Issues -- Ordination
The Heidelberg Catechism

Dr. Jack Rogers, Professor of Theology Emeritus at San Francisco Theological Seminary, and former Moderator of the PC(USA), has just posted his reflections on the overtures proposing a correction to the Heidelberg Catechism. He also considers the meaning of the “essential tenets” of the Reformed faith.

The Importance of Restoring the Heidelberg Catechism to Its Original Text

He begins:

There are seven overtures to the upcoming Presbyterian General Assembly that ask the church to restore the Heidelberg Catechism to its original text. Why the interest in the Heidelberg Catechism? Recent scholarship has shown that in 1963 two Reformed Church in America translators made several unauthorized and theologically unwarranted changes to the Heidelberg Catechism. They appear to have inserted their personal biases into an official church document. The erroneous version was unwittingly adopted by the Presbyterian Church in our Book of Confessions. The overtures coming before this General Assembly present the opportunity to correct these unauthorized changes and restore the Heidelberg Catechism to its original wording.

Rogers goes on to outline the changes that were introduced, specifically to add a condemnation of “homosexual perversion.” He reports a conversation with Eugene Osterhaven, who with Allen Miller made the unauthorized insertion. He reports that “when I asked why they chose to insert the phrase, ‘homosexual perversion,’ even though there is no corresponding word or phrase in the original text he replied, ‘We just thought it would be a good idea.’ "

From a scholarly perspective, it is inexcusable to insert words that were not in the original text of the Catechism. Second, from a Christian perspective it is inexcusable to create a mid-twentieth century rendition of the Catechism that appears to condemn all same-sex relationships when that condemnation is not present in the 16th century original. The fact that this unauthorized and theologically incorrect insertion is used to condemn a whole class of church members makes it all the more egregious.

He concludes:

This issue comes down to a simple question of honesty. Do we want our confessions to honestly reflect the original text? Or will we allow the biases of two translators in the early 1960s to continue to taint this official church document? The overtures to restore the Heidelberg Catechism to its original text present a wonderful opportunity for the PC(U.S.A.) to restore honesty and integrity to our Book of Confessions.

Rogers' essay in full >>

30 seminary faculty support ‘corrected’ translation of German confession    [6-19-08]

Presbyterian News Service reports that thirty-two history and theology faculty members from the 10 Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) seminaries have signed a petition calling for a better translation of the 1563 Heidelberg Catechism.

Their petition supports three overtures to the upcoming 218th General Assembly, June 21-28 in San Jose, CA, that call for a return to a more traditional translation of the catechism that is used by most other Reformed churches, including such conservative denominations as the Christian Reformed Church.

The full story from PNS >>

[posted 5-19-08; published in Network News, Spring 2008, pp. 14-16]

At the center of the controversy are questions and answers 19, 33, 55, and especially 87 (Book of Confessions 4.087), one of the few references to "homosexual perversion" in the Book of Confessions. Considering that the Heidelberg Catechism was written in German in 1563 and the word "homosexual" is a term that originated late in the nineteenth century and did not come into widespread use in European languages until the twentieth century, the translation problems are apparent. In fact, of all the many English translations of the Heidelberg Catechism made since the sixteenth century, all but one, the 1962 Miller-Osterhaven translation contained in the Book of Confessions, lack any reference to homosexuality.

Concerns about the translation of the Heidelberg Catechism in the Book of Confessions were first raised after Johanna W.H.van Wijk-Bos, (Professor of Old Testament, Louisville Presbyterian Theological Seminary), who had studied the original German text of Heidelberg extensively as a young woman in The Netherlands in preparation for her confirmation in the Reformed Church there. She discovered the error through a perusal of an article in Monday Morning of April 22, 1996. That article quoted the Heidelberg in a way that to her eyes was totally unfamiliar. After she mentioned the matter to her then still-to-be colleague Christopher Elwood (Assistant Professor of Historical Theology, Louisville Presbyterian Theological Seminary), the two of them put their minds together to rebut the article in Monday Morning and to provide rationales for the overtures that went to the 1997 and 1998 Assemblies.  (Click here for their original article, The Heidelberg Catechism and Homosexuality.)  While the overtures brought to those two assemblies failed, more than ten years of reflection may prove that this part of the Book of Confessions is not only inaccurate but contains a distortion that needs to be corrected.

The 1962 Miller-Osterhaven translation became part of our Book of Confessions because the Special Committee on a Brief Contemporary Statement of Faith presented a report to the 1965 General Assembly of the UPCUSA to include it in a Book of Confessions. Presumably the committee chose this translation because it was the most recent at that time. Princeton Seminary Professor Emeritus Ed Dowey, chair of the Special Committee, later acknowledged that both he and the committee as a whole were "guilty of negligence," and that "there should have been thorough editorial work on all the documents," but because of time pressures the committee settled for some brief spot-checking of the translation. The change to question 87 was not spotted. In Professors Dowey's words, he was "dumbfounded that I and such careful scholars as [Leonard J.] Trinterud, [George S.] Hendry, [James D.] Smart, et al, failed to discover the illicit change." Without recognizing that the authors' words had been tampered with and without reviewing adequately the version of the document adopted, the denomination received the translation now presently in the Book of Confessions.

The problem with the words in the '62 version of the answer to Q87 is not that it is a flawed translation. The problem, admitted by Osterhaven, is that they intentionally ignored the words of the original catechism and inserted, instead, the New English Bible translation of 1 Corinthians 6: 9-10 which was one of four Scriptural references footnoted by the writers of the catechism. Furthermore, the New English Bible translation of those now highly controversial verses was the first time in an English translation (including King James and the Revised Standard Version) that the Greek arsenokoitai and malakoi were translated as "homosexual perversion." It was an editorial decision that violated the trust we place in translators to adhere to the words of the writers. This explains why other translations, including the one on the website of the conservative Westminster Theological Seminary, does not include "homosexual perversion," as those are actual translations of the German and Latin in Q87, which was really a harmony of the vice lists that left out those two words, included only in I Corinthians 6:9-10, from the four Scripture passages footnoted.

The more recent Christian Reformed Church (CRC) translation, prepared for the CRC and adopted by the Synod of 1975 with some editorial revisions made and approved by the Synod of 1988 (See Ecumenical Creeds and Reformed Confessions [Grand Rapids: CRC Publications, 1988]) is a more accurate and better translation than the 1962 Miller-Osterhaven translation because it is a livelier translation with a more contemporary feel. The liveliness comes, in part, from the fact that this is a translation of the German text rather than the Latin. There are no substantive differences in meaning, but the German gives an opportunity for a bit more vital rendering in contemporary English. The CRC translation is not a free translation. It stays close to the meaning of the original. It does not contain the outright errors included in the 1962 translation at questions 19, 33, 55, and 87, and avoids the carelessness of renderings that creep into the 1962 translation at other places.

The CRC, considered by some a more conservative denomination than the PC(USA), is a Reformed body with which we are in Full Communion. Adopting a translation of the Heidelberg Catechism that already enjoys constitutional status in a Reformed denomination with which we enjoy full communion would not only be a wise decision affirming our ecumenical agreements but save both time and money needed for preparing a new translation.

Overture 36 (OVT036), from the Presbytery of Northern Kansas, seeks appropriate steps to “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. [1962, United Church Press], with a translation that more faithfully renders the original text.” The presbyteries of Chicago, New York City (of which I am a member), and Pittsburgh have concurred with this overture.

OVT036 actually originated with Pittsburgh Presbytery. Kent Winters-Hazelton, the Pastor of the First Presbyterian Church of Lawrence, KS, gave a copy of Pittsburgh's draft to an Adult Ed class that was studying Jack Rogers' book. The class decided to bring the overture, as a concurrence, to Session. The session approved it and sent it to Presbytery. The Presbytery of Northern Kansas then approved it before Pittsburgh Presbytery, thus making Northern Kansas the Presbytery of Record.

Overture 45 (OVT045), from the Presbytery of Boston, would direct the Stated Clerk to request permission from the Christian Reformed Church in North America to print their 1988 translation of the Heidelberg Catechism in The Book of Confessions of the PC(USA), and if such permission is granted, to use that text as the official text of the Heidelberg Catechism until such time as directed otherwise by the General Assembly, and if such permission is not granted, to make a recommendation to the 219th General Assembly (2010) regarding the choice of an appropriate translation of the Heidelberg Catechism to be the official text in The Book of Confessions.” The Presbytery of Winnebago has concurred with this overture.

While both overtures are worthy of full consideration, Overture 36 is the better of the two. The rationale of Overture 36 mentions some of the history and many of the textual problems associated with the current translation of the Heidelberg Catechism in the Book of Confessions, history and problems which beg for correction. It is also well footnoted. Additionally, the overture recognizes that replacing the current translation, even with an already existing translation, it is truly an “amendment” to the Book of Confessions and not a mere editorial change, a precedent established when the Book of Confessions was amended in 1999 by replacing the then current translation of the Nicene Creed with a new contemporary translation.

Overture 45, however, does bring to light in its rationale section a published assertion by Osterhaven that changes in the text of the answer to Question 87 “had been entirely intentional.” It also better establishes the ecumenical consensus for the more accurate and preferable CRC translation. Thus OVT036, while perhaps not as strong as OVT045, bolsters the need for action.

Once aware of this history, a Presbyterian may wonder how commissioners to the General Assembly cannot choose [could ever choose not] to be guided by the most authentic, reliable, faithful and accurate translation possible. Given our tradition of respecting scholarship, it seems inconceivable that one of these two overtures, perhaps in an amended form, cannot pass both the committee and the General Assembly and be sent to the presbyteries for their approval.

For a fuller discussion of the above issues, Commissioners and other readers are encouraged to look at Jack Rogers' recent book, Jesus, the Bible, and Homosexuality: Explode the Myths, Heal the Church (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006, pp. 115-199), which has been sent to all commissioners and advisory delegates.

• Kent Winters Hazelton, Johanna W.H.van Wijk-Bos, and Janet Edwards provided assistance with this article.