|
The following is a well thought out article by Rev. Theodore Allwardt
(published in the latest issue of Christian News cnmail@fidnet.com
) defending the change in the Nicene Creed from "who for us men"
to "who for us human beings." Reclaim News has published a
number of articles in opposition to this change and the other proposed
change, "who for us."
The Commission on Worship is proposing a change in the Nicene Creed in the
next hymnal from, "who for us men" to "who for us" or
"who for us human beings."
In our opinion, Allwardt has made the most cogent and reasoned defense for
this change. He has not challenged the necessity of Christ being a
human male for our salvation or questioned Adam being the cause for the fall
of the human race.
In fact, Allwardt's position is so clear this writer is half willing to
concede the debate on the points that he raises.
If Allwardt can refute our objections that will be raised in reply to this
article we will concede the debate. At this time, our opposition to
the change is based on Christ's use of the words "men" and
"man" in the New Testament.
TRANSLATING THE CREED
Luther Did It!
By: Rev. Theodore Allwardt
For those upset with the proposal to change the wording of the Nicene Creed
by dropping the word "men" in the phrase, "for us men",
please consider our current wording of the Nicene Creed and the Apostles'
Creed regarding the "Church".
According to our official Lutheran Confessions (see Triglotta) the Latin of
the Nicene Creed says: "unam, sanctam, catholicam et apostolicam
ecclesiam", which is then translated officially as: "one
holy Catholic and Apostolic Church." The German, however, says:
"eine einige, heilige, christliche, apostolische Kirche", which is
translated (and which we currently use in our Small Catechism and hymnals):
"one holy Christian and Apostolic Church."
Exactly the same pattern is followed in the Apostles' Creed; Latin and
official English say "Catholic" - German and currently used say
"Christian".
How could Luther and the reformers have done such a thing? They
changed the wording of the Creeds!
Answer: translating from one language into another means not merely a
slavish exchange of words, but how to communicate the truth to individuals
in a way that they will clearly understand without confusion.
Therefore, as I remember being taught at the Seminary nearly 50 years ago,
Luther and the reformers agreed that the word "catolische" would
confuse the common folks, who then would think along these lines: so
our church isn't really a church, because we aren't "catholic",
but "Lutheran"; therefore, they substituted the word "christliche/Christian"
for "catolische/catholic" in order to give the real meaning to the
people. Even today many pastors, when using the Athanasian Creed,
clearly state: the word "catholic" here does not refer to a
denomination, but to the "universally accepted"
Christian faith.
Which means that the principle to follow always is: what actually is
understood by the average person, when a word is used. Which means that it
makes no difference why the average person has that understanding - it just
is!
Specific example: the King James translates 1 Thessalonians 4:15 in
this way: "we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the
Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep". That word
"prevent" at the time of the translation meant: "go
ahead of". No one understands it that way any more; instead
"prevent" means: "keep a person from doing
something". Therefore, we don't use the word "prevent"
in that verse or, if quoting the KJV, we stop and explain it.
Otherwise, the average person listening becomes completely confused by
his/her modern understanding of that word.
Similarly with the word "men": like it or not and even
though we have to recognized that it is because of the protests of women who
have felt denigrated by strictly male terminology, the word "men"
is commonly understood to refer to "males" (even though it
previously was commonly understood to refer to "human beings"
according to its contextual use). The understanding of that word has
changed. That's reality!
So, shall we blindly insist on using a word that is not properly understood,
and which not only confuses people, but offends them even to the point of
giving the devil opportunity to turn them away from the message of the
Gospel that Jesus came for the sins of all people, male and female alike? Is
this sharing the good news or driving people from it?
I do not know enough about the etymology of words to know whether Pastor
Mark Eddy's article about "Mensch" vs. "Mann",
"homo" "vir", and "anthrwpos" vs.
"androus" is completely accurate. But his theology is
absolutely correct. Jesus came for all of us humans in our sins.
So, are we going to clearly communicate that blessed fact? Or are we
going to confuse and offend significant numbers of people (male as well as
female, actually) by continuing to use a word which does not communicate the
truth to them?
Frankly, Pastor Eddy's suggestion that instead of just dropping the word
"men" (in order to say merely: "Who for us and our
salvation"), we should make the creed crystal clear by using the
phrase: "Who for us human beings", seems to be the best
solution which I have heard.
Our mission is both: keep the message straight and get the message
out. Making the suggested change in the wording of the Nicene Creed will do
both.
|
|