Forum for Ecclesiocentricity

Businesses that are closed on Sunday

2010-02-12T10:32:00.032-06:00

I thought it would be cool to list local (and even national) businesses that are closed on Sunday. I always try to encourage these shop owners; and tell them that I will do more commerce with them (because they close on The Lord's Days).

I am not trying to put together a "Christian Yellow Pages"--which is little more than an artificially-baptized secular version of the regular Yellow Pages.

As a matter of fact, I don't care if the business is owned by a Christian, a Muslim, a Hindu, or a snake-handler, etc.

Feel free to send me names of legitimate businesses, that you know are closed on Sunday.

Here's my list . . .

1) Brown Printing (Peoria), owned by a Muslim friend of mine.
2) Hobby Lobby
3) Chick-fil-A
4) Illinois Car Dealerships (see, there is at least ONE good law in this sorry state!)
5) John Deal (State Farm Ins.), Peoria
6) Sully's Pub and Cafe, Peoria
7) Paparazzi Restaurant, Peoria
8) Jonah's Seafood, East Peoria
9) Tanners Orchard, Speer, IL
10) Ethan Allen, Peoria
11) Naturally Yours Grocery and Deli, Peoria
12) Sushi Gawa (Restaurant), Peoria
13) Sterling Flower Shoppe, Peoria
14) Galley Restaurant and Pub, Peoria
15) Moniers Flowers and Gifts, Peoria
16) Hoerr Nursery, Peoria
17) Lariat Steakhouse, Peoria
18) Kelleher's Irish Pub and Eatery, Peoria
19) Tranh Linh (Vietnamese Restaurant), Peoria
20) Water Street Wines, Cafe, and Coffees, Peoria
21) Apples Bakery, Peoria
22) Hog Trough, Hanna City
23) Gil's Supper Club, Hanna City
24) Hannah's Parlor, Hanna City
25) Window World (of Peoria)
26) Running Central, Peoria
27) Gregg Florist, Peoria
28) Kelly Glass, Peoria
29) Cyd's Gourmet Kitchen, Peoria
30) Papa John's, East Peoria
31) French Toast (restaurant)
32) La Gondola Spaghetti House
33) Lagron-Miller Co.
34) Chicago Grill
35) Oreck Vacuums, Peoria

Reaching intelligent unbelievers with the gospel

2009-09-24T12:16:00.009-05:00

Many unbelievers are very intelligent and thoughtful people. A lot of them are downright nice, and even gracious. Sometimes they put professing Christians to real shame.

My experience with them is that they are very liberal in their thinking. They live the way they want to; they have pretty much cast off (and often very consciously) all vestiges of organized religion; and they seek to spend the days they have on earth having as much fun as they possibly can.

The question before us is this: can these people be reached with the gospel; and, if so, how? My answer: Yes, they can indeed be reached; but the way to do so is not according to the standard approaches being employed today (by many churches).

Intelligent unbelievers are wary of gimmicks, and of believers' efforts to mimic the world. They know we cannot do as well as Madison Avenue does, in marketing our religious wares; and they snicker at our paltry efforts to act like Hollywood, often viewing these antics as little more than jokes.

Unbelievers need to behold serious and intelligent believers, living life in church, intentionally and consistently. The best way to reach intelligent unbelievers is to be faithful churchmen. The churches we belong to ought to appear to be different from anything unbelievers see in the world all the time. In other words, "contemporary" is not the way to go. This may snare some mindless unbelievers; but typically, it will not entice thoughtful ones.

Let our churches employ the old Puritan ways: filling the pulpits with men truly called to preach the gospel, who are well-trained, and fluent in the things of religion and the world. Let us sing psalms and hymns; and let us pray earnestly. Also, let us employ the Lord's Supper and Baptism, as signs that distinguish God's people from those who are not His.

There is no guarantee that intelligent unbelievers will respond positively to our gospel message, even in the context of a serious church worship on the Lord's Days--but it is their best shot at glory.

Home, Sweet Church

2009-09-23T15:32:00.002-05:00

Have you ever been out in the world with unchurched folks for a pretty intense and long period of time? If you have, you know that many of these people are very kind, sweet, generous, and interesting.

You also know that, after a while, you hanker to be back with your "own kind."

No matter how dry and "desert-like" our weekly experiences in the world may be . . . believers have *this* blessed prospect to anticipate, and look forward to every week: the Sunday church service.

Thanks be to God for His indescribable gift!

Ecclesiocentricity Re-asserted

2009-08-10T14:33:00.003-05:00

Those of you who have followed this blog for the years that it has existed know all about Ecclesiocentricity. But, if you are new to it, you may think it's just some disconnected ramblings of an American observer of the political climate.

Therefore, let me re-state the truth of Ecclesiocentricity again, so as to "re-establish our bearings."

Ecclesiocentricity, simply-put, teaches that the church is the most important institution in the universe. It is more important than the state, (viz. governments of all sorts); and it is more important than the family. Ecclesiocentricity does not deny the goodness of the state, or the family. Both of them are ordained of God, and both of them are necessary, and beneficial. They are both gifts of God's common grace, which He gives to *all* people: Christians, or otherwise.

But neither the state nor the home have any inherent redemptive qualities about them. Anything spiritually good in them must be *derived* from their *connection* to the church. In the case of the state, this connection is not organic. (In other words, we do not advocate a "union" of the church and state. Instead, they are two separate entities.) The state benefits as it listens to, and obeys the pastors called by God (to lead the church--and, by extension, the world).

The family derives redemptive benefit by being *organically* joined to the church, in baptism, which signifies covenant union with Jesus, and His family.

Therefore, (among many other reasons), the church is primary. God looks upon her fist; and He only blesses the world, or individuals, through His "brokered" ministry through her (the church).

Spiritual "Illegal Immigrants"

2009-04-10T09:52:00.003-05:00

It dawned on me over the past 24 hours that those religious people (many of whom call themselves "Christians") who refuse to be covenanted with the visible church are very much like illegal immigrants.

These (religious people) live in the same land, they breathe the same air, and they see the same things most of the rest of us do--but they have no rights, no privileges, and no honor.

Just as illegal immigrants have their "advocates," (whose advocacy is more a hindrance to their good, than a promoter of it), so do spiritual "illegal immigrants," (in that there are many foolish religious people that encourage them in their ignorance).

These spiritual "illegals" wrongly believe they have access to God; and they seek to take what they want from Christ, His church, and the Bible, while leaving what they don't like alone (like responsibility and accountability).

But just as illegal immigrants ought to be sent back home--so God will send "home" (to hell) all those spiritual illegals as well.

Still, there is good news: even as illegal immigrants can "repent," go home, and start over, seeking the citizenship of another country in a lawful way--so can spiritual "illegals," as well. When they repent, believe, and apply to the visible church for admission, they can (and should) be wholeheartedly received.

The Goal of Life on Earth

2009-03-14T10:26:00.001-05:00

Every human being has deep within himself or herself a burning desire to achieve one's ultimate end, or purpose, or goal. The Christian's end is to become more and more like Christ. Heaven will be the crowning glory of this God-caused achievement.

On earth, however, we need to know where and how our provisional "ends" occur. These happen every Sunday, (every Lord's Day), in the church's Sabbath worship of the Holy and Triune God, as the Body of Christ celebrates the Redeemer's resurrection from the dead.

Therefore, every Sunday the faithful Christian (who will be a faithful churchman) reaches his or her destination.

Unlike false religions, however, the Christian's Sunday-to-Sunday pattern is *not* cyclical. Instead, it is gradually progressive. Even though we are doing the "same thing" every Sunday, as we achieve our goal on earth--nonetheless, in doing so, we are also growing more and more into the image of Christ.

In light of this, if you are frustrated, always seeking some new "thing" or experience "out there" to make you happy, or to give you a sense of fulfillment--instead, become a Christian; and live in harmony with God's grace in Christ, whereby you will be satisfied, since you "arrive" every Lord's Day.

True and False Evangelism

2009-03-10T14:56:00.003-05:00

A fundamental difference between the biblical (or, Puritan, Reformed) mode of evangelism; and that which is most prominent today (in mainline and broadly evangelical Christianity), is this:

We, following the example of Christ, the apostles, and the prophets of the OT, do not call people to a "decision." Instead, we call people to faith in a Person (Jesus), with corresponding repentance toward the sins that have alienated the sinner from the Savior.

Charles Finney-type "evangelism," largely-prevalent since the mid-19th century, calls people to make a "decision." There is typically quite a bit of pressure exerted on the person; and usually great promises accompany the "making" of this decision: everlasting life, a relationship with God, assurance of heaven.

Biblical, etc. evangelism, rather, calls on people to believe and repent. The persons to whom loving evangelism is addressed are immediately directed to the church, the Body of Christ. There, these souls are encouraged to begin to listen to the Gospel proclaimed (on Sundays), and to begin to *immediately* accord their new lifestyles to one of Sunday observance, church membership, and the worship of the True God.

Finney evangelism is largely responsible for the sorry state of religion in the world today. Nonetheless, let us not shy away from our great heritage; and may we be at the vanguard of calling sinners to the Savior.

Some of the "sinners" we will call were already sold a bill of goods. They think they already have a relationship with God, since they said a prayer, walked an aisle, signed a book, or raised a hand. These folks may never have demonstrated any fruit, i.e. they may never have joined a church, etc.--but they are still to be the objects of our loving concern, and evangelism.

No such thing as "Re-baptism"

2009-01-19T19:02:00.002-06:00

Did you know that there is no such thing as "re-baptism"? Though people are sometimes cajoled into submitting to having their bodies plunged into a tub of water, this is *not* a baptism, if that person had already been baptized in the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (in a legitimate church).

Just as it would have been impossible to re-circumcise a man in the Old Covenant, so it is completely impossible to "re-baptize" a body (in the New).

Here is a way to look at the issue of "re-baptism," (and I do not mean the illustration to be taken as an offense). . . . Just as "gay marriage" may actually be technically "legal" in some states (and in some European countries)--nonetheless, there is no such thing as a "gay marriage." It is neither sanctioned by God, nor is it recognized by Him.

Some churches may register people as having been "re-baptized" in their books and rolls. These churches have indeed done something, but God does not recognize what they have done, (because there is no such thing as "re-baptism").

The Ecclesiocentricity of Matthew 6:33

2009-01-08T18:13:00.002-06:00

One time a dear soul told me that he thought Matt. 6:33 was the single most important verse in the Bible. Even though I think those kinds of assessments are unnecessary (and even potentially dangerous), no Christian would deny the power, relevance, and wonder of these words, which fell from our Redeemer's lips: "But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you."

This one verse really wraps-up, in only a few words, the doctrine of ecclesiocentricity. It is precisely *when* we "seek *first* the kingdom of God [viz. the church and her welfare] and [God's] righteousness," that we gain everything else of value as well--(and we get that on the "backswing" as it were).

God's "righteousness" is gained by hearing the church's gospel proclamation, that asserts that any righteousness to be had, by any sinner, must be imputed, from Christ to the sinner, (and that, by faith).

The error of most religion today is that God is sought outside of the church (first and foremost). The problem is this: The Lord refuses to be found, except within the holy bounds of His church. Another common mistake, of even very ardent Christian people, is their insistence upon putting other things before Christ's church. This usually amounts to other good things, like family, jobs, the nation, or any other concern.

When we seek Christ's kingdom (church) first, God takes care of the rest. May we be found faithful in this most-important of pursuits.

The glory of Thanksgiving

2008-11-25T14:33:00.004-06:00

Thanksgiving is an amazing holiday. It is distinctively American, and Puritan. It is an annual reminder of the glories of Christ, His church, His gospel, and His work in the world. It is also a testimony of God's grace demonstrated on this continent, which was lit by such a great beacon, as the Pilgrims established the church here as a "city on a hill, that cannot be hidden."

It is astounding that no one has ever managed to really commercialize Thanksgiving. Even more amazing is the fact that the ACLU has not yet--at least according to my knowledge--sought to outlaw Thanksgiving (because of its Christian roots, etc.).

Thanksgiving remains a very special day. On it, even pagans and unbelievers are made to stand speechless, recognizing that even they ought to be thankful to someone for something.

For we who have been especially blessed in Jesus, let us be ever-thankful; and may we always seek the welfare of those who are yet outside the pale of grace--even as our Pilgrim fathers did with the native tribes that were around them.

Good time to look to church

2008-11-14T12:28:00.004-06:00

With the recent results of the elections last week in the United States, it is a good opportunity for believers everywhere to reassess our priorities, values, and direction.

No doubt many American Christians have erred, by placing too much of their spiritual welfare directly on the makeup and condition of the civil government. God would have our primary focus *not* be there, but rather on Christ's church.

Let us return to the Bible's instruction, and start the transformation of culture, not from Washington DC, nor from any state capital, but rather from the heartbeat of the local church (as she is connected to all other faithful churches, and as she is benefitted by centuries of gracious supply of God's Spirit).

As we become self-conscious churchmen, we will then be able to be effective in the state, the family, and in every other imaginable sphere of life as well.

Christians that go to hell

2008-08-20T15:22:00.002-05:00

There, I was pretty sure that title would capture your attention.

What is a "Christian"? A Christian is a baptized member of the local, visible, outward church of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Some Christians are faithful. These are those who are regenerated (or born again), and who demonstrate the sincerity of their faith by consistent perseverance in Christ--manifest first and foremost in their churchmanship.

Apostate Christians abandon the faith, denouncing their baptisms.

Unfaithful Christians are loose. They do not verbally renounce Jesus, but they are faithless, manifesting this (primarily) in their disdain for Christ's church.

Some Christians are confused. They would perhaps like to be faithful, but they have been taught that they don't need to do anything (especially regarding church), in order to be so.

Evangelicals have complicated the matter over the past 50 years, or so, by using terminology such as this: "Joe became a Christian today, since he accepted (or received) Christ." The problem with this language is that no one has a clue about the validity of Joe's decision, until or unless Joe joins himself to a church (hopefully, a good one).

There is a difference between a regenerate person, and a Christian. All regenerate souls are Christians, (with very rare and odd exceptions--as, for instance, when a person dies before they can be baptized in the church). But not all Christians are regenerated--as all of us know numerous examples of unfaithful (former) professors of faith (in Christ).

Therefore, some Christians go to heaven; and some Christians go to hell.

Leaving church . . .

2008-07-17T14:16:00.011-05:00

Awhile ago I read where Barack Obama had "resigned" from the UCC congregation in Chicago, where the notoriously racist minister had been.

Candidly, I know nothing about the details, and subsequent ecclesiastical situation of the Obamas. I want to believe the best, and assume that they were transferred to another (much better) church fellowship.

But that whole dynamic reminded me that there are only three ways to legitimately leave a church: 1) through a transfer; 2) through death; or 3) through excommunication.

Our body once had a member who did a dirty deed (which he had already been caught doing previously). Upon discovery, he then communicated with us that he was no longer a member (of our communion). He tried to "resign," as it were. Such an approach is inadmissible.

And the same thing would apply for Mr. Obama. Just because he (understandably) wanted to distance himself from Rev. Wright, this does not mean that he should fail to go through proper ecclesiastical channels and procedures.

Bottom line: let God's true people always seek to be, by grace, good and faithful churchmen--for the glory of Christ.

Sunday + Church + Worship = Culture (6th article)

2008-07-07T09:29:00.001-05:00

It has been said that automobile dealers in Illinois would be very upset, if the law prohibiting car sales on Sunday was ever revoked. Here is an interesting example of where Puritan culture still affects everyday life.

As more and more Christians become faithful churchmen, we will see this kind of culture-changing phenomenon occur more frequently.

All people need a Savior, a day of rest, a covenant community, and the pure worship of God. This is why our evangelism must be designed around the needs of the whole person.

As we set the example, and enjoy the blessings and pleasures of grace, we will shine before the world.

Sunday + Church + Worship = Culture (5th article)

2008-07-04T14:10:00.003-05:00

You might be wondering, “How am I a ‘Culture-Former’ simply by being a faithful churchman?” Good question.

First of all, God has covenantally given the whole world—not to unbelievers—but to the children of the church, the children of grace, the children of God. (See Ps. 37:9, 11, & 22 for just one set of many Biblical proofs of this.) Those who are justified by grace through faith in Christ; and who are bound together in the body of Christ are given jurisdiction and dominion of the earth.

Therefore, those with ownership rights are also endued with governing responsibilities. Now, you might be asking, “If all this is true, then why is Sunday, church, and worship so key and important?” The answer to this question is along these lines: “Culture-formers” have got to hear from and be spirited by the Ultimate Culture Governor, God Himself. And HE has designed it so that those who would be His “vice-regents” must be instructed and encouraged by Him, from and in His church, on the Lord’s Day.

Sunday + Church + Worship = Culture (4th article)

2008-07-03T14:35:00.001-05:00

In the New Covenant every Sunday (or “Lord’s Day”) is a holy day. Therefore, the Puritan church celebrates 52 “holidays” a year, (and sometimes even 53 [as in 2007], depending on how the calendar lays-out).

The New Covenant believers live from Lord’s Day to Lord’s Day. Every day of the week is *not* the same. Sundays are special—because on them the church celebrates both the historical bodily resurrection of Christ, and its own corporate spiritual resurrection in Christ.

Church becomes the center of the believers’ lives, and Sabbath (Sunday) worship is the crowing glory of the church’s service to God.

From this “mountain-top” experience, then, we re-enter our normal weekday (“valley”) worlds, better equipped and prepared to serve, order, and govern the realms into which God places us.

Sunday + Church + Worship = Culture (3rd article)

2008-07-03T14:20:00.001-05:00

What we do in the church service on Sunday is *the* most important thing we do all week. The church’s Sabbath worship of God is the closest thing to heaven that we can experience on earth. Our Christian lives flow down from, and out of our congregational service on The Lord’s Days.

Fixing our own house first

2008-06-27T13:27:00.003-05:00

The church is to regulate, teach, and dictate culture. But this can only be done effectively after we have been sure we've done everything we can to clean-up our own "church" houses, first. The process goes this way: let us look to our own individual (local) churches, then to our presbyteries, and then to our denominations.

After we've done what we can there, we go to the broader church. You might be wondering, "How do we do this 'clean-up,' especially since there are a lot of messes about, and some of them are centuries old?" Good question. First of all, where we actually have power and jurisdiction, we must use it. (This is the case in our own church denominations, for instance.) Then, where we do not have direct power and jurisdiction, we employ words of instruction and admonition (with as much understanding and grace as possible--especially in the initial stages).

The church needs to be governed by the Puritans among us. They are the ones with the courage and the doctrinal goods to go after some of the most public, scandalous, (and pernicious) errors first, like the ordination of homosexuals, etc. Again, since most of us are not operating under those (more liberal) denominational structures, we must do our work "from afar" (as it were), with words. (Where we can personally interact, that is good, too.)

The entire church does not need to be *completely* straightened-up before we begin addressing the non-churched world, (or else, we would never get started at all)--but a sincere effort must first be put forward.

Sunday + Church + Worship = Culture (2nd article)

2008-06-26T19:15:00.002-05:00

Everything good flows down from above, from God, as per Jas. 1:17. God works through His truly called and ordained pastors and elders, who then bring the gospel to Christ’s church. The parishioners then begin to conceive of themselves as the Lord’s gospel “foot soldiers,” His agents on earth. The believing church is God’s salt and light in the world.

Culture begins to be changed, and is transformed automatically, simply from the doing of the right thing. But the place where “the right thing” must begin is the worship service in church, on Sunday. Once the believers learn to think “covenantally,” or in a church-centered way, everything else begins to take on new (redemptive) shape as well.

The great error of our day, (and it has actually been around since the Fall itself), is to imagine that somehow God has altered His course, and that He will operate aside from His biblical system (of Sunday, church, and worship). But the truth of the matter is that the Lord has never abandoned this grand program. Through it He will win the world—but not in any other way.

Sunday + Church + Worship = Culture (1st article)

2008-06-25T15:46:00.001-05:00

When Christ and His church (which can never be separated) are at the center of the equation, then we are in a position to make a real difference in the world. Note that “Sunday” and “Worship” surround “Church.” The reason for this is that unless we have God’s New Covenant Sabbath Day (the day of Jesus’ resurrection) set aside as holy, our Christianity has no savoriness, nor credibility.

The world inevitably follows the church. When the church does not stay faithful in three areas: preaching, the proper administration of the sacraments, and discipline—then the rest of the world falls apart also (following the church’s bad example).

In a world of turmoil (much like we are in today), all people flee to some refuge. Many religious people (even professing Christians) are seeking to find their help first and foremost in one of two places: government (the state), or the family (the home). But neither of these two (good and God-given) institutions were ever designed by the Lord to be the first point of cultural contact and transformation. Only Christ in His church holds this sacred privilege.

Canceling Sunday services?

2008-06-23T17:45:00.003-05:00

Just today, I read in our local paper of an area church, (that word may well need to be in quotes [""]), which has chosen to cancel its Sunday services in the month of June, to spend the time instead doing nice deeds for people in the community. And, of course, as one would expect, this is being met with applause from the world.

But why should it not be laden with the approbation of the unbelieving world? After all, non-believers apply no value to Sunday church worship, and they probably view it mostly as a waste of time. "Why not spend your religious time doing something actually useful?", would be the musing of the non-Christian culture.

But here is the problem. When the faithful church honors her Lord by gathering on Sunday, in order to properly worship God--THIS very act is the *highest* service it (the church) can do for the world. Now, does the world realize, or appreciate this fact? No. But it is true, nonetheless.

That aforementioned gathering of religious people, (the name of whose organization I am not going to mention here) needs to learn a very basic, yet profound lesson: God demands (and deserves) the Sabbath worship of His church. If people want to do nice things for others, that is a good thing, (or, at least it can be a good thing, if done for the right reasons)--but it can never please God, when it robs Him of His rightful due.

Culturally-Relevant Worship

2008-06-13T12:53:00.005-05:00

We hear this term these days: "Culturally-Relevant Worship." What does it mean? My experience with it goes along these lines: worship is to be in a mode and form that is roughly consistent with the norm of the society (in which that particular church is found).

But if that is the case, then there are some serious problems with "culturally-relevant worship." Consider these conundrums: 1) which "culture" (within the broader one), is to get the ascendancy? (In other words, will your worship cater to white people, black people, or Spanish-speaking people, [to use just one set of examples]?) 2) Just how far does one dare go, with "culturally-relevant worship"? (Surely, the very worst, and most offensive dimensions of the world's practices should be omitted.)

Here is the problem, in a nutshell: The church is NOT to seek to be "culturally-relevant." That is a thoroughly misguided goal. Instead, the church is to be the setter and establisher of culture. The way this is done, is through simplicity, and good sense--all based on the principles of the Holy Scriptures.

Is English the predominant language (of a given society)? Then, use it. But beyond that, be careful about everything else. In church, on Sunday, only *certain* elements are to be employed, including preaching, prayers, sacraments, vows, etc. But nothing else is to be done.

There are other times, and other places for those (other) things to be tried out. (Some of them may even be done in the church building.) But Sunday is special. It is not to prostituted to the whims and desires of anybody (or any culture).

Is it sinful to go to church too much?

2008-05-23T14:38:00.003-05:00

This may seem like a strange question (above), given that this is an Ecclesiocentristic blogsite.

The answer to the question posed in the heading is, "It depends."

It is never sinful to go to a properly-constituted church service on Sunday, since this is the Lord's Day, the New Covenant Sabbath.

But it could very well be sinful to go to church during the week. First of all, God never commanded that there be church services during the week; and secondly, going to them could definitely be sinful.

"How?", you might be asking. One way is that by going to non-Sabbath church services, a person could well be skirting his clearly and truly God-ordained duties--as a husband, a father, an employee, a neighbor, or a citizen. Sometimes people seek to assuage their guilt by "out-Godding" God, through doing things that are patently religious (but never commanded by the Lord).

If people would simply do what God *does* command, like go to His worship, in church, on Sunday, they would be a whole lot better off.

God is never impressed by "hyper-religion." He prefers simple and sincere faithfulness over all forms of fanaticism.

Bring on the Sunday Christians!

2008-05-15T19:55:00.004-05:00

Do any of you remember the stereotypical portrayal of the "Sunday Christian"? He was a bad guy, since his religion (allegedly) only went as far as Sunday. But the truth is: unless our Christianity indeed *does* get re-started every Sunday, we are no Christians at all.

The criticism was designed to imply that the best believers were more concerned about everything else in their lives--and less worried about the gracious privileges and duties inherent in the New Covenant Sabbath (Sunday).

Of course, the truth is precisely in the middle of this confusion. Sunday church worship is absolutely essential to authentic Christianity--but one's covenant life does not end there. When we properly worship God, as the church, on the Lord's Day, we are then in a position to be faithful throughout the week.

But there is no such thing as a "good" Christian who seeks to avert church, worship, and Sabbath observance.

Therefore, bring on the "Sunday Christians"!

Of Pinkos, Patriarchalists, and Puritans

2008-04-07T11:11:00.002-05:00

It seems to me that American religious life (of a Christian flavor) can be delineated into three basic groupings, which I am referring to as "Pinkos, Patriarchalists, and Puritans." (I like the alliteration.)

Pinkos are on the far left. They believe that the state is the savior. These are typically theological and church liberals. All of their answers are to be found in government, law-making, and social engineering.

Patriarchalists are on the far right. These people are generally extremely conservative. Their salvation is to be found in the family, with the father serving as the "god-figure." All the solutions to life are to be garnered from home life.

Puritans are in the middle. Their first line of priority is the church (and neither the state, nor the family). Puritans seek to affect, change, and revolutionize *all* of life--including the home and the government; but they seek to do this first and foremost through the church.

To be fair, Pinkos and Patriarchalists also pay some heed to the church, (and to the home [in the case of Pinkos]; and to the state [in the case of Patriarchalists])--but this is subservient to their first allegiances.

Let us see the genius of the Puritan model. In so doing, we will actually benefit both the state, and the family--as we serve them through the church.

The Church As Culture

2008-02-20T16:38:00.002-06:00

Today, so many Christians are falling over each other, seeking to be relevant to their culture. In many well-meaning and well-intentioned ways, they are striving to affect culture, interact with it, and even change it. There is a sincere desire to in someway offer an alternative to secular “culture,” by coming up with different variations on a theme—viz. by creating “Christian” movies, books, etc.

But a much better thesis (derived from the passion of this blogsite) is that the church is to *be* culture—in relationship to which all other facets of life—be it family, government, industry, art, music, etc.—ultimately derive whatever meaning, purpose, and usefulness they rightly possess (from and by God).

The church as culture begins on Sunday, during the Sabbath worship of God, under the authority of the Word of God (the Scriptures), and the eldership established in the church by God (from within the Scriptures). Without this starting point, there is no hope for true, noble, or purposeful culture at any level whatsoever.

Once this is concept of the church as culture is established, however, there is room for a whole world of other culture, which, in the final analysis derives its meaningfulness from God, Christ’s church, the Gospel, and the Bible itself.

Why Not “Christocentricity”?

2008-01-17T16:45:00.000-06:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good "One World Government"

2008-01-13T23:15:00.000-06:00

How often have you heard, over the years, fearful and foreboding tales of the emerging monster of "one world government"?

Well, here is a good twist on a notoriously bad theme. God is all for a form of "one world government." That government is that of His holy and blessed Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, who does and will rule the earth, in and through His church. Isaiah 9:6 & 7 speaks of this reign.

There, we read these words: "For unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given; and the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of His government and peace there will be no end, upon the throne of David and over His kingdom, to order it and establish it with judgment and justice from that time forward, even forever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this."

Jesus is establishing His "one world government" in and through His church. He alone is the King. He does not rule through a pope, or a prelate. Instead, He Himself governs, in and through His church officers.

Ecclesiocentricity: Accomplished and Applied

2008-01-12T22:33:00.000-06:00

Do any of you remember the great book, written by John Murray, entitled, "Redemption: Accomplished and Applied"? I am piggy-backing on that phraseology here.

Last week, a very excellent young Christian churchman asked me for our daughter's hand in marriage. I was glad to accede to his request.

But my first question to him was not, "How will you school your children (if God gives them to you)?"; or, "How many children do you plan to have?"; or, "Will our daughter be working inside or outside of the house?"

I am not saying that those issues do not have some relevance, and that they should not be broached. But they are far from primary. My first question (as many of you have anticipated, I am sure), was, "How will you lead our daughter, with regard to your church life and commitment?" And, of couse, that is *the* key question.

It wouldn't matter how many children they might, or might not have; nor how they school them; nor how they support themselves--if this issue of church was not settled satisfactorily.

Our future son-in-law, being the brilliant churchman that he is, was more than impressive in his fine responses to all my queries, (especially the one about church!).

Saving church wives from bad husbands

2008-01-01T02:29:00.000-06:00

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

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

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

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

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

Church/Family Relationship

2007-12-29T19:43:00.000-06:00

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.

Protecting the church from wolves

2007-12-28T12:29:00.000-06:00

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.

A woman's place is in . . .

2007-12-21T20:05:00.000-06:00

. . . "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.

Why is the church first?

2007-12-13T16:23:00.000-06:00

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.

Honoring the mother of Christ

2007-12-07T12:26:00.000-06:00

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.

The Emerging (or Emergent) church

2007-11-29T17:16:00.000-06:00

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 Ecclesiastical Copernican Revolution

2007-11-26T18:14:00.000-06:00

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.

Success in Iraq

2007-11-16T11:43:00.000-06:00

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.

The True Religion

2007-11-13T13:11:00.000-06:00

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 happy Christian

2007-11-01T19:17:00.000-05:00

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.

The role of the Puritan pastor

2007-08-22T20:31:00.000-05:00

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.

Nice pastors/Benign churches

2007-08-17T13:13:00.000-05:00

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).

The Spiritual Womb

2007-08-09T13:41:00.000-05:00

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.

Apostolic* Succession: Presbyterian-Style

2007-07-19T13:17:00.000-05:00

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]."

The patriarch's dilemma

2007-07-13T11:42:00.001-05:00

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.

Life in Trinity

2007-06-19T13:36:00.000-05:00

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.

[New post] The Genesis of Marriage Confusion

2007-05-08T12:52:00.000-05:00

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.

Good and Bad Patriarchalism

2007-04-11T20:47:00.000-05:00

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.)

"Who's your daddy?"

2007-03-27T12:49:00.000-05:00

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 Kingdom vs. the Family

2007-03-22T13:07:00.000-05:00

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.

[New post] Lone Ranger "Christians"

2007-03-15T15:42:00.000-05:00

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.

Discipleship and Ecclesiocentricity

2007-03-13T14:37:00.000-05:00

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.

Church and Home United?

2007-03-06T20:46:00.000-06:00

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.

Who's to integrate whom?

2007-03-03T12:35:00.000-06:00

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.

The Need for a Strong Clergy

2007-03-01T11:03:00.000-06:00

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.

Why is the church first?

2007-02-23T20:38:00.000-06:00

Size of families

2007-01-26T15:16:00.000-06:00

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.

National Days of Prayer

2007-01-25T20:13:00.000-06:00

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.

Rudiment #6: Life in covenant throughout the week

2006-12-08T12:30:00.000-06:00

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

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

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

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

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

2006-11-28T15:21:00.000-06:00

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

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

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

Read good books. Pray. Relish your Savior.

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

Rudiment #4: Proper attitude during Sunday church worship services

2006-11-20T14:43:00.000-06:00

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

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

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

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

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

Rudiment #3: Content of the Worship Service

2006-11-15T12:59:00.000-06:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

2006-11-07T15:33:00.000-06:00

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

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

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

Rudiment #1: Saturday preparation for worship

2006-11-06T19:39:00.000-06:00

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

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

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

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

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

Rudiments of church life

2006-11-06T09:39:00.000-06:00

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

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

Stay tuned! . . .

Theonomy and Antinomianism

2006-10-24T13:08:00.000-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Puritanism: Alive and Well

2006-10-20T09:06:00.000-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

The faithful church a “Cult”?

2006-10-17T12:35:00.000-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

The Primary Covenantal Unit

2006-10-12T13:37:00.000-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Defense of the Ministry

2006-10-04T14:05:00.000-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dumping Sacred Cows

2006-09-22T13:34:00.000-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

Churches overstepping their bounds

2006-09-19T13:06:00.000-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Compassionate Ecclesiocentricity

2006-09-06T15:20:00.000-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The church as the Kingdom of God

2006-08-29T09:26:00.000-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

Which comes first: the pastor, or the father?

2006-08-22T15:20:00.000-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ecclesiocentricity’s Debt to Error

2006-08-21T22:01:00.000-05:00

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

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

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

The Generic Fallacy

2006-08-03T15:41:00.000-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ecclesiocentricity’s Universal Appeal

2006-07-27T13:20:00.001-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Saving Children from God

2006-07-25T12:10:00.000-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

Women's Head Coverings in church

2006-07-21T12:43:00.000-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sunday as "Family Day"?

2006-07-20T14:31:00.000-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

The church's mediatorial work

2006-07-13T11:41:00.000-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Should the church dictate education?

2006-06-27T09:58:00.000-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

Why Not “Christocentricity”?

2006-06-26T13:48:00.000-05:00

Puritan Christianity

2006-06-19T13:17:00.000-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

The Great Satan

2006-06-16T12:05:00.000-05:00

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

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

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

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

Objective Covenant

2006-06-15T13:15:00.000-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

Saving church wives from bad husbands

2006-06-06T11:47:00.000-05:00

Does ecclesiocentricity promote worship of the church?

2006-06-02T13:57:00.000-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

Church/Family Relationship

2006-05-30T17:41:00.000-05:00

A woman's place is in . . .

2006-05-16T15:09:00.000-05:00

Church and Scheduling

2006-04-19T15:18:00.000-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Easter "services"?

2006-04-04T12:16:00.001-05:00

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

Will the same reasoning prevail with regard to Easter?

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

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

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

Ecclesiocentricity's Liberating Influence

2006-03-29T06:59:00.000-06:00

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

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

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

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

Protecting the church from wolves

2006-02-21T14:23:00.000-06:00

The Worldly Church

2006-02-15T19:12:00.000-06:00

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

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

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

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

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

Children of the church

2006-02-07T01:07:00.000-06:00

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

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

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

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

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

The church as Arbiter

2006-02-01T20:20:00.000-06:00

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

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

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

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

What about Youth Groups?

2006-01-26T19:07:00.000-06:00

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?

2006-01-25T15:27:00.000-06:00

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).