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.
Tuesday, August 29, 2006
Tuesday, August 22, 2006
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.
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.
Monday, August 21, 2006
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 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.
Thursday, August 03, 2006
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
