Christianity Not Welcome

This news and article is already a few days old, but maybe you haven't heard it or haven't given much thought to it. I have, and have now taken the time to comment on it. Some may be surprised to know that my libertarian-leaning albeit "conservative" self has actually defended Sanders in the past as well as the present. I have respect for the guy. In a political environment of lies, half-truths, and chicanery, Sanders stands out as a passionate straight-shooting truth-teller. As a matter of fact, even though his political ideology (yes, everyone has an ideology, biases, etc.) is in most ways directly opposite of mine, I would prefer him or someone like him to someone who ostensibly shares some or even all my convictions but whom cannot be trusted. Our current president comes to mind. That being said, Sanders' obviously impassioned and sincere (not to mention forceful) questioning of the nominee concerns me. Oh, believe me - I'm still ultimately an optimist; God will fulfill his purposes. However, since I live in just a sliver of His timeline, I'd like things to go well in regards to my lifetime and my children's lifetimes - thus I have some concern for those things I see and hear in this small sliver of time. Well, anyways, I have some thoughts concerning Senator Sanders' recent questioning of Russel Vought, Trump's nominee for deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget. Read the article first (it wouldn't hurt to watch the questioning via YouTube as well), but after you do that then consider my thoughts. Here they are:

1. Yes, Sanders' questioning essentially DOES amount to religious test, and the Constitution prohibits a religious test for federal offices.

2. The exclusivity Sander's so stridently objects to ("Muslims...stand condemned") is true from a historical and orthodox (not heretical) Christian perspective. It is nothing new. Christ's exclusive nature as Savior is clearly taught in Scripture. Its taught by Christ himself as well as His apostles. If it were not so, then there would be no command or need to evangelize, no warning against false Christs, idolatry, the danger of hell, etc. This exclusivity would and does of course also logically extend to convictions and statements about other groups and people being condemned (Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, Pagans, Agnostics, Atheists, etc.). Furthermore, If someone claims to be a Christian but does not affirm the exclusivity of Christ as Savior then they are simply not a Christian in the historic sense of the word. The Scripture states that the Gospel message will not only be foolish to many, but it will be offensive to many as well. Therefore, if one's type of "Christianity" is a "Christianity" without any offense then it is not Christianity - and that person should take up another name for themselves; you can't have your cake and eat it too, and you can't please everyone with your stated convictions and opinions.

3. The exclusivity of the Christian message (the message Vought dared to affirm in his post) has a theological and ultimate meaning, NOT a civil one. I wonder if Sanders understood this. For instance, when Vought speaks of being "condemned" he does not mean that the aforementioned people should be put in prison, shunned, not given fair judicial hearings because they are already "condemned", etc. This last part about "condemned" not having a civil element to it is extremely extremely important in the context of this whole issue! It's vital.

4. Biblically, ALL mankind stands condemned before God without the saving work of Christ. It's not a racial thing. It's not an ethnic thing. It's about the mediatorial work of Jesus the Messiah/Savior/Lord and whom a condemned person (everyone on Earth without the accomplished work of Christ on their behalf) places their trust in, and whom the condemned person (everyone on Earth...) believes this Savior to be (ultimately God Himself). The fact that the Bible teaches a condemned mankind of which some will be powerfully saved from wrath is clear and indisputable.

5. Sander's objection to Vought's statements about Islam having a "deficient theology" (and logically other theological positions being theologically deficient as well) is not very well thought-out. Sanders can disagree with the statement, but how can he object to someone making a statement that a view they believe to be NOT the truth is deficient in some way? If there is truth about God, and someone believes they hold those (or most) of those truths, then naturally they would have to consider a significantly different position to be deficient because it would not embrace the propositions they have been convinced are true. Sanders I'm sure would consider Capitalism or the free market to be deficient in some way, wouldn't he? If someone were to assert to him that the sky was green I'm sure he would consider their view deficient, wouldn't he? I wouldn't fault him for this either. I would expect it. It doesn't mean I couldn't be friendly with him, respect him, or otherwise value him and treat him well as a human being. As a matter of fact, I respect someon who holds a position for reasons they have carefully thought out and I even respect them if they try to persuade me to the tenets of their position. This would be evidence they not only care about truth but actually care about ME.

6. Has Sanders considered that both Islam and Judaism as well as many other religions have exclusive claims as well? Most Muslims would believe I am damned because of my belief in the tri-personhood (trinity) of God. Would he question a believing Muslim nominee or a believing Jew nominee the way he questioned Vought? If so (and it might be so), is the only acceptable nominee for a federal office in Sanders' eyes a nominee who has a totally secular worldview? If so, this would be a very new turn for what it means to be "American." The exclusive messages of the religions I mentioned are not just believed by fringe groups or terrorists, but are integral to what has defined these religions throughout history. Sure, there are those (especially now) who are nominal or cultural Jews, Muslims, etc. and don't really believe the scriptures and convictions which have defined their professed religion throughout history, but I'm talking about those Jews, Muslims, Christians, etc. that define themselves as such precisely because of these definitional convictions rather than their ancestry or the types of clothes they wear or what music they listen to.

7. Sanders did not give Vought nearly enough time to answer his questions, and he didn't seem to reflect adequately on the answers Vought was trying to give. There are questions that cannot simply be answered with a "yes" or a "no" but instead must be prefaced by explanation so as to provide a proper context for the answer so that the answer is not misunderstood/misinterpreted. Sanders is not an unintelligent man, but maybe he does not understand that the questions he was asking required a longer answer than he was providing time for. I suspect however that Sanders was letting his own biases and passion get the better of him - causing him to shut down Vought before he could give full answers.

8. Senator Chris Van Hollen of Maryland ...see my point 2.

Well folks, that's all I have to say for now. I only very rarely post in my blog, but for some reason I felt this was one of those times I should.

What Trump Said

Before you read any further, please watch the YouTube clip above - starting at 9:40 and going all the way to the end of the clip. I watch quite a bit of CNN, and I'm sure neither I nor anyone else who watches CNN or some other news channel or even listens or reads news coming from the popular media could avoid hearing the firestorm which erupted following presidential candidate Donald Trump's answer to interviewer Chris Matthew's question to him last week regarding abortion and whether a woman should be "punished" for seeking one or having one if abortion is made illegal. First a disclaimer: I don't support Trump in his presidential aspirations and I'm not one to often agree with Trump - not even now. Not even now especially since he backtracked and walked back his comments concerning abortion. Who knows what he really believes? Trump has changed his stance on a great many things over the years. I think that his answer concerning abortion was probably an attempt to appeal to what he thought his base believes.

Let's take Trump out of the equation. I'm much more concerned with issues and arguments than I am with people when it comes to these kind of things - particularly when the person or persons in question are those for whom there is often a knee-jerk gag reflex or rejection. So, let's take Trump out of it and think about the substance of what was said and the larger issue of abortion and punishment itself. The media have framed Trump's "should be punished" comment as if it were an absolute. The question had not been framed in that way. The way it was framed was in the context of abortion being illegal. This fact is very important to note. If we take off our ThoughtCrime and SpeakCrime filters it shouldn't take a genius to come to the conclusion that if someone does something illegal there ought to be some kind of penalty.  Mathews should be commended for the consistency evident in his question and for his callingTrump (and by implication the Pro-Life side) to consistency in the issue. Can you think of any other illegal action for which this is not the case? You can call it a "penalty" or you can call it a "punishment" - the two are similar enough it shouldn't matter. Simply put, for any legal system to have teeth and to indeed make any kind of sense, there must be some kind of penalty for illegal actions.

When we understand that illegal actions should have some kind of penalty, then the substance of what Trump said (before he backtracked later) has a logic behind it that's unassailable. That is much more than I can say for much of the popular Pro-Life movement who are distancing themselves, virtually tripping over themselves, to disassociate their movement from any notion that the woman seeking the abortion or getting the abortion is anything more than a victim. They (much of the Pro-Life movement) evidently are more concerned with being invited to the right parties and having the right political friends than they are with being consistent in their position. I do NOT respect this at all. After all, if (as they say) abortion is the intentional taking of the life of a fully-human person who has not been convicted of any crime warranting death, then our legal system should call it "murder." Consequently, if it is murder, then should there not be some kind of penalty for the person who essentially hires a hit man (the abortionist) to do the dirty work? Sure, there are often complicated circumstances and even a degree of coercion involved, but this is also the case for the intentional killing of human persons who are killed outside the womb. Should the killer of a two-year-old, a five-year-old, or a thirty-year-old escape all punishment because they were "victims" in the sense that they may have had very unfavorable life circumstances contributing to their committing a crime? Is it not possible to be guilty in one sense while nonetheless being a victim in another sense? Yes it is possible. I'm sure it is even very common. The categories are not mutually exclusive. We punish killers of two, five, and thirty-year olds. We even punish those who don't actually do the physical killing itself but still willfully contribute to the killing of these people. Where is the consistency when it comes to abortion - the willful killing of those in the womb? 

I have more respect (definitely more respect in regard to intellectual integrity) for the pro-choice person who denies the human personhood of the unborn and therefore says abortion should be legal at any stage than I do for the "pro-life" person who boldly proclaims the unborn are human persons worthy of the legal protection you and I enjoy in regard to life but then entirely throw away their consistency when faced with the prospect of their view being deemed "extreme" or some other hated label. If the Pro-Life movement is to succeed, it needs to be bold. It not only needs to be bold, but it needs to be consistent. Inconsistency is the sign of a failed argument. If the Pro-Life movement proffers a consistent argument then it and its adherents may suffer disrepute, scorn, and loss of friends, but I see this as the only way to eventual victory not to mention the only way to be truly obedient. Furthermore, as Christians (which make up the bulk of the Pro-Life movement), we should ultimately be most concerned with honoring Christ. Christ is the embodiment of Truth, and so our thoughts, words, and actions should be the epitome of truth and consistency. Also, like Christ, we should be ready and willing to bear with humility the pejorative labels affixed to us for our principled stands. Many in the Pro-Life movement - including political figures affirming the Pro-Life position need to do some soul-searching and repent of their inconsistency and cowardice. 

We Have Bad Words All Wrong

When people become aware I'm a Christian some will curb, lessen, or apologize for their F-word or S-H word usage around me because they think it offends me.  I appreciate their consideration.  However, they'll go right on with their exclamations of "Oh my God!" and "Jesus Christ!" to indicate surprise, astonishment, or disgust - obviously not intending to invoke the Lord's help or reference him in any reverential way.  Sometimes they'll even use those words ("Oh my God!, "God!" etc.) and I'll have no idea why they're using them - other than perhaps as filler words.  Believe it or not, the typical "4-letter" swear words don't offend me at all. They're nothing but coarse and profane language - even though It's better not to use them in polite company.  Using God's name in an empty and/or flippant way however makes me wince.  It something's going to offend, it's going to be that.

I'm convinced many believe those empty references to God are totally benign, morally-neutral, and non-offensive - because after all, they don't "mean anything" by it.  That's precisely the point though: If they don't mean anything by their usage, it is a vain (i.e. empty, worthless) usage and thus a direct violation of The Third Commandment's "Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain."(Ex. 20:7)  Even when we remember the first part of that commandment, we tend to forget the second part, don't we?  The second part ("...for the LORD will not hod him guiltless...") should really drive home the fact that this is serious stuff; the words we use have consequences even if the people around us might not care.  

I have the same attitude and response regarding empty, ceremonial prayers.  I'd rather there be no prayer at all than it be one of these prayers.  Unfortunately this type of prayer is the preferred type of prayer by politicians and at political functions.  It's the PC prayer.  It's the prayer that by it's invocation of no God in particular in fact invokes no God at all. If you take Jesus Christ out, if you ignore the actual character of God and make him a bland old nice Grandpa-type God and ask His blessing on things and actions which Scripture clearly militates against - it can't be anything else than a stench in His nose and a heaping up of wrath.  It's using His name in a vain and worthless way - at the very least. 

Daytime TV and the general population now finds vain usage of the Lord's name perfectly acceptable - but in the final analysis it is a much more serious thing than the crude 4-letter swear words you think are so much worse.  Somehow even the Christian community has seemed to have forgotten this.  As for me, I'd much rather raise up children who occasionally use typical 4-letter swear words than children who think lightly of treading God's name underfoot and who think nothing of it when they hear it done.  American culture and even the church (generally) seem to care more about propriety and fitting in with polite society and current cultural mores than we do about the Law of God.  Christians, we need to reassess our commitments and attitudes.  We can start with ourselves and our families. 

The "Do Babies Go To Heaven?" Question

The "Do babies go to heaven?" question ranks up there with "Is my grandma/grandpa/mom/dad/loved one in hell?" as the most uncomfortable for serious Christians to be asked.  A common answer when the question is asked about unbelieving adults is "I don't know...God will judge."  While this is a true answer - as far as it goes - , it often ignores serious issues and the logical implications (if we trust Scripture) of things we already might know beyond a reasonable doubt, so in this way it's somewhat deceptive.  What's even worse is an assumption that the "good" unbelieving deceased is automatically is in a "better place" by virtue of dying - as if death itself is the only prerequisite for eternal happiness.  Well, the "better place" answer is used for just about everyone except really "bad" (as we deem them) people such as Hitler et. al. - as if the rest of mankind is basically "good" and surely have earned the right to eternal happiness/heaven - or at least "a better place."  We lie to ourselves so badly! Such answers may be comforting to the grieved, but when we are pretty darn sure the deceased had no love of God or trust in Jesus as Mediator/Savior/Lord our answers are non-thinking at best - lies at worst.  Does it really please God to ignore what we supposedly believe to be true about Scripture, death, heaven, and hell - and give ourselves or others false assurance?  For an issues as serious as God, salvation, and eternal destinies, I am convinced it does not.  

This is a indeed a very sensitive and emotionally-laden topic.  When the heaven question concerns babies and the unborn it is even more sensitive. We are faced with the difficulty of  these precious human beings (as far as we know) never having heard or accepted the gospel.  We sidestep this frequently sidestep this difficulty because we perceive them to be "innocent" - so they must go to heaven, right?  The big problem with this is that they're not innocent.  They are innocent on a human scale - but they are not innocent on a cosmic scale; they are not innocent before God.  If they are human beings, they are "in Adam" and as such have sinned in Adam and are guilty before God.  This is the doctrine of Original Sin I'm referring to.  Either Adam somehow represented all mankind in the garden as our federal head and thus we all not only inherit a sin nature but also guilt before God - or we (all humanity) were in some sense actually there in the garden, sinning with Adam and becoming guilty that way.  Many professing Christians today find this doctrine distasteful, but they can't escape the fact that it has been part of historical Christian belief since at least Augustine.  I would argue that it was part of Christian belief since Paul, and before that, Jesus - but the doctrine became more officially recognized with Augustine.  Since that time, those who would deny the doctrine of  Original Sin were seen as outside the faith and not Christian at all.  If, as a Christian you deny original sin and original guilt you must realize you are putting yourself outside the sphere of historical Christian orthodoxy and into a realm of thought both Catholics and Protestants have rejected throughout history.  This should at least give you pause. 

Another big problem with the "all infants and/or all aborted children go to heaven argument" is that it puts us into the position of either (logically) hoping to be barren (so that we are not bringing into the world any who will go to hell - OR (logically) hoping our unborn and born babies will somehow die so that they will have a 100% chance of going to heaven - since heaven is infinitely better than this life. This might not only be mistaken thinking, but also dangerous thinking. Think of Andrea Yates and the bathtub drownings of her infants for instance.  Thankfully, most parents who take this position are not as consistent as Yates! We have children and pray they will LIVE. We teach, train, and pray for them. We rejoice when they show reasoning capability to make important decisions rather than lament because this would mean a greater chance of hell due to greater accountability.  Do we pray that our children will be severely mentally disabled so that they will be "innocent" like a child and therefore go to heaven?  Concerning accountability, many Christians will also posit the idea of an "age of accountability" before which time a person is not accountable to God for their sins because of not having the level of understanding supposedly needed to be accountable for wrongdoing.  They say that those who die before this age (usually said to be thirteen) will go to heaven.  Biblical support of this is weak - and, furthermore the "age of accountability" doctrine should be suspect because it would necessarily compromise the more universally recognized and historic doctrine of Original Sin.  

So, do all children and unborn who die go to hell?  No, I don't think they do.  I can't prove it - but I would say "no."  The case of King David's deceased son "...I shall go to him, but he will not return to me." (2 Sam 12:22-23) might be evidence for babies (at least some) going to heaven.  I think that it is - but I don't think it provides airtight proof that all unborn, babies, or children do.  My wife and I have suffered a miscarriage - so the whole issue of babies going to heaven is not just an abstract and academic topic with us. It is emotional and personal as well. We hope that our miscarried child is like King David's young son that died by God's command and that we will someday meet our child in heaven. Even with this being said, I have to say the "all...go to heaven" argument has significant difficulties - and some caution and prudence is needed because of these difficulties.  We go to heaven because of the work of Christ - not our own work or any perceived innocence we could attribute to ourselves.  A heaven-bound baby who dies in the womb, in infancy, or later as a child will go there (heaven) because of the work of Christ.  The usual mechanism for being joined to His saving work is personal faith in Him and His work.  However, at the core, it is all due to Him - His work.  He saves us.  In the end we must simply trust in God and His Purpose - and that He will do whatever is right.  We do not see the big picture.  We see only part.  He however sees the whole picture - the whole plan.  He not only sees it but he made it.  His ways are higher than our ways. As God and judge of the whole earth and of all creation, He only does those things which are right.  It comforts me to leave it at that.

Why We Love Star Wars Stormtroopers

The Star Wars stormtrooper has a measure of popularity the clone trooper does not have. I think one of the reasons is that while the clone trooper is a genetically-engineered super-soldier, the stormtrooper, coming later at the time of the empire, is a more "normal" human conscript or volunteer - like you or I would be. He is not genetically perfect and he most likely doesn't like all of his job or the policies of the empire he works for - and from which he gets his paycheck. In comparison, the Jedi is awesome and has super-type powers. The sith is terrifically evil - and wields special power too. Most of us can't closely identify with either. The stormtrooper is like us - no special powers, imperfect aim, and just trying to make the best out of his respective duty station while keeping a clear enough conscious to be able to sleep at night.

Jesus the Sith Lord?

I'm a big Star Wars fan - a really big fan.  I have a large Star Wars collection, have seen the movies many times, and even have a big Yoda image decorating the hood of my car.  Make no mistake though.  Star Wars' Light Side and Dark Side are not comparable to Good and Evil in the Christian worldview.  The "Force" is not the Holy Spirit.  When I was a child and young teen, I thought it was kooky and extreme how some Christians would be critical of Star Wars, cautioning Christian parents against it by citing the Eastern mysticism and other non-Christian philosophies it presents cloaked in Jedi goodness.  As an adult, though still an avid Star Wars fan, I now see the reason behind their wariness.  Watch the following clip.  It is from the third prequel movie, one of the coolest lightsaber duels of the whole saga, but the thinking Christian should be able to detect some worldview problems:

[Be advised that this is not a G-rated fighting scene; it contains some scenes of anguish at the beginning and some slightly gruesome images toward the end]

If you know your Scripture well, you will notice that Anakin virtually quotes Jesus (Matt 12:30) soon after Obi-Wan confronts him:

[Movie dialogue is in bold]

ANAKIN: "If you're not with me, you're my enemy." 

OBI-WAN: "Only a Sith Lord deals in absolutes. I will do what I must." 

Again, here are Jesus' words in Matt. 12:30:

[Jesus' words are in red]

"He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad."

Do you see how similar Jesus' statement is to dark-side-turning Anakin's statement?  The Jedi are supposed to be good guys - like disciples of Jesus or something.  Hmmm.  In the Star Wars universe however, thinking in black and white terms means you're thinking like a Sith - the bad guys.  Jesus would seem to be a Sith Lord!

As a matter of fact, Jesus issues many absolutistic statements in Scripture.  Here are several:

"I am the bread of life" (John 6:35,48,51).

"I am the light of the world" (John 8:12).

"I am the door of the sheep"(John 10:7,9).

"I am the good shepherd" (John 10:11,14).

"I am the resurrection, and the life" (John 11:25).

"I am the way, the truth, and the life" (John 14:6).

"I am the true vine" (John 15:1,5).

By Obi-Wan's standard, It seems like Jesus has the makings of a Sith Lord.

Later, same duel, Obi-Wan and Anakin do a philosophy reversal - and don't seem to be aware of it:

ANAKIN: "I should have known the Jedi were plotting to take over . . . "

OBI-WAN: "From the Sith!!! Anakin, Chancellor Palpatine is evil." 

ANAKIN: "From the Jedi point of view! From my point of view, the Jedi are evil. 

OBI-WAN: "Well, then you are lost!" 

OK, let me get this straight.  First, Anakin is told by Obi-Wan that only Sith Lords deal in absolutes - then when he reasons in a relativistic fashion and avoids absolutes, Obi-Wan issues an absolutistic statement about Chancellor Palpatine being evil and pronounces condemnation on him for the conclusion he had come to!  I hope you see the problem here.  

In short, the dialogue really shows both Obi Wan and Anakin turning to hypocrites before our very eyes.  I don't think that was Lucas' intention, but the critical Christian reader/watcher should be able to discern this even if others don't.  The original three movies (Episodes IV-VI) are much more philosophically consistent, and for this reason I enjoy them more - even though the lightsaber duels are not as cool.  In the original three I can make sense of the bad guys being the bad guys and the good guys being the good guys - and though the worldview of the old movies was not perfectly consistent with a Christian worldview, it was at least enough so that I could feel good about the Jedi being good and the Sith being bad.  

There is much more that could be critically examined about the Star Wars saga - and others have done that in great degree.  Much of this was done nearly 10 or more years ago when the prequels started coming out.  I wasn't much bothered by Anakin's virgin birth in Episode 1 ("The Phantom Menace") came out, but it still seemed to signal the establishing of parallels to the Biblical account of Christ where there should not be parallels.  After all, we knew Anakin later becomes Darth Vader.  The Jesus of Scripture never has a similar huge fall from goodness; he never falls at all because he was and is sinless!  Episode III ("Revenge of The Sith") is much more troubling in its more overt promotion of relativism and its philosophical confusion.  

 For me and my family, we still watch and enjoy Star Wars - but I am convinced that the saga needs to be enjoyed in the context of knowing what Scripture actually teaches about the universe, God, the Person of Jesus, the Person of the Holy Spirit, and the nature of Good and Evil.  In this way the movies can be a critical thinking tool as well as awesome entertainment.  When making comparisons and observing parallels we must also be able to make and recognize the contrasts.  Without a well-grounded knowledge of the contrasts, Star Wars could prove a stumbling block for a Christian who is more well-versed in the Star Wars universe and Jedi teachings than in the real (God's) universe and Christian Scripture.  Illegitimate parallels and comparisons could easily be made - leading to a non-Biblical view of goodness and of God.  Sadly, this would be the danger for many in modern watered-down Christian larger community.  As awesome as Yoda and Obi-Wan are, a Christian should not desire to be fully Jedi-like - or for that matter, fully Sith-like.  A Christian should seek to be Christ-like.

Old Catechism For The Young: Not Impossible At All

Since moving away from a somewhat conventional and broadly-evangelical seeker-sensitive church that never went too deep into historic Christian doctrine and into a more historically aware and doctrinally-defined practice and churches, I have come to appreciate the value of catechism.  Until that time, I had only heard the word "catechism" in the context of Roman Catholicism.  What a shame! I had no idea what it was!  Now, for my specific theological expression and practice I use the Westminster Shorter Catechism - a teaching tool composed in the mid-1600's.

A catechism is a series of logically-ordered questions and answers; each building upon the foundation of the preceding question and answer.  The mid 1600's saw the creation of both the "Shorter" and the "Larger" catechisms.  The "Shorter" was composed with the young and the (relatively) spiritually immature in mind.  The "Larger" catechism was composed for adults and the more advanced.  I like memorizing things - and I like to have answers to questions - so about a decade ago I started memorizing the 107 questions and answers of the Shorter Catechism.  This took me about two years.  Since that time.  For me and for many unaccustomed to specific, doctrinally-sound answers, the answers to many of these questions were not "short" at all!  However, they are very satisfying.

Here are the first seventeen (in bold):

Q. 1. What is the chief end of man?
A. Man's chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever.

Q. 2. What rule hath God given to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy him?
A. The word of God, which is contained in the scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, is the only rule to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy him.

Q. 3. What do the scriptures principally teach?
A. The scriptures principally teach what man is to believe concerning God, and what duty God requires of man.

Q. 4. What is God?
A. God is a spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness and truth.

Q. 5. Are there more Gods than one?

A. There is but one only, the living and true God.

Q. 6. How many persons are there in the godhead?
A. There are three persons in the Godhead; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one God, the same in substance, equal in power and glory.

Q. 7. What are the decrees of God?
A. The decrees of God are his eternal purpose, according to the counsel of his will, whereby, for his own glory, he hath foreordained whatsoever comes to pass.

Q. 8. How doth God execute his decrees?
A. God executeth his decrees in the works of creation and providence.

Q. 9. What is the work of creation?
A. The work of creation is God's making all things of nothing, by the word of his power, in the space of six days, and all very good.

Q. 10. How did God create man?
A. God created man male and female, after his own image, in knowledge, righteousness and holiness, with dominion over the creatures.

Q. 11. What are God's works of providence?
A. God's works of providence are his most holy, wise and powerful preserving and governing all his creatures, and all their actions.

Q. 12. What special act of providence did God exercise toward man in the estate wherein he was created?
A. When God had created man, he entered into a covenant of life with him, upon condition of perfect obedience; forbidding him to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, upon the pain of death.

Q. 13. Did our first parents continue in the estate wherein they were created?
A. Our first parents, being left to the freedom of their own will, fell from the estate wherein they were created, by sinning against God.

Q. 14. What is sin?
A. Sin is any want of conformity unto, or transgression of, the law of God.

Q. 15. What was the sin whereby our first parents fell from the estate wherein they were created?
A. The sin whereby our first parents fell from the estate wherein they were created was their eating the forbidden fruit.

Q. 16. Did all mankind fall in Adam's first transgression?
A. The covenant being made with Adam, not only for himself, but for his posterity; all mankind, 

descending from him by ordinary generation, sinned in him, and fell with him, in his first transgression.

Q. 17. Into what estate did the fall bring mankind?
A. The fall brought mankind into an estate of sin and misery.

I have found this kind of memorization very helpful in answering my own questions as well as answering the questions of others.  I can give the rote, memorized answer - or I can quickly mentally access and silently rehearse the rote memorized answer and then regurgitate it in a more simplified or modern-English version for the questioner.  

Early on, after I was convinced of the usefulness of the catechism, I started teaching the whole family these questions and answers.  All it took was carving out a little time each day for practice.  It doesn't take more than 15-minutes a day.  I also became aware of a more modern catechism versions specifically made for children.  My initial thought toward these versions was "why?"  That is, why create an even shorter catechism than the one already called "Shorter"?  Why create an even shorter and more simplified version for 20th and 21st century children when ordinary non-genius 17th century children were able to memorize the original "Shorter" catechism.  These are still my sentiments now!  

Here is my encouragement for you: You may look at the questions and answers and think they are long.  You may wonder how a young child can do this.  Let me tell you that both you and they can - if only you take the time.  I've successfully done so with my two oldest daughters - both beginning at roughly age eight.  I'm also currently doing so with my son (age seven) and my youngest daughter (age five).  They are both learning and progressing well.  We are currently at question 17, and we have been going at the pace of one question every 1-2 weeks. Two weeks for the longer questions and answers; one week for the shorter and easier ones.  What I am most impressed with is the ability of my five-year-old to memorize these questions and answers.  I did not even intend to formally catechize her until she was at least six - but since I was taking the after-dinner time to catechize her older brother (which also served as review for the older sisters who had gone through the whole thing already) she was being exposed to the information and hearing the recitation.  She eagerly expressed her desire to try answering the questions the rest of the family was getting!  So, I thought "why not?" She was four-years-old at that point.  It's been more than four months since I started including her, and since that time she has demonstrated her ability to memorize these questions and answers.  Needless to say, this has pleased and encouraged me.  To keep it low-pressure, I keep the time investment to about 15-minutes per day and I don't press her as hard as I press the older kids.  This keeps it a fun and do-able challenge for her.  

I encourage and recommend any and all my Christian brothers and sisters to start catechism practice as a family.  Just make it a habit and stick to it.  Before you know it, you will have 10+ questions and answers memorized and so will your kids.  Keep it low-pressure though!