Modernized WCF

[NaphtaliPress]

Why not just learn Greek and Hebrew and read the scriptures in the original language instead of producing (fallible) translations of them in modern vernacular language? (Obviously I do not actually advocate this).

To be quite blunt, I do not see updating the language of the WCF as anything even remotely close to updating the substance of the WCF.

If the new thing the OPC makes contains the same ideas as the original WCF as writ, then it's the WCF.

If we were talking the substance everyone here would be in agreement in condemning it. Fred's point w.r.t. American cousin denominations is not without merit, but my point stands I think. The Westminster Standards are the historical documents of Presbyterianism, like the constitution and declaration are to the USA. The PCUSA derived sister denominations have till something changes a shared text and history w.r.t the PCUSA revisions. And if the point raised just now, that this is going to mean a drive to adopted this in the PCA, it is nothing short of creating a scandal. I would not seek to leave a denomination that forced this, but I sure would not look to join one if I were looking for a move.

 

[Edward]

Nobody in the group, including officers, had any idea what "keeping of stews" meant.

That's disappointing. I suppose Shakespeare isn't taught in school any more. I expect they'd go with more genteel "prostitutes" rather than "whores. They'll lose my respect if they go with the politically correct "sex workers".

 

[Edward]

Is the OPC working on an updated English language version of the WCF?

I remember buying a copy of the WCF in modern English back in the 1980s. I think some folks in Jackson worked on it.

 

[Ed Walsh]

I appreciate the concerns of those who aren’t in favor of such a project.
And I’m looking forward to examining the result of this committee.

I have no problem with a revision as long as there is a large enough group of godly divines whose qualifications come close to the original authors.

The OPC has a two-column page where they show the changes from the original. They have a statement after completing their one-paragraph introduction to the Revision.

Though the American revisions to the Confession of Faith are not insignificant, yet, compared to the total length of the Confession, they are quite minor, involving 145 words out of 12,063. Below is a comparison of the two versions (differences are highlighted in italics).

I don't have the time to critique the changes, but I would not call them "quite minor." The primary hatchet job was on the role of the civil magistrate. They removed him from all powers to be involved in religious affairs. The 17th-century divines that comprised the Assembly would never have approved this change. It puts the civil realm outside the authority of our Great King, the King of Kings. Of the three major spheres of authority, the civil government is the most powerful of the three. He alone makes laws that powerfully affect the other two. I.e., family and Church, civil authorities alone are given the sword's power–corrosion–even unto death. Do you think our King sees the "powers that be" in the world excluded from His governance? And let me warn you. Don't let the language (highlighted in red) fool you. It may sound fair and equitable, but is it? In the Revision, the civil ruler is forbidden to give "preference to any denomination of Christians above the rest," Neither may he define a Christian or a Church. This equitable-sounding duty of the civil ruler effectively accomplishes the exact opposite. In giving equal standing to the Roman antichrist (please note the lowercase 'a'), the Mormans, the apostate churches, and their women "ministers," the lbgtq+_ _ _ so-called churches, etc.–to treat the corrupt and the incorrupt, the saints and the sinners alike is to show favoritism evil. Haven't we seen this operative principle in government turn this country upside down? It is to call evil good and good evil.

I could go on another thousand words, but I will stop at this. But what a difference 145 words can make.

Chapter 23
Of the Civil Magistrate​

​

3. (Completely rewritten) Civil magistrates may not assume to themselves the administration of the Word and sacraments; or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven; or, in the least, interfere in matters of faith. Yet, as nursing fathers, it is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the church of our common Lord, without giving the preference to any denomination of Christians above the rest, in such a manner that all ecclesiastical persons whatever shall enjoy the full, free, and unquestioned liberty of discharging every part of their sacred functions, without violence or danger. And, as Jesus Christ hath appointed a regular government and discipline in his church, no law of any commonwealth should interfere with, let, or hinder, the due exercise thereof, among the voluntary members of any denomination of Christians, according to their own profession and belief. It is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the person and good name of all their people, in such an effectual manner as that no person be suffered, either upon pretense of religion or of infidelity, to offer any indignity, violence, abuse, or injury to any other person whatsoever: and to take order, that all religious and ecclesiastical assemblies be held without molestation or disturbance.​

 

[Alan D. Strange]

The current edition in the OPC of our doctrinal standards is entitled The Confession of Faith and Catechisms of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church.

In 2006, the then-Committee on Christian Education and Publications (PCA) sought permission, through Roy Taylor (then SC of the GA), to use the precise same edition as the OPC had published of the Standards to serve in and for the PCA. This was all duly approved and published the next year. The reason for this was that proof texts had never been adopted by either church for the LC and the OPC had done the work and approved a set that the PCA then used. So the OPC and the PCA have the precise same forms of the WS, including the same proof texts.

To answer Fred's concern, when we started this process five years ago, the SC of our GA, working with our Committee on Ecumenicity and Interchurch Relations, corresponded with bodies in and out of NAPARC having the WS as their doctrinal standards, seeking objections, input, etc. We did receive some input from a couple of smaller Presbyterian bodies raising some concerns; we received no official opposition from the PCA but a good deal of unofficial encouragement. We've done all this quite in the open and in consultation with other WS bodies.

I'll not repeat our narrow mandate to update language (Lane set that forth well). This committee is planning on making its final report at the upcoming GA (2023). If the GA so chooses it may then give the work of this committee on which I serve with others (as Lane noted) to a new committee to then work through all of these as set forth in FG 32.3, which would require the work of that next committee to be approved by a 2/3 majority of the GA, sent out to the presbyteries for a 2/3 approval, and then back to the GA for a 2/3 approval of that GA.

Much process then must transpire before any of this updating of the language would be finally approved. I've elsewhere written in defense of the restricted language updating (reflected in GA Minutes) and shall not burden the board rehearsing that here.

Peace,
Alan

 

[hammondjones]

what difference is this to the many different forms of the Heidelberg Catechism, which all retain its name?

Side comment:
I do find it somewhat ironic (jealous maybe?) that the standards originally written in English are less immediately understandable than those originally written in another tongue get to be, on account of their need to be translated.

 

[bookslover]

The current edition in the OPC of our doctrinal standards is entitled The Confession of Faith and Catechisms of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church.

In 2006, the then-Committee on Christian Education and Publications (PCA) sought permission, through Roy Taylor (then SC of the GA), to use the precise same edition as the OPC had published of the Standards to serve in and for the PCA. This was all duly approved and published the next year. The reason for this was that proof texts had never been adopted by either church for the LC and the OPC had done the work and approved a set that the PCA then used. So the OPC and the PCA have the precise same forms of the WS, including the same proof texts.

To answer Fred's concern, when we started this process five years ago, the SC of our GA, working with our Committee on Ecumenicity and Interchurch Relations, corresponded with bodies in and out of NAPARC having the WS as their doctrinal standards, seeking objections, input, etc. We did receive some input from a couple of smaller Presbyterian bodies raising some concerns; we received no official opposition from the PCA but a good deal of unofficial encouragement. We've done all this quite in the open and in consultation with other WS bodies.

I'll not repeat our narrow mandate to update language (Lane set that forth well). This committee is planning on making its final report at the upcoming GA (2023). If the GA so chooses it may then give the work of this committee on which I serve with others (as Lane noted) to a new committee to then work through all of these as set forth in FG 32.3, which would require the work of that next committee to be approved by a 2/3 majority of the GA, sent out to the presbyteries for a 2/3 approval, and then back to the GA for a 2/3 approval of that GA.

Much process then must transpire before any of this updating of the language would be finally approved. I've elsewhere written in defense of the restricted language updating (reflected in GA Minutes) and shall not burden the board rehearsing that here.

Peace,
Alan

After a process like that, Alan, it should be ready for general use by, oh, say, 2142. Heh.

This is an excellent idea, by the way. It's perfectly possible to update the language of the standards without damaging their substantive content. Languages are living things, and change over time. Since we don't live in the 1640s, this update will help folks understand the standards better.

 

[Alan D. Strange]

After a process like that, Alan, it should be ready for general use by, oh, say, 2142. Heh.

I see you're quite the optimist, Rich.

Happy New Year to you and yours! And to all of you!

Peace,
Alan

 

[Charles Johnson]

That's disappointing. I suppose Shakespeare isn't taught in school any more. I expect they'd go with more genteel "prostitutes" rather than "whores. They'll lose my respect if they go with the politically correct "sex workers".

I didn't finish school terribly long ago, and Shakespeare is definitely taught. In High School we read Romeo and Juliet, Macbeth, and Hamlet.
Now, having taught in the inner city, I feel safe saying many inner city English teachers are not doing much with Shakespeare. Some are, but many are not.

 

[dhh712]

It’s not a crazy idea that covenantal contractual documents ought to be framed in clear language. Of course the accuracy must be maintained at all costs.

I agree. I always thought the -eth's and thous etc. were just slightly jarring (when I started reading the ESV after reading through the Geneva Bible a couple times, it really was a lot less... disjointing. I remember thinking for some reason specifically about how Romans was just read a lot more clearly and had more of a "together-ness" about the book; I can't think of the right word there).

That being said, I had no problem reading the WCF in its current form--thought it was a phenomenal explanation of Scripture, was completely blown away by how clear it made God's word (it was what led to my conversion). But whenever this new version comes out, I'd really like to read through it again since it's been about 10 years since I last read it (maybe it will be even more clear!!).

 

[RamistThomist]

Although I am firmly anti-KJV only regarding language, I'm not so sure about updating the confession. I get why it is done and I don't really oppose it. I do think the syntax of the standards communicates meaning in and of itself. It's not simply updating "doth" and "hath." An idiot can learn what that means in ten seconds. It's also the syntax. Take the answer from the catechism: "Some sins in themselves and by reason of their several aggravations are more heinous in the sight of God than others." I fear updating that syntax would lose much.

And "stews" actually is more vivid and powerful term than brothels (though we probably don't need to be more vivid on that point."

 

[Jake]

what difference is this to the many different forms of the Heidelberg Catechism, which all retain its name?

Those are fresh translations from another language to English. Don't different denominations take different English translations of the 3 Forms as authoritative? I'll admit ignorance here as I'm not as familiar with Continental Reformed churches.

Although I am firmly anti-KJV only regarding language, I'm not so sure about updating the confession. I get why it is done and I don't really oppose it. I do think the syntax of the standards communicates meaning in and of itself. It's not simply updating "doth" and "hath." An idiot can learn what that means in ten seconds. It's also the syntax. Take the answer from the catechism: "Some sins in themselves and by reason of their several aggravations are more heinous in the sight of God than others." I fear updating that syntax would lose much.

And "stews" actually is more vivid and powerful term than brothels (though we probably don't need to be more vivid on that point."

Have you studied the differences with the EPC modernization? I believe the EPC modernized language version is also the official version of the denomination, right? I've noticed in a few sections I've looked at some possible theological differences made with modernizing the language.

 

[retroGRAD3]

Now if only the OPC would revisit John Murray's minority opinion on exclusive Psalms.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Although I am firmly anti-KJV only regarding language, I'm not so sure about updating the confession. I get why it is done and I don't really oppose it. I do think the syntax of the standards communicates meaning in and of itself. It's not simply updating "doth" and "hath." An idiot can learn what that means in ten seconds. It's also the syntax. Take the answer from the catechism: "Some sins in themselves and by reason of their several aggravations are more heinous in the sight of God than others." I fear updating that syntax would lose much.

And "stews" actually is more vivid and powerful term than brothels (though we probably don't need to be more vivid on that point."

I am in favour of replacing doth and hath with their equivalents, but I am suspicious of any further updating for precisely this reason.

 

[greenbaggins]

Firstly, despite my careful rehearsal of the narrowness of the OPC committee's mandate, several here are significantly exaggerating the scope of the changes in view. Secondly, as to not calling the WS anymore, you still call the 1769 KJV the KJV even though the changes introduced are in the thousands, and include grammatical, typographical, and punctuational changes by the thousands. If you are going to be even remotely consistent on this point, you CANNOT call modern printings of the KJV by the same name. Be extremely wary of applying a standard to the WS that you have no intention of applying even to Scripture itself. Folks, the changes being contemplated (the last time I saw a list) are in the very low dozens. No change would even be contemplated that changed the meaning or syntax of a single sentence in the WS.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Firstly, despite my careful rehearsal of the narrowness of the OPC committee's mandate, several here are significantly exaggerating the scope of the changes in view. Secondly, as to not calling the WS anymore, you still call the 1769 KJV the KJV even though the changes introduced are in the thousands, and include grammatical, typographical, and punctuational changes by the thousands. If you are going to be even remotely consistent on this point, you CANNOT call modern printings of the KJV by the same name. Be extremely wary of applying a standard to the WS that you have no intention of applying even to Scripture itself. Folks, the changes being contemplated (the last time I saw a list) are in the very low dozens. No change would even be contemplated that changed the meaning or syntax of a single sentence in the WS.

Lane, If there are so few, why can't these simply be done with a dozen footnotes rather than in the text, assuming these are not textual issues that Bowers raised.

 

[greenbaggins]

Lane, If there are so few, why can't these simply be done with a dozen footnotes rather than in the text, assuming these are not textual issues that Bowers raised.

I could be wrong here (as I was not at the 2017 GA when it was proposed), so I don't want to speak for anyone else's reasons for it, but for myself, I see the updating of the language proposed as a way of speaking more clearly to a modern language audience, and as a way of affirming its continuing relevance as a confessional standard. It's not just a "back then" document, it is also a "here and now" document. I would imagine (or at least hope) that the modern language would then be in the text, and the original wording in a footnote.

As a matter of curiosity, why do you seem to be more opposed to these changes than to the KJV changes?

 

[Stephen L Smith]

The OPC approved the Modern English Study Version at their general assembly in 1993. This edition is included in the Forms and Confessions of the Reformed Churches of New Zealand together with the original WCF. Is this modern revision different from the MESV?

 

[greenbaggins]

The OPC approved the Modern English Study Version at their general assembly in 1993. This edition is included in the Forms and Confessions of the Reformed Churches of New Zealand together with the original WCF. Is this modern revision different from the MESV?

Stephen, the OPC only approved the MESV for study, not for its doctrinal standards. What is happening today is a desire to see the WS speak in modern language the same substance so as to be more accessible. so, no, not the same thing, and for a different purpose.

 

[JimmyH]

I think it is good to have a modernized alternative reading of the WS for those who need such a work to understand it. People can argue that 'It's not that difficult' to learn the archaic language as they do for the KJV, but not everyone is willing to go to those lengths, and why should they have to ?

In my congregation I once did an informal poll among some members from Guyana, Cuba, Korea, and South Africa. We use 1984 NIV pew Bibles and I wanted to know if those for whom English was not their first language would be comfortable with either the KJV, or something like the NASB, ESV. Independently given the question all preferred to remain with the NIV because it was easier to understand.

Finally, a man I worked with for 20 years, have known for forty, a voracious reader of best sellers, novels and junk such as that ... I gave him a copy of the WCF published by BOT and he soon returned it to me, saying he couldn't understand it. The archaisms were more trouble than it was worth to him.

Like the New Living Translation a simplified modern English version of the WS would open that to a much wider readership than it has enjoyed up until now. In my humble opinion.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

I could be wrong here (as I was not at the 2017 GA when it was proposed), so I don't want to speak for anyone else's reasons for it, but for myself, I see the updating of the language proposed as a way of speaking more clearly to a modern language audience, and as a way of affirming its continuing relevance as a confessional standard. It's not just a "back then" document, it is also a "here and now" document. I would imagine (or at least hope) that the modern language would then be in the text, and the original wording in a footnote.

As a matter of curiosity, why do you seem to be more opposed to these changes than to the KJV changes?

That's an interesting question. I see from you answer to Stephen on the MESV that this is tied to a view of things needing to be in modern language, whether bible version or doctrinal standards. I've explained my reticence due to the standing of the Westminster Standards as historical documents (and concerns others have expressed have resonated). I don't connect the issue to my individual freedom to use the KJV and or the NKJV. Does the OPC prohibit using the KJV? If not, then why if it is good enough the pastor can explain any hard places, is that not good enough in his teaching from the standards or agreeing to abide by them? I guess it comes down to that I see this as unnecessary and not of the weight requiring changing the standards themselves.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

Stephen, the OPC only approved the MESV for study, not for its doctrinal standards. What is happening today is a desire to see the WS speak in modern language the same substance so as to be more accessible. so, no, not the same thing, and for a different purpose.

Thanks Lane, that makes sense. Actually the 2011 Synod of the Reformed Churches of New Zealand agreed to keep the WCF as the confessional standard but allow the MESV to be used in the preaching and teaching of the churches (this is noted in our forms and confessions book).

 

[greenbaggins]

That's an interesting question. I see from you answer to Stephen on the MESV that this is tied to a view of things needing to be in modern language, whether bible version or doctrinal standards. I've explained my reticence due to the standing of the Westminster Standards as historical documents (and concerns others have expressed have resonated). I don't connect the issue to my individual freedom to use the KJV and or the NKJV. Does the OPC prohibit using the KJV? If not, then why if it is good enough the pastor can explain any hard places, is that not good enough in his teaching from the standards or agreeing to abide by them? I guess it comes down to that I see this as unnecessary and not of the weight requiring changing the standards themselves.

You say

"the pastor can explain any hard places"

If this were the only conceivable context where the WS might be used, and there were always a pastor there to explain it, then I think it wouldn't be necessary to update the language. Two points, however. 1. There might be many other contexts where having to explain archaic expressions all the time cuts down on time that might be more profitably spent explaining central gospel truths. 2. There might be contexts where there is no pastor to help explain the archaic expressions.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

You say

If this were the only conceivable context where the WS might be used, and there were always a pastor there to explain it, then I think it wouldn't be necessary to update the language. Two points, however. 1. There might be many other contexts where having to explain archaic expressions all the time cuts down on time that might be more profitably spent explaining central gospel truths. 2. There might be contexts where there is no pastor to help explain the archaic expressions.

There have long been expositions and study guides. Or do an MESV version of the catechisms. Or if it has to be in the text, drop some explanatory footnotes if it is truly minor in number. I just don't see this rising to the level to require changing the actual standards; it hardly seems necessary.

 

[JH]

I find it rather comical that in many discussions the KJV randomly becomes the punching bag. Make a thread on the TR, and the KJV comes up. Make a thread on the Westminster Standards, and the KJV comes up. Just by the KJV existing, people's jimmies are rustled. It never fails

 

[Ryan&Amber2013]

I find it rather comical that in many discussions the KJV randomly becomes the punching bag. Make a thread on the TR, and the KJV comes up. Make a thread on the Westminster Standards, and the KJV comes up. Just by the KJV existing, people's jimmies are rustled. It never fails

King Jimmy gives them the Jimmies.

 

[Polanus1561]

i submit to the mods to close this thread where OP has gotten his answer

 

[JH]

i submit to the mods to close this thread where OP has gotten his answer

Nah, I think there's good discussion being had here revolving around the OP's subject, and two admins seem to be joining in that discussion

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Moderating. Moderating is not a public discourse and mods and admins don't like to see closure become a topic where sides line up, particularly when the thread is not out of hand and no reports have been made. There is etiquette understood that if the thread author is satisfied his opening post has been addressed, all things being copacetic, it is a common courtesy that he gets to thank participants and ask that the thread be closed if he sees no need for it to continue. Mods and admins generally honor that unless the thread has morphed and air clearing remains in minds of participants. Frankly, I don't see much here that needs the thread to continue; but it's not my call to make on simply my sense when nothing has otherwise gone off the rails. If a member thinks a thread is scandalous or something is out of hand, report a post to the moderators to take action and if it is clear someone online will act, or if it is unclear, multiple mods and admins will discuss it and then act.

 

[jwithnell]

You say

If this were the only conceivable context where the WS might be used, and there were always a pastor there to explain it, then I think it wouldn't be necessary to update the language. Two points, however. 1. There might be many other contexts where having to explain archaic expressions all the time cuts down on time that might be more profitably spent explaining central gospel truths. 2. There might be contexts where there is no pastor to help explain the archaic expressions.

This is absolutely the case and raises another valid line of discussion. If the standards are used in the home, as they should be, no pastor will be present for interpretation. A denomination that doesn't expect the standards to be used and understood by the laity is one generation away from losing its doctrinal distinctives.

I've used KJV in our home from time to time just to be sure my kids don't lose the literature of that era, but even with that provision, when reading a passage from the standards, I tend to make the switch to modern pronouns and verb forms just to make sure the doctrine is understood.