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).