The Lost Art of Catechesis
J. I. Packer and Gary Parrett observe,
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?”)
I have noticed that probably the majority of Protestants do look rather funny at non-Catholics who mention using a catechism. This is really a shame because catechisms such as the Westminster Shorter Catechism do offer such a wonderfully rich exposition of the faith. Certainly better than many a Sunday School curriculum will ever do today.
Protestants (generally speaking) desperately need to find ways to embrace theology again and catechesis is certainly a helpful way to ground that, especially if the catechetical answer is not the sum of the teaching.
Packer is right, as he so often is.
Via: Dr. Alan Meyers
“Wait, isn't that a Roman Catholic thing?â€
I do question how much of American theology and piety is formed by that question. (I doubt it's limited to America, but don't have enough experience elsewhere to expand the question.) There seems to be a subtle (and quite likely subconscious) attitude that if it's found in Catholicism, it's wrong and shouldn't be found anywhere else.
In a less cynical (though equally problematic) view, it could be the result of Zwingli's view that anything not expressly commanded in Scripture shouldn't exist in the church (as opposed to Luther's view, which said anything not expressly condemned may be included), though there seem to be enough commands to “teach” which certainly imply long-term development in their context.
You have a point. Of course, the whole West has a preoccupation against the East too (and vise versa), as my independent study on Eastern Orthodoxy continues to remind me.
To me, one of the beautiful things about Reformed theology is that it takes so much of what I like about Catholic theology without some of the stuff I don't exactly appreciate. Certainly, I think it does a very fine job of presenting matters of grace and election in the spirit of Augustine and Aquinas.
It's the divine benevolence (aka 'providence') that I have a problem with in Reformed Theology. The Moravians, through the German Pietists, handled the problem of grace by faith much better.
I have my own issues with the Pietists.
Do you read Thomas as having an easier to work with doctrine of Providence?
Aquinas? Eh… I'm not much of a Thomist, which probably explains why I'm not in a Catholic seminary. (Yet.)