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.
Saturday, December 29, 2007
Friday, December 28, 2007
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.
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.
Friday, December 21, 2007
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.
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.
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Why is the church first?
When God first created anything, time began. On the sixth day of His creation, God created Adam. The moment Adam began to be, the Lord had His Church.
When God later created Eve, from Adam's side, the family was formed.
One might say that civil government was also formed, with the creation of the second human being, (although it might be more proper to say that the formation of multiple families constituted it).
All three of these institutions: the church, the family, and the state, are good; and they are ordained of God.
The family and the state are temporal institutions, in that they will cease to exist, at the end of conventional history, i.e. at the last coming of Christ, the resurrection of the body, the great judgment, and the eternal state.
The church, however, will always remain, throughout all of history, "temporal," and eternal.
When God later created Eve, from Adam's side, the family was formed.
One might say that civil government was also formed, with the creation of the second human being, (although it might be more proper to say that the formation of multiple families constituted it).
All three of these institutions: the church, the family, and the state, are good; and they are ordained of God.
The family and the state are temporal institutions, in that they will cease to exist, at the end of conventional history, i.e. at the last coming of Christ, the resurrection of the body, the great judgment, and the eternal state.
The church, however, will always remain, throughout all of history, "temporal," and eternal.
Friday, December 07, 2007
Honoring the mother of Christ
Sometimes, Protestants are accused of not according Mary, the mother of our Lord Jesus Christ, the honor that she is due. This is probably a correct assessment, at least to some extent. Part of the reason for this, is because of the "over honor" that the Roman Catholic church affords her.
But here is an interesting argument (which I have never seen anywhere else): the historical Reformed understanding of Mary, and her place in redemptive history, is far *more* honoring of her, (and more importantly, of her God)--than the pope's position is.
"How can this be?," (to borrow Mary's own words [from Lk. 1:34]). Here's how: the Roman doctrine is that Mary was sinless (and even a perpetual virgin). Sounds pretty honoring, eh? But here's the catch: if Mary was sinless, this means that she did not (and does not) need the Redeemer's blood atonement. She, like the original Adam before her, is standing before God in her *own* "righteousness." But this "righteousness," like that of Adam in the pre-fallen garden, is far *less* glorious than the righteousness of *Christ*--given to guilty sinners who are now accounted as just in God's sight, (through the imputation of Christ's merits, apprehended by faith). Therefore, ordinary redeemed sinners have much more honor than Mary would have, (if the pope's doctrine were true).
Thankfully for Mary, the pope's teaching is incorrect. All the evidence in the Bible points to her being a redeemed sinner, saved by grace through faith. Let us bless God for being so good to her.
But here is an interesting argument (which I have never seen anywhere else): the historical Reformed understanding of Mary, and her place in redemptive history, is far *more* honoring of her, (and more importantly, of her God)--than the pope's position is.
"How can this be?," (to borrow Mary's own words [from Lk. 1:34]). Here's how: the Roman doctrine is that Mary was sinless (and even a perpetual virgin). Sounds pretty honoring, eh? But here's the catch: if Mary was sinless, this means that she did not (and does not) need the Redeemer's blood atonement. She, like the original Adam before her, is standing before God in her *own* "righteousness." But this "righteousness," like that of Adam in the pre-fallen garden, is far *less* glorious than the righteousness of *Christ*--given to guilty sinners who are now accounted as just in God's sight, (through the imputation of Christ's merits, apprehended by faith). Therefore, ordinary redeemed sinners have much more honor than Mary would have, (if the pope's doctrine were true).
Thankfully for Mary, the pope's teaching is incorrect. All the evidence in the Bible points to her being a redeemed sinner, saved by grace through faith. Let us bless God for being so good to her.
Thursday, November 29, 2007
The Emerging (or Emergent) church
Have you heard of this movement? I don't know all that much about it--but I have looked into it just enough to realize that the name fits. They call it "emerging," or "emergent." Very aptly stated. It springs out of the ground, or the earth. It is of the earth, and it seeks to accommodate those of the earth.
The true religion, conversely, is not "emergent." Instead, it is heavenly, from above. It is "descendent," (or even "condescendent").
Actually, nothing of any spiritual good ever comes from the earth. All truth, grace, mercy, love, and goodness comes *down* from above, to the earth.
Therefore, in layman's terms, it is rather easy to critique the emergent church movement. But in doing so, let us be glad that even this (latest fad to come along) seems to grasp the intrinsic and inherent need of community--God's community in particular. Perhaps those who get worn out with this most recent effort will not become totally discouraged, but will rather look to the "old paths," the places of true rest, worship, peace, and plenty.
These good things are only to be found in Jesus--and He will administer them only in His own way, which always includes church officers, membership, accountability, and doctrine.
The true religion, conversely, is not "emergent." Instead, it is heavenly, from above. It is "descendent," (or even "condescendent").
Actually, nothing of any spiritual good ever comes from the earth. All truth, grace, mercy, love, and goodness comes *down* from above, to the earth.
Therefore, in layman's terms, it is rather easy to critique the emergent church movement. But in doing so, let us be glad that even this (latest fad to come along) seems to grasp the intrinsic and inherent need of community--God's community in particular. Perhaps those who get worn out with this most recent effort will not become totally discouraged, but will rather look to the "old paths," the places of true rest, worship, peace, and plenty.
These good things are only to be found in Jesus--and He will administer them only in His own way, which always includes church officers, membership, accountability, and doctrine.
Monday, November 26, 2007
The Ecclesiastical Copernican Revolution
It was a big deal when Copernicus realized (and taught) that the earth revolved around the sun, and not the other way around.
It was big news when Immanuel Kant united the formerly competing philosophical positions of Plato (rationalism), and Aristotle (empiricism).
But these insights are really somewhat “small potatoes” compared with the notion that Christians within different and divergent denominational camps—be they Protestant, Roman Catholic, or Orthodox—can and must be united around the Lord Jesus Christ, and His gospel of grace.
The Ecclesiastical Copernican Revolution (henceforth, “ECR”), works this way: The True Religion (or Puritanism) governs the field. All professing Christians that embrace the Christ of the gospel of grace, by faith alone, possess the kernel of the True Religion.
All doctrines, theologies, teachings, creeds, confessions, ideologies, etc., that accord most closely to and with the True Religion are, to the degree with which they correspond, more faithful. (And, to the degree that they diverge, less faithful.)
Some of the glories of the ECR are that there is now no reason to bicker amongst ourselves; or worse, to sit as judges of one another’s souls (a role fit only for Almighty God).
With ECR, there is much greater stock of grace, patience, compassion, and latitude that may be tapped into, as we pray for one another, and seek the best for each others’ souls.
May the ECR prove to be a blessing to the church—for our generation, and for all those that follow us.
It was big news when Immanuel Kant united the formerly competing philosophical positions of Plato (rationalism), and Aristotle (empiricism).
But these insights are really somewhat “small potatoes” compared with the notion that Christians within different and divergent denominational camps—be they Protestant, Roman Catholic, or Orthodox—can and must be united around the Lord Jesus Christ, and His gospel of grace.
The Ecclesiastical Copernican Revolution (henceforth, “ECR”), works this way: The True Religion (or Puritanism) governs the field. All professing Christians that embrace the Christ of the gospel of grace, by faith alone, possess the kernel of the True Religion.
All doctrines, theologies, teachings, creeds, confessions, ideologies, etc., that accord most closely to and with the True Religion are, to the degree with which they correspond, more faithful. (And, to the degree that they diverge, less faithful.)
Some of the glories of the ECR are that there is now no reason to bicker amongst ourselves; or worse, to sit as judges of one another’s souls (a role fit only for Almighty God).
With ECR, there is much greater stock of grace, patience, compassion, and latitude that may be tapped into, as we pray for one another, and seek the best for each others’ souls.
May the ECR prove to be a blessing to the church—for our generation, and for all those that follow us.
Friday, November 16, 2007
Success in Iraq
Here is a neat story, where Muslims want their Christian neighbors to return to Iraq: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,311933,00.html
What will success in Iraq look like? Will the establishment of democracy signal success? Will stability be a sign that the war was won? Will the defeat and exclusion of al Qaida mean that the efforts of America (especially) and other countries was well worth the sacrifice?
Actually, no.
Success in Iraq will be measured by the freedom and the prosperity of the church there. Will the gospel be allowed to spread, without hindrance? If so, good. Will the church be able to grow, mature, and develop? If so, all is well.
The benchmark is the state of the church. Under Saddam, the church was freer and better off in Iraq, than in almost any other Middle Eastern nation, (perhaps *any* other nation).
It would be a true shame if so much noble American blood was shed in Iraq in vain.
What will success in Iraq look like? Will the establishment of democracy signal success? Will stability be a sign that the war was won? Will the defeat and exclusion of al Qaida mean that the efforts of America (especially) and other countries was well worth the sacrifice?
Actually, no.
Success in Iraq will be measured by the freedom and the prosperity of the church there. Will the gospel be allowed to spread, without hindrance? If so, good. Will the church be able to grow, mature, and develop? If so, all is well.
The benchmark is the state of the church. Under Saddam, the church was freer and better off in Iraq, than in almost any other Middle Eastern nation, (perhaps *any* other nation).
It would be a true shame if so much noble American blood was shed in Iraq in vain.
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
The True Religion
At the church I serve, we talk a lot about reviving the true religion. We do this because, first of all, we believe we possess it (the true religion). We also do this, because it is our responsibility to share this treasure with the whole world: made up of everyone from sincere believers in Christ, to the worst of the religious hypocrites.
"The true religion" is another term for the Puritan faith. Only the Puritans had the audacity to refer to their living Christianity, codified in their Westminster standards, as "the true religion." And this is for good reason: can you think of anyone else, who could, with credibility, make such a claim?
Possessors of the true religion do not believe that they are perfect. In fact, they know that, in themselves (apart from Christ), they are slime, deserving of hell. Also, the "true religionists" do not believe that they have impeccably perfect theology, or thoroughly error-less doctrine. (No one on the fallen earth has this.) Adherents of the true religion do not "look down their noses" at those who do not yet share their faith. Instead, they look upon them with humility, pity, concern, and love.
The true religion fends off all false religion. On one hand, it defeats Arminianism, and all forms of "will-worship" religion. On the other hand, it slays all the fancy, pseudo-sophisticated forms of self-, law-, and works-righteousness, (especially exemplified today in theonomy, patriarchalism, "New perspectives on Paul," and Federal Vision).
The true religion has always existed, it exists today, and it will always exist. Why? Because the God it praises and serves always lives.
"The true religion" is another term for the Puritan faith. Only the Puritans had the audacity to refer to their living Christianity, codified in their Westminster standards, as "the true religion." And this is for good reason: can you think of anyone else, who could, with credibility, make such a claim?
Possessors of the true religion do not believe that they are perfect. In fact, they know that, in themselves (apart from Christ), they are slime, deserving of hell. Also, the "true religionists" do not believe that they have impeccably perfect theology, or thoroughly error-less doctrine. (No one on the fallen earth has this.) Adherents of the true religion do not "look down their noses" at those who do not yet share their faith. Instead, they look upon them with humility, pity, concern, and love.
The true religion fends off all false religion. On one hand, it defeats Arminianism, and all forms of "will-worship" religion. On the other hand, it slays all the fancy, pseudo-sophisticated forms of self-, law-, and works-righteousness, (especially exemplified today in theonomy, patriarchalism, "New perspectives on Paul," and Federal Vision).
The true religion has always existed, it exists today, and it will always exist. Why? Because the God it praises and serves always lives.
Thursday, November 01, 2007
The happy Christian
A Christian is a person baptized into the church, (or who would have been baptized, but was not able to receive the sacrament, for whatever reason).
Happy Christians are people who "arrive" every Sunday of the week. Instead of always being on the lookout for the newest and latest spiritual, or evangelical, or religious, or entertainment "high"--they are more than contented by resting their souls in Christ, in His worship, in His church, on His day. At these services, the saint is fed the word of God (via sermons), and he is partaking of the other means of grace, too, by which his faith is built up.
Just as in the Old Testament, the Old Covenant church "ascended" to Jerusalem for worship, (hence, the Psalms of Ascent)--so, in the New Covenant church we do the same thing, on Sundays.
This kind of Christian lifestyle saves believers from having to scurry around all week, hoping to snatch up some crumbs of spiritual food from whatever source they can find: extra services, christian radio and tv, or whatever.
The soul is satisfied. The saint is resting in Jesus. She has laid down her burdens at the cross; and she enjoys the blessed rest of the Sabbath Day. She has quit working for her salvation.
Are you ready to arrive? Try a good church. You'll find Christ there.
Happy Christians are people who "arrive" every Sunday of the week. Instead of always being on the lookout for the newest and latest spiritual, or evangelical, or religious, or entertainment "high"--they are more than contented by resting their souls in Christ, in His worship, in His church, on His day. At these services, the saint is fed the word of God (via sermons), and he is partaking of the other means of grace, too, by which his faith is built up.
Just as in the Old Testament, the Old Covenant church "ascended" to Jerusalem for worship, (hence, the Psalms of Ascent)--so, in the New Covenant church we do the same thing, on Sundays.
This kind of Christian lifestyle saves believers from having to scurry around all week, hoping to snatch up some crumbs of spiritual food from whatever source they can find: extra services, christian radio and tv, or whatever.
The soul is satisfied. The saint is resting in Jesus. She has laid down her burdens at the cross; and she enjoys the blessed rest of the Sabbath Day. She has quit working for her salvation.
Are you ready to arrive? Try a good church. You'll find Christ there.
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
The role of the Puritan pastor
Someone has to set the tone for all of culture to follow. Think about it: who would you have set the standard? Do you want Michael Moron (er, I mean, Moore) to do the job? Do you want Al Gore setting the stage? Is there anyone in the media, or in Hollywood you prefer?
Now, you might say: "Granted. The ones who must set the pace should be religious people." But now you must answer this question: who will this be? Do you want it to be the pope? Would you feel comfortable with Jimmy Swaggart leading the way? Would you risk your life, and the future generations to an ayatollah, or a dalai lama?
Of course not. What the world needs is men called by God, to serve His church, to set the example, and show the way. Can you think of anyone better qualified, than men who are specially appointed to bring the good news of the Gospel to the world--to change the paradigms that govern the general thought life of all men?
This is why, for instance, I am willing to make the sometimes-audacious statements occasionally made, on this blogsite. (For instance, check out the "Racism" spot, from 8/6/07.) Ideas have to change and evolve. The only question is: who will be the impetus for this?
In the past, the Puritan influence has always been for the good of all. Let us ignite another fire of progress, for the glory of Christ.
Now, you might say: "Granted. The ones who must set the pace should be religious people." But now you must answer this question: who will this be? Do you want it to be the pope? Would you feel comfortable with Jimmy Swaggart leading the way? Would you risk your life, and the future generations to an ayatollah, or a dalai lama?
Of course not. What the world needs is men called by God, to serve His church, to set the example, and show the way. Can you think of anyone better qualified, than men who are specially appointed to bring the good news of the Gospel to the world--to change the paradigms that govern the general thought life of all men?
This is why, for instance, I am willing to make the sometimes-audacious statements occasionally made, on this blogsite. (For instance, check out the "Racism" spot, from 8/6/07.) Ideas have to change and evolve. The only question is: who will be the impetus for this?
In the past, the Puritan influence has always been for the good of all. Let us ignite another fire of progress, for the glory of Christ.
Friday, August 17, 2007
Nice pastors/Benign churches
It seems to me that most Christian people want (what I am calling) "nice" pastors, and "benign" churches. In other words, they don't want to be part of something that shakes up the established order (of sin). Instead, they want a "safe" place, where no one is offended, and where the church dares not to take on the evils of the world.
But "benign" churches, like benign tumors, don't really do anything of significance. They are *there*, but they are not dangerous. Satan has no problem at all with the existence, nor the proliferation of benign churches (and "nice" pastors).
Don't misunderstand me: God's true (or Puritan) pastors *are* to be nice. In fact, they are to be the MOST gracious persons on the face of the earth. The churches they serve are to be places of grace. Everyone (except spiritual wolves) ought to feel genuinely welcomed there. These pastors, and these churches, are to be the avant-garde of all of culture and society.
But having said all that, we must follow, not in the footsteps of the world (which is spiritual suicide), but in the footsteps of the Savior (who knew how to be both salt and light, in every situation).
When you choose a church, be careful. If you are a hypocrite, or a coward, be sure to opt for one that will not stomp on your sins. But if you are a sincere Christian--be sure you look for one that will love you (and your world) enough to minister grace to all, (after first addressing the sin need).
But "benign" churches, like benign tumors, don't really do anything of significance. They are *there*, but they are not dangerous. Satan has no problem at all with the existence, nor the proliferation of benign churches (and "nice" pastors).
Don't misunderstand me: God's true (or Puritan) pastors *are* to be nice. In fact, they are to be the MOST gracious persons on the face of the earth. The churches they serve are to be places of grace. Everyone (except spiritual wolves) ought to feel genuinely welcomed there. These pastors, and these churches, are to be the avant-garde of all of culture and society.
But having said all that, we must follow, not in the footsteps of the world (which is spiritual suicide), but in the footsteps of the Savior (who knew how to be both salt and light, in every situation).
When you choose a church, be careful. If you are a hypocrite, or a coward, be sure to opt for one that will not stomp on your sins. But if you are a sincere Christian--be sure you look for one that will love you (and your world) enough to minister grace to all, (after first addressing the sin need).
Thursday, August 09, 2007
The Spiritual Womb
Essentially, there are ultimately two classes of people: the elect, and the reprobate. But both of these categories are conceived in sin, and are initially in complete and utter rebellion against God, His Christ, His church, and everything related to the Messiah's kingdom expansion.
But what is sometimes not understood--and which really should be--is that there *are* some "sub-categories" under these two main paradigms.
One of them is that of the already-redeemed, (those who are indeed already born again, and who have the new nature of Jesus in them).
Another is that of the formidable reprobate: those who will never be regenerated, and who are happy to go to hell. (We are not in a position to determine that any particular human being is in this class. Only God can do that.)
A third category is that of those on whom the Holy Spirit is working, (and who yet will not, in the end, be converted). These people are, at least for a time, willing to sincerely hear the word of the gospel of grace.
A fourth category, (and this is the main theme of this post), is that of the yet-unconverted, but soon-to-be converted souls. These people are, by the grace of God, in (as it were) the church's "spiritual womb." People from all nations, cultures, religious backgrounds, and ethnicities are found in this class.
What is the upshot of all this? Simply this: that it is not fair to assume that a Muslim (to use one example) is, by virtue of the fact that he is a Muslim, necessarily completely dead-set against the things of Christ. If he is in the "womb," he will, in God's good time, come to faith in the true God, and be united to the true church.
But what is sometimes not understood--and which really should be--is that there *are* some "sub-categories" under these two main paradigms.
One of them is that of the already-redeemed, (those who are indeed already born again, and who have the new nature of Jesus in them).
Another is that of the formidable reprobate: those who will never be regenerated, and who are happy to go to hell. (We are not in a position to determine that any particular human being is in this class. Only God can do that.)
A third category is that of those on whom the Holy Spirit is working, (and who yet will not, in the end, be converted). These people are, at least for a time, willing to sincerely hear the word of the gospel of grace.
A fourth category, (and this is the main theme of this post), is that of the yet-unconverted, but soon-to-be converted souls. These people are, by the grace of God, in (as it were) the church's "spiritual womb." People from all nations, cultures, religious backgrounds, and ethnicities are found in this class.
What is the upshot of all this? Simply this: that it is not fair to assume that a Muslim (to use one example) is, by virtue of the fact that he is a Muslim, necessarily completely dead-set against the things of Christ. If he is in the "womb," he will, in God's good time, come to faith in the true God, and be united to the true church.
Thursday, July 19, 2007
Apostolic* Succession: Presbyterian-Style
The Roman Catholic Church bases its claim to be the most authentic Christian communion on its assertion that they are the beneficiaries of and recipients of a continuous succession of bishops reaching all the way back to the Apostle Peter himself.
I have no objection to the Roman church's insistence on the necessity of apostolic succession. On this point, as well as on many others, they are 100% correct. Nonetheless, there is an error in their understanding of, and nature of this succession.
Apostolic succession *does* exist, and it *has* been handed-down, in the church, in every age, all the way from the Messiah, to Peter, and subsequently to all of Christ's specially-called ministers (pastors). (Some of these may well have been bishops of Rome.)
But this succession is *not* mechanical; instead, it is spiritual. No one who is not truly called by God to preach the gospel of grace in the Lord Jesus Christ, is in *any* form (or way) part of this "succession." Therefore, if my position is true, then some of the worst of the popes, who had no regard for the fact that Christ's atoning death and perfect life is the only basis for a sinner's justification, (which is to be received by faith alone, by grace alone)--are in any way a link in the apostolic succession.
Actually, the Roman church's premise of its primacy is flawed in a number of ways: one of them (ironically) is that it (the Roman church) is *not* old enough. Presbyterians who follow their Puritan fathers realize that we run our succession all the way back to Abraham (the father of our faith), and even to eras before him, all the way back to the Garden of Eden. (Indeed, as we take comfort in God's eternal decrees, we trace it all the way back to eternity [before the advent of time].)
* By "Apostolic," we do not mean "in the person of the apostle." Instead, we mean, as per the Nicene Creed, "in the teaching of the apostle[s]."
I have no objection to the Roman church's insistence on the necessity of apostolic succession. On this point, as well as on many others, they are 100% correct. Nonetheless, there is an error in their understanding of, and nature of this succession.
Apostolic succession *does* exist, and it *has* been handed-down, in the church, in every age, all the way from the Messiah, to Peter, and subsequently to all of Christ's specially-called ministers (pastors). (Some of these may well have been bishops of Rome.)
But this succession is *not* mechanical; instead, it is spiritual. No one who is not truly called by God to preach the gospel of grace in the Lord Jesus Christ, is in *any* form (or way) part of this "succession." Therefore, if my position is true, then some of the worst of the popes, who had no regard for the fact that Christ's atoning death and perfect life is the only basis for a sinner's justification, (which is to be received by faith alone, by grace alone)--are in any way a link in the apostolic succession.
Actually, the Roman church's premise of its primacy is flawed in a number of ways: one of them (ironically) is that it (the Roman church) is *not* old enough. Presbyterians who follow their Puritan fathers realize that we run our succession all the way back to Abraham (the father of our faith), and even to eras before him, all the way back to the Garden of Eden. (Indeed, as we take comfort in God's eternal decrees, we trace it all the way back to eternity [before the advent of time].)
* By "Apostolic," we do not mean "in the person of the apostle." Instead, we mean, as per the Nicene Creed, "in the teaching of the apostle[s]."
Friday, July 13, 2007
The patriarch's dilemma
One of the big "selling points" of the patriarchalists' religion, is the idea that the world out there is just far too dangerous to entrust one's loved ones to God, or a school teacher, or a magistrate, or a minister, (or a neighbor, or a friend, etc., etc., etc.).
The theory is that the father alone is to be trusted with the child, and with the family. Patriarchalists will sometimes say things like this: "If the minister teaches you to trust in anyone other than Christ for your salvation, do not listen to him." He is right in his counsel; but he is wrong in his failure to be consistent in its application. The minister can, and should turn around and say to the child of the church: "If your father teaches you to trust in anyone other than Christ for your salvation, do not listen to him."
The fact of the matter, (and we take no pleasure in this), is that patriarchalists are just as guilty of the awful and horrendous crimes against children (and others) as are those in the world as a whole.
The problem with the patriarchaist, however, is that he will not submit to discipline: neither that of the church, nor of the state.
At least in a true churchman, there is some real, tangible, and objective force and guide, that both hinders wrongdoing, and encourages the doing of good.
The theory is that the father alone is to be trusted with the child, and with the family. Patriarchalists will sometimes say things like this: "If the minister teaches you to trust in anyone other than Christ for your salvation, do not listen to him." He is right in his counsel; but he is wrong in his failure to be consistent in its application. The minister can, and should turn around and say to the child of the church: "If your father teaches you to trust in anyone other than Christ for your salvation, do not listen to him."
The fact of the matter, (and we take no pleasure in this), is that patriarchalists are just as guilty of the awful and horrendous crimes against children (and others) as are those in the world as a whole.
The problem with the patriarchaist, however, is that he will not submit to discipline: neither that of the church, nor of the state.
At least in a true churchman, there is some real, tangible, and objective force and guide, that both hinders wrongdoing, and encourages the doing of good.
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Life in Trinity
Even as the one and only God is Triune: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit--so this same God would have His redeemed people function in three basic realms, all of which are to be balanced and full. They are these . . .
The Word of God (2 Tim. 3:16-17); the Church (1 Tim. 3:15); and the Spirit (Jn. 6:63).
Those who believe they can achieve salvation with their Bibles only--detesting the Church and/or the Spirit--are no better off than the devil, who knows what the truth is, but refuses to love it (and the God of truth).
Those who think they can get by with the Church alone, without the Scripture and the Spirit--fall into the error of exalting a man over God, (viz., a pope).
Those who think they are led by the "Spirit," independently of the Church and the Word, are no more than fanatics, devoid of the true Spirit.
A good verse that wraps up this "triune" life orientation may be found in Rev. 22:17, which says this:
"And the Spirit and the bride say, 'Come!' And let him who hears say, 'Come!' And let him who thirsts come. Whoever desires, let him take the water of life freely."
Here, the Scripture, the Church, and the Spirit all call us to faith and life in the Christ of the gospel.
The Word of God (2 Tim. 3:16-17); the Church (1 Tim. 3:15); and the Spirit (Jn. 6:63).
Those who believe they can achieve salvation with their Bibles only--detesting the Church and/or the Spirit--are no better off than the devil, who knows what the truth is, but refuses to love it (and the God of truth).
Those who think they can get by with the Church alone, without the Scripture and the Spirit--fall into the error of exalting a man over God, (viz., a pope).
Those who think they are led by the "Spirit," independently of the Church and the Word, are no more than fanatics, devoid of the true Spirit.
A good verse that wraps up this "triune" life orientation may be found in Rev. 22:17, which says this:
"And the Spirit and the bride say, 'Come!' And let him who hears say, 'Come!' And let him who thirsts come. Whoever desires, let him take the water of life freely."
Here, the Scripture, the Church, and the Spirit all call us to faith and life in the Christ of the gospel.
Tuesday, May 08, 2007
[New post] The Genesis of Marriage Confusion
Someone might wonder, "Just how did our society get SO confused, as to not be able to understand that marriage is between a man and a woman (only)?"
The best answer to this question is to be seen in what has happened in the church--(the mainstream Protestant branch of it, particularly). Even more than this, we must find the culprit in what has transpired among the clergy, generally. When denominations began allowing the ordination of women to the offices of elder, in the church--this broke down the basic wall of understanding, amidst *all* other people, be they in the church, or not.
The world follows the church--not the other way around. Therefore, when some of the church "fathers," (viz. pastors and elders), were no longer men, but women, a great degree of confusion followed.
The devil may be evil, but he is not stupid. He has always known that the best way to try to destroy God's world (though this effort be ultimately futile), is to corrupt and infect the clergy of the church. In other words, by putting his own people in God's positions, Satan gains a temporary foothold, and seems to be at an advantage.
But, God be praised, none of these corruptions can last forever. In the end, the Lord will show His triumphal power. In the meantime, let us continue to embrace His Son, and His ways.
The best answer to this question is to be seen in what has happened in the church--(the mainstream Protestant branch of it, particularly). Even more than this, we must find the culprit in what has transpired among the clergy, generally. When denominations began allowing the ordination of women to the offices of elder, in the church--this broke down the basic wall of understanding, amidst *all* other people, be they in the church, or not.
The world follows the church--not the other way around. Therefore, when some of the church "fathers," (viz. pastors and elders), were no longer men, but women, a great degree of confusion followed.
The devil may be evil, but he is not stupid. He has always known that the best way to try to destroy God's world (though this effort be ultimately futile), is to corrupt and infect the clergy of the church. In other words, by putting his own people in God's positions, Satan gains a temporary foothold, and seems to be at an advantage.
But, God be praised, none of these corruptions can last forever. In the end, the Lord will show His triumphal power. In the meantime, let us continue to embrace His Son, and His ways.
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
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.)
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.)
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
"Who's your daddy?"
When it all comes right down to it: what, and who makes up your true "covenant community"? If many professing Christians were honest with themselves, they would have to admit, to their utter shame (if they understood the gravity of the situation), that something other than the church was their principal source of encouragement, passion, and concern.
The reason this arrangement is reprehensible, is because it flies in the face of God, and of His generous and gracious provision, of His Son, and of His church. It raises a puny fist of idolatry up, against God.
I have known people who were much more solicitous of others who shared their approach to their children's educational context, than they were of the people of God, with whom they were allegedly "bound," by covenant (in the church). They would be more inclined to allow their children access to like-minded educators, than they would the people in the church (who did not share their methodology).
For these people church is more of a convenience, than a necessity. And, instead of serving her (the church), they view it as a prosyletizing field, out of which they hope to make converts to their truest and dearest interests.
No wonder Jude spoke of these people as those who "Crept in unnoticed, who long ago were marked out for . . . condemnation," (Jude 4).
The reason this arrangement is reprehensible, is because it flies in the face of God, and of His generous and gracious provision, of His Son, and of His church. It raises a puny fist of idolatry up, against God.
I have known people who were much more solicitous of others who shared their approach to their children's educational context, than they were of the people of God, with whom they were allegedly "bound," by covenant (in the church). They would be more inclined to allow their children access to like-minded educators, than they would the people in the church (who did not share their methodology).
For these people church is more of a convenience, than a necessity. And, instead of serving her (the church), they view it as a prosyletizing field, out of which they hope to make converts to their truest and dearest interests.
No wonder Jude spoke of these people as those who "Crept in unnoticed, who long ago were marked out for . . . condemnation," (Jude 4).
Thursday, March 22, 2007
The Kingdom vs. the Family
Family is a great blessing of God. This blog site is not designed to in any way denigrate the family; but rather to understand it, in its proper context. Anyone who knows me, knows how I love my wife, my daughter, my parents, my sisters, and other family members.
But family, like any other good and God-given gift, can be, and often is idolatarized, (or made into a false god).
It is very interesting that you will not find a harsher critic of those who worship the family than the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. And there is good reason for this: He knew (and knows) full well that sinners are very apt to worship their families, and to put them ahead of God and the kingdom of grace (as it is expressed in His church).
Think with me of some of the statements Jesus Christ, the God-Man, made; and consider whether or not He pandered to the idolatry of the home. . . .
Lk. 9:60-62: "Jesus said to him, 'Let the dead bury their own dead, but you go and preach the kingdom of God.' And another also said, 'Lord, I will follow You, but let me first go and bid them farewell who are at my house.' But Jesus said to him, 'No one, having put his hand to the plow, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.'"
Lk. 14:26: "If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple."
So, you can see that Jesus Christ makes no bones about it. He and His church must come first. Family makes a great community; but it makes a lousy deity.
But family, like any other good and God-given gift, can be, and often is idolatarized, (or made into a false god).
It is very interesting that you will not find a harsher critic of those who worship the family than the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. And there is good reason for this: He knew (and knows) full well that sinners are very apt to worship their families, and to put them ahead of God and the kingdom of grace (as it is expressed in His church).
Think with me of some of the statements Jesus Christ, the God-Man, made; and consider whether or not He pandered to the idolatry of the home. . . .
Lk. 9:60-62: "Jesus said to him, 'Let the dead bury their own dead, but you go and preach the kingdom of God.' And another also said, 'Lord, I will follow You, but let me first go and bid them farewell who are at my house.' But Jesus said to him, 'No one, having put his hand to the plow, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.'"
Lk. 14:26: "If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple."
So, you can see that Jesus Christ makes no bones about it. He and His church must come first. Family makes a great community; but it makes a lousy deity.
Thursday, March 15, 2007
[New post] Lone Ranger "Christians"
Have you ever met any of those poor, wretched souls that have no need of church? After all, since they have the Holy Spirit to guide them, they detest and despise the thought of a "human teacher," (to employ their expression).
One of the things that I find interesting about these people, who typically believe that since they have "Jesus, their Bible, and their faith," (and need nothing else)--is that they are never able to keep themselves "self-contained." Eventually, and inevitably, like beetles coming out from under a log exposed to the sun, they seek to impinge their views on others, (and they actually seek "help" from others).
Proud religionists are more contorted in their souls, than users of crack cocaine. They are to be pitied; and they are definitely to be the objects of evangelism.
Let us recognize just how vile it is, to assume we can make it to heaven without Christ's provision of His church, His ordinances (in the church), and His grace--all of which is the same as "making it" without Christ Himself.
If you are a faithful churchman, and not a hypocrite, bless God for this wonder; and give Him all the glory.
One of the things that I find interesting about these people, who typically believe that since they have "Jesus, their Bible, and their faith," (and need nothing else)--is that they are never able to keep themselves "self-contained." Eventually, and inevitably, like beetles coming out from under a log exposed to the sun, they seek to impinge their views on others, (and they actually seek "help" from others).
Proud religionists are more contorted in their souls, than users of crack cocaine. They are to be pitied; and they are definitely to be the objects of evangelism.
Let us recognize just how vile it is, to assume we can make it to heaven without Christ's provision of His church, His ordinances (in the church), and His grace--all of which is the same as "making it" without Christ Himself.
If you are a faithful churchman, and not a hypocrite, bless God for this wonder; and give Him all the glory.
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
Discipleship and Ecclesiocentricity
There are so many books and materials dealing with discipleship. But, what is discipleship, at base? It is the same thing today, as it was when the Lord Jesus walked the earth: being with Christ, and learning from Him, (so as to be effective in ministry and life).
How is this done today? Nowhere but in the CHURCH of the Lord Jesus Christ. A "discipler"--be he a pastor, elder, deacon, or a member of the church (man or woman)--starts the discipling process by seeing to it that the "disciple" is in the church's Lord's Day worship service. Typically, this would be the AM service, as the initial contact point.
The next step in Christian discipleship is to encourage the disciple to be in the PM worship service on Sunday, (if your church is happy enough to have one).
From there, all the rest of discipleship flows.
But, do you see where there can be, and is no true discipleship when the person you are seeking to work with is not sitting at Jesus' feet, in His house, on His day?
Things are not so complex. It's all really pretty simple.
How is this done today? Nowhere but in the CHURCH of the Lord Jesus Christ. A "discipler"--be he a pastor, elder, deacon, or a member of the church (man or woman)--starts the discipling process by seeing to it that the "disciple" is in the church's Lord's Day worship service. Typically, this would be the AM service, as the initial contact point.
The next step in Christian discipleship is to encourage the disciple to be in the PM worship service on Sunday, (if your church is happy enough to have one).
From there, all the rest of discipleship flows.
But, do you see where there can be, and is no true discipleship when the person you are seeking to work with is not sitting at Jesus' feet, in His house, on His day?
Things are not so complex. It's all really pretty simple.
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
Church and Home United?
Some folks, undoubtedly well-meaning, imagine that the ideal world would find the church and home "united." I suppose to some extent it depends on what one means by "united."
If it means that the church becomes the lackey of the home, then this is an undesirable goal. If it means that the home learns from, submits to, and honors the church, then this would be a noble achievement.
The old European model of the church and state being united ought to be sufficient warning for us to be wary of the church and home being so joined. When the church and state were "one," the church sacrificed away its prophetic role of calling the state back to God. The same would be true in a world where the church and home were "united."
The home needs, for its own good, the church's prophetic voice, hearkening it (the home) unto Christ, the church itself, and holiness.
So, if the church and home are to be "united," let it be accomplished by the home's coming under the blessing, protection, and graces of the church. In this way, the power of the God's gospel would flow from Christ, through His church, to the home.
Now, in this scenario, the church and home would be positively "bound together" by the home's submission to the church's Head, sacraments, offices, and means of grace.
If it means that the church becomes the lackey of the home, then this is an undesirable goal. If it means that the home learns from, submits to, and honors the church, then this would be a noble achievement.
The old European model of the church and state being united ought to be sufficient warning for us to be wary of the church and home being so joined. When the church and state were "one," the church sacrificed away its prophetic role of calling the state back to God. The same would be true in a world where the church and home were "united."
The home needs, for its own good, the church's prophetic voice, hearkening it (the home) unto Christ, the church itself, and holiness.
So, if the church and home are to be "united," let it be accomplished by the home's coming under the blessing, protection, and graces of the church. In this way, the power of the God's gospel would flow from Christ, through His church, to the home.
Now, in this scenario, the church and home would be positively "bound together" by the home's submission to the church's Head, sacraments, offices, and means of grace.
Saturday, March 03, 2007
Who's to integrate whom?
One of the hot issues today, is: who is to integrate whom?, when it comes to the relationships between the church, the state, and the family.
One significant organization today promotes the idea of "family-integrated churches." My thesis on this web site is exactly reversed; and that is should read: church-integrated families.
In truth, wherever we can be influenced for good, let it happen. But let us keep in mind that God works from the top, down; and not the other way around. Jesus came from heaven to earth, in the incarnation. He is the Head of His church, which is His colony of heaven on the earth.
The church, then, is the principal agency of God on the earth--and it is her mission to bless the rest of the world.
One significant organization today promotes the idea of "family-integrated churches." My thesis on this web site is exactly reversed; and that is should read: church-integrated families.
In truth, wherever we can be influenced for good, let it happen. But let us keep in mind that God works from the top, down; and not the other way around. Jesus came from heaven to earth, in the incarnation. He is the Head of His church, which is His colony of heaven on the earth.
The church, then, is the principal agency of God on the earth--and it is her mission to bless the rest of the world.
Thursday, March 01, 2007
The Need for a Strong Clergy
The clergy is the heart and soul of any society. You can tell how potent or impotent any culture is, by observing the nature, mettle, and courage of the pastors of the churches.
So, it should not surprise anyone that a strong pastoral ministry is essential to the welfare of the church; and this blog, "The Forum for Ecclesiocentricy," is all about promoting that goal.
Pray that God raise up a crop of Puritan pastors, who will lead the church again into its rightful glorious place, as it proclaims the wonder and praise of Jesus.
So, it should not surprise anyone that a strong pastoral ministry is essential to the welfare of the church; and this blog, "The Forum for Ecclesiocentricy," is all about promoting that goal.
Pray that God raise up a crop of Puritan pastors, who will lead the church again into its rightful glorious place, as it proclaims the wonder and praise of Jesus.
Friday, February 23, 2007
Why is the church first?
When God first created anything, time began. On the sixth day of His creation, God created Adam. The moment Adam began to be, the Lord had His Church.
When God later created Eve, from Adam's side, the family was formed.
One might say that civil government was also formed, with the creation of the second human being, (although it might be more proper to say that the formation of multiple families constituted it).
All three of these institutions: the church, the family, and the state, are good; and they are ordained of God.
The family and the state are temporal institutions, in that they will cease to exist, at the end of conventional history, i.e. at the last coming of Christ, the resurrection of the body, the great judgment, and the eternal state.
The church, however, will always remain, throughout all of history, "temporal," and eternal.
When God later created Eve, from Adam's side, the family was formed.
One might say that civil government was also formed, with the creation of the second human being, (although it might be more proper to say that the formation of multiple families constituted it).
All three of these institutions: the church, the family, and the state, are good; and they are ordained of God.
The family and the state are temporal institutions, in that they will cease to exist, at the end of conventional history, i.e. at the last coming of Christ, the resurrection of the body, the great judgment, and the eternal state.
The church, however, will always remain, throughout all of history, "temporal," and eternal.
Friday, January 26, 2007
Size of families
Does the size of one’s family matter to God? You might be tempted to think so, if you listen carefully to some people.
Efforts have been made over the centuries, to “take over” the world, or the church, or a nation, or whatever—simply based on the premise that overwhelming numbers were the way to get the job done.
But God has always disdained this approach; and He has made sure that it has never worked. This is partly due to the fact that self-righteous sinners would be sure to give themselves the credit for their “success”; and it is partly due to the fact that He (the Lord) would be robbed of His rightful glory.
The Muslims, the Mormons, and the Roman Catholics have subscribed to the “win the world by numbers” game—but they are yet to demonstrate their triumph. Today, the Patriarchal movement has joined the fray, and hopes to see their goals implemented—largely through the sheer force of bodies.
So, to go back to our original question: Does the size of one’s family matter to God? The answer is, “No.” God would rather do a lot with a few; than witness a new construction effort of the Tower of Babel.
Efforts have been made over the centuries, to “take over” the world, or the church, or a nation, or whatever—simply based on the premise that overwhelming numbers were the way to get the job done.
But God has always disdained this approach; and He has made sure that it has never worked. This is partly due to the fact that self-righteous sinners would be sure to give themselves the credit for their “success”; and it is partly due to the fact that He (the Lord) would be robbed of His rightful glory.
The Muslims, the Mormons, and the Roman Catholics have subscribed to the “win the world by numbers” game—but they are yet to demonstrate their triumph. Today, the Patriarchal movement has joined the fray, and hopes to see their goals implemented—largely through the sheer force of bodies.
So, to go back to our original question: Does the size of one’s family matter to God? The answer is, “No.” God would rather do a lot with a few; than witness a new construction effort of the Tower of Babel.
Thursday, January 25, 2007
National Days of Prayer
Recently, in reading about Thomas Shepard, one of the early Puritan pastors of New England, I was struck by references to how the state called upon the church to set times aside for prayer for the commonwealth.
This is really a beautiful thing, when you think about it. The church instructs the state; and the state learns its lessons so well, that it turns around and commissions the church to special seasons of prayer, (within its discretion and jurisdiction).
I think the next time our president asks us to pray, we ought to take heed, and fulfill the request.
This is really a beautiful thing, when you think about it. The church instructs the state; and the state learns its lessons so well, that it turns around and commissions the church to special seasons of prayer, (within its discretion and jurisdiction).
I think the next time our president asks us to pray, we ought to take heed, and fulfill the request.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
