Church and Family Need Catechesis

Article by Gary Parrett and J. I. Packer – source: https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/packer-why-your-church-family-needs-catechesis/

Historically, the church’s ministry of grounding new believers in the rudiments of Christianity has been known as catechesis. It is a ministry that has waxed and waned through the centuries. It flourished between the second and fifth centuries in the ancient church. Those who became Christians often moved into the faith from radically different backgrounds and worldviews. The churches rightly took such conversions seriously and sought to ensure that these life-revolutions were processed carefully, prayerfully, and intentionally, with thorough understanding at each stage.

With the tightening of the alignment between church and state in the West, combined with the effect of the Dark Ages, the ministry of catechesis floundered in large measure for much of the next millennium. The line between natural and spiritual birth virtually disappeared. According to the centuries-old practice, infants baptized into the church were, in theory, to be catechized later in the faith. But too often nothing of the sort occurred. As a consequence of such neglect, great numbers of persons who claimed to belong to Christ had little idea of what that might even mean.

Reformation Recovery

The Reformers, led by heavyweights Martin Luther and John Calvin, sought with great resolve to reverse matters. Luther restored the office of catechist to the churches. And seizing on the providential invention of the printing press just decades before their time, Luther, Calvin, and others made every effort to print and distribute catechisms—small handbooks to instruct children and “the simple” in the essentials of Christian belief, prayer, worship, and behavior. Catechisms of greater depth were produced for Christian adults and leaders. Further, entire congregations were instructed through unapologetically catechetical preaching, regular catechizing of children in Sunday worship, and, in many cases, the renewed practice of congregational singing of psalms and hymns.

The conviction of the Reformers that such catechetical work must be primary is unmistakable. Writing in 1548 to the Lord Protector of England, Calvin declared: “Believe me, Monseigneur, the church of God will never be preserved without catechesis.” The church of Rome, responding to the growing influence of the Protestant catechisms, soon began to produce its own. The rigorous work of nurturing believers and converts in the faith once for all delivered to the saints—a didactic discipline largely lost for most of the previous millennium—had become normative again for both Catholics and Protestants.

It could well be argued that the spirit and power of healthy catechesis was hampered by the hostile tone that entered the picture as Protestants and Catholics began increasingly using their catechisms to hurl attacks at one another. Nevertheless, this rebirth of serious catechetical discipling was a momentous step forward for all concerned.

The critical role of catechesis in sustaining the church continued to be apparent to subsequent evangelical trailblazers of the English-speaking world. Richard Baxter, John Owen, Charles Spurgeon, and countless other pastors and leaders saw catechesis as one of their most obvious and basic pastoral duties. If they could not wholeheartedly embrace and use an existing catechism for such instruction, they would adapt or edit one or would simply write their own. A pastor’s chief task, it was widely understood, was to be the teacher of the flock.

Recent Abandonment

Today, however, things are quite different, for a host of reasons. The church in the West has largely abandoned serious catechesis as a normative practice. Among the more surprising factors that have contributed to this decline are the unintended consequences of the great Sunday school movement. This lay-driven phenomenon swept across North America in the 1800s and came to dominate educational efforts in most evangelical churches through the 20th century. It effectively replaced pastor-catechists with relatively untrained lay workers, and substituted an instilling of familiarity (or shall we say, perhaps, overfamiliarity) with Bible stories for any form of grounding in the basic beliefs, practices, and ethics of the faith.

Thus for most contemporary evangelicals, the entire idea of catechesis is largely an alien concept. The very word itself—catechesis, or any of its associated terms, including catechism—is greeted with suspicion by most evangelicals today. (“Wait, isn’t that a Roman Catholic thing?”) Ironically, as noted above, it was the Reformers who impelled the church of Rome to once again take catechesis seriously. In recent decades, while the Catholic Church has renewed its catechetical labors with vigor, most evangelicals have not likewise returned to their own catechetical roots.

Course Correction

We hope to contribute to a much-needed evangelical course correction in these matters. We are persuaded that Calvin had it right and that we are already seeing the sad, even tragic, consequences of allowing the church to continue uncatechized in any significant sense. We are persuaded, further, that something can and must be done to help Protestant churches steer a wiser course.

What we are after is to encourage our fellow evangelicals to seriously consider the wisdom of building believers the old-fashioned way—by taking up the practice of catechesis.

Does Church Membership Matter?

Article by Tom Ascol – original source: https://founders.org/2014/09/16/does-church-membership-matter/

One of the most frequent questions that I get from professing Christians is, “Why do I have to be a member of a church?” Over the course of the years the character of that question has increasingly shifted from honest inquiry to incredulous accusation. In fact I am no longer surprised when believers get angry at me for insisting that sincere discipleship requires church membership. Low and erroneous views of the church are so rampant even among conservative, Bible believing Christians that any congregation that does not exercise extreme care in receiving members is sure to find itself a large percentage of mere “paper members” whose names appear on the roll but whose bodies are largely absent from most gatherings and fellowship and ministry initiatives.

Baptists in former days saw the issue quite differently. Membership mattered to the early Baptist churches in England and America in the 17th and 18th centuries. In fact, it would have been inconceivable for those early Baptists to regard membership in a local congregation as optional or incidental.

Imagine if the following convictions about the church were commonplace today among professing Christians:

In exercising the authority entrusted to him, the Lord Jesus, through the ministry of his Word, by his Spirit, calls to himself out of the world those who are given to him by his Father. They are called so that they will live before him in all the ways of obedience that he prescribes for them in his Word. Those who are called he commands to live together in local societies, or churches, for their mutual edification and the fitting conduct of public worship that he requires of them while they are in the world.

The members of these churches are saints by calling, visibly displaying and demonstrating in and by their profession and life their obedience to the call of Christ. They willingly agree to live together according to Christ’s instructions, giving themselves to the Lord and to one another by the will of God, with the stated purpose of following the ordinances of the Gospel.

What would a congregation be like if all the members believed this and all the leaders helped the membership live according to these convictions? It would be a beautiful thing. It would be a community of believers whose lives together demonstrate the power of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Their living would commend their preaching.

That was at the heart of the original vision of church life among early Baptists. The paragraphs quoted above come from chapter 26 of a modern version of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith. Because it summarizes biblical teachings on key issues a good confession of faith is an excellent teaching tool for a church. Prospective members can be asked to read it, or at least to read key sections of it, so that they will understand how the church they want to join view issues like polity, membership, worship, evangelism, marriage, scriptural authority, etc. Those who do join a church that has a confession of faith can refer back to it to be encouraged to think biblically about such issues as questions arise.

I am convinced that church life would be significantly upgraded in spiritual vitality if confessions of faith were once again properly regarded and widely used to commend and proclaim basic commitments to biblical teachings.

Explaining the Incarnation to Muslim Peoples

Article: 3 Ways to Explain the Incarnation to Muslim Peoples by Greg Handley, his wife Rachel, and their four children have lived among the Muslim peoples of Central Asia for the past five years. They meet weekly with local believers who will be celebrating the true meaning of the incarnation this Christmas, by God’s grace.  (original source – https://www.imb.org/2016/12/16/how-to-explain-the-incarnation-to-muslims/ )

The first “Christmas” evoked polarizing responses: magi from the East came to worship the Messiah while Herod trembled at the thought of his kingdom falling. Mary treasured the whole experience while Joseph wrestled through the shameful implications of marrying a miraculously pregnant woman. Angels declared good news of the promised Savior while this same news unsettled others. A treasure to some, a threat to others—this event, so great and world-shaking, allowed for no middle ground.

This polarization continues in our day, particularly among religions that give an account of Jesus. Islam suppresses the incarnation by teaching against it. According to Islam, God could never become man. An average Muslim has heard so many false ideas concerning what Christians believe about Jesus’s birth that the incarnation’s true implications aren’t discernible to them.

A Threat to Their Worldview

As you discuss the gospel with Muslims, it’s good to understand the threat the incarnation poses for them. To even consider whether God became a man would bring Muslims shame due to their “betrayal” of their religious community and cause them to fear the implications of differing from that community. The character of Allah, the teachings of the Qur’an, and their religious moorings are rendered suspect if God really did dwell among us in the person of Jesus.

Some well-meaning Christians attempt to soften this blow by minimizing the doctrine of the incarnation, but this is neither loving nor right. Faithfulness to God and being good friends to Muslims requires us to keep the edges of this truth while patiently remaining alongside questioners as they wrestle with the massive implications of the manger. During these discussions, your Muslim friends will need to have three facets of the incarnation clarified.

1. Clarifying How God became Man

Muslims are taught that Christians believe God had some type of physical relationship with Mary to have a son. After all, isn’t that the normal way sons enter the world? But Christians don’t believe this, as that would negate the virgin birth and impugn the very character of God. I’ve found that if you ask a Muslim how he believes Mary began carrying the baby Jesus, surprisingly you arrive on some common ground. We both can agree that the process transcended physical norms and was, therefore, miraculous. We may differ on the details, but we can build upon the commonality of the miraculous origin of Jesus’s birth.

2. Clarifying What “Son of God” Means

God can’t have a son in an Islamic worldview. He is too distant, too holy. It’s physically impossible and theologically inconceivable. Some Christians also struggle with what exactly we mean when we say Jesus is God’s Son. After all, the Bible uses the “son” language in a variety of ways. Sometimes it’s functional: a son does the deeds or has the role of his father (Matt. 5:9). Sometimes the son language designates a special representative of God or unique relationship with God (Ex. 4:22).

But it’s also used in a greater way, designating the very person of God himself. Muslims think Christians believe Jesus became the Son at his birth. But Christians believe the Son existed before the world and stepped into the world, receiving the name Jesus while on earth. Christians believe the Son is coexistent with the Father. If a selfie existed of the unchanging God, he would be Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This one-in-three-persons being is who God is. God didn’t have a son two thousand years ago. The Son is God and has been with God since before the world came into being (John 1:1–314).

Muslims believe Jesus is a prophet who spoke truthfully, so opening the Bible and reading Jesus’s words together is the best thing to do to bring clarity here. “Have you read what Jesus said about himself?” is a good question to ask to transition into Scripture. Jesus claimed to exist before Abraham (John 8:53–59), and for this, the Jewish leaders wanted to stone him. When one of Jesus’s disciples requested that Jesus show them God the Father, Jesus’s answer was clear: he himself is the physical embodiment of the Father on earth. There was no need for more revelation or another prophet to come after Jesus for us to know the Father (John 14:8–118:19). Jesus even claimed to have the same authority as God to give life and to judge (John 5:19–23). Jesus didn’t teach people as the former prophets had by saying “God says this or that.” He began his statements with “I say,” assuming the very authority of God himself.

In light of these claims, we’re faced with a choice: submit to his claims as a true prophet or pick up stones to suppress his claims. This will inevitably lead to the discussion of whether the Bible has been changed. I’ve found the best proof for the Bible’s unchanging nature is the book itself. If you can open the Bible with Muslims, then you are exposing them to Scripture with self-authenticating power.

3. Clarifying Why God became Man

The manger brings joy to a Christian’s heart because it speaks of a God willing to embrace sacrifice in order to save sinners. This is good news, but this doesn’t line up with the god of the Qur’an. At its core Islam rejects the God who became man, thus denying he died on the cross and was raised to new life. In the absence of a Savior, we are left to save ourselves, which is just what Muslims believe. This isn’t liberating good news. We must connect the dots between Jesus’s coming, his suffering, and his victory over death. This is the news that must be heard in order to be saved (Rom. 10:9–13).

As we bring clarity to their misconceptions, Muslims need to see us embodying the way of Jesus if they are going to forsake their whole identity for a new path. We can’t change hearts, but we can show them the evidence of our changed hearts. Seeing God’s love in Scripture alongside Christians whose lives embody its power has the potential to make this news, once a threat, their greatest treasure.