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.