Notes From URCNA Synod Visalia 2014

URCNA Synod Visalia 2014Reporting from URCNA Synod in Visalia, California. In Reformed church government there are four deliberative bodies that make decisions, a consistory (ruling elders and ministers of a local congregation), a council (ruling elders, ministers, and deacons of a local congregation), classis (a regional gathering of ruling elders and ministers) and synod regional, national, or international gathering of ruling elders and ministers delegated by their congregations. In the URCNA the church order speaks of “narrower” and “broader” assemblies. In Presbyterian settings they are described as “lower” and “higher” assemblies. The history of the distinctions is a little fuzzy and it’s not clear that in the earlier periods of the history of the Reformed churches that distinction was made. Nevertheless, as distinct as the churches are from the civil magistrate, they do share some characteristics. In church assemblies instead of “bills” bodies the narrower (lower) assemblies send “overtures” for consideration. As in civil assemblies, in ecclesiastical deliberation those overtures are sent to a committee for advice before the come to the floor, i.e., to the whole body.

§

One of the overtures before the overtures committee asks synod to affirm that the 1976 versions of the Belgic Confession (1561), the Heidelberg Catechism (1563), and the Canons of Dort (1619) adopted by the Christian Reformed Church are the versions received by the United Reformed Churches. Further, the overture asks synod to say that the 1958 revision of the Belgic, including the footnote to article 36, be declared to be binding. The revision of this article has a complex history dating to the late 19th century.1 The background to this overture, of course, is the ongoing debate about how Reformed folk should speak about the relations between Christ and culture.

I’ve been sitting in the overtures committee where this overture is being discussed. One of the assumptions behind some of the arguments employed in favor of the overture is that the URCs are effectively the CRC Continuing, that whatever the CRCs did prior to the formation of the URCs in 1996 is, in some way, binding. This is an assumption that should be challenged. The URCs certainly have a historical-genetic relationship to the CRC. Cornel Venema has published a brief but relatively thorough history of the URCs in Always Reformed (here’s the Kindle Edition). Most of the congregations that formed the URCs had roots in the CRC. Some congregations left the CRC before the 1996 formation of the URCs and some after and several congregations planted and formed since 1996 have no experience in the CRC whatever. Nevertheless, it is far from clear that the URCs were formed with the intent of being a de facto continuation of the CRC. Certainly the URCs are not a de iure continuation of the CRC. The URCs have their own church order. They have never adopted the Acts of Synod of the CRC. Had they done there’s a great lot they should have to repudiate (e.g., the Acts of Synod regarding the ordination of females), which they haven’t done.

There are other considerations. It’s been argued that when some of the ministers signed the form of subscription, they were subscribing the 1976 editions of the Three Forms of Unity. That is an assumption more than a fact.  Historically the Heidelberg Catechism was published in German and Latin. The latter being the international text used outside the Palatinate and even in the schools in the Palatinate. The Belgic was written in French and has been translated into Latin at least twice, once before the Synod of Dort and once during (and after). The Latin translation commissioned by the Synod wasn’t completed until after synod adjourned. Over the centuries, there have been a number of English translations of the Belgic Confession, some of them made from the French text and some from the Latin. Each year as we work through the texts of the Three Forms in our Reformed Confessions course it becomes clear that the 1976 translation of the Three Forms is hardly definitive or perfect. The 1978 translation of the Heidelberg Catechism published by the RCUS is quite superior to the 1976 CRC translation of the catechism. The 1959 CRC editions of the Belgic and the Canons are superior to the 1976.

At any rate, when we affirm the Bible to be God’s Word we are not affirming any particular translation. We are affirming the Scriptures in the original languages to be God’s Word. That’s why we teach ministerial students to read God’s Word in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, so that they can make their own translations. The same principle is true of the confessions. We make do with translations but our confessions were not written originally or received by the churches in English. The texts of the confession, catechism, and canons endorsed by Dort were in Latin. If we want to know what the confessions say we look to French, German, and especially Latin texts. English translations are important but they are provisional.

It’s clear to me that the tensions that have existed in the Dutch Reformed world since Abraham Kuyper raised the question of Belgic 36 continue to simmer. There is no question whether Christ is Lord over all things in general providence and in salvation. The question is what that Lordship entails in the common and/or civil sphere (realm). I think we agree that we do not want the civil magistrate to punish heretics—and if so, then we have all agreed that Kuyper was correct to call for a revision of the original text of Belgic Art. 36—and that we do not want the civil magistrate establishing or enforcing religious orthodoxy. So, the question is what the magistrate should do positively. On this question the New Testament is silent. It instructs Christians to obey the magistrate, to pay their taxes, and to pray for the magistrate but it contains no explicit and arguably no implicit instruction to the magistrate about what to do for the church. So we should agree that we want to magistrate to perform his duty according to Romans 13 and beyond that it would seem to be a matter of Christian liberty.

As far as I can tell, there is nothing in the footnote to Belgic Art. 36 that is at odds with distinguishing between two spheres (Calvin’s duplex regimen) in the administration of God’s sovereign reign over all things. The question is whether it is proper to make an explanatory footnote more than it was intended to be.

§

This morning Synod adopted unanimously a completed psalter. I got my first glance at it earlier today and it looks like a terrific resource. I’m looking forward to using it. Thanks to all in the OPC and the URCs who worked to bring this project to completion!

§

Back in Escondido tonight.

The major business this evening is ecumenical discussions with Canadian Reformed Churches (CanRC). As we conduct these important discussions we should remember what Wes Bredenhof wrote about CanRC Synod Carman 2013:

URC brothers who are paying attention will undoubtedly read some of this with concern. Three local churches wrote letters to our synod stating that “some points of Federal Vision can find sympathy in the Canadian Reformed Churches.” One church wondered whether the URCNA “has a clear picture of the Federal Vision movement.” Though for the sake of honesty and transparency it’s necessary that these sentiments be expressed, I deeply regret that they live in our federation. At least now the URCNA will have a clear justification for their concerns about pursuing full federative unity with us. There are now official CanRC documents stating that there is sympathy for “some points of FV” in our churches.

This is an objective reality that should be considered as we weigh the appeal to our “shared experience.”

§

Thanks to the host congregation, Trinity URC in Visalia for their hospitality. The facilities are terrific. The congregation, council, and ministers did a great job providing for everyone. It was great to renew old friendships and to make some new ones.


NOTES

1. Here are some introductory materials on this question:

Subscribe to the Heidelblog today!


26 comments

  1. How is the Psalter looking? Did they decide to maintain the Psalms? The notes I saw on the URCNA website were alarming to say the least. It seemed that we would no longer have a psalter but a hymnal that would exclude much of the Psalms. Do you know if any updates have been published on this for laymen? Thanks!

    • Gabriella,

      It looks great! I wasn’t able to look through the whole thing carefully but on the basis of what I was able to see it seems they did a terrific job. It contains all 150 Psalms in sequence. There are multiple settings for some Psalms. I noticed that we finally have a setting of Ps 23 to Crimond (which is the tune most American Christians know). I understand that the committee worked through Hebrew text very carefully. Presently many of the psalms in the Blue Psalter-Hymnal are paraphrases and this collection of Psalms follows the text more closely.

      What notes did you see? Can you point us to the source?

    • Gabriela, if I may comment, please note that the URCNA “Songbook” was dealt with in two section, the Psalms and the Hymns. The link you posted is in reference to the Hymn Proposal, which, though it included some hymns based on the Psalms, was separate from the Psalms portion of the proposal. The URCNA officially commits itself to the Psalms (Art. 39 of the Church Order: “The 150 Psalms shall have the principal place in the singing of the churches.”

  2. Whilst we hold to the infallibility and inerrancy of the original versions of the Scriptures, there should be uniformity in a denomination over which translation is used in public worship. For a start, liberty in this area allows heretical translations to be used (a practice rife over here in Scotland). But also, there cannot be unity in a communion without uniformity- of practice, doctrine, discipline.

    This also applies to the confessional standards . On a practical level: if office bearers aren’t even sure what version of their church’s constitutional document they subscribe, how can subscription have any meaning? Or integrity? Must office bearers thus master French, German and Latin? If we are comfortable preaching on the things of salvation from a translated version of inspired writing, surely you can agree on a translation of uninspired writing?

  3. Thanks for the updates! Feel free to delete this comment as it is only related to edits. For some reason some of the sentences above come through as “I think we agree that we do not want the civil magistrate to punish heretics—and if so, then we have all agreed that Kuyper was correct to call for a revision of the original text of Belgic Art. 36—and that we do not want the civil magistrate establishing or enforcing religious orthodoxy. So, the question is what the magistrate should do positively.” I’m sure that “&mdash” is not what you want to show up there. If that can be removed it makes for clearer comprehension.

  4. Now the &mdash in your original which I cut and pasted in my comment did not show up in my comment!!! Mabye it’s only on my end.

  5. Well, this stooshy over article 36 would seem to be a result of not having an approved text. Again, how can office bearers make vows with integrity- and be held accountable- when they don’t know what they’ve subscribed to?

    Also, would you be happy with a congregation in your federation using The Message in public worship?

    • Alexander,

      The author and advocates of the overture say that they are chiefly concerned about the question of which version they subscribed but the overture cited Belgic 36 so the two issues seem to be connected in the mind of the proponents of the overture.

      If you read listen to the linked material you’ll find that the text history of Belgic 36 is complicated because of deep differences of opinion within segments of the Dutch-American Reformed world over how we should think and speak about church and state. Those issues have nothing to do with translations. The issues would be present whatever translation we adopted.

      My concerns about the 1976 edition have nothing to do with the footnote to Belgic 36 but about the translation. So the issues are distinct.

      If you listen to the podcasts on translation you’ll have you’re answer re translations.

  6. About those psalms — last month at our presbytery meeting the host church introduced several of them. The ones we sang are quite good!

    When this psalter is printed in the next year or two I think a lot of people will be pleasantly surprised.

  7. Dr. Clark,

    As an OPC Minister who is very interested in the ecumenical relationship between our two denominations, I have sometimes wondered about the issue of the question of translation and subscription of the Three Forms of Unity.

    I can’t say that I find your answer particular satisfying. You write:

    “At any rate, when we affirm the Bible to be God’s Word we are not affirming any particular translation. We are affirming the Scriptures in the original languages to be God’s Word. That’s why we teach ministerial students to read God’s Word in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, so that they can make their own translations. The same principle is true of the confessions. We make do with translations but our confessions were not written originally or received by the churches in English. The texts of the confession, catechism, and canons endorsed by Dort were in Latin. If we want to know what the confessions say we look to French, German, and especially Latin texts. English translations are important but they are provisional.”

    I see three issues with this:

    1. First, while we can’t move the authority of the Bible from the original languages to translations there is nothing in principle preventing Reformed churches from writing an entirely new translation in English or in making an English translation of existing confessions the definitive Confession to which ordained English speaking officers must subscribe.

    2. In the case of the Bible, we require ministers to be able to read the Bible in its original languages. We do not require pastors to know Latin, German, and French. Unless you propose that we do require candidates for ministry to read Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, French, German, and Latin then we will have the odd situation of agreeing to abide by confessions that the vast majority of us cannot read.

    3. I find your expression “… and especially Latin texts” a bit surprising given that you don’t want to make the English texts definitive. After all, Latin was simply the target language that the Belgic Confession was translated into. If the target language of Latin can be treated as authoritative why not English?

    Your brother,

    David

    • David,

      Yes, of course the churches could write a new confession in English. I’ve advocated that in print. Amen. As a historical fact, however, our Three Forms were written in French, German, and Latin. Since our churches were bi-lingual, the Latin text became the normative text at the Synod of Dort. That’s why I mention the significance of the Latin text, which is often been overlooked.

      You’re right, we are in an odd situation. We bind one ourselves to confessions that most can only read in translation. This is odd. We can easily remedy the problem by teaching our ministerial students Latin, which is essentially Greek without the funny letters. It takes about a year of part-time study for students to begin to have some fluency in Latin.

      Until we right a new confession and catechism in English the solution is more education.

  8. When it comes to subscribing to a specific translation, I think it’s interesting to note that not even the New Testament writers stuck to a specific translation when quoting from the old testament.

  9. Brad-

    The New Testament writers were inspired by the Holy Spirit in their writing; are we?

    The situation could be remedied even easier by your synod deciding on a specific translation and subscribing that. All you need to do is hold a vote. If, however, that would be hard- there would be division, disagreement- then that would suggest your federation isn’t as united as you would appear. I suppose it’s easier to hide differences when you’re all subscribing a document most in your church can’t read but it’s not healthy.

    • Alexander’s rhetoric is interesting, especially for someone who is (I presume) a Scottish Presbyterian. The logical conclusion would be to impose, by an act of uniformity, a book of common prayer. This is not a general approach for which Presbyterians are famed.

  10. Is there an English publication of the 3 Forms that you would recommend?

    • David,

      In class I use a combination of texts, Schaff’s Creeds of Christendom alongside the texts in E. F. K. Müller, Bekenntnisschriften. For ecclesiastical use I recommend the RCUS 1978 edition of the Heidelberg. I haven’t seen their edition of the Belgic and the Canons but I suppose they are fine. The 1959 edition in the back of the blue psalter-hymnal is fine (NB: not the 1976 editions added to the 1959 psalter hymnal). Joel Beeke/RHB did an edition that works and there is an edition published by the Pasadena URC/Oceanside URC that also works.

  11. Echoing Paul’s question, why is not all of Synod available to stream online? Come on guys, spend a few bucks and join us in the 21st Century. I’m trying to figure out what truly happened with the Belgic 36 overture and am getting frustrated that so little is available. Just 3 daily press releases that I can find. The days that an important meeting like this can take place and everyone is just expected to wait 6 months to read the “Acts of Synod” are over, especially when people make public comments about the outcome of decisions there that can not be verified one way or another by people who were not in attendance. Next time maybe I need to withhold my tithe for a few months and use it for airfare and lodging to/in whatever remote location the next Synod is held.

Comments are closed.