Ecclesiastical royal or democrat?

How do you view the church, especially with regard to its leadership and government?

Some people are what I call, "ecclesiastical democrats," in that they believe that the church should be led from the "bottom, up." They are congregationalists, and believe in "majority rule."

Other people are what I call "ecclesiastical royalists." They believe that the church should be led by clergy and lay elders, who, though elected by the people, nonetheless are given the responsibility (by God) of leading, governing, and casting vision for the church.

"Absolute" royalists are "episcopal," employing bishops and the like. "Moderated" royalists are "presbyterian," functioning with "colleges" of clergy (teaching elders), and ruling elders.

The royalist position is more Biblical, in that God, the Great King, is pleased to pattern His Own work after it. He sends His gifts, blessing, salvation, and even His Own Son, and the Holy Spirit, from the "top, down," viz., from heaven, to earth. This pattern, then, is to be reflected in the churches--where God works first through the faithful clergy (in immediate conjunction with the ruling elders), who then disseminate God's gifts and blessings to the faithful parishioners in the pew.

Where does discipleship begin?

One church in our community, in a well-meaning way, I am sure, broadcasts that it is a place where "Discipleship begins in the home, and is celebrated in the church."

Think about this statement for a few moments. Now, can you imagine the Lord Jesus Christ ever teaching this? Did He expect His disciples to be trained in the home, and then to bring their Christlikeness into the church? This notion is absurd, from a Biblical point of view. No. Instead, Jesus called His followers *away* from their homes, to follow Him, in order to learn from the very Head of the church. After they had been fully trained, they then took their doctrine into their homes, and the rest of their world.

You might be saying, "Well, big deal. Who really cares?" Well, actually it is a huge deal. Unless the church re-asserts its proper role and makes disciples, which is one of its primary functions, there will be no opportunity for anyone to be able to even *pretend* that discipleship "begins in the home." In that world, it would certainly not be "celebrated in the church." There would be nothing to celebrate.

No. Discipleship begins in the church. It starts with the Head, Jesus. He then disseminates it down through His ministers and elders, who then bring it to the parishioners. They then take it home with them.

Age-Integration in church?

There are some people who believe that the church should look like the nuclear family. This error is hatched out of the fallacious notion that the family is the defining society for all of culture. These folks would want to bring into the church their perceived "ideals" of what a church "family" should look like. Because of this, some of these people are strong advocates of "age-integration" of *all* facets of church life. For instance, they would be against the idea of Sunday School classes for pre-primary children, running up through adult classes.

But this perspective is completely skewed. It does not matter what the family situation at home looks like. It is of no consequence, even if a family maintained perfect "age-integration" itself at home, (which none of them do, by the way). All that matters is what the elders of the church, being guided by the principles of Scripture, choose to do, in best educating the members of the parish. If they choose to separate the congregants by age, so be it: that is their belief as to the best way to get the job done.

The only area that the Bible does clearly dictate must be age-integrated is that of the church's Lord's Day worship services. But other functions of the church life do not come under this same stricture.

It would be ridiculous for the church to seek to dictate "age-segregation" on the family. And it is equally ludicrous for the family to try to demand full-fledged "age-integration" of the church.

Good reasons to hate the Puritans?

Why does the devil, and his comrades, godless people and fallen angels hate the Puritans so much?

In their day, the Puritans were despised for drinking too much, for having too much fun, for being too intelligent and influential, and for wearing clothing that was deemed too stylish.

But I think the biggest reason the Puritans were so particularly hated in the 17th and 18th centuries, is because they insisted that people should love God and hate their sin. The real problem people had with them was not their avante-gard lifestyle, but rather their insistence that Jesus Christ should be exalted, and sin was just not to be tolerated.

As soon as a church gets away from the Puritan ideal, it's all downhill from there.

So, I ask you: do you have any legitimate reason to loathe the Puritans? If you do, I would like to know what it might be.

Is it time to throw in the towel?

I am amazed, at how many professing Christians seem to have given up on God's "old paths": the gospel of Christ's free grace, His church, preaching, the sacraments, discipline, and the Word of God. There seems to be in many of these folks a sense that none of these things could ever "work" again, that they are "broken," and that other solutions must be sought, and had.

Some are resorting to the kind of quasi-"christianity" of the mega-"church" culture, (alluded to in the prior post). Others have retreated to their families, and to homeschooling* (as an ultimate answer). Many others have seemingly decided that the only possible hope for our fouled-up world is the second coming of Christ. (Of course, this *is* a "blessed" and great hope, as per Titus 2:13. But God never intended this to be the church's "working" hope. In other words, the Christian life is not to be spent solely waiting for ultimate redemption.)

When people see the "fracturing" of the visible church, the scandals in the Roman church, and the absurdities in the mainline protestant churches--they just plain get discouraged. The devil then easily turns this disheartenment into despair, (and really, at base, unbelief).

So, is it really time to give up? Is the day of Christ, the gospel, the church, hope, revival, and reformation past? Should we abandon all these blessings?

Clearly, the answer is, "No." Even if there was NO reason to believe that God would do something great in the world, resignation and retreat would still not be the proper response.

God's faithful people must continue to believe that God's word really IS true; and that if He says that the "gates of hades" cannot prevail against His church--that He sincerely means it, (cf. Matt. 16:18).

Don't give up. Remain faithful. God may yet surprise you.

* My several reference to homeschooling in these posts should not be misunderstood. I am not referring to the great numbers of godly, reasonable, rational, and fair-minded people who choose to homeschool. My references are to what I call fanatical homeschoolers, those who practically turn the practice into a religion.

Mega-"Church"/Mega-Farce

The national media is making a bit of a hoopla, understandably-so, over the fact that many (if not virtually all) of America's mega-"churches" are not holding any Christmas Day services--and this because Christmas falls on Sunday this year (2005). One of the common excuses for not having "services" is that people will be free to be with their families on Christmas day. Another explanation is that hundreds of their staff people would have to work on that day.

Here is a good example of where ecclesiocentricity, or a "church-centered" life can come to the aid of people trapped in the mega-"church." What more ideal time than this, to evangelize these people, and teach them, by precept and example, what the rudimentary features of the Christian life look like?! Invite them to your church's worship services on Christmas Day. Duh. Professing Christians worship God on Sunday--no matter if it is December 25--and that in real churches.

After all, since when did God suspend His worship, for a Sunday "day off"? For that matter, when did God ever "change" the day of worship from Sunday, (the New Covenant Sabbath), to Wednesday night, or any other day of the week? Since when does God exalt Christmas Day over even one of His weekly Lord's Days (which are His true and only "holy days")? Of course, the answer to all these questions is, "Never!"

By the mega-"churches'" decision not to have their "services" on Sunday, December 25, they betray some ugly, but perhaps not always well-known truths about themselves. What has happened, for instance, to their alleged concern for "seekers," (assuming such souls even exist--which is highly unlikely)? Are they to leave their beloved seekers out in the cold, on Christmas morning, while they enjoy sweet and warm times with their families, in their houses?

If you have ever been tempted to envy mega-"churches" because of their wonderful marketing tools and methods, by which they bring in thousands of people--that day needs to come to an end. You need to sincerely pity them, and do what you can to reach the poor souls who are starving in their midst, with the gospel of God's grace.

The days of the mega-"church" are undoubtedly numbered. The warts are just too obvious. Let us be preparing our churches to minister to many people who will be coming to us, from them.

PS: This web article helped spark this blog: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,177908,00.html

Good and Bad Patriarchalism

You have heard of "good" and "bad" cholesterol; right? Well, now you have heard of good and bad "patriarchalism." Patriarchalism is, at base, the teaching and practice of "father-rule." As you can imagine, this concept can put forth either a pretty, or an ugly face. God's provision of ecclesiocentricity, again, comes to the rescue, through the blood and merits of Jesus Christ--as He works through His church.

Unfortunately, in a fallen and decrepit world, bad patriarchalism is more likely to show itself, before the good form comes along (as a corrective).

Bad patriarchalism typically makes the father of a family the "god." No one can tell this person what to do: no elders in a church, no civil authorities in a culture, not even the true and Almighty God in heaven. This fake "father god" must be worshipped, and no one can gainsay him.

Good patriarchalism works this way: it recognizes that the Ultimate Father is in heaven, and that He reigns as the true God. Then, it perceives that the Lord has so ordained His world that He delegates authority to subordinate fathers. The first line of these fathers are the elders in the church. The second line are the "fathers" in the civil government; and the fathers in the homes of families.

When God is contending for souls of people, He works through the church fathers. When God is punishing evildoers in society, He works through the civil fathers. When God is establishing homes, He works through the family's fathers. (This latter group either has the blessing of the church fathers [in the case of Christians]; or not, in the case of others.)

How Ecclesiocentricity works in a Family

You might be thinking, after reading some of these posts, "Well, wait a minute. I have always heard that God would have me put my family first, before everything else. And here you come, propounding this view that the church is to have the priority. How do I reconcile these
things?"

I'm glad you asked. These are good queries.

What will follow is a demonstration of how ecclesiocentricity essentially works in the context of a typically traditional family. Assuming that all the family members are baptized members in good standing in a local church, the father of this family would view his wife as his first and primary "disciple." He would consider her a fellow church member, a wife, and a co-laborer in the gospel, and in the family. The wife would view her husband as her initial head (in the church), recognizing that her husband also has headship over him, in the eldership of the church, (which also serves her as a headship covering, too). The children in the family would be the parents' first line of "disciples" in the church. Though they are family, they are not conceived of outside the context of the church. The children would see their parents as their first line of authority in the church, (though they are also under the authority of church officers, too).

So, a truly Christian family cannot and does not even exist apart from the context of the church. To imagine such, it would matter not how religious, zealous, or passionate they were--they would not be a Christian family. It might be a nice family, a big family, a well-ordered family, a well-behaved family--but not a "Christian" family.

Friendly Ecclesiocentricity

Sometimes the battle for hearts and souls can get kind of ugly, and passionate. Here's another dimension to consider: the church is really the best place for you to be. If you're walking with God, rejoice in His favor. If you're sinning against God, go there and get the correction and reproof you need. If you're not sure what to believe, find out, from God's officers in the church.

When you have all the trump cards, you do not have to be skittish, or worried. And that is the condition with God's church: she holds all the aces; and she is in a position to help you.

Is the church for everybody? In a very real sense, it is. If you are sincere in your faith, this will be manifested. If you are not, this will come to everyone's attention, too.

In the end, there is *nothing* too difficult for the church to handle. The reason for this is because of the fact that her "Head," the Lord Jesus Christ, is the King of kings, and the Lord of lords.

Trust God, that He knows what is best for you; and then submit yourself to all of His ordinances, viz. preaching, baptism, the Lord's Supper, and discipline--as they are found in Christ's church.

Ecclesiocentricity and the Salvation of the Family

Many earnest people today are very concerned about the future of the family. Many of these people are Christians, others are Muslims, others are agnostic or otherwise professedly irreligious.

Many efforts are being put forward to "save" the home and the family. Some propose that the homeschool movement is the hope for the reclaiming of the family's rightful place in society, and for its redemption. Other people have other answers.

But ironically, the family's *only* hope is right under its nose, and it is often neglected. If the home is to be saved, the church must do it. Nothing else: not huddled individual families seeking to stave off the evil world; not the government's best efforts to help the family; not any educational system--but only Jesus Christ, through His church, can "redeem" the home.

Why is this? Doesn't this seem strange? After all, isn't the church generally perceived as weak, and (by some) regarded as the family's "enemy"?

The reason is because God has so ordained it to be this way. The family does not possess the redemptive virtue of Christ's atonement, in and of itself. It (the family) is not given the sacraments of the church (baptism and the Lord's Supper). The family's hope is not derived from itself, or the state--but only from the church.

So there you have it. Do you love your family? Do you want it to thrive into the future generations? Then, don't teach them that their culture must be one of homeschooling (for instance). Teach them to love God's church. There, they will grow to sincerely love God's Son.

The Kingdom vs. the Family

Family is a great blessing of God. This blog site is not designed to in any way denigrate the family; but rather to understand it, in its proper context. Anyone who knows me, knows how I love my wife, my daughter, my parents, my sisters, and other family members.

But family, like any other good and God-given gift, can be, and often is idolatarized, (or made into a false god).

It is very interesting that you will not find a harsher critic of those who worship the family than the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. And there is good reason for this: He knew (and knows) full well that sinners are very apt to worship their families, and to put them ahead of God and the kingdom of grace (as it is expressed in His church).

Think with me of some of the statements Jesus Christ, the God-Man, made; and consider whether or not He pandered to the idolatry of the home. . . .

Lk. 9:60-62: "Jesus said to him, 'Let the dead bury their own dead, but you go and preach the kingdom of God.' And another also said, 'Lord, I will follow You, but let me first go and bid them farewell who are at my house.' But Jesus said to him, 'No one, having put his hand to the plow, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.'"

Lk. 14:26: "If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple."

So, you can see that Jesus Christ makes no bones about it. He and His church must come first. Family makes a great community; but it makes a lousy deity.

"Super-homers" and Sixties Hippies

My definition of "super-homers" are those people who believe virtually everything should revolve around the home, and the family.

Super-homers, typically, want to be born at home, learn at home, work at home, "worship" (as a "church") at home, and die at home. Super-homers seem to confine their sphere of authority to themselves, with the father being "god," the mother and children, the "god's" underlings.

It strikes me that there is an intriguing similarity between super-homers and sixties hippies. Both of them abhor and question all authority, (except their own). There is a suspicion about anyone who does not fit their mold. And there is a strong "counter-culture"--that though imitating the genuine call of Christian heavenly citizenship (even on earth)--yet falls woefully short of God's truth.

Some super-homers are professing Christians, others are not. The same might be said of many sixties hippies.

Both of these groups need what everyone else needs, too: that being the church. There, they would learn that they are not the end-all of their existences; and that they are happier bound to, and bonded with other people.

This is another example of where the church is key to a sane, balanced, and fulfilling life. Only from within it will you find the King of Life, the Lord Jesus Christ.

Discipleship and Ecclesiocentricity

There are so many books and materials dealing with discipleship. But, what is discipleship, at base? It is the same thing today, as it was when the Lord Jesus walked the earth: being with Christ, and learning from Him, (so as to be effective in ministry and life).

How is this done today? Nowhere but in the CHURCH of the Lord Jesus Christ. A "discipler"--be he a pastor, elder, deacon, or a member of the church (man or woman)--starts the discipling process by seeing to it that the "disciple" is in the church's Lord's Day worship service. Typically, this would be the AM service, as the initial contact point.

The next step in Christian discipleship is to encourage the disciple to be in the PM worship service on Sunday, (if your church is happy enough to have one).

From there, all the rest of discipleship flows.

But, do you see where there can be, and is no true discipleship when the person you are seeking to work with is not sitting at Jesus' feet, in His house, on His day?

Things are not so complex. It's all really pretty simple.

Church and Home United?

Some folks, undoubtedly well-meaning, imagine that the ideal world would find the church and home "united." I suppose to some extent it depends on what one means by "united."

If it means that the church becomes the lackey of the home, then this is an undesirable goal. If it means that the home learns from, submits to, and honors the church, then this would be a noble achievement.

The old European model of the church and state being united ought to be sufficient warning for us to be wary of the church and home being so joined. When the church and state were "one," the church sacrificed away its prophetic role of calling the state back to God. The same would be true in a world where the church and home were "united."

The home needs, for its own good, the church's prophetic voice, hearkening it (the home) unto Christ, the church itself, and holiness.

So, if the church and home are to be "united," let it be accomplished by the home's coming under the blessing, protection, and graces of the church. In this way, the power of the God's gospel would flow from Christ, through His church, to the home.

Now, in this scenario, the church and home would be positively "bound together" by the home's submission to the church's Head, sacraments, offices, and means of grace.

Ecclesiocentricity and Education

Now, here's a "hot-button" issue for you. But it is this forum's contention that there is NO subject too big, or too difficult for God, as He works (in this world) through His church.

What is the church's role, when it comes to the education of children: those in the parish, particularly?

The answer is neither easy, nor simple. Each case must be handled on an individual basis.

The one glaring error, that must not be made, is to "universalize" the church's position on the subject.

In some cases, the public system is the best way to go. In other cases, "covenant education," viz. church families working together in a school context, is the preferred method. At other times, homeschooling is to be opted for.

Sessions (church elder boards--for you "non-Presbyterians") should be aware, generally, of what is available educationally, and of what the parishioners are choosing to employ.

They should also be acutely aware of the typical advantages, and pitfalls that accompany any and all educational alternatives.

Elders have the "right," if they should so choose, to start "church schools"; but even here it is best not to dictate absolute and complete universal compliance on the parish's participation in them.

Likely, I will be teaching more about this issue, on this forum, in the future. . . .

Moving toward the center

Ecclesiocentricity is at once the most radical of positions; while being the most rational and practical.

Trouble, and sin both have the tendency of pushing people to extremes. This is an inevitability, until or unless the ways of God are ever truly understood and practiced.

God's path leads to His church, where the "waters from the sanctuary" flow into the hearts, homes, and trials of all who will but come (to Jesus).

In a world pulled apart by opposing and extreme forces--it is a great comfort to know that the Lord has provided a "common house," a place of refuge, an oasis in the spiritual wasteland.

All kinds of people are welcome in God's church: those from the most divergent backgrounds will all find solace in the same Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ.

Ecclesiocentricity made easy

Is the Christian life confusing? Not really. Many religionists, seeking to justify themselves, and enslave others in their own perversions, make it seem very difficult and foreboding.

But really, what is important? Where does one start?

Three great Truths must be kept before you:

1) Jesus Christ is the end of your life. If you are to be a Christian, you must be in Him.
2) You cannot be in Christ, without being an active, faithful member of His visible Church, His Body (and Bride).
and 3) You cannot be a good churchman without putting the Lord's Day's church worship, and the principle of the Sabbath, into the very center of your entire existence.

This makes Christianity very practical. "Am I in God's good graces?," someone may ask. The answer: "Do you love Jesus? Do you hate your sin? Do you love what Christ loves? Are you faithful in the little things?"

See, understanding Christianity is not really all that difficult; and it is certainly not "rocket science."

"Homers" and "Staters"

How does a church minister to "homers," those who think that salvation resides within the walls of their residences; and to "staters," those who think that Washington, DC, is their last resort of redemption?

First of all, by recognizing that the church has, in God's economy, the "high ground." It is in the place of advantage and privilege. Because of this fact, it is necessary to exercise authority with grace and dignity.

Both "homers" and "staters" must be taught that they are trusting in a lie, an imagined salvation, that is driven not by Scripture, nor by reason, but by fear. Both are easy targets for Satan, and are readily picked-off by him.

Compassion dictates that God's church officers must approach both "homers" and "staters" as desperately needy people, who must be offered God's grace.

There may be no compromise with idolatry; but there must be an understanding of the power of fear; and of the overwhelming might of God's grace, alone.

How to learn to trust church leaders

How are parishioners, especially those who have had negative experiences with authority figures in their past, to trust church officers: pastors, elders, and deacons? This is a good question, and it is one that merits our careful and compassionate consideration.

First of all, it is good to note that the Fall has left ALL people skeptical (at best), and rebellious (at worst), when it comes to ANY authority.

But what is not often comprehended, is that refusal to trust authority is directly related to refusal to trust God. Now, no one denies that a saint's trust of God is to be implicit, comprehensive, and filial. The same cannot be said about one's trust of all human authority. The godly person trusts other fallen sinners, put in positions of authority over them, in an incomplete and yet still sincere way.

Ironically, failure to trust (in this way) legitimate authority, is failure to trust in God, who providentially and sovereignly put the people He has, over us.

The best way for parishioners to trust church leaders, is for those leaders to show themselves worthy of their trust. Do they (the leaders) defend the flock? Do they feed the flock? Are they willing to stay with the flock, through thick and thin? If the answer is, "Yes," then the people in the pew develop a bond of trust and love, that cannot be generated in any other way.

The fact that there ARE bad church authorities is not to be taken as reason to cast an aspersion on all such authorities. God is especially hard on false shepherds. (But He is not easy on rebellious sheep, either.)

Who's to integrate whom?

One of the hot issues today, is: who is to integrate whom?, when it comes to the relationships between the church, the state, and the family.

One significant organization today promotes the idea of "family-integrated churches." My thesis on this web site is exactly reversed; and that is should read: church-integrated families.

In truth, wherever we can be influenced for good, let it happen. But let us keep in mind that God works from the top, down; and not the other way around. Jesus came from heaven to earth, in the incarnation. He is the Head of His church, which is His colony of heaven on the earth.

The church, then, is the principal agency of God on the earth--and it is her mission to bless the rest of the world.

How to help people struggling with where to go

Every human being resorts, inevitably, to one of the three main societal realms, given us by God. People either look to the state for the answer to their problems; the family for the same; or to the church. The goal of this blog site is to encourage folks to look to the church.

Let's explore this whole dynamic in a bit more detail. Traditionally, we have associated those who look to the government for their salvation as "liberals." This is probably too simplistic, but, for the sake of convenience, let us settle on it for a while.

In recent years, there has been a very substantial movement, among many on the "right," (if you will), to seek the primary solutions to the problems of life in the realm of the family. These folks we might call "conservatives," (or maybe, strong conservatives).

There has always been a perverted notion among some unfortunate Christians, that would tend to worship the church, per se--and these people are not the models we want to choose.

So, given that this is The "Forum for Ecclesiocentricity," where do we go from here; and how do we help people who are struggling with these issues?

First of all, I think we need to state that the problem, and the difficulty of it, is a real, and palpable one. Anyone who has sought to raise a child (or children) in a responsible way in the past few decades (especially), knows how hard it is, and how one's heart is moved toward one position, or another. Therefore, we need true compassion as we deal with these issues, in the lives and souls of real human beings.

I dare say, however, in this particular blog, and I suspect I will expand on this later, that anything BUT the resorting to the church first, is a recipe for disaster. The devil easily picks off those who do not find their shelter under the wing of the bride of Christ. No matter how well-intended, anywhere else is a very scary and dangerous place to be.

The need for a strong clergy

At the risk of sounding self-serving--in that I am myself an ordained minister of the gospel--still some things need to be said, no matter from whom they arise.

The clergy is the heart and soul of any society. You can tell how potent or impotent any culture is, by observing the nature, mettle, and courage of the pastors of the churches.

So, it should not surprise anyone that a strong pastoral ministry is essential to the welfare of the church; and this blog, "The Forum for Ecclesiocentricy," is all about promoting that goal.

Pray that God raise up a crop of Puritan pastors, who will lead the church again into its rightful glorious place, as it proclaims the wonder and praise of Jesus.

Why is the church first?

When God first created anything, time began. On the sixth day of His creation, God created Adam. The moment Adam began to be, the Lord had His Church.

When God later created Eve, from Adam's side, the family was formed.

One might say that civil government was also formed, with the creation of the second human being, (although it might be more proper to say that the formation of multiple families constituted it).

All three of these institutions: the church, the family, and the state, are good; and they are ordained of God.

The family and the state are temporal institutions, in that they will cease to exist, at the end of conventional history, i.e. at the last coming of Christ, the resurrection of the body, the great judgment, and the eternal state.

The church, however, will always remain, throughout all of history, "temporal," and eternal.

Welcome to the Forum for Ecclesiocentricity

It's good to have you viewing this material. I now know I did not invent the word, "Ecclesiocentricity," but I am confident that God instituted it, from the moment that He created Adam.

"Ecclesiocentricity" is a long word, but don't be intimidated by it. It comes from the collation of two words: "ecclesia," the Greek word for "church," (lit., the "called-out" ones); and "center," or being at the heart of things.