Book Review: The Heidelberg Catechism, A New Translation

by Christopher D. Rodkey

The Heidelberg
Catechism: A New Translation for the 20^th Century
Trans. Lee Barrett 
ISBN 978-0-8298-1762-1
Pilgrim
$6.50.

Who would
have thought that The Heidelberg Catechism would again become controversial in
2008, nearly 450 years after it was written by Zacharius Ursinus and Caspar
Olevianus?  Just earlier this year, in
2008, the Presbyterian USA denomination recognized that their translation of
this historic text needed to be re-translated, after noticing that translators
actually added a specific
condemnation of homosexuality into the text when it was last translated in the
1960s-while the original texts actually had no mention of homosexuality at
all.  While I find this discovery
astounding, how many of us are surprised by these kinds of "mistakes of
translation" from mainline churches anymore?

While the
Presbyterians will surely continue to debate having a new translation, Lee
Barrett, III, Professor of Theology at Lancaster Theological Seminary, has
offered a fine new translation, primarily based on the original German and
Latin texts, and informed by later editions. 
The translation is contemporary but also true to the phrasing of the
original, sometimes retaining those long sentences common to the original
languages.  Those who grew up with the
Catechism in their churches will find a wonderful new translation that they
will recognize, and those new to the Catechism will find it more accessible
than previous translations.

Barrett’s
helpful introduction is an apology for the Catechism itself.  One obvious question is whether the Catechism
is relevant today as a Christian practice. 
For Barrett, the answer is a resounding yes.  Generally stated, a document such as the
Heidelberg Catechism will always be relevant to the contemporary church because
of its relevance and the need for simple doctrinal teaching in an era of postmodern
confusion.

Some of the
debate surrounding the emergent conversation, for example, is around doctrinal
teaching-what is it that "emergents" or "postmodern" Christians really
believe?  For many of us, we have refused
to answer this question, knowing that by creating doctrinal standards, we close
the conversation off on certain topics and certain people.  We also know that many of those who ask
emergents to make doctrinal statements also ask not out of any ecclesiological
or theological curiosity but to doctrinally determine whether emergents are
"Christian" or not.

At the same
time, the emergent movement, generally speaking, may perhaps have a greater
openness to the idea of ‘catechesis’ as a form of worship or spiritual practice
than what might be noticed at first glance. 
The tremendous amount of writing, publishing, blogging, and open
conversation around the emergent experience is that of a learning, reading, and
conversational community-it is a community of interpreters and
interpretation.  A spiritual practice
surrounding catechesis is one that should invite conversation.

But is the
Heidelberg Catechism still relevant?  It
is surprising to me how many churches in the Reformed tradition, especially
United Church of Christ congregations in Pennsylvania,
still today use the Heidelberg Catechism as part of their Sunday worship.  Many of these Pennsylvania churches’ worship traditions
involving the Catechism trace their roots in the Mercersburg Controversy of the
mid-nineteenth century.  This controversy
and its later movement was a liberal approach to reaching out to new converts by
returning to more traditional practices and worship styles while remaining
engaged in contemporary musical and language trends.  Such intentions should sound familiar to, and
carry resonance with, readers of Everyday
Liturgy. 

To this
end, I disagree with Barrett’s position that in these postmodern times
Christians need catechesis to hold onto some certainty against the tehom of confusion.  Rather, it seems to me that we need
Catechesis and to grow in community, learn from traditions, and challenge
ourselves.  The form of the Heidelberg
Catechism is one predisposed to conversation that I do not think necessarily
closes the conversation.  The most famous
part of the Catechism is its first question, "What is your only comfort in life
and death?"  The answer:  "That I belong, both body and soul and in
life and in death, not to myself, but to my faithful savior Jesus Christ"
(29).  What this means and how this belief might manifest itself can certainly take
different forms for any Christian community. 
As Barrett points out (24-25), the nature of God in philosophical
terminology is left out throughout the Catechism, suggesting that its authors
knew better than to make something resembling the documents following the
Council of Trent.  Instead, the focus is
on the "comfort" that faith brings, rather than the intellectual complexities
that are often said to qualify the Christian faith.

Finally, I
suggest that a new look at the Heidelberg Catechism remind us that Catechesis
is a spiritual practice.  I do not
necessarily think that many Christian communities might benefit from writing
their own catechism, but many might find good conversations around the way that
the Heidelberg Catechism was written-which was intended to be a devotional
tool.  (The Catechism itself organized
into fifty-two sets of questions and answers for the fifty-two weeks of the
calendar.)  At the same time, by thinking
through these questions, it may be helpful for small groups to define what
questions are their questions and which ones are not, and how living these
questions has meaning.  The answers will
likely be lived responses rather than written statements to be read 450 years
later.