8. Drawing Lines And Choosing Sides
8
Drawing Lines and Choosing Sides
In things essential, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity.1
In this chapter, we highlight two additional features of faithful and fruitful catechesis, which we will call “drawing lines” and “choosing sides.” By drawing lines, we mean, first, that good catechesis helps believers distinguish primary doctrines from those that may be considered secondary or tertiary. Not all things that the church teaches are equally important. Simply making this point is, in and of itself, a potent act of teaching. A second sort of line drawing that catechists engage in is pointing out that what we believe at each level of importance—primary, secondary, and tertiary—needs to be distinguished from what others have taught. We believe this as opposed to that. Hence, our line drawing also involves choosing sides. These aspects of catechesis can be seen throughout the history of catechetical work and, we will argue, continue to be of vital importance for our own efforts at catechetical renewal today.
First Things First
With our earlier sketch of “the Faith” and related terms, we have already argued that some areas of catechetical content are more important than others. If we take biblical testimony seriously, there are some things which must be taught by the church in all times and places. But this does not apply to all matters. Some things, furthermore, must be taught before others can or should be. Some doctrines, in other words, are simply “weightier” in importance than others, and basic to others.
The apostle Paul, for example, plainly saw the Gospel as primary in his own catechetical work. When he outlines his message of the Gospel he writes to the Corinthians, “For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received” (1 Cor. 15:3). First things, Paul insists, must come first. He laid the foundation of the Gospel. Its message, as we argued earlier, is the cornerstone of all other aspects of the Faith.
In our vision of catechetical content we must begin the work of catechesis by introducing those doctrines that are of primary concern. In catechesis we help learners grasp the relative weightiness of certain doctrines by drawing lines between these primary concerns and other teachings. The use of terms like primary, secondary, and tertiary, however, might well be too loaded for the liking of some believers. While such language may be potentially very helpful we recognize that others may be put off by it. This is also true with regard to the familiar language of “essentials” versus “non-essentials,” made famous in the saying “In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity” (see note 1). It may be difficult to persuade a Baptist, for example, to see the doctrine of “believer’s baptism” that is central to his own denominational identity as a non-essential or secondary matter. Pentecostal believers may well have similar problems with regard to distinctive teachings about the baptism and gifts of the Spirit, and so on with reference to other faith communities.
We are persuaded that faithful catechesis must sooner or later underline the point that what makes us part of the one body of Christ is finally more important than what makes us, say, Presbyterian or Anglican. But perhaps there is other language that can be used to help us toward this sort of drawing lines, language that will not prove a stumbling block to quite as many people. In such hope we propose a different set of terms or, better, a different way of framing matters. We suggest thinking of catechetical content as having four layers, which we label: (1) Christian Consensus; (2) Evangelical Essentials; (3) Denominational Distinctives; and (4) Congregational Commitments.2
Here is a fuller description of what we mean by each of these expressions. We examine how these might be worked out in a catechetical strategy later, in chapter 9.
1. Christian Consensus
That which has been believed everywhere, always, and by all (in other words, the fundamentals of “the Faith”)
The Faith, as we have argued throughout, is the proper content of catechesis. This Faith may be taught in many ways—topically, thematically, within a narrative framework, or in some combination of the above. Few Christians would argue against the idea of teaching the Faith, even if they never actually get around to doing so. For those who do take such a teaching task seriously, though, there is often disagreement about what constitutes the Faith, as we have already seen. What we intend by “the Faith” here includes that which others have labeled mere Christianity, and still others have called the Great Tradition.3
We see much that is commendable in these terms. Still, we would give preference to the more commonly used biblical language of “the Faith.” In our proposal for catechetical content we have suggested that teaching the Faith requires primary attention to the following components:
• The Gospel in its simplicity and depth (which must be taught “as of first importance”—that is, it must always be viewed as primary and foundational)
• The Story of redemption, of which the Gospel is the apex and summary (the sacraments provide a means of continually retelling the Story)
• The Truth, that is, the doctrines that conform to the Gospel (the Creed provides the historic primer on the Truth)
• The Life, that is, the life-giving power that flows from our relationship with God (the Lord’s Prayer provides the historic primer on the Life)
• The Way, that is, the manner of living in this world that conforms to the Truth of the Gospel (the Decalogue provides the historic primer on the Way)
We have no illusions that all believers who would concur with the basic elements of such an outline will agree on its details. For example, Catholics hold that there are seven sacraments, Protestants have historically affirmed only two, and Orthodox believers have tended to avoid any dogmatic numbering of the sacraments. More critically, our unpacking of the Gospel will surely differ in critical detail between these various groups. Still we are convinced that there is much to be gained by beginning our catechetical efforts, in whichever of the historic Christian communities we may belong to, with emphasis on those things which have been held in common by the vast majority of Christians through the ages. Utilizing the four fixtures of the catechism—the Creed, the Decalogue, the Lord’s Prayer, and the sacraments—is a very practical and tangible way to affirm a non-compromising, irenic, and properly ecumenical approach that takes seriously the prayer of Jesus for the unity of believers in John 17:20–23 and the apostle Paul’s emphatic plea for unity in passages such as Ephesians 4:3 and 4:13.
2. Evangelical Essentials
Those things which mark us off as evangelical Protestants vis-à-vis Catholic and Orthodox believers
Admittedly, the word “evangelical” is problematic in our day. Some would argue that the term has simply lost its usefulness because it has come to mean wildly different things to many different groups. For some the term is identified with right-leaning politics. For others the term is synonymous with “fundamentalist.” Some groups that have very little in common with orthodox, historic Christianity now seek to lay claim to the label of “evangelical.” The problems are complex indeed. Some have perhaps concluded that we would do best to dismiss the term altogether in favor of some other designation.
Troublesome though the term can be, however, there is still much to commend its usage to us. It has biblical roots, being built from the Greek term euangelion, meaning “good news.” It thus reminds us of the importance of Gospel-centricity in the lives and ministries of our churches. Furthermore the term is historically important. It was the self-designation of many of the Reformers (who came to be called “Lutherans” or “Protestants” by others). In many parts of Europe, this is evident in the fact that Protestant churches are called simply “evangelical churches” to this day.
Aside from the confusion that can pop into the minds of many upon hearing the word “evangelical,” a case can be made that a broad and deep evangelical consensus around central doctrines does in fact exist even now. Drawing upon numerous statements and declarations that have been generated by a wide variety of evangelical organizations from the mid-twentieth century to the beginning of the twenty-first, J.I., together with Thomas Oden, offered a summary outline of that consensus in the book One Faith.4 Their summary argues compellingly for evangelical consensus in the following areas:5
1. The Good News: the heart of the Gospel
2. The Bible: the authority of Holy Scripture
3. The One True God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit
4. Human life under God: creation fallen into sin
5. Jesus Christ: his person and work
6. Christ’s reconciling work on the cross: his penal substitution for our sins
7. The exalted Lord: his resurrection, ascension, and session
8. Justification by grace through faith: the acquittal
9. The meaning of salvation: God saves sinners
10. The sending of the Holy Spirit: uniting the faithful to Christ
11. The holy life: sanctifying grace
12. Unity in the truth of the Gospel: the unity of all believers
13. The church: the people of God
14. Religious pluralism and the uniqueness of Christ: salvation in Christ alone
15. Christian social responsibility: the integration of words and deeds
16. The future: the last things
While the title of J.I. and Oden’s book is One Faith, they are not claiming that their outline represents what we have called “the Faith” as it is affirmed by believers in all the major historic communities—Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant. Their focus instead is unity of conviction among evangelical Protestants.
Another possible way of framing what should constitute evangelical essentials for purposes of contemporary catechesis would be to turn to the Reformation solas: solus Christus (“Christ alone”), sola gratia (“grace alone”), sola fide (“faith alone”), sola scriptura (“Scripture alone”), and soli deo gloria (“glory be to God alone”). Many evangelical believers will still find these emphases very useful for the second phase or layer of catechesis that we are here proposing.6
3. Denominational Distinctives
Those doctrines that distinguish various Protestant groups (denominations or other affiliations) from one another (Baptist from Presbyterian, Pentecostal from Methodist, etc.)
Evangelical Protestants may well agree on a good number of doctrines and emphases, but there can be no doubt that there are many teachings and practices that keep us from fully experiencing our unity with one another. How divided are we? We have already mentioned the nearly forty thousand denominations that exist today. Beyond the official denominations, there are countless ad hoc affiliations and associations of churches as well. Some of these divisions are doubtless the product and legacy of sinful and selfish and stubborn human hearts. We certainly have not paid due heed to the prayer of Jesus and the pleas of Paul that we mentioned above. These divisions weaken our witness and credibility in the eyes of our nonbelieving neighbors just as Jesus implied would be the case (see John 13:34–35; 17:23). The divisions that exist among ourselves as evangelical Protestants also make it exceedingly difficult for us to have meaningful dialogue with Catholic and Orthodox Christians. Were we to envisage anything approximating a truly ecumenical council of the church today, for example, how would we go about choosing representatives from an evangelical world so diverse and unorganized?
On the other hand, not all divisions are sinful or inappropriate. Paul decried the Corinthian divisions that were based on social standing, spiritual giftedness, and improper attention to human leaders. But he also noted that some divisions within the body of Christ are unavoidable and serve to show who is moving and ministering in ways that are pleasing to God (1 Cor. 11:19). Some divisions are born not merely of sinful proclivities but from genuine convictions about matters theological, ethical, ecclesial, and liturgical. Furthermore, by what must be regarded as a happy irony, such divisions can actually provide opportunities for profound displays of unity. When Christians work together toward common ends of evangelism, service, and mission in spite of their theological diversity, they offer a picture of an authentic and critical aspect of biblical unity. Unity in the Bible—which derives ultimately from the Christian doctrine of the Holy Trinity—is not a uniformity void of diversity. It is rather a unity in and through diversity.7
Catechesis, however, requires that we draw lines between our doctrines in such a way as to demonstrate their relative importance. Teaching that helps believers understand, for example, that the doctrine of the Trinity is actually more important than our particular doctrine of ecclesiastical polity is a God-honoring ecumenical act in its own right. This is not to say that concerns such as the latter are unimportant. In fact, these are critical issues that need to be understood and addressed by the congregation’s teaching ministry. When there are significantly divergent convictions about the meaning of the Lord’s Supper, it will prove difficult for believers to worship together on a week-by-week basis. But when in spite of our differences regarding the sacraments (or ordinances—the choice of language itself points to our differing convictions) or polity or the end times we find ways to concretely express our love and respect for one another as fellow believers in Jesus Christ, we are doing something truly beautiful.
4. Congregational Commitments
The vision, values, and practices that are perceived as unique commitments of this particular church
Even within a given denominational context, each particular congregation will have certain commitments that are distinctly its own. These may be the function of the unique sense of call or burden that the congregation had when formed or toward which it has more recently felt directed by God’s Spirit. They may also be shaped by the particular cultural setting in which the church lives, including matters of ethnicity, socioeconomic realities, geography, nationality, or a general sense of the times in which the church has been chosen, by God’s sovereign appointment, to live and minister.
Wise church leaders will want their members to be well educated in the distinctive commitments of the congregation. But here again what it means to be a member of, say, “First Church” must be placed in proper perspective relative to all the other sorts of belonging that apply—belonging to a certain denomination or affiliation, belonging to the Protestant evangelical community, and belonging to the “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church” of Jesus Christ.8
Clarity in Our Courses
One way we might draw lines for our people is in regard to those teaching ministries that are ongoing in the life of the congregation. For example, a given church may offer adult Sunday school classes throughout the year. Some churches that formerly featured a vibrant Sunday school have moved away from this particular format, replacing it with small groups that meet throughout the week, a midweek gathering, or perhaps with monthly or quarterly seminars. Regardless of the particular format, we need to consider whether we are drawing lines for our members that can help them recognize the relative importance of the issues being taught and discussed.
Suppose, for example, that a certain church offers four small group or Sunday school options for adult learners each week. The offerings may be determined simply by the fact that four members of the church have volunteered to teach on subjects of interest to themselves. One has decided to offer a class on parenting young children. Another leads a discussion on a recent book by a popular Christian author. A third offers a study through the book of, for instance, Philippians using a published Bible study guide. The fourth class turns out to be an introduction to what Christians believe.
In such a scenario there are many problems at work that really need to be addressed. First of all the scheme for teaching is ad hoc and haphazard. One year will thus look very different from the next and there is no apparent coherence or cohesion in the curriculum. Secondly the teachers may be inappropriate for the task. Have they simply volunteered themselves? Are they biblically qualified teachers? Do they have adequate training? Are they mature believers? There is much we could say about these problems and many more that are implicit in this little sketch. But the problem we want to point out just now is simply that there are no lines drawn for the learners. All four courses are effectively offered as electives. There is nothing to suggest to anyone that one of these courses may be more basic for Christian learning than the other choices.
A very practical way to improve upon such a situation is to have offerings that are divided into at least two categories. The first might be called something like “Basics,” “Foundations of the Faith,” “Faith Essentials,” and so on. One church with which Gary consulted about these matters chose several courses to comprise what they began to call the “Cornerstone” series. The second category could be described with words like “enrichment” or “development” or simply “electives.” After drawing lines in this manner, we can then make it clear that our intention is that church members begin their learning with classes in the first category.9 Once we have established five or six such classes we should offer them on an ongoing basis. We might then urge that learners finish all of these before jumping into offerings from the second category. Alternatively we could suggest that learners vary their selections throughout the year—a class from the first category one quarter, and from the second category the next quarter—until they have finished all the “Basics” classes. Offerings in the second category are more open-ended and new courses may well become available each year. For those who have been in the church and in this schooling aspect of its ministry for many years, there will be the option of taking one of the new courses offered each year or of refreshing oneself in some of those things that are considered essentials. Of course some of the longtime members will themselves become teachers in this ministry. The crucial move will be to establish the expectation that all members will take courses regularly, as part of their church commitment.
We can now see that there are at least two related but different ways in which we must draw lines as we catechize. First we draw them between doctrines based on relative importance. Second we draw them wherever and whenever we must between the various families of faith within the Christian world. This latter aspect of drawing lines should sadden us because we long for a fuller experience of the true unity of the body of Christ. But honesty requires us to draw the lines where they in fact exist. May God help us to do so with as charitable, fair, and irenic a spirit as possible.
Choosing Sides
Because of the second aspect of line drawing—that is, distinguishing our doctrines and practices from those of others—the work of catechesis also involves what we are calling “choosing sides.” At some appropriate place in our catechizing we must acknowledge that there are significant differences of conviction and opinion among evangelical Protestants. As we address these various points of divergence we are effectively drawing lines and choosing sides. We must seek to honestly explain the differences on the given doctrine or practice and then articulate why it is that our denomination or congregation believes or practices as it does: “Here we have a sort of line between us and other believers. We stand on this side of the line, and here’s why. . . .” Our teaching must communicate love and respect toward our fellow believers but we should not be shy to acknowledge honest differences. Done properly, confessing our diversity on secondary matters can actually be an act of acknowledging our fundamental unity with fellow believers.
We trust that for many, if not most, contemporary evangelicals it will not prove difficult to take such an approach to our differences with other evangelicals. But distinguishing our positions as evangelical Protestants from those of Catholic and of Orthodox churches, on the other hand, will prove a greater challenge. In fact, there are many evangelicals who simply do not regard Catholics or Orthodox as true Christians. Or at the very least they imagine that while it may be possible for a Catholic or Orthodox to be a “real Christian,” that would be a very rare thing. Catholics and Orthodox, for their part, are likely to find more affinity with one another than with Protestants. Some in both of these communities will actually regard their church as the only true church, which of course is what is officially claimed. When Catholics say “the Church” they are typically referring to the Roman Catholic church. When Orthodox Christians say “the Church” they are typically referring to the various expressions of the Orthodox church. When evangelicals say “the Church”—with a capital “C”—they are typically referring to the so-called “invisible Church,” the church, that is, as God sees it (though man cannot), which is comprised of all genuine believers in Jesus Christ. This, in the eyes of many evangelicals, would include all or most evangelicals and perhaps also some Catholics and Orthodox. Sadly, when many evangelicals say “the church” they do not think in terms of a capital “C” at all. The only church they have in mind is their own congregation. But we need a more generous view of things.
Years ago my wife and I (Gary) accompanied my sister and brother-in-law to a Lenten service in the local Catholic church where they regularly worshiped. My wife and I were deeply impressed by the amount of Scripture read during the service, including a good deal of biblical language in the liturgy. Afterward we confessed to my sister and brother-in-law that neither of us had ever heard so much Scripture in a service before. In reply my brother-in-law, a lifelong Catholic, offered a lament along these lines: “Most of those people had no idea what it all meant.” The Scriptures were read and recited but apparently things were done by rote for many. There was little biblical exposition or teaching in the service and most of those in attendance were far removed from their childhood interactions with a catechism—an experience which may or may not have been a positive one.
I had a second strong impression from the service. When the Mass was celebrated my wife and I knew we would not go forward to partake of the Lord’s Supper, and had already discussed this with my sister and brother-in-law. Because of different understandings of the meaning and mystery of the sacrament we felt that we could not participate. Remaining in my seat I began to peruse the missal (which provided detailed guidance in the liturgy, together with some readings and songs) located in the back of the pew in front of me. On the inside front cover was a word of welcome and some instructions regarding participation in the Mass. The instructions were offered under four heads: “For Catholics,” “For Other Christians,” “For Those Not Receiving Communion,” and “For Non-Christians.” I knew the heading “For Other Christians” was intended for my wife and me, and for others like us. That section contained two paragraphs. The first read:
We welcome our fellow Christians to this celebration of the Eucharist as our brothers and sisters. We pray that our common baptism and the action of the Holy Spirit in this Eucharist will draw us closer to one another and begin to dispel the sad divisions which separate us. We pray that these will lessen and finally disappear, in keeping with Christ’s prayer for us “that they may all be one” (John 17:21).
The second paragraph began with these words: “Because Catholics believe that the celebration of the Eucharist is a sign of the reality of the oneness of faith, life, and worship, members of those churches with whom we are not yet fully united are ordinarily not admitted to Holy Communion.”10
I had several thoughts about what I was reading. On the one hand, while the prayer of Jesus was referred to—a prayer to which I fully join my heart— there was nothing in the statement to suggest that the Catholic church was anticipating movement on their part toward my Reformed understanding of the sacrament anytime soon! My strong sense was that the statement’s prayer that our “sad divisions which separate us . . . will lessen and finally disappear” was envisioning a day when all the wayward sheep would come “home to Rome.”
But on the other hand the irenic language of the statement struck me. My wife and I along with our fellow Protestants were being addressed as “fellow Christians” and as “our brothers and sisters.” This language left my heart feeling strangely warmed. I wondered if my own congregation—which at the time was an independent evangelical church—would dare to use such language toward Catholic believers who might come to our congregation for one of our quarterly (yes, it was only quarterly) celebrations of the Lord’s Supper. In fact I felt fairly confident that many of our members would have strongly opposed addressing Catholics as “fellow Christians” and “brothers and sisters.”
In the evangelical church of which I am now a member, many years later, I am bold to believe that far more of us would be inclined to offer this sort of gracious language. There are several factors that may contribute to this. First, our church is part of a denomination and so our members have a better sense that “the church” is far bigger than just our own congregation. Second, our particular denomination takes very seriously the idea of “majoring on majors” and thus would be more likely to extend grace regarding our differences with Catholics. And third, the age in which we now live lends itself to tolerance of difference (far too easily, it must be said). A fourth factor that has influenced at least some of our members is that we actually do engage in a limited, formal catechetical ministry in our church. All who are preparing for baptism or confirmation go through a period of instruction in which our convictions are taught, including this denominational commitment to “major on the majors.” And in our ongoing catechetical ministries—preaching, worship, teaching, small groups—these values are strongly reinforced. Our town is heavily Roman Catholic, and this too has had the effect of increasing our sensitivity toward our Catholic neighbors.
Disagreeing . . . with Gentleness and Respect
In an even more rigorous and intentional ministry of catechesis, we would work hard to emphasize what we as evangelicals hold in common with Catholics and Orthodox Christians. We would also draw lines and choose sides where necessary, endeavoring always to do so in love as befits the people of God. There are in fact significant points of divergence between Catholics, Orthodox, and evangelical Protestants. Among these are different understandings of biblical authority, the nature of the church and its sacraments, and the Gospel and the saving work of Christ. Such things must be addressed directly, as is currently being done by the group called Evangelicals and Catholics Together, of which J.I. is a member. This group’s long-term aim is to map the continuing differences, so as to see both what would have to happen for consensus to be achieved, and also how far, if at all, pastoral cooperation is possible while consensus is lacking. Whether any form of common catechesis is yet possible is a question that for this group hangs in the air. In the Reformation era, however, this was not anyone’s question; both sides saw the catechetical task as one of making clear the differences themselves.
To see this, one need only browse through the various catechisms that emerged first from the labors of the Reformers and then from the Counter Reformation work of the Church of Rome. It was inevitable that the Reformers would need to draw lines and choose sides in their published catechisms. They were newly emerging from the oversight of the papacy and had to explain where and why they differed on critical points of doctrine. Most notably differences regarding the number and meaning of the sacraments and regarding the nature of justification and justifying faith were regularly cited by the Protestant catechisms. Increasingly, as the Catholics answered back with catechisms of their own, the tone sharpened, and often grew severe.
In response to harsh language—including declaration of anathemas— found in the Roman catechisms regarding the Protestant teachings on the Lord’s Supper, Elector Frederick III insisted that an additional question and answer be included in the Heidelberg Catechism (published originally in 1563) to fire back. Question 80 addresses the differences between “the Lord’s Supper and the Papal Mass.” The answer provided closes with these words: “Therefore the Mass is fundamentally a complete denial of the once for all sacrifice and passion of Jesus Christ (and as such an idolatry to be condemned).” The addition was unfortunate for two reasons. First, it is completely out of character with the overriding tenor and purpose of the catechism as a whole. The Heidelberg Catechism is particularly irenic in tone and was actually commissioned, in part at least, out of a longing to see greater unity between the Lutheran and Reformed churches of the German Palatinate. Secondly, the language in the answer to Question 80 does not seem a fair estimate of the Catholic position.
In recent years some Protestant bodies that have long made use of the Heidelberg Catechism have acknowledged that Question 80 and its answer are problematic to say the least. Some Reformed churches now publish the original language of the answer in italics and/or add comments indicating what is perceived to be a more accurate portrayal of Roman Catholic views.11
As we saw earlier in chapter 3, a tendency toward particularization and the uncharitable exchanges between various Christian bodies that accompanied this trend must bear part of the blame for the decline of catechesis in recent history. While we should not duck away from our differences we do no favors to ourselves by exaggerating them either, or by articulating them in ways that are unkind and likely to generate mutual hostility. Recent documents from the Catholic church regarding catechizing in our day likewise emphasize charity and fairness in representing the views of other Christian groups. For example, we find these instructions in the National Directory for Catechesis:
Catechesis seeks to present the teachings of other churches, ecclesial communities, and religions correctly and honestly. It explains “the divisions that do exist [between and among Christians] and the steps that are being taken to overcome them.” It avoids words, judgments and actions that misrepresent other Christians. This will help Catholics deepen their understanding of their own faith and develop genuine respect for the teachings of other ecclesial communities while also bearing witness to the Church’s commitment to seek the unity of all Christians.12
“You Have Heard That It Was Said . . . but I Say to You”
The preceding remarks provide a word of introduction to our next major point. We have spoken above about drawing lines at the third and second layers, or phases, of catechetical work. In fact, however, we would argue that such efforts are primarily appropriate not for initial catechesis but for subsequent teaching of a congregation’s maturing believers. The focus of initial catechesis—such as that in preparation for baptism or confirmation—should be instead on those doctrines and practices we have referred to above as the Christian Consensus. Or perhaps we could envision such catechesis as primarily concerned with matters of Christian Consensus supplemented by some attention to Evangelical Essentials and far less attention to Denominational Distinctives and Congregational Commitments. Catechesis proper is primarily concerned with grounding believers in the fundamentals of the Faith. Those doctrines and practices which distinguish groups of Christians from one another belong more properly to the work of ongoing catechesis. Therefore, in other words, the primary line drawing in formal, initial catechesis in our age should be between the Christian worldview and competing, non-Christian worldviews.
There has always been an impulse in sound catechetical work toward something like the language of Jesus from the Sermon on the Mount. In that passage Jesus distinguishes his teaching from that which was popular in the surrounding Jewish culture of the time. Thus we hear him say several times, “You have heard that it was said . . . but I say to you” (Matt. 5:21–22, 27–28, 31–32, 33–34, 38–39, 43–44). Jesus summarized some of the teachings of the religious authorities of the day and then countered those teachings with his own. He was, to use our language, drawing lines and calling his hearers to choose sides. This sort of practice had ancient precedents. It is evident throughout the Old Testament as the people of Israel were warned through the preaching and teaching ministries of everyone from Moses to Malachi against the idolatry and immorality of their surrounding nations. It is also apparent in the various New Testament letters written to churches in specific contexts, as well as in the book of Revelation.
Such an approach has been a constant throughout the history of serious catechetical work. In the ancient church we see this sort of thing at work in the various ecumenical councils of the church. Truth was expounded at the expense of heresy. Careful catechists introduced those becoming Christian into the new world of the Bible and Christian reality in part by contrasting this new world with the old world from which they were turning. Typically, attention was especially given to those competing truth and morality claims that were predominant and most likely to affect and challenge the new believers. Context was obviously critical. Thus we see Cyril of Jerusalem pointing up Christian teaching vis-à-vis “the Jews”—that is, the unbelieving Jews who dominated the landscape of Jerusalem. The hostility between non-Christian Jewish authorities and the Christian church—largely gentile by this time, but including Jewish believers as well—was often fierce.
The Reformers had an obvious opponent as they catechized. They had recently broken from the rule of Rome and necessarily needed to distinguish their beliefs and practices from those of the Catholic church. This sort of practice is evident in some Orthodox catechisms as well. In one such contemporary catechism, for example, following nearly every key teaching is an explicit contrast with the Roman Catholics, Anglicans, Protestants, and several other groups.13
The majority of recent catechetical documents that have been developed by the Roman Catholic church have continued this sort of “vis-à-vis” approach. It may surprise some evangelical Protestants to know, however, that the usual target is no longer Protestantism. Rather the target is more often the amorphous New Age spirituality that dominates much of the North American scene today. Here is one example:
Catechesis in relation to these New Age movements should accurately describe the beliefs and practices of adherents to these movements and carefully contrast them with Catholic beliefs and practices. It should help the Catholic faithful deepen their knowledge of Sacred Scripture, awaken a vibrant experience of prayer in them, to understand the teachings of the Church thoroughly, and articulate those teachings clearly. It should educate them to accept responsibility for the Catholic faith and to defend it vigorously against error and misunderstanding.14
Competing Catechisms of the Culture
Evangelicals who would catechize today need to properly identify the appropriate “vis-à-vis” for their own catechetical ministries. In other words, when we say, in effect, “You have heard that it was said . . . but the Scriptures say to you” we need to be clear about the influences that have been speaking into the lives of our congregants. Catechesis must always be attentive to the counter-catechesis at work in our lives. Earlier we dealt with the causes and consequences of the uncatechized church. In reality, however, all our members actually have been catechized—thoroughly so—in competing worldviews.
The venues and processes for this cultural catechesis are many and varied. A young person growing up in North America today has their worldview and values powerfully shaped by forces from all fronts. There is the constant influence of all sorts of media, the values inculcation that the schools and educational leaders have devoted themselves to, the political forces that legislate and enforce ever-shifting understandings of morality, the relentless worldview shaping that is driven by forces of advertising and marketing, and much more. The potency of such formative forces is enhanced by the fact that catechumens live among peers who are shaped continually by, and are often deeply committed to, these same things.
What can stand against the power of such influences? When families are fractured and churches are catechetically ineffective and inattentive, will the children in our own churches grow up to have faith in the living God? Survey data for some time now suggests overwhelmingly that among North American youth there is very little difference in values or lifestyle between teens who self-identify as evangelicals and those who profess no religious belief. The evidence overwhelmingly points, on the one hand, to unformed and poorly articulated beliefs. And those beliefs professed, on the other hand, seem to have little or no bearing on how the teen actually chooses to live.15 It is not only for the sake of those coming into the Faith from the outside but also for those growing up on the inside of our church communities that we must return to holistic, intentional, biblically faithful, and culturally sensitive ministries of catechesis. The counter-catechisms of our surrounding culture offer contrasting instructions regarding nearly every point of biblical catechesis. We would speak the Truth but our hearers have been schooled in numerous false -isms of the age. We witness to the Life that comes from a living relationship with the living God; our hearers have long been trained in the worship of assorted idols within the culture. We point toward and strive to lead in the Way; the culture has catechized our congregants toward a very different way—toward perverse practices and habits that are plainly not-the-way. We tell God’s redemptive Story; the culture propagates countless other narratives. We proclaim the Gospel, but pseudo-gospels have been trying to lead us astray for many years.
The wise Christian catechist must discern the competing catechisms at work in controlling the heads, hearts, and hands of our congregants. We then draw lines and choose sides. With Joshua we are bold to name competing gods and call for decision. Will it be “the gods that your fathers served in the region beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you now dwell” or will it be the One, the true God, the Lord? We ourselves must lead in the declaration, “As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord” (Josh. 24:15).
Evangelical Protestants in North America must carefully discern the counterpoint to their catechetical work. What in fact are the competing catechisms fighting for the minds and devotion of our members? Perhaps in some instances it will still be the case that our primary focus in this regard would be some other Christian community. In a heavily Latino community where the majority of our members have grown up with a Catholic culture and worldview we probably will have to deal seriously with the tenets of Catholicism. In a Russian or Greek community where the majority has previously known only the Orthodox vision of the Faith we will have to address that vision candidly. If we are receiving new members who have come from fundamentalist Protestant backgrounds, “health and wealth” spiritualities, or theologically liberal mainline backgrounds—or whatever the case may be—we must keep the background clearly in mind as we teach.
Given the cultural realities in which we live as twenty-first-century North Americans, however, most of us will likely find ourselves confronting different primary competitors. The -isms that must be confronted by the truth of Christ include materialism, naturalism, relativism, and the like. The idols that must be cast down are possessions, pleasure, passion, power, and many more. The perverse practices of the day have the flavor of “Me first,” “It just feels right,” “Whatever it takes to get ahead,” and so on. When we are concerned with the most basic level of catechesis—of grounding people in the fundamentals of the Faith once for all delivered to the saints—with its implications for what we believe, how we live, and how we come to know God, we ought not to waste our precious energies denigrating other Christian communities who share so much in common with us about the most important realities.
As we have already seen, evangelicals share with observant Catholic and Orthodox Christians belief in the One, Triune God; the Scriptures as God’s sacred revelation; the full deity and full humanity of Jesus Christ; the redemption for sins accomplished through Christ’s death; the bodily resurrection of Christ and his ascension to heaven; and the glorious return of Christ to rule and reign forever. We share, furthermore, deep convictions about a wide range of ethical issues. We believe together that persons come to know the living God through the mediation of Jesus Christ.
There is certainly a time and place for drawing lines and choosing sides relative to other Christian communities. Such work, however, should not be the focus of our primary, foundational catechesis. In the first phase, or layer, of catechesis we identify the most basic realities of the Christian worldview. We outline the Gospel, expand on the redemptive Story, and articulate the basic elements of the Truth, the Life, and the Way. As we do so we cannot help but offer our unique perspective on these matters since we speak as evangelical Protestants. This will surely affect our presentation of the Gospel, for example. In many, if not most, instances the presentation of the Gospel from the lips of an evangelical Protestant will be different in some significant ways from the presentation by a Catholic or an Orthodox Christian. Such differences will be inevitable within evangelical circles as well. Reformed teaching about the Gospel will at points be different from Arminian teaching or Lutheran teaching on the same subject.
We need not be shy about these differences. But we should not go out of our way, on the other hand, to magnify these differences at the earliest stages of our catechetical work. Our focus instead should be on how the message of the Gospel is so very different from all the false gospels of the culture that surrounds us. This will mean that we also distinguish the Christian vision from the message of other major religions. This is especially vital in the Western world today when people from so many religious and cultural backgrounds live side by side in our cities. All this teaching we seek to conduct with gentleness and respect (1 Peter 3:15; 2 Tim. 2:24–26) but we are clear that the call of Christ is radically different relative to the myriad competing visions of reality that surround us.
Concluding Remarks
In this chapter we considered the ideas of drawing lines and choosing sides in our ministries of catechesis. In faithful and fruitful catechesis we must make a distinction between primary, secondary, and tertiary teachings. In the most basic of catechetical work we must especially labor to distinguish the teachings of the Christian faith vis-à-vis other philosophies, practices, and worldviews of the surrounding cultures in which we minister and live. Having drawn these sorts of lines we are honest and clear as to when and where we must choose sides. But we are to do all these things in a biblical spirit of gentleness and respect.