What Would Jesus Preach?

You may be surprised to learn that catechism preaching-long a weekly staple in Reformed churches-is enjoying an unprecedented revival in a broad cross-section of evangelical churches across America. Granted, the vast majority of contemporary catechism preachers rarely appreciate the grand tradition they have joined. In fact, these messages are rarely actually called catechism sermons.

This revival is due in large part to the newfound popularity of a catechism which, though written over a hundred years ago, has only recently become emblematic of the nondenominational, unconfessional general content of ministry in Evangelicalism. Though noted for its simplicity (you've probably already memorized it!), this unfortunately comes at the cost of severe ambiguity-brevitas sed non claritas. Indeed, it is composed of a single, solitary question, which, being hypothetical in nature, lacks a formal answer. This weakness, however, has not prevented it from being the explicit topic of many a sermon, the guiding principle of many more, and even the title of a few. Though this catechism has no formal title, its first line suffices: What Would Jesus Do (WWJD)?

Many readers may argue that I have thus defined catechism preaching so broadly as to be utterly meaningless-every church has a catechism, every sermon is catechetical. Thus, "catechesis" is the way in which all religious communities summarize their faith, pass it on to their children, and share it with others, giving witness to what they believe. By underscoring the catechetical nature of all sermons, I want to argue, first, for a more self-conscious selection of a catechism; and, second, for the historic practice of explicitly preaching through one's catechism. Thus, the question shifts from "Whether catechism preaching?" to "Which catechism shall we preach?" and "How shall we preach it?"

The First Catechism Sermon

The very first post-resurrection sermon, delivered by Christ himself, was a catechism sermon. After exposing the ignorance of the two men on the Emmaus road, he asks yet another question: "Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and to enter into His glory" (Luke 24:26)? Apparently, they were ignorant on this point as well. Luke provides only a paraphrase of Christ's explanation of the proper answer in the following verse, "And beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures."

The significance of this sermon is underlined in the immediately following episode, where Christ instructs the gathered disciples in Jerusalem. He continues where his highway discourse left off, explaining further how the whole of Scriptures have pointed to his suffering and glorification as their fulfillment. The conclusion of this instruction is expressed in an answer, an answer that happens to be the correct response to the question posed on the road to Emmaus: "Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and rise again from the dead the third day; and that repentance for forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things." This text has long been recognized as a summary of all the Scriptures and a basis for understanding them in terms of law and Gospel. Zacharias Ursinus, principal authors of the Heidleberg Catechism, in his commentary introduction on the same, writes: "Christ himself makes this division of the doctrine which he will have preached in his name, when he says, 'Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day; and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name' (Luke 24: 46, 47). But this embraces the entire substance of the law and gospel." (1)

The structure of this final chapter of Luke's Gospel suggests a logical summary of the instruction received by the disciples during the forty days between Christ's resurrection and ascension. It may strike us as strange that this important period of teaching receives so little attention in the Gospel accounts. During this time, Christ was able to speak openly of the significance of his completed work and specifically directs the apostles in their newly received commission. Yet Luke, who gives us the most information, merely summarizes it in the form of a one-question catechism. Why is there not more of a record of this crucial instruction?

When one reads further in Acts, the second volume of Luke's work, one reason for this apparent oversight suggests itself. Jesus Christ is still active in the witness-bearing ministry of the apostles. There is no distinction between this instruction of Christ and the proclamation of his students, for the apostles passed their catechism class! In the apostolic sermons of Acts we hear Christ's forty days of instruction writ large. Peter's first sermon explains why Jesus was "delivered up by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God" (Acts 2:23), and further demonstrates its radical eschatological significance in terms of Joel's fulfilled prophecy. His second sermon, likewise, explains that God has glorified his son through suffering, and how the forgiveness of sins is thus received by the faithful (3:13-15). So, too, his third explains that the crucified, rejected stone has been made the capstone and source of salvation (4:10-12). The pattern is not accidental, for it is manifest in all the apostolic sermons recorded throughout Acts. The risen Lord himself comforts his people through the ministry of his commissioned heralds. (2)

A catechism, most simply put, is a summary of what one professes together with the Church, cast into question-and-answer form, for ease of instruction. Christ did not spend the forty days after his resurrection testing his disciples' skill in Old Testament Bible trivia. Nor did he merely exhort them to holiness and supply witnessing ideas. Rather, he asked them the key question which demonstrated immediately whether or not they got the point of his ministry: "Why did the Christ have to suffer?" This simple question, and what it says about the suffering and glory of the Lord and his Church, provided a starting point for virtually every sermon the apostles preached, just as it ought to do for us. It was able to explain and account for every individual part of the Old Testament Scriptures, including the law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms.

Insofar as they summarize the Christian faith, all sermons are catechetical. Every sermon comes to its text or topic with a series of questions and answers. An exegetical preacher may follow Christ in asking, "What does this text tell us about the suffering and glory of our Lord?" (It is a sad fact that far too few have done so!) A pietist may be noted for asking, "How's your walk with the Lord?" A revivalist may ask, "Brother, are you saved?" Even preachers who place a great priority on emotion over intellect implicitly ask a question in their sermon, "Do you feel the power?" These questions and answers flow directly out of a preacher's theology, and any given preacher is generally quite predictable from week to week. The question is not whether a preacher will function with such a summary, but what summary he will use.

Why Catechism Preaching?

If all sermons are catechetical, why ought we ever to preach the catechism in the narrow sense? The answer lies in the fundamental tendency of the Church to wander from the catechism which Christ himself provided. The scope of the Scriptures provides ample opportunity for wolves to enter in and twist their basic message. Examples of false prophets fill the pages of Old Testament and New. The apostles in the very presence of Christ failed to grasp the clear purpose of his ministry, and even the Spirit-filled churches after Pentecost demonstrated a grand proclivity for falling away from the Gospel. Warnings against ministerial deception are a centerpiece of Paul's pastoral instruction to Timothy.

How does a catechism help? May not the Church preach an erroneous catechism-or preach a sound catechism erroneously-just as simply as it misconstrues the Scriptures themselves? Of course the answer to this question is yes, but the question fails to take into account the purpose and function of the catechism itself. A catechism instructs, thereby following Paul's direction to instruct the faithful and safeguard the truth. A congregation properly catechized is much more likely to recognize when they are having their ears tickled and much less likely to allow it.

Further, a catechism explicitly addresses the question "What does it all mean?" As such, it recognizes the agreement of all the Scriptures, and demonstrates their coherence succinctly, while drawing upon the Scriptures themselves. It is much more difficult to abuse a summary answer to this big question than it is to misuse the particular parts of the whole. Thus, it is important to note that not every part of Scripture claims to be such a summary. Virtually every error the Church has ever seen comes from dividing the Scriptures and unduly emphasizing a particular part. Every heretic has at least one good proof text, often many. Yet inconsistency is always the ultimate result. Liberalism's (and much of recent Evangelicalism's) preference for "Jesus over Paul" is the perfect example. In opting for "No creed but Christ," the liberal/evangelical rarely heeds Christ's own catechism in Luke 24, which is very Pauline. They fail to recognize that Christ's preresurrection earthly ministry is intended as a particular part of the history of redemption. Though Christ is the apex of God's redeeming work, his earthly ministry is not its sum total. The parts of the New Testament most often neglected are precisely those parts that seek to summarize the whole of redemption-Christ in Luke 24, the apostolic preaching, and Paul's letters.

Given the preacher's need for a working summary, how do we know whether our catechism is correct? Reformation catechisms claim authority only because they agree with Scripture. They self-consciously seek to set out the whole counsel of God, and often are explicitly comprised of quotes and supported by references taken directly from Scripture. They tend to expand upon forms taken directly from Scripture, such as the Creed, the law, the Lord's Prayer, and the Sacraments, and generally evidence the reflection of godly people in all generations. This self-conscious type of summary immediately surpasses a contemporary talisman like WWJD. No one ever bothers to think of WWJD as a catechism, nor do they ever give texts supporting it as a faithful summary of Scripture-yet it functions as such. Instead of defending itself as a merely human tool for instruction, WWJD is most often presumed innocent on account of its good intentions. In short, if a formal catechism is not explicitly adopted and defended as a faithful summary of Scripture, the Church is virtually certain to implicitly and unreflectively adopt a false summary.

Catechism Preaching: Truly Practical Theology

Though many pastors preach WWJD on a weekly basis, very few churches actively defend the historic practice of preaching the catechism. Some Lutheran and Reformed churches are seeking to make use of their catechisms in the pulpit, but many more continue to ignore them. It is claimed that laypeople aren't interested in doctrine, that they want to hear practical sermons. After all, what could be more boring than a lifetime of annual cycles through the 52 Lord's Days of the Heidelberg Catechism?

For one, a lifetime of weekly sermons on WWJD. Catechism preaching has always been recognized as a complement to exegetical preaching, a complement that preserves the distinctiveness of both methods. Without the systematizing presence of the catechism, there is a tendency to systematize exegesis, to force a text into an implicit summary. Without an explicit catechism, there is thereby an even greater tendency for preaching to become repetitive. Instead of making every text ask, "What Would Jesus Do?", the catechism preacher is free to let the glorious particulars of redemption stand as particulars in their context. A well-catechized congregation is better prepared to understand good exegetical preaching.

Reformation catechisms themselves recognize the rich texture of the Christian faith. By avoiding minimalism they treat fully not only what the Christian ought to do, but what he ought to believe, confess, and pray. In their common forms of Creed, law, Lord's Prayer, and Sacraments, they equip their students with the tools of piety. They resist the reductionism that leads to preaching only propositions or only exhortation.

Far more of an asset than a liability, the predictability of an annual series of sermons through the catechism serves to weave together public and private worship. (3) Next Sunday is not a surprise, it is something to be anticipated and prepared for. Adults need not choose at random from the dross of devotional literature, rather, the catechism with its proof texts provides an accessible departure for study and reflection. Bible verses no longer need be memorized in isolation. Parents may more easily engage their children: at home the sponge that is their memory has a goal for the week, and in church the butterfly that is his or her attention span has a fixed point on which to rest.

For a preacher, a catechism sermon is, as an opportunity to creatively engage a tradition, a chance to man the rudder and steer a set course. Though there is always a temptation to laziness and repetitiveness, this is not unique to catechism preaching. In our catechisms, the essence of our faith is laid bare, its dependence upon Scripture everywhere noted. The preacher of the catechism must exhort his people to confess their sins by the law, to confess their faith by the Creed, to pray as their Lord did, and to be strengthened by the feeding and washing wrought by his body and blood. The full range of the Christian life is embraced in these simple forms. There is no better training for the new preacher who meets in the catechism the full breadth of his pastoral calling.

No doubt the greatest challenge to a true revival of catechism preaching is the failed institution of the evening, or second, service on the Lord's Day. The transition from a single service to two is a difficult one. Yet this is a question of priorities, and the priorities of the Church ought to be established from the top down. Our worship bulletins bulge with announcements of weekly activities, which too often distract rather than instruct. Concerned catechists ought to fight for its presence wherever it can be found. Short of a second service, a catechism sermon could easily be the centerpiece of a midweek study. Most congregations with a single service would benefit from a month or two of catechism sermons in lieu of standard topical fare.

Rediscovering the Value of Catechisms

There is a principled objection to catechism preaching which claims that the only legitimate text for a sermon is the text of Scripture. Such logic, of course, necessarily rules out all topical sermons, which is not such a bad thing. Yet it is not clear that this principle in itself rules out catechetical preaching, classically understood. As this article has maintained, the catechism is a summary, valid only insofar as it faithfully reflects the teaching of Scripture. A good catechism sermon tests the document, holding it up to the light of the Scriptures, and allowing it only to shine through. The reformers and their successors preached the catechism precisely so illiterate laypeople could know the comfort of the Gospel. Perhaps it is time we started doing the same.