An Analysis of the First Catechism

We are preparing to celebrate the 145th anniversary of our church. Our theme for the event comes from Psalm 145, “One generation will commend your works to another … they will speak of the glorious splendor of your majesty… .”

Passing on the faith from generation to generation has been an essential dynamic of the Judeo-Christian heritage for 4,000 years. The Passover celebration begins when a child asks “What do these things mean?” This question then opens up the annual re-telling of the story of the salvation of Israel in order to nurture the renewal of faith for the young through the centuries.

For some 70 generations the Christian church has been doing just that, passing on the faith, from convert to convert and from generation to generation. As in Israel, so in the church, some generations have done a better job than others of passing on the faith As we approach the end of the second millennium of the Christian era, I wonder how well we are doing passing on the faith? From reviewing curriculum for children and youth every couple of years with Christian education committees, I know that there is great thought, work and money put into the effort of passing on the faith. From denominational groups and inter-denominational groups, there is a multitude of material published with outstanding quality: wonderful graphics and multicolored layouts. The curriculums today use the hands-on, learner-involved methods. The materials provide well developed teacher helps that make the publications easy to prepare and easy to use.

But the whole effort seems to me to be missing something. I seldom see a graduate of the Sunday School, Vacation Bible School system that has a grasp of the essential doctrines of the Reformed faith. Most current efforts at Christian education curriculum are entertaining and engaging but eclectic, theologically unsystematic and unfocused.

More than once I have desired to come up with a way that would pass on the faith in a manner that was focused, systematic and clear. Historically the Reformed faith has developed the catechism for just such a purpose. Both the Heidelberg Catechism and the Westminster Shorter Catechism were developed to provide a means of instructing the young within the church. And yet as I have explored introducing catechisms into Christian education programs, I have come up against the twin barriers of archaic language and an educational tool that was developed in another historical/cultural context. The Heidelberg Catechism was written in Germany in the sixteenth century while the Shorter Catechism was written in seventeenth century England. Even motivated theological students have trouble bridging those barriers! How can I expect young children to make it past such challenges!

I was glad to learn that a new children’s catechism was being developed entitled, The First Catechism, and I was eager to get my hands on it. I was a primed and eager consumer.

On first glance, I looked to see how concise the questions and answers were. This is important because our children, shaped by the TV, are not eager to do extensive memory work. Then I looked to see how long the entire catechism was. Too many questions would no doubt be a turn off, as well. I was pleased to see that both questions and answers were indeed concise and to the point. The length was promising. There are 56 questions and answers. In contrast the Heidelberg Catechism has 129 and the Shorter Catechism has 107.

Next I noticed its user friendly approach. It takes a personal and direct approach from the very first question: Q.1 “Who are you?” with the answer, “I am a child of God.”

Then I looked through it to see if the classic essentials of a catechism were there: the Ten Commandments and the Lord’s Prayer. Both were. I noticed that the Apostles’ Creed was not, although that wasn’t necessarily a problem. The Heidelberg Catechism does includes the Apostles’ Creed and the Shorter Catechism does not.

Next I read through the catechism looking for tone and overall structure. It impressed me as being highly relational. While the first two questions articulate what it means be to a child of God, the third question affirms the essential role of grace in a relationship with God. Q. 3 “Do you have to be good for God to love you?” A. “No, God loves me in spite of all I do wrong. God’s love is a free gift that I do not deserve and cannot earn.” The emphasis on the priority of relationship is continued in the way sin is defined, in Q. 10 “What is sin?” A. “Sin is separation from God, because we have closed our hearts to God.”

On through the definition of the church, the sacraments and prayer, there is a warm comforting undertone of God’s loving care. The very last question wraps up grace, care and love with a resounding conclusion. Q. 56 “Why does our prayer end with ‘Amen’?” A. “‘Amen’ means ‘so be it’ or ‘let it be so.’ It expresses our complete confidence in God, who makes no promise that will not be kept and whose love endures forever.” Such a theme of relational warmth in a theological document strikes a cord with me. I love the first Q. and A. in the Heidelberg Catechism and seldom can read it without misty eyes. Q. 1 “What is my only comfort in life and in death?” A. “That I belong—body and soul, in life and in death—not to myself but to my faithful Savior, Jesus Christ who at the cost of his own blood …” What can be more caring or profound than that?

Next I looked to get perspective on the structure and development of the First Catechism. It begins with a question of personal identity and relationship to God (1-5) and then moves on to God as creator and the creation (6-8).

The next three questions address the definition and consequences of sin (9-11). The next series of questions deal with God’s “helping” work in dealing with sin through Israel including the Ten Commandments and it articulates their covenantal rejection of his help (12-19). The concept of Jesus as Messiah comes next with a look at his identity, ministry, crucifixion and ascension (20-27).

The catechism then moves to the person and work of the Holy Spirit (28-31), and then follows a section on the church addressing the definition of the church, the gospel, the work of the Spirit, worship and the sacraments (32-41). The final section addresses prayer by means of an expansion of the petitions of the Lord’s Prayer (42-56).

As a whole, in this structure we have an articulation of the system of the Christian faith with an emphasis on the love of God.

While I like the personal and loving tone of the First Catechism, I am troubled by its failure to include a moral dimension as part of that loving, personal relationship. Because of the absence of the moral dimension, it fails to hold together as an internally integrated, consistent system of the classic Reformed understanding of a personal relationship with the graceful holy God.

The Moral Dimension is Absent

The absence of the moral dimension of a personal relationship can be seen in the First Catechism’s definition of sin. Q. 10 “What is sin?” A. “Sin is separation from God, because we have closed our hearts to him.” Certainly separation from God and closing the heart is one dimension of sin. But sin also includes disobedience to the commands of God.

The classic Reformed confessions address this issue immediately. Q. 3 of the Heidelberg Catechism “Where do you learn of your sin and its wretched consequences?” A. “From the Law of God.” Q.14 of the Shorter Catechism defines sin as “ … any want of conformity unto, or transgression of the law of God.” The biblical concept of sin from Adam and Eve’s disobedience to Revelation’s account of the judgment upon the human race, is that closing of the heart and disobedience to the laws of God are part and parcel of the same dynamic and cannot be separated from each other.

The loss of the moral dimension of sin in the First Catechism can be seen in the way the 10 Commandments are handled. The Shorter Catechism includes the preface to the Ten Commandments which the First Catechism does not. Q. 44 of the Shorter Catechism asks, “ What does the preface to the Ten Commandment teach us?” A. “The preface to the Ten Commandments teacheth us that because God is the Lord, and our God and Redeemer, therefore we are bound to keep all his commandments.”

While the Ten Commandments are included in the First Catechism, in contrast to the Heidelberg Catechism and the Shorter Catechism, they are glossed over. Both the Heidelberg and the Shorter Catechism give the Commandments and then provide an explanation of each of the Commandments and what keeping each means. The First Catechism does not. There is no explanation of what the Commandments mean or what they require of us. This places us in a situation in which sin is vaguely defined as “separation from God because we have closed our hearts to him.”

When I compare the way the Lord’s Prayer is handled with the Ten Commandments, I suspect something is askew. Like the Heidelberg and Shorter Catechism, the First Catechism includes an expanded exposition of each petition of the Lord’s Prayer. Why follow the historical tradition with the Lord’s Prayer and not do so with the Commandments?

The absence of the moral dimension of a personal relationship with God can be discerned, as well, in that there are no references to the Word of God; either as a means of revelation or as a standard of human conduct. No where in the First Catechism can I find anything like Shorter Catechism’s Q. 2: “What rule hath God given to direct us in how we may glorify and enjoy him?” A. “The Word of God which is contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments is the only rule to direct us in how we may glorify and enjoy him.” Nor Q. 3 What do the Scriptures principally teach?” A. “The Scriptures principally teach what man is to believe concerning God, and what duty God requires of man.” Nor Q. 39 “What is the duty which God requireth of man?” A. “The duty which God requireth of man is obedience to his revealed will.” This loss of the moral definition and dimension of sin and absence of a reference to the Scriptures as the Law of God introduces a fog into the catechism. Reading it through the first time or two I had a sense of something missing but I couldn’t quite put my finger on what it was. It was when I took a good look at the definition of sin and what it didn’t say that I understood my discomfort with the whole document.

Role of Jesus Christ is Unclear

I am especially concerned about what the fog of this catechism does to the role of Jesus Christ in the lives of our children. The saving work of Christ and the daily benefits of living the Christian life become ambiguous. This is seen in the First Catechism’s handling of the work of Christ. Q. 25 “How did Christ prove to be our Savior?” A. “ He sacrificed his life for us by dying on the cross. He showed his victory over death by rising from the dead. He removed our guilt and gave us new and unending life with God.” What is wrong with this? Doesn’t it say that he died for us and removes our guilt? Yes, but that is not enough. No where in this statement is there a reference, explicit or implicit, to atonement for sin. Christ died to pay for our disobedience to God, which includes both breaking his commands and closing our hearts to him. The atonement is a central doctrine of the Christian faith. However, it vanishes into the fog because of the inadequate exposition of sin that permeates the entire document. There is nothing like Q. 40 of the Heidelberg Catechism in the First Catechism, Q. “Why did Christ have to suffer “death?” A. “Because the righteousness and truth of God are such that nothing else could make reparation for sins except the death of the Son of God.”

I’m all for our children understanding the wonderful grace of God. But before we can understand grace we need to know something about sin. If we alter the concept of sin, we alter the concept of the savior, as well as, the entire redemptive theme of the Scriptures.

Looking at the First Catechism as a system, it gets off on the wrong foot from the very first question. Again, Question 1 is “Who are you?” with the answer, “I am a child of God.” It does sound warm and affirming. But this beginning will not lead us to a biblical or Reformed understanding of the faith. Our fundamental identity, from a biblical perspective, is that we are made in the image of God with the privilege of becoming children of God through faith in Jesus Christ.

When we start the way the First Catechism does, we obscure the distinction between generation and regeneration. I am not naturally born into the family of God. I am not naturally a child of God. I cannot naturally call God my Father. I am born from above, born supernaturally, reborn, beyond sin and the judgment of God, into the new reality of the eternal family of God only when I believe in Jesus Christ.

The First Catechism’s lack of clarity on sin naturally leads to the loss of a Reformed doctrine of adoption: it implies that either we are naturally born into the family of God or that we are regenerated through baptism. Both are wrong. Certainly we want our children to feel cared for by God and to know that they belong to him. But we are doing them a disservice if we do not help them to understand that embracing the benefits offered to them in baptism can only come to them as they repent from sin (which includes disobedience to God’s Law) and express a personal faith in Jesus Christ as their savior.

Conclusion: First Catechism Inadequate

It is important that we develop a contemporary tool that helps us pass on the Christian faith and the Reformed faith from generation to generation. The First Catechism is not it. The user friendly approach of concise answers, a limited number of questions and an emphasis on the love of God don’t make up for its deficiencies. The First Catechism articulates a biblically defective understanding of sin. It makes no reference to Word of God as a guide to conduct, (or revelation for that matter). There is no need for repentance unto life. There is nothing about regeneration. There is no need for a doctrine of adoption, or justification or sanctification.

The amount of biblical and theological content in a first catechism must be carefully limited so as not to overwhelm our children. But there must be clarity about the Christian faith and what is required of our children to filling us with weariness. It’s time for us to reflect on believe and to obey. Even if such doctrines as how we have gone about the work of renewal in the repentance, justification, sanctification and effectually church. calling aren’t spelled out in a First Catechism, the catechism needs to be written in such a way that they are implicit and will make sense when the children are old enough to understand them. The way the catechism is now written, I don’t think that will ever happen.

What is there about this First Catechism that prepares children for a biblically-faithful and Reformed understanding of the Christian faith? What is there about the First Catechism that will allow us to pass on the biblical faith of the church from generation to generation? Regretfully I must say there was nothing I could find.

This article first appeared in Theology Matters, Vol. 4, No. 1 (Jan/Feb 1998).