Every catechism, by reason of human weakness and time and space and an editor’s whims, is limited. The NCC is no different, of course. But it’s helpful to consider its limitations in light of its objectives.  Keller introduces the NCC as a catechism which maintains what he characterizes as the three historic aims of catechisms.

Today, searching for a pen in my minivan glove compartment, I re-discovered a slightly rumpled copy of the Westminster Shorter Catechism. Unusual for some, perhaps, but, pretty typical for me. The catechism makes me cry, revives my spiritual life, and inspires me to throw parties when my children reach memorization goals.

When I was myself a child, I memorized the 1840 Catechism for Young Children, and, as a college student, motivated in part by a historic scholarship award, I recited the Westminster Shorter Catechism. 

These days, my husband and I are catechizing our children (aged 3, 4 and 6).  Our church holds a weekly catechism class for covenant children of all ages. And, for the past three years, our family has spent Wednesday afternoons at our local YMCA daycare, drilling 50 public-school children in the First Catechism, using Diane Beach Batarseh’s excellent music.

To paraphrase B.B. Warfield, I’m a shorter catechism girl.

So the recent release of the The New City Catechism, written by Tim Keller and Sam Shammas as a joint project of Redeemer Presbyterian Church and the Gospel Coalition, has my interest.

And it has the interest of others in the Reformed world, too. Much of the discussion—outside of those who actually participated in the project—has been critical, bordering on snarky. (Darryl Hart’s parody, for example.)

What concerns me about the direction of the negative chatter is that Keller and Shammas clearly set out the limitations and goals of their catechism in its introduction. Many of the aspects readers criticize are things apart from or contrary to the stated boundaries of this catechism.

So, I propose to review The New City Catechism (NCC) in three parts.  First, I will set out the expressed objectives of the NCC and consider whether it is effective on its own terms. Then, I will evaluate its potential to revive the practice of catechesis in our day. Finally, as a covenant parent, I’ll give you my personal opinion on the future of NCC in my own home.

ON ITS OWN TERMS

Every catechism, by reason of human weakness and time and space and an editor’s whims, is limited. The NCC is no different, of course. But it’s helpful to consider its limitations in light of its objectives.

Keller introduces the NCC as a catechism which maintains what he characterizes as the three historic aims of catechisms.

“The first” writes Keller, “was to set forth a comprehensive exposition of the gospel—not only in order to explain clearly what the gospel is, but also to lay out the building blocks on which the gospel is based, such as the biblical doctrine of God, of human nature, of sin, and so forth.”

This is the positive message of the catechism.

The NCC has a three-part structure. The first part is “God, creation and fall, law,” the second is “Christ, redemption, and grace,” the third is “Spirit, restoration, growing in grace.”

Taken in parallel, these topics address the persons of the Trinity and the historical as well as experiential aspects of salvation.

And NCC does this well. Borrowing from the language of other reformed catechisms (especially Heidelberg and Westminster) NCC contains much that will be familiar to those, like me, who are already catechized.

There is nothing in the text of this catechism with which I disagree.

However, under this aim, I note the NCC’s lack of a comprehensive doctrine of Scripture. This arises in part because NCC separates law and grace into separate parts of the catechism. Questions 7-15 summarize the teaching of the moral law, and Question 42 asks “How is the Word of God to be read and heard?” But nowhere in the NCC is the Scripture’s authority, character, and usefulness explained.

For children and adults who are learning the foundations of the Christian life, I think this is a significant omission.

Keller’s expressed second aim for this catechism (again, keeping with his interpretation of historic principles) is “to do this exposition in such a way that the heresies, errors, and false beliefs of the time and culture were addressed and counteracted.”

This is the negative message, or counter-argument, of the catechism.

This aim is, inevitably, subject to the authors’ perception of the critical issues of the day. Some have criticized the NCC for promoting the idea of “a community of faith” (Q.43, 48,) for encouraging “works of culture for human well-being” (Q.27) and for addressing the sin of idolatry (Q.17) with a special emphasis.

But I believe this is not outside the bounds of what Keller and Shammas have set out to do. These are current debates, and, if individual Christians might prioritize them differently, it is still within the purview of the NCC authors to address them. (If you don’t like it, you can always find another catechism. There are a few of them out there.)

And I can especially commend the NCC for unequivocally declaring the necessity of personal salvation, the nature of Christ’s substitutionary atonement, and the reality of hell. All of these are vital to our Christian faith and are increasingly questioned in our world.

Third and finally, Keller says, the NCC is in the tradition of catechisms which “form a distinct people, a counter-culture that reflected the likeness of Christ not only in individual character but also in the church’s communal life.”

This is partly why the NCC is based on historic creedal statements, providing continuity from one generation to another. And also why the authors have chosen to retain some of the archaic language in the study helps.

But, on the whole, I think the NCC accomplishes its third aim less well.

If its intention is creating a “distinct people,” the NCC shys away from some important distinctives.

For one thing, because it is a project of the Gospel Coalition (a Calvinistic organization that includes Baptists and paedo-Baptists,) the language in its question about baptism (Q44) ignores the subjects of baptism, making no mention of either infants or believers, and focuses entirely on the meaning of baptism.

Including specific treatment of baptism’s subjects would have made the catechism less broadly appealing, but it would have better fostered the unique communal character the authors desired.

The NCC also avoids using explicit covenant of work/covenant of grace language. Further, it omits traditional creation language of “out of nothing” and “in the space of six days.” Finally, it is less rigorous than Westminster in its application of the fourth commandment. These are all counter-cultural concepts that have defined (and, yes, divided) Reformed Christians.

When it sidesteps these issues, the NCC comes short of its aim to write a new catechism that defines a unique community. 

REVIVING CATECHESIS

Besides fulfilling historic objectives, the other main purpose of the NCC is to revive the practice of catechesis in today’s church.

The authors have done several helpful things here. For one, they present the catechism in a tech-savvy format, designed for interactive use on a tablet computer. They also provide a web-based interface for traditional computers, and a printable pdf for those who prefer a hard copy.

The computer versions include self-quizzing tools to assist the student with memorization.

Additionally, they provide video and text study materials by current and historic theologians to explain the Biblical principles behind the questions.

B.B. Warfield himself noted the importance of instruction with catechesis in his essay “Is the Shorter Catechism Worthwhile?” Warfield says, “And they [the writers of the Westminster Shorter Catechism] did not dream that anyone could expect it to teach itself. They committed it rather to faithful men who were zealous teachers of the truth.”

This is exactly what the NCC has done in a contemporary way, and it’s especially valuable in a time when catechisms are so far out of favor that they are apt to be regarded suspiciously as the extra-scriptural teachings of man.

The NCC is also written for adults and children to study jointly. The adult answer contains a shorter (highlighted in a different color) version for children to memorize. In an earlier era, perhaps, adults would already be catechized, but, in our present day, it is probably good to have a tool that fills in the gap by encouraging adults and children to learn together.

Finally, the NCC is intentionally brief.  Keller writes: “New City Catechism is comprised of only 52 questions and answers (as opposed to Heidelberg’s 129 or Westminster Shorter’s 107). There is therefore only one question and answer for each week of the year, making it simple to fit into church calendars and achievable even for people with demanding schedules.”

I can understand this. For people unused to the practice of memorization and who don’t make regular time for spiritual disciplines, a catechism of 100 plus questions might seem daunting.

However, I think the authors underestimate the abilities of children.

I will not use my own children as an example here. (They don’t have a chance at being normal with thoroughly Presbyterian parents like us.)

Take instead the children at our YMCA. They come to daycare after a full day of school. Many of them are unchurched. They represent a wide range of age and ability levels. They have not chosen to learn the catechism, they have no external motivation to do so, and they are being taught by relative strangers.

But their ability to memorize the catechism is extraordinary.

We have been teaching this year’s group for six weeks, once a week, for 30 minutes. In that time, the children have learned 24 questions and answers from The First Catechism (the answers are comparable in length to the NCC’s children’s version.)

At this rate, it would take these children just over three months to learn the entire NCC. With even minimal reinforcement and repetition at home, I have no doubt they’d learn faster still.

The NCC’s hope for a catechetical revival seems to be, on the one hand, not to scare people away, and, on the other, to provide in-depth instruction to accompany the material. These are good aims for adults.

But, for a child, the chief benefit of catechesis is putting well-organized and substantive spiritual truths in his mind so that the Spirit might be pleased to illuminate and apply them as he matures.

(Keller says as much in his introductory story about his small son learning and repeating the truth of creation before he ever understood it.)

In this way, NCC is good for new-to-catechesis adults, but not as useful for children. Children could easily memorize twice the material—which would pay dividends as they grow to adulthood in the church.

FINALLY, MY TWO CENTS

Will my husband and I use the NCC in our own home? Probably not. Our six-year-old is on question 116 of The Catechism for Young Children—with his younger brothers keeping pace behind him. 

Our kids know too much to switch now.

But, I could envision using some of the NCC’s online tools and videos to supplement our children’s understanding of the concepts as they mature. And I wouldn’t hesitate to recommend NCC to an adult or teen who wanted an introduction to catechesis.

Keller and Shammas have attempted a worthy and difficult task, and they have done well.

Megan Hill is a PCA pastor’s wife and regular contributor to The Aquila Report.

@Copyright 2011 Megan Evans Hill – used with permission