Even if you're a Protestant, you've likely heard of "catechism" even if you've never encountered it yourself. For some, it calls up thoughts of a solely Roman Catholic notion of taking young kids in to indoctrinate them to the Roman Catholic theology, but the word itself does not require "Roman Catholic" (other Protestant denominations practice it, too) nor is it necessarily a bad thing. Catechism is simply a manual of religious instruction around doctrine, primarily for Christianity, to instruct the young, win converts, and testify to the faith. As such, I would think all Christians of all stripes would embrace such a venture.
We live in a culture that, on one hand, has unprecedented access to the truth of Christianity and, on the other hand, is largely ignorant of doctrine and theology. Believe it or not, there are people living in America today that have never heard of Jesus, let alone the great truths of the faith. They don't know the Gospel. They don't know about God. They don't know about sin. They don't know about the solution. They don't know how this works or how it pertains to daily life. And, to varying degrees, some of these folks are even Christians. Happy in their ignorance, they stand firmly on very thin air, confident in their vague position. Christianity today needs catechism.
"So, smart guy, whose catechism would you use? Roman Catholic? Presbyterian? Someone else?" Oh, no, I'm not arguing for anything as sectarian as that. Scripture says, "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work" (2 Tim 3:16-17). Note the profitability: teaching (presenting the facts), reproof (pointing out error), correction (providing a way back to the truth), and training in righteousness (giving ways to remain in the truth). Notice the effectiveness of Scripture: it equips those who embrace it "for every good work." "Complete" is the description there. Now, that is a catechism we need. And, oh, by the way, it's available just about everywhere. You will, of course, have to pick it up and read it. Preferably not a little. And not always alone. Because the world in general and believers in particular need this catechism right now. Yes, even you and me.
18 comments:
Sometimes, we've taken our Protestation to be fully anti-Roman Catholic. There are certain traditions of the Catholic Church that we'd do well for ourselves and our posterity to keep, as long as we remember the purpose of those traditions and lose ourselves to the authority of those traditions.
David,
I agree that there are elements of the RCC that can and should be considered and adopted by protestants. That's pretty much what Luther hoped for.
As far as which catechism, while I prefer Westminster, I'd suggest that any catechism is better than no catechism. I'd also suggest that scripture is the best starting point. I think that value of a catechism is in how it's organized by topic and how it points you to scripture to dig deeper.
Having been raised as a Catholic, I am very familiar with “catechism.” I was indoctrinated quite heavily in Roman Catholic theology from an early age (much of it memorized in preparation for the rite of “Confirmation”), while remaining ignorant of the gospel of grace the entire time. I thank God I learned biblical truth eventually and was saved. I agree that Scripture is complete for doctrine and effective for instruction in godly living--it is all I need. I have never been led to draw upon any formerly followed RCC practice or dogma to further my Christian walk or to supplement God's truth; I couldn't return to something from which I have been set free in God's grace.
Stan, you wrote, “Believe it or not, there are people living in America today that have never heard of Jesus, let alone the great truths of the faith. They don't know the Gospel. They don't know about God. They don't know about sin. They don't know about the solution. They don't know how this works or how it pertains to daily life. And, to varying degrees, some of these folks are even Christians.” I am wondering how such people could be Christians. Do you mean perhaps instead that “these folks even consider themselves Christians”?
"Do you mean perhaps instead that 'these folks even consider themselves Christians'?"
What does it take to be a "Christian"? It takes repentance and faith in Christ. It does not require full knowledge of biblical truth. It doesn't require a deep understanding of a Triune God or a settled comprehension of election. It requires "believe in Christ" and "repent." There are people who don't grasp the full gospel but understand enough to know "I'm a sinner in need of salvation" and "Jesus died for my sins and I want that forgiveness, so I will trust Him for that." The rest is progression. Unfortunately, today in America too many churches don't give them that opportunity.
I struggle to think of any “traditions” or “elements” of Roman Catholicism that any Protestant should add to their faith. Knowing that the Reformers devoted their lives to removing the blatantly unbiblical or extra-biblical practices and dogmas that had been promoted for centuries by the RCC, I can't imagine what aspects should be restored. Especially if we are to form our “catechism”--our doctrine--from Scripture alone, as Stan points out, why would we move backwards to darker days?
When the RCC maintains biblical principles, there's no reason to reject them because they're RCC. Or if they have a good idea (like teaching young people fundamental biblical truths -- systematic theology), we shouldn't reject the idea because it was something they were doing. There is this kneejerk reaction in many Protestants that says, "RCC? Bad." It's actually a logical fallacy. You know, like "even a stopped clock is right twice a day."
A regimented indoctrination is of value, but only if the content of the teaching is solid. Alas, the catechism I was taught there was Catholic dogma--not “fundamental biblical truths.”
One RCC thing I've had pointed out that I wish Protestants maintained was holy places. You go into a Catholic church and the is a certain reverence felt for where you are, knowing God is in this place. Most Protestant churches are so simple and non-descript, you'd hardly know they were a church. The one I go to even has the holes remaining for the mounts for the basketball hoop. Our churches tend to be so nonchalant that the reverence for what we're doing is lost.
Another would be confession. We have lost the joy of sharing our burdens with other believers who then remind us that our sins are forgiven. We live so often in our own heads that we lose sight of forgiveness.
There are others that I'd like to take back from the Catholic Church, as long as their basis remains biblical and not become authoritative, which they have become in the RCC. When the practices we do begin to have more authority than the Bible is where we go wrong and end up where the RCC is.
David, I admire stained-glass windows and beautiful structures, but I know that God does not reside in man-made buildings (Acts 7:48) but in people's hearts. Personally, I would rather experience solid biblical teaching and worship opportunities with other Spirit-filled believers in any setting than hear a false gospel promoted in the most stunning cathedral where the Holy Spirit is not at work. And Protestants certainly can--and do--build beautiful church buildings (such as are seen all over Europe, for example), but in my mind, church buildings--no matter how stunning--don't equate to “holy places.”
Unless Catholic “confession” has completely changed in the past 40 years, I can tell you that there is no “sharing our burdens with other believers” in that practice--just a guilt-ridden person summarizing their perceived wrong-doings to an unseen priest on the other side of a panel in a closed booth; then that confessor kneels in a pew and recites an assigned number of Catholic prayers as “penance.” Since this method is not at all biblical, I doubt one would feel the true joy of forgiveness.
Lorna, I don't think David nor I am getting this idea across properly. The idea is not ... ever ... to become Catholic. The idea is not at all to embrace Catholicism in its theology or its methodology. Neither David nor I would think it was a good idea, for instance, to teach Catholic catechism to our kids. What we are saying that certain concepts that Catholics embrace -- reverence for God, teaching kids the important biblical truths, even the biblical notion of confessing sins one to another (James 5:16) and the like -- are some things we've rejected because, well, it seems Catholic. The Catholic Church leans heavily on tradition, so we won't ... except Scripture says we should (2 Thess 3:6). Catholics have this overwhelming since of awe of God, but we've made God our "buddy" ... which isn't wise.
Neither David nor I favor becoming Catholic. Nor would we encourage Catholic doctrine or Catholic teaching or Catholic confessionals. But the standard perception of your typical Protestant is that "Everything they say is evil" and it's not. In fact, the nature of Satan is to immerse lies in amongst actual truths. If we can't pick out the truths, then we're missing the point, aren't we?
The Catholic Church has twisted and distorted a lot of traditions that had very good and holy intentions. Protestants today, not the ones that came out of the Catholic Church during Reformation which is why they continued to build beautiful churches, build ugly, soulless buildings in general. But we seem to forget that the first chapel built was designed by God to be beautiful. Because of the Catholic Church, we think of confession as some sort of liturgical process that absolves is of our sins, where biblical confession would be a means of helping us through our sins and reminding us we are forgiven in Christ, not by penance. Look at most Catholic traditions and you can see the root it sprang from, which just need to lop off all the dead branches the RCC tried to add to it.
And yes, I too would prefer worshipping in a cave with believers than just obeying some liturgy with no spiritual truth in a beautiful building. But is it too much to ask for both? Would it not be all that much better to have right spiritual worship in a building that helps remind us why we're there?
David, I believe that those “dead branches” you mention have indeed received a good lopping--beginning with an event known as the Protestant Reformation :).
Also, it is my understanding that the founders of many of the new Protestant churches took deliberate steps to simplify the interiors and exteriors of the reformed church buildings in an effort to remove icons, graven images, symbols of idolatry, and excessive ornamentation, which they saw as remnants of “the popish religion” and distractions to biblical worship. It might be a matter of “form over function,” when constructing church buildings these days, or it might be that the focus is assumed to be on the church attendees and the solid church staff members they secure to preach, teach, and lead worship--most definitely “why we're there.”
Early Protestant churches did indeed seek to eliminate the worship of Mary and the saints and considered art and images to be a violation of the 2nd Commandment. The problem in too many churches today is that they've taken further deliberate steps to make churches more like auditoriums with stages for performances. It's hard today in a lot of churches to keep in mind that the worship team is not a band in place to put on a good show (I've been to churches with light shows and fog machines and more) rather than "prompters" to draw God's people into worship rather than consumerism. (I've always had a problem with applause in church. Are we applying laud to performers or to God?) (Not a comment on all churches. Just an observation from the places I've been in churches throughout the country over the years.)
Stan, I understand that you were not advocating becoming Catholic but were highlighting a few positive aspects you see permeating RC traditions that some Protestants might not embrace as heartily as they should. But the concepts you commend are not present in the RCC without additional, unbiblical dogma piled on, which essentially distorts the nature of them (and smothers the gospel of grace). Those “biblical principles” you mentioned above are barely visible in RC doctrine--thus that negative view of the RCC held by many Protestants. For many of us with first-hand experience, it’s not so much a “kneejerk reaction” as an informed response--God has indeed made us aware of those lies of Satan that you mentioned. But I can praise God! I have scripture as my catechism (as you reminded us in this post), the Holy Spirit as my Teacher (John 14:26), and the additional guidance of 600 years of Protestant tradition; I truly believe that I lack nothing (as promised in Tim. 3:16-17).
We certainly have more than 600 years of Protestant tradition because they were reformers, not rejectors. We have just as much doctrinal history as the RCC, the Reformers simply went back to the older theologians.
I came here just now to correct my “600 years of Protestant tradition” to “500 years…,” after I realized that I made an error in arithmetic. However, I like David’s point that we can and should look back even farther than the 16th century--to the New Testament church--again, using our Bibles as our catechism (Stan’s original point). I have read that “Protestant” was as much based on a secondary definition of “protest”--"to make solemn or earnest declaration,” i.e. to testify--as it was on the primary definition of “to object or disapprove.” So I too view “Protestant tradition” as going way back.
Post a Comment