Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Yes, they are. My main concern is that the original is still, 400 years later, very clear. If people can't understand it it's because they lack a background in theology or an adequate reading level, not because the language is overly antiquated. And so what is inevitably going to happen, in anything but the lightest revision, is we're just going to eliminate theological vocabulary and knock down the reading level by shortening the sentences, which you can't do without losing valuable information. The sentences are long for a reason. It wasn't just an arbitrary writing convention of the 17th century.Is the OPC working on an updated English language version of the WCF?
Is there a study committee working on this?
At a small group earlier this year the topic came up. Nobody in the group, including officers, had any idea what "keeping of stews" meant. There's not a lot of language of this type (this was an old euphemism that has long since fallen out of use) but a light revision could be in order.Yes, they are. My main concern is that the original is still, 400 years later, very clear. If people can't understand it it's because they lack a background in theology or an adequate reading level, not because the language is overly antiquated. And so what is inevitably going to happen, in anything but the lightest revision, is we're just going to eliminate theological vocabulary and knock down the reading level by shortening the sentences, which you can't do without losing valuable information. The sentences are long for a reason. It wasn't just an arbitrary writing convention of the 17th century.
Lane, is this an aid or is it intended to replace the OPC text of the WCF in their standards?Yes, there is such a committee. They are well at work on it. Alan is on the committee, so he can give a more detailed update on where they are right now. Their mandate is quite narrow and well-defined. It was erected in 2018 with the following members: David Noe, Mark Bube, Glen Clary, J.V. Fesko, James Gidley, John Muether, Alan Strange, with Ryan McGraw and Tony Curto as alternates. Their mandate is limited to the following types of changes (this is from the Minutes of the 86th GA (2019, p. 337):
a.. Morphological changes, such as "executeth" to "executes" and "hath" to "has"; b. Replacing archaic pronouns, e.g., "thou" to "you"; c. Replacing obsolete and/or archaic words, e.g., "stews" in LC 139. This includes, as in the example just given, replacing words that are still current in the language but are used in obsolete or archaic senses in the standards. d. Substituting a modern translation of the Scriptures for the text of the Ten Commandments and the Lord's Prayer. In all cases, the committee is to strive to propose changes that preserve the cadence, memorability, and dignified style of the standards.
In talking at length with several committee members about this work, they are fully committed to as narrow a reading as possible of their mandate. They would not dream of changing sentence structure (not in the mandate). However, one other thing I did mention to the committee was other revisions on the basis of the new critical editions that have come out.Yes, they are. My main concern is that the original is still, 400 years later, very clear. If people can't understand it it's because they lack a background in theology or an adequate reading level, not because the language is overly antiquated. And so what is inevitably going to happen, in anything but the lightest revision, is we're just going to eliminate theological vocabulary and knock down the reading level by shortening the sentences, which you can't do without losing valuable information. The sentences are long for a reason. It wasn't just an arbitrary writing convention of the 17th century.
It is intended to replace the OPC text. The mandate is very clear: "The committee is authorized to propose only such changes as do not change the doctrine or meaning of the standards."Lane, is this an aid or is it intended to replace the OPC text of the WCF in their standards?
So it is more than the WCF; e.g., if they are going after "stews" in 139.It is intended to replace the OPC text. The mandate is very clear: "The committee is authorized to propose only such changes as do not change the doctrine or meaning of the standards."
It is the entirety of the WS. Correction: it is the WCF, WLC, and WSC, not the other documents.So it is more than the WCF; e.g., if they are going after "stews" in 139.
Okay. I'm not a fan. But while it has always been the case it will be more true that this will be the standards of the OPC based on the Westminster. No one is rewriting the US constitution or the Declaration of Independence, but I suppose if another country wanted to adopt both they are free to rewrite and call them something else. Obviously we have a revision process in the former in adding amendments, akin to the PCUSA changes. But no one is rewriting the originals or should be and calling them the Westminster.It is the entirety of the WS.
I often do that on the fly anyway. We use the catechisms extensively in family worship.Yes, there is such a committee. They are well at work on it. Alan is on the committee, so he can give a more detailed update on where they are right now. Their mandate is quite narrow and well-defined. It was erected in 2018 with the following members: David Noe, Mark Bube, Glen Clary, J.V. Fesko, James Gidley, John Muether, Alan Strange, with Ryan McGraw and Tony Curto as alternates. Their mandate is limited to the following types of changes (this is from the Minutes of the 86th GA (2019, p. 337):
a.. Morphological changes, such as "executeth" to "executes" and "hath" to "has"; b. Replacing archaic pronouns, e.g., "thou" to "you"; c. Replacing obsolete and/or archaic words, e.g., "stews" in LC 139. This includes, as in the example just given, replacing words that are still current in the language but are used in obsolete or archaic senses in the standards. d. Substituting a modern translation of the Scriptures for the text of the Ten Commandments and the Lord's Prayer. In all cases, the committee is to strive to propose changes that preserve the cadence, memorability, and dignified style of the standards.
I will grant that "stew" is no longer common terminology. I'm sure most of us here know it means 'brothel,' but most in the wider world would not.At a small group earlier this year the topic came up. Nobody in the group, including officers, had any idea what "keeping of stews" meant. There's not a lot of language of this type (this was an old euphemism that has long since fallen out of use) but a light revision could be in order.
That one tripped me up in my licensure exam; showed I hadn’t given theAt a small group earlier this year the topic came up. Nobody in the group, including officers, had any idea what "keeping of stews" meant. There's not a lot of language of this type (this was an old euphemism that has long since fallen out of use) but a light revision could be in order.
Well, I’d settle for: WCF, OPC version. Similar to nomenclature used in English translations of original biblical languages.Hopefully they’ll at least have the honesty to not call it the Westminster Confession, but something else, after they change the text.
Or just state that the language has been updated like tons of other works.Well, I’d settle for: WCF, OPC version. Similar to nomenclature used in English translations of original biblical languages.
If we want to be super technical, the OPC never had the Westminster Confession as a doctrinal standard.Hopefully they’ll at least have the honesty to not call it the Westminster Confession, but something else, after they change the text.
Correct, and ought not to claim to. The baptists updated the WCF to fit their beliefs, and called the result something different, which was the right thing to do.If we want to be super technical, the OPC never had the Westminster Confession as a doctrinal standard.
Or just the Philadelphia Confession.Call it the "Westminster (Philly) Confession of Faith."
Clearly no American Presbyterian denomination wanted to lose the continuity in renaming the standards revered by Presbyterianism. But at minimum, "as adoped by" (which the OPC has in their title), or "as modified by" should be part of the title. That being said, why aren't study guides good enough? I don't understand the push for this. As I said already, we aren't rewriting the Constitution or Declaration of Independence, or Shakespeare; that is what study guides and if rewritten "for Dummies" are for. You can publish a Westminster Confession for Dummies but you surely don't want it to be your doctrinal statement..
I would be shocked if the PCA didn't adopt it.This may be considered minor, but one consequence of this project is that the OPC will then have a different version than the rest of the American Presbyterian denominations.
We can fixThis may be considered minor, but one consequence of this project is that the OPC will then have a different version than the rest of the American Presbyterian denominations.