Robert A. J. Gagnon Home Articles Available Online Response to Book Reviews Material for "Two Views" Material for "Christian Sexuality" Answers to Emails College Materials Robert Gagnon.htm
|
Box Turtle
Kincaid Peddles Distorted Orthodoxy Test While Promoting Immorality
Part 1: The
Problem with the Call for Retranslating the Heidelberg Catechism and
Kincaid’s Bogus Charge of My “Unorthodox Approach to Doctrine”
by Robert A. J.
Gagnon, Ph.D.
Pittsburgh
Theological Seminary, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2596
gagnon@pts.edu
July 31, 2008
For a PDF version
with proper pagination and format click
here
Timothy Kincaid, blogging for the homosexualist website
“Box Turtle,” has gone beyond even the box turtle’s reputation for
confusion and distorted reality in his posting, “Robert Gagnon’s
Unorthodox Approach to Doctrine” (June 24, 2008; online:
http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/06/24/2266).
Kincaid states that my alleged “homophobia trumps written witness” as
regards my arguments against both a new translation of the Heidelberg
Catechism and a homosexualist reading of Jesus’ encounter with a
centurion. He seeks to discredit me as “unorthodox” to “those who insist
on a literalist interpretation of Scripture.” However, his uncivil
efforts only underscore how little he understands, or even cares to
understand, the issues in question.
In this article I will address Kincaid’s critique of my
view on retranslating the Heidelberg Catechism (1563); in Part 2
Kincaid’s critique of my understanding of the historical core behind
Jesus’ encounter with a Capernaum official.
Kincaid argues that it was wrong for me to oppose a
translation of the Heidelberg Catechism that aims at removing from the
1962 Miller-Osterhaven English translation (which at this point copies
from the NEB translation of 1 Cor 6:9-10) a reference to “homosexual
perversion” that was not in the original German of this 16th
century document (Question 87, 4.086). “It is his own [ideology] that
causes Gagnon to insist that the Catechism be translated to state the
words that should be on the page rather than the ones that are
there.”
This is a classic case of “Box Turtle Kincaid”
distortion. I am not arguing that the Catechism should be “translated”
to insert words that are not there. I am rather arguing that a
retranslation for the singular purpose of advancing a homosexualist
agenda is both unnecessary and perverse, for the following reasons:
-
Retranslations of confessions are discouraged in the
PCUSA unless errors in the original translation fundamentally affect
the confession’s status as a reliable exposition of Scripture.
Otherwise there would be no end to retranslations. Changing any text
in the PCUSA Book of Confessions is a time-consuming (and
costly) process requiring not only (1) approval of a General Assembly
but also: (2) the appointment of a committee consisting of at least 15
elders and ministers to consider the proposal and report its
recommendation to the next General Assembly; (3) approval of
two-thirds of the presbyteries; (4) approval by the next General
Assembly (G-18.0201).
The reason for such an elaborate and demanding process is to set the
bar for establishing the necessity of a retranslation very high
indeed. No English translation of a confession is a verbatim rendering
of the original, perfect and without error. Translations once made and
approved for inclusion in the Constitution are retained, even if there
are some inaccuracies, unless there are strong grounds for believing
that the inaccuracies affect fundamentally the confession’s status as
an “authentic and reliable exposition of what Scripture leads
us to believe and do” (W-4.4003; my emphasis). As four Presbyterian
theology professors (two from Princeton Seminary) have asked in their
critique of proposals for retranslating the Heidelberg Catechism:
Will the
Presbyteries who have sent these overtures, together with their
academic sponsors, next ask that we revert to the seventeenth
century texts of the Westminster standards, without the chapters on
divorce and the Holy Spirit, and restoring the claim that the Pope
is the anti-Christ, as the original indisputably said?
--Bruce L. McCormack, E. David Willis, Michael D. Bush, and Richard
E. Burnett,
Letter to the 2008 General Assembly, p. 3 (see pp. 1-2 for why
other alleged translation problems in the Catechism serve only as
“cover” for the single-minded homosexualist goal of removing
“homosexual perversion” from the confessions)
-
The Catechism clearly alludes to, and partially cites,
1 Cor 6:9, which expressly lists “men who lie with a male” among
offenders barred from the kingdom of God.
The German original
clearly alludes to the offender list in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (citing 5
of the 10 offender groups in the same order), a point confirmed by
Zacharias Ursinus, the primary author of the Catechism, in his
Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism (p.
467; ET by G. W. Williard). First Corinthians 6:9 includes among the
offender groups “men who lie with a male” (arsenokoitai, a word
specially coined from the Greek [Septuagint] translation of the
prohibition of men “lying” [koite] with a male [arsen]”
in Lev 18:22 and 20:13). For
“a brief review of how we know that 1 Corinthians 6:9 rejects all
homosexual practice,” see the appendix (pp. 6-11) to my article, “Why
a New Translation of the Heidelberg Catechism Is Not Needed: And Why
Homosexualist Forces in the PCUSA Seek It.”
So there is no question here
of adding anything to the English translation of the Catechism that
affects detrimentally the Catechism’s status as
an “authentic and
reliable exposition of what Scripture leads us to believe and
do.”
-
A homosexualist agenda, not translation purity: Why
there is no outrage at the addition of “the covetous” and “swindlers”
to the English translation from the text of 1 Cor 6:9.
The German
original also leaves out any mention of “the covetous” (pleonektai)
and “swindlers” (harpages) from its allusion to 1 Cor 6:9,
reinserted as “grabbers” and “swindlers” in the NEB Bible translation
appropriated here by the 1962 Miller-Osterhaven translation of the
Catechism. However, no one is calling for a retranslation of the
Catechism because the 1962 English translation has added these words
from the text of 1 Cor 6:9. Had these two terms been the only
terms added to Heidelberg Catechism A87 no one would ever had
called for a retranslation of the Catechism. So it is clear that
“translation purity” is not the concern behind the push for
retranslation but rather a less-than-fully-honest homosexualist
agenda. Homosexualist advocates in the PCUSA by and large have no
objection to the addition of “grabbers” and “swindlers” because (1)
these terms are clearly in the text of Scripture to which the
Catechism alludes and (2) they have no objection to what Scripture
states at this point. The only reason, then, why they are could have
an objection to the addition of the term “homosexual perversion” to
the Catechism is because they do object to what Scripture says.
[Note: The 1962 translation inserted
the NEB’s translation of 1 Cor 6:9, which conflates two terms in the
Greek, malakoi (literally, “soft men,” referring to the passive
receptive partners in man-male intercourse) and arsenokoitai
(literally, “men who lie with a male,” the active partners). As a
conflation translation that converts these two related offender groups
into the single abstract vice of “homosexual perversion” the NEB
rendering is not an ideal translation. Nevertheless, it adequately
conveys the overall point of the text of 1 Cor 6:9.]
-
The probable reason for the omission of any reference
to homosexual practice in the Catechism: It would scandalize children.
Given what sixteenth century Reformers have to say
about homosexual practice it is clear that the reason for not citing
“men who lie with a male” from 1 Cor 6:9 had nothing to do with some
secret acceptance of homosexual practice. To the contrary: Zacharias
Ursinus and Kaspar Olevianus, the authors of the Catechism, almost
certainly omitted reference to homosexual practice because the
Catechism was used to instruct children. In the sixteenth century
explicit mention of homosexual practice would have been not only
unnecessary—since no one in sixteenth-century Reform communities was
advocating homosexual practice, let alone engaging in it—but also
obscene. Including mention of homosexual offenders would have
unnecessarily scandalized young minds.
-
This supposition is confirmed by the strong but oblique
visceral opposition to homosexual practice from Calvin on.
Calvin
himself, the father of Reformed faith, when he comments on Rom
1:26-27, 1 Cor 6:9, and Jude 7 in his commentaries, does so only in an
oblique way because of the deep heinousness of the offense, referring
to desires and actions that are “monstrous,” “polluted,” “most filthy
and detestable,” and “the most abominable.” As late as the first third
of the twentieth century even the Loeb Classical Library series,
consisting of hundreds of volumes of texts from the classical world
published by Harvard University Press with the original Greek (or
Latin) on one side of the page and an English translation on the
other, routinely translated just those portions of ancient Greek texts
dealing with homosexual practice into Latin rather than English in
order to avoid corrupting youthful minds.
-
Hermeneutical regression: Today’s homosexualist motive
for deleting “homosexual perversion” stands in diametrical opposition
to the original motive for its omission.
Commissioning a
retranslation of the Heidelberg Confession for the primary purpose of
making homosexual unions more acceptable in the church would be
hermeneutically regressive. The reason for the Reformers’ omission of
any mention of homosexual offenders from an allusion to 1 Cor 6:9 was
their recognition of how bad and obscene homosexual practice was.
Retranslating the whole document just to satisfy a homosexualist
agenda would be as perverse as commissioning a new translation that
would eliminate the terms “covetous” and “swindler” for the express
purpose of making economically exploitative conduct more palatable in
our own time.
-
The hypocrisy of the “Spirit, not letter” people
suddenly so obsessed by the “letter” is apparent.
Ironically (and
hypocritically), homosexualists who most loudly trumpet their desire
to put Spirit over Letter when it comes to interpreting the scriptural
text for the express purpose of ignoring the strong biblical witness
against homosexual practice are here attempting to put Letter over
Spirit. The spirit of the text of the Catechism is clear enough. It is
the exact opposite of the attempt now being made to make the
Confessions open to homosexual practice. Those making the attempt are
the same persons who for years have shown little interest in studying
the numerous strong arguments for a male-female prerequisite in
Scripture generally and in 1 Cor 6:9 in particular; little interest in
reading the Book of Order's ordination standard for sexuality
(G-6.0106b) in a reasonable way; and little interest in discerning the
apparent historical motivation behind the omission of terms for
homosexual practice in the Catechism’s allusion to 1 Cor 6:9.
Given these considerations, there is little justification
for a retranslation of the Heidelberg Catechism. It is a shame
that I have to restate most of these points from my online article, “Why
a New Translation of the Heidelberg Catechism Is Not Needed: And Why
Homosexualist Forces in the PCUSA Seek It.”
Kincaid chose to rely on a few quotations in a
Christian Post
article rather than consult my fuller online article. Regrettably,
Kincaid shows more interest in misrepresenting my work to others, in
order to score a self-serving, ideologically driven point, than in
actually understanding my argument. This is the mark of someone who,
despite all his protestations to the contrary, has little interest in
the truth when it is inconvenient to his position.
|