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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
