripture exists to point us to Christ, not to ourselves. If our teachings divide His body, perhaps it’s time to lay down our swords of certainty and pick up the towel of service (John 13:14).
The church doesn’t need a “perfect Bible”—it needs theologians humble enough to admit they don’t have all the answers.
—A Voice from the Pew
No comments:
Post a Comment