Saving Children from God

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

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"?

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

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?

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.

Church/Family Relationship

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.

A woman's place is in . . .

. . . "The workplace," according to the secularist. She is to derive her value, her worth, and her purpose in the world of commerce, where money and position will satisfy her.

But, "No," would say the adherent of the Family First movement--she belongs "In the kitchen: barefoot and pregnant." Her value, worth, purpose, and meaning is to be derived primarily from, and in, the home.

But God's Word would say, "No, you're both wrong. A woman's place is in the church, first and foremost: where she will derive her greatest levels of comfort, joy, enthusiasm, usefulness, and dignity."

When this latter pattern is followed, then life in the home, and in the workplace, makes sense; and they are kept in balance and perspective.

Is there a primary place for women in the home? Of course, there is. But this is not her *main* source of fulfillment--or she is no better off than a wife and mother of a Muslim (or Mormon) family.

Church and Scheduling

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"?

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

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

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.

The Worldly Church

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

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

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.