Instruction Class/Catechism

[joshuabgood]

It is never really gone over systematically in those settings.

Why not? Does that tell us anything about perceived appropriateness/importance?

It tells us a number of things, actually:
* That we believe the basic doctrines and Anabaptist distinctives are of such importance as to merit being taught by the ministry
* That we believe it is appropriate for these important doctrines to be taught by those who have been ordained to teach and preach the gospel
* That it may be more suitable for the doctrines of the church to be taught by those who have been ordained to teach and preach the gospel than by one who is skilled in teaching reading, writing, and arithmetic.
* That studying the doctrines of the church and Anabaptist distinctives together is an excellent opportunity for the ministers of the gospel to learn something about the applicants for baptism
* That we believe it is appropriate to teach these things after a young person is sufficiently mature as to better understand them
* That our view of our Christian Day Schools is not for them to take the place of the church in the spiritual instruction of our children. That while Bible study is and should be a part of our curriculum it should not be instead of instruction by the church.
* That the basic doctrines and Anabaptist distinctives are sufficiently important that they ought to be taught, in an orderly way, to those who have been awakened to their need of salvation and have repented of their sins and desire to follow after righteousness and true holiness.

That I can understand. Is there a reason these aren't taught in SS or over the pulpit regularly?

[Wesleyb]

Why not? Does that tell us anything about perceived appropriateness/importance?

It tells us a number of things, actually:
* That we believe the basic doctrines and Anabaptist distinctives are of such importance as to merit being taught by the ministry
* That we believe it is appropriate for these important doctrines to be taught by those who have been ordained to teach and preach the gospel
* That it may be more suitable for the doctrines of the church to be taught by those who have been ordained to teach and preach the gospel than by one who is skilled in teaching reading, writing, and arithmetic.
* That studying the doctrines of the church and Anabaptist distinctives together is an excellent opportunity for the ministers of the gospel to learn something about the applicants for baptism
* That we believe it is appropriate to teach these things after a young person is sufficiently mature as to better understand them
* That our view of our Christian Day Schools is not for them to take the place of the church in the spiritual instruction of our children. That while Bible study is and should be a part of our curriculum it should not be instead of instruction by the church.
* That the basic doctrines and Anabaptist distinctives are sufficiently important that they ought to be taught, in an orderly way, to those who have been awakened to their need of salvation and have repented of their sins and desire to follow after righteousness and true holiness.

That I can understand. Is there a reason these aren't taught in SS or over the pulpit regularly?

There's a difference between teaching regularly and systematically. In my experience the doctrines covered in instruction class are also covered in Sunday School and preaching, just not on a schedule. Some would say that's why we should adopt a liturgical format with a set schedule of scriptures.

[Ernie]

It is never really gone over systematically in those settings.

Why not? Does that tell us anything about perceived appropriateness/importance?

It tells us a number of things, actually:
* That we believe the basic doctrines and Anabaptist distinctives are of such importance as to merit being taught by the ministry
* That we believe it is appropriate for these important doctrines to be taught by those who have been ordained to teach and preach the gospel
* That it may be more suitable for the doctrines of the church to be taught by those who have been ordained to teach and preach the gospel than by one who is skilled in teaching reading, writing, and arithmetic.
* That studying the doctrines of the church and Anabaptist distinctives together is an excellent opportunity for the ministers of the gospel to learn something about the applicants for baptism
* That we believe it is appropriate to teach these things after a young person is sufficiently mature as to better understand them
* That our view of our Christian Day Schools is not for them to take the place of the church in the spiritual instruction of our children. That while Bible study is and should be a part of our curriculum it should not be instead of instruction by the church.
* That the basic doctrines and Anabaptist distinctives are sufficiently important that they ought to be taught, in an orderly way, to those who have been awakened to their need of salvation and have repented of their sins and desire to follow after righteousness and true holiness.

I agree with this in general.

Instead of "ministry", I would modify to say, "people the church has chosen to do the specific work of making sure that certain foundational doctrines are understood and believed". I also think instruction class should include spiritual mentoring and discipling, but most Old Order and Conservative churches don't have that as part of their program.

[ken_sylvania]

Why not? Does that tell us anything about perceived appropriateness/importance?

It tells us a number of things, actually:
* That we believe the basic doctrines and Anabaptist distinctives are of such importance as to merit being taught by the ministry
* That we believe it is appropriate for these important doctrines to be taught by those who have been ordained to teach and preach the gospel
* That it may be more suitable for the doctrines of the church to be taught by those who have been ordained to teach and preach the gospel than by one who is skilled in teaching reading, writing, and arithmetic.
* That studying the doctrines of the church and Anabaptist distinctives together is an excellent opportunity for the ministers of the gospel to learn something about the applicants for baptism
* That we believe it is appropriate to teach these things after a young person is sufficiently mature as to better understand them
* That our view of our Christian Day Schools is not for them to take the place of the church in the spiritual instruction of our children. That while Bible study is and should be a part of our curriculum it should not be instead of instruction by the church.
* That the basic doctrines and Anabaptist distinctives are sufficiently important that they ought to be taught, in an orderly way, to those who have been awakened to their need of salvation and have repented of their sins and desire to follow after righteousness and true holiness.

That I can understand. Is there a reason these aren't taught in SS or over the pulpit regularly?

They are taught over the pulpit as well as being taught in the youth and adult SS classes. They will be studied in SS when that portion of Scripture is reached in the 7/21 year schedule. They are taught over the pulpit as chosen by individual preachers or as chosen by those responsible to select sermon topics for Sunday evening services, special meetings, and Winter Bible School. They will also be taught on occasion on Wednesday evenings as assigned or at SS type Winter or Summer Bible School classes.

Part of the reason it's not felt important to devote 12 Sunday morning sermons a year to preaching on these topics is because these important doctrines are taught in a systematic way every year at instruction class and at youth Bible school.

[Ernie]

There's a difference between teaching regularly and systematically. In my experience the doctrines covered in instruction class are also covered in Sunday School and preaching, just not on a schedule.

Correct. A person could grow up in a church and have not heard a specific doctrine for 5 or 10 years.

Besides, my observation is that many youth don't really seriously apply the doctrines/teachings/sermons to their life personally until they make a choice to follow Jesus. (Some even have a casual attitude about it afterwards.)

I see instruction class as making sure that key doctrines are understood and embraced, (not just heard), and to discern whether a person is really taking their spiritual life seriously.

[ken_sylvania]

Why not? Does that tell us anything about perceived appropriateness/importance?

It tells us a number of things, actually:
* That we believe the basic doctrines and Anabaptist distinctives are of such importance as to merit being taught by the ministry
* That we believe it is appropriate for these important doctrines to be taught by those who have been ordained to teach and preach the gospel
* That it may be more suitable for the doctrines of the church to be taught by those who have been ordained to teach and preach the gospel than by one who is skilled in teaching reading, writing, and arithmetic.
* That studying the doctrines of the church and Anabaptist distinctives together is an excellent opportunity for the ministers of the gospel to learn something about the applicants for baptism
* That we believe it is appropriate to teach these things after a young person is sufficiently mature as to better understand them
* That our view of our Christian Day Schools is not for them to take the place of the church in the spiritual instruction of our children. That while Bible study is and should be a part of our curriculum it should not be instead of instruction by the church.
* That the basic doctrines and Anabaptist distinctives are sufficiently important that they ought to be taught, in an orderly way, to those who have been awakened to their need of salvation and have repented of their sins and desire to follow after righteousness and true holiness.

I agree with this in general.

Instead of "ministry", I would modify to say, "people the church has chosen to do the specific work of making sure that certain foundational doctrines are understood and believed". I also think instruction class should include spiritual mentoring and discipling, but most Old Order and Conservative churches don't have that as part of their program.

I'm curious why you would say the church should choose a different set of people, other than the ordained deacons and ministers, to teach the foundational doctrines. And I'm curious what the ministers are ordained for, if not to teach the doctrines of God.

Or maybe I'm not understanding your comment.

[Ernie]

Is there a reason these aren't taught in SS or over the pulpit regularly?

Growing up, some ministers would preach through the articles of faith. It could take them a year or more to get through them. But not all churches do this.
If there is a time and place for a thorough teaching of the doctrines (instruction class) then there is no need to bore the church with this every few years. Pulpit time can be spent on things that are of more general interest.

[Ernie]

I'm curious why you would say the church should choose a different set of people, other than the ordained deacons and ministers, to teach the foundational doctrines. And I'm curious what the ministers are ordained for, if not to teach the doctrines of God.

If a church wants the ordained to do the doctrinal teaching, that is fine IMO.

If a church wants to share out the work load, I am fine with that also.
Most churches have more qualified people in the church than what are ordained, which is why they use the lot or votes to decide who to ordain.

Yes, elders/bishops are responsible to teach doctrine, pastor, administrate the church. But I don't think they have to do everything.

[ken_sylvania]

I'm curious why you would say the church should choose a different set of people, other than the ordained deacons and ministers, to teach the foundational doctrines. And I'm curious what the ministers are ordained for, if not to teach the doctrines of God.

If a church wants the ordained to do the doctrinal teaching, that is fine IMO.

If a church wants to share out the work load, I am fine with that also.
Most churches have more qualified people in the church than what are ordained, which is why they use the lot or votes to decide who to ordain.

Yes, elders/bishops are responsible to teach doctrine, pastor, administrate the church. But I don't think they have to do everything.

Got it.

I guess I would think that if taking care of the church finances is of sufficient importance to merit ordination (Acts 6) then certainly instructing new believers in the foundational Christian doctrines is the type of work for which the church ought to ordain men who are filled with the spirit and apt to teach. If there aren't enough men ordained to do the teaching then by all means learn a lesson from Acts 6 and ordain more helpers to fill in so that the "Apostles" can devote their time to prayer and ministry of the Word.

[JohnH]

There's a difference between teaching regularly and systematically. In my experience the doctrines covered in instruction class are also covered in Sunday School and preaching, just not on a schedule.

Correct. A person could grow up in a church and have not heard a specific doctrine for 5 or 10 years.

Besides, my observation is that many youth don't really seriously apply the doctrines/teachings/sermons to their life personally until they make a choice to follow Jesus. (Some even have a casual attitude about it afterwards.)

I see instruction class as making sure that key doctrines are understood and embraced, (not just heard), and to discern whether a person is really taking their spiritual life seriously.

In our group a person would have to miss a lot of Sunday school in order to not hear every single foundational doctrine (and a lot of peripheral ones) in 5-10 years of attendance.