Part I of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) Constitution, the Book of Confessions, is of particular interest to me. So I noted with attentiveness Pittsburgh Presbytery’s overture to the 218th General Assembly to amend Part I of the Constitution of the PC(USA), the Book of Confessions, to, in the words of the overture, “restore The Heidelberg Catechism to an authentic and reliable English version of the historic document by replacing the 1962 translation, The Heidelberg Catechism, 1563-1963, 400th Anniversary Edition. Copyright 1962. United Church Press, with a translation that more faithfully renders the original text.” In its rationale, the overture gives five examples of mistranslations of the original Heidelberg Catechism in the current PC(USA) Constitution. While each of these examples is interesting, many PC(USA) readers will be most interested in the fifth and last example, which concerns Q & A 87 in the Heidelberg Catechism having to do with “homosexual perversion.”
The Constitution (B.C. 4.087) currently reads:
Q. 87. Can those who do not turn to God from their ungrateful, impenitent life be saved?
A. Certainly not! Scripture says, ‘Surely you know that the unjust will never come into possession of the kingdom of God. Make no mistake: no fornicator or idolater, none who are guilty either of adultery or of homosexual perversion, no thieves or grabbers or drunkards or slanderers or swindlers, will possess the kingdom of God.’
Let me give an extensive quote about this section of the Constitution from the Pittsburgh overture itself:
“… two elements in the answer to question 87 are supplied by the translators and do not appear in the original text (nor in any translations produced prior to 1962). Neither the original German nor the Latin has texts corresponding to the following phrases: ‘Surely you know that the unjust will never come into possession of the kingdom of God. Make no mistake:’ and ‘or of homosexual perversion.’ The remaining items in the vice list supplied in the answer to question 87 have equivalents or rough equivalents in the original text (although some singular nouns have been rendered as plural nouns). This innovation was created by the translators’ decision to ignore a portion of the Heidelberg Catechism answer 87 and instead to replace it with the New English Bible translation of 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. In 1997, one of the translators, Professor Eugene Osterhaven, disclosed that this replacement was entirely intentional. In light of the sexual revolution of the 1960s, ‘it would be well to be more specific [about sexual practice]… than [the author (sic) of the Heidelberg Catechism] had been in his (sic) day.'”
(My reason for adding two “sics” in the editorial comments [in brackets] by the Pittsburgh overture’s writers to Professor Osterhaven’s quoted comments is that they fail to show that the Heidelberg Catechism had two authors, Zacharias Ursinus and Kaspar Olevianus.)
The Pittsburgh overture calls for beginning the process of amending Part I of the Constitution of the PC(USA). The overture states: “In accordance with G-18.0200, the Pittsburgh Presbytery herewith overtures the 218th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) in San Jose, California to take appropriate steps toward the following amendment of the Book of Confessions, and to appoint a committee to fulfill the requirement of G-18.0200b.”
I am glad that the framers of the overture and the Presbytery of Pittsburgh understand that it is ultimately up to the whole church to decide whether or not to amend Part I of its Constitution in any way–including by seeking a different translation of the Heidelberg Catechism. Chapter 18 of the Form of Government, which the overture references, is clear that the following is the procedure for the confessions to be amended: a majority vote by an Assembly; appointment by that Assembly of a committee of no less than fifteen elders and ministers; consultation by that committee with the governing body where the amendment originated; reporting back by the committee to the next Assembly; approval by that Assembly; transmission of the proposed amendment to the presbyteries for a vote; approval by at least two-thirds of the presbyteries. That is the procedure for amending Part I of the Constitution, The Book of Confessions. It would, of course, not be acceptable to bypass this process by arguing that because some scholars may feel that the version in our Constitution is not, in their view, the best translation of originals of the document, it should be changed. That is for the whole church to decide. However any such scholarly argument about translation can most certainly and legitimately be made to the whole church as a reason for it to consider amending the Heidelberg Catechism as it appears in Part I of the Constitution.
At this point I would like to note as background to this overture a number of facts that might not be readily apparent to all readers. [My purpose is not to advocate for or against the overture, but simply to point out that it raises many issues for the life of the PC(USA).]
1. One of the predecessor denominations of the PC(USA), the UPCUSA, adopted the Book of Confessions, including this version of the Heidelberg Catechism, in 1967. Therefore this version of the Heidelberg Catechism has been part of the Constitution of the PC(USA) or of a predecessor denomination, for more than forty years.
2. When the Plan of Reunion of the PCUS and the UPCUSA was adopted in 1983, it included Q & A 87 in the current official version of the Heidelberg Catechism. It is not impossible that members of the PCUS who cared about this issue may have seen that they were entering a denomination in which the Heidelberg Catechism, in its quotation of I Corinthians 6:9, mentioned homosexual practice as being sinful, just as the original Greek of that New Testament verse affirmed that in its use of the words “malakoi”[1] and “arsenekotai.”[2]
3. The reunited denomination has now had this wording in its Constitution for its whole life — almost 25 years.
4. During this relatively brief 25 years of life, the issue of the sinfulness of homosexual practice has been one of the most divisive issues for this young denomination.
5. Another confession in Part I of the Constitution, Q & A 139 of the Larger Catechism, also addresses the issue of homosexual practice, though perhaps less clearly. In enumerating sins prohibited by the seventh commandment (“Do not commit adultery”) Answer 139 of the Larger Catechism lists “sodomy and all unnatural lusts” with a footnote to Romans 1:26-27 [3] and Leviticus 20:15-16 [4]. (The reference to Romans 1:26-7 to me indicates that “sodomy” in the Larger Catechism refers to same gender sexual relations.)
6. Nevertheless, the long list of sins in Q & A 139 of the Larger Catechism, which includes not only “rape”, “incest”, “fornication”, “adultery”, and “having more wives than one at the same time,” but also “undue delay of marriage,” and “impudent or light behavior” has been seen by some as weakening the statement about sodomy. Therefore it could reasonably have been perceived by some at reunion and since reunion that Larger Catechism Q & A 139, along with the presence of the current version of the Heidelberg Catechism containing Q & A 87 with its statement about the sinfulness of homosexual practice, along with a statement about sexuality in the Confession of 1967 [5], read together, constituted a clear word from Part I of the Constitution about the sinfulness of homosexual practice. Changing H.C. Q & A 87 as the overture suggests, might make that word less clear–which may or may not be what the church wishes to do.
7. None of the above is necessarily a reason for amending or not amending the Constitution as the Pittsburgh overture proposes. According to Chapter 18 of the Form of Government, “Amendments”, “The PC(USA) would be faithful to the Lordship of Christ and to its historic tradition of the Church reformed always reforming by the Spirit of God. In this faith the amendment procedures are understood as a means to faithfulness as God breaks forth yet more light from God’s Word” (G-18.0100).
8. One difficulty in this present case may turn out to be that at least two different issues arise. On the one hand, the overture alerts the church to the fact that the current Q & A 87 of the Heidelberg Catechism is not the most faithful translation of the original German and Latin of the Catechism (but that it is faithful to the original Greek of I Corinthians 6:9 that Ursinus and Olevianus said they were quoting). On the other hand, this proposed amendment concerns the most divisive issue in our church, and it relates to one of the 25-year-old denomination’s foundational documents, whose alleged defect is not that it fails to correspond to Scripture, but that it fails to correspond to the original German and Latin versions of the Catechism.
One could imagine much consternation in the church about this. Two-thirds of the presbyteries might not be not convinced that more light has broken forth from God’s Word (the usual reason for amending a confession) on the issue of homosexual practice, but they also might wish a translation of the Heidelberg Catechism that was more faithful to the original. Still others might prefer the retention, after 25 years, of English words for all the Greek words in I Corinthians 6:9, which the Heidelberg Catechism purports to quote, and yet they might wish they had been apprised of this all at reunion. Still others might note the irony that the version of the Heidelberg Catechism that we in the PC(USA) have is apparently sui generis among translations, because it may be the only one that contains the reference to “homosexual perversion” clearly absent in the Heidelberg Catechism texts used by more theologically conservative sister denominations like the Reformed Church in America[6] and the Christian Reformed Church[7]. (The first of these, the RCA, is arguably somewhat more theologically conservative than the PC(USA) and the second, the Christian Reformed Church, is significantly more conservative. For them, apparently, the issue of the sinfulness of homosexual practice is both more apparent and at the same time, less divisive, than for us. Their respective beliefs in the sinfulness of same-gender sex seem to be grounded more in how they read Scripture and in their understanding of general statements in the confessions against “sexual immorality” than in Q & A 87 of the Heidelberg Catechism.)
9. Clearly confessions are living documents, and a church does not violate the sanctity of an historic confession when it amends it. We have done that in the past. For example, both predecessor denominations amended the Westminster Confession about divorce and remarriage, and both added statements on the gospel and the love of Christ that mitigated the (harsh to some) double predestination of the original Westminster Confession. (However, proponents of the Pittsburgh overture argue quite reasonably that the church was never told it was adopting a version of the Heidelberg Catechism that, while true to the Scripture the Catechism was quoting, was not quite true to the original version of the Catechism.)
10. On the other hand, the current version of the Heidelberg Catechism clearly was duly and constitutionally adopted (as a foundational document of a new, re-united denomination no less), and the proscription against “homosexual perversion” was there for any apt and interested reader to see.
11. Is it worth asking why the writers of the Heidelberg Catechism who began answer 87 by declaring, “Scripture says …” gave an attenuated quote from the very Scripture they were quoting? Several possibilities come to mind, but they cannot be proven beyond doubt. (Others seem less likely, but could also be true.) Some possible reasons for the attenuated quotation of I Corinthians 6:9:
a. Ursinus and Olevianus were embarrassed by speaking about same gender sex in their day, and so they were content to use an umbrella term for sexual immorality. [8] (See Christian Reformed version “no unchaste person.”)
b. Same gender sex was not an issue in their day, and so they felt no need to mention it.
c. The Heidelberg Catechism was designed to be used by children, and so the authors did not want to mention same gender sex. [9]
d. They felt Scripture did not speak against same gender sex.
People need to draw their own conclusions about why Ursinus and Olevianus might have omitted a translation for malakoi and arsenokoitai in Q & A 87. These conclusions might –or might not be germane as to whether they support or oppose the Pittsburgh overture.
The Presbytery of Pittsburgh is to be commended for going about this overture in the right way–by proposing an amendment to Part I of the Constitution as the only way to remedy the problem they see. To recapitulate, in considering the Pittsburgh overture, the following issues arise which the church may have to consider.
· How important is it that the confession we use today be changed so that it, like the original Heidelberg Catechism, in quoting I Corinthians 6:9, neglects to translate two of the Greek words in the original I Corinthians 6:9 text, malakoi and arsenokoitai ?
· Can we arrive at any possible understanding of the reasons of Ursinus and Olevianus for omitting these words, and if so, should that have any bearing on our decision on whether or not these words should be removed from our current official version?
· Does it make any difference that these words Ursinus and Olevianus omitted from the Greek New Testament text and were added back in our official version pertain to an issue that is perhaps the most divisive in the life of the PC(USA)?
· Does it matter that the current version was part of the foundation for a re-united denomination and has been in use as part of a Presbyterian Constitution for forty years?
· Truth matters. “The preservation of the truth” is one of the six great ends of the PC(USA). The PC(USA) Book of Order, in words going back to 1788, addresses the importance of truth in what it says about the historic principles of Church order: “…truth is in order to goodness; and the great touchstone of truth, its tendency to promote holiness, according to our Savior’s rule, ‘by their fruits shall ye know them….'” Based on these words, is it more important to our goodness and holiness as a denomination that we express truth as the closest English equivalent of the exact language which Ursinus and Olevianus used, or is it more important to our goodness and holiness that we reflect the underlying Greek of the Scripture they were quoting?
· In other words, will we be a church of increasing goodness, which promotes holiness if we recover the closest English equivalent to the original words Ursinus and Olevianus used?
· Or will we be a church of increasing goodness that promotes holiness if we leave the words as they currently appear in the Catechism as reflecting the Scripture it is quoting?
· Is it fair that we have added words that point out that a particular action is sinful to a list of sins in the original version of the Catechism when the underlying Scripture being quoted addresses that behavior — among others — as sinful?
· How can we make sure that future translations of future confessional documents are extremely well-vetted before the presbyteries vote on them?
Obviously reasonable people can and will disagree on the answers to these questions. The love of both groups for truth and for Christ and for Christ’s church should not be called into question, no matter how they answer these questions. We should assume all of us are striving, according to our best lights, for the kind of truth that promotes goodness and holiness.
The beauty of our Form of Government is that it establishes a procedure for amending Part I of the Constitution. It is not easy to amend the Book of Confessions, but if the Pittsburgh overture crosses all these hurdles, then the version of Heidelberg Catechism in our Constitution will be duly amended.
WINFIELD “CASEY” JONES is pastor of First Church, Pearland, Texas.
[1] “Male prostitutes” (NIV); “male prostitute” (NSRV);
[2] “Homosexual offenders” (NIV); “sodomite” (NRSV);
[3] Romans 1:26-27, ‘For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error (NRSV).
[4] Leviticus 20:15-16 concerns bestiality. Therefore it seems clear that “sodomy” refers to homosexual practice (Romans 1:26-27) and “unnatural lusts” refers to bestiality–Leviticus 20:15-16.
[5] “The relationship between man and woman exemplifies in a basic way God’s ordering of the interpersonal life for which he created mankind. Anarchy in sexual relationships is a symptom of man’s alienation from God, his neighbor, and himself. …The church comes under the judgment of God and invites rejection by man when it fails to lead men and women into the full meaning of life together, or withholds the compassion of Christ from those caught in the moral confusion of our time.” Confession of 1967, II,4, d. (B.C. 9.47)
[6] Reformed Church in America version: Question 87. Can those be saved who do not turn to God from their ungrateful and unrepentant ways? Answer. Certainly not. Scripture says: ‘Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers … thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers none of these will inherit the kingdom of God.’ 9 (Footnote 9: 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. The NRSV includes the words, ‘boy prostitutes,’ ‘practicing homosexuals,’ after ‘adulterers,’ but the text of the Catechism leaves these words out.) Note the RCA version puts a string of dots after adulterers” showing that they realize the Scripture quote leaves something out. (Taken from RCA Web site)
[7] Christian Reformed Church version: Q & A 87: Q. Can those be saved who do not turn to God from their ungrateful and impenitent ways? A. By no means. Scripture tells us that no unchaste person, no idolater, adulterer, thief, no covetous person, no drunkard, slanderer, robber, or the like is going to inherit the kingdom of God. 1 Cor. 6:9-10; Gal. 5:19-21; Eph. 5:1-20; 1 John 3:14. (Taken from Christian Reformed Church Web site)
[8] In John Calvin’s commentaries on the scriptures, written in about the same time frame as the Heidelberg Catechism, it is notable that he feels very strongly about, and speaks quite negatively against, same gender sex, and yet he speaks of it only by circumlocution. In his commentary on I Corinthians 6:9, the very verse in question in the Heidelberg Catechism, Calvin, like his confreres in Heidelberg, is reluctant to directly translate ‘arsenokoitai’ as males relating to each other sexually. Instead, he refers to it (arsenekoite) as ‘ that monstrous pollution,’ ‘which was but too prevalent in Greece.’ He also calls it ‘the most abominable of all’ but he does not name it. The word ‘monstrous’ is used again by Calvin in his commentary on Jude 7. In exegeting the phase ‘going after strange flesh’ (a reference in Jude to the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah),Calvin writes: ‘ to go after strange flesh , is the same as to be given up to monstrous lusts; for we know that the Sodomites, not content with the common manner of committing fornication, polluted themselves in a way most filthy and detestable.” Again in Romans 1:27, where it is clear that Paul is talking about people abandoning ‘natural’ sex with the opposite gender for ‘unnatural’ same gender sex, Calvin in his commentary does not mention this directly, but says about this verse: ‘He (Paul) brings, as the first example, the dreadful crime of unnatural lust; and it hence appears that they not only abandoned themselves to beastly lusts, but became degraded beyond the beasts, since they reversed the whole order of nature.’
[9] If we conclude that the Scripture quote in Answer 87 of the Heidelberg Catechism was attenuated because the Catechism was to be used primarily by children, and if we in the PC(USA) are not using it primarily for children, or if we conclude that young people today have all heard about homosexual practice anyway, do these conclusions make any difference in our decision on the Pittsburgh overture?
