Should the church dictate education?

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”?

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.

Puritan Christianity

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

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

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

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.

Does ecclesiocentricity promote worship of the church?

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.