The PC(USA) 218th General Assembly is currently in session, and discussing a number of interesting issues for the life of the church. One that I’d like to focus on here is the new translation of the Heidelberg Catechism. Here is a background piece on the proposal, and here is a report on the vote of approval for it.
The new translation would update the official 1962 version that is standard for PC(USA) and seen by many as inadequate in comparison to other English versions. Specific areas of the catechism that have been singled out for revision are as follows:
"Specifically, it distorts Reformed accounts of God’s covenant (4.019, 4.074) and of redemption and eschatology (4.055) and obscures the Reformed teaching of our adoption in Christ (4.033). Moreover, it misleads the reader by suggesting that this historic text took a clear stand on issues of sexual orientation and practice that are lively issues before us in the church today — when in fact these were not subjects of discussion in the sixteenth-century church (4.087)."
The most controversial section (though not the most theologically interesting) is, of course, q. 87. Unsurprisingly, Robert Gagnon offers a dissenting voice on the translation and believes that the proposal is for the most part a “homosexualist agenda”. Who knows? Perhaps it is. If the sponsoring churches from his presbytery are representative of others then perhaps the issue has been pushed in communities with specific intentions on the issue of sexuality. But realistically, this is no reason to reject a revised translation of the document. The fact that q. 87 glosses 1 Cor. 6:9 without mentioning homosexuality in its gloss is no reason to redact it accordingly; a footnote mentioning the scriptural citation should do just fine. One can always analyze the moral teachings of the Heidelberg divines in a commentary on the Catechism without needing to change the actual text of it.
The most significant of the proposed changes involves language of “covenant”, where in q. 19 and 74 reference to the “rites of the Old Covenant” is to be changed to “ceremonies of the law” (ceremonien des gesetzes/ceremoniis legis) and reference to “Old/New Covenant” is to be changed to “Old/New Testament”. R. Scott Clark of Heidelblog offers an interesting analysis of the covenant language issue.
The last two issues involve salvation… in q. 33 “accepted” should be rendered “adopted” (angenommen/adoptati) and in q. 55 “…believers one and all, as partakers of the Lord Christ, and all his treasures and gifts, shall share in one fellowship” should change from the future tense to the present.
The new translation would update the official 1962 version that is standard for PC(USA) and seen by many as inadequate in comparison to other English versions. Specific areas of the catechism that have been singled out for revision are as follows:
"Specifically, it distorts Reformed accounts of God’s covenant (4.019, 4.074) and of redemption and eschatology (4.055) and obscures the Reformed teaching of our adoption in Christ (4.033). Moreover, it misleads the reader by suggesting that this historic text took a clear stand on issues of sexual orientation and practice that are lively issues before us in the church today — when in fact these were not subjects of discussion in the sixteenth-century church (4.087)."
The most controversial section (though not the most theologically interesting) is, of course, q. 87. Unsurprisingly, Robert Gagnon offers a dissenting voice on the translation and believes that the proposal is for the most part a “homosexualist agenda”. Who knows? Perhaps it is. If the sponsoring churches from his presbytery are representative of others then perhaps the issue has been pushed in communities with specific intentions on the issue of sexuality. But realistically, this is no reason to reject a revised translation of the document. The fact that q. 87 glosses 1 Cor. 6:9 without mentioning homosexuality in its gloss is no reason to redact it accordingly; a footnote mentioning the scriptural citation should do just fine. One can always analyze the moral teachings of the Heidelberg divines in a commentary on the Catechism without needing to change the actual text of it.
The most significant of the proposed changes involves language of “covenant”, where in q. 19 and 74 reference to the “rites of the Old Covenant” is to be changed to “ceremonies of the law” (ceremonien des gesetzes/ceremoniis legis) and reference to “Old/New Covenant” is to be changed to “Old/New Testament”. R. Scott Clark of Heidelblog offers an interesting analysis of the covenant language issue.
The last two issues involve salvation… in q. 33 “accepted” should be rendered “adopted” (angenommen/adoptati) and in q. 55 “…believers one and all, as partakers of the Lord Christ, and all his treasures and gifts, shall share in one fellowship” should change from the future tense to the present.
I agree with your response to Robert Gagnon's dissent - the only source here I read. He made an interesting argument, but ultimately its kind of silly to say:
ReplyDelete"We should keep a translation that doesn't match the original because the people that want to match the original exactly wouldn't have moved to change the original if we only changed it in certain ways."
Excuse me?!?!? Just an odd argument - basically his argument against changing the translation rests on acceptance of the fact that the current translation is a bad one! Doesn't seem like a very logical defense to me. His defense of the idea that the authors of the confession opposed homosexuality is much more convincing than his argument that the confession shouldn't be changed back to the original language.