As we have seen, Christian
discipleship evolved from the mentor/disciple style of Jesus’ ministry to the
less-immediate imitation model and finally to the community-based catechesis
that focused on adult baptism in response to the events of Pentecost. Such a
model presupposed a very high standard of personal accountability to the local
congregation and held baptism as its ultimate liturgical act.[1]
Such a pattern was unsustainable, though, as the nature of Christianity
transitioned from a persecuted minority religion to the official state religion
of the Roman Empire.[2]
When
Constantine issued the Edict of Milan he unknowingly began the ultimate
deterioration of the catechumenate.[3]
The establishment of Christendom, that is, the Christian religion married to
the workings of the State, inverted the expectations and practices of
catechesis. As noted earlier, catechesis had been an intense, long-term
practice in preparation for baptism. However, once baptism became a symbol of
participation in Roman society, such a long and rigorous preparation was
impractical. Westerhoff comments on this transition, saying, “With the
establishment of Christendom in the fourth century, infant baptism, followed by
some attempts at catechesis, became normative. As time went on, catechesis in
the church was increasingly neglected. It was assumed that the society would
nurture Christians.”[4]
Catechesis
as had been previously practiced became increasingly impossible as the
“Christian” Roman Empire spread. When entire cultures would be “converted” to
Christianity, church leaders would go about the task of catechizing these
“barbarians” after the fact.[5]
This form of mission-as-catechesis became the norm for the church’s endeavors
to make disciples in the increasingly diverse world of the Christian West.
According to correspondence between Pope Gregory and Augustine, missionaries
were to “cleanse the temples of idols and the worship of demons and rededicate
the buildings themselves to the service of the true God, to substitute
Christian celebrations in place of the pagan festivals.”[6]
Gregory writes, “For it is certainly impossible to eradicate all errors from
obstinate minds at one stroke, and who wishes to climb to a mountain top climbs
gradually step by step, and not in one leap.”[7]
Not
only was the catechetical process greatly diminished as a consequence of the
mass conversions in the Roman Empire, baptism itself lost its place of
preeminence in the discipleship program. Weiss comments that, “In its
enthusiasm to win members, the Church tended to welcome them as catechumens
without as rigorous an examination of the genuineness of their conversion or
their lifestyle as had earlier been customary. Moreover, among those who became
catechumens there was a wide-spread tendency to delay baptism as long as
possible with the sure hope of winning ultimate salvation. As a result, the
nominal catechumenate tended to grow, while the “real” catechumenate shrank to
what had previously been the period of final preparation, now the six to eight
weeks prior to Easter.”[8]
Further, the increasingly popular practice of infant baptism all but eliminated
the use of pre-baptismal catechesis.[9] Although
children were indeed baptized alongside adults in the earliest generations of
the Church, from the fifth century onwards the initiation of infants into the
faith became the overwhelming source of new Christians.[10] Weiss
summarizes the effect this transition had upon the catechetical efforts of the
church, saying, “It was this transition from adult to infant baptism that
finally brought the disappearance of the catechumenate…Because many baptisms
could not be delayed until the Easter season but had to be performed soon after
the child’s birth, catechesis, in most places, was either abandoned altogether or
highly compressed so as to form the first few minutes of the baptismal rite
itself.”[11]
By
the time of the Reformation the catechetical efforts of the Church had laid
dormant for the better part of 1000 years.[12]
During this time catechesis had developed from a system of formation to one of
information. By the end of the Middle Ages the catechesis of the Church had
become a three-stage process that followed the major maturation stages of a
child: baptism near birth, confirmation near the beginning of puberty, and
admission to communion later in the maturation process.[13]
Further, this process had been separated from the context of the Christian
community and had been privatized, a shift that further removed the importance
of baptism from the meaning of being a Christian.[14]
The
transference of information, that is, Christian doctrine, became the primary
meaning of catechesis before and during the Reformation. Because of the lack of
a fundamental understanding of Christian doctrine among the laity, reformers
within and without the Church attempted to communicate discipleship through the
printed and taught word. Weiss comments, “The focal point of catechesis came to
be the printed page and the recitation of doctrinal questions and answers”
which “reduced catechesis to instruction, to memorization, and to the use by
children.”[15]
Luther and the
other Reformers implemented this transition from catechesis as a process to a
catechism as an object to be learned and recited in their attempt to educate
the laity. Protestants let go the language of catechesis in favor of education
“with a primary concern for the acquisition of knowledge and skills.”[16] To
be a disciple in the early Reformation, then, was to be a child who could
recite doctrinal points and demonstrate a familiarity with the Scriptures that
served as a skill in the Christian society. Westerhoff comments that, “the
theological concern became doctrine, believing propositional truths. The
ethical concern became moral decision-making. Both were legitimate ends for education,
or perhaps for better instruction, beginning with children after their
baptism.”[17]
It is important to
note that the catechetical documents produced in the Reformation and in
subsequent generations were often polemical and were used as “measures of orthodoxy.”[18]
Various sects and councils would publish catechisms that reflected their
particular position on a theological tenet, usually in stark contrast to their
immediate opponent’s.[19] Thus
catechesis, that long process of preparation in both virtue and theology, gave
way to a pedagogical framework of propositional statements that inculcated a
particular interpretation of Scripture and theology. This is in stark contrast
to the experiential, mentor-based model of the ancient church: the catechism
evolved into a private method of instructing children in sect-specific theology
that was ultimately separated from the overall life of the church.
There has been a
revival in catechesis among Roman Catholics and Protestants alike in the 20th
and 21st centuries. Within Roman Catholicism a catechetical renewal
movement has been developing since the 19th century through what
Weiss identifies as three distinct phases: “The first began with a quest to
find more effective method than the one then in use; this gradually evolved
into the second phase, which was more concerned with content than method. And
most recently, the third phase sees catechesis broadening to include a variety
of educational ministries and instructional strategies.”[20]
Weiss points out three characteristics of the Roman Catholic interest in a
revised catechesis, saying, “First, [it] signaled a reaction against the spirit
of the Counter-Reformation and the inadequacies of the traditional teaching or
religion based primarily on the catechism. Second, [it] showed a degree of
openness to the insights and discoveries of educational psychology and
represented an attempt to introduce learning theory in catechesis...” and
finally, “a renewed interest in the Church of the apostolic and patristic
era... Though fascinated with the structures and practices of the ancient
Church, the catechetical movement could not remain satisfied with copying the
past. The fascination with the early Church was born out of the desire to
recapture something of its vitality and spirit. One result was to bring back
into common parlance the word catechesis.”[21]
The landmark event
in Roman Catholic renewal of catechesis was the Second Vatican Council. Out of
that watershed event came the Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults (RCIA) in
1972. This document describes the initiation of adults as “a spiritual
journey.”[22] The
concilium responsible for the RCIA divided the journey of Christian initiation
and formation in to four distinct periods: “(1) evangelization, (2)
catechumenate, (3) enlightenment, (4) mystagogy.”[23] Harmless
is very helpful in summarizing the goals of these four stages of Catholic
formation, and I quote him at length:
“The first period, evangelization, is to be a time for
hearing the Gospel…During it, the inquirer should taste some initial
conversion. This conversion should be powerful enough to “cause a person to
feel called away from sin and drawn into the mystery of God’s love.” After this
period, the Church officially welcomes candidates at the first of the public
rites, the Acceptance into the Order of the Catechumens…
This new
phase [the catechumenate] is to be a time for more than mere schooling in
Christian doctrine; rather it is to be…an apprenticeship in Christian living.
The catechumenate is thus an intricate venture accomplished not in a few
hurried sessions, but more leisurely, over a span “long enough – several years
if necessary – for the conversion and faith of the catechumens to become
strong.”
Also
during this period, catechumens receive “suitable catechesis,…gradual and
complete in its coverage, accommodated to the liturgical year.” This catechesis
should do more than instruct in dogmas and precepts. First, it should instill
in the catechumens a “profound sense of the mystery of salvation.” Second, it
should not only instruct them in the different ways of prayer, but also give
them some experience of these. Third, it should focus on the practical and the
moral – “implanting in their hearts…the morality of the New Testament…”
Finally, this catechesis should take place, at least some of the time, not
within the confines of a classroom, but rather within a liturgical setting.
All this
clearly moves against the grain of inherited practices. No longer can
catechists content themselves with presenting tidy theological summaries lifted
from official catechisms; no longer is it sufficient to win a nodding assent to
propositions. The goal and measure of catechesis should be not only changed
minds, but changed hearts and changed lives."[24]
James Dunning has
also offered a helpful summary of the first two stages of the RCIA, saying “the
precatechumenate should be a time for listening to and for telling stories –
certainly those from Scripture but also personal stories, especially those of the
inquirers themselves – stories that raise ultimate questions about the meaning
of our lives; during the catechumenate, one should probe these stories and
their meaning more deeply and put them into dialogue with the Tradition; the
basic text should be the Scriptures and the basic lens should be either a
salvation-history or Christological one…”[25]
This is certainly
a clear nod to the ancient Church’s practice of long-term catechesis that aimed
at character formation as well as theological
and liturgical instruction. For the purposes of this inquiry, it is important
to notice that the motivation behind the catechetical renewal in the Roman
Catholic Church was a felt need of better formation rather than information.
To that end, the
RCIA also elevates the role of the “sponsor” in the life of that catechumen:
“Throughout this period [the catechumenate], sponsors play a key role. No
longer are they to serve as mere ceremonial fixtures, rather they are once more
to apprentice the catechumens in to the everyday rhythms and demands of
Christian living. Sponsors should show catechumens “how to practice the Gospel
in personal and social life, to sustain [them] in moments of hesitancy and
anxiety, to bear witness, and to guide [their] progress in the baptismal life…”
In other words, sponsors play a dual role – they are, on the one hand,
witnesses to the catechumens – testifying more by deed than word how one
incarnates gospel imperatives. They are, on the other hand, witnesses for the
catechumens – testifying on their behalf before the final liturgical assembly.”[26]
The RCIA “insists that lay ministry – of sponsors, of catechists, of the
assembly – must be vital, indeed, must be constitutive of the life of the whole
Church. In particular, it presumes that within every assembly there are enough
master Christians to apprentice catechumens in the intricate art of
gospel-living."[27]
This demonstrates the reason behind the relatively slow implementation of the
RCIA even 40 years after its creation; since the entire program requires
“master” Christians among the laity of every congregation it will certainly
take more than one generation of catechesis to train up a critical mass of
disciples capable of carrying out the catechetical program effectively.
In
summary, the RCIA emphasizes that good catechesis “is always done in steps.”[28]
As the Roman Catholic Church continues to renew the ways in which it makes
disciples it will surely re-examine the demands of being a disciple in the 21st
century, mandating greater theological depth and practical Christ-like virtue
among the laity.
Protestantism
has also seen a renewed interest in baptismal catechesis in recent decades. Christopher
Hall laments that there is a “desperate need to catechize evangelical young
people and the broader evangelical community in the basics of the faith,
essentials rooted in the teaching and practices of the ancient church.”[29]
He suggests that “evangelicals must make catechesis a fundamental priority, a
catechesis that purposefully and discerningly draws on the riches of ancient
Christian exegesis and the theology that blossomed from it….Evangelical
catechists must be themselves be catechized in the riches of the faith, the
heart of the matter, the dazzling theological substructure supporting the
health, vital emphasis within evangelicalism on the evangelistic mandate, the
preaching of the gospel to every person, across every culture and continent.”[30]
Bingham fears for
the future of evangelical Protestantism, saying, “I believe the future of
evangelicalism is in jeopardy. My belief is linked directly to what I perceive
as the subculture’s movement away from, even rejection of, baptismal
catechesis, particularly in its dizzying Free Church varieties. Such departures
from baptismal catechesis…are at least in part responsible for recent concerns
expressed about doctrinal weakness among evangelicals…”[31]
Such biblical,
theological, and liturgical ignorance is owed in no small part to the
evangelical heritage of revivalism. Hart, summarizing the work of John
Williamson Nevin, comments that Nevin “decided that revivalism possessed a
seriously impoverished understanding of the nature of the Christian ministry.
As such, Nevin contrasted the system of the bench [a reference to the “anxious
bench” of revival meetings] with that of the catechism, with the bench standing
for the individual’s lone decision to walk the aisle, and the catechism
signifying a churchly form of devotion that stressed church membership and
growing in faith through word and sacrament.”[32]
While Baptists,
specifically, have traditionally rejected the standardization of theological
statements or even of the understanding of conversion, the de facto catechism of pre-Great Awakening Baptists expressed
through their testimonies of an encounter with the Lord was eroded and all but
eliminated by the revivalism in North America in the 18th and 19th
centuries. Loyd Allen demonstrates that even though conversions among Baptists
prior to the Second Great Awakening were “not easily expressed in logical,
discursive language,” the experience was nonetheless the culmination of a
catechesis, the “long, solitary struggle culminating in the convert, in
solitary, receiving a sudden inexplicable intervention from an unseen and
unknowable auditory source, which released [the convert] from spiritual
uncertainty.”[33]
After the growth of revivalism after the Second Great Awakening, this
long-term, community-normalized catechesis was replaced with brief,
intellectually based conversions with little catechesis before or after the
fact.[34]
Revivalism all but killed what could even loosely be called a Baptist
catechesis; according to Allen, “Business efficiency applied to revivalism
gradually shortened the conversion process among Baptists from years to
potentially the twenty-minute wait at a bus stop.”[35]
The need for a
renewed Protestant catechesis is further demonstrated by the calls for renewed
interest in specific catechisms and catechetical models among luminaries of
Protestant thinking.[36]
What is yet to be determined among Protestants is the direction in which
catechetical reform will move. A return to doctrinal statements taught through
question-and-answer form is an option being explored by some Baptists based
upon the Baptist Faith and Message.[37]
Other Protestant groups are moving in the direction of the Roman Catholic
reforms explored above, especially through the adoption of catechetical
programs like the Catechesis of the Good Shepherd. Ultimately, this is the most
crucial decision in any attempt to reform discipleship through catechetical
methods: if a group choses the former method then doctrinal statements and
particular interpretations of the Gospel will become litmus tests of Orthodoxy
in a denomination. If the latter path is chosen, the denomination or
congregation must be prepared for theological diversity and must learn to be
comfortable with ecumenical and historical expressions of catechesis.
[1]
Again, this high standard of ethical examination and personal transparency
seems alien to the revivalist Baptist tradition, and it is certainly contrary
to the individualistic spirit of the age in America. Glassford comments that,
“Catechetical instruction developed during a period when those converted to the
faith faced persecution. The early church’s catechizing was both an educational
endeavor and means by which a person’s commitment to Christ and his church was
authenticated. This is a far cry from most churches’ practices today.
Admittence is often based on a brief testimony with little or no probing”
(S-176).
[4]
Westerhoff, “Evangelism, Evangelization, and Catechesis,” 157.
[5]
See Charles Talbert, The Anglo-Saxon
Missionaries in Germany, New York:Sheed and Ward, 1954).
[6]
Marthaler, 3.
[7]
Venerable Bede, A History of the English
Church and People, Book 1, Chapter 30. New York: Penguin, 1967, p. 30.
[8]
Weiss, 58.
[9]
See Weiss, 58; Marthaler, 3; Westerhoff, 157.
[10]
Weiss, 58. Weiss attempts to justify this historical transition by referencing
the “high infant mortality rate of the period and Augustine’s teaching on
original sin, which led to a desire to baptize babies as quickly as possible so
that they should not risk dying unbaptized.”
[11]
Weiss, 59.
[12]
This is a broad generalization, but it captures the idea that from the Early
Middle Ages until the Council of Trent little attention was given to
discipleship in the church. For a succinct survey of these eras, see Marthaler,
“Catechesis: A Semantic Evolution?”
[13]
Weiss, 59.
[14]
Ibid.
[15]
Ibid.
[16]
Westerhoff, 158.
[17]
Ibid.
[18]
Marthaler, 6.
[19]
Marthaler demonstrates that the Heidelberg Catechism of 1563 served as a
landmark position paper against Catholic teaching. The Catechism of the Council
of Trent was the Church’s response to those positions. Marthaler, 6.
[20]
Weiss, 62. Weiss goes on to expand these three eras. He helpfully puts the
reforms instituted at Vatican II into context and demonstrates a trend within
Roman Catholicism toward catechetical reform that is otherwise absent in many
analyses of said reforms.
[21]
Ibid, 63.
[23]
Harmless, 3.
[24]
Harmless, 4-5.
[25]
Dunning, James B., New Wine: New
Wineskins: Pastoral Implications of the Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults
(New York: Sadlier, 1981) 20.
[26]
Ibid, 6.
[27]
Ibid, 10.
[28]
RCIA no 88.
[29]
Hall in Kalantzis and Tooley, Evangelicals
and the Ancient Church, 41.
[30]
Ibid, 43.
[31]
Bingham in Kalantzis and Tooley, Evangelicals
and the Ancient Chruch, 159.
[32]
Hart in Kalantzis and Tooley, Evangelicals
and the Ancient Church, 87-88.
[33]
Allen, Wm. Loyd, “Being Born Again – And Again, and Again,” Baptist History and Heritage,
Summer/Fall 2010, 28-29.
[34]
Ibid, 30-32.
[35]
Ibid, 32.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment