What Do We Want for Our Covenant Children: Programs or Biblical Content?

It could possibly be the understatement of the 21^st century to assert that catechizing young people has fallen into disrepute. “Programs” is the watchword d’ jour, but few pause to ask about the content of these programs. Moreover, as often as not, children are dictating to their parents what they want and, worse yet, the parents are succumbing to the pressures of their children. When you stop and think about it, which far too few do, this is an absurd situation, one in which the male leadership role is turned on its head. Parents ought to be the more mature ones with more life experience than the children, but sadly, this is not always the case. Yet this should come as no surprise since many husbands and fathers have long since abdicated their leadership roles and have opted rather to be “friends” with their children.

Combine this with the crass misconceptions that catechizing young people is either too hard for them or that it is merely a remnant of the Roman Catholic Church and you have a recipe for neglect and disaster. In reality, both are incorrect. Children have a high capacity to learn, so the available catechisms are not too hard for them. Historically, catechism has been around since the time of Moses, as we shall observe. During the period of time known as the Reformation, virtually every Reformed pastor cobbled together a catechism for the children of the congregation. It is more than just a little ironic that Christian parents are carping and complaining that the evangelical youth today is ill-prepared for the rigors of college life and the almost unrelenting assaults by professors on the Christian life and worldview of the students. They are lacking a “framework” to understand the overall picture of the history of God’s redemption in the Bible.

My plea in this article is for a return to a deliberate catechizing of covenant children beginning around age three and continuing throughout life. I will be making use of several works that give us a favorable view of catechizing young people and that attempt to convey to the reader the indispensable nature of parents catechizing themselves and their children. My thesis for this article is taken from an article by Givens Strickler, who said, “Teaching, by the catechetical method, has marked the history of the church almost from the beginning down to the present time. Strickler’s statement might come as a shock to a number of people who believe that catechetical instruction is of recent vintage, or that it was only performed in the Roman Catholic Church. Both are misconceptions. Skeptics might think that Strickler is grasping at straws to make a point, so it will behoove us to follow him in his argument to see if what he says is correct.

At the outset, he cites two biblical texts to shore up his argument: Deuteronomy 6:6-7 and Exodus 12:26-27. The biblical requirement to teach our covenant children diligently has been lost on the evangelical community, and it is rapidly losing ground and favor in Presbyterian churches as well. Few have “programs” that adequately teach the covenant children of the church, and far too few parents take this role seriously at home. The context of the two previously mentioned texts deals with the commandments of God for our lives as well as the Passover. Strickler writes,

In these instances, in order to give children the full and accurate instruction they needed about the commandments of the Lord referred to, and about the important sacrament instituted in the church in the Passover, it was necessary that a number of questions should be asked and answered, and then, that the truth about these and other subjects, once learned, might not be forgotten, but kept ever fresh in the memory, and in constant and influential contact with the mind and heart, it was necessary that it should frequently be reviewed, that there should be “precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little and there a little.” Thus, we may say, the catechetical method of instruction was instituted at the very beginning of the Mosaic dispensation.

There is adequate evidence that just prior to New Testament times there were numerous catechetical Bible schools in all the synagogues. The historian, Josephus, claims that they had been in existence since the time of Moses. It seems that a great deal of time was spent in these schools on the teaching of the Ten Commandments. Strickler adds, “It seems to be evident, then, that such schools were in existence at our Saviour’s advent.” It should be added that not only were they in existence, but also that they were regarded as an integral part of Judaism and an essential and indispensable aspect of its welfare. To put it in modern terms, the families of Israel did not consider sending their children to Philistine worship simply because the Philistines had better youth programs.

What this means specifically and concretely is that what was taught in those schools was essential to the life of Judaism and that “the true guardians of the country were the teachers of those schools.” It was a settled conviction that “if any one would destroy the Jews, he must first destroy their schools.” Strickler surely captures the intrinsic importance of what can truly be termed “catechetical schools” for the life of the Jewish community. His statement has far-reaching implications and applications for Christian parents today and their respective school choices.

Let me explain this point as pastorally as I can. If parents make a decision to place their child(ren) in a school (secular, private, or Christian) that teaches against what is being taught in the home, they are placing their child at a disadvantage. If, for example, parents are teaching that God created all things and that man is created in the image of God, yet the school their child attends teaches that belief in God is for those who are only semi-literate and that man evolved from slime, then those parents are in for an uphill battle. Strickler’s point is well-taken and serves as an apt warning. It ought to give us a lot to ponder when making our parental school choices. The view of the ancients was that the best way to destroy Judaism was to destroy the schools where they learned (and re-learned) about the true and living God. Nebuchadnezzar understood this principle well and attempted to implement an indoctrination program among the exiles (cf. Dan. 1:1-7). In light of the centrality of catechetical training in ancient Israel, Strickler does not hesitate to state, “There seems thus to be clear evidence that the catechetical method of teaching had marked the history of the church from the beginning of the Mosaic dispensation down to the inauguration of the new.” It was of such key importance that one of the religious laws of the ancient Jews was that “no one should live in a place where one of those schools had not been established.”

Even though it is acknowledged by all that with the New Testament the theocracy of Israel changed to the universality of the Church, including both Jews and Gentiles, this does not mean that everything changed. In the midst of this transition there was a clear and discernible carry-over from the Old to the New Testament. The apostles, as well as the Lord Jesus himself, were accustomed to this type of biblical instruction. Strickler opines, “No doubt the apostles themselves had learned much that they knew about the Old Testament Scriptures in such schools, and, therefore, when they became disciples, and were commanded by the Saviour to go forth and make known the great truths of the gospel which they had learned from him, we may be sure that they made use of the catechetical method, with which they were already so familiar.” In other words, Strickler points to an over-arching continuity between the testaments. Without doubt, he realizes and teaches a certain discontinuity as well, but he makes the very valid point that many of the words and concepts that appear in the New Testament find their roots and understanding in the Old.

To his mind, this involves the distinction that is made between “teaching” and “preaching.” Here is the manner in which he differentiates those two words:

It is said that our Saviour went about “teaching” in their synagogues, and “preaching” the gospel of the kingdom, that the apostles ceased not to “teach” and to “preach” Jesus as the Christ; that on one occasion Paul and Barnabas tarried at Antioch “teaching” and “preaching” the word of the Lord. Thus a distinction is sometimes made between teaching and preaching, and, no doubt, in such instances, by teaching is meant the catechetical method, the method of question and answer, while by preaching is meant the public formal continuous discourse, to which the same term is still applied. There seems to be no reason to doubt, then, that the catechetical method of teaching was in use under the old dispensation, and that it passed over from the old into the new.

Thus, when we consider the content of New Testament teaching, we must ponder what was taught regarding the fulfillment of the Old Testament promises, the continuity between circumcision and baptism on the one hand and Passover and the Lord’s Supper on the other. Most certainly, the resurrection and ascension of the Lord Jesus would have comprised a large portion of their teaching. This method of instruction passed over into the early church period. Celsus, a powerful and unrelenting opponent of Christianity was forced to confess that Christians propagated religion through their schools. Historian Philip Schaff chronicles that in “about three centuries the whole population of the Roman empire was nominally Christianized; and that this great achievement was wrought by the divinely approved plan of ‘the child-reaching and child-teaching methods’ of which the church made use.” Students of church history will recall reading about “the catechumenate” or classes of “catechumens.” Strickler concludes that this catechetical method was “one of the grand instrumentalities by which the church was spread abroad over the world, and by which her conquests were preserved, and converted into the means of future and still greater victories.”

By the time of the dawn of the period known as the Reformation, one of the first things that each Reformer did was to write a catechism. Luther wrote two catechisms as did Calvin. Others such as Bucer, Oecolampadius, Jud, Zwingli, Bullinger, Capito, Farel, and a host of others followed suit. Strickler’s assertion concerning the central place of catechetical training during the Reformation is clearly supported by Hughes Oliphant Old’s excellent chapter, “Catechetical Instruction” in his monograph on the baptismal rite in the 16^th century. Old is convinced that “the sign of baptism administered at the beginning of the Christian life entails Christian education, profession of faith, witness before the world, and the life of prayer.” These pastors penned not only shorter catechisms designed to be age-appropriate for the youth, but they also endeavored to write larger catechisms “designed primarily for parents and others charged with giving religious instruction to children.” Leo Jud’s writings clearly indicate his intent in writing these catechisms. The goal was to present a “Christian, clear, and simple introduction in the will and in the grace of God, whereby not only the youth, but also the parents may be taught.” Old adds that a preface written by Henry Bullinger, who was Zwingli’s successor in Zürich, emphasized “the responsibility God has given parents to provide Christian instruction for their children.”

A good illustration of the importance of catechetical instruction during the Reformation generally is ensconced in the concept of Kinderbericht (child instruction). Old explains that in 1526 the children of Strasbourg received catechism classes based on an explanation of the Apostles’ Creed, the Ten Commandments, and the Lord’s Prayer. A year later, in 1527, Wolfgang Capito published his Kinderbericht und fragstuck, which was, essentially, a protracted discussion of the Apostles’ Creed. Eventually explanations of the sacraments in general and the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper were added to various catechisms stemming from the Reformation. Strasbourg led the way in catechetical instruction, led by its pastors and school system. Everyone received catechism instruction in the Church, but also at the schools. It was “all-cat-all- the-time.” This approach bore invaluable fruit for the youth of each congregation.

During his first pastoral labors in Geneva, Calvin had penned his Ecclesiastical Articles (1537), where he had proposed the reinstitution of catechetical instruction as it had been practiced by the ancient Church. As he spoke about the instruction of the children, he affirmed the following about their obligation after baptism. The youth were, according to Calvin, those “who, without doubt, owe to the Church a confession of their faith. For this reason it was the ancient practice to have a kind of catechism for the instruction of each child in the fundamentals of the Christian religion and which was a sort of formula which each person used for professing his faith, and particularly when the children had been taught the catechism it became the profession of faith before the Church which they had not been able to make at the time of their baptism.” Calvin reiterated the need for catechetical instruction after he returned to Geneva from Strasbourg in 1541. Throughout his career, the Reformer remained an avid proponent of teaching the catechism to the youth as we shall see in just a moment.

With this in mind, Hughes Old is convinced that “the purpose of catechetical instruction was to prepare young people to make a public profession of their faith before the Church. Calvin clearly understands this as the baptismal profession of faith.” Old writes, “When Calvin returned to Geneva in 1541, the establishment of a regular program of catechetical instruction was one of his initial projects.” Calvin’s Ecclesiastical Ordinances, written near the end of 1541, describe a midday catechism service held for all the children in all the parish churches.

The Prominent Place of Catechism

The divines at the Westminster Assembly followed in the footsteps of the ancient church and did not deviate from their practice regarding catechism. Thus, Strickler is confident that from the time of the ancient church down to the Westminster Assembly, “the catechetical method of instruction has been employed by the church in doing her great work.” Then he pens these words that he italicized, “this mode of teaching has resting upon it the unqualified endorsement of the church in all ages, especially in her best ages; and it has been one of the most efficient of all the agencies which God has made use of to secure those blessed results by which the past history of the church has been marked. He makes such assertions because he is convinced that catechetical instruction is “the best mode for giving thorough religious instruction.”

In order to understand the purpose of the Westminster divines, we need to take a short trip back in history. The Westminster Assembly originally convened on July 1, 1643. Their task was to revise the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England. They progressed through fifteen articles and were into the month of October, when their work was interrupted. The signing of the Solemn League and Covenant (SLC) presented the divines with new tasks as the intent of the SLC was to unify the worship practices in England, Scotland, and Ireland. It is all but forgotten, since too few continue to read about the history of the Westminster Assembly, but four items loomed large on their agenda: the Confession of Faith, the Form of Church Government, the Directory for Public Worship, and Catechizing. These components or elements came to be known as “the four points or parts of uniformity.”

It is a known fact that the Westminster Assembly was dependent upon a number of sources, not least of which was James Ussher’s A Body of Divinity. Ussher’s words are instructive and it will behoove us to take a few moments and listen to what he says. His book is written in what can quite rightly be called a “catechetical” style, namely by questions and answers. Under his first head of doctrine he asks, “What is the Christian Religion?” His answer is, “It is the acknowledgment of the only true God, and of Jesus Christ whom he has sent.” Ussher then probes further and inquires, “What do you call that Doctrine which shows the way unto everlasting Life and Happiness?” to which he replies, “It is commonly termed Theology or Divinity and the familiar declaration of the Principles thereof (for the use especially of the ignorant) is called Catechizing, Heb. 5:12-14 & 6:1-2.” For those of us interested in the undertaking of catechizing the youth and adults, we are curious to know precisely what catechism is. Ussher provides this answer to the question, “What is Catechizing? A teaching by Voice and Repetition of the Grounds of Christian Religion, Gal. 6:6; Acts 18:25-26; 1 Cor. 14:19.”

After having laid this foundation, Ussher goes on to flesh out his initial theses. He anticipates our question: Where should catechism take place and by whom? He insists that there are two particular places where catechism is especially appropriate: In the home and at the local congregation. He answers that catechism should occur “both at home by the Master of the House, and in the Church likewise by the Minister.” When it is asked why catechism should take place at home, Ussher replies, “Because Houses are the Nurseries of the Church.” In his epistle to the reader of the Westminster Standards, Thomas Manton quips that the home is the seminary of both Church and State. Thus, whether we conceive of the home as a nursery or a seminary, the point is very well taken that the home has a central and indispensable place in the catechizing of children. The presupposition is that the adults will catechize themselves in order to be acquainted with the framework of Christian doctrine and then that they, in turn, will catechize their children.

In all, Ussher gives six reasons for the necessity of catechizing and instructing in the Christian religion. In the first place, he argues that God required it of Abraham (cf. Gen. 18:19). It is noteworthy that this instruction which God commands Abraham to perform with his children follows closely on the heels of God giving the Old Testament sign and seal of the covenant of grace: circumcision, in Genesis 17.

Second, Ussher is convinced that God commands all parents everywhere “to perform this Duty to their Children.” (cf. Deut. 6:6-7; Eph. 6:4.) We shall have the opportunity to return to the text in Deuteronomy in a while, but suffice it to say at this juncture that this was an especially important text for the Reformers.

This command is given rationale in Ussher’s third point which deals with the problem of original sin. Here he comments, “All Children are made blind in the knowledge of God and of Religion by Adam’s fall; and consequently they must be enlightened and informed by teaching, if they will not die so; which Solomon commands, Prov. 22:6 and our Savior Christ bids children be respected, Mark 10:14-15, 19.”

Fourth, Ussher attests various examples of the need to catechize from both the Old as well as the New Testament. “The Examples of the Godly for this Duty, in bringing their children with themselves to Holy Exercises. So Hannah brought up Samuel to the Tabernacle, 1 Sam. 1:24, and Mary Jesus to the Temple when he was twelve years old, Luk. 2:42, by which we perform the effect of Consecrating our Children to God, Ex. 13.”

Ussher’s fifth reason is taken from what he calls “common equity.” That is, as their children receive the effects of original sin from their parents, by which they are made spiritually blind, “It is equity they should labor to remove that blindness, by teaching them after God’s Word.”

Finally, Ussher appeals to God’s covenantal promise when he states, “God promises as the greatest blessing to Men, that their Children should speak of him under the Gospel, Joel 2:28, Acts 2.”

Interestingly, Ussher anticipates the objection that you simply cannot teach an old dog new tricks. I do not want to put words in his mouth, but I am confident that he might reply that we are not referring here either to dogs or to tricks. We are discussing teaching human beings a framework whereby they can understand the gospel and the doctrine discussed in the sermons. Here are Ussher’s exact words: “But is it not some disgrace and baseness, that Men of years and place should be catechized? If Men will be Christians, which is their greatest honor, they must hold it no disgrace to learn Christ. Noble Theophilus held it none, who was thus catechized, as Luke shows, Chap. 1:4, likewise Apollos, Acts 18:26.”

Ussher’s appeal to Apollos is an interesting and informative one, not least of which because some modern Christians ask how it was that Priscilla could “instruct” Apollos according to Acts, whereas Paul forbids instruction in 1 Timothy 2:12. There, what the Holy Spirit prohibits are both teaching (didáskein; διδάσκειν) and exercising authority over a man (authenteîn; αὐθεντεῖν). It is noteworthy that the word that Luke employs in Acts 18:26 is “explained” (akrisbēs; ἀκριβής). The difference is significant. In informal settings, women are permitted to explain carefully or even catechize, whereas in formal worship they may not exercise the highest type of teaching authority.

Therefore, what the Westminster Assembly did in putting together the Westminster Shorter Catechism was not really new or different. The late Dr. John Leith is correct when he observes, “The phrases of the Westminster Shorter Catechism can be duplicated phrase by phrase from earlier catechisms.” Thus, the compilation of the Westminster Shorter Catechism was dependent on the history of catechetical instruction, demonstrating the place and value of previous creeds. Leith further observes that the theological language at the assembly made use of the “common vocabulary of theologians and laymen alike.” He then quips, “In the increasingly pluralistic culture of our time, it is difficult to imagine the power of such a common theological vocabulary and commitment.” Yo! He right. I down wid him on dat! Sup? Indeed. Nevertheless, we do have access to the Westminster Shorter Catechism and rather than pine away about how things might be in the 21^st century, we would be very prudent to make use of the clear and concise theological language handed down to us in this catechism. Precision in speech is all but completely lost, yet a wise congregation and wise parents would do exceedingly well to train their youth in the language of the Westminster Standards. Moreover, this would have the added advantage of giving them a “framework” or “frame of reference” to assimilate and understand biblical truth/doctrine taught from the pulpit in the sermons, as well as in Sunday School classes.

Even though they are increasingly falling into lack of use, wise P.C.A. pastors and other Elders would do well to utilize both the Westminster Larger Catechism as well as the Westminster Shorter Catechism in their instruction. The intent of the divines regarding the Larger Catechism was that it “was designed chiefly as a directory for ministers in their teaching of the reformed faith Sunday by Sunday.” The Shorter Catechism, then, was directed to the young or “to those of weaker capacity.” Pedagogically, Lazarus Seaman captures the goal of the Shorter Catechism when he states, “That the greatest care should be taken to frame the answer not according to the model of the knowledge the child has, but according to what the child ought to have.” This is a crucial place to pause and reflect because it touches on the essence of what I want to say about the value of catechetical instruction and what I consider to be a major problem among parents today when it comes to making a church choice for their family.

The first paragraph of the Belgic Confession is quite instructive here, so I will quote it at length. Article 28 deals with the concept that everyone is bound to join himself to the true church. This kind of statement, in and of itself, raises eyebrows. If you live in the South, the response might be, “Say what?” When was the last time you were among Christian friends and one of them, who had just left a congregation announced, “Please pray for Betty, me, and the children. We just left ABC Church and we are engaged in seeking out, finding, and then attaching ourselves to the most biblical church we can find.” As often as not, what one hears is that dad and mom (probably more accurately mom and dad) are looking for a local church with a good youth program for junior, because junior, who is a teenager, refuses to get a summer job, yet finds about eight hours a day to play on the family computer. Clearly, this type of thing is indicative of many, many problems at home. Lest you think that my imagination is running away with me, I took this particular example from a group discussion among Christian moms on Facebook.

Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that this particular family locates such a congregation. It’s not hard to do. Junior is entertained for four to five years and attends “youth church” with the youth pastor. Let’s also say that there is actually some biblical content in the course of junior’s stay in the youth program. He will emerge from there with the bare minimum of Christian content and understanding. Here’s the dirty little secret: Even though most congregations will not advertise this, a large representation of youth pastors have no idea what they are doing, except that they realize they are babysitters, fun seekers, and people who are there to keep the numbers up. As an older pastor, I have a lot of dealings with younger colleagues. The churches that called them have little idea what they are to be looking for in a pastor and once the pastor accepts the call, he has precious little idea what he’s suppose to do. For instance, just recently I have had two pastors, one young, the other in his forties, sit down with me and ask me to explain what it means to be a pastor of a congregation. But I digress. What does the Belgic Confession have to teach us on the point of church choice?

Here is what the author offers, “We believe, since this holy congregation is an assembly of those who are saved, and outside of it there is no salvation, that no person of whatsoever state or condition he may be, ought to withdraw from it, content to be by himself; but that all men are in duty bound to join and unite themselves with it; maintaining the unity of the Church; submitting themselves to the doctrine and discipline thereof; bowing their necks under the yoke of Jesus Christ; and as mutual members of the same body, serving to the edification of the brethren, according to the talents God has given them.” (Emphasis added.)

Let’s return to our pretend conversation in the den or living room. What would be the response if paraphrased with the words of the Belgic Confession to your “seeking” friends about searching out, finding, and attaching yourself to the most biblical church you can find first and foremost? You really do not have to have much of an imagination to answer that question. As a pastor, I have watched many parents succumb to the pressure of “youth programs.” The typical result is that their children end up being “nice” in a majority of cases, at least until they go away to a secular university. I have not found, however, that their children are biblically knowledgeable. What if, in the course of this fabricated conversation you suggested that your friends find a church where the Westminster Shorter Catechism was taught to the youth? Once again, it is not difficult to imagine getting the deer-in-the-headlights look. What? Are you out of your mind? Catechism? What could be more boring than that? The kids would be bored out of their tree! Those responses actually say a great deal more about dad and mom than they do about the inherent, intrinsic, and explicit value of catechetical instruction.

Now let’s look at the concept of catechetical instruction from another angle, returning to Strickler’s evaluation. The great value of the Westminster Shorter Catechism, he states, is that its questions go down to the very roots of the subject. Moreover, he argues, the catechism “furnishes the best opportunity for accurate instruction.” He then presents a litany of advantages prefaced by the words, “Nothing but the truth…” that can be summarized in the sentence, “Nothing but the truth is of any value anywhere.” This being the case, Strickler concludes that, “The catechetical method of teaching, it is evident, can secure this end much more perfectly than any other.” During his day—and in our time as well—much of congregational worship was conducted in a form of what Strickler calls “public discourse.” In essence, this means that the congregation is passive, merely listening, while someone disseminates information. This can be a Sunday School teacher, a pastor, a praise band, liturgical dance, or a “slice-of-life” skit or drama. While I thoroughly disagree with praise bands, liturgical dance, and skits/dramas, they do fall under the general definition of “public discourse.” The same holds true, I hasten to add, for any youth program that aims to entertain generally.

The conservative author and columnist, Ann Coulter, makes some very interesting points in her latest book that I would like to adapt for my purposes here. One of her main theses is derived from a book written near the close of the nineteenth century by Gustave Le Bon entitled The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind. His study focuses on group behavior and the manipulation that quite often accompanies it. In my book, Reforming or Conforming? I and other authors, who were pastors, scholars, or both, attempted to delineate what kinds of practices are prevalent in much of the so-called emergent church movement today. There is, if you will, a kind of “herd” mentality among the younger participants of that movement. Not only is the theology going from bad to worse, but what used to be termed “peer pressure” is enormous if you’re going to fit in. Coulter argues, convincingly I believe, that much of today’s Groupthink is little more than sloganeering, as is evidenced by the “Co-Exist” bumper sticker. Come to think of it, “bumper sticker religion” is an apt phrase for the majority of youth programs today. Why would any thinking parent desire to put their child in such a “program” just to keep them happy—whatever “happy” means? In this way, many youth programs today, in spite of their superficial attraction to the untaught youth of today, qualify as “public discourse” even though they are accompanied by slick, hi-tech presentations that most certainly appeal, at some level, to today’s youth.

What enhances public discourse enormously is when the listeners have a spiritual frame of reference in order to better comprehend what the contents of any particular public discourse are. Strickler contends that having a sound and proper theological framework offered by the Westminster Shorter Catechism, and then listening to a sermon, for example, possesses “the best opportunity for an efficient practical application of the truth to the spiritual wants of the learner.” In a summary statement, Strickler offers this to the praise and recommendation of catechetical instruction:

Such are some of the reasons why this is the best method of religious instruction. Better than any other method, it secures attention to the subject to be considered, and, more distinctly than any other, makes the learner conscious of his intellectual and spiritual wants; and, besides, furnishes the best opportunity we can have for giving accurate instruction, and for making a seasonable and successful application of the truth to the personal wants of those placed under our care. And it is in such considerations as these that we find the explanation of the great historical fact that this method of teaching has had the unqualified endorsement of the church in all periods of her history, and that God has made so much use of it in the extension of the kingdom of his Son.

While some might accuse Strickler of biased theorizing, he argues that history is on his side as well as both the Old and New Testaments. He points to the “unmistakable experience of the church” to bolster his thesis and it must be admitted that he is quite correct in this. He lists three concrete and specific reasons why catechetical instruction is indispensable for Christ’s Church.

First, it is an undeniable fact “that the great leaders of the church have always relied upon it as the best means for the indoctrination of the people and for fitting them for usefulness.” Allow me to translate this into our modern context. “Fitting people for usefulness” specifically means equipping God’s people to know doctrine and to know how to apply it in every situation. The catechism is designed for this very purpose, containing the essential doctrines of the Christian faith, coupled with a clear explanation of the Ten Commandments, which are the ethical guides for Christians, and a concise explanation of the necessity of prayer. Therefore, if a modern Christian is looking for something “practical” in and for the Christian life, they can do no better than to attach themselves to a body of believers that holds the Bible to be both infallible and inerrant and that catechizes both adults and children.

I began this article discussing how many today seek “programs” to keep their kids happy. This is the exact and entirely wrong approach. If the home is the nursery/seminary for both Church and State, then those “programs” are going to do nothing other than provide babysitting service for adolescents. The net result will be a perpetuation of the ecclesiastical attitude of catering to consumers that scholars like David Wells have repeatedly pointed out to the Church. The modern Church asks, “Do you want more entertainment?” and answers, “Well, we can do that for you; we are pleased and happy to provide you with what you want. We can give you what you want in order to keep you here; we can even give you more of what you want. Why, we stand ready to meet all your needs—real or perceived.”

The great hope and prayer today is that someone, preferably the parents along with pastors and other congregational leaders, will come to their senses sooner rather than later and realize that what they want might be a very far cry from what they actually need. Wells has written against the consumer mentality in the modern Church relentlessly and all of his books are worthy of serious consideration. To some, that raises a problem, doesn’t it? How many evangelical or even Presbyterian and Reformed Christians today are willing to give serious consideration to anything? What is most disconcerting is that far too many have not given a lot of serious consideration to church choice, but instead categorically refuse to do so. As important, essential, and indispensable as Christianity is, why would you not be willing to seek out the very best you can find rather than settling on what is, at best, less than helpful in the long run? Giving serious thought and consideration to where the family worships would provide great spiritual benefits to modern Christian families. They might even acquire a historical consciousness that the Church of God down through the ages has relied heavily upon catechetical instruction and not programs to equip its members.

Strickler cites Martin Luther’s comment that, “Children are the seed of the church, and for the church’s sake Christian schools (catechetical schools) must be established and maintained.” Luther was so adamant on the point of catechetical instruction that he declared no man was fit to become a minister of the gospel of Jesus Christ, who had not proved himself to be a competent catechetical teacher. Similar views were held by Calvin, Beza, Bucer, Zwingli, Bullinger, Capito, Oecolampadius, Farel, Vermigli, Knox, Cranmer, Ridley, Ussher, and others. “They all relied upon this method of instruction for securing satisfactory and lasting results as upon no other."

Second, another proof that catechetical instruction is indispensable is attested by its enemies. Strickler writes, “Another fact is that the excellence of this method is confirmed in a very instructive way by the testimony of the enemies of evangelical truth.” He has the Council of Trent in mind with this statement. The Council did not hesitate to call the Reformers heretics. In addition, they believed that the use of catechisms was the chief method used to corrupt the minds of Christians. This was, without doubt, an accusation born of envy, since the Roman Catholic Church observed the spiritual strides Christians were making who were being catechized and who were catechizing their children.

Third, Strickler points to Christians withstanding persecutions. He argues that evangelical churches have maintained their existence in the face of persecutions at varying times in history, in part “by indoctrinating their children in a knowledge of the truth by the catechetical process.” He cites the historical example of how, in the thirteenth century, Rome sent an emissary to “the Waldenses to ascertain what might be done to win them to its fold. When he returned he reported that by means of catechetical schools the people had been so thoroughly established in their views of truth that they could not be prevailed on to listen to anything else.” This is a vivid example of one of the many benefits that accrues to those who educate their children to be discerning about matters concerning the one true faith in the one true God.

Appreciating the Value of the Catechism

There is a great deal of talk in our time about being “ecclesial” and “missional.” Whatever those two terms actually mean, Strickler anachronistically suggests that the catechism forms provide all that is necessary to be both ecclesial and missional. It is his settled opinion, and this is his fourth point and a major thesis in his article, that the Larger and Shorter Catechisms “already provided, in the best possible form, the matter necessary for this great work.” To explain his point of view, Strickler gives four reasons, the third having three sub-points. We shall look at them briefly in turn.

His first reason is that the catechisms were “most carefully prepared by men fully competent for the task.” We ought to be fully appreciative of the qualifications of those God called to the Westminster Assembly to perform such an important task. Writing in his famous work on the Westminster Assembly, Princeton theologian, B.B. Warfield states, “The consideration given in the Assembly itself to the several heads was very careful and the scrutiny of every clause and word searching. Recommitments, ordinarily at least to special Committees, were frequent: final dissent on the part of individuals was sometimes entered. In a word, time, pains, and scrupulous care were not spared for perfecting the instrument.” When they arrived and assembled, it was evident that a number of them had experience in preparing catechetical instruction because they had written their own and they were “of great excellence for the instruction of their people.” In other words, some of the divines had no only written catechisms, but they had taught them, and had observed the benefit their respective congregations had derived from catechetical instruction.

Moreover, these men were dependent not merely and only on the catechetical material they had produced, but they were also familiar with the rich heritage and history that preceded them. They had poured over the catechisms of Calvin, Bucer, Olevianus, Ursinus, and others. As they gathered in the assembly, it was not as if they desired to jettison the creeds and the history of creeds at some are wont to do. In their appreciation for the rich Reformed heritage they took what they had learned and spent approximately five years in committee work on the two catechisms! In other words, our catechisms were not throw together in a kind of “cut and paste” manner, but rather were the result of a great deal of theological thought by brilliant theological minds, who were comfortable with and adept at training young hearts and mind. The catechisms were, moreover, a collective effort of some of the finest pastors and theologians of their time. The products of their labors were two catechisms that were not only biblically accurate in terms of the doctrines explained, but also they contain those doctrines “in the most accurate forms.”

Strickler’s second point explains the advantages of the catechisms both positively as well as negatively. He states, “Another excellence that our Catechisms possess is that they not only thus state the essential truths of religion with such marvelous accuracy, but that they so state them, that, while expressing them clearly in a positive form, they, at the same time, negatively, at every important point, guard against the most serious errors by which, at those points, they have ever been assailed.” In most recent times, N.T. Wright has decided that the Reformers, to a man, got the central doctrine of justification by faith wrong. Thus, he wrote his book on what St. Paul really said. Ironically, Dr. Wright lands with both feet in the Roman Catholic concept of justification by faith.

Almost simultaneously, a movement known as the Federal Vision has been thrust to the forefront, teaching baptismal regeneration, paedo-communion, the possible loss of one’s salvation, and a final justification that varies from the historical Reformed teaching on the subject. Add to these two the aberrant teachings of the emergent church and the unwillingness of a representative number of mega-churches to teach anything other than John 3:16—that God is only a God of love—and you have a recipe for doctrinal disaster. Both catechisms provide a spiritual bulwark to protect the Christian from being swept away by every wind of faddish doctrine that is being sold like snake oil. The catechisms teach us not to run after faddish theology, but rather to be content with a valid and solid summary of Scripture.

As a conclusion to his second point, Strickler adds, “It equips our people with scriptural tests, in convenient form, and of easy application, by which every erroneous doctrine with which they may be confronted may be tried.”

His third consideration is formulated this way: “Still another excellence of our Catechisms is that they not only state the truth in regard to every essential doctrine in God’s word, but they state it in the form of a complete system, every doctrine in its right place and in its right relations to other doctrines.” What he is contending for here is the unity of the truth of Scripture. What he finds most advantageous is the manner in which the divines brought the teachings into a unified whole and also the way in which they show the relationship of one doctrine to another. He writes, “It is also to be remembered that no truth can be fully understood and appreciated until it is seen, not only in its own light, but in the light of all the other truths to which it stands related.”

This might sound strange to the modern ear, because, as I have mentioned, doctrine tends to be somewhat one-dimensional. Much of modern evangelicalism is disjunctive, disparate, and a study in the discontinuity between the testaments rather than a demonstration of their profound unity. Strickler’s explanation of what I said goes this way: “It is also to be remembered that no truth can be fully understood and appreciated until it is seen, not only in its own light, but in the light of all the other truths to which it stands related.” Again, to the modern Christian mind—if there is one left—this sounds, well, doctrinaire. Concepts such as “related biblical truths” are a foreign notion to many. Their theology is disjunctive and as a necessary result, their ethical Christian life is equally disjunctive. I would submit that one of the reasons there are so many ethical problems in the modern evangelical Church is due to the fact that people do not understand biblical doctrine. The net result is that their lives are often a mess simply because they refuse to learn biblical doctrine.

“Back in the day,” the Reformers incorporated the Ten Commandments in their catechetical instruction precisely because they were convinced that they were one of the best spiritual tools for proper Christian conduct. Today, it is close to a miracle to find a Christian that can name three of four of the Ten Commandments, and please do not ask them to list them in any semblance of order! Far too many who call themselves Christians today are rudderless when it comes to living a distinctively Christian lifestyle and are unable to articulate a biblical life and worldview. Little wonder, then, that they are unfamiliar with the Ten Commandments and their place in the Christian life. They see little or no connection between the relationship of one biblical doctrine to another or to how a biblical doctrine has any association with ethical behavior.

At the heart of the matter is the question of whether memorizing, say, the Westminster Shorter Catechism with all its precision is worth the effort. I would answer, “Yes, most definitely!” Strickler reminds us that even in his day “It has been objected to these Catechisms, indeed, that it is difficult for young people to understand them; and, no doubt, this is true.” Yet, he continues and adds, “But it is by no means impossible; and, therefore, the only question is, are the truths which they contain worth the effort necessary to acquire them?” Unfortunately, many Christians today would answer, “No.” Even more unfortunate yet, many Presbyterian pastors in the P.C.A. would also answer, “No.” This is more than just a little disconcerting. Unless the parents and young people master the contents of Scripture and of a good Presbyterian or Reformed catechism, the alternative is that they will remain ignorant of many of the crucial, fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith. They will have no effective framework within which to make Christian decisions about ethical issues; they will have defective prayer lives; and, they will have no concept of a Christian life and worldview. Other than that, they will be fine.

Reasons Why We Should Use Our Catechisms

Strickler ends his contribution by giving four reasons why we should make use of the catechisms, paying particular attention to the great purpose for which they were intended and to which they are suited. Let me take just a few moments and enumerate them.

First, “Unless they are learned in childhood and youth, the strong probability is that they will never be learned at all.” This has been borne out by our modern experience in P.C.A. circles. When we look around at our United Reformed Church counterparts, there is still an emphasis on learning the Heidelberg Catechism. Catechetical instruction is not merely encouraged, but many congregations actively teach it to their youth. This is not the case in the Presbyterian Church in America. We might be able to pride ourselves that we are not as liberal as the Presbyterian Church U.S.A., but that is hardly a compliment.

While P.C.A. pastors are busy engaging the culture, they are not engaging their youth effectively. The upshot of this approach is that our young people might have listened to some good jazz quartets, seen some decent art work, have been permitted to text during worship—maybe even text the pastor during worship, and have seen some interesting and engaging movie clips during worship, but they will not have been taught catechism by the congregational leaders and/or their parents. When Strickler delivered this address that was transcribed into an article, he could assert in 1897 that, “Not one in five hundred of our people, perhaps, learns them later in life. They must be learned, then, early in life, or never. Are we willing for the latter alternative? Are we willing that our children shall never accurately know the great truths of religion?” If I am not mistaken, many in the P.C.A., in the Church, and in the home have already answered those questions and their answers are chilling. The neglect by far too many of catechetical instruction has been and continues to be spiritually harmful. The longer local congregations refuse to instruct their youth, the more spiritually damaging it will be. We will be forced to answer Strickler’s questions with the word, “Yes.” Yes, we are willing to allow our children to have an inaccurate and incomplete understanding of the great truths of the Christian faith, and yes, we are satisfied with the fact that if they do not learn, say, the Westminster Shorter Catechism early in life that they will not learn it at any point in life.

Second, Strickler argues that, “We cannot too early impress the great truths of the Catechisms on their minds and hearts. We should never forget that in childhood and youth the soul is most susceptible of deep and lasting impressions.” There ought to be a unity among what is taught at home, in the local congregation, and in the school the child attends. Parents and church leaders ought to strive for and encourage such a unity. In fact, they should be doing everything within their power to achieve such a unity. We should begin early and teach the truths of Scripture and their summaries in the Presbyterian and Reformed catechisms. Therefore, if our children ever attend one of the many superficial and loopy youth programs offered today, they will easily discern that those programs are superficial and loopy. The parents too, having learned and taught the catechisms to their children—and perhaps to other children—will cease to recommend “programs” that do not effectively teach that which is truly important, and they too will recognize them for the thin gruel they are. It’s a win/win situation since both parents and their children will acquire discernment skills to guard them and to serve them well.

Stickler’s third point really hits home and possesses indispensable and invaluable insight. He writes, “It is necessary to our success as a denomination that our Catechisms be intelligently and faithfully taught.” I cannot begin to tell you how many of my colleagues have bemoaned the fact that members have left their congregations because the church “down the street” offered better youth programs. It is unfortunate, but most, if not all of us, have experienced this phenomenon. It is not isolated to California, but extends across the fruited plain. If Strickler is correct, and I believe that he is, the P.C.A. is in deep, deep weeds. My home congregation has been blessed with a number of people that have come to us either from the Roman Catholic Church or from a broadly evangelical background. They are eager to learn the Reformed doctrines of grace, but they are in desperate need of a “framework” that will enable them to grasp some of those doctrines. The catechisms serve such a useful purpose.

I cannot predict whether the P.C.A. will return to serious catechetical instruction. I am not a prophet or the son of a prophet. But I do believe that if the P.C.A. does not get back to these Presbyterian roots and get back to them very quickly, it eventually could end up looking like a broadly evangelical denomination—and that is a gracious scenario. I totally agree with Strickler when he says, “It is high time that this state of things were brought to an end, and I trust that as one result of these celebrations of the formation of our Standards our ministers and elders and deacons and intelligent members will arouse themselves, and by a proper inculcation of our doctrines bring it to an end!” Keep in mind that Strickler was lamenting a horrid condition in the Presbyterian Church in 1897. Given the disregard for our catechisms in, say, the last three to four decades, it is little wonder why so many of our youth and their parents are more concerned about “programs” than they are biblical truth.

In his inimitable fashion, Strickler concludes his third point with a question. He asks, “Why cannot the ministers and officers in our denomination so instruct our people as to these great doctrines, that in every church there shall be a number, at least, who shall know how to maintain them against any of the popular assaults that are so frequently made upon them?” That, my friends, is a reasonable and excellent question. If all of life is worship and all of life is ethical, why would we not want to teach these truths to our adults and the covenant children the Lord has entrusted into our care? What, for example, would be a formidable objection to teaching these things? Strickler correctly asserts, “We shall never succeed as we may and ought until this is done.”

Finally, Strickler leaves us with this thought: “We should diligently teach the doctrines of our Catechisms, because if faithfully inculcated they will do in the future what they have already so often done in the past. In former years they have made great and good churches—churches as great and good as any the world has yet seen. They have made great and good denominations—denominations as great and good as any that have yet marked the world’s history.” What he specifically has in mind is that in nations where the catechisms were studied and learned, “They have purified and elevated and ennobled all the institutions of the world—the family, the state, the church.”

Richard Baxter said this about the Westminster Shorter Catechism: “If the Westminster Assembly had done nothing more than produce the Shorter Catechism, they would be entitled to the everlasting gratitude of the Christian church…next to the Bible, it was probably the best book in the world.” It is, of course, possible that Baxter was exaggerating, but nonetheless, his point is well taken, namely, that we have in our possession a wonderful, helpful, and expertly composed historical document. In our day and age, it might be somewhat understandable that the broad evangelical church wants nothing to do with the Westminster Standards. What is not comprehensible is that P.C.A. churches eschew teaching it and making full use of it in their local congregations.

We shall now turn our attention to another article in the Memorial Volume written by Dr. John Cannon that walks us through the practical implications and applications of the influence of the Westminster Standards on individuals, the family, and society. By taking a moment to investigate this important essay, we will have more ammunition to explain why teaching the Westminster Standards is not a luxury but rather a necessity. In a very real sense, teaching the catechisms ought to be non-negotiable.

What are the Influences of the Westminster Standards on Life?

Cannon begins by citing an essay written on Calvinism by a clear non-Calvinist English historian, James Anthony Froude (1818-1842). He writes, “The practical effect of a belief is the real test of its soundness.” What makes it quite difficult in the modern Church is that so much is in flux that the definitive effects will not be evident until approximately a decade from now, and by then it might be too late. We’re already observing some of the very deleterious effects of the mega church and emergent church movements; those ill effects did not appear overnight but rather over time. Now that Rob Bell has declared his belief that there is no such place as hell, he has finally announced publicly what he held for a long, long time. By this time, those who have invested time and effort into the emergent church movement will not leave, but, in all likelihood, will hang around for the duration, continuing to get hosed by horrible theology. Such is the nature of the beast. Judging by the lifestyles of many of those in the emergent church movement we can agree with Froude, and the results are not encouraging.

Cannon is convinced that, “There is a most real and vital connection between belief and conduct, between creed and character.” Without question, this is patently true. To put it again in Cannon’s words, “What men believe, that they become.” In other words, there is a correlation between doctrine and ethics, between what a person professes and that person’s character. Cannon’s intent, therefore, is quite practical in nature. His is to be an inquiry into how the Standards, framed by the Westminster Assembly, fair under the test of being tried by different peoples living in different social and political conditions. In other words, how have the Westminster Standards “stood the translation into real life or incarnation in living men and women?” There can be little doubt that this is indeed the “proof of the pudding”. More specifically, Cannon wants to investigate “what influence have they exerted upon ‘the individual, the family, and society,’ where they have been embraced?”

His entrance into his subject is the reminder that, “The Westminster divines well understood the necessity of training up a child in the way he should go in order to insure against his departing from it in age.” This is the desire and aim of every serious Christian parent. First and foremost, training should be focused on the Word of God. In the course of ecclesiastical history, there have also been other pieces of literature that have served the Church well. One such piece is the Westminster Shorter Catechism.

In terms of catechisms and catechetical instruction, Cannon argues that the first question often sets the pace and the tone for the rest of the material. Certainly this is the case with Q/A 1 of the Heidelberg Catechism, and it is no less true of the Westminster Shorter Catechism. “Its opening question strikes the keynote of the whole system of doctrine which it unfolds.” Opening in the way it does, asking about God’s glory, the Lord of the Bible is exalted and his sovereign supremacy is asserted. His glory is the only proper end both for his divine being as well as for his creatures. Or, put another way, “he is not for the sake of the creature, the creature is for his sake.” Man is to live coram Deo: in the presence of God, under the authority of God, and to the glory of God. The Westminster divines coupled a high view of the sovereignty of God with the enormity of sin, “and the hopelessness and misery of man’s fallen state.” This was done intentionally so that a salvation might be revealed that is all of grace, “a salvation which from beginning to end is ‘of the Lord.’ No flesh is allowed to glory in his presence.” While some might find this offensive, I hasten to add that the Westminster divines also included a salvation that is complete. “It embraces the believing sinner in the arms of unchanging love.” By extension, the sinner is secure by virtue of the “bonds of an everlasting covenant.” While some might argue that salvation by sovereign grace removes motives to holy living, Cannon believes that the precise opposite is the case. Grace, he explains “is the spring of holiness, and its only spring.”

As far as the overall positive outworking of consistent catechetical instruction in Scotland, it was once stated that, “Wherever there has been most Calvinism, men have been most moral.” This is due, in part, to yet another feature of the Westminster Standards, namely, “The prominence which they give to ethical teaching.” Cannon is arguing precisely what Herman Bavinck had declared in 1895 in Holland in the first edition of his Reformed Dogmatics. Thus, for those who believe that the Westminster Standards are little more than a compilation of doctrine, Cannon argues that they are that and more. The more consists of them also being an exposition of duty. To use the words of the catechisms themselves, the Standards set forth not merely what man is to believe concerning God, but also what duties God requires of man. In other words, “Following the order of the Holy Scriptures, having laid a foundation of doctrine, they proceed to rear upon it a superstructure of duty.” Practically—and slightly mathematically—this means that approximately fifty percent of the catechism is devoted to ethical subjects. This ought to enthrall modern Christians who are on a seemingly endless search for “the practical Christian life.” If this is truly their endeavor, then they can do no better than to turn to the Westminster Standards. There they will discover a veritable treasure trove of practical Christian living presented on its pages. The Standards will guide them through the thorny ethical issues that confront Christians today. The exposition of the Ten Commandments alone will provide an armamentarium of truth that will equip the Christian to deal with the ethical decisions and dilemmas that confront him or her daily.

What the serious, mature, and discerning Christian will discover in the Westminster Standards is “that the life redeemed and directed by grace is not a lawless life, but is bounded and regulated by the statutes of the Lord.” Isn’t this the aim, desire, and goal of every true believer? The struggle might come for some because the Standards to not operate on feelings, but rather on the only sure foundation of duty, which is divine authority. “The conscience is commanded by the only voice to which it owes obedience, the voice of God.” This last sentence is yet another clear manifestation of what a central place the person and work of the Holy Spirit occupies for the divines. Spiritually, “The heart is plied by the only motives to holiness that have ever completely swayed it, motives drawn from the cross of Christ.”

It is not uncommon to hear those within the Church today lamenting the lack of morality in society as well as in the Church. By becoming more like the culture than like the Church, modern Christians have lost or are rapidly losing their witness to a watching world. This has not always been the case. Cannon remarks, “As a matter of fact, wherever this system of truth has been embraced, it has produced a noble and distinct type of character—a type so clearly marked that secular historians, with no religious bias, have recognized it, and pointed to it as a ‘remarkable illustration of the power of religious training in the formation of character.’” It is more than a touch ironic that Cannon can cite this observation by a secularist, and yet modern Christians are clueless when it comes to true ethical training and instruction. While secularists issue encomiums, modern Christians aimlessly seek “practical Christianity.” Mark Noll once wrote, “The scandal of the evangelical mind is that there is not much of an evangelical mind.”Noll’s statement is patently true both with regard to modern Christian doctrine as well as with regard to Christian ethics. In both, modern Christians, are, at best, muddle-headed.

On the other hand, “It is a plain fact of history that Calvinism and ignorance have never dwelt together in unity. Wherever they have met, one or the other has had to quit the field. They have been men who were possessed and controlled by convictions rather than sentiments.” This, in part, makes the Westminster Standards particularly well-suited for catechetical instruction at home, in the school, and in the Church. The Westminster Standards place a huge premium on the centrality of the home. Or, as Cannon puts it as he describes the Standards,

[T]hey seized more clearly than any other symbols of faith have ever done the scriptural idea that the family, rather than the individual, is the unit upon which the church and society are built; that the family of the believer is included in the provision of God’s covenant with him; that the children of believing parents have a place in the visible holiness, and that baptism, instead of being an empty, meaningless ordinance, to be administered indiscriminately to all children, is the appointed sign and seal of a sure covenant between God and the believing parent.

In a very real sense, “The home takes on the character and shape of a religious institution.” That being the case, “The rule by which the household is ordered is the word of God.” Speaking in favor of Presbyterianism, Cannon asserts, “Hence, as a matter of fact, wherever Presbyterianism has prevailed, homes have been found, like the home of Abraham, characterized by two features: family discipline and family worship.” Since our topic in this paper is catechism, Cannon supposes that in the overwhelming majority of evangelical homes today, catechetical instruction is non-existent. While the Presbyterians do not have a monopoly on catechetical instruction, it is certainly true that a high number of Protestant homes and local congregations neglect this valuable spiritual aid. One thinks of serious Presbyterian congregations, United Reformed Church congregations, and a handful of others. In general and on balance, however, no one has any interest in catechetical instruction anymore. This is regrettable because both the youth as well as the adults suffer not only from a deplorable lack of understanding of biblical truth, but also they are deficient in their ethical character.

Cannon cites a particular result of the combination of family discipline and family worship, which is one of the most egregious errors of the modern Church: the celebration of the Christian Sabbath. I use the term Christian Sabbath in keeping with the Westminster Confession of Faith 21.7. The Standards continue and explain that what they mean is not a “Sabbath Hour” or some other tradition of man, such as a “contemporary Saturday evening service” that ultimately serves only the purpose of allowing the participant to spend the whole day Sunday doing precisely whatever they wish—and some dare call this the proper worship of God. Some modern Christians have no compunction about having baby showers during worship, not only missing worship themselves, but also causing others to miss worshiping the Lord God Almighty for a baby shower! Cannon contends, however, that the sanctity of the Lord’s Day is one of the grand achievements of the Westminster Standards. He writes,

But the Westminster Symbols have made one contribution to the weal of society which is so notable as to deserve specific mention; that is, the sanctity with which they have invested the Sabbath-day. The fourth commandment is recognized as perpetually binding, and is enforced by the sanctions of Scripture drawn both from creation and redemption. No other holy day is acknowledged. The Sabbath alone is exalted as the only holy day of the church—set apart not by human but by divine appointment. The whole day, it is taught, is to be sanctified by a holy resting, and spent in good works and the public and private exercises of God’s worship. Accordingly, Presbyterians the world over have had no more distinctive mark than this that they have been a Sabbath-keeping people.

Cannon quotes from Daniel Webster, who is known in California as “the dictionary dude,” who stated that, “The Sabbath is the bulwark of our liberties, because it is the bulwark of morality.” In addition, the famous British jurist, judge, and politician, William Blackstone once quipped, “A corruption of morals usually follows a profanation of the Sabbath.” In 1897, Cannon could say with certainty, “Show me a community where the Sabbath is observed according to the teachings of our Standards, and I will show you an orderly, law-abiding, and moral community. Show me one where the Sabbath is desecrated, and I will show you one which is a very breeding-place of anarchy and vice and crime.” He would, no doubt, shudder today, not merely because all the stores are open, the so-called “blue laws” long since forgotten, but more because the Presbyterian Church überhaupt has abandoned catechetical instruction as a means of teaching God’s people. The Zeitgeist of modern Christianity has undergone a paradigm shift for the worse.

The fall of man into sin was horrible, but Cannon contends that two institutions survived “the wreck of the fall”: the family and the Sabbath. These two are the “strong supports of all social order.” Both are under unrelenting attack in our modern society. They have both taken a terrible beating and until the Church raises its voice, the drubbing will continue. In fact, if the Church raises her voice, it is quite conceivable that the intensity of the spiritual battle will only get ratcheted up even more. Nevertheless, the two articles that we surveyed have given us a lot to think about, especially in what David Wells refers to as “our time.” Ours is a time with little historical consciousness or memory. We have all but completely forgotten our rich heritage that has been passed on to us by the work accomplished by the Westminster Divines. We have neglected this great asset to our spiritual detriment and to the spiritual detriment of those around us.

Conclusions

Before closing, I want to draw some inferences and conclusions from what I have chronicled in this article. We covered a lot of ground, but it was necessary to do so because of the serious nature of the spiritual condition of the modern Church in general and the Presbyterian Church in particular. It is not an uncommon phenomenon to have members “jump ship” from a thoroughly Presbyterian congregation and begin attending a broadly evangelical congregation for no other reason than the children want to go where the music is livelier, where the youth pastor is funny and relevant, and the programs are entertaining.

Ours is a consumer-oriented culture, and the modern Church is no exception. The modern Christian adults are, by and large, consumers of what they want, what they are looking for, and what suits them. They have been fed a steady diet of consumerism since they were born, and the modern Church was more than willing to accommodate them. The modern Church was actually foolish enough to believe that if they gave these Christian “idealists” (that is what the media called those who rebelled and occupied the offices of presidents of colleges and universities) what they wanted, they would be appeased. A large segment of modern evangelicals are poster children of what Paul writes in 2 Timothy 4:3-5. The adults are consumers; often products of what Ann Coulter calls “the Worst Generation,” and they are rapidly cloning their children to be the same type of superficial spiritual consumers that they are. The modern Church has deviated from the “ancient paths” (cf. Jer. 6:16) and has become lost and disoriented in the dense forest of secular relativism. Modern Christians are rarely in the possession of a viable moral compass, which accounts for the numerous articles and statistics that bear out the awful truth that those who call themselves Christians in the twenty-first century are almost as immoral as their Neo-barbarian counterparts. What is most disconcerting is that few seem to care anymore. Opting for congregational entertainment and in an effort to keep the numbers “up,” too many pastors and church leaders have watered down worship, preaching, and teaching to such a degree that they are making Noll’s assertion look exceedingly plausible: There is not much of an evangelical mind.

Some pastors are complicit in diminishing what little there was of the evangelical mind. How did they do that? It was accomplished through a number of means. First and foremost was the open ridicule of biblical truth, otherwise known by that dirty epithet of “doctrine.” Many pastors have derided and decried doctrine from their pulpits, often in a scornful and ridiculing manner. Scoff enough at knowing doctrine from the pulpit and eventually some will begin to believe it. De-emphasize its importance and it will not take very long before the “trickle down” effect will kick in and the congregants will begin to de-emphasize it too. It truly is incomprehensible that pastors know that the overwhelming majority of their congregants are not engaged in spiritual exercises at home the way they should be. Think about that for a moment. It is an axiomatic truth that pastors know that having a consistent devotional and prayer life is a struggle for many Christians. They are well intentioned and desire to do better, but the harsh reality is that they are far too busy with matters and things that are of little or no eternal significance, and those items on their agendas frequently push spiritual exercises out of the picture. That being the case, one can only wonder why pastors would want to take away a leg of support from an already very fragile situation. Nevertheless, it is true that within that phenomenon known as evangelicalism, doctrine has been de-emphasized, taking away the foundation of all Christian ethics, conduct, behavior.

A second problem is related to the first. This de-emphasis on doctrine cannot help but remind one of the intolerable spiritual circumstances of the Middle Ages. The people had to listen to a service conducted in Latin. In order to appease the laity, the Roman Catholic Church allowed pictures to be painted on the walls that came to be known as the “books of the laity.” When you think of it, rather than being a genuine accommodation, this was a slam against those in the various congregations. The “books of the laity” were clear assertions that the “unwashed masses” were simply too stupid to fathom the depths of the Bible. The notion was put forward that the Scriptures were too difficult, so all the Christian needed to do was to look at the pictures on the wall and they would suffice.

There was and is a “by product” of this type of approach. If you take a number of biblically ignorant people and do not teach them anything, what do you get? If you answered: “Increasingly biblically ignorant people,” then go to the head of the class. One of the ploys of the Roman Catholic Church during the Middle Ages was to reap the lucrative honoraria they were paid by having a number of parishes. It did not behoove them to educate the people, because that could very well raise some nasty credibility issues for them as far as their own understanding of the Word of God was concerned. If a pastor (or priest) is looking for “safety,” keeping the congregation intentionally uninformed and ignorant is the way to go. Of course, there must be some kind of substitute or surrogate for a lack of Scriptural teaching and preaching, and entertainment fits the bill nicely. While the Roman Catholic Church did not entertain in the sense of praise bands, “slice of life” dramas, or liturgical dances, there is a kind of reverse genius about Roman Catholicism and it exists in candles and all the kinds of visible and tangible accoutrements. Thus, while Evangelicals have discarded the vestments, the candles, and the incense, they have substituted other things that “do it” for the congregant.

I am certain that you have had conversations like I have had in which people were singing the praises of the music (no pun intended) or the youth programs, but when they were questioned about the content of the preaching, they were satisfied with Christian self-help, self-esteem builders instead of solid sermons filled with biblical content. Part of the problem is that these same people are looking for some charismatic figures (like Jimmy Jones, Jimmy Swagert, or Bobby Schuller [who is now a non-voting member of the Board of the Crystal Cathedral. What a sophisticated way to tell someone to get lost and drop dead!]) who will entertain and captivate them once a week so that they can get their spiritual “fix.”

Modern youth “programs” are no better. It became vogue to sequester the youth and give them their own worship service a while back. Someone in the mega church movement decided it would be a good idea. This was a short hop from excusing the young children from the service to attend “children’s church” then extending those wonderful benefits to the teenagers as well. For those teenagers who are encouraged to stay in the worship services these days, they are being accommodated by allowing them to send text messages to the pastor. I am also aware of a youth pastor who sends “tweets” to those in his youth group during the service, instructing them on what are good and less than good points in the sermon. Just think about that for a while.

I do not, however, want to end on a negative note. I am fully convinced that for those willing to put forth the effort there is a way back home. It might be tough slugging for a while, and it will require a degree of strictness and discipline. It will require us to be uncompromising when it comes to our congregations, to our wives, and to our families. Cannon helps us here when he reminds us that, “Strictness certainly characterizes everything which truly represents God. The laws of nature are all strict; the laws of hygiene are strict; and the life which would secure their benediction must be a strict life.” In our laid back, easy-going society, words like “strictness” and “discipline” are distasteful. Yet, the way back involves those attributes and more. In other words, getting back to a solid biblical base will not be for the faint of heart.

A drastic re-ordering and re-prioritizing of one’s life will be a requirement. There will be some who look at this and simply shake their head in disbelief. They will not count the cost, but on the surface they will conclude that because it will be arduous, it will not be worth such an effort. That is unfortunate, because the short, medium, and long-range repercussions will be severe—spiritually. The individual will be spiritually stunted as will those under his leadership. It will be heartbreaking to know that the requisite resources were available and plans were in place, but that the individual refused to avail him or herself of them. But if the Church is to get back on the right spiritual track after years—after decades of neglect—we must resolve to roll up our sleeves and get to work.

The mega church and emergent church movements have muddied the ecclesiastical waters horribly. I am reminded of one of my favorite poems from Rudyard Kipling, The Way Through the Woods, where he wrote, “They shut the road through the woods Seventy years ago. Weather and rain have undone it again, And now you would never know there was once a road through the woods.” Since at least the late 1950s the road to catechetical instruction was shut. Disdain, neglect, ridicule, scoffing, and lack of use have undone it again. Thus, we are at an ecclesiastical fork in the road. We are on the very precipice of the evangelical and Presbyterian Church’s never remembering that there was once a road that led to catechetical instruction. It is quite understandable that those churches that stand in the tradition of the Anabaptists have little or no use for the Westminster Standards. It is equally understandable that the Presbyterian Church U.S.A. would find anything short of ordaining women and practicing homosexuals beneath their dignity. What is substantially less understandable is that Presbyterian Church in America churches are following in the paths of their evangelical counterparts and opting for anything and everything except catechetical instruction for their youth and adults.

In conclusion, the question before us is whether we are going to take the correct road that will bring us back to where the Church needs to be. Having cited Kipling, let me close with some words from Robert Frost in his poem The Road Not Taken. Where the modern Christians stand right now, we are looking at two roads and we cannot travel both. In other words, we are at a crossroads. It is from arriving at this crossroads that requires us to make a choice; we must make a conscious choice. What will our choice be? Will it be more of the same? Will it be neglecting catechetical instruction and happily sending off our covenant children, God’s covenant children to a place where they will be taught to be spiritual consumers like their parents before them, or will our choice be to follow the more difficult but substantially more rewarding tack of instructing those children in the Word of God and in the great catechisms of history? Frost’s words in his poem ring true: “Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—I took the one less traveled by, And that has made all the difference.” The cardinal question that faces each individual Christian and the Presbyterian Church in America is: Which road will we take? Will we take the easy, popular road that will leave our children virtually void of any kind of theological framework for when they become adults, or will we take the road less traveled by? This is a crucial choice that will have far-reaching implications and applications. If we make the correct choice, however, we will surely find that following the road of catechetical instruction will make all the spiritual difference to us, to our children, to the Church of the Lord Jesus, and to the state.

Pastor Ron Gleason, Ph.D.
Yorba Linda, CA
July 19, 2011

Click her for a printable pdf version of this article with footnotes.