Strange Bedfellows

I grew up in Protestant circles -- largely but not exclusively Baptist -- so I wasn't really aware of Reformed theology or Presbyterian liturgy and the like. Then I discovered the Westminster Confession. I was surprised to learn that the London Baptist Confession was incredibly close to the Westminster Confession. Then there was the Shorter Catechism. We Protestants heard that Catholic kids endure "catechism" which consisted of classes on Roman Catholic theology and was their indoctrination into the Roman Catholic church. As it turned out, some Protestant groups had the same thing, and the Shorter Catechism was just that ... for Protestants, as it were. "Indoctrination? Really?" We don't like the term, of course, but, why? Do we not want our kids to learn our doctrine? Do we not want to teach them what we believe? Well, in fact, everyone indoctrinates their people, whether it's their kids or other family or their friends or ... We all urge what we believe on other people. And why not? And why should it not be formal, as in "catechism"?

The very first question that these kids learning the Shorter Catechism had to learn -- there would be a test -- was "What is the chief end of man?" Think of that. They were asking a 10-12-year-olds to consider that kind of thing. The answer?

Man's chief end is to glorify God^a, and to enjoy Him forever^b.

^a Ps. 86:9; Isa. 60:21; Rom. 11:36; 1 Cor. 6:20; 10:31; Rev. 4:11
^b Ps. 16:5-11; 144:15; Isa. 12:2; Luke 2:10; Phil. 4:4; Rev. 21:3-4

Complete with biblical reasons why the claim is made.

Now, we don't seem to think very often about where we are going. I mean consciously. We take action to approach a topic or correct an idea or reinforce a truth by instinct, usually, not with awareness of the aim ... the "end." Why are we correcting theology, defending the gospel, standing on the Word of God, and so on? Why do we oppose "same-sex mirage"¹ with such vehemence, for instance? Is it "because it's wrong"? Not good enough. Is it because "the Bible disagrees"? That's true, but still not good enough. Or is it about the glory of God? Is it about God's name and God's righteousness and God's holiness? Ah, now that's a high enough aim! But ... is it ours?

These days we find ourselves with strange bedfellows. We find we like Jordan Peterson because he speaks out against "personal pronouns" and defends our right to believe even though he himself doesn't believe. (He claims to believe in God and even calls himself a "Christian" while explicitly distancing himself from Christian doctrine and considers the Bible metaphorical.) We like Ben Shapiro who is a conservative Jew. Dennis Prager has been a real voice of reason through the years, but he's a Jewish voice, not a Christian one. So we have this dilemma. They are saying good things. You'll find gay conservatives saying good things. You'll discover self-styled gay Christians saying good things. So do we latch onto them as "one of our boys" or do we reject them as "the enemy" because they don't share our root cause? The question is a logical fallacy. It is possible to receive the argument without embracing the source. But the only way we can do that and the only way we can proceed for God (our chief end) is to remember our chief end -- to glorify God. Without it, we're lost.
________

¹ I am not trying to be unkind with the use of the term "same-sex mirage". I need to continually point out that there is a fundamental difference between "marriage" and what we are calling "marriage" when we put the term "same-sex", "homosexual", or "gay" in front of it. I am not objecting to it on moral grounds. I am objecting because they're not the same thing, and I use "mirage" in its place to call that to your attention.