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.
Thursday, January 26, 2006
Wednesday, January 25, 2006
What about the Para-Church?
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).
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).
Tuesday, January 24, 2006
Why Protestants Fear Ecclesiocentricity
One of the primary theses of this blog site: that the church needs to re-assert itself as the principal agency on the earth, is very scary to many people--in particular, Protestant Christians. And one can easily understand why. They shake in their boots, to consider what church-centeredness might mean. They look at church history in general, and they think, "Oh no, not another Spanish Inquisition!" There is, in many Protestants, especially in America, an abject fear of the abuse of authority. Though authority may be, and often is put to vicious uses, the devil has employed this over-hesitancy to rob Protestants of one their greatest potential assets: the profound benefits of a serious allegiance to the church of Christ.
Roman Catholics are much more amenable to ecclesiocentricity. They have been always taught the primacy of their church. Though their understanding is misguided in some ways, viz. in the exaltation of a pope, etc., they are much more on the right track, than on the wrong one, when it comes to their overall professed belief in the importance of the church.
The truth be told, it has ONLY been when Protestants *did* have a high and biblical view of the church, that they were ever effective in the world. Certainly, the Reformers, Luther and Calvin in particular, understood and believed in ecclesiocentricity. The same could be said for the Puritans, and for all the glory of genuine revivals, that came in their powerful wake.
American evangelicals have largely turned a jaundiced eye to the church. They would rather have their Bibles, their private religion, and their hopes for a swift end of all things, to comfort them. But, if the truth be told, they can never be either satisfied, or happy without a strong view of the church.
Hey, we're all in process. Let us learn from our Roman Catholic brethren, and bless God that He built the church on such a fallible man as Peter. As we do this, let us thank God that Jesus, the perfect One, is the church's cornerstone.
Roman Catholics are much more amenable to ecclesiocentricity. They have been always taught the primacy of their church. Though their understanding is misguided in some ways, viz. in the exaltation of a pope, etc., they are much more on the right track, than on the wrong one, when it comes to their overall professed belief in the importance of the church.
The truth be told, it has ONLY been when Protestants *did* have a high and biblical view of the church, that they were ever effective in the world. Certainly, the Reformers, Luther and Calvin in particular, understood and believed in ecclesiocentricity. The same could be said for the Puritans, and for all the glory of genuine revivals, that came in their powerful wake.
American evangelicals have largely turned a jaundiced eye to the church. They would rather have their Bibles, their private religion, and their hopes for a swift end of all things, to comfort them. But, if the truth be told, they can never be either satisfied, or happy without a strong view of the church.
Hey, we're all in process. Let us learn from our Roman Catholic brethren, and bless God that He built the church on such a fallible man as Peter. As we do this, let us thank God that Jesus, the perfect One, is the church's cornerstone.
Monday, January 23, 2006
Should the church be "Family-Friendly"?
Some people would like to imagine that the best churches would be those that are self-consciously "Family-Friendly." The question before us is this: Should the church be "Family-Friendly"?
The answer to this question is, it depends. It depends on what "Family-Friendly" means. If it is asked if the church should be friendly to human beings with immortal souls, the answer is, "yes." If these people come to the church in natural blocs, called "families"--then the church is to be very friendly to them.
But, if "Family-Friendly" means that the church is to bend its own purposes specifically to the needs, desires, wants, and whims of the family, then this is an undesirable goal. If it means that the church is to design itself particularly around the family, then this is also a mistaken ideal.
The problem with the "Let-the-church-be-'Family-Friendly'"-mentality, is that it assumes some very unwise things. It imagines that the family comes into the church *without* previously already needing the church's redemptive virtue. It presupposes that somehow the family is already "OK," on its own.
But these are all clearly wrong-headed notions--as anyone who would objectively reflect upon them for even a little while, would understand.
Should the church be "Family-Friendly"? "Yes," in the sense that people are involved. But, "no," if this means cow-towing to it, to the hurt of both the church and the family.
PS: The only people the church should not be friendly to are the practicing wolves, that would seek to destroy her.
The answer to this question is, it depends. It depends on what "Family-Friendly" means. If it is asked if the church should be friendly to human beings with immortal souls, the answer is, "yes." If these people come to the church in natural blocs, called "families"--then the church is to be very friendly to them.
But, if "Family-Friendly" means that the church is to bend its own purposes specifically to the needs, desires, wants, and whims of the family, then this is an undesirable goal. If it means that the church is to design itself particularly around the family, then this is also a mistaken ideal.
The problem with the "Let-the-church-be-'Family-Friendly'"-mentality, is that it assumes some very unwise things. It imagines that the family comes into the church *without* previously already needing the church's redemptive virtue. It presupposes that somehow the family is already "OK," on its own.
But these are all clearly wrong-headed notions--as anyone who would objectively reflect upon them for even a little while, would understand.
Should the church be "Family-Friendly"? "Yes," in the sense that people are involved. But, "no," if this means cow-towing to it, to the hurt of both the church and the family.
PS: The only people the church should not be friendly to are the practicing wolves, that would seek to destroy her.
Thursday, January 12, 2006
The church as the world's only "Freedom Factory"
What do you do with people who live their entire lives, bound (in reality or illusion) to the sins of others? For instance, let's take a common example: people who were brought up in an "alcoholic" family. Many professing Christians act as if they believe that this reality, viz. being raised in an "alcoholic" family, must govern their entire earthly existence, from this point, until they are dead. And it might be argued that this condition would have this effect, except for one thing: the church of the Lord Jesus Christ.
When God applies the blood of Christ to the souls of sinners, and the water of baptism to the head of churchmen, something very new, liberating, and life-changing occurs: these people are no longer the slaves of the deterministic notions and teachings of the world. These false doctrines, believed by many professing Christians, teach that sinners can never be *really* fundamentally changed; and even if they are (superficially) amended, that they are always inextricably chained to the sins of others, (for instance, in their families).
But something dramatically alters, when a person now understands his or her new relationship to God, signified by the church's sacraments, of baptism and the Lord's Supper. This person is now no longer a prisoner to the old ways, of their familial and physical lineage. They are free, in the line of their spiritual father, Abraham, by faith in Jesus.
All people are looking to be liberated from sins. Some of them seek it in AA, others in secular and religious counseling, others in false religions and philosophies. But true freedom is found in Jesus only, as you now are a member of a great community of the redeemed, in the church, and possess privileges and honors that you could never have outside of it.
To insist on bondage to the world's strictures, while at the same time claiming the name of Christ and His church, is paramount to blasphemous unbelief.
When God applies the blood of Christ to the souls of sinners, and the water of baptism to the head of churchmen, something very new, liberating, and life-changing occurs: these people are no longer the slaves of the deterministic notions and teachings of the world. These false doctrines, believed by many professing Christians, teach that sinners can never be *really* fundamentally changed; and even if they are (superficially) amended, that they are always inextricably chained to the sins of others, (for instance, in their families).
But something dramatically alters, when a person now understands his or her new relationship to God, signified by the church's sacraments, of baptism and the Lord's Supper. This person is now no longer a prisoner to the old ways, of their familial and physical lineage. They are free, in the line of their spiritual father, Abraham, by faith in Jesus.
All people are looking to be liberated from sins. Some of them seek it in AA, others in secular and religious counseling, others in false religions and philosophies. But true freedom is found in Jesus only, as you now are a member of a great community of the redeemed, in the church, and possess privileges and honors that you could never have outside of it.
To insist on bondage to the world's strictures, while at the same time claiming the name of Christ and His church, is paramount to blasphemous unbelief.
Monday, January 09, 2006
The church as an Equal-Opportunity Offender
Some people want tame churches, and sedated ministers. And, of course, this is easy to understand. Who wants anyone telling them that they are sinners, and correcting them along the way? But though the natural man disdains the church's proper role as an antidote to sin's corruption in the world--in fact, the church is good for all people. Discipline is necessary, whether we like it, or not.
This is one of the primary reasons that the church cannot be, organically nor ontologically "one" with any other human institution. God does not want the church and the state to be "one"; and He does not want the church and the home to be "one." Instead, the Lord protects the church's unique position as the arbiter of all things on earth, ultimately, under its Head, Jesus.
Therefore, all that being said, the church must be what I am calling an "equal-opportunity offender." Does the state err? Then, the church is to correct and rebuke it (if necessary). Does the family err? Then, the church must do the same thing there. Do individuals err? It is the church's job to lovingly correct them, and bring them unto Jesus, and His body of believers.
The church should, however, first and foremost, correct itself. This must be done carefully, lovingly, and respectfully. But, if the church itself is not functioning in the way God ordained it, how can it do any good for anyone else? Let judgment begin in the household of faith, (1 Pet. 4:17); and from there may many good things flow.
This is one of the primary reasons that the church cannot be, organically nor ontologically "one" with any other human institution. God does not want the church and the state to be "one"; and He does not want the church and the home to be "one." Instead, the Lord protects the church's unique position as the arbiter of all things on earth, ultimately, under its Head, Jesus.
Therefore, all that being said, the church must be what I am calling an "equal-opportunity offender." Does the state err? Then, the church is to correct and rebuke it (if necessary). Does the family err? Then, the church must do the same thing there. Do individuals err? It is the church's job to lovingly correct them, and bring them unto Jesus, and His body of believers.
The church should, however, first and foremost, correct itself. This must be done carefully, lovingly, and respectfully. But, if the church itself is not functioning in the way God ordained it, how can it do any good for anyone else? Let judgment begin in the household of faith, (1 Pet. 4:17); and from there may many good things flow.
Tuesday, January 03, 2006
The church and other Institutions
What should the attitude of church leaders and the laity be, with regard to other institutions in the world? For instance, if a church parishioner is in need, and cannot take care of himself--what should the church do about this? The answer is, it really depends. There is no one "silver bullet" solution, for all situations.
Here is the way the church should prioritize such a case. First, and foremost, the best possible care and treatment, from a spiritual and a physical point of view, must be of paramount concern. Is the parishioner sick, disabled, unable to take care of himself, etc.? If so, then he is very likely going to need "professional" care--care that typically will go beyond the immediate pale of the expertise and availability of his fellow church members.
Once this consideration is fulfilled, the next priority, all things being equal, would be to get the person who is in need into a home of those who would love him, (since he could not take care of himself). If this can be effected through immediate and/or distant family, then this is best. If not, then the needy person's fellow church members would be next in line, (from an ideal point of view).
But, if neither of these arrangements is possible, is there anything inherently wrong, or sinful, in church people living in professional care facilities, viz. retirement centers, nursing homes, etc.? The answer is, "no." There are times when this decision is actually the best, and most loving alternative.
There is nothing "magical," nor mandated (in scripture), prescribing that church people be cared for *only* by other church people, (exclusively). This is a desirable and ideal goal, in many cases; but it is not necessary, nor demanded (by God).
Here is the way the church should prioritize such a case. First, and foremost, the best possible care and treatment, from a spiritual and a physical point of view, must be of paramount concern. Is the parishioner sick, disabled, unable to take care of himself, etc.? If so, then he is very likely going to need "professional" care--care that typically will go beyond the immediate pale of the expertise and availability of his fellow church members.
Once this consideration is fulfilled, the next priority, all things being equal, would be to get the person who is in need into a home of those who would love him, (since he could not take care of himself). If this can be effected through immediate and/or distant family, then this is best. If not, then the needy person's fellow church members would be next in line, (from an ideal point of view).
But, if neither of these arrangements is possible, is there anything inherently wrong, or sinful, in church people living in professional care facilities, viz. retirement centers, nursing homes, etc.? The answer is, "no." There are times when this decision is actually the best, and most loving alternative.
There is nothing "magical," nor mandated (in scripture), prescribing that church people be cared for *only* by other church people, (exclusively). This is a desirable and ideal goal, in many cases; but it is not necessary, nor demanded (by God).
Monday, December 26, 2005
Ecclesiastical royal or democrat?
How do you view the church, especially with regard to its leadership and government?
Some people are what I call, "ecclesiastical democrats," in that they believe that the church should be led from the "bottom, up." They are congregationalists, and believe in "majority rule."
Other people are what I call "ecclesiastical royalists." They believe that the church should be led by clergy and lay elders, who, though elected by the people, nonetheless are given the responsibility (by God) of leading, governing, and casting vision for the church.
"Absolute" royalists are "episcopal," employing bishops and the like. "Moderated" royalists are "presbyterian," functioning with "colleges" of clergy (teaching elders), and ruling elders.
The royalist position is more Biblical, in that God, the Great King, is pleased to pattern His Own work after it. He sends His gifts, blessing, salvation, and even His Own Son, and the Holy Spirit, from the "top, down," viz., from heaven, to earth. This pattern, then, is to be reflected in the churches--where God works first through the faithful clergy (in immediate conjunction with the ruling elders), who then disseminate God's gifts and blessings to the faithful parishioners in the pew.
Some people are what I call, "ecclesiastical democrats," in that they believe that the church should be led from the "bottom, up." They are congregationalists, and believe in "majority rule."
Other people are what I call "ecclesiastical royalists." They believe that the church should be led by clergy and lay elders, who, though elected by the people, nonetheless are given the responsibility (by God) of leading, governing, and casting vision for the church.
"Absolute" royalists are "episcopal," employing bishops and the like. "Moderated" royalists are "presbyterian," functioning with "colleges" of clergy (teaching elders), and ruling elders.
The royalist position is more Biblical, in that God, the Great King, is pleased to pattern His Own work after it. He sends His gifts, blessing, salvation, and even His Own Son, and the Holy Spirit, from the "top, down," viz., from heaven, to earth. This pattern, then, is to be reflected in the churches--where God works first through the faithful clergy (in immediate conjunction with the ruling elders), who then disseminate God's gifts and blessings to the faithful parishioners in the pew.
Thursday, December 22, 2005
Where does discipleship begin?
One church in our community, in a well-meaning way, I am sure, broadcasts that it is a place where "Discipleship begins in the home, and is celebrated in the church."
Think about this statement for a few moments. Now, can you imagine the Lord Jesus Christ ever teaching this? Did He expect His disciples to be trained in the home, and then to bring their Christlikeness into the church? This notion is absurd, from a Biblical point of view. No. Instead, Jesus called His followers *away* from their homes, to follow Him, in order to learn from the very Head of the church. After they had been fully trained, they then took their doctrine into their homes, and the rest of their world.
You might be saying, "Well, big deal. Who really cares?" Well, actually it is a huge deal. Unless the church re-asserts its proper role and makes disciples, which is one of its primary functions, there will be no opportunity for anyone to be able to even *pretend* that discipleship "begins in the home." In that world, it would certainly not be "celebrated in the church." There would be nothing to celebrate.
No. Discipleship begins in the church. It starts with the Head, Jesus. He then disseminates it down through His ministers and elders, who then bring it to the parishioners. They then take it home with them.
Think about this statement for a few moments. Now, can you imagine the Lord Jesus Christ ever teaching this? Did He expect His disciples to be trained in the home, and then to bring their Christlikeness into the church? This notion is absurd, from a Biblical point of view. No. Instead, Jesus called His followers *away* from their homes, to follow Him, in order to learn from the very Head of the church. After they had been fully trained, they then took their doctrine into their homes, and the rest of their world.
You might be saying, "Well, big deal. Who really cares?" Well, actually it is a huge deal. Unless the church re-asserts its proper role and makes disciples, which is one of its primary functions, there will be no opportunity for anyone to be able to even *pretend* that discipleship "begins in the home." In that world, it would certainly not be "celebrated in the church." There would be nothing to celebrate.
No. Discipleship begins in the church. It starts with the Head, Jesus. He then disseminates it down through His ministers and elders, who then bring it to the parishioners. They then take it home with them.
Monday, December 19, 2005
Age-Integration in church?
There are some people who believe that the church should look like the nuclear family. This error is hatched out of the fallacious notion that the family is the defining society for all of culture. These folks would want to bring into the church their perceived "ideals" of what a church "family" should look like. Because of this, some of these people are strong advocates of "age-integration" of *all* facets of church life. For instance, they would be against the idea of Sunday School classes for pre-primary children, running up through adult classes.
But this perspective is completely skewed. It does not matter what the family situation at home looks like. It is of no consequence, even if a family maintained perfect "age-integration" itself at home, (which none of them do, by the way). All that matters is what the elders of the church, being guided by the principles of Scripture, choose to do, in best educating the members of the parish. If they choose to separate the congregants by age, so be it: that is their belief as to the best way to get the job done.
The only area that the Bible does clearly dictate must be age-integrated is that of the church's Lord's Day worship services. But other functions of the church life do not come under this same stricture.
It would be ridiculous for the church to seek to dictate "age-segregation" on the family. And it is equally ludicrous for the family to try to demand full-fledged "age-integration" of the church.
But this perspective is completely skewed. It does not matter what the family situation at home looks like. It is of no consequence, even if a family maintained perfect "age-integration" itself at home, (which none of them do, by the way). All that matters is what the elders of the church, being guided by the principles of Scripture, choose to do, in best educating the members of the parish. If they choose to separate the congregants by age, so be it: that is their belief as to the best way to get the job done.
The only area that the Bible does clearly dictate must be age-integrated is that of the church's Lord's Day worship services. But other functions of the church life do not come under this same stricture.
It would be ridiculous for the church to seek to dictate "age-segregation" on the family. And it is equally ludicrous for the family to try to demand full-fledged "age-integration" of the church.
Monday, December 12, 2005
Good reasons to hate the Puritans?
Why does the devil, and his comrades, godless people and fallen angels hate the Puritans so much?
In their day, the Puritans were despised for drinking too much, for having too much fun, for being too intelligent and influential, and for wearing clothing that was deemed too stylish.
But I think the biggest reason the Puritans were so particularly hated in the 17th and 18th centuries, is because they insisted that people should love God and hate their sin. The real problem people had with them was not their avante-gard lifestyle, but rather their insistence that Jesus Christ should be exalted, and sin was just not to be tolerated.
As soon as a church gets away from the Puritan ideal, it's all downhill from there.
So, I ask you: do you have any legitimate reason to loathe the Puritans? If you do, I would like to know what it might be.
In their day, the Puritans were despised for drinking too much, for having too much fun, for being too intelligent and influential, and for wearing clothing that was deemed too stylish.
But I think the biggest reason the Puritans were so particularly hated in the 17th and 18th centuries, is because they insisted that people should love God and hate their sin. The real problem people had with them was not their avante-gard lifestyle, but rather their insistence that Jesus Christ should be exalted, and sin was just not to be tolerated.
As soon as a church gets away from the Puritan ideal, it's all downhill from there.
So, I ask you: do you have any legitimate reason to loathe the Puritans? If you do, I would like to know what it might be.
Saturday, December 10, 2005
Is it time to throw in the towel?
I am amazed, at how many professing Christians seem to have given up on God's "old paths": the gospel of Christ's free grace, His church, preaching, the sacraments, discipline, and the Word of God. There seems to be in many of these folks a sense that none of these things could ever "work" again, that they are "broken," and that other solutions must be sought, and had.
Some are resorting to the kind of quasi-"christianity" of the mega-"church" culture, (alluded to in the prior post). Others have retreated to their families, and to homeschooling* (as an ultimate answer). Many others have seemingly decided that the only possible hope for our fouled-up world is the second coming of Christ. (Of course, this *is* a "blessed" and great hope, as per Titus 2:13. But God never intended this to be the church's "working" hope. In other words, the Christian life is not to be spent solely waiting for ultimate redemption.)
When people see the "fracturing" of the visible church, the scandals in the Roman church, and the absurdities in the mainline protestant churches--they just plain get discouraged. The devil then easily turns this disheartenment into despair, (and really, at base, unbelief).
So, is it really time to give up? Is the day of Christ, the gospel, the church, hope, revival, and reformation past? Should we abandon all these blessings?
Clearly, the answer is, "No." Even if there was NO reason to believe that God would do something great in the world, resignation and retreat would still not be the proper response.
God's faithful people must continue to believe that God's word really IS true; and that if He says that the "gates of hades" cannot prevail against His church--that He sincerely means it, (cf. Matt. 16:18).
Don't give up. Remain faithful. God may yet surprise you.
* My several reference to homeschooling in these posts should not be misunderstood. I am not referring to the great numbers of godly, reasonable, rational, and fair-minded people who choose to homeschool. My references are to what I call fanatical homeschoolers, those who practically turn the practice into a religion.
Some are resorting to the kind of quasi-"christianity" of the mega-"church" culture, (alluded to in the prior post). Others have retreated to their families, and to homeschooling* (as an ultimate answer). Many others have seemingly decided that the only possible hope for our fouled-up world is the second coming of Christ. (Of course, this *is* a "blessed" and great hope, as per Titus 2:13. But God never intended this to be the church's "working" hope. In other words, the Christian life is not to be spent solely waiting for ultimate redemption.)
When people see the "fracturing" of the visible church, the scandals in the Roman church, and the absurdities in the mainline protestant churches--they just plain get discouraged. The devil then easily turns this disheartenment into despair, (and really, at base, unbelief).
So, is it really time to give up? Is the day of Christ, the gospel, the church, hope, revival, and reformation past? Should we abandon all these blessings?
Clearly, the answer is, "No." Even if there was NO reason to believe that God would do something great in the world, resignation and retreat would still not be the proper response.
God's faithful people must continue to believe that God's word really IS true; and that if He says that the "gates of hades" cannot prevail against His church--that He sincerely means it, (cf. Matt. 16:18).
Don't give up. Remain faithful. God may yet surprise you.
* My several reference to homeschooling in these posts should not be misunderstood. I am not referring to the great numbers of godly, reasonable, rational, and fair-minded people who choose to homeschool. My references are to what I call fanatical homeschoolers, those who practically turn the practice into a religion.
Wednesday, December 07, 2005
Mega-"Church"/Mega-Farce
The national media is making a bit of a hoopla, understandably-so, over the fact that many (if not virtually all) of America's mega-"churches" are not holding any Christmas Day services--and this because Christmas falls on Sunday this year (2005). One of the common excuses for not having "services" is that people will be free to be with their families on Christmas day. Another explanation is that hundreds of their staff people would have to work on that day.
Here is a good example of where ecclesiocentricity, or a "church-centered" life can come to the aid of people trapped in the mega-"church." What more ideal time than this, to evangelize these people, and teach them, by precept and example, what the rudimentary features of the Christian life look like?! Invite them to your church's worship services on Christmas Day. Duh. Professing Christians worship God on Sunday--no matter if it is December 25--and that in real churches.
After all, since when did God suspend His worship, for a Sunday "day off"? For that matter, when did God ever "change" the day of worship from Sunday, (the New Covenant Sabbath), to Wednesday night, or any other day of the week? Since when does God exalt Christmas Day over even one of His weekly Lord's Days (which are His true and only "holy days")? Of course, the answer to all these questions is, "Never!"
By the mega-"churches'" decision not to have their "services" on Sunday, December 25, they betray some ugly, but perhaps not always well-known truths about themselves. What has happened, for instance, to their alleged concern for "seekers," (assuming such souls even exist--which is highly unlikely)? Are they to leave their beloved seekers out in the cold, on Christmas morning, while they enjoy sweet and warm times with their families, in their houses?
If you have ever been tempted to envy mega-"churches" because of their wonderful marketing tools and methods, by which they bring in thousands of people--that day needs to come to an end. You need to sincerely pity them, and do what you can to reach the poor souls who are starving in their midst, with the gospel of God's grace.
The days of the mega-"church" are undoubtedly numbered. The warts are just too obvious. Let us be preparing our churches to minister to many people who will be coming to us, from them.
PS: This web article helped spark this blog: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,177908,00.html
Here is a good example of where ecclesiocentricity, or a "church-centered" life can come to the aid of people trapped in the mega-"church." What more ideal time than this, to evangelize these people, and teach them, by precept and example, what the rudimentary features of the Christian life look like?! Invite them to your church's worship services on Christmas Day. Duh. Professing Christians worship God on Sunday--no matter if it is December 25--and that in real churches.
After all, since when did God suspend His worship, for a Sunday "day off"? For that matter, when did God ever "change" the day of worship from Sunday, (the New Covenant Sabbath), to Wednesday night, or any other day of the week? Since when does God exalt Christmas Day over even one of His weekly Lord's Days (which are His true and only "holy days")? Of course, the answer to all these questions is, "Never!"
By the mega-"churches'" decision not to have their "services" on Sunday, December 25, they betray some ugly, but perhaps not always well-known truths about themselves. What has happened, for instance, to their alleged concern for "seekers," (assuming such souls even exist--which is highly unlikely)? Are they to leave their beloved seekers out in the cold, on Christmas morning, while they enjoy sweet and warm times with their families, in their houses?
If you have ever been tempted to envy mega-"churches" because of their wonderful marketing tools and methods, by which they bring in thousands of people--that day needs to come to an end. You need to sincerely pity them, and do what you can to reach the poor souls who are starving in their midst, with the gospel of God's grace.
The days of the mega-"church" are undoubtedly numbered. The warts are just too obvious. Let us be preparing our churches to minister to many people who will be coming to us, from them.
PS: This web article helped spark this blog: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,177908,00.html
Tuesday, December 06, 2005
Good and Bad Patriarchalism
You have heard of "good" and "bad" cholesterol; right? Well, now you have heard of good and bad "patriarchalism." Patriarchalism is, at base, the teaching and practice of "father-rule." As you can imagine, this concept can put forth either a pretty, or an ugly face. God's provision of ecclesiocentricity, again, comes to the rescue, through the blood and merits of Jesus Christ--as He works through His church.
Unfortunately, in a fallen and decrepit world, bad patriarchalism is more likely to show itself, before the good form comes along (as a corrective).
Bad patriarchalism typically makes the father of a family the "god." No one can tell this person what to do: no elders in a church, no civil authorities in a culture, not even the true and Almighty God in heaven. This fake "father god" must be worshipped, and no one can gainsay him.
Good patriarchalism works this way: it recognizes that the Ultimate Father is in heaven, and that He reigns as the true God. Then, it perceives that the Lord has so ordained His world that He delegates authority to subordinate fathers. The first line of these fathers are the elders in the church. The second line are the "fathers" in the civil government; and the fathers in the homes of families.
When God is contending for souls of people, He works through the church fathers. When God is punishing evildoers in society, He works through the civil fathers. When God is establishing homes, He works through the family's fathers. (This latter group either has the blessing of the church fathers [in the case of Christians]; or not, in the case of others.)
Unfortunately, in a fallen and decrepit world, bad patriarchalism is more likely to show itself, before the good form comes along (as a corrective).
Bad patriarchalism typically makes the father of a family the "god." No one can tell this person what to do: no elders in a church, no civil authorities in a culture, not even the true and Almighty God in heaven. This fake "father god" must be worshipped, and no one can gainsay him.
Good patriarchalism works this way: it recognizes that the Ultimate Father is in heaven, and that He reigns as the true God. Then, it perceives that the Lord has so ordained His world that He delegates authority to subordinate fathers. The first line of these fathers are the elders in the church. The second line are the "fathers" in the civil government; and the fathers in the homes of families.
When God is contending for souls of people, He works through the church fathers. When God is punishing evildoers in society, He works through the civil fathers. When God is establishing homes, He works through the family's fathers. (This latter group either has the blessing of the church fathers [in the case of Christians]; or not, in the case of others.)
Saturday, December 03, 2005
How Ecclesiocentricity works in a Family
You might be thinking, after reading some of these posts, "Well, wait a minute. I have always heard that God would have me put my family first, before everything else. And here you come, propounding this view that the church is to have the priority. How do I reconcile these
things?"
I'm glad you asked. These are good queries.
What will follow is a demonstration of how ecclesiocentricity essentially works in the context of a typically traditional family. Assuming that all the family members are baptized members in good standing in a local church, the father of this family would view his wife as his first and primary "disciple." He would consider her a fellow church member, a wife, and a co-laborer in the gospel, and in the family. The wife would view her husband as her initial head (in the church), recognizing that her husband also has headship over him, in the eldership of the church, (which also serves her as a headship covering, too). The children in the family would be the parents' first line of "disciples" in the church. Though they are family, they are not conceived of outside the context of the church. The children would see their parents as their first line of authority in the church, (though they are also under the authority of church officers, too).
So, a truly Christian family cannot and does not even exist apart from the context of the church. To imagine such, it would matter not how religious, zealous, or passionate they were--they would not be a Christian family. It might be a nice family, a big family, a well-ordered family, a well-behaved family--but not a "Christian" family.
things?"
I'm glad you asked. These are good queries.
What will follow is a demonstration of how ecclesiocentricity essentially works in the context of a typically traditional family. Assuming that all the family members are baptized members in good standing in a local church, the father of this family would view his wife as his first and primary "disciple." He would consider her a fellow church member, a wife, and a co-laborer in the gospel, and in the family. The wife would view her husband as her initial head (in the church), recognizing that her husband also has headship over him, in the eldership of the church, (which also serves her as a headship covering, too). The children in the family would be the parents' first line of "disciples" in the church. Though they are family, they are not conceived of outside the context of the church. The children would see their parents as their first line of authority in the church, (though they are also under the authority of church officers, too).
So, a truly Christian family cannot and does not even exist apart from the context of the church. To imagine such, it would matter not how religious, zealous, or passionate they were--they would not be a Christian family. It might be a nice family, a big family, a well-ordered family, a well-behaved family--but not a "Christian" family.
Friday, December 02, 2005
Friendly Ecclesiocentricity
Sometimes the battle for hearts and souls can get kind of ugly, and passionate. Here's another dimension to consider: the church is really the best place for you to be. If you're walking with God, rejoice in His favor. If you're sinning against God, go there and get the correction and reproof you need. If you're not sure what to believe, find out, from God's officers in the church.
When you have all the trump cards, you do not have to be skittish, or worried. And that is the condition with God's church: she holds all the aces; and she is in a position to help you.
Is the church for everybody? In a very real sense, it is. If you are sincere in your faith, this will be manifested. If you are not, this will come to everyone's attention, too.
In the end, there is *nothing* too difficult for the church to handle. The reason for this is because of the fact that her "Head," the Lord Jesus Christ, is the King of kings, and the Lord of lords.
Trust God, that He knows what is best for you; and then submit yourself to all of His ordinances, viz. preaching, baptism, the Lord's Supper, and discipline--as they are found in Christ's church.
When you have all the trump cards, you do not have to be skittish, or worried. And that is the condition with God's church: she holds all the aces; and she is in a position to help you.
Is the church for everybody? In a very real sense, it is. If you are sincere in your faith, this will be manifested. If you are not, this will come to everyone's attention, too.
In the end, there is *nothing* too difficult for the church to handle. The reason for this is because of the fact that her "Head," the Lord Jesus Christ, is the King of kings, and the Lord of lords.
Trust God, that He knows what is best for you; and then submit yourself to all of His ordinances, viz. preaching, baptism, the Lord's Supper, and discipline--as they are found in Christ's church.
Friday, November 25, 2005
Ecclesiocentricity and the Salvation of the Family
Many earnest people today are very concerned about the future of the family. Many of these people are Christians, others are Muslims, others are agnostic or otherwise professedly irreligious.
Many efforts are being put forward to "save" the home and the family. Some propose that the homeschool movement is the hope for the reclaiming of the family's rightful place in society, and for its redemption. Other people have other answers.
But ironically, the family's *only* hope is right under its nose, and it is often neglected. If the home is to be saved, the church must do it. Nothing else: not huddled individual families seeking to stave off the evil world; not the government's best efforts to help the family; not any educational system--but only Jesus Christ, through His church, can "redeem" the home.
Why is this? Doesn't this seem strange? After all, isn't the church generally perceived as weak, and (by some) regarded as the family's "enemy"?
The reason is because God has so ordained it to be this way. The family does not possess the redemptive virtue of Christ's atonement, in and of itself. It (the family) is not given the sacraments of the church (baptism and the Lord's Supper). The family's hope is not derived from itself, or the state--but only from the church.
So there you have it. Do you love your family? Do you want it to thrive into the future generations? Then, don't teach them that their culture must be one of homeschooling (for instance). Teach them to love God's church. There, they will grow to sincerely love God's Son.
Many efforts are being put forward to "save" the home and the family. Some propose that the homeschool movement is the hope for the reclaiming of the family's rightful place in society, and for its redemption. Other people have other answers.
But ironically, the family's *only* hope is right under its nose, and it is often neglected. If the home is to be saved, the church must do it. Nothing else: not huddled individual families seeking to stave off the evil world; not the government's best efforts to help the family; not any educational system--but only Jesus Christ, through His church, can "redeem" the home.
Why is this? Doesn't this seem strange? After all, isn't the church generally perceived as weak, and (by some) regarded as the family's "enemy"?
The reason is because God has so ordained it to be this way. The family does not possess the redemptive virtue of Christ's atonement, in and of itself. It (the family) is not given the sacraments of the church (baptism and the Lord's Supper). The family's hope is not derived from itself, or the state--but only from the church.
So there you have it. Do you love your family? Do you want it to thrive into the future generations? Then, don't teach them that their culture must be one of homeschooling (for instance). Teach them to love God's church. There, they will grow to sincerely love God's Son.
The Kingdom vs. the Family
Family is a great blessing of God. This blog site is not designed to in any way denigrate the family; but rather to understand it, in its proper context. Anyone who knows me, knows how I love my wife, my daughter, my parents, my sisters, and other family members.
But family, like any other good and God-given gift, can be, and often is idolatarized, (or made into a false god).
It is very interesting that you will not find a harsher critic of those who worship the family than the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. And there is good reason for this: He knew (and knows) full well that sinners are very apt to worship their families, and to put them ahead of God and the kingdom of grace (as it is expressed in His church).
Think with me of some of the statements Jesus Christ, the God-Man, made; and consider whether or not He pandered to the idolatry of the home. . . .
Lk. 9:60-62: "Jesus said to him, 'Let the dead bury their own dead, but you go and preach the kingdom of God.' And another also said, 'Lord, I will follow You, but let me first go and bid them farewell who are at my house.' But Jesus said to him, 'No one, having put his hand to the plow, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.'"
Lk. 14:26: "If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple."
So, you can see that Jesus Christ makes no bones about it. He and His church must come first. Family makes a great community; but it makes a lousy deity.
But family, like any other good and God-given gift, can be, and often is idolatarized, (or made into a false god).
It is very interesting that you will not find a harsher critic of those who worship the family than the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. And there is good reason for this: He knew (and knows) full well that sinners are very apt to worship their families, and to put them ahead of God and the kingdom of grace (as it is expressed in His church).
Think with me of some of the statements Jesus Christ, the God-Man, made; and consider whether or not He pandered to the idolatry of the home. . . .
Lk. 9:60-62: "Jesus said to him, 'Let the dead bury their own dead, but you go and preach the kingdom of God.' And another also said, 'Lord, I will follow You, but let me first go and bid them farewell who are at my house.' But Jesus said to him, 'No one, having put his hand to the plow, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.'"
Lk. 14:26: "If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple."
So, you can see that Jesus Christ makes no bones about it. He and His church must come first. Family makes a great community; but it makes a lousy deity.
"Super-homers" and Sixties Hippies
My definition of "super-homers" are those people who believe virtually everything should revolve around the home, and the family.
Super-homers, typically, want to be born at home, learn at home, work at home, "worship" (as a "church") at home, and die at home. Super-homers seem to confine their sphere of authority to themselves, with the father being "god," the mother and children, the "god's" underlings.
It strikes me that there is an intriguing similarity between super-homers and sixties hippies. Both of them abhor and question all authority, (except their own). There is a suspicion about anyone who does not fit their mold. And there is a strong "counter-culture"--that though imitating the genuine call of Christian heavenly citizenship (even on earth)--yet falls woefully short of God's truth.
Some super-homers are professing Christians, others are not. The same might be said of many sixties hippies.
Both of these groups need what everyone else needs, too: that being the church. There, they would learn that they are not the end-all of their existences; and that they are happier bound to, and bonded with other people.
This is another example of where the church is key to a sane, balanced, and fulfilling life. Only from within it will you find the King of Life, the Lord Jesus Christ.
Super-homers, typically, want to be born at home, learn at home, work at home, "worship" (as a "church") at home, and die at home. Super-homers seem to confine their sphere of authority to themselves, with the father being "god," the mother and children, the "god's" underlings.
It strikes me that there is an intriguing similarity between super-homers and sixties hippies. Both of them abhor and question all authority, (except their own). There is a suspicion about anyone who does not fit their mold. And there is a strong "counter-culture"--that though imitating the genuine call of Christian heavenly citizenship (even on earth)--yet falls woefully short of God's truth.
Some super-homers are professing Christians, others are not. The same might be said of many sixties hippies.
Both of these groups need what everyone else needs, too: that being the church. There, they would learn that they are not the end-all of their existences; and that they are happier bound to, and bonded with other people.
This is another example of where the church is key to a sane, balanced, and fulfilling life. Only from within it will you find the King of Life, the Lord Jesus Christ.
Discipleship and Ecclesiocentricity
There are so many books and materials dealing with discipleship. But, what is discipleship, at base? It is the same thing today, as it was when the Lord Jesus walked the earth: being with Christ, and learning from Him, (so as to be effective in ministry and life).
How is this done today? Nowhere but in the CHURCH of the Lord Jesus Christ. A "discipler"--be he a pastor, elder, deacon, or a member of the church (man or woman)--starts the discipling process by seeing to it that the "disciple" is in the church's Lord's Day worship service. Typically, this would be the AM service, as the initial contact point.
The next step in Christian discipleship is to encourage the disciple to be in the PM worship service on Sunday, (if your church is happy enough to have one).
From there, all the rest of discipleship flows.
But, do you see where there can be, and is no true discipleship when the person you are seeking to work with is not sitting at Jesus' feet, in His house, on His day?
Things are not so complex. It's all really pretty simple.
How is this done today? Nowhere but in the CHURCH of the Lord Jesus Christ. A "discipler"--be he a pastor, elder, deacon, or a member of the church (man or woman)--starts the discipling process by seeing to it that the "disciple" is in the church's Lord's Day worship service. Typically, this would be the AM service, as the initial contact point.
The next step in Christian discipleship is to encourage the disciple to be in the PM worship service on Sunday, (if your church is happy enough to have one).
From there, all the rest of discipleship flows.
But, do you see where there can be, and is no true discipleship when the person you are seeking to work with is not sitting at Jesus' feet, in His house, on His day?
Things are not so complex. It's all really pretty simple.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
