Poll: How Do You View the Apocrypha?

[elysian]

What are your thoughts on the validity/ purpose of the Apocrypha? Most Protestants do not acknowledge the validity of the Apocrypha at all, while Roman Catholics consider the Apocrypha to be inspired Scripture.

Of course, there are points of view in-between as well.

Occasionally our senior Pastor preaches on texts from the Apocrypha in addition to Scriptural texts (never on the Apocryphal texts alone.)

For a long time I didn't see any real reason to read or study the Apocrypha, (and at one time I actually thought it was forbidden reading for Protestants :teeth: though it's not forbidden for Lutherans, anyway) My curiosity is starting to get the better of me and I've actually considered buying a Catholic Bible so I can read all of the Apocryphal books for myself.

Generally Lutherans accept the 66 books of the Protestant Bible as being inspired Scripture, (though we don't technically have a formal canon) while the Apocrypha is considered optional, though it can be edifying or at least interesting reading.

Whaddya think? And as always, let's be civil. :lol:

[themuzicman]

It's interesting history and commentary on scripture, but not scripture itself.

Michael

[Xmansmommy]

A friend recently sent me a bible with the Apocrypha included, so I started reading. Haven't got very far, but I am excited to see what all the hype is about. :nsm:

[John Reece]

What are your thoughts on the validity/ purpose of the Apocrypha? Most Protestants do not acknowledge the validity of the Apocrypha at all, while Roman Catholics consider the Apocrypha to be inspired Scripture.

Of course, there are points of view in-between as well.

Occasionally our senior Pastor preaches on texts from the Apocrypha in addition to Scriptural texts (never on the Apocryphal texts alone.)

For a long time I didn't see any real reason to read or study the Apocrypha, (and at one time I actually thought it was forbidden reading for Protestants :teeth: though it's not forbidden for Lutherans, anyway) My curiosity is starting to get the better of me and I've actually considered buying a Catholic Bible so I can read all of the Apocryphal books for myself.

Generally Lutherans accept the 66 books of the Protestant Bible as being inspired Scripture, (though we don't technically have a formal canon) while the Apocrypha is considered optional, though it can be edifying or at least interesting reading.

Whaddya think? And as always, let's be civil. :lol:

My favorite Catholic version is The New Jerusalem Bible, which is an excellent study Bible for the OT and NT as well as the Apocrypha.

[elysian]

Actually our senior Pastor challenged us to read not only the Apocrypha but books not generally recognized as Scripture (with the realization that these "lost books" are NOT Scripture) for our own understanding.

Thanks John, for the suggestion. I had bought my Mom a NAB Catholic Study Bible (the one the Diocese of Columbus, which her church is a part of, recommends) and she says it is easy to read and understand. I certainly would like/need/prefer the Study Bible for the notes and commentary. Our Pastor recommends the RSV or NRSV with the Apocrypha as far as Catholic Bibles go. I am used to using the NIV Study Bible as well as the Amplified Bible and even The Message at times, and these are all Protestant Bibles. I'm also looking at buying the Apocrypha by itself if I can find it with study notes or commentary.

[John Reece]

. . . I'm also looking at buying the Apocrypha by itself if I can find it with study notes or commentary.

http://www.cambridge.org/aus/catalogue/catalogue_print.asp?isbn=0521508754

[elysian]

http://www.cambridge.org/aus/catalogue/catalogue_print.asp?isbn=0521508754

Thanks, John. I will look into ordering it soon. In the meanwhile the Diocese of Columbus has a link to the NAB (http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/index.htm) online which includes the Apocrypha (sort of like Bible Gateway, only for Catholics) and there are some study notes.

[AcousticJS]

:doh: I was looking for an option that said something like "Interesting, and possibly helpful, but not inspired." Didn't see it, so I voted for only the 66 books are inspired, and then saw the third option.

I guess I'm both the second and third option in the poll.

[Berean Todd]

The appocryphal books pre-date Christ, and yet Christ did not claim them, the Jews did not ever recognize them as Scripture, yet the Catholic Church decides they should be Scripture. No basis for making them Scripture at all.

[Solly]

Not scripture; Jewish writings of variable helpfulness. The wisdom books are good, the fables bad, and Maccabees needs to be read with a good history book to hand.
The best one is the Prayer of Manasseh. It reads just like a prayer from a Puritan writer.

[Ric]

I voted for Not inspired, but can be edifying reading, but the choice The 66 Books of the Protestant Bible are the only inspired Scripture is just as correct! And that should read like this: The 66 Books of the Bible are the only inspired Scripture. :)

[George Murphy]

What are your thoughts on the validity/ purpose of the Apocrypha? Most Protestants do not acknowledge the validity of the Apocrypha at all, while Roman Catholics consider the Apocrypha to be inspired Scripture.

Of course, there are points of view in-between as well.

Occasionally our senior Pastor preaches on texts from the Apocrypha in addition to Scriptural texts (never on the Apocryphal texts alone.)

For a long time I didn't see any real reason to read or study the Apocrypha, (and at one time I actually thought it was forbidden reading for Protestants :teeth: though it's not forbidden for Lutherans, anyway) My curiosity is starting to get the better of me and I've actually considered buying a Catholic Bible so I can read all of the Apocryphal books for myself.

Generally Lutherans accept the 66 books of the Protestant Bible as being inspired Scripture, (though we don't technically have a formal canon) while the Apocrypha is considered optional, though it can be edifying or at least interesting reading.

Whaddya think? And as always, let's be civil. :lol:Strictly speaking the Lutheran Confessions don't actually give any listing of which books are canonical. In the few instances in which a text from the Apocrypha is cited in the Confessions, no comment is made about its canonical or deuterocanonical status.

My answer would be pretty much the way Luther headed the books of the Apocrypha - which he put in a separate section between OT & NT - in his translation: "Apocrypha. Das sind Buecher, so der heiligen Schrift nicht gleich gehalten, und doch nuetzlich und gut zu lesen sind" - "Apocrypha: These are books which are not held equal to Holy Scripture, and yet are useful and good to read." Lutheran Bibles should be arranged in this way with the Apocrypha, though unfortunately many American Lutherans in particular have succumbed to Reformed influence & omit them & even oppose them. (I had one Lutheran pastor object violently when I used a text from Sirach as one of the readings for a service at a clergy retreat.)

There is nothing wrong with preaching on a text from the Apocrypha. Wisdom 3:1-9, e.g., is often used as a reading at funerals. As far as doctrine is concerned, the traditional Lutheran view has been that texts from the Apocrypha cannot be sedes doctrinae - i.e., the bases for doctrinal statements - but that they can be used in support of doctrines based on texts from undisputed scripture.

The Anglican view of the Apocrypha is similar. (Cf. the 6th of the Articles of Religion.) I'm always amused by the "King James only" folks who usually don't realize that the original KJV contained the Aposcrypha - again in a separate section.

You don't have to get a distinctively "Catholic" Bible to get the Apocrypha. There are a number of ecumenical versions (I like the Oxford Annotated RSV with the Apocrypha) available.

Shalom,
George

[Jezz]

A thought:

It occurred to me recently on this topic that this might be a case of misunderstanding between various sides over exactly what constitutes "Scripture".

From one point of view, the term "Scripture" is understood to mean "those books which the Church has deemed suitable for use in the liturgy and intended to be read liturgically".

From the second point of view, the term "Scripture" is understood to mean "those books which the Church has decided are profitable for teaching and instruction in righteousness".

Now, it is my understanding that those churches which do assign the deutero-canonical books canonical status (eg, Catholic denominations, Orthodox denominations, Anglican), that they rarely use them in services - or that when they do, they are not used as the basis for the sermon. This being the case, it would be fair to say that there is not so much difference between the Lutheran and the Catholic/Orthodox view after all. At the end of the day:

1. Both groups affirm that only books from the shorter canon are to be used in the liturgy.
2. Both groups affirm that all books from the longer canon are profitable for teaching and instruction.

The only real difference is that the Lutherans reserve the term "Scripture" for the first group (ie, those suitable for liturgy), and that the Catholic/Orthodox apply the word "Scripture" more flexibly, so that it encompasses the second group (ie, those suitable for instruction).

Thoughts? Is this a possible way of resolving the apparent outward differences? Is it again a case where the main difference is in terminology, and not actual doctrine?

[apologetics]

Vote: NOT inspired....NOT scripture. However, this is not just my opinion, this is the opinion of the entirety of church history up to 1546 and for the entire protestant world thereafter.

Here are the reasons:

We need to understand the reasons for the canonization of certain books. One of the things that continually pops up around here is the myth that the early church councils established scripture. WRONG! Now stay with me.....it all leads to why the apocrypha is NOT scripture.

The proceeding that lead to the official recognition of the canon trace their roots back to heretic Marcon in A.D. 140 when he began circulating his own list of books. The church realized the need to legitimize what was already being accepted as divinely inspired. Athanasius in A.D. 367 (25+ years before Hippo) gave us our earliest list of NT books that looked exactly like the NT we have now. Jerome and Augustine followed shortly by acknowledging the exact same list of books. However, even these men did not decide canon. Polycarp (A.D. 115) and Clement of Alexandria (A.D. 200) and many other early church fathers were referring to the books currently contained in our Bible today, both Old and New Testaments with phrases such as "as it is said in these scriptures." Ignatius (A.D. 50-115) acknowledged the apostleship of Peter and Paul, and therefore, acknowledged their writings as divinely inspired. The writings of Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, as early as A.D. 180 show that the vast majority of the NT (20 of the 27 books) books contained in the Bible today were already being recognized as canon. His book Against Heresies shows that by A.D. 180, all four gospels had become so self-evident that their acceptance throughout Christendom could be referred to as an established fact as obvious as the four winds (what we would call today the four points of the compass.) Although this should be far enough back to blow away the council creation myth, when it is understood that Peter (2 Peter 3:16) acknowledged Paul's writings as scripture on par with that of the OT, the case should be put to rest finally. Let's remember....Paul wrote about two-thirds of the NT.

What determined canon?

1. Was the book written by a prophet of God?
2. Was the writer confirmed by acts of God?
3. Did the message tell the truth about God?
4. Did the message come with the power of God?
5. Was it accepted by the people of God?

The Synod of Hippo did not give them any authority which they did not already have, but simply recorded their previously established canonicity.

Now about the apocrypha, specifically:

Why is it that the church, as early as A.D. 140 saw the need to canonize scripture, but it was not until the Council of Trent in A.D. 1546 that they finally gave canonicity to the Apocrypha? Many Catholics would have us believe that this was in response to Luther. However, the issues run much more deeply than just Luther and his demotion of apocryphal books to his footnotes.

Why not included earlier?

1. They contain historical and geographical mistakes, anachronisms and absurdities.
2. They contain doctrinal issues contradicted by the gospel accounts.
3. Their literary value is inferior than those contained in canon.
4. They lack prophetic authorship (and questionable authorship) and therefore lack the confirmation provided by any acts of God.
5. In addition to questionable authorship, they were authored later than any canonical book, and in a period in which most Jews viewed as closed to true prophecy.

Further proof:

1. Philo (20 B.C. - A.D. 40), although quoting the OT books prolifically, never quoted from a single Apocryphal book.
2. Josephus specifically excludes the Apocrypha.
3. As has been stated previously, and this should really end this discussion....Jesus and the other NT writers, never once quoted from an Apocryphal book.
4. The Jews gathered at the Council of Jamnia (A.D. 90) did not recognize the Apocryphal books.
5. Not only did most of the early church fathers never quote from any Apocryphal books, many of them specifically spoke out against those books.
6. Many Roman Catholic scholars, themselves, through the Reformation rejected the Apocrypha.
7. Luther and the Reformers, following in the footsteps of Jerome, rejected the Apocrypha.

What is amazing is that several RCC doctrines, such as purgatory, receive attempted support from Apocryphal books.

These are clearly NOT scripture, nor does the history of the church provide anyone today any reason for the acceptance of them as such. The Gospel of Thomas is as deserving of canonization....

[David Hayward]

The Gospel of Thomas is as deserving of canonization....Uugh. Hopefully you were tongue-in-cheek.

Maccabees and some of the deutero-canonical apocrypha help us however imperfectly to understand how OT thought developed into NT thought; the Pentacheuch, Prophets, and book after book after book of the OT omit demons, resurrection and major NT themes that otherwise appear to have sprung up inexplicably and full-grown; they have value.

The "Gospel of Thomas" contrasts so strongly in its themes with those of the Four Gospels and the Epistles - eg the individual emphasised instead of the community (church), secret knowledge deliberately obscured and withheld instead of proclaimed exactly as received (as exemplified by Paul), etc etc - that I have no doubt it makes an outrageous arrogant claim to being authentically the words and teachings of Christ, is a Gnostic hijack attempt.

No, the "Gospel of Thomas" is definitely NOT "as deserving of canonisation...."

David

[George Murphy]

A thought:

It occurred to me recently on this topic that this might be a case of misunderstanding between various sides over exactly what constitutes "Scripture".

From one point of view, the term "Scripture" is understood to mean "those books which the Church has deemed suitable for use in the liturgy and intended to be read liturgically".

From the second point of view, the term "Scripture" is understood to mean "those books which the Church has decided are profitable for teaching and instruction in righteousness".

Now, it is my understanding that those churches which do assign the deutero-canonical books canonical status (eg, Catholic denominations, Orthodox denominations, Anglican), that they rarely use them in services - or that when they do, they are not used as the basis for the sermon. This being the case, it would be fair to say that there is not so much difference between the Lutheran and the Catholic/Orthodox view after all. At the end of the day:

1. Both groups affirm that only books from the shorter canon are to be used in the liturgy.
2. Both groups affirm that all books from the longer canon are profitable for teaching and instruction.

The only real difference is that the Lutherans reserve the term "Scripture" for the first group (ie, those suitable for liturgy), and that the Catholic/Orthodox apply the word "Scripture" more flexibly, so that it encompasses the second group (ie, those suitable for instruction).

Thoughts? Is this a possible way of resolving the apparent outward differences? Is it again a case where the main difference is in terminology, and not actual doctrine?This distinction is not entirely accurate. To speak just for Lutherans & Anglicans (since I'm an ELCA pastor on staff at an Episcopal parish) -

There is at least some use of texts from the Apocrypha in liturgies of these traditions. The old Introit for Pentecost, "The Spirit of the Lord filleth the world", is from Wisdom 1:7. A couple of popular canticles, Benedicite, omnia opera and Benedictus est, Domine are from the Additions to Daniel. (We used the latter one at Morning Prayer today.) THere are hymns based on texts from the Apocrypha - e.g., "Now Thank We All Our God" is based on some verses from Sirach. And there are such texts in the daily lectionary and the propers for some commemorations.

Preaching on texts from the Apocrypha is sometimes appropriate, though I wouldn't overdo it. In fact, there's a collection of sermons on such texts, The Unlikely Bride (CSS, 1976) by Carroll R. Gunkel, A United Methodist pastor.

I don't really think that differences about the Apocrypha need be church dividing. Beyond prayers for the dead, to which II Maccabees 12:39-45 refers, there aren't important doctrinal issues that could be settled by an appeal to the Apocrypha, & even in that case I think a lot of RC theologians would agree that their understanding of purgatory can't be supported by that text alone.

Shalom,
George

Shalom,
George

[freelight]

Greetings elysian and all,

I have the KJV Apocrypha, a reprint of the 1611 version. I enjoy the Wisdom literature therein (Wisdom of Solomon; Ecclesiasticus). The issue of 'usefulness' depends on the judges/readers. The Apocrypha along with inter-testamental books/writings, dead sea scrolls...even some gnostic works....I find wonderful and contain their own value. (I will not mention more modern day works/revelations lest the tar pots and feathers begin abrewing :tongue: )

A few other interesting collections/bibles are - 'The lost books of the Bible and the forgotten books of Eden' - World Publishing Co. and 'The Other Bible', Harper & Row - edited by Willis Barnstone...among many others.

This of course brings up the issue of canonization :blush: . While the '66' books of the current standard canon are generally deemed 'scripture'....I and many others take issue over some of the techniques of the canonization process. Some of the books in the acruing canon were considered more or less spurious by some church fathers/reformers yet are still in the canon today.

My vote is that all generally deemed apocryphal works are useful....perhaps some just as useful in some respects than the generally accepted canonized books. Each bible/collection has their own offerings, that value determined by its readers per context.


"Wisdom reacheth from one end to another mightily: and sweetly doth she order all things." - WOS ch. 8



paul

[freelight]

Further proof:

3. As has been stated previously, and this should really end this discussion....Jesus and the other NT writers, never once quoted from an Apocryphal book.
Hello apolo,

I always wondered if the phrase used in 2 Esdras 1 about the Lord 'gathering his people together as a hen gathereth her chicks under her wings' was adopted by Jesus when he purportedly uttered it in Matt. 23:37 - could be a correlation on the concept anyways.

Jude possibly quotes from the Assumption of Moses....and does quote from the book of Enoch. Either are considered apocryphal works....evidently useful to a 'servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James'. Concepts and ideologies from inter-testemantal writings may have likely had an influence on NT thought and its development.

Some church fathers did find works such as the 'epistle of Barnabas, Shepherd of Hermas, etc. as useful. Also books now in the NT canon were considered 'iffy' so to speak by some earlier christian authors (of the first 4 centuries) - Eusebius holds a canon exactly the same as ours today yet says...the epistles of James, Jude, the 2nd of Peter, the 2nd & 3rd of John though they were generally received, yet some had been doubted of. Also some did not include the book of Revelation in the accepted canon - it was questionable to some.

I would take the statement that Pauls writings are 'par' with scripture with a grain of salt since 2nd Peter is questionable. Pauls letters were just that - 'letters', their intention was not to be scripture necessarily, but instructions to assemblies during those times.....along with 'his' gospel/revelations of course.

Am I saying that they offer no value or useful instruction? Of course not. Again...we come to the issue of usefuleness evaluated by the reader - one evaluates all suposedly inspired writings by the same critieria - usefulness...essentially(among other things deemed important to the evaluators).
The canonization process was not entirely free of religio-cultural and political influence...and at last the mother church-state heirarchy had her hand in the christening of what was 'orthodox' or not. Of course one may investigate the history involved. Those in favor of the organized church and her crystalized orthodoxy(66 books only, creeds, Trinity, etc.) will continue...content and secure in their religious cribs. Again....each soul chooses what is suitable for it. There is certainly more beyond just 66 books about God, the world, the universe and the infinity of Spirit all around us. May each enjoy their journey...if they so choose to take one.

An interesting record by one author on the formation of the christian religion and canonization process showing forgeries. I have read some of the articles yet cannot fully endorse it having not thoroughly investigated it...but it is offered here for research purposes.

http://www.thenazareneway.com/Forgery%20in%20Christianity/index_forgery_in_christianity.htm



paul

[Jawa Man]

I'm not sure of what to think of the Apocrypha yet. It's been useful (especially 4 Maccabees) for understanding how 'divine reason' can conquer the emotions. Others like Tobit were strange (like the fish they caught and used some of the insides as oinment). Others were funny (again Tobit where the guy slept under the wall and became blind because a bird pooped in his eyes too much). But I don't see anything heretical. I do doubt that stories like Tobit actually took place, or even the story about Daniel dealing with that one chick and the two judges who accused her of adultery. My NRSV with Apocrypha has footnotes, and it said that there is a play on words used by Daniel in Greek when he asks about trees and deals out the punishment for the answer. Ironically I found out that Origen and Africanus had an exchange on the same thing, and I initially agreed with Africanus because I didn't think the Hebrew would have had the word play. But then Origen argued that perhaps there was a different play on words in Hebrew (the old play on words wasn't translated, but a new one was, kind of like how some translators don't translate idioms, but translate the meaning of the idioms or an idiom that is relevant to the audience reading it).

My reading has shown me that the Apocrypha is helpful, and I haven't found anything that goes against Scripture. Also, keep in mind that not only do the Catholics use the Apocrypha: so do the Orthodox, and I know that since they were not in Communion with the Catholics when they supposedly first accepted the books in the 1500s, they would not have accepted the descisions of their councils. This shows that the Apocrypha was probably accepted as Scripture before the 1500s. But again, I don't know.

[elysian]

Strictly speaking the Lutheran Confessions don't actually give any listing of which books are canonical. In the few instances in which a text from the Apocrypha is cited in the Confessions, no comment is made about its canonical or deuterocanonical status.

My answer would be pretty much the way Luther headed the books of the Apocrypha - which he put in a separate section between OT & NT - in his translation: "Apocrypha. Das sind Buecher, so der heiligen Schrift nicht gleich gehalten, und doch nuetzlich und gut zu lesen sind" - "Apocrypha: These are books which are not held equal to Holy Scripture, and yet are useful and good to read." Lutheran Bibles should be arranged in this way with the Apocrypha, though unfortunately many American Lutherans in particular have succumbed to Reformed influence & omit them & even oppose them. (I had one Lutheran pastor object violently when I used a text from Sirach as one of the readings for a service at a clergy retreat.)

There is nothing wrong with preaching on a text from the Apocrypha. Wisdom 3:1-9, e.g., is often used as a reading at funerals. As far as doctrine is concerned, the traditional Lutheran view has been that texts from the Apocrypha cannot be sedes doctrinae - i.e., the bases for doctrinal statements - but that they can be used in support of doctrines based on texts from undisputed scripture.

The Anglican view of the Apocrypha is similar. (Cf. the 6th of the Articles of Religion.) I'm always amused by the "King James only" folks who usually don't realize that the original KJV contained the Aposcrypha - again in a separate section.

You don't have to get a distinctively "Catholic" Bible to get the Apocrypha. There are a number of ecumenical versions (I like the Oxford Annotated RSV with the Apocrypha) available.

Shalom,
George

George, you emphasize what our senior Pastor has taught regarding the use of the Apocrypha for Lutherans. (he also recommends the RSV version of the Apocrypha, I was able to download it for free as a e-book for MS Reader which is great, and I'm taking his advice and beginning with Wisdom of Solomon) He actually encourages the more adventurous among us to read it with the understanding that it's more of an adjunct to Scripture, that it will help broaden your understanding of the culture and history of Old Testament times.

I find the KJV only movement terribly distressing in that the Bible wasn't written in Elizabethan English and it is not the best translation for 21st century Americans to read and understand the Bible clearly. Even more distressing is "what about people who don't speak English?" What do the KJV only people expect non-English speaking people to read? Also, wasn't Luther the one who believed that people should have and read and study the Bible in their own language, and if I remember right Luther was German (definitely not English, and I don't think he spoke English either) and so was his Bible translation? :lol: What use would a Spanish Bible be to a person who speaks English only, or a German Bible for someone who speaks only Chinese? In some ways Elizabethan English is a foreign language especially for our kids. They have to be able to read, understand and invite the word of God to be written on their minds and hearts which is best accomplished with a Bible translation that is in 21st century English.

I use the NIV a lot because I volunteer with our Catechism kids and we find the NIV, especially as presented in their Teen Study Bibles, is easy for the kids (11-15) to read and understand. The language isn't overly complex but it isn't dumbed-down either. I also like to use the Amplified Bible, and occasionally the RSV, NASB and sometimes The Message.

Unfortunately the RSV is the only "Protestant Bible" (that I know of anyway) to include the option of the Apocrypha- it's not available in the NIV or even the NASB.

But the souls of the righteous are in the hand of God, and no torment will ever touch them. Wisdom 3:1 (RSV)

George: I wonder how many American Lutherans have actually read and understand the Confessions?

:nc: I better shut up before I get volunteered to teach the high school kids next year... :teeth:

[George Murphy]

Unfortunately the RSV is the only "Protestant Bible" (that I know of anyway) to include the option of the Apocrypha- it's not available in the NIV or even the NASB.It's also available in the NRSV, NEB, REB (i.e., the updated NEB with inclusive language &c), TEV (Good News for Modern Man) & even - rather surprisingly - "The Living Bible" (which I don't recommend.) Goodspeed's translation also includes the Apocrypha. One good thing about the RSV or NRSV Apocryphas is that they aren't limited to those books which were in use in the western church in the Middle Ages & declared canonical by Trent but include some others like 3d & 4th Maccabees.

But the souls of the righteous are in the hand of God, and no torment will ever touch them. Wisdom 3:1 (RSV)


George: I wonder how many American Lutherans have actually read and understand the Confessions?A good question. I don't expect laypeople to be familiar with the whole Book of Concord but they should know the Small Catechisms and have some familiarity with the Large Catechism and Augsburg Confession.

Shalom,
George

[elysian]

Good catechesis is sort of a sore subject for me. (which is why I enjoy working with the kids and helping them learn to find the answers to their questions) The reason I left the RCC is because I couldn't get straight answers at my Mom's church to the questions I had in middle school and later in high school. I went from CCD to Baptist study groups, (I do appreciate their emphasis on Bible study, but I don't agree with "believer's baptism" and the tendency in some Baptist churches to dwell on eschatology is rather creepy) to finally a good Luther League program which led me to adult catechism and confirmation. (Yes, the catechism kids know that I wasn't confirmed until I was 20! :lol: )

If I had a right understanding of the RCC back then, who knows? I may have been content to remain RC and I may not have done all the soul-searching as to my faith or the particulars of theology. But I would have missed a meaningful journey and wouldn't have learned so much along the way.

The Holy Spirit has a way of leading us where He needs us to be, whether it be in the RC or in a Lutheran church or even as a Pentecostal/Charismatic. There's something to be gained in all the "rooms of God's House" to quote C.S. Lewis. I enjoy learning about other traditions and embracing those aspects that are edifying or bring glory to God. For me the Lutheran perspective makes the most sense and most importantly the emphasis on grace and being centered on Christ speaks to my heart.

I still believe that it's important for our kids to learn the truth about Christianity (including other interpretations of Christian faith such as the RCC and other Protestant groups) so they will know what they believe and why. We need to have adults who can ask the kids the right questions and lead them to the resources they need to answer those questions for themselves. We need to pray for our kids and try, by God's grace to show them a good example.

We do teach the Small Catechism and some material from the Large Catechism to the 11-15 age group, though we are considering delving more in-depth into the Book of Concord with the high school students. We are trying to keep both age groups involved in Bible studies as well as service and fellowship activities. There's nothing like a group of middle school kids painting a house or singing songs at a retreat.