# Presbyterians and Catechism Preaching



## Casey (Nov 14, 2005)

I know of a number of books and articles on catechism preaching in the (Dutch) Reformed tradition. Could anyone supply recommendations on resources (books or articles) on catechism preaching in the Presbyterian tradition?

I was given a sheet that had the Larger Catechism split up into "Lord's Days" (only with twice as many as the Heidelberg Catechism!). Does anyone have a similar list of the Larger split up? Perhaps even the Shorter?

I have been to Presbyterian churches preaching from the Larger, Shorter, and even the Heidelberg! I would be interested in hearing a rational as to which of the Westminster Catechisms ought to be preached through. I asked G.I. Williamson, and I don't recall his reasoning, but he recommended only the Shorter for catechism sermons.

It seems to me that since the Larger covers the doctrine of the church better than the Shorter, the Larger ought to be used as well. I suppose a church unfamiliar with catechism preaching might start with the Shorter, and upon finishing it advance to the Larger. What are your thoughts on this?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Nov 14, 2005)

This article may be of interest.


----------



## Casey (Nov 23, 2005)

That's an interesting question. Recently I have read material arguing that catechism preaching should use the catechism as the text. For those who exposit the catechism in this way, they do nevertheless read Scripture as well. As for me, I am still not decided on the issue. 

If the catechism is what the church believes the Bible teaches, then when one preaches the catechism he would be preaching what "the Bible teaches." This is how, arguably, it is still preaching the Word of God. Obviously, catechism preaching is decidedly didactic, which is why it was traditionally done in afternoon services.

I suppose this little graphic will be appropriate here:


----------



## JohnV (Nov 23, 2005)

I'm from Dutch Reformed roots, and catechism preaching is what I grew up on. Here's how it works, briefly:

The minister is obligated to preach at least one sermon per week using the catechism. There sometimes are extenuating circumstances, and so there are times when he would miss one Sunday from time to time. But this is a general rule. So the Heidelberg catechism is divided up into 52 Lord's Days.

The reading of Scripture always precedes the reading of the catechism. I've seen it done that, where the reading of the Word and the sermon are separated by a psalm/hymn or prayer, that the reading of the chosen catechism teaching is done in either section. But generally, as I've seen it, it is done along with the sermon, as a lead-in to it. This is not a hard and fast rule, as the church that I attend now does it with the reading of the Word part, which is separated from the sermon part by a few intervening things, such as prayer, a psalm, and the collection. 

Generally, the sermon itself explains the doctrinal content of the catechism teaching, bringing the hearer back to the catechism itself. Then the minister turns to the passage he read, and shows the teaching of Scripture itself. Now, as I said, this is general, for the entire sermon has references to Scripture throughout usually. In other words, the use of the catechism is to systematically teach the points of the doctrine of Scripture for the church through the year, not to elevate the catechism to any particular status. 

Lastly, the minister will often relate things taught in catechism classes to his congregation. Especially things that the children have struggled with in understanding, have involved the parents in discussion, and they in turn have engaged the elders. These are particularly unifying for the congregation, as they grow together in understanding. 

I've not seen it done in Presbyterian circles. I am somewhat a stranger in that area. I can't help there.


----------



## Casey (Nov 23, 2005)

My professor provided me with select copies from 2 articles by a Dutch fellow named Gootjes, Inheritance Publications. Here is where the most extensive argument is developed.

http://www.telusplanet.net/public/inhpubl/webip/ip.htm

I can't figure out if it's from a book or . . what. But I think I found it here:
http://www.telusplanet.net/public/inhpubl/webip/prod13d.htm (search for "catechism preaching")

Also helpful has been 3 articles out of the _Mid-America Journal of Theology_. They were written by Peter Y. De Jong, in these volumes: Fall 1985 1:2; Fall 1986 2:2, and Spring 1987 3:1. I am still reading through these, but it seems he covers arguments in the 3rd article. These would be available at the publications page of the seminary website.

http://www.midamerica.edu/publications.htm

Both of these sets of articles cover the historical aspect of catechism preaching.


----------



## JohnV (Nov 23, 2005)

What was I thinking? The church that I attend reads the catechism just before the preaching, *not* with the reading of the Word. Why did I say that!?. Please accept my apologies.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Nov 24, 2005)

> _Originally posted by trevorjohnson_
> Hello;
> 
> Here is a question from a baptist (who is attending an OPC church, therefore, it is not asked out of antagonism, but real curiosity)...
> ...



If it were me, I would read the catechism or confession section and then the referencing verses that support the statement; I don't believe it matters. The catechisms and confessions are summaries of Gods word.


----------



## Pilgrim (Nov 25, 2005)

My pastor, Jack Sawyer, preaches through catechisms and confessions on Sunday evenings. When I first started attending, he was preaching through the Heidelberg and now is on the Shorter Catechism. I think he's also preached through the WLC and/or WCF during his tenure here as well. He was previously a minister in the Reformed Church of New Zealand (largely Dutch, but they subscribe to both the Three Forms and the Westminster Standards), so I'm thinking he may have begun this practice there. He reads the catechism and then expounds the relevant Biblical texts.


----------



## JohnV (Nov 25, 2005)

Is there any reference, historical or confessional, to catechism preaching in Presbyterian circles? Andrew, our local historian, is there any heritage for that in Presbyterianism?


----------



## Casey (Nov 25, 2005)

> Is there any reference, historical or confessional, to catechism preaching in Presbyterian circles? Andrew, our local historian, is there any heritage for that in Presbyterianism?


::: Patiently waiting for a detailed answer to this helpful question :::


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Nov 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by StaunchPresbyterian_
> 
> 
> > Is there any reference, historical or confessional, to catechism preaching in Presbyterian circles? Andrew, our local historian, is there any heritage for that in Presbyterianism?
> ...



The article I cited from the OPC magazine provides a current example of catechetical preaching in the OPC. G.I. Williamson also sees a place for catechetical praching as noted in this article (subordinate to the primary place of expository preaching). He cites a quote from R.B. Kuiper which I think is worth considering:



> Now this type of preaching, however excellently intended, is in at least some danger of running afoul of the Scriptura sola principle. Not that catechismal preaching is to be condemned. On the contrary, if it be performed properly, it deserves the warmest approbation. Doctrinal preaching of the right kind is one of the most crying needs of our day...It is hardly an exaggeration to say that the Protestant ministry is today working as hard at keeping the laity in doctrinal darkness as was the Roman Catholic clergy before the dawn of the Reformation. The Christian church has no greater present need than that of systematic doctrinal preaching.
> 
> But doctrinal preaching, like all preaching, must be based upon the Word of God, and that is a way of saying that it may not be based upon the creeds.... The greatest creeds of Christendom arc but fallible interpretations of Holy Writ. It does not follow that they cannot perform valuable service for preaching. They can indeed do that, for, although fallible, they are precious products of the illumination of the historic church by the Holy Spirit Christ´s promise to the apostles that the Spirit of truth would "œguide them into all the truth" was intended for the church of all ages, and Scripture describes the generic church as "the pillar and ground of the truth." Therefore, for the minister of the gospel to stress his right of private interpretation to the practical exclusion of the illumination of the historic church deserves to be described as boundless conceit. Nevertheless, the church´s interpretation of Scripture is fallible, and so its confessions of faith and catechisms can do no more than service as helpful guides in preaching. Never may they be regarded as the source of doctrine or the touchstone of truth. Those distinctions belong to the Bible alone. And he who makes use of the creeds in preaching is in sacred duty bound to keep that fact unmistakably clear.



With those qualifications in mind, I would not be opposed to catechetical preaching. 

But I think the reason why the Presbyterian heritage largely does not include catechetical preaching is because the Westminster Assembly and the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland both saw catechism as something that was extremely important but needful in the context of family worship or godly Sabbath day exercises rather than in the public worship of God. The Directories for Publick and Family Worship both make mention of catechizing in those contexts and not in public worship. In their efforts at reforming the liturgical worship of England, they moved the Apostles Creed from public worship to catechism. They developed catechism classes (different in many ways than Sabbath school). And that largely impacted the Presbyterian heritage for centuries. 

So historically catechetical preaching has been found more in Heidelberg Catechism-oriented traditions than Westminster-oriented traditions. 

John -- As a slight aside, you have inspired me to study the regulative principle of worship as it applies to preaching. I would be glad to compare notes sometime.


----------



## JohnV (Nov 26, 2005)

Wow, Andrew. I knew I could count on you. Good work. I need to do some homework on that now. 



> As a slight aside, you have inspired me to study the regulative principle of worship as it applies to preaching. I would be glad to compare notes sometime.



Yes, I would very much like to compare notes. We have certain differences, but I don't think they are that big. In discussions on this Board I have noticed that often I have commonalities in areas of diametrical differences with those with whom I am discussing; serving up the question as to whether we are understanding our differences arightly.

As it stands now, I notice a lot more of the differences between the Dutch Reformed and the Presbyterian Reformed; but I also notice commonalities in troublesome areas. This of course takes for granted the great area of unity in doctrine. Catechism preaching is one of those things that can be used wrongly, as Williamson says; but it is also true that expositional preaching can be used wrongly too in the same way the same way.


----------



## Casey (Nov 26, 2005)

> Wow, Andrew. I knew I could count on you. Good work.


A thanks here as well -- I've appreciated your comments.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Nov 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by StaunchPresbyterian_
> 
> 
> > Wow, Andrew. I knew I could count on you. Good work.
> ...



Glad to be of service. God bless!


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Dec 4, 2005)

From _An Introduction to the Westminster Larger Catechism_ by W. Robert Godfrey, as found in _The Westminster Larger Catechism: A Commentary_ by J.G. Vos, edited by G.I. Williamson:



> Philip Schaff suggests that the Assembly had another purpose in mind for the Larger Catechism. He wrote that the Assembly prepared "a larger one for the public exposition in the pulpit, according to the custom of the Reformed Churches on the continent."11 Schaff's suggestion is intriguing but not one that is supported either by his own footnotes or by other evidence. Schaff may have reasoned that since the general aim of the Assembly was to bring the British churches into conformity with continental Reformed practice, the Assembly would also promote the kind of catechism preaching found in the Genevan, German, and Dutch Reformed churches. Without clear evidence to support it, this reasoning seems to run contrary to other actions of the Assembly. For example, the Assembly's decision not to provide an exposition of the Apostle's Creed in the catechism because it was not inspired by God would make it unlikely that the Assembly would expect an uninspired catechism to be preached in the churches. Also the statement on preaching in the _Directory for the Publick Worship of God_ seems to stand against Schaff: "Ordinarily, the subject of his sermon is to be of some text of scripture, holding forth some principle or head of religion, or suitable to some special occasion emergent; or he may go on in some chapter, psalm or book of the holy scripture, as he shall see fit."12 T.F. Torrance probably expresses better than Schaff the purpose of the catechism for preachers when he writes, "_The Larger Catechism_ was designed chiefly as a directory for ministers in their teaching of the reformed faith Sunday by Sunday."13
> 
> 11. Philip Schaff, _Creeds of Christendom_, 3 vols. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1977), 1:784.
> 
> ...


----------



## JohnV (Dec 4, 2005)

Thanks for these quotes, Andrew. They have me doing some thinking. 

I find the following quote from Kuiper very interesting:


> _taken from a previous post_
> Doctrinal preaching of the right kind is one of the most crying needs of our day...


Non-catechetical preaching can be as much prone to be not the "right kind" as catechetical preaching. At least that has been my experience. Varying from the doctrinally established teachings has more to do with compromising with modern notions, whether with or without the catechism's use for instruction from the pulpit. 

Be that as it may, Torrence's comment is enlightening:


> "The Larger Catechism was designed chiefly as a directory for ministers in their teaching of the reformed faith Sunday by Sunday."


The upshot, as I understand it, is that if the catechism was not meant for regulation of doctrinal teaching, to be used directly from the pulpit, it was at least to be used as a manual of sorts for the preacher to follow, so as to teach all the doctrines, and not just to favour the ones that interest him, or that he thinks are more important. In a way, you could say that it was a guide, at least, as a RPW upon the preaching of the Word. 

Whether it was used like the Dutch did it, or as the WA apparently intended it, it comes down to the same thing. It could be abused, and the direction to use it misunderstood and misapplied. I've listened to sermons which did not reference Scripture much, if at all, while "expositing" the catechism. But I've also listened to sermons which cite Scripture after Scripture, and each time the particular "bent" of the preacher over-rides the self-interpreting Bible. The former was through the abuse of the catechism for the sermon, while the latter was because of a departure from adherence to the catechism as a proper guide to preaching. 

I think that it would be much like Augustine says in "On Christian Doctrine", that all things can be either used to God's glory or they can be abused for self glorification. If the preacher is going to wander from the gospel message, then he'll do it with or without the use of the catechism.

I don't think the Presbyterians are any better off not preaching from the catechism, nor are they any better of if they did. The real question is whether they are keeping to the teaching of Scripture.


----------



## Puddleglum (Dec 7, 2005)

This is coming a little late, but . . . one of our pastors preached through the Heidelberg a couple years ago. My recollection is that he would read a passage of scripture relating to whatever question we were on, and that the sermon was taken, largely, from that scripture - the sermon was about the Bible, not just what the catechism said the Bible said. (BTW, it's an OP church)


----------



## Arch2k (Dec 7, 2005)

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> From _An Introduction to the Westminster Larger Catechism_ by W. Robert Godfrey, as found in _The Westminster Larger Catechism: A Commentary_ by J.G. Vos, edited by G.I. Williamson:
> 
> 
> ...



Thanks for the quote Andrew. I own that work, but do not remember that from the intro.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Dec 7, 2005)

Our pastor similarly preached through the Heidelberg, and you cannot get much more anti church calendar than he is. 


> _Originally posted by Puddleglum_
> This is coming a little late, but . . . one of our pastors preached through the Heidelberg a couple years ago. My recollection is that he would read a passage of scripture relating to whatever question we were on, and that the sermon was taken, largely, from that scripture - the sermon was about the Bible, not just what the catechism said the Bible said. (BTW, it's an OP church)


----------



## JohnV (Dec 7, 2005)

In the Dutch churches the HC was gone through in one year ( or so ), and then begun again. Each Sunday had a catechism sermon. Teaching from the Catechism is not the problem, it seems to me; it is whether the preaachers of the Word are teaching from Scripture or not. And that can be strayed from with or without the catechism.

What seems to me to be a greater difference is how the Confessions are viewed. It doesn't matter whether it is the BC or the WCF, are they viewed as open-ended or as limitations? Years ago, as I was taught in the Dutch church, it was considered an accusation when it was said that a minister taught from his personal point of view, because that would mean that he went beyond what the Confessions cleary stated, adding his own views to it. Now it seems that as long as a personal view does not openly disagree with the Confessions it is allowed, even preached, whether or not the Confession explicilty states that view as a doctrinally correct. For example, if years ago a man would preach the Framework Hypothesis as that which the Bible was presenting during his sermon, he would be severely reprimanded, and held accountable for adding to Scripture. In our day, if it is his personal conviction that this is what the Bible teaches, then that is good enough because it has been determined that it does not depart from the WCF. What used to be an accusation is now a justification because of a difference in how the Confessions are viewed. 

It is even possible that a preacher can stand on the pulpit feeling completely justified in presenting Postmillennialism as *the* orthodox eschatology on the basis that a person's eschatology determines his theology, and that therefore it is requisite for his preaching; and consider that wholly legitimate. His right to do so is even protected by the church, instead that being the reason for being called to account. What is forgotten is that the Confessions forbid adding to Scripture, they forbid men from claiming to be God's Word what God has not clearly made known, and it forbids putting philosophies or theories ahead of theology. They are not even ashamed anymore to say that they are personally convinced of certain theories, and therefore feel called to preach those views.

And now it is not even all that strange that men have gone further than that and openly preach heretical doctrines, such as Federal Vision, based upon the same current open-endedness of the Confessions which is now the reigning orthodoxy in our churches. It is not licenced in the Confessions, but has been introduced from the point of personal convictions of Scriptural interpretation, and wangled onto the pulpits despite what has been outlined by the Confessional Standards the churches have covenanted to uphold to maintain Scriptural integrity. 

We might be able to convince the GA's that FV is heresy, but that does not plug the hole in the dike. Catching some water is hardly the solution to fixing the problem.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Dec 7, 2005)

I appreciate your thoughts as always, John.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jan 2, 2006)

> A special committee, appointed by the Old School Assembly of 1869, reported to the first reunited Assembly of 1870, after a laudatory description of the Heidelberg Catechism, the following resolutions, which were unanimously adopted:
> 
> 1. Resolved, That this General Assembly recognizes in the Heidelberg Catechism a valuable Scriptural compendium of Christian doctrine and duty.
> 
> ...


----------

