I agreed with the decision the Westminster Authors made on this.

A CATECHISM FOR PREACHING?

Philip Schaff, the well known nineteenth-century historian, and J. R. Pitman, the editor of one of the divines’ works, have both stated that the Larger Catechism was also to be used for preaching. Schaff wrote that the Assembly produced “a larger [catechism] . . . for the public exposition in the pulpit, according to the custom of the Reformed churches on the continent.”11 Godfrey has observed that the evidence for this claim is lacking. He also points out that the Assembly’s Directory for Worship (still used by some Presbyterians) explicitly points out that the preacher is to preach from a text.12 This is an important point: if the minister was to preach from a biblical text, it is not likely that he was to use the man-made propositions in the Larger Catechism as the launching point for a sermon.

A reading of the unpublished minutes of the Assembly confirms Godfrey’s point. In the middle of the Assembly’s debates on preaching there is a somewhat cryptic statement: “Debate upon that text or argument because it gives liberty to preach without a text.”13 In twentieth-century parlance, this means, “we debated about whether a preacher should preach from a text of Scripture, or from a doctrinal proposition (such as a catechism answer); we were concerned that a sermon based on a doctrinal argument could allow a minister to preach without expounding a text.”

This statement of the Assembly reveals that the final declaration found in the directory was a deliberate one: the ministers at the Westminster Assembly did not think that the preacher should preach from a proposition, or argument, but only from the Scriptures themselves. As important as the catechisms were, the Westminster divines did not want to follow the practice of the Reformed churches on the continent who preached from the Heidelberg Catechism. Rather, keeping the original intentions of the authors of the Larger Catechism in mind, there seem to be two main reasons why it was written: (1) creedal unity and, (2) more fulsome instruction in the Christian faith; as the Scottish commissioners envisioned it, the chief beneficiaries of the Larger Catechism would be the adult Christians in both kingdoms who understood the doctrines and duties of the Shorter Catechism already, and needed “the meat of the Word.”

"The Making of the Westminster Larger Catechism" by Chad B. Van Dixhoorn

__________________
Gil Garcia
Rehoboth Reformed Church (RCUS)
La Habra, CA

"Ignorance of this distinction between Law and Gospel is one of the principal sources of the abuses which corrupted and still corrupt Christianity." - Calvin's successor


"By the words of the law man is admonished and taught, not what he can do, but what he ought to do. How is it that you theologians are twice as stupid as schoolboys, in that as soon as you get hold of a single imperative verb you infer an indicative meaning...?"
-Martin Luther, The Bondage of the Will

Dabney makes an excellent argument for the same in his Sacred Rhetoric. I have never been enamored with the practice of Catechismal preaching.

{Ducking for obligatory tomato throwing from Dutch brethren}

__________________
Fred Greco
Senior Pastor, Christ Church PCA (Katy, TX)
Christ Church Blog

"The heart is the main thing in true religion...It is the hinge and turning-point in the condition of man's soul. If the heart is alive to God and quickened by the Spirit, the man is a living Christian. If the heart is dead and has not the Spirit, the man is dead before God." (J.C. Ryle)

I still question if one should preach through a catechism/confession, but when the text is declaring something that the Shorter or Larger Catechsim state, I will quote the catechism.

For example, tomorrow I'm preaching on Ephesians 1:20-23, it is basically the same thing as the Shorter Catechism answer on Wherein consisteth Christ's exaltation? So I will use it at the beginning of the sermon.

__________________
Rev. Andrew J. Barnes
Husband of Dena
Father of Oliver
Master of Bruce
Pastor of Tchula Presbyterian Church

What can I say, I like blogs!

It is better left for SS class or home study IMHO

Oh yes, no cat. or conf. is preached from. A mix of expository & topical sermons.

__________________
Rich Koster
1689'er
Browns Mills NJ USA
Often Goofy Reformed Eccentric
Romans 7:14-25

Are you going to quote from the WLC or the WSC?

Yes and no. We have two services, and typically one of them will be a catechism sermon. I have mixed emotions about this, as I primarily feel that catechising is a home duty of fathers/husbands while I recognize that many (if not the majority) of hubbies are not faithful in this.

Theognome

__________________
Bill Cunningham
Covenant Reformed Church, URC
Kansas City
There are three kinds of people- those who can count, and those who can't.

I'm quoting the WSC b/c I have it memorized, What I preach covers much of what WLC states.

Using the catechism to illustrate or emphasize a point is a different matter. You said that you were preaching on Eph. 1:20-23 (above). That is different from taking the catechism as your text and exegeting it.

I only preach from Scripture. However, I often refer, use, quote from etc. the catechisms (or confession). I also think it is helpful to preach sermons every now and then following the order of doctrines as they are presented in the catechisms, however, even when doing this I still find a text that is used to show that doctrine and make it my sermon text, preaching on it.

__________________
Rev. Adam King
Minister in the RPCNA
Pastor,Trinity Reformed Church
Wichita, KS

While it would be ungracious (and something of a sin) to throw a tomato at any pastor with ill intent, it may be called for in this case...

I enjoy the catechism sermon myself.

__________________
Kevin, husband of a truly angelic woman, and father to ten.
Zion United Reformed Church of Sheffield
Ontario, Canada

I appreciate it when the Catechism is brought in when it relates to something being preached from the scriptures -- this helps my own understanding and helps me when I'm working with our kids. But for a series of sermons? I'd rather see it in a Bible study or Sunday school.

On second though, the original proposal (preaching through a catechism) seems a little backward to me -- if the confessions and catechisms help to summarize what we understand the scriptures to teach, it seems like we should start with the scriptures then move to the standards.

__________________
JWithnell
Member Bethel OPC
Virginia
http://learningyesican.blogspot.com/

Correct, I hope you were just emphasizing the point I was illustrating.

From a continental perspective, this is a false dilemma. When I preach in the afternoon services, I announce my sermon in this way,

"This afternoon we are considering the truth of God's Word as it has been summarized and confessed by the church in Lord' Day x of the Heidelberg Catechism..."

or

"This afternoon I preach to you God's Word as it has been summarized and confessed by the church in Lord's Day x of the Catechism..."

The Catechism is a faithful summary of Scripture. Thus, Catechism preaching is a preaching of the Word of God. Having said that, you have to unfold the doctrines taught in the Catechism, but it's equally important to illustrate the truths confessed in the Catechism from the Scriptures.

I know that my Presbyterian brothers might still demur, but that's the traditional way the question has been approached by Reformed churches on the continent.

FWIW.

__________________
Wes Bredenhof
Pastor, Providence Canadian Reformed Church
Hamilton, Ontario
www.bredenhof.ca
Gospel Talk Radio Program

Perhaps the strong reaction against catechism preaching is due to the fact that few have ever heard a catechism sermon. I have been blessed to hear several good catechism sermons in my life. If you want to hear real experiential catechism preaching you ought to listen to one of Dr. Joel Beeke's sermons on the Heidelberg Catechism. Also, I highly recommend getting the Sermons on the Heidelberg Catechism by Johannes VanderKemp published by Reformation Heritage Books. Also by RHB is the first in the series of Classics of Reformed Theology A Sketch of the Christian Catechism by William Ames. The sermons by Beeke and these two books just might soften the reaction against catechism preaching.

__________________
Steven J. Carr (Sven)
http://beholdingthebeauty.blogspot.com/
Eagan, MN
PCA
"Weak is the effort of my heart / And cold my warmest thought / But when I see thee as thou art / I'll praise thee as I ought."--John Newton
Trophy Wife/Arm Candy: Crystal Ann Children: Steven Jr. and Hannah Grace

When I was at Redeemer PCA in Louisville, we did a series through the WSC in the evening service. I thought it was a very helpful exercise.

__________________
Ben
Chaplain, US Army
Ft. Riley, KS
TE Ohio Valley Presbytery, PCA

You could be right. I might add that if folks want to get a sense of what Reformed catechism preaching is like, you could take a look at the sermons available at theseed.info -- you can also find quite a few of my catechism sermons there.

I think that may lay to rest many of the misunderstandings about what catechism preaching is and how it's done.

Also, one of the best explanations of the practice is this article by one of my former professors, N.H. Gootjes.

I've heard the practice. I have no doubt that Dr. Beeke could make a discussion of the manual for a refrigerator warm and experiential! (He is that good a preacher).

But my objection is one of principle, not one of execution or practice.

I am not saying that hearing a good catechism will change one's mind. Many times the reaction against catechism preaching is because people think of it as merely a lecture on the catechism; it is clearly not that at all. Homer Hoeksema, in his manual on Homiletics says, "The minister must not forget to leave the impression with the congregation that even in Catechism preaching he administers the Word of God." When I first heard about catechism preaching my Presbyterian gut reaction was, "It's a) equating catechism with the Word of God and b) it's probably dry lectures on the catechism." In my experience, though, catechism preaching has been neither.

That being said, I still have some scruples about catechism preaching, but I don't brush it off, like I used to, as unprincipled misuse of both Word and Catechism because I haven't really seen any misuse of either in my experience.

-----Added 3/21/2009 at 10:23:27 EST-----

BTW,
SolaGratia, glad to see someone quoting Chad Van Dixhoorn. That man is doing the Reformed Churches a HUGE favor with all the work he is doing.

My objection would be on principle as well.

While I might accept the WSC and WLC as summaries of the faith, and that they contain that system of doctrine contained in the scripture, I would not say they are perfect in the summarization. As such there may be error in the derivative works (exceptions are permissible to the documents, if made known ... "Shall all men die?" and "We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed" seem to conflict, and I know there are men who take exception to the idea that all men will die.

The confession even puts the scripture ahead of itself, and all controversies are to be settled not by what the secondary documents state, but by the word of God.

__________________
Brian Withnell
Deacon, OPC
Leesburg, Virginia

You cannot train for war in the midst of a battle. Prepare before the battle starts; if the battle is long and hard, you will wish you had.

I want to be careful though of denigrating the Confession and Catechisms. For me it comes down to the apostolic command to "preach the Word" (2 Tim. 4:2) not something else.

Would you say that they are faithful summaries of the Bible?

I might agree that one could quibble with the way some Biblical truths are formulated -- maybe it would be better to say it this way or more clear to say it that way. But I have not been persuaded that anything in the Heidelberg Catechism conflicts with the Word of God. In my subscription vows, I stated that the Catechism (along with our other creeds and confessions) fully agrees with the Word of God. Well, then why not use it as a teaching tool in the church, as an ecclesiastically sanctioned guide to the Scriptures?

There are different ways to approach this. For instance, I don't think that anyone here would have a problem with having a series of sermons on the Lord's Prayer. That would mean that Lord's Days 46-52 should be acceptable. How about a series on the Ten Commandments? That would mean that Lord's Days 34-44 would be acceptable. Answer 71 is all Scripture texts and a brief paraphrase. Answer 34 paraphrases 1 Peter 1:18,19. Answer 4 quotes Matthew 22. Answer 18 is 1 Corinthians 1:30. Answer 77 is 1 Corinthians 11:23-26 and 1 Corinthians 10:16,17. I could go on. So, can you tell me that when I'm preaching on that material, that I'm not preaching on the Word of God?

I agree with you that we are to preach the Word... and this would be a nail in the coffin of preaching through the Catechism if one was preaching the catechism as if it were itself divinely authoritative on its own.

How we preached through the catechism was more akin to topical preaching. It was no different really than doing any sort of doctrinal sermon.

After a sort. I don't object to some doctrinal sermons. But it does not make sense to me to have half of all one's preaching be doctrinal sermons ordered by human documentation. Give me lectio continuua, baby!

I suppose the question is: who is preaching the Catechism in that fashion or proposing to preach it that way? Has that been done in the past? Maybe. But I've never heard of it.