It’s encouraging to the see the TGC talking about the importance of catechesis. I was encouraged when The Resurgence did a series on the Heidelberg Catechism (which I can’t find now) and it’s encouraging to see Carl Trueman’s new book, The Creedal Imperative. One might give a somewhat different list of Reformed catechisms than Tim Keller does in his brief encouragement. Richard Baxter (1615–91) was not Reformed and we need to stop calling him Reformed. Anyone as confused as Baxter was about the “article by which the church stands or falls” (justification) can hardly be called “Reformed.” Nevertheless, his main points stand:
…in the evangelical Christian world today the practice of catechesis, particularly among adults, has been almost completely lost.
and
The catechetical discipline of memorization drives concepts in deep, encouraging meditation on truth.
Amen. One of the first things the Protestants did was to confess the faith, as churches, and to instruct children and adults in the basics of the Christian faith through the use of questions and answers or catechisms. Luther published two catechisms in 1529 (the Large and Small). Calvin published two catechisms for Geneva. The Palatinate Church published the Heidelberg Catechism in 1563. The Church of England adopted a catechism (1549). There were many (now) lesser known catechisms written by a variety of figures (e.g., Johannes a Lasko) through the sixteenth century that were used by churches locally or regionally.
So, TGC is on firm historical footing when they advocate for a return to more serious catechesis. Clearly the flannel graphs and power point haven’t done the job. Catechesis and confession also follows a biblical pattern. See Recovering the Reformed Confession for more on this.
The issue here is not the creation of a new confession or catechism. One of the burdens of RRC was to argue the case for a new confession (and catechism). We may be sure that our confessing forebears would be quite surprised that we have gone this long without confessing the faith again in response to the issues facing the visible church in our own time.
What might give one pause, however, is the prospect of an organization such as TGC writing and publishing a summary of the faith. To be sure, as noted above, private individuals have written documents that became major ecclesiastical documents. Guido de Bres was a French-Speaking Reformed pastor in the Lowlands (Belgium) when he wrote what became known as the Belgic Confession. He wrote it as a pastor but it was not drafted by a commission of the church. The Second Helvetic Confession was written by Heinrich Bullinger (1504–75) was a private work that became an ecclesiastical document. Nevertheless, there are differences between these examples listed above and the TGC project just announced.
The main concern is that TGC comprises folk who do not confess the same understanding of the church and sacraments. Some Reformed and covenantal in their reading of redemptive history and, as a consequence, reach a certain view of the sacraments. TGC also embraces teachers who read redemptive history quite differently and thus have reached rather different views regarding the church and sacraments.
Typically Protestant catechisms contain expositions of the Decalogue (Ten Commandments), the Apostles’ Creed, and the Lord’s Prayer. They contain summaries of the Gospel (the Creed), the moral norms of the Christian life (the law), and an account of Christian piety (the Lord’s Prayer). The sections on the church and sacraments are usually placed under the Creed, under the 9th article, “the Holy Catholic Church.” The Reformed understanding holds that salvation is, by divine ordination, administered through the visible, institutional church. We confess that the visible church is a divinely established institution.
In Belgic Confession article 28, the Reformed Churches confess:
We believe that since this holy assembly and congregation is the gathering of those who are saved and there is no salvation apart from it, no one ought to withdraw from it, content to be by himself, regardless of his status or condition.
The Westminster Standards confess the very same doctrine in Westminster Confession of Faith 25.2 when it re-states Cyprian’s dictum: ”out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.”
The point here is that, according to the Reformed churches in the British Isles and Europe, the doctrines of church and sacraments are essential to instruction in the Christian faith. This is why the various confessional traditions produced their own documents that reflected their particular reading of redemptive history, their hermeneutic, and their understanding of the Biblical teaching on church and sacraments.
When an organization that is Together for the Gospel but not together regarding the church and sacraments, where and in which the gospel is administered, what can they confess about those issues that separate the various members ecclesiastically? One fears that, in order to satisfy the needs of such an ecumenical organization, the temptation will be to downplay church and sacraments or else to create two parallel catechisms, one for those who confess the Reformed faith and those who affirm elements of the Reformed faith but who dissent from the Reformed ecclesiology and theology and practice of the sacraments.
Finally, regular readers of TCG have reason to wonder whether their recent pattern of publishing articles by the leading proponent of the Federal Vision signals a shift in how they define the gospel and whether their new inclusiveness will include a nod to the Federal Vision.
Anytime a parachurch movement gains more attention than the local body is disturbing. When church members look to virtual blog-pastor-celebrities for wisdom and truth more than their session/consistory of elders it is troubling. We should be looking to the faith and confession of our church for our unity and encouragement. When we do our churches will be stronger and find less of a need for these other movements.
Thanks Michial. Will this step move TGC closer toward becoming a denom? They use the word “association” now on the website.
I also think its exciting that the idea of catechesis is being rediscovered. I’ve come over from broad evangelicalism and really appreciate the reformed confessions of faith. I do wish that the NAPARC churches would work together to modernize the wording so they would be more understandable to average people.
Do we lose something if we ditch “want of conformity” and just say “not conforming”? Is is o.k. to say “effective” in place of “effectual”?
Any change of NAPARC folks writing a new confession of faith Dr. Clark? I know you and others have spoken on the validity of this before.
Mark,
The usual process is to write a confession then a catechism to teach it. They are exceptions. It is more difficult to write a catechism than a confession.
Maybe this move will stimulate us to work together?
Thanks for writing this
Blessings
Joe
Pingback: Trans-Confessional Catechism? via The Heidel Blog | Pilgrimage to Geneva
I would be totally on board if we were to confess The Faith anew.
If the URCNA and the OPC can work on a common songbook at the Synodical and General Assembly levels shouldn’t we ought to be able to at least contemplate working on a new confession and catechism… at least work toward it?
It is interesting that we’re working toward common songs before a common confession. I’m glad for that but a bit sad about that at the same time.
I know… OPC + URCNA + producing a common confession = A nice dream but will probably never happen. Bummer.
Hey Brad!
Blessings on your church planting. Keep us posted. We (editorially) are all about church planting in the Mountain West and the Great Plains. Maybe all that church planting energy in the Rockies will slide down the slope eastward to Nebraska, Kansas etc? Nebraska esp. is bereft of confessional Reformed Churches (though we’re grateful for the good work done in the Sandhills and surrounding environs by the PCA!). It’s the great open space to Kearney and thence to Omaha/Lincoln that needs to be filled.
Songs teach doctrine, and the church fails in its obligation to catechize its people when it uses lyrics which are not properly vetted. I say BRAVO to OPC & URCNA for this effort.
Garage bands are not usually a good source for reliable doctrinal teaching.
I recently read the Westminster Larger and Shorter Catechims and I am halfway through the Westminster Catechism of Faith.
I have read through the three forms of unity quite a few times, and I am currently studying the Heidelberg Catechism along with the Westminster stuff.
For me, I feel that it is important to really get into this along with the Word of God on a daily basis.
The Catechisms are structered in such a way that it is easy to teach sound doctrine to my children. It really helps in teaching the Word of God in a sound and easy to understand format!
That’s very encouraging Lloyd. Teach ‘em young. Have ‘em memorize a catechism. Here’s an essay on that topic.
Scott, your words –
One fears that, in order to satisfy the needs of such an ecumenical organization, the temptation will be to downplay church and sacraments or else to create two parallel catechisms…
- are more of a given, unfortunately. Any other, when acting for or in place of the church (Christendom, Monarchy as Supreme Governor), eventually dilutes the true doctrine of Christ. Doesn’t history teach us that God’s people have been unable to wear two hats (church and other), be it church and King or church and TGC, without attending to other concerns that impinged on right doctrine and right practice?
Thanks for calling us to the confessions and to renewed catechesis.
Wait, you mean the author of The Reformed Pastor isn’t Reformed???
Indeed. Morally, yes but theologically, no.
“I was encouraged when The Resurgence did a series on the Heidelberg Catechism (which I can’t find now) “
It does appear to be gone, but I have that audio, if you want it.
Thanks Chuck. That’s fine. I’ve got lots to listen to! Wonder why they took it down. I see that they have the HC up.
Dr. Clark,
I do see it as a step towards some new definition of a denomination or association of independent baptistic churches. Confessions and denominations seem historically to be related so it could end up working out that a vague confession would give definition to some type of so-called little R “reformed” non-denominational evangelicalism.
The TGC and T4G seem like, with a few exceptions, to already be a type of a soft reformed baptist amalgamation, but not detailed enough to go beyond a general Amyrauldianism or some other form of calvinistic soteriology. It wouldnt shock me if the fractures in the SBC over calvinism, due to the already vague Baptist Faith and Message, result in a future merging with Acts 29 into a newer vague Gospel Coalition denomination.
Hopefully they will not call it a “R”eformed denomination, and will stop quoting Calvin and Edwards in their pulpits, and all the other so-called unbaptized and ineligible for membership “R”eformed giants of the faith.
Question: Do we know which catechism that Baxter would have used?
Was looking through The Reformed Pastor, but did not notice anything that would indicate which one it may have been.
(What was his view of justification?)
Hi Andy,
I think he wrote two so I guess he used one of them. The Reformed Pastor isn’t that problematic but his view of justification, about which he wrote at great length, is highly suspect to put it mildly. Owen’s vol. 5 (works) is essentially a refutation.
There’s a section on Baxter in CJPM. Take a look at it.
Andy,
Pastor Michael Brown discusses Baxter’s view on Justification here
http://www.christurc.org/audio_files/adult_catechism/other-speakers/2011-01-23-brown-chm.mp3
Thank you both!
Thank you Dr. Clark for the link!
Pastor Michael Brown also has a very helpful article on Richard Baxter’s view of justification here: http://www.blog.christurc.org/2011/02/11/not-by-faith-alone-the-neonomianism-of-richard-baxter/
Pingback: The New City Catechism is out! « A Twisted Crown of Thorns ®
Pingback: Non-Westminster Catechism | The Confessional Outhouse
Pingback: Trans-Confessional Catechism? (2) A Review | Heidelblog