Revision of the Catechism.

Waiapu Church Gazette, Volume XVII, Issue 7, 1 January 1927, Page 2

Revision of the Catechism.

A contributor to the " Church Times" has revealed to its readers the proposals of the Bishops for the revision of the Church Catechism. If his account of these proposals is correct, it shows how very important it is that jobs should be allotted to those who are specially competent and not to men who may be competent m other directions but quite unfitted for the special task assigned to them. The Bishops seem to have even less knowledge _of child psychology and ways of thinking than had their predecessors who produced the Catechism already m use. It is of the utmost importance that a Church Catechism should be intelligible to children with little explanation, except that of hard words, and should be as full, and correct m its statements as the difficulties of the subject will allow. These two postulates being granted let us look at some of the alterations. "Who sanctifieth me and all the elect people of God"; if the word "sanctify" is too hard let us translate it, but "sanctify" is such a pregnant word. It is worth keeping because it holds. so much, and it can easily be explained by a. teacher, >£„ "]£ak#

me ft Saint, ,' * ' 'Makes me holy, ' ' ' ' Fills me with holiness, " "Sets me apart as sacred to God," etc., etc.; but the new Catechism's version is very tame, " Guides arid strengthens me and all God's people"; a phrase which cuts out holiness altogether. In the third promise the new Catechism cuts out "and walk m the same" all the days of my life; .although the promise m the baptism service itself is surely a promise to be active and progressive m the Christian life, not merely to be passively obedient. The Bishops have wrongly divided up the sentences of the "Duty to my neighbor" — every child knows, or should know, that " to call upon Him, to" honor His holy Name and His Word" -comes under the head of the third commandment. The Prayer Book, as we have it, is usually supposed to be an example of perfect English, and, despite a few solecisms, it deserves its reputation, but the Bishops propose to insert a modern slovenly expression f'Not causing needless work to others" instead of "Not causing others to do needless work." The phrase "To order myself lowly and reverently to all my betters" may be misunderstood and certainly has Yin ithepast been thrown back m our faces as an exhortation to snobbery, but the Bishops make it no better by altering it to "To show respect to all who have authority over me." The Christian duty to respect the aged, the wise, the saintly, and the brave is thus abandoned. The new Catechism says it is our duty to show respect only to those by respecting whom we may hope to profit. "Be respectful to your boss," it pays! Is not this the very quintessence of modern toadyism t . The manly independence of "Not to covet nor desire other men's goods, but to learn and labour truly to get mine own living, and to do my duty m that state of life unto which it shall please God to call me," becomes altogether different and loses its ideals m being translated "To do my duty Cheerfully, to work with all my might, and not to be covetous, envious or ungrateful." These platitudes do not rise even to the Boy Scout level! "This state of Salvation" becomes "the way of eternal life"! The Rev. H. Maynard Smith says, "I am prepared to explain to a child of five what is meant by a 'state of salvation,' but before explaining 'a way of eternal life' I should like to consult someone who really understands Einstein's Theory of Relativity." In the place of "Why then are infants baptised!" and the present answer, which is no answer at all, the Bishops ask & conundrum, "How

then can infants at their baptism do what is required of them ? " Think it over, don 't answer till you 'ye really grasped it. Is it hard? Give it up? This is the answer, "They can't !!!" The answer these Bishops give is "Infants at their baptism cannot do what is required of themi" But why continue? The Catechism will certainly benefit by reasonable revision. The ten Jewish commandments with the much misapplied fourth so prominent, the inadequate and anachronistic fifth, requiring so much enlargement, the seventh], covering so little and the tenth which places a man's house first and lumps his wife and servants under a second category, these may well be omitted. Our Lord's summary of Christian duty as given m the "duties" is far more inclusive and suitable for Christian children. The Jewish law of the Sabbath has no place m Christian teaching and its inclusion m the Catechism has been responsible for much confusion m the minds not only of children but of Christian adults. We do not need to teach children what "was said to them of old time" but we do need to teach the Saviour's "I say unto you." "We will conclude with another quoiation from Mr Maynard Smith : — Three points, it seems to me, ought to be borne m mind by anyone who attempts a revision of the Catechism: 1. A Catechism is meant to be learnt by heart. 2. A Catechism presupposes a Catechist. 3. The Catechism is the only systematic instruction m the Christian Faith which the laity are likely to receive. (1) If children are to remember their Catechism it must be m memorable language. It would be very difficult for a child to get by heart the slovenly sentences of the Bishops, and he certainly would not remember them after repeating his lesson. Quite small children can appreciate the rhythm and roll of a splendid period; they . like to mouth it even when they do . not understand its meaning. They also love, to pick up long and unusual words, and tire of baby prattle long before their mothers. If the old Catechism, is m some ways, beyond their immediate comprehension, they can understand enough for their present needs, and as they grow up the familiar sounds will be charged with a richer meaning. Memory is the first faculty to develop-^-most «^bildreii can memorise anything. We should take advantage of this fact and see that they start with a vocabulary of noble words. . , .

(2) If the Catechism is" to ~ be" learnt by heari^ and brevity are of the first importance, but as a Catechism proceeds by question and answer, the presence of a teacher is presupposed. If I -were writing a book, for children to read to themselves, I. shouild aim at being simple. I should try to. iliusjl#ate what I had to say, and I should re r iterate what, had, to be' learnt ■m, a dozen different ways. But m writing a Catechism, I should think , only of breviloquence; arid I should not 'mind if the words were difficult, so long as the thought was clear. I should .remember that the unusual word was the teacher's opportunity, and that his exposition was more likely to be remembered because the child had a peg to hang it on. Almost every clause m the old Catechism can be made the text of an interesting lesson, and nearly every change proposed by the Bishops deprives tne teacher of an occasion for delivering it. (3) Like hundreds of other priests, I have had to teach the Catechism to quite small children, and I have taught it with equal pleasure to the sophisticated young people m public schools of both sexes. I have used its accurate language m theological controversies, and I have preached about it to educated congregations. Its familiar language echoes m elderly hearts ; but the new Catechism , will make no such appeal. A man of fifty can quote the old Catechism without blushing. The same man will not care to refer to an easy compendium designed for tiny tots. To conclude, I do not consider the old Catechism as perfect, but I regard it as the priceless heritage of our race. lam not at present m favor of any revision, but when one is undertaken it should be done m a conservative spirit. First of all, the competent man has to be discovered. He must be a real theologian, who has some capacity for writing English, and some respect for the splendid diction of the past.