Dear Village West Family
-
In the time since my family and I left Village West I have received a considerable amount of questions from people expressing concern over the use of Eugene Peterson’s The Message (in that they were concerned about it being used all along but never said anything previously) and others who are unfamiliar with it, questioning why it was something I saw as important enough to resign from leadership and leave the church over. With everyone I’ve spoken with, interest was expressed in what information I have and why based on it I believe The Message should be completely avoided. So, it is to provide all of the facts and details to everyone that I write this.
I feel it is important to briefly clarify a few things before proceeding any further. First, I seek no credit, personal gain or glorification through this correspondence. I don’t feel as though I was slighted, spoken ill of or “pushed out” of ministry such that I need to write a letter of vindication to the church body. In fact, I challenge you to ignore the fact of WHO this comes from and instead subjectively review the material presented, filter it through a true Bible, and based on that proceed according to the instruction of the Word. Second, this letter is not intended to belittle or berate Village West, Pastor Ken or his family, the board or anyone associated with the church. I am not speaking out against anyone in particular, except that I point out what is being used in ministry. In shortest form, my intentions in writing this, and God knows my heart, are pure and only driven by a desire to see the body of Village West alerted to an imminent danger.
The immediate thought of many may be that by sending this I am causing division in the church, as mentioned in 1 Cor. 1:10. It’s important to note that what was being spoken of in that passage was a church who had members pledging allegiance to the LEADERS of their church (I am of Paul, I am of Apollos, etc”) and to their specific teachings. They were ignoring the most important thing, laid out in v. 17-18 of the same chapter, “For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect. For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.” This is why it was important for me to stress to you that I do not seek followers by this communication. Instead, I desire to see God’s word spoken and not be mired by the teaching of someone, in this case, Eugene Peterson, who clouds this simple and perfect message.
So, if not division, what basis do I have to write this letter? Simply this; the Bible is very clear on how we as the body of the Church are to address teaching and exhortation in the church. We are directly responsible for ensuring that the teaching provided to us is 100% in line with what the Bible says. Acts 17:11 shows the Berean Church “searching the Scriptures daily” to find out if the teaching provided to them was accurate. 1 Thes. 5:21 give admonition to “test all things; hold fast to what is good” in relation to words that are given to the Body. 1 John 4:1 gives instruction to “not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God because many false prophets have gone out into the world.” In Gal 2:11 we are shown Paul directly confronting Peter “to his face” because of actions that brought confusion to weaker believers and was contrary to the truth that was taught. In short, it is OUR responsibility to ensure the teaching in our churches is Biblically based and Biblically sound.
It is because of the above instruction that my wife and I first ever researched The Message. For those unfamiliar, The Message is a “paraphrase bible” written by a man named Eugene Peterson. With no consideration for the original Hebrew or Greek Peterson has simply reinterpreted and rewritten scripture through his own lens and placed it in the form of a Bible. Unlike a Bible Commentary It removes the ability for you to read what the Bible actually says and have the Holy Spirit reveal to you the truths of God’s Word. You instead are presented with his man-focused approach and nothing more.
It is also of note that though it has been referred to as a “faith-based resource” it is marketed by places like Amazon.com as being “The Bible in contemporary language” where the word “paraphrase” is never used by the publisher or in any description. In Christian bookstores it is sold with every other respected Bible translation (NIV, KJV, etc). Why is this important? To someone with no Biblical knowledge or discernment (see Heb 5:12-14 which shows that discernment is not something we simply, “have”, but something that is gained through “reason of use”) this book will unfortunately be seen as a viable Bible that is “simply easy to understand”. What they don’t realize is they are buying in to a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
To put it quite bluntly, there is never a circumstance where “The Message” should be used. Period. Not as a personal devotional, not as a parallel study bible, not as a supplement to other translations, not as an accent to help drive home a point in a sermon, not from the pulpit, not with the children or youth. Nowhere at all should it ever be consulted, in public or private. So that I don’t come off as unnecessarily irrational or harsh about it, let me say that I know there are some verses that are relatively close to what God intended them to say in comparison to literal Bible translations. And, I’ve heard the argument of “it’s only a paraphrase, not a real Bible, so as long as people are informed of that it will be OK to use”. The issue at hand is that there are many verses in The Message that are NOT what God intended, in fact go so far as to completely TWIST scripture to the point that it is nowhere close to the original text (as an example, review the Beatitudes). As such, the entire work masquerading as a Bible needs to be done away with and certainly not used within the four walls of a Bible believing church. I will address the Biblical standard and basis for this belief at the close of my letter.
Psalms 138:2 says, “I will worship toward Your holy temple, and praise Your name for your loving-kindness and Your truth; for you have magnified Your word above all your name”. Above every other attribute of God’s character, he magnifies his Word. At this time the entirety of the Bible had, of course, not been fully composed. But God is not a changing God. If He held in high regard His Word spoken then, He would continue to hold high His Word recorded later.
Consider the depths of implication that verse holds.
Philippians 2:5-11 gives an account of how much the “Name” of God matters. It is BY that name that every knee shall bow and tongue confess that Jesus is Lord. Proverbs 18:10 says that the righteous will run to it and be saved. Romans 10:13 says that whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved. John 20:31 says that we have life “through His name”. God’s Name is not something He takes lightly. So, for anything to be elevated above it is to assign it great significance. It is, then, of utmost importance, that God’s Word be defended at every turn. Further, that it not be misrepresented to be something that it’s not.
Allow me an opportunity to show you some specific examples of the issues contained in The Message. A logical place to start would be one of the most recognized and oft recited passages of scripture, The Lord’s Prayer. Going forward I will always post the actual Bible and then parallel it to The Message, followed by an explanation of differences between the two.
(NKJV)
In this manner, therefore, pray:
9 Our Father in heaven,
Hallowed be Your name.
10 Your kingdom come.
Your will be done
On earth as it is in heaven.
11 Give us this day our daily bread.
12 And forgive us our debts,
As we forgive our debtors.
13 And do not lead us into temptation,
But deliver us from the evil one.
For Yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen.
Vs
(MSG)
With a God like this loving you, you can pray very simply. Like this:
Our Father in heaven,
Reveal who you are.
Set the world right;
Do what's best— as above, so below.
Keep us alive with three square meals.
Keep us forgiven with you and forgiving others.
Keep us safe from ourselves and the Devil.
You're in charge!
You can do anything you want!
You're ablaze in beauty!
Yes. Yes. Yes
1) Hallowed be Your name vs. Reveal who you are – Matthew Henry’s commentary states, “We fix our end, and it is the right end to be aimed at, and ought to be our chief and ultimate end in all our petitions, that God may be glorified; all our other requests must be in subordination to this, and in pursuance of it.” This goes a great length to show Peterson’s propensity to change verses from being about God to being about us. It changes the whole focus. Instead of “God you’re great” it changes to “give me something”. It changes a blessing and proclamation sent toward God to yet another petition asked of him. Not only that, but why would Jesus, who IS the revelation of God, instruct the listeners, as a model of prayer going forward, to ask God to reveal Himself? (Heb 1:1-3)
2) Your kingdom come, your will be done vs. Set the world right, do what’s best – “Your will be done” speaks of a reverential acceptance of authority, from son to father. “Do what’s best” is what I would tell a friend when they are embarking on a path I don’t fully agree with, or when I have an opinion that I choose to withhold. Also, there is nothing in the actual scripture that discusses “setting the world right”. In fact, this could potentially provide an insight into a “Kingdom Now” theology.
3) On earth as it is in heaven vs. As above, so below”. This notes one of the most frightening aspects of Peterson’s The Message, and that is the pervasive use of New Age terminology and ideals. I will deal with this later in the letter but wanted to ensure I drew attention to it here.
4) Forgive us our debts vs. keep us forgiven – the idea of debt speaks to the price we should be paying for the sins we have committed. Removing such an integral word in this passage dumbs it down, potentially confusing the reader who might not understand this point or from what “forgiveness” is requested and offered. “Keep us forgiven” also speaks of something that is ongoing or incomplete. Jesus came to, once and for all, provide the ability to be “forgiven”. Once we have salvation we
ARE forgiven. This isn’t a process.
5) Lead us not into temptation vs. “keep us safe”. The reality of it is, Satan will consistently be on the offensive when we have accepted Christ as our savior. As such, temptation is his primary tool, because he cannot FORCE us to sin. Ignoring the concept, again, dilutes the passage. “keep us safe” could be from a mugger in an alley, which is certainly not a good thing and from which we wish to remain safe. “Keep us safe” could be safe passage through a place, from bad food, persecutors of Christians.…the point is, nowhere does The Message clarify what we are seeking protection from, and in fact, will mislead the reader to think that protection is available from things where it actually isn’t or that this verse doesn’t intend.
6) For Yours is the kingdom and power and glory forever. Amen vs. You’re in charge! You can do anything You want! You’re ablaze in beauty! Yes. Yes. Yes. – I have a hard time comparing the merits of the two, because they are very different. But I would state that ignoring words like, “Glory” is more than a simple omission. God does everything for His glory. He seeks to glorify His name in all the earth. And to try to replace that line with a nonsense phrase like “You’re ablaze in beauty” is such a strong depiction of Peterson’s desire to simply tell a story, not relay the truth found in Scripture.
An error that many churches and people fall into is that “mostly right” is acceptable when it comes to the things of God. This sadly can’t be further from the truth. An example of this would be the account in John 10:22-30. I won’t post the entire account, because until it gets to vs. 28 it is relatively correct. Starting at vs. 28 Peterson begins adding things that were never included in the original text. He blurs the lines of relationship between Jesus and God, thereby calling into question the deity of Jesus Christ. What is “the deity of Christ”? It is the Biblical belief that Jesus was and is God. That alone is reason enough to separate ourselves from The Message. Consider the following;
(NKJV)
28 And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father’s hand. 30 I and My Father are one.”
(MSG)
I give them real and eternal life. They are protected from the Destroyer for good. No one can steal them from out of my hand. The Father who put them under my care is so much greater than the Destroyer and Thief. No one could ever get them away from him. I and the Father are one heart and mind.
1) And I give them eternal life vs. I give them real and eternal life – The Word was inspired to say what God wanted it to say. There is a difference between grasping for words that don’t translate from the Greek and inserting something we think should be there. Setting “real” apart from “eternal” gives the impression that there is something greater than eternal life! If the implication is to discuss the life we have before we enter into “eternal life” (life more abundant?) in heaven I would point out that not one other respected translation gives this implication, it was simply an addition by Peterson that detracts from the original intent.
2) They shall never perish vs. They are protected from the Destroyer – “The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life”. In being given eternal life, we are saved from death! To be “protected from the Destroyer”, which of course is something we ARE, strips the verse of eternal life! It replaces our promise of heaven with a temporal protection from Satan, not at all the crux of this verse.
3) My Father who has given them to me vs. The Father who put them under my care – The idea of God “giving” the people that Jesus came to save is not a one-time mention in the Bible, neither is it simply a “choice of words”. It speaks of God’s ownership to give them, followed by Jesus’ ownership in having them. 1 Peter 2:9 in the NASB speaks of us as “A people for God’s own possession.” Jesus did not come to “care” for us. He came to SAVE us! John 6:36-39 and the prayer of Jesus recorded in John 17 goes to show this isn’t a passing thought, but something that runs deep throughout the theology of how we are saved. Though a portion of a pastor’s job is to exposit the scripture it’s important that in doing so they don’t re-write it to suit their particular ideals especially to the end of changing “salvation” to glorified baby-sitting.
4) …is greater than all vs. …so much greater than the Destroyer – When “all” needs to be reinterpreted to “clarify and make easier to understand” I can’t help but question “what was the point of this change”? When the scripture says, “greater than all” there is no question that the one being described has no equal and is superior to all that come before or after. “So much greater” speaks to a scale of greatness, the top of which has not been achieved by the subject being described. To be “so much greater” and then speak of something that they are greater than leaves to question what else there is they may NOT be greater than. And as true as it is that God is greater than Satan, He is more importantly greater than ALL things, which The Message chooses to leave out.
5) I and My Father are one vs. I and the Father are one heart and mind – Of all that is wrong with this particular passage, this is the pinnacle. A huge tenet of our faith is the trinity of God in three persons. Are we to dumb down God’s divine nature in the context of “helping to understand”? The Message implies that they “think and feel” the same way about things. Though Jesus IS of one heart and mind, that doesn’t relay the truth of His being, which is Jesus being one with His Heavenly Father, God.
The previous passage, showing Peterson blurring lines of a spiritual nature, leads to a perfect opportunity to discuss what I mentioned earlier, which was the New Age influence inserted into The Message. I am not alone in the opinion that there is a very apparent thrust of New Age terminology, theology and diversion from things of a spiritual and demonic nature in the light that the Bible portrays it. In the example I gave earlier;
On earth as it is in Heaven vs. as above, so below
This was the hardest part of my study of Eugene Peterson and The Message for me to accept. “It has to be a coincidence” I would tell myself. Or, “that’s just conspiracy theory trying to create something that isn’t there.” I have no personal experience in the new age or occult, so as odd as many of the terms Peterson uses in The Message sounded to me, I didn’t know why. As I researched though, I realized that “As above, so below” is something that can be found in abundance throughout New Age writings. In addition to that specific phrase, many almost exactly like it with the same ideas and connotations can easily be found. Sadly, that phrase only begins to scratch the surface. “God of green hope”, “God-Colors”, “Light-bearer”, “Light-Path”, “invisible moving the visible”, “life-light, “The golden seven-lights circle” (specifically the idea of the circle, which is mentioned more than just here), “invisible spirit”, “divine guardians” (New Age term ascribed to their “masters” which I will address shortly) all are easily traced to New Age ideals. Ignorance would be to use a term with no knowledge of its implication, and likely to place it only once. But to change Song of Solomon 2:1 from “I am the Rose of Sharon and the lily of the valleys” to “I’m just a wildflower picked from the plains of Sharon, a lotus blossom from the valley pools” was the final straw for me. Lotus Blossoms are, without question, a symbol of New Age and Eastern Mystical religions. A quote from a website I found states the following, “The ‘Dictionary of Symbolism’ states that the Lotus Blossom originated from ‘primordial ooze’ and arose to become ‘the divine creator of the world’. The Lotus is one of the most sacred symbols in the occult, whether in the New Age, Eastern Mysticism, Buddhism, etc”.
Subsequently, as strong as the New Age influence appears to be based on specific words Peterson chooses, there is also a concern with how he addresses Jesus throughout the New Testament. This raises the concern to an entirely different level. Peterson has chosen to refer to Jesus not as “Lord” but as “Master”. “Lord Jesus” or “Lord Jesus Christ” appears over 200 times in the KJV, but not once in The Message. He is referred to instead as, “Master Jesus”. This is done over 400 times. Now, I understand that “Master” is mentioned in respected Bible translations and is addressed at Jesus, but often there is a very obvious implication in its use. As an example, look at Matt 19 & John 11. In respected translations, “Master” is used as the title that the young wealthy man addressed Jesus as. The Greek word is, “didaskalos”, meaning a teacher or, “one who is fitted to teach, or thinks himself so”. Master, in this instance, does not signify Jesus’ position over the young man, only His role as an instructor. Compare this to “kyrios” used when Martha addressed Jesus in John 11. Peterson chooses to term both of these Master, where the reference in John 11, in standard translations, is termed as, “Lord” and defined in the Greek as “the title given to God or The Messiah”. I find it interesting to note that Master is what Judas consistently referred to Jesus as, not as Lord. Matt 26:25 shows Judas, apart from all the disciples, referring to Jesus as “Master” (Rabbi in the Greek) or simply teacher whereas the rest of the disciples used the exact same word that Martha did, signifying his Lordship. Where does this tie in to New Age theology? This shows a frightening link to “The Ascended Masters”. An Ascended Master is defined as, “a being who has become Self-Realized (Self-Realized being defined as “the awareness of our complete and indivisible union with God, which we are) and serves humanity; a being who has raised his/her vibration to a sustained frequency of light. He/She can come and go at will from the earth plane without the Birth/Death cycle.” Jesus is viewed, in New Age circles, to be the greatest “Ascended Master”. He is seen as a great teacher, or a great prophet. Jesus is seen as a person that has been an integral part of humankind’s history, taught us good things, and has now gone to be with others who fit the same bill. He is not viewed as who he is, God’s only begotten Son. A quote from the book, “The Externalization of the Hierarchy” by Alice Bailey (a highly regarded author in the New Age movement, known to be fed her writings through a demon) is, “There is a growing and developing belief that Christ IS in us, as He was in the Master Jesus”. “A Time of Departing” by Ray Yungen says, “A basic tenet of the New Age thinking is that of the Master Jesus”. Peterson even chooses to do this to “Master God” as well! To those uneducated, “Master” appears harmless. But in light of the depth of new age terminology Peterson has interjected aside from this into his version of scripture, “Master”, and the omission of “Lord Jesus” and “Lord God” has to be seen as something more than a simple choice of words.
Though I have no place to judge the heart or intent of Eugene Peterson I am charged with reviewing his work in comparison with the Bible and revealing when it is not gospel being preached and in these instances, the Bible is not being correctly represented. Though I cannot claim with certainty that Peterson holds New Age or Occultist beliefs he has clearly interlaced God’s Word with ideals, terms and influences from it which begs the question; where did he get all these terms from? These are not “pulled out of a hat” type phrases that a person would use, nor the “language of the day” Peterson claims to be speaking from, but they come from outside influences.
Even aside from the flagrant use of New Age terminology, let me step back a few verses in the chapter from where I did a comparison earlier. This will show where Peterson even shies away from addressing Satan, or demonic forces which we know DO exist!
John 10:19-21
(NKJV)
19 Therefore there was a division again among the Jews because of these sayings. 20 And many of them said, “He has a demon and is mad. Why do you listen to Him?”
21 Others said, “These are not the words of one who has a demon. Can a demon open the eyes of the blind?
(MSG)
19-21This kind of talk caused another split in the Jewish ranks. A lot of them were saying, "He's crazy, a maniac—out of his head completely. Why bother listening to him?" But others weren't so sure: "These aren't the words of a crazy man. Can a 'maniac' open blind eyes?"
He has a demon and is mad & can a demon open the eyes of the blind vs. He’s crazy, a maniac & Can a ‘maniac’ open blind eyes – To downgrade demonic influence or possession by demons to that of mental illness at the very least drastically changes what the verse actually says but at the most takes away the need for a savior because we’re no longer being saved from our sins, or given victory over Satan or his minions, but from a mental illness.
It goes deeper than just this one verse. With a lot of published bibles they have “chapter headings” that describe the story that is to be told. Though this isn’t an actual part of scripture, it denotes the story that follows, it’s something that Peterson had direct control over, and in The Message it gives light to the mentality of the author that pens what follows. In every other translation of the bible where headings are provided it terms the account of Luke 8:26-39 as “A demon possessed man healed” or a similar variation, never leaving out “demon” vs. The Message, which terms it , “The madman and the pigs”. Though later in the story Peterson is forced to refer to them as demons he first identifies the man as “a madman” (there are no actual verse numbers, so it appears it’s vs. 27 where he does this) in comparison to “a certain man from the city who had demons for a long time” in the NKJV. It’s true that those who are possessed by a demon would possibly act out in ways that appear to be “mad”, and the man in the story did in fact exhibit those behaviors, the issue is not the manifestations of the possession (being a madman) but instead the possession which in turn RESULTS in being a mad man. There is also 1 Tim 4:1 where “doctrines of demons” is replaced with “professional liars” which again attributes the focus of concern to the outcome, not the cause. To support a spirit realm contrary to God’s Word by using New Age ideals and then ignore the spirit realm that God has described for us through His word once again begs the question: why? What purpose would there be to hide what is real and promote what isn’t?
Jesus’ death on the cross is payment, in our place, for all of the sins we have committed or ever will commit. We don’t get a free pass from our lives of sin when we ask forgiveness, God requires that we change. Upon forgiveness, “old things have passed away, behold all things have become new”. We are to turn from our wicked ways! I know this isn’t something I need to inform you of, but I state the point for a purpose. To say the least, God’s instructions for “newness” are uncomfortable to a nonbeliever and, often times, even to believers. When a person hasn’t given their life to Christ they see the Bible as a big list of “you can’t do this” preaching. For a person who is saved, the scripture is the most impactful tool that the Holy Spirit uses to enact change in our lives which is often a very uncomfortable process. Does this mean we should then ignore the clear instructions set forth in it because It’s uncomfortable? Do we simply skip over the parts that make us feel uncomfortable? Do we change the Word of God to be palatable to those who are not in Christ? Of course not. Yet, this is what Eugene Peterson has chosen to do with The Message.
1 Cor 6:9-11
(NKJV)
9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals,[a] nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.
(MSG)
9-11Don't you realize that this is not the way to live? Unjust people who don't care about God will not be joining in his kingdom. Those who use and abuse each other, use and abuse sex, use and abuse the earth and everything in it, don't qualify as citizens in God's kingdom. A number of you know from experience what I'm talking about, for not so long ago you were on that list. Since then, you've been cleaned up and given a fresh start by Jesus, our Master, our Messiah, and by our God present in us, the Spirit.
1) …the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God vs. …unjust people who don’t care about God will not be joining in his kingdom – Although “unjust” is a fair comparison based on the Greek, Peterson quickly takes a left turn with “who don’t care about God”. There is a huge difference between unrighteous or unjust people and those who don’t care about God. “Even the demons believe – and tremble!”. Being righteous speaks to our standing with God where “not caring about God” is simply an emotional status. Being righteous speaks to having no unforgiven sin, where “not caring” does not. Also interesting is changing “inherit” to “join”. I join with people at work, the store, at friend’s houses, every day. That doesn’t speak to the son-ship offered to us through Salvation in Jesus. We aren’t just heirs we are JOINT heirs. We are equal heirs with Jesus!! Granted, this idea is not immediately apparent to a person unfamiliar with scripture, but it’s a concept that runs throughout the new testament. And, just because someone may be unfamiliar with the full meaning of the passage doesn’t mean it should be omitted or watered down to something less than it is.
2) Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the Kingdom of God, vs Those who use and abuse each other, use and abuse sex, use and abuse the earth and everything in it, don’t qualify as citizens in God’s kingdom. – When there is a specific list of things to instruct us on, it would seem important to keep it complete and accurate, lest we fall into sin by an omission. For Peterson to transliterate this into “today’s language” he had to ignore God’s specific commands and instead add things that were never there. In the true scripture there was a clear admonition against multiple types of sexual sins, one specifically against homosexuality….not found in The Message. There were four non-sexual sins instructed against…not found in The Message. The idea of “use and abuse” instead delivers to the reader an opportunity to determine what “use and abuse” constitutes to them. What they determine will, likely, be something completely different from the “use and abuse” determined by another reader. What better way for Satan to cripple the church than to bring confusion as to what does and does not constitute sin, when previously it had been clearly laid out? In a post-modern society this unfortunately isn’t a shocking concept, except that now it’s housed in the pages of a so-called “bible”. What Peterson instead DID feel was important enough to add was a politically correct, environmentalistic awareness that we don’t “use and abuse the earth”. This same type of approach is found in Matt 5:5 where Peterson says, “You are truly blessed when you are content with just who you are – no more, no less.” As opposed to, “Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth” found in the NKJV. By way of The Message, I no longer need to concern myself with striving to be like Christ. Instead, I need to be who I am, “no more, no less”. I can assure you, if not for the working of the Holy Spirit in my life I would be happy as a drunk or drug addict, many would continue in their life as a homosexual, fornicator, etc, content to be who they are, “no more, no less”. Being comfortable is not what Christianity is about, and certainly isn’t what the Bible portrays, so why would Peterson choose to strip the Bible of its direction and instructions?
I stated earlier that there is never an instance where the Message should be used, despite admitting that there are some verses that are close to being correct. After providing the examples that I have, showing where God’s Word has been distorted, misrepresented and even questioned the Lordship of Jesus, I want to step away from my opinions and show you what the Bible says should be done.
Gal 1:6-9 - I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, 7 which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed
James 3:10-12 - Out of the same mouth proceed blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not to be so. 11 Does a spring send forth fresh water and bitter from the same opening? 12 Can a fig tree, my brethren, bear olives, or a grapevine bear figs? Thus no spring yields both salt water and fresh.
Eph 5:11 - And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them.
1 John 1:9-11 - Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house, and do not give him a greeting; for the one who gives him a greeting participates in his evil deeds.
“Let him be accursed”, “these things ought not be so”, “have no fellowship” & “do not receive him into your house” because you will be “participating in his evil deeds”. When I stated that The Message should never be used it may have seemed like a bold statement until you realize that it’s what the Bible commands, not simply my opinion. False teaching is nothing to toy around with. It’s not a resource or tool to be used whereby we “eat the meat and throw out the bones”, as has been done by only using verses that are partially or mostly correct and ignoring the ones that are clearly wrong. We are strictly commanded to expose false teaching (as is contained in The Message), stay away from it (not to be used as a personal devotional or “daily reading addition”) and have no part in it (not to allow it to be used in any facet of ministry). This is why it was necessary that I resigned from leadership at Village West. I was informed, when I requested that The Message not be used at all at Village West, that it was, “a hill they weren’t prepared to charge and ‘fall on their sword for’” meaning there was no willingness to take a stand over it and they intended to continue using it. I would ask you, as I did them, what greater “hill to charge” is there than the defense of the very Word of God?
I will close with a few thoughts. If after reading this you have concern over the use of The Message don’t simply leave Village West. Due to my capacity in leadership it was necessary for me to leave but, through this, I hope you can see my intention wasn’t to simply abandon the church. Further, I am not attempting to incite a riot of people attacking the leadership of Village West. What I hope to happen through this is that everyone who reads THESE words will be driven to GOD'S Word. Everything that is spoken to you, be it from the pulpit, in conversation and not only including but especially what is contained in this letter, needs to be compared to God’s Word. If it doesn’t line up, even something that some will attempt to mark as “insignificant”, immediately confront them, in love, with God's Word.
If you see someone using The Message, be it in a formal ministry capacity, in private study or considering purchasing it, please give them this letter. Encourage them to ignore who the author of this particular letter is and instead look subjectively at the content compared to what The Bible says. Ask them to cease “participating in the evil deeds” of an author who has chosen to rewrite the Bible to be something that it isn’t. To restate a previous point, this is not causing division in the church. In fact, it will ultimately be preventing it! Division comes when someone comes bringing a teaching other than that which was originally taught, and based on the information I have provided it should be clear that Eugene Peterson’s The Message certainly fits that description.
God bless all who read these words! If after reading this you have any questions or comments, please direct them to me in a private message and I will respond promptly.
