Committee member answers criticisms of new catechisms By George Hunsinger Princeton Theological Seminary Monday, September 14, 1998 As a member of the Special Committee to Write a New Presbyterian Catechism, I would like to express my appreciation to The Presbyterian Layman for its generous coverage of the new catechisms. While the overall assessment of your writers has been positive, a number of points have also been singled out for critique. I welcome the discussion initiated in your pages. I hope it will continue throughout our church now that the catechisms have been approved for use by the 210th General Assembly.
1. The Study Catechism “fails to capture the majesty and authority of God.” Of all the criticisms you have published, this one grieves me the most. If true, it would certainly need to be remedied, and I would welcome specifics on how this might be done. I would hope, however, that as the catechism continues to be pondered, important affirmations of God’s majesty and authority will not be missed. Here are some examples. God’s love for the world is said to be so vast that it is “ready to suffer for our sakes, yet so strong that nothing will prevail against it” (Q. 8). “God the Father” is said to set “the standard by which all misuses of power are exposed and condemned” (Q. 12). God’s majesty is recognized when we read that “God called heaven and earth, with all that is in them, into being out of nothing simply by the power of God’s Word” (Q. 15). “When we adore God,” we read in the definition of prayer, “we are filled with wonder, love and praise before God’s heavenly glory, not least when we find it hidden in the cross of Golgotha” (Q. 120). This is only a sample. Throughout the Study Catechism a deliberate effort is made not to dissociate God’s glory from the cross of Christ. In this it follows Calvin: “The glory of God shines, indeed, in all creatures on high and below, but never more brightly than in the cross” (Commentary on John 13:31). 2. The Study Catechism “has a weak view of the mission of the church.” Here Michael Armistead seems to disagree with your other commentator, Gerrit Scott Dawson. Dawson found favorably that “The mission of the church is undiluted: ‘to bear witness to God’s love for the world in Jesus Christ’ (Q. 63), while finding concrete expression in the ways we ‘bring hope to a desperate world by declaring God’s undying love’ (Q. 64).” Armistead objects that this statement “omits the commands to call the world to repentance, faith, and discipleship in Christ.” Note, however, that the catechism specifically states that “the hopeless need hope, sinners need the forgiveness, and the world needs the gospel” (Q. 65). The catechism implies that although evangelism is indeed indispensable and central, it does not exhaust the church’s mission. The shorter “Confirmation Version” specifies what is intended here by mentioning “evangelism, work for social justice, and ministries of care” (“Confirmation Version,” Q. 50). “Bearing witness” would seem to be a more promising category for capturing the church’s mission as a whole, in all its varied aspects, than would, as Armistead seems to suggest, evangelism alone. 3. The Study Catechism “is universalistic in tone and seems to go to great lengths to avoid saying some people may be excluded from judgment or inclusion in God’s kingdom.” On the contrary, the catechism makes it clear that when it comes to God’s judgment, no one is excluded (Q. 48). Furthermore, Dawson is correct when he observes that the catechism consistently strives to avoid “triumphalism” (though he seems to believe, strangely in my opinion, that this concern is misplaced). He also notes that the statement “No one will be lost who can be saved” (Q. 49) is something that “could be said by a five point Calvinist or a universalist.” He rightly grants that “the statement is true as far as it goes.” The statement, I would say, is open-ended but not trivial. It foregrounds the God who in Jesus Christ came to seek and save the lost, becoming like a shepherd who leaves the 99 in order to go after the one sheep that is lost – “until he finds it” (Luke 15:4). The “universalistic” aspects of the gospel have arguably been underplayed in the history of the Christian church. By contrast, Calvin is richer, more subtle, and more complex on this matter than is generally recognized. For example, his remarks as previously cited continue: “. . . [In the cross] there is a wonderful change of things – the condemnation of all men was manifested, sin blotted out, salvation restored to all men; in short, the whole world was renewed and all things restored to order” (Ibid.). Q. 49 leaves certain questions open in hope. It undeniably seeks to redress a certain historic imbalance while nonetheless allowing for real differences and discussion within our church. It indicates the important common ground on which the discussion can take place. Note that among the scripture texts attached to the answer are Heb. 10:31 and John 3:18. Along with these criticisms, a fourth was urged by Gerrit Scott Dawson in the May/June Layman. 4. Although The Study Catechism affirms “Christ alone,” “grace alone” and “faith alone,” it does not affirm “Scripture alone.” Along with the crucial “neglect” of central doctrines, this omission proves that Scripture is “being muffled.” Although the term “Scripture alone” is not used, it is everywhere presupposed. It is the clear basis, for example, of the answer to Q. 60: “Our faithful discernment of what is true . . . depends finally on God’s Word as conveyed in Holy Scripture. The church is therefore reformed and always being reformed according to the Word of God.” Likewise, we read in Q. 59 that the Holy Spirit speaks “always according to the Word, never contradicting or diluting it.” (In Q. 80, where we find “Christ alone,” “grace alone,” and “faith alone,” “Scripture alone” does not appear, because the topic is the forgiveness of sins.) As to central doctrines, it is astonishing to be told that “this catechism leaves the door open for there to be a Jesus who is behind, or other than, the Jesus revealed in the written Word.” This catechism affirms no other Jesus Christ than the one “attested for us in Holy Scripture” (Q. 56). It vigorously affirms our Lord’s true deity and his saving humanity (QQ. 29-35). It teaches that he died in our place (QQ. 40, 44, 45, 70, 78, 81) and that he rose again bodily from the dead (QQ. 46 and 84). Nor will it do to allege that the catechism is “scanty on the Trinity.” A trinitarian context for the entire catechism is established by QQ. 1-4. The exposition of the Apostles’ Creed ends with a trinitarian affirmation of “everlasting life” (Q. 88). QQ. 75 and 76 significantly reaffirm the trinitarian name of God in a baptismal context. (See also Q. 17.) No doubt we might have done better as a committee on such doctrinal affirmations, but we did not do as poorly as Dawson has claimed. A ‘generous orthodoxy’ Although I have focused, as did your writers, on the points of criticism, important affirmations should not be overlooked. Armistead states that the catechism “is strong in reflecting the content of these essential components of the Christian faith” (i.e., “the Apostle’s Creed, the Ten Commandments, and the Lord’s Prayer”). Dawson affirms that the catechism is “a vigorous, substantial document.” He recognizes that it leaves room to interpret “ambiguities” in ways that seem good to him. This leeway is not accidental. Although your writers see it as a weakness, it might also be regarded as a strength. The catechism sets forth a “generous orthodoxy” designed to appeal to the center and moderate left of our denomination as well as to the moderate right. It is my hope that it will help to define the theological common ground that unites the Presbyterian Church (USA) as we strive to confess our faith in Jesus Christ, and teach it to our children, now and in the years to come. George Hunsinger is director of the Karl Barth Study Center at Princeton Theological Seminary. |
|||||
| The Presbyterian Layman, current issue | |||||
|
Home,
· Archives,
·News
Updates |
|||||
