With the coming of fall the time approaches for our churches to resume the practice of one of our most significant and influential Reformed traditions, the religious training of especially children and young people in “catechism” classes.

A Biblical Tradition

This training is deeply rooted not only in history, but prior to that and as the real reason for it in the Bible itself. The Lord’s injunctions “Let the children come to me, do not hinder them” (Mark 10:14), “See that you do not despise one of these little ones” (Matt. 18:10) and His extremely severe warning against causing one of these to “stumble” (v. 6) have always been too deeply imprinted in the hearts and minds of every Bible-believing Christian to permit this important business of child training to have anything but a most important place. The Lord’s own teaching about this point is echoed in that of his apostles to “bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord” (Eph. 6:4).

It is no accident therefore that our Reformation fathers, Luther and Calvin, four centuries ago, early devoted their attention to writing catechisms for children and that it was one such catechism designed to systematically teach the Christian faith that became the most generally used official confession of faith of our Reformed churches –the Heidelberg Catechism. The earliest minutes of t he Reformed church synods in the Netherlands often reveal as much concern about having this catechism taught in the schools a s having it preached in the churches.

This systematic teaching of Biblical faith and doctrine was essential to the development and maintenance of the Reformed faith in past centuries. It is just as essential to the restoration and revival of that faith today. If the Lord is going to give us such restoration and revival it will be in the way of obeying His commands to give such teaching. Neither evangelistic additions, revival enthusiasms, nor corrective synod decisions are likely to have much lasting significance if they are not accompanied by systematic, sound Biblical teaching. We need Reformation in Catechism classes.

A Movement Away From Catechism

If we are going to do something about such Reformation in our catechism classes we will have to consider what has been happening to them. Despite the provision of our Church Order that “The Heidelberg Catechism and its Compendium shall be the basis of instruction” (Art. 64c) this method was “consciously abandoned” with the adoption of a “United Church School Curriculum” which reduced such formal doctrinal teaching to two years (Acts of Synod 1971, p. 232). Since then although some older systematic introductions to Biblical doctrine continue to be printed and even updated by the denomination’s publication agency, they are not what is being promoted, and churches that still want to maintain a systematic catechism program have largely had to look elsewhere for books designed to promote that kind of teaching. (The Reformed Fellowship supplies some of them.)

This official movement away from systematic “catechism” teaching reflects on the part of a significant number of our ministers a growing skepticism about the need for or desirability of such systematic “indoctrination.” Some years ago a young minister informed me that he had discarded his catechism books, preferring to talk to young people about their problems, since he considered that more helpful. I asked him what he was doing about teaching them the Bible’s system of doctrine. His retort was, “The Bible has no system of doctrine.” My reply was that while the Bible gives us no formal “Catechism” it certainly does insist on teaching what the Apostle Paul called “the form of sound words” which Timothy must “hold fast” and teach (2 Tim. 1:13; 2:2). The gospel has structure which the church under the promised and given guidance of the Holy Spirit (John 14:16, 17) must and has sought to “hold” and “teach” throughout the centuries. If the new preacher were going to abandon all this in favor of his own practical opinions or some philosophical hobbies, I feared what would happen to his church. And that trouble, did not take long to come.

The incident I mentioned may be a somewhat extreme example, but it is paralleled by an apparent shift in the official treatment of catechism materials. Consider another example. In the November 1980 Calvin Theological Journal Jack Westerhof reviewed Beyond Doubt: A Devotional Response to Questions of Faith, by Cornelius Plantinga, in the Bible Way Curriculum Series of our C.R. Board of Publications, a book designed for older students. While the reviewer praised the “sparkle,” contemporaneity, and lack of dullness of the treatment, he commented also that Plantinga’s questioning approach was “open to all kinds of subjective decisions” and raised the question “whether possibly in this way we stand to lose or ignore some important things God has taught us. . . .” He noted the author’s modest and refreshingly honest suggestion, “Use what you can, and let the rest go,” and remarked, “Few will likely agree with all in this book.”

The book had been called to my attention previously since it was also being used by our young people. In looking it over I noticed, beside the freshness of approach, some curious things. The head of each page lists beside Biblical references also references to the creeds. Among those creeds frequently cited is the “Confession of 1967.” Have you heard of that confession? It is the new creed to the United Presbyterian Church which is so Liberal that conservatives in that denomination found it impossible on its basis to effectively oppose the admission of a minister who denied the deity of Christ!* My curiosity whetted by this appearance of the Liberal creed in our official catechism book, I noticed further that the Author’s Preface acknowledged his particular indebtedness to “Dr. Douglas E. Nelson, who is the primary, if hidden, author of a sizable share of this material.” Dr. Nelson is the long-time pastor at “First United Presbyterian Church of New Haven, Connecticut.” In appreciation of his debt to Dr. Nelson who “first taught me that the Christian believer seeks understanding very often in the interrogative mood and that a faith beyond doubt is not yet beyond question,” the author dedicates his book to him (pp. xi, xii).

As one looks over the book he notices for example, that in the section on “Male and Female” the women’s liberation line is clearly adopted—as it is in the U.P. churches which outlaw churches and ministers who have Biblical scruples against ordaining women.

While such materials as this may be useful or provocative in helping people to understand doctrinal questions, when they are published as textbooks for teaching doctrine, hasn’t the whole idea of a Divinely revealed system of truth which we must hold and teach been lost from sight? While facing questions may have a useful place in church teaching, our Divine calling is not to “minister questions” but to faithfully convey God’s answers. The churches’ official textbooks should teach the things the churches unitedly believe, as traditional catechisms always attempted to do. If such a book is characterized by all kinds of subjective opinions with which few in the church can fully agree, can it be a satisfactory textbook?

Reformation of Catechism Classes

As the “catechism season” begins, ministers, elders and parents who are genuinely concerned about a Reformation of faith and life cannot simply follow the common or official policy and uncritically order denominational materials. We will have to prayerfully plan courses that will attempt to systematically teach the faith “once for all delivered unto the saints” (Jude 3), and we will have to seek out, study, and select, or produce, and use textbooks and helps that are designed to serve that purpose.

*Note: the Presbyterian Journal in reporting on the Presbyterian controversy has noted the bearing ofthe new creed upon it. For a systematic criticism of the subversive character of that creed see Dr. C. Van Til’s The Confession of 1967, Its Theological Background and Ecumenical Significance, Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co. Philadelphia, 1967.