I am sitting here reading James K. A. Smith’s new little book: Letters To A Young Calvinist — in the book he is corresponding with a former member of a college group that he led at his church back in Hawthorne (go L.A. county 😉 ); this student has just been turned on to “Calvinism.” 
The correspondence is a series of “letters” between Smith and the college aged guy, Jesse. In one of the letters, Smith is glossing on how much that he values the ‘confessional’ nature of the ‘Reformed faith’; he is trying to encourage younger, Jesse, to see the value that the Reformed confessions and catechisms can offer someone interested in growing in the Reformed tradition. But, more, growing in the grace and knowledge of Jesus Christ. What I find insightful, from Smith, is his point on the differences in orientation and ‘feel’ that he sensed between the ‘Westminster Standards’ (WCF and WLC & WSC) and the Heidelberg Catechism; he says:
But I have to confess that when I discovered the Heidelberg Catechism, it was like discovering a nourishing oasis compared to the arid desert of Westminster’s cool scholasticism. The God of the Heidelberg Catechism is not just a Sovereign Lord of the Universe, nor merely the impartial Judge at the trial of justification; the God of the Heidelberg Catechism keeps showing up as a Father. For example, when expounding the first article of the Apostles’ Creed (“I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth”), the Heidelberg Catechism discusses all the ways that God upholds the universe by his hand, but also affirms that this sovereign Creator attends to me, a speck in that universe. And it concludes the answer to question 26 by summarizing: “He is able to do this because he is almighty God; he desires to do this because he is a faithful Father.” (James K. A. Smith, “Letters To A Young Calvinist,” 55)
Of the ‘Reformed’ Confessions & Catechisms, two of them are very central to ‘Evangelical Calvinism’; the (1) being ‘The Scots Confession, 1560’ and then (2) ‘The Heidelberg Catechism’, for the very reason that Smith just highlights. It is the all important ‘Doctrine of God’ embedded within these statements that ‘EC’ believes is very important. In other words, as Smith notes, it is the language of ‘Father’ that should be emphasized; the Father of the Son by the Holy Spirit — or the ‘Trinitarian nature of God’ we have become so accustomed to by looking at Jesus through reading Scripture. This is a central reality to ‘EC’, that God is ‘Father/Son’ (by the Holy Spirit) — constituently — before He ever becomes Creator (‘Law-giver’ etc.). He becomes ‘Creator’ by a free act of gracious love for the other, and out of this free un-restrained act (except for the restraint that obtains within the onto-relating of the person’s of God’s one being) He ‘graciously’ creates because He is a lover first; which shapes His creating (and saving and re-creating) activity in grace.
This is a significant point, and Smith makes it readily!
I was just wondering to myself about why the WCF and Heildelberg etc are so different in tone.
Often the answer I hear is the cause is the different theologies underlying them. As an alternative and much more prosaic explanation, I wondered if it could be down to the fact that the WCF was written by a committee over an extended period of time.
Committees have the habit of sucking life out of anything.
Just thinking aloud. What do you think?
Hey David K,
I think the theology is different, most likely. But of course, the historical situadedness and circumstances that gave rise to these disparate documents has a lot to do with it as well . . . which I think, again, though, brings us back to an issue of theological diversity (to say it nicely 😉 ).
Dave,
What do you think?
See – in my original 10 theses on EC I said that one of them was a prefernece for Heidelberg over Westminster :-)! And some people wondered what I was on about…:-)
I remembered Myk, that’s why I wanted to highlight this point; and this is being made by a quasi-Westminster Calvinist. Smith also doesn’t seem to be lock-step with his colleague Muller on the Muller’s continuity thesis . . . interesting 😉 .
I think I need to put those original 10 theses in “The Themes of Evangelical Calvinism” page.
Thanks for your response Bobby. To be honest my knowledge of the history and theology for that time is pretty week so I wouldn’t like to venture my own opinion.
On the theology of the puritans I actually recognise my ignorance, even if I weigh in on arguments above my pay-grade in other areas!
Dave,
You should check out Jamie Smith’s book, I like it; even if I don’t agree with everything (I never agree with everything from anyone though 😉 , who does?).
Thanks for the feedback, Dave K, I really appreciate your interaction, brother!
Thanks Bobby. I was wondering what you thought of the book actually. I like Jamie Smith, but I don’t think there is a single person in the world who would agree with Jamie Smith about everything. He is that sort of a writer. Curiously Jamie Smith once came to my church when he was staying in York (England) for a few months. But I didn’t realise who he was so never spoke to him! Most famous theologian we’ve ever had visit I think 🙂
I think I will buy the book at some point.
Dave,
That’s great that he came to your church, too bad you didn’t have a chance to talk to him 🙂 . Yeah, I think it is a good quick read; you’ll probably enjoy it, I have. You could probably read through the whole thing in a couple of hrs.