Number 9: Changes to the Confessions?
This is something of a carry-over from 2008 and 2010. In 2008, the Assembly approved special committees to make recommendations regarding amending the Heidelberg Catechism (due to mistranslations in the now-famous question 87) and the possible adoption of the Belhar Confession from South Africa. In 2010, the Assembly approved the recommendation of the Heidelberg committee to work with our partners in the Reformed churches who were already engaged in a retranslation effort. The Assembly also adopted the recommendation of the Belhar committee to send the confession to the presbyteries for their affirmative or negative votes. The vote of the presbyteries did not provide the required 2/3 approval to adopt Belhar as a confession of the church.
So at this Assembly, the commissioners are being asked to approve the re-translation of Heidelberg to be sent to the presbyteries for their affirmative or negative votes (with 2/3 necessary for adoption, plus approval of the 2014 Assembly). I am not a student of 16th century German, so I can't comment on the accuracy of the translation. There are some interesting changes, at least on a cursory review. Regarding the aforementioned Question 87, the re-translation removes the unsubstantiated inclusion of "homosexual perversion" as a practice that prevents someone from inheriting the kingdom of God. The new translation conforms to the original 1563 German version of the catechism. In its report, the committee (which includes Sylvia Dooling of our presbytery) states it was their aim to present a translation as faithful to the 1563 original as possible. This also led the committee to incorporate the original 1563 scripture citations with the new translation, which neither the CRCNA or the RCA (our Reformed partners) have done. This is something of a compromise on the translation issue, since the original cites 1 Cor. 6:9-10, which is frequently (mis?)translated as declaring that those who practice homosexuality shall not inherit the kingdom. So, as far as being "instructed and led" by the confessions, the debate on the meaning of question 87 remains unresolved.
I have to admit I am disappointed that the translators broke up the eloquent first sentence of question 1 into three sentences. I recognize that people don't write as they did in the 16th century, but if the idea is to present an historically accurate translation, shouldn't the sentence structure reflect that of the original too? (A similar debate between faithfulness to style and readability also exists in Bible translation.) I haven't had the opportunity to examine it question by question (why isn't a side-by-side comparison available?), but I look forward to discovering new meanings and translation nuances.
The Assembly has also been asked once again to consider adopting Belhar. If the Assembly chooses to do so, it will need to restart the adoption process, including appointment of a new special committee to report in 2014, and a vote of the presbyteries by 2015 (and a second approval at the 2016 Assembly). The vote of the presbyteries in 2010-2011 fell 8 votes shy of the 2/3 necessary for adoption (Plains and Peaks voted no). The debate last time broke mostly along ideological lines, with moderates and progressives mostly in favor, and conservatives opposed. Underlying that division are differing assumptions about the role, function, interpretation, and authority of the confessions. Since the adoption of a "book" of confessions in 1967, the issue of the authority of the confessions has been a sore point in the church. Conservatives find the authority of the Book a slippery eel that blurs doctrinal standards; Progressives seem happy to regard the confessions as historical relics, with little current authority. Until we resolve with some clarity and consensus how the confessions function authoritatively in the church, adding more confessions to the mix seems only to increase division and confusion.
Next: Judicial Authority and Compliance
No comments:
Post a Comment