Rudiment #6: Life in covenant throughout the week

Sometimes the biblical (or Puritan) approach to the Christian life is criticized, because it allegedly focuses too much attention on Sunday, and too little stress on the rest of the days of the week.

Of course, this is not true. The faithful churchman remains watchful and diligent throughout the week. She prays for her pastor, her elders, her deacons, and her fellow-parishioners. She stands prepared to meet the needs of the saints; and she is industrious in her home and family life, (as well as work and school, etc.).

The reason Sunday worship is SO important, is largely because it must sustain the true believers throughout the week. If the service of worship and the preaching is weak—other substitute solutions need to be sought elsewhere. If the worship, word, sacrament, and discipline is strong—especially on Sunday—then there is no need to supplement with other non-God-ordained activities.

Sure, you look forward to Sunday. But this does not mean that you do not enjoy Christ, and glorify God throughout the other six days of the week.

Rudiment #5: Use of the Lord’s Day (the Sabbath)

After sacred worship services, it is good to fellowship with the saints; or, if necessary, to sequester oneself off in a place where the sermon (and the worship service) might be more fully-comprehended, and contemplated.

Sunday is God’s gift to His people. Enjoy the church’s worship services (first and foremost); but do not necessarily stop there. Take advantage of the church’s educational ministries, viz. Sunday School classes, catechism classes, new members’ classes, etc.

Do not feel badly about resting on Sunday. It is a good day for an afternoon nap.

Read good books. Pray. Relish your Savior.

As you do these things, you will be preparing yourself for the week ahead. If you fail to keep the Sabbath Day, you are essentially killing yourself, and cutting your life short.

Rudiment #4: Proper attitude during Sunday church worship services

The spirit with which one comes to church; and the maintenance of (that spirit) throughout the service(s), are of great importance to God.

Seek, by grace, to put out of your minds all carnal, secular, and otherwise unnecessary or disturbing thoughts and notions. Recognize that the devil will work on you more during the church worship of God, than at any other time of your life.

Adopt an attitude of praise; and lift up genuine heartfelt adoration unto the Lord—especially while singing hymns and psalms. When confessing your sins, or your faith—do so with gusto—knowing that God hears what you say, and holds you to your words.

As you listen to the Word of God preached, do not sit in judgment on it (the word), nor on the preacher of it. Instead, recognize that God is speaking to His church, in a special covenantal way, during the sermon, (which is the height of the cognitive dimension of the worship service). Therefore, be humble and receptive. Those who hear Christ’s ministers, hear Him. Those who reject them, reject Him.

It is not an easy thing to worship God well, or aright. Take comfort from this fact: that the Lord is more concerned about the state and inclination of your heart, than He is about anything else. If you truly love Jesus, be encouraged: your church worship *will* indeed be pleasing in His sight.

Rudiment #3: Content of the Worship Service

This point is particularly addressed to ministers and ruling elders in the church—but it is also good for all the faithful laity, too.

The divine worship service, held on the Lord’s Day (Sunday), by the church, called by the elders, and under the authority of the Word of God, ought to include the following elements, (though not all, necessarily, in every service):

A Call to Worship (from the Bible—usually from the Psalms).*
An Invocation, (where God’s special covenantal presence is implored).*
The singing of hymns and psalms.*
The reading of the Holy Scriptures, (both from the Old Testament, and the New).*
Some kind of Confessional statement, (either a Creed, or the Westminster Confession [for example]).
Corporate Covenant Prayer (where often there is confession of sin, and the giving and receiving of absolution, [viz. assurance of pardon—to the true saints]).*
An Offering, where the believers worship God through the giving of their tithes and offerings.
The Preaching of the Sermon.*
The Administration of the Sacraments: Baptism and the Lord’s Supper.
The taking of Covenant (church membership), and Office (elder and deacon) Vows.
And the proclamation of the Benediction.*

These practices are all found in the Word of God; and the desire to limit the church’s worship to the Bible’s instruction (a practice referred to as the “Regulative Principle”), is healthy and good. This aids in deterring “entertainment,” and man-centered activities.

PS: Those points denoted with an asterisk ("*"), *should* be found in every Lord's Day worship service.

Rudiment #2: Getting to church (and getting settled-in)

The next step for a happy life in Jesus, is to get to the church’s worship services in plenty of time. If your church has Sunday School before the AM service, this is usually not a problem, (assuming you go). If not, you need to allow yourself and your family (if relevant) ample time to get to the church building, and to get seated, etc.

Once firmly ensconced in your chair (or pew), it is helpful if, after announcements, some preparatory music is played. This is so as to help the saints get their minds adjusted, from the thoughts and concerns of the world, to the worship of God, on the Lord’s Day, as His holy church.

After all, you have waited all week for this experience. Be sure to be good stewards of it.

Rudiment #1: Saturday preparation for worship

In many ways, Saturday is your key day, in order to secure a vital, changing, growing, and exciting Christian (or church) life.

Saturday is the New Covenant church’s “Preparation Day,” (as it were).

On this day, you ought to get your “ducks in a row” regarding Sunday. This may mean preparing yourself, your family, and your finances, etc., in such a way that frees you up, for a Lord’s Day (Sunday), of the best worship and rest.

One very important factor is the need to get a good night’s sleep. Do not stay up late into Saturday night (or Sunday morning). A well-rested body makes for a better rested soul on the Lord’s Day.

Bottom line: make Saturday your day to especially gear-up for Sunday.

Rudiments of church life

Having disposed of the principal challengers to the primacy of the believer’s commitment to Christ and His church—we will begin a neat, sweet, and positive mini-series, running for however long, on the rudiments of church life, (and how it is to be carried-out).

These installments will address both the clergy, and the laity.

Stay tuned! . . .

Theonomy and Antinomianism

Sometimes, we use big words—as in the last post. Don’t be intimidated by them. “Theonomy” is a movement that alleges a love for the law of God. Many theonomists wish to take over the civil government, and to create a society based on their own understanding of Old Testament law. (These people are sometimes called, “Reconstructionists.”)

“Antinomianism” is a term that means “Against the law.” These folks don’t want anyone telling them what to do—be it God, or man.

Ironically, though theonomy and antinomianism would appear to be diametrically opposed to one another, (theonomy liking law [supposedly]; and antinomianism hating it)—they both meet together, and have very similar characteristics.

Theonomists, for the most part, despise authority, unless it is their own, or a brand they approve of. Antinomians just plain loathe authority altogether (unless it fits their lusts).

Both of these movements tend to be at odds with Puritan Christianity, because the Puritans insisted on the power of grace to change lives (and not the law); and the Puritans, following Paul and the rest of the Bible, were big on submission to *all* legitimate authority—even if it was not too nice, or too good.

So, just as communism (leftist) and fascism (rightist) seemed to be at polar extremes; but both employed the same tactics, to the same ends—so is it the case with theonomy and antinomianism.

A better alternative than either of these is Biblical (Puritan) Christianity.

Puritanism: Alive and Well

Sometimes, in ignorance, people mistakenly think that the Puritans failed, or that their movement has ceased. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Puritans are alive and well in the world today—and they always will be, by the grace of God.

Do you need proof? Have you ever heard of the Westminster Confession of Faith? If so, did you know that this was the Puritans’ greatest doctrinal bequeathment to the world?

Everything that is enjoyed in the western world (at least), has a direct connection to the influence of the Puritans. (This includes everything from good beer, to republican democracy.)

The Puritans are largely disparaged, not by those who know what they are talking about, as much as by those who wish to replace their influence with something else. The extremes of both theonomy and antinomianism are sad and unworthy substitutes. The better history books will never mention them in the same breath with the esteemed Puritans.

Did Jesus fail, because He died on a cross? No. Did the Puritans fail, because they were ejected from their pulpits (in 1662)? No.

As Christ is alive and well today—so are the Puritans, who love their Savior, and are willing to suffer and celebrate with Him.

The faithful church a “Cult”?

Some professing Christians believe that any church that has the audacity to discipline them, is a “cult.” “How dare they think they have the right to deal with my sin and rebellion!,” they would protest.

But, the truth is, better churches have always sought to honor their Master Jesus by exercising church discipline. As a matter of fact, it is (today) a little-known fact that one of the three marks of a “true” church *is* its loving discipline of its members. (The other two are the faithful preaching of the word; and the proper administration of the sacraments.)

We do not deny that real cults actually exist. The proper definition of a cult, is the imposition on members of its organization rules and regulations not insisted on by God Himself.

Therefore, you are closer to a cult, when you are part of a church that prohibits its congregation from drinking alcoholic beverages (to use an obvious example). But, you are *not* involved in a cult, if the leadership of the church insists, based upon the teaching of the word of God itself, that its covenanted members worship God, as a church, on the Lord’s Day.

So, do not be fooled by self-righteous, legalistic, and Pharisaic religionists who would assail the true church with all kinds of nasty labels, (such as “cult”)—when they themselves are ensnared in their own sin—with no way out—since they reject God’s only provision of His holy church. These people ought to be pitied, by God’s true saints.

The Primary Covenantal Unit

Sometimes we may hear claims that the family is the most basic, or foundational, or fundamental covenantal unit.

We have shown, in many prior posts on this site, that this is not the case.

Actually, THE most basic “covenantal unit” is Jesus Christ Himself. Consider the words of Paul, as they are taken from Gal. 3:16: “Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, ‘And to seeds,’ as of many, but as of one, ‘And to your Seed,’ who is Christ.”

So, Jesus Himself, the God-Man, is the essential covenantal entity.

From Christ, and through Him, then, come the “seeds,” the children of Abraham, who also exercise faith in Jesus, just like Abraham did. These people become the Body of Christ, the church.

Families *within* the church, (viz., baptized, covenanted members of the local church), then constitute a subset of the church—and they are, indeed, a legitimate “covenantal unit.”

But, this special status is not due to their being a family. The earth is full of families who have no love for Christ, His gospel, or His church. Their standing as a redeemed sub-community is based on their being in the Redeemer; and this is demonstrated in their faithfulness to His church.

A Defense of the Ministry

The Christian church’s pastoral ministry has always been abhorred and scorned by all unregenerate people—both from within and without the church—ever since the Fall of Adam, in the Garden of Eden.

The devil is evil, but he is not stupid. He has always known that a weak ministry is the key to the wholesale destruction of all mankind. This is why he is diligent at setting up his own “pastors,” as much as he can.

God, on the other hand, has always designed His world’s (and particularly, His church’s) welfare to be directly proportioned to the extent and the effectiveness of the ministers He calls to their pulpits.

Therefore, it is perfectly understandable why the pastorate is such a difficult, and yet critically-important position.

Pray that God would continue to raise up His brand of pastors, so that they might serve His church well.

Your own spiritual well-being, and that of all future generations of Christians, depends on it.

Dumping Sacred Cows

It is hard to give up something that you thought was true, and that you basically put your trust in. God Himself knows that this is not easy for any of us.

I am a minister of the gospel. One of my responsibilities is to do whatever I can to forward the glory of God, the good of His church, and the overall happiness and welfare of all other human beings.

I am fully aware that much content of this ecclesiocentricity blog site has been difficult for some people to digest, and take to heart. I know that it challenges many fully-embraced presuppositions; and that it tends to “rock” the world of those who thought they had a safe haven, either in their homes, or in their government officials.

But, believe me when I say that my intention is for the good of the readers of this site. I know that love dictates that I seek to release you from what binds you, and keeps you from a joyful and satisfying Christian life. My desires are for your good.

If you have been able, by grace, to trash some old “sacred cows”—then bid them “adieu”; and rejoice that God has something better for you, in Jesus, as He expresses Himself to you first and foremost in His church.

Churches overstepping their bounds

Often, we hear professing Christian people complain about all the ways the government is intruding on their lives. There is some validity to much of this concern.

But it is also helpful for us to turn as wary an eye to our own faults, especially in this general area of keeping within the proper spheres of our responsibilities.

Some churches, both individual congregations and (in some cases) entire denominations, overstep their proper bounds, and call on behavior (and even beliefs) in their people that are not required by God in His word.

Take, for instance, the always hot-button issue of education. We have dealt with this topic in prior posts on this blog site. Is it proper for a church to dictate that officers (and maybe even members) must either homeschool their child(ren), or send them to covenant (private Christian) schools? I argue, “No; it is not their legitimate sphere to do this.”

Someone might object, and urge on us passages such as Deuteronomy, chapter 6; and assert that God’s teaching there demands the essence of home- or private Christian education. But, if you were to go to that chapter and read it, you would find yourself arriving at an entirely different conclusion. God is not speaking of formal education in these verses. Instead, He is insisting on something much more profound yet—namely, covenant life, fully and joyfully lived in and through the hearts of fathers, which then is communicated down to their child(ren). All of the contents of this chapter have to do with redemption (with the Exodus from Egypt being the template), and walking in atonement (with the Old Covenant church being the focus).

How many fathers who insist on homeschooling, or private Christian schooling do you know, who actually keep the spirit (or even the letter) of Deut., ch. 6? If you know a lot, you know more than I do. Could it be that their practices are in reality just their convenient excuse for not fulfilling what God actually intended there?

Again, the point of this post is this: it is dangerous to demand of people what God Himself does not require. We would naturally object to the state overstepping its bounds, if it insisted on behavior in churchmen that the Bible prohibits. On the same token, however, we should balk at the notion of churches foisting on people what God Himself does not insist on.

Compassionate Ecclesiocentricity

You have heard of President Bush’s “Compassionate Conservatism.” Now, you have heard of “Compassionate Ecclesiocentricity.”

Those of us who embrace the Bible’s doctrine of the primacy of the church need to be sensitive to, and patient with those who have not yet come to this conclusion. It may take weeks, months, years, or even decades for some people to come around to this gracious and comforting theological tenet. (Some folks may never come to this deduction.)

Let us all remember that it is not perfect theology that will usher us into glory, on the last day. Instead, it is faith in, and a love for Christ; and an apprehension of His grace in the gospel’s promise of the forgiveness of sins that will do that.

Some truths are just plain hard to see, or imagine. Even our best efforts at taking some doctrines by faith sometimes just doesn’t seem to work.

The only reasons any theological points should be insisted on are for the glory of God, the extension of the church, and the good of human beings.

But some verities (truths) may be missed, without the consequence of forfeiting redemption, or glory. The Bible’s teaching of ecclesiocentricity, like many of its other dogmas, may be under-appreciated or misconstrued by those who are still legitimate heirs of heaven.

Therefore, let us be gracious, and long-suffering. God is good. He does all things well, and right. We may defend His ways and teachings, and insist on them—but it is He alone who will be the Judge of how they are handled.

The church as the Kingdom of God

The Word of God teaches that the church is the reality and essence of the Kingdom of God. The Westminster Confession of Faith—that wonderful and time-honored Puritan theological document—concurs with God, and His Scripture (with its “ecclesiocentricity”), when it says this, in WCF, Chapter 25, Article 2:

“The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the Gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children: AND IS THE KINGDOM OF THE LORD JESUS CHRIST, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.” [emphasis mine]

Nothing exists on earth, or in heaven, that has anything of the reality of God, or the redemption of Christ, that is not directly (or indirectly) related to Christ’s church. (The reason for this, is that Jesus Himself cannot be properly conceived of, in terms of His work, apart from His body [His church].)

So, if the family is to have any part in the Kingdom of God, it will need to come under the covenant and the blessings of the church, (initially through baptism). If the state is to have any part in the Kingdom of God, it will need to accord itself with the teachings of the ministers of the church, who bring the Word of God to bear, with regard to it (the state). And, if anything else in the world is to have any of the benefits of the Kingdom of God, it will also need, in whatever appropriate way, to align itself with the church—so that the Word of God benefits it, too.

True Christians, corporately (as the church), and individually (as citizens of the Kingdom of heaven), have the wonderful privilege of representing the King (Jesus), and spreading His gospel of grace all around the world, wherever the extent of their influence reaches.

Which comes first: the pastor, or the father?

You have heard of the age-old question: Which comes first: the chicken, or the egg?

When it comes to the restoration of godliness and order in society, culture, the church, and the family—the question is, Which comes first: the pastor, or the father?

Family-, or home-based philosophies argue from the grassroots, up. They claim that the father comes first; and that, through his resurgence as a leader, servant, and role model in the home, the rest of culture (at all levels) will be transformed.

The church-based model, adhered to here on this blog site, argues quite differently. We say that the pastor comes first. We are sure that the father has no hope of rising from the ashes, without the primary influence of the ministers (and ruling elders) in the church.

The reasons for this latter position are largely elucidated throughout prior posts on this site—(including the fact that God's blessings always come down from above first; and not from below). But suffice it here to say, that this church-based approach has always been God’s program, from the very beginning of creation, all the way to the end of the world.

A classic biblical expression of God’s ways is found in Titus, chapter 2—where the apostle starts off with the minister, called by God, teaching the various people, differentiated by gender and age, the ways of God.

One might wonder: “What difference does it make? You’re both hoping to achieve the same goal, viz. the establishment of God’s glory on the earth—so why make an issue of the distinction?”

The reason: because unless God’s model is ultimately followed—every other alternative will undoubtedly fail. No amount of passion, energy, or desire will make up for the want of God’s design.

So, what is the practical answer to all of this? Let us raise up good and godly pastors and elders. They will then teach and train, disciple and be models for the fathers who are faithful in the church.

Ecclesiocentricity’s Debt to Error

Heresy has served the church and the world very well. God has used it, to goad believers into searching into, and formulating good and orthodox doctrine. One classic example of this is Arianism. Had it not been for this error, would we ever have come to the solid conclusion that Jesus Christ really is both God and Man?

The doctrine that the church is God's ultimate community on earth, (and His only community in heaven), might have been largely ignored and uninvestigated, had it not been for the recent emergence of the cult of the home. Radical patriarchalism, and its ancillaries, the exclusivity of the homeschool, and the abhorrence of ecclesiastical and magisterial authority, has propelled the movement we here refer to as "ecclesiocentricity."

Let us find reason to marvel at God's goodness, wisdom, and love. Let us also remember that everything that happens, even in the sovereignly-controlled universe the Lord God governs, is brought about by means, or precedents. Sometimes God allows very negative realities to exist, so as to later foster something much better--through the exposing of error, and the forwarding of a much more biblical alternative.

The Generic Fallacy

The Generic Fallacy, the ascribing to the whole what may be the case with some of the part (or parts), is one that all Christians ought to strive to avoid, by the grace of God.

Take anything good, and you can practically destroy it, by citing some foolish abuse of it, by someone who (allegedly, at least) holds to that good thing.

Ecclesiocentricity, the simple doctrine that Christ has chosen to exalt Himself, first and foremost, in His church, can be slandered, by the supposition that there may be some wayward souls who wish to have “church” without Jesus.

We’ve talked about schooling a bit in these various posts. One might wrongly condemn public education, because some who avail themselves of it are atheists, or proponents of Darwinian evolution.

On the other hand, someone might wrongly besmear homeschooling, on the basis that some homeschoolers despise Christ and stand aloof from His church.

But, are any of these reasons to condemn the whole, based on the naughtiness of some of the parts? Certainly not.

Let us continue to seek to be fair-minded and level-headed, all for the glory of God.

Ecclesiocentricity’s Universal Appeal

I am grateful for the kind and appreciative comments I have received, concerning the contents of this Ecclesiocentricity blog site. Folks from near and far, both of the clergy and the laity, have been educated and influenced through these posts—and, for this, I am thankful to God, and give Him all the glory.

Some people have expressed initial concern about what they perceived to be areas of disagreement about some of the blog entries. But, when these things have actually been discussed and talked-about, it was clear that there was no real substantial difference between our positions after all.

With this in mind, I will lay-out some of the basic tenets of Ecclesiocentricity; and let us all glory in God’s goodness, in that we all agree on them.

1) That Jesus Christ is our only hope—the only redemptive Mediator between God and man.

2) That the church is important to God. He values it as the highest object of His love. God established the church first; and it is His only permanent society.

3) That the church has priority over the other good, God-given institutions, (namely, the family and the state)—and that the church is to serve them, by bringing Christ’s virtue into their realms.

4) That there are clear boundaries for these three institutions, (church, state, and family)—and that these borders are not to be trespassed. None of these three entities are to be “united,” organically.

5) That an example of “4” above would be education. This is a family’s prerogative. No church (or state) court has authority to dictate how education is to be done. No system: public, private, or homeschool, is to be set up as absolute.

6) That the Lord’s Day is important, and that the church’s officers are to call the people of God to worship, in corporate covenant community, on that day.

7) That discipleship begins in the church, and is to be taken everywhere else—wherever believers live and work.

8) That the church officers are to bring to the people of God His “ordinances,” or means of grace, viz. preaching, the sacraments, and discipline. These cannot be administered, except through the church.

There are certainly many other areas of agreement—but this is a good start.

Let us all learn to make our life-decisions, not on the basis of emotion, fear, or man-pleasing—but on the God-honoring ground of faith and love, as we all mature more and more into the image of Christ.

Saving Children from God

Sometimes professing Christians make decisions, that would make it appear that they are seeking to protect their children from God. For instance, when one withholds a child from the church’s preaching and teaching ministry—for fear that it conflicts with one’s own positions—this is an example, in my opinion, of “saving children from God.”

Having said this, I do not deny that much of what is passed off as “clergy” in the world today, is not worthy of the name, nor of the high office and privileges (that pertain to it). Parents must be careful about their choice of a church family.

But, too often, parents believe that they themselves are stronger than God’s true ministers (and elders), and that they are less likely to cause their children grief, abuse, and trouble than the church officers (would). But this position, though understandable, is highly unwise. What guarantee is there, that a parent will be more noble toward their children, than God’s legitimate church officers would be?

Given the state of the world (and much of the church) today, it is perfectly comprehensible why parents would be leery of everyone—family, neighbor, friend, clergy, police, teacher, et. al. But it is not prudent to imagine oneself to be better than others. In the final analysis, we are all required to trust God, or to go through life “playing God”—with absolutely no hopes of being able to do the job.

Believers are wisest, when they give their children to God. And there is no way to do this outside of the vital ministry of the local church. To withhold a child from the church, is to practically guarantee his or her failure and apostasy.

Women's Head Coverings in church

In 1 Corinthians 11, we read of women covering their heads, in church. They did this to disguise the fact that they were women. In the era before the completion of the canon of Scripture, prophecy was yet forthcoming, to be codified (finally) in what would later become the completed New Testament.

Women were to be silent in the church (1 Cor. 14:35b)—in the sense that they were not to be “praying and prophesying,” a technical term used in 1 Corinthians, for tongues and interpretation of (tongues).

If a woman absolutely felt compelled to “pray or prophesy,” (viz. pray in tongues in church, [or interpret tongues])—then she was to do so with her head covered.

This was to be done, “Because of the angels,” (1 Cor. 11:10). Many good interpreters of this verse understand the “angels” not to be celestial beings, but the pastors (and perhaps also ruling elders) in the churches.

At any rate, the requirement for head coverings of women “praying or prophesying” ended, when the canon of Scripture was closed.

For a fuller account of this 1 Cor. 11 passage, go to: http://www.biblicalhorizons.com/bh/bh054.htm This is the best handling of this text that I have ever come across.

Sunday as "Family Day"?

Over lunch with a fellow minister, he stated that there is a movement afoot today that wishes to conceive of Sunday as "Family Day," (viz. as a special day for families to do things together, as a family). This pastor rightly bemoaned the fact that this perspective loses sight of the reality of Sunday as The Lord's Day.

My minister friend is exactly right. God never suspended His day, so that it may be used for any other purposes.

Still, let us look at this issue in a little bit more detail. *Where* is the problem with the "Sunday-as-Family-Day"-approach? The error presents itself when the Sabbath worship of God is spurned, in favor of doing something together, as a family, at home (or wherever), *instead* of attending to God's ordinances, in His church. One may *properly* conceive of Sunday as a "Family Day," if one looks to the church family first; and then at the nuclear family second. As Thomas Watson says, it is sin to sit at home and read your bible, while the word is being broken in church.

The great irony of all this, is that those who best love their families are careful to give God His due, especially on Sunday. When this is done, the family prospers and flourishes, (at least in the long run). When families are robbed of God, it doesn't much matter what else you give them, (time, or otherwise)--you've deprived them of their life source.

Does someone want a "Family Day"? Fine. You've got six days to choose from. But don't pretend you're doing your family any favors by depriving them of Christ, His church, His ordinances, or His Sabbath Day.

The church's mediatorial work

Jesus Christ is the one and only Mediator between a holy God, and sinful man. Here are the words of 1 Tim. 2:5: “For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus.”

No individual Christian has access to God in and through anyone other than the Lord Jesus Christ Himself.

Because of this, there is now, in the New Covenant church era, no such thing as mediatorial priests (who, by their actions, can expunge sin). This role has forever been assumed by the incarnate and risen Christ.

There *is* a continuing priesthood on earth, however. But it is one made up of all the redeemed, and it is to offer—not sacrifices for sin (which would never avail)—but sacrifices of praise, (cf. Heb. 13:15). This is the basis of the Reformation ideal of the “Priesthood of all believers.”

So, in light of all this, is there *any* mediatorial role or function for any body of humans on earth, since the resurrection of Jesus? For instance, does the husband have a mediatorial function for his wife, in terms of her relationship with God? The answer to this question is, “No.” (This, by the way, is why all individuals admitted to communicant status in the church are to take their own vows.)

How about the church? Does it have any “mediatorial” role at all, in the lives of believers? The answer to this question is, “Yes.” God has deigned (condescended) to delegate and disperse on earth His means of grace through His ministers and elders (and deacons) in the church. This is why He gives these people to His body—so as to build them up in their holy faith, (cf. Eph. 4:11 ff.).

This is why they (alone) are to preach the word to the faithful flock, why they (alone) are to administer the sacraments, and why they (alone) are to handle church discipline. The church officers’ mediatorial work is not redemptive, but it is very much ministerial.

It is not ordinarily possible for any human being to be saved aside from this ministerial assistance—in that this is the way the Redeemer has chosen to distribute His enabling and persevering graces and blessings.

Should the church dictate education?

Here’s another question for you: “Is it ever right for a church elder board to dictate (or insist upon) how a family is to educate their child(ren)?”

The answer to this query is, “No.” Issues of this sort are to be left up to the family. This is why it is wrong for some sessions to limit the membership of an elder board to those (only) who refuse to send their children to public schools. The elders have no right to do this.

It is intriguing to me personally, that many people who fear that the government, or the church will come in and take their children away from them, and will insist in educating them in some other form than the family has chosen—are the very ones, on the other hand, who are quick to draw the conclusion that state (and sometimes even private school education) is unacceptable, (and that responsible Christians would never do this).

You cannot have it both ways. Fierceness of conviction, (which sometimes leads to idolatry), cannot be translated into uniformity of practice among others. You are not permitted to do to others, what you fear others will do to you, (cf. Matt. 7:12).

So, elder boards are wise to leave issues of these sorts to the discretion of the families under their spiritual jurisdiction.

Why Not “Christocentricity”?

Someone might inquire: “Why not talk about ‘Christocentricity,’ (Christ-centeredness), rather than ‘Ecclesiocentricity’?”

This is a good question. Of course, we are aiming here, on this blogsite, to fully promote the glory, cause, and Kingship of Jesus. All of life is to be “Christocentric.”

But the problem with this term (“Christocentricity”), when the rubber meets the road (in the Christian life), is that it loses its meaning, and pungency. The reason for this, is that everyone who would even remotely consider himself “Christian,” in terms of his religious passion and involvement, would also employ it. Virtually every Christian church and para-church ministry would immediately claim to be “Christocentric.” This would be true of everyone, from snake-handlers, to the highest forms of Roman Catholicism.

The issue, really, is that of *authority*. Where will Christ seat His rule, *primarily*, with regard to the issues of faith and life, here on earth? That query, is truly the crux of the matter.

The Reformed faith has always, traditionally, followed the old path here—even that traversed by the Roman Catholics—in seating the authority of Jesus, on earth, first and foremost, in the church. (And it has used the Bible to come to this conclusion.)

Historically, the alternate locus of Christ’s rule has (sometimes) been the state, as exemplified by the king, for instance, of England, (as King Henry VIII, for example, made himself the head of the church there).

In recent memory, some have sought to place the reign of Christ on earth, in the home, or family—with the father being, in actual fact, the final arbiter of the Messiah’s dealings in this life.

One might ask: “Well, isn’t the solution to the authority question to be answered by, ‘It’s to be finally found in the Bible’?” Our response to this question, is undeniably, “Yes,” (but with a caveat). The Bible itself *delegates* authority. Its own specific mandates spell out that the home, the state, and the church are all to have authority. But among these three, the *greatest* is the church. This is the primary argument and emphasis of this entire blogsite. (The reasons for this may be found throughout, especially in some of the earlier postings.)

It is interesting to consider that the alternatives to church-centeredness, (which are, when its all said and done, either the state, or the home), often appeal to the Scripture for the justification of the primacy of the king, or the father. And though no responsible Christian would deny that Jesus is concerned about the earthly king (and his domain), and the family’s father (and his realm)—one would be much misled to believe that these two spheres are the *principal* seat of Jesus’ reign on earth. Clearly, and without any doubt, the Scripture itself teaches the primacy of the church, even over the state and the home.

But this supremacy is never to be abused, or to be used to disrupt either the state or the family. Instead, it is to instruct, serve, and bless them, in the ways they should go.

Puritan Christianity

Puritan Christianity is the best expression of the true faith. It is a masculine creed—one that the world cannot help but take notice of. It is not a harmless, innocuous, limp-wristed religion. Instead, it is a hearty, full-bodied, and “dangerous” manifestation of genuine belief in the existence of God, and of the power of the gospel.

Puritan Christianity is not afraid to enjoy beer, nor baseball, (nor guns). It says, “Thank-you” to God, for ALL of His tender mercies—no matter what they might be.

Puritan Christianity is also the best means of evangelizing the world. When people see the saints living like those who enjoy themselves, basking in the love of God—others are attracted to this.

The Puritans’ appreciation for the truth also has the savory effect of exposing and discouraging all phony forms of Christianity, and the absurdities that flow from them.

Hey, life down here is short. If you are a believer, you may as well live in the fullness of what God has provided you, in Jesus. The Puritan Westminster divines, who penned the great Confession and the Catechisms, understood this. So should we.

The Great Satan

Listening to some Christians, you would be led to believe that the public school systems in America were “The Great Satan.” These institutions are often disdainfully referred to as “the government schools”—as though there were something intrinsically evil about “government.”

Now, I fully realize that the issue of education is a legitimate debate—and I myself hold the personal philosophical position that private education is to be the preferred mode, (largely so that the theology may be better-monitored).

But to paint *all* of public education, something we must live with in the real world, with a black brush of death, is, I think, unfair. Some of the most wonderful people I have ever known teach and work in the public system.

The truth is: there are aspects of the public school systems, and the homeschool approach, (and perhaps even the private school), that children should be “saved” from. This is another area of where the church comes in, to be of assistance.

Objective Covenant

The concept of “Objective Covenant” is thoroughly biblical. In fact, the Scriptures cannot be properly understood apart from it.

In simple terms, the doctrine goes like this: so long as a soul is faithful to the baptismal vows she has taken in the church—and remains, by grace, loyal to Christ through the agency of the church—that person should reckon herself a saint, the very elect of God.

Objective covenant-keeping is manifested in Sabbath (Sunday) worship, in church; the right participation in the sacraments; the hearing of sermons; and the submission to church government.

Hypocrites and pretenders—who are really little more than spiritual adulterers—abandon their vows, and flee from local churches, just as soon as their sins are exposed or discovered.

But not the faithful: they remain true, through thick and thin. And all of this is by grace, and not through human merit (or effort, alone).

Saving church wives from bad husbands

This post may seem odd, at first glance. And, thankfully, this circumstance does not come up everyday, (literally). But, it is likely that this scenario will present itself more and more, as time passes. And the reason for this is the insurgence of the radical patriarch: the husband and father who claims the final say in all things, ecclesiastical, or familial.

In the case of an abusive husband, (who is or is not a church member), whose wife is a church member, the session (elder board) of the church must take jurisdiction over the case, and intervene, as a greater authority (than those that exist within the family). It is that session's duty to protect this woman, for her good, and Christ's glory.

Some, who would assert the inviolability of the home (or family), might object, claiming that the elders have no right, or jurisdiction here. But this is incorrect: they do indeed have authority in this realm.

It may be necessary, in some cases, to counsel the church wife to remove herself from the man. In more extreme cases, it may be necessary to advise her to divorce him.

It is hoped that none of these situations would ever present themselves; and God is able to save His church from the uttermost--but this is the kind of situation that delineates the differences between godly ecclesiocentricity, and the ungodly form of patriarchalism.

Does ecclesiocentricity promote worship of the church?

It might be tempting, after reading these ecclesiocentricity posts, to feel the force of the truth of the biblical doctrine of "church-centeredness"--but, instead of acknowledging it, to wage war against it.

One of the common ways this is done, in general, is through "demonization." As applied to the doctrine of ecclesiocentricity--which is actually the position of the historic Reformed faith, and its Puritan (Westminster) confessional standards--one might accuse it of promoting a sort of "worship of the church," (viz., making the church the *object* of worship).

But nothing could be further from the truth. Ecclesiocentricity does not encourage people to worship the church. Instead, it promotes the God-ordained means by which the Lord desires to be adored--and this is *as* the church.

We do not deny that sinners--ever able to contrive any kinds of idolatries--are able to bend and twist the truth to the perversion of, in this case, the worship of the church. But that is not the goal of this blog site.

Rather, let God be praised, first and foremost: not in isolation from others, and not in family units--but as He Himself constituted it: as the church, the bride of Christ.

Church/Family Relationship

Does the church exist to strengthen the family? Sometimes you hear people speak in this way.

The answer to this question is, No, and Yes. No; the church does not exist to strengthen the family. It exists to glorify God, through Christ; and to make disciples. But yes, the process of making disciples does indeed have the savory effect of strengthening the family, in whatever context believers (and hence, church members) are found in family units.

The problem with the assertion that the church exists to strengthen the family is that it supposes, and presupposes too much. It assumes that the family, per se, is somehow inherently worth strengthening. But, is *that* the goal of the Christian ministry? Is it the church's job to "strengthen" just *any* family? Actually, no. Take for instance Osama Bin Laden's family. Here you have a father, a mother, and something like 17 (Osama) siblings. Do we want to "strengthen" *this* family? No. Instead, we want as many members as can be to *leave* this family, and become members of a greater family: the church of Christ.

Of course, all of culture, in whatever realm or situation it finds people in, are aided by the presence of Jesus, as He ministers through His church--and the family is no exception.

But, those that truly love the family, will be careful to focus their greatest attention, not on the family, but on the church.

A woman's place is in . . .

. . . "The workplace," according to the secularist. She is to derive her value, her worth, and her purpose in the world of commerce, where money and position will satisfy her.

But, "No," would say the adherent of the Family First movement--she belongs "In the kitchen: barefoot and pregnant." Her value, worth, purpose, and meaning is to be derived primarily from, and in, the home.

But God's Word would say, "No, you're both wrong. A woman's place is in the church, first and foremost: where she will derive her greatest levels of comfort, joy, enthusiasm, usefulness, and dignity."

When this latter pattern is followed, then life in the home, and in the workplace, makes sense; and they are kept in balance and perspective.

Is there a primary place for women in the home? Of course, there is. But this is not her *main* source of fulfillment--or she is no better off than a wife and mother of a Muslim (or Mormon) family.

Church and Scheduling

How should a person schedule his or her life? Around the church--in particular, her [the church's] Sunday worship services.

Lives built around Sabbath church worship, are lives worth living.

On the flip side: how should the church schedule her services? Should they be intentional, with regard to social, demographic, or other considerations? No.

Instead, the church elders should schedule Sunday services around the Word of God, and the concept of the Sabbath Day, generally.

This would, in most if not all situations, result in AM and PM (evening) services.

Parishioners should then accord their lives, and their families, around this schedule.

"Those who honor Me, I will honor," (1 Sam. 2:30).

Easter "services"?

The jury is out: will the Mega-"churches" have Easter "services," or not? Many of them chose not to have Christmas services on Sunday, December 25, 2005. Some of the rationale was that Christmas Day was a great opportunity for families to gather, without having to bother with the trouble of going to church.

Will the same reasoning prevail with regard to Easter?

If the Mega-"churches" do have their "services" on Easter Sunday, this would pose another profound question: Why on Sunday? Why not on a Wednesday night, or some other day of the week? If the answer is, "Well, that's because Jesus rose from the dead on a Sunday morning" --then this raises some more interesting queries.

If Jesus rose on the first day of the week--should not this day (Sunday) be commemorated for all time, in the New Covenant church? The answer, of course, is "yes."

If churches that took Dec. 25 off last year choose to meet on April 16 this year, (2006)--maybe this will lead them to think more clearly about the Lord, His church, and His Sabbath Day. Let's pray that it will.

Ecclesiocentricity's Liberating Influence

Ecclesiocentricity is helpful in every way. The world is full of ideas about what the Christian life should look like. There are scores of amateur experts willing to share their ignorance with whomever will listen.

But a church-centered Christianity keeps everything in balance, and perspective. What is most important, from a practical point of view? Sunday worship, as it is ordained by the Word of God, and called by the church's elders. The two services on the Lord's Days, framing the morning and the evening, then become the paradigm for all of Christian living.

The devil is very happy to have believers consuming their time, their energy, and their very flesh, in many activities--even "good" ones--so long as they are not faithful to the basics of the godly life, which always starts in church, on Sunday.

May the Lord give His people a renewed appreciation for the refreshment and wonder of the simple, yet profound life in covenant: with Him, and His people, in His holy church.

Protecting the church from wolves

One of the most picturesque biblical images of the enemies of Christ and His church is that of the wolf. Wolves are predatory animals. They have a great need to consume fresh flesh, and feel warm blood. Wolves love to attack sheep, if they can, because--when there is no shepherd there to protect them--they are highly vulnerable.

Sheep often look at wolves as friends, not enemies. This is because of the allure an animal of a different species, brings. But, unless the shepherd intercedes, the wolf will quickly put his teeth into the sheep.

Good under-shepherds, perfectly illustrated by the Lord Jesus Christ Himself, the Great Shepherd, are willing to lay their lives down for the sheep—even if the sheep stand by, completely oblivious as to why they would do so.

The way God protects His sheep today is through the ordination of these shepherds, commonly referred to as “pastors.” Pastors absolutely must protect the sheep, at all costs—even if it means losing everything: their names, their positions, their possessions, or even their lives.

Wolves are very persistent animals. If they are driven off by the shepherd once, this will not deter them from trying to get their fangs into that same fold again, at another time, when they sense an opportunity to strike.

The New Testament even portrays crafty wolves as dressing in “sheep’s clothing,” (in Matt. 7:15). They can sound like real sheep, they can look like real sheep, they can even act like real sheep (for a time)—but inwardly, as Jesus says, they are “ravenous wolves.” This is because, in fact, they are hypocrites.

Church wolves are almost always on the run. When they get themselves in trouble in one place, they flee to another (unsuspecting) fold. They will not endure discipline, because they cannot pass its test of authenticity.

The church should always be wary of wolves; and its shepherds must always be alert, ready to do whatever is necessary to protect those for whom Christ died, from these dangerous agents of the devil.

The Worldly Church

Have you noticed a trend of late? It goes like this: the church is "worldly," therefore we must carve out our destiny independent of it.

Guess what? *THAT* very mentality *is* true worldliness, in the eyes of God.

Worldliness is one of those slippery terms, that can be employed for one's not-so-savory use, while all the time falling into it. Worldliness is not, at base, anti-religiousness. Instead, the worst forms of worldliness are those that propose an alternate religion to the truth God spreads before us, in His word, His church, and in the proclamation of His gospel.

Beware of those who would lure you into real worldliness, by discouraging your involvement in church, on the basis that it is too "worldly."

Confusing? Give it some thought. Blessings on your contemplations.

Children of the church

Church children, even (and especially) the very youngest of them, are the greatest beneficiaries of (and benefits to) a healthy and God-honoring church. Partly for this reason, they are to be the very first (not second, third, or last) in line, in the Lord’s economy, for receiving the ministry of the body of Christ.

God is concerned that the youngest, and most vulnerable of His own get all the help they need. This assistance comes in various forms. Even before they are born, the children are recognized and prayed for by the congregation. After their births, these children of believers are baptized into the church body. The benefits of baptism include, among many other things, all the hope of God’s good favor in Christ.

Baptized children’s religious education starts in the church, and is enhanced in the home, as their parents reinforce what they hear from the pulpit into the hearts and minds of their children. Church children have benefits and advantages that are not experienced by those outside the body of Christ—be their other worldly favors as great as they may be.

God would have His church love, embrace, value, serve, teach, encourage, and disciple His littlest ones, which He has been so gracious to bequeath to His people.

Let all God’s churchmen become like the smallest members of Christ’s body: in simple faith in, and felt dependence upon Jesus.

The church as Arbiter

What is the church's role, when the civil government oversteps its bounds, and infringes on the God-given rights of the family, for instance? Let's use this example: what should the church do, if the state said that spanking a child was against the law?

In this instance, the church should side with and labor for the families (in its midst) who would be thus affected. After all: is it more noble to obey God's clear Biblical directive, or a faulty civil law? Clearly, it is incumbent on the church to obey God. Whatever negative fallout that may be forthcoming would have to be patiently endured, reckoning it all up to the sovereign hand of God, and the privilege of suffering for Christ's sake, (cf. Acts 5:41).

On the other end of the spectrum, what would the church's responsibility be, if one of its parishioners decided not to pay his taxes, (for instance)? In this scenario, the church would side with the state, basing its decision on equally-clear scriptures, (such as Rom. 13:6). A tax-evading professing Christian would then be subject to two judgments: that of the state, and the church.

All of these institutions, church, state, and family, are good, in that they are ordained of God. In a fallen world, the lines sometimes get jumbled-up and confused--but ultimately it is the church's spiritual jurisdiction that is of greatest weight and importance.

What about Youth Groups?

Some people are all gung-ho for youth groups in the church. Other people are fiercely opposed to the idea.

How does one know which position is the best--especially since the Bible does not specifically address the topic of a youth group? The answer: what does the church elder board think? Do they believe that a youth group would better facilitate the overall spiritual good of the parishioners under their charge? If so, then go for it. If not, then desist.

Issues such as youth groups, for instance, which to a lot of folks would seem rather innocuous, are good examples of how church life should be handled, in general. Whether or not to have a youth group should have absolutely nothing to do with personal, or familial views or convictions on the subject. Instead, it has to do with the wisdom of the church leaders, as they seek to best serve their flocks.

Now, if no one in a church was interested in a youth group, then it would probably be best not to start one. But, even this decision, though probably made for somewhat pragmatic reasons, would not impugn the idea of a youth group, in general.

The sooner God's people learn principles of God's form of both shepherding, and submission, the better off they will be.

What about the Para-Church?

One might expect a blog site dedicated to the high and lofty biblical ideal of “ecclesiocentricity” to be probably hard on the concept of the para-church, (or those ministries not directly associated with the church).

But the truth is, this need not be the case at all. It all depends on what the end, or goal is, that the para-church organization is aiming at. If the para-church (henceforth, “pc”), exists to lead people to Jesus, and hence into the holy, catholic [universal], and apostolic church, (both visible and invisible)—then this is a perfectly noble reason for its being.

If, on the other hand, the pc seeks to be an end in itself, without conceiving of it purpose as a temporary “way station,” or a sign post (directing people ultimately to the church), then this is an ignoble reason for its existence.

Campus pc’s serve good ends, when they unite young people who are already identified together as students at a college or university. These believers need to know who their fellow campus brethren are—so as to be able to enjoy immediate fellowship “on the spot,” during their scholarly lives.

But the proper function of the pc, be it on campuses, in service organizations, in literature production, or whatever—is to augment the body of Christ, the church, by directing people there (in response to their faith in Jesus).

Failure to do this, is utter failure altogether. Remember: the Messiah did not promise that the “gates of hades” would not prevail against the pc. No. He said that they would not prevail against the church, (see Matt. 16:18).

Why Protestants Fear Ecclesiocentricity

One of the primary theses of this blog site: that the church needs to re-assert itself as the principal agency on the earth, is very scary to many people--in particular, Protestant Christians. And one can easily understand why. They shake in their boots, to consider what church-centeredness might mean. They look at church history in general, and they think, "Oh no, not another Spanish Inquisition!" There is, in many Protestants, especially in America, an abject fear of the abuse of authority. Though authority may be, and often is put to vicious uses, the devil has employed this over-hesitancy to rob Protestants of one their greatest potential assets: the profound benefits of a serious allegiance to the church of Christ.

Roman Catholics are much more amenable to ecclesiocentricity. They have been always taught the primacy of their church. Though their understanding is misguided in some ways, viz. in the exaltation of a pope, etc., they are much more on the right track, than on the wrong one, when it comes to their overall professed belief in the importance of the church.

The truth be told, it has ONLY been when Protestants *did* have a high and biblical view of the church, that they were ever effective in the world. Certainly, the Reformers, Luther and Calvin in particular, understood and believed in ecclesiocentricity. The same could be said for the Puritans, and for all the glory of genuine revivals, that came in their powerful wake.

American evangelicals have largely turned a jaundiced eye to the church. They would rather have their Bibles, their private religion, and their hopes for a swift end of all things, to comfort them. But, if the truth be told, they can never be either satisfied, or happy without a strong view of the church.

Hey, we're all in process. Let us learn from our Roman Catholic brethren, and bless God that He built the church on such a fallible man as Peter. As we do this, let us thank God that Jesus, the perfect One, is the church's cornerstone.

Should the church be "Family-Friendly"?

Some people would like to imagine that the best churches would be those that are self-consciously "Family-Friendly." The question before us is this: Should the church be "Family-Friendly"?

The answer to this question is, it depends. It depends on what "Family-Friendly" means. If it is asked if the church should be friendly to human beings with immortal souls, the answer is, "yes." If these people come to the church in natural blocs, called "families"--then the church is to be very friendly to them.

But, if "Family-Friendly" means that the church is to bend its own purposes specifically to the needs, desires, wants, and whims of the family, then this is an undesirable goal. If it means that the church is to design itself particularly around the family, then this is also a mistaken ideal.

The problem with the "Let-the-church-be-'Family-Friendly'"-mentality, is that it assumes some very unwise things. It imagines that the family comes into the church *without* previously already needing the church's redemptive virtue. It presupposes that somehow the family is already "OK," on its own.

But these are all clearly wrong-headed notions--as anyone who would objectively reflect upon them for even a little while, would understand.

Should the church be "Family-Friendly"? "Yes," in the sense that people are involved. But, "no," if this means cow-towing to it, to the hurt of both the church and the family.

PS: The only people the church should not be friendly to are the practicing wolves, that would seek to destroy her.

The church as the world's only "Freedom Factory"

What do you do with people who live their entire lives, bound (in reality or illusion) to the sins of others? For instance, let's take a common example: people who were brought up in an "alcoholic" family. Many professing Christians act as if they believe that this reality, viz. being raised in an "alcoholic" family, must govern their entire earthly existence, from this point, until they are dead. And it might be argued that this condition would have this effect, except for one thing: the church of the Lord Jesus Christ.

When God applies the blood of Christ to the souls of sinners, and the water of baptism to the head of churchmen, something very new, liberating, and life-changing occurs: these people are no longer the slaves of the deterministic notions and teachings of the world. These false doctrines, believed by many professing Christians, teach that sinners can never be *really* fundamentally changed; and even if they are (superficially) amended, that they are always inextricably chained to the sins of others, (for instance, in their families).

But something dramatically alters, when a person now understands his or her new relationship to God, signified by the church's sacraments, of baptism and the Lord's Supper. This person is now no longer a prisoner to the old ways, of their familial and physical lineage. They are free, in the line of their spiritual father, Abraham, by faith in Jesus.

All people are looking to be liberated from sins. Some of them seek it in AA, others in secular and religious counseling, others in false religions and philosophies. But true freedom is found in Jesus only, as you now are a member of a great community of the redeemed, in the church, and possess privileges and honors that you could never have outside of it.

To insist on bondage to the world's strictures, while at the same time claiming the name of Christ and His church, is paramount to blasphemous unbelief.

The church as an Equal-Opportunity Offender

Some people want tame churches, and sedated ministers. And, of course, this is easy to understand. Who wants anyone telling them that they are sinners, and correcting them along the way? But though the natural man disdains the church's proper role as an antidote to sin's corruption in the world--in fact, the church is good for all people. Discipline is necessary, whether we like it, or not.

This is one of the primary reasons that the church cannot be, organically nor ontologically "one" with any other human institution. God does not want the church and the state to be "one"; and He does not want the church and the home to be "one." Instead, the Lord protects the church's unique position as the arbiter of all things on earth, ultimately, under its Head, Jesus.

Therefore, all that being said, the church must be what I am calling an "equal-opportunity offender." Does the state err? Then, the church is to correct and rebuke it (if necessary). Does the family err? Then, the church must do the same thing there. Do individuals err? It is the church's job to lovingly correct them, and bring them unto Jesus, and His body of believers.

The church should, however, first and foremost, correct itself. This must be done carefully, lovingly, and respectfully. But, if the church itself is not functioning in the way God ordained it, how can it do any good for anyone else? Let judgment begin in the household of faith, (1 Pet. 4:17); and from there may many good things flow.

The church and other Institutions

What should the attitude of church leaders and the laity be, with regard to other institutions in the world? For instance, if a church parishioner is in need, and cannot take care of himself--what should the church do about this? The answer is, it really depends. There is no one "silver bullet" solution, for all situations.

Here is the way the church should prioritize such a case. First, and foremost, the best possible care and treatment, from a spiritual and a physical point of view, must be of paramount concern. Is the parishioner sick, disabled, unable to take care of himself, etc.? If so, then he is very likely going to need "professional" care--care that typically will go beyond the immediate pale of the expertise and availability of his fellow church members.

Once this consideration is fulfilled, the next priority, all things being equal, would be to get the person who is in need into a home of those who would love him, (since he could not take care of himself). If this can be effected through immediate and/or distant family, then this is best. If not, then the needy person's fellow church members would be next in line, (from an ideal point of view).

But, if neither of these arrangements is possible, is there anything inherently wrong, or sinful, in church people living in professional care facilities, viz. retirement centers, nursing homes, etc.? The answer is, "no." There are times when this decision is actually the best, and most loving alternative.

There is nothing "magical," nor mandated (in scripture), prescribing that church people be cared for *only* by other church people, (exclusively). This is a desirable and ideal goal, in many cases; but it is not necessary, nor demanded (by God).