We must do nothing to change our procedure lest what the prophet says becomes true of us, “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge.”
It is true that catechism preaching is a practice which belongs perhaps exclusively to our tradition as churches. It was begun in the early years of the Reformation—1566, to be exact—by Dominie Peter Gabriel in his congregation at Amsterdam. In the 16th century the National Synods made it a requirement for the ministers to explain the catechism to the congregations.
Our forefathers in the faith who settled in Western Michigan came from an ecclesiastical climate where this practice was maintained.
The Reformed Church in America, with which Classis Holland united in 1850, had similar national roots; but the two hundred years already spent on American soil had begun to take their toll in the area of catechism preaching.
A quick survey of Corwin’s A Digest of Synodical Legislation of the Reformed Church in America shows that already in 1827 a question arose in the Classis of New York as to how rigid the requirement of catechism preaching was. Synod informed Classis that the rule was to be obeyed. However, in the new Constitution of 1833, the exposition of the catechism was extended to a period of four years, rather than annually. In the late 1800s, though Synod reminded the churches to continue the explanation of the catechism from the pulpit, considerable latitude was allowed—the method was left to the judgment of the individual minister. Later, the Constitution was changed to require that “Every minister must explain to his congregation at an ordinary service on the Lord’s Day the points of doctrine contained in the Heidelberg Catechism, so that the exposition may be completed within the term of four years.” Notice, “the points of doctrine contained in the Heidelberg Catechism.”
In 1&55, J. Van de Luister was a delegate from Classis Holland to the Synod of the Reformed Church meeting at New Brunswick, New Jersey. Upon return, in his report to Classis on September 5, he pointed out that, while in the East. he found a deficiency in the regular preaching of the catechism. Two years later one of the grounds for secession listed by the Consistory at Graafschap was a recognition of that deficiency. And evidently, from the notes in Corwin’s Digest it can be concluded that there was more than merely a suspicion on the part of Van de Luister and Graafschap.
To this day the attitude toward catechism preaching in the CRC and RCA is different. It is true that in some RCA congregations catechism preaching is done according to the Constitutional stipulations. And it is true that in the Seminary—at least in this writer’s day—there was a course called “Catechism Preaching” in which we were given an introductory lecture and then given opportunity to present sample catechism sermons. But it is also true that this writer can remember no catechism sermons preached from his home church pulpit (RCA) until a new minister came in his high school years. (For that matter, neither was there catechetical instruction until that time.) Once, a minister in the Reformed Church said that since he soon would be asked whether he had complied with the regulations of the Constitution concerning catechism preaching, he quickly organized a series of sermons on the Book of Romans. Since this book is the outline of the Heidelberg Catechism he was able to say, “Yes” to the Constitutional Question.
It is also fair to say that in the CRC there are complaints—and their number seems to grow—that catechism preaching is not being done as it ought to be done today.
Now the question is, is this really an important issue±this catechism preaching? Of course, if it is just a form to follow for form’s sake, perhaps it deserves to die; and perhaps the harsh criticism directed at it by Reformed brothers from other traditions is justified.
However, we who are Reformed have always maintained that Scripture gives excellent guidance in maintaining that: “Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness: that the man of God may be complete, furnished completely unto every good work” (II Tim. 3:16, 17). We have always maintained that a believer should have a clear understanding of the way in which God saves His people. The believer is to he introduced to the whole counsel of God. A “Gospel that is written on the thumb-nail,” as someone has called it, is certainly not a Gospel that brings peace, comfort, and direction as the believer grows.
In Scripture we are enjoined to “preach the Word.” But we ministers have areas of particular interest and there are also some Biblical teachings with which we must wrestle in order to preach for the instruction of the Lord’s people. It would be easy to major on our areas of interest and even exclude the difficult subjects. But the Heidelberg compels us to be systematic in the instruction of the Lord’s own.
Further, the consecutive and regular exposition of the Heidelberg Catechism builds a strong Church so that we remain faithful to the Lord and His Truth. Skipping around from one Lord’s Day to another does not give God’s people a continuity in their spiritual instruction. Neither docs irregular exposition of the Catechism bring this continuity. And the post-graduate course in Biblical understanding for God’s people becomes ineffective.
Certainly we do not want to say that catechism preaching takes the place of Scriptural exposition. The Catechism is an Instructor in the totality of Biblical Truth. It is an exposition of Scripture in itself, and a practical one, at that.
Nor do we wish to imply by this article that the RCA is not faithful to the Word in her preaching. She simply works out of a different set of commonly agreed upon rules. Would that she had not changed her rules. She would know a doctrinal strength that some in her number covet.
We have a practice of Catechism preaching. Though some in the pew complain about it and criticize it, it is a good one. And, interestingly enough, this writer knows of several cases where those from comparatively unchurched backgrounds have received greater blessing through the “catechism sermon” than the one on a free text.
We must do nothing to change our procedure lest what the prophet says becomes true of us, “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge.”
It is true that catechism preaching is a practice which belongs perhaps exclusively to our tradition as churches. It was begun in the early years of the Reformation—1566, to be exact—by Dominie Peter Gabriel in his congregation at Amsterdam. In the 16th century the National Synods made it a requirement for the ministers to explain the catechism to the congregations.
Our forefathers in the faith who settled in Western Michigan came from an ecclesiastical climate where this practice was maintained.
The Reformed Church in America, with which Classis Holland united in 1850, had similar national roots; but the two hundred years already spent on American soil had begun to take their toll in the area of catechism preaching.
A quick survey of Corwin’s A Digest of Synodical Legislation of the Reformed Church in America shows that already in 1827 a question arose in the Classis of New York as to how rigid the requirement of catechism preaching was. Synod informed Classis that the rule was to be obeyed. However, in the new Constitution of 1833, the exposition of the catechism was extended to a period of four years, rather than annually. In the late 1800s, though Synod reminded the churches to continue the explanation of the catechism from the pulpit, considerable latitude was allowed—the method was left to the judgment of the individual minister. Later, the Constitution was changed to require that “Every minister must explain to his congregation at an ordinary service on the Lord’s Day the points of doctrine contained in the Heidelberg Catechism, so that the exposition may be completed within the term of four years.” Notice, “the points of doctrine contained in the Heidelberg Catechism.”
In 1&55, J. Van de Luister was a delegate from Classis Holland to the Synod of the Reformed Church meeting at New Brunswick, New Jersey. Upon return, in his report to Classis on September 5, he pointed out that, while in the East. he found a deficiency in the regular preaching of the catechism. Two years later one of the grounds for secession listed by the Consistory at Graafschap was a recognition of that deficiency. And evidently, from the notes in Corwin’s Digest it can be concluded that there was more than merely a suspicion on the part of Van de Luister and Graafschap.
To this day the attitude toward catechism preaching in the CRC and RCA is different. It is true that in some RCA congregations catechism preaching is done according to the Constitutional stipulations. And it is true that in the Seminary—at least in this writer’s day—there was a course called “Catechism Preaching” in which we were given an introductory lecture and then given opportunity to present sample catechism sermons. But it is also true that this writer can remember no catechism sermons preached from his home church pulpit (RCA) until a new minister came in his high school years. (For that matter, neither was there catechetical instruction until that time.) Once, a minister in the Reformed Church said that since he soon would be asked whether he had complied with the regulations of the Constitution concerning catechism preaching, he quickly organized a series of sermons on the Book of Romans. Since this book is the outline of the Heidelberg Catechism he was able to say, “Yes” to the Constitutional Question.
It is also fair to say that in the CRC there are complaints—and their number seems to grow—that catechism preaching is not being done as it ought to be done today.
Now the question is, is this really an important issue±this catechism preaching? Of course, if it is just a form to follow for form’s sake, perhaps it deserves to die; and perhaps the harsh criticism directed at it by Reformed brothers from other traditions is justified.
However, we who are Reformed have always maintained that Scripture gives excellent guidance in maintaining that: “Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness: that the man of God may be complete, furnished completely unto every good work” (II Tim. 3:16, 17). We have always maintained that a believer should have a clear understanding of the way in which God saves His people. The believer is to he introduced to the whole counsel of God. A “Gospel that is written on the thumb-nail,” as someone has called it, is certainly not a Gospel that brings peace, comfort, and direction as the believer grows.
In Scripture we are enjoined to “preach the Word.” But we ministers have areas of particular interest and there are also some Biblical teachings with which we must wrestle in order to preach for the instruction of the Lord’s people. It would be easy to major on our areas of interest and even exclude the difficult subjects. But the Heidelberg compels us to be systematic in the instruction of the Lord’s own.
Further, the consecutive and regular exposition of the Heidelberg Catechism builds a strong Church so that we remain faithful to the Lord and His Truth. Skipping around from one Lord’s Day to another does not give God’s people a continuity in their spiritual instruction. Neither docs irregular exposition of the Catechism bring this continuity. And the post-graduate course in Biblical understanding for God’s people becomes ineffective.
Certainly we do not want to say that catechism preaching takes the place of Scriptural exposition. The Catechism is an Instructor in the totality of Biblical Truth. It is an exposition of Scripture in itself, and a practical one, at that.
Nor do we wish to imply by this article that the RCA is not faithful to the Word in her preaching. She simply works out of a different set of commonly agreed upon rules. Would that she had not changed her rules. She would know a doctrinal strength that some in her number covet.
We have a practice of Catechism preaching. Though some in the pew complain about it and criticize it, it is a good one. And, interestingly enough, this writer knows of several cases where those from comparatively unchurched backgrounds have received greater blessing through the “catechism sermon” than the one on a free text.
We must do nothing to change our procedure lest what the prophet says becomes true of us, “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge.”