Confessions of a Recovering Evanjellyfish »
Sunday, April 20th, 2008Hello, my name is Brian and I am an Evanjellyfish. Yes, that’s right, though I have been reformed now for 15 years, I still have to live life one day at a time lest I fall back into my gutless, spineless, old ways. My story is not all that unusual; like most new Christians I started out on the simple stuff, Chick tracts, Moody press, the Four Spiritual Laws, you know the sort of thing. After a while, I wasn’t getting the same buzz so I started doing Schofield’s notes on a regular basis. Then, before I knew it, I was mainlining Hal Lindsey. I finally realized I had hit rock bottom when I OD’d one weekend in an orgy of Salem Kirban 666 novels. At that point, I knew I had to get clean and thus began my recovery. But even today, I have to make sure that I keep the newspaper far away from the book of Revelation.
My recovery was actually helped in an odd sort of way by attending an accredited Evanjellyfish college. Oh sure, they hated fundamentalists and they laughed at my prophecy charts, but for all their academic respectability, they were still Evanjellyfish; just a different sort. Where the Fundies tried to escape from the world, the broad Evanjellyfish I met in college wanted to accommodate themselves to it. No humanist idea was too outrageous to be accepted as long as the professor opened the class in prayer and baptized his heresies with an occasional Bible verse. Like all Evanjellyfish, no one, professor or student alike, had the guts to stand-up and defend a Biblical view of history, art, science, etc. Instead, we were treated to the warmed over dregs of humanist nonsense from the past decade, touted as the cutting edge in Christian scholarship. But this in God’s grace proved to be the means of my recovery. As I looked at the gutless wonders that Christians had become, their flirtation with apostasy, their irrelevance to anyone and anything outside their own personal peace and prosperity, I longed for something different.
For example; Ron Sider was the most popular author on campus, avidly read and embraced as the definition of true Christian discipleship. But it was obvious to me that this turkey was just another socialist wolf from the sixties, tempering his liberation theology with a thin veneer of Evanjellyfish respectability. I knew he was wrong, but at the time didn’t have the Scriptures to refute him. Thus in God’s providence I was set up perfectly for David Chilton’s book “Productive Christians in An Age of Guilt Manipulators” when it finally found its way into my hands. Oh, I rejected the predestination and postmillennialism at first, but I was hooked now on something much more powerful than the retreatist rapture nonsense I had once been addicted to. Here was a book that had BIBLICAL answers. And here, was a form of Christianity that had some backbone!
But that was later. In the meantime, God used the Evanjellyfish college I attended to make me grow a spine despite myself. It was either fight for the faith, or succumb to religious irrelevance. One of my first classes was in speech communication wherein the professor ridiculed my statement in class that the Bible is the final authority in matters of faith and practice. Being 24 years old, married and paying for my own college education out of money I had earned and saved during six years of active duty military service, I was not about to be cowed by some hippie reject who was not all that older than myself, simply because he had a degree from a liberal seminary (needing a haircut was the least of his problems). I was PAYING for this expensive education and so instead of backing down as my ALL classmates did, I stood toe to toe with him and asked, “Look, if you don’t accept this school’s doctrinal position on the inerrancy and infallibility of Scripture, what are you doing teaching here?” He couldn’t answer of course. But he could give me a “C+” in speech, a heavy blow for a man destined to make his leaving preaching the Word. Of course it didn’t help that I once snorted with disgust and walked out of his class when he required his students to give each other sensual “back” rubs to foster intimacy through tactile “communication.” But I will give him credit for this, he taught me not to suffer fools gladly. And I began with him.
When my fellow students laughed at me in psychology classes for daring to even mention the name “Jay Adams” I searched the Scriptures and asked pointed questions about how God’s view of the human condition matched up with the humanist nonsense of Freud, Skinner and Rogers. When my theology professors waxed eloquent on the great contributions of Karl Barth, I asked why we should adopt his existential nonsense in place of historic Biblical orthodoxy. When my church history class required reading text-books that called evangelicals an intellectual rear guard action that could not possibly hold the allegiance of modern men, I demanded to know why we were forced to read such tripe, (causing one older professor to literally have an apoplectic fit in class).
My recovery began you see not just when I went cold turkey off Dispensationalism, but also as I became aware that the broad Evanjellyfish worldview was nothing more than humanist offal. Broad Evanjellyfish Christianity forced me back to the Scriptures and my real education came at night, when I compared the puerile mush I was fed in class every day to the real red meat of the Word of God. And because the school depended upon the donations of parents who really did believe the historic Christian Faith, the professors had to put up with my daily barrage of questions concerning how what we were being taught squared with the Bible. They didn’t like it, but they were backed into a corner.
But it was seminary where my recovery was finally completed. The Broad Evanjellyfish institution I first attended, though it retained an orthodox confession, was well down the road to apostasy. The battle began again with my very first class. The syllabus for the introductory course on the New Testament stated that our goal was to learn how to use redaction and form criticism so that we would be able to discern the authentic words of Christ from the inauthentic ones. I raised my hand and asked if I could get advanced standing because I had a red-letter edition of the Bible. The Professor said I didn’t have the right attitude. I said he didn’t have the right theology. He said I should take another class because I was destined not to succeed in this one. I agreed, clapping my shoes together as I walked out the door to shake the dust off my feet. You see, though not yet reformed, I had started developing a little backbone. I didn’t yet know what God wanted me to be, but I did know that it wasn’t supposed to look like those wimpy, acculturated, accommodated, girly-men who were my professors.
Another class that same semester was taught by a professor who had authored a recent article in the Journal of Evangelical Theology defending the Deutero-pauline hypothesis and pseudopigraphic authorship (that the Apostle Paul did not necessarily write all the letters ascribed to him). I read the article one day while killing some time in the library, waiting for my wife to get off work. I went to the professor personally, and asked him some hard questions about his beliefs. He really did accept Higher Criticism as a necessary hermeneutic. A few days later, at a meeting of the entire first year class with the dean to discuss the seminary’s approach to theological education (a number of people had been complaining in private about the apostasy of some of the professors and eventually the rumors of student discontent had reached the administration), we were asked if there were any questions. Even though people had been complaining in private for weeks, nobody said a word. Finally, I raised my hand and said I was concerned about an apparent discrepancy between the school’s official doctrinal stance, and what was actually believed by the faculty and taught in the classroom. The dean, a personal friend, challenged me saying, “Brian, there is NO discrepancy. You have not been here long enough even to SEE such a discrepancy.”
I then quoted from the article written by the professor denying essentially both the inerrancy and infallibility of the Scriptures. The entire meeting immediately broke up in howls of outrage that a first year student had the audacity to attack the professional reputation of a respected professor with impeccable academic credentials from such prestigious institutions as Harvard Divinity School and Union seminary.
Later on that week, another professor, one who had not been at the meeting and whom I had never before met stopped me in the halls. “I just wanted to tell you, DON’T ever take one of my classes. You’ll never pass.” The seminary’s registrar then verbally assaulted me when I went in to sign up for the next quarter’s classes, insisting that someone had put me up to destroying this professor’s reputation because, obviously, first year students never read theological journals and therefore there must be a hidden agenda. I responded that simply by looking at where the man had received his graduate degrees should be enough to tell anyone with half a brain that he was a theological liberal. The female registrar literally squealed in outrage that I should darken a man’s reputation simply because of the schools he attended. I responded, “If you lay down with dogs, don’t be surprised if you get up with fleas.” I left her purple faced and grasping for breath (I don’t think I gave her a heart attack, but one can always hope).
Evanjellyfish may have no backbone, but they do have a sting. I went from graduating with a 3.8 GPA in college while doing a double major, completing my entire degree in two years, to a 2.0 GPA my first semester in seminary. It seems the hundred-yard walk from the college campus to the seminary buildings had a serious effect on basic academic skills. Or maybe there was another dynamic at work?
Oh, I could go on. I could talk about the marriage and family-counseling course that required us to read lesbian pornography (so that we could understand “women’s” issues). I could mention the Old Testament professor who left after being rebuked for requiring his classes to actually READ the Old Testament instead of just studying the documentary hypothesis (i.e., that the Torah was actually a series of myths and legends edited by at least four different scribes). I could talk about the preaching classes where we were forbidden to ever tell anyone to ever do anything in a sermon (such as preach against abortion), because if we spoke the commandments of God, it might make people feel guilty. I could discuss with some “enthusiasm” the Christian ethics class that taught each man to do whatever was right in his own eyes. I could mention the nasty notes from fellow students in my mail-box who demanded that I stop asking the professor such hard questions; or the even nastier unsigned notes that warned me to leave seminary before my professional career was ended before it began.
This is Evanjellyfish education at both the undergraduate and graduate level. They have a form of godliness but they deny the power thereof. They are humanist slaves, intimidated by the dream of academic acceptability and willing to sell their Christian heritage for the crumbs that fall from the God-hater’s table.
But as a result, my recovery was complete. When first brought to faith in Christ, Jesus changed my life. His Word purified my soul, awakened my conscience, illumined my mind, gave me hope in darkness and commanded that I submit every area of life to Him. And if the Evanjellyfish I met were less than what Jesus said they were to be, at least I knew that there was a rock on which my faith was built, a rock that could not be moved by the passing whims of foolish men. Because God gave me a love for the Scriptures, the apostasy of modern Evanjellyfish academics simply drove me back to try to understand God’s own revelation of Himself. I became reformed, not because I read a good book here and there, or because I followed the teachings of a great preacher or sat under the ministry of a godly pastor. I became reformed because I loved God’s Word and the reformed faith was the only system that was consistent with that Word.
The road to recovery from Broad Evanjellyfish Christianity does not begin by learning how to be nasty, critical, cynical or obnoxious. It simply requires loving the Scriptures, being submitted to their authority and then willing to stand up for them when they are under attack. I praise God for the tiny handful of professors who taught orthodoxy in these unorthodox institutions, even if the best of them did not have the guts to expose the corruption. I weep for the handful of godly students who stuck it out year after year, getting their degrees, managing to retain some semblance of their faith, even though as a consequence their life and ministry were blunted. But I really have to wonder about the parents who sacrificed so much to send their children to such schools. What were they thinking? Didn’t they know what was going on? Didn’t they care? Even more I wonder about the annual donors, who were more concerned about how well the basketball team was doing, than the message being taught.
Evanjellyfish Christianity is a disease, some think an incurable one. But my Lord raises the dead and heals the sick and breathes new life into even the wickedest hearts. What He did for me, He can and will one day do for our Evanjellyfish brothers and sisters hooked on pietism. However, before you can recover, you have got to admit you have a problem. Before you can grow a backbone, you have to admit that you don’t have one. And it is the Law of God that will give spineless Evanjellyfish Christians that backbone. It is my sincerest prayer that God will soon grant grace to all those brothers still caught in the sickness of modern, American, Evanjellyfish “Christianity.”
Restoring Christian Relationships »
Sunday, April 20th, 2008Proverbs on Resolving Conflicts
Rev. Brian M. Abshire
Conflicts have been eating at the Christian Church since the time of the Lord Jesus (remember John and James angling for power?). Since none of us have yet been perfected, all of us will sin against God and each other. Therefore, conflicts are inevitable. Ideally, impartial church courts, governed by wise and compassionate elders, ought to help us resolve conflicts appropriately. Sadly, not all of us have decent churches. But good church government is predicated on good self-government. If our churches aren’t doing what they are supposed to do, could it be because we are not doing what we are supposed to do? If we cannot make God’s principles, statutes, commandments and judgments work in our personal lives, our families and our churches, then God will not give His blessing to our efforts in the social and political areas. And let’s be honest, the average Church suffers the worst sorts of bruised egos, constant bickering, back stabbing, petty politicking and vicious infighting. Judgment begins with the household of God. We have to start cleaning up our own acts, and we have to start now.
We’ve discussed the problem before, but now it’s time to start looking at the biblical solution. Therefore, the following principles from the book of Proverbs are offered as a primer on resolving conflicts Biblically.
First, whenever in a conflict situation, we need to remember Proverbs 28:26; “He who trusts in his own heart is a fool, but he who walks wisely will be delivered.” Our hearts are deceitful and desperately wicked (Jer 17:9). There is a “natural” tendency to blame others for the problem (going all the way back to Adam in the garden). Some of us seem to have a pathological need to be right and try every trick in the lawyer’s handbook to convince ourselves and others that “I’ve been wronged!” But our hearts will deceive us. Often, the situation is not as clear cut as we think it is. Usually, the other side has a point. We need to learn how to see things from the other guy’s perspective. And besides, is being “right” really all that important? What benefit to win an argument here, only to be judged by God at the Great White Throne? Proverbs 21:2 “Every man’s way is right in his own eyes, but the LORD weighs the hearts.” Simply because we think we are right, doesn’t mean we are right. And what folly it is to lose God’s blessing over a trivial matter! Or even worse, how about people who are actually right, but they are right in the wrong way, with the wrong attitude (1 Cor 8:1ff)?
Therefore Christians need to develop a gentle and contrite heart, open to rebuke, and criticism from others, lest we harden ourselves to the Spirit’s conviction. Isaiah 66:2 says “But to this one I will look, to him who is humble and contrite of spirit, and who trembles at My word.”
A second principle of resolving conflicts biblically comes from Proverbs 3:3 “Do not let kindness and truth leave you; bind them around your neck, write them on the tablet of your heart. So you will find favor and good repute in the sight of God and man.” Both kindness and truth are important. The two go together. Sadly in this age when truth is so regularly compromised, one is either “kind” or “truthful.” This is an unbliblical dichotomy. Kindness is the setting by which the beauty of truth is displayed. Proverbs 25:11-12 “Like apples of gold in settings of silver is a word spoken in right circumstances. Like an earring of gold and an ornament of fine gold is a wise reprover to a listening ear.” Notice the result, “favor and good repute.” Sometimes, when we run into opposition, especially when standing for the truth, the cause might not have been the truth, but a lack of kindness. Thus it could be not our stand that gets us into trouble, but the way that we take that stand. If a person knows that our intention is to love them, support them, assist them, come along side and help them, if we have demonstrated repeatedly a humble spirit in our relations with them, served them (Mark 10:45) then they are more likely to receive a rebuke when necessary. There is never an excuse for being bitter, scathing, short tempered, harsh or nasty with each other. It’s sin.
Proverbs 9:7-9 says “He who corrects a scoffer gets dishonor for himself, and he who reproves a wicked man gets insults for himself. Do not reprove a scoffer, lest he hate you, reprove a wise man, and he will love you. Give instruction to a wise man, and he will be still wiser, teach a righteous man, and he will increase his learning.” If we won’t take criticism or correction we are fools, pure and simple. Yet all of us know too many “Christians” who cannot handle criticism on any level. And often, the worst offenders are our leaders. You know the sort, they fly into a rage if questioned, they intimidate everyone around them. They effectively isolate themselves from any kind of reproof. But since we value their gifts more than their character, we continue to support them, encourage them, work for them. Which is worse, being a fool, or following one?
A third principle from Proverbs is found in 10:19 says, “When there are many words, transgression is unavoidable, but he who restrains his lips is wise.” In a conflict, many of us desperately want to state our case as loudly and as often (and to as many people) as we can. Sometimes, we need to learn how to stay quiet. Proverbs 17:28 says “Even a fool, when he keeps silent, is considered wise; when he closes his lips, he is counted prudent.” (The humanistic parallel is “Better to remain silent and be thought a fool, then open one’s mouth and remove all doubt”). The more we open our mouth, the more opportunity we have to put our feet firmly in it. Instead of stating our case (or rehashing it in our minds) we need to learn how to listen. God may be trying to tell us something, But you can’t listen, if you’re talking.
This is especially important when the conflict is between an individual and one of God’s authorities. Remember Peter’s instructions to wives on how to win disobedient husbands (1 Ptr 3:1ff)? Since they are in a subordinate position, sometimes their only weapon is trust in the sovereignty of God. Knowing when not to say something may be as important as what to say. Sometimes an authority (i.e., a pastor, elder, husband, parent, boss, etc.) is dead wrong. Restraining the lips, biting back that critical word and letting the authority find out for himself that he was wrong, is sometimes the only option. It is not a matter of peace at any price, but the acknowledgment that God is sovereign. In submitting to our authorities, it is our duty to bring sin and failure to their attention. But sometimes, rather than a direct rebuke, a searching question might be the better tactic, giving them an opportunity to find out for themselves what they have done wrong.
Proverbs 25:15 says “By forbearance a ruler may be persuaded, and a soft tongue breaks the bone.” There are definite tactics required when confronting authority with their sin. A direct, head to head knock down argument is seldom appropriate. God demands respect for those He has placed in authority over us. The Apostle Paul apologized for speaking badly of the High Priest, even though the Priest had ordered an unlawful beating!
Proverbs 11:13 provides a basic fundamental principle that is almost universally violated by Christians. “He who goes about as a talebearer reveals secrets, but he who is trustworthy conceals a matter.” Yet, how often whenever someone has a complaint against another, the first thing so many do is try to recruit others for our “side.” We want the approval of men rather than God. And therefore, we reveal secrets. We bear tales. We talk to anyone and everyone about the problem; except the people actually involved. Here’s a simple life principle: if you want to get people really mad, then make their mistakes public by talking behind their backs. Not only does this make it harder for others to acknowledge their error, but like cancer, it spreads frustration, anger and bitterness throughout the body. Proverbs 25:23 “The north wind brings forth rain, and a backbiting tongue, an angry countenance.” There is a cause and effect relationship here. Furthermore, many of us listen to these bad reports. We forget Proverbs 18:17 “The first to plead his case seems just, until another comes and examines him.” We take an unholy delight in hearing bad things about others. And a minor conflict escalates into a major conflict.
Instead of spreading a complaint against another, (or listening to one) Proverbs 13:3 requires “The one who guards his mouth preserves his life; the one who opens wide his lips comes to ruin.” Too many Christians go at each other like cannibalistic piranhas over the silliest issues. But why not just let some things go? OK, your brother offended you. He sinned. Surprise surprise, he’s a sinner saved by grace, just like you. Is the issue worth getting upset, angry, gossiping about, etc.? Proverbs 17:9 is appropriate here: “He who covers a transgression seeks love, but he who repeats a matter separates intimate friends.” In the grand scheme of God’s omnipotent plan, is this something that’s really important? Every conflict involves a cost and we need to learn how to “pick the hill carefully you want to die on.” Discretion says that not every battle needs be fought at this time, at this place. Grace is allowing God to work on someone, at His time. Love is not breaking fellowship over personalities or hurt feelings. And it’s time to start calling this kind of backbiting foolishness just what it is, sin, and God’s people must repent of it.
Proverbs 21:23 “He who guards his mouth and his tongue, guards his soul from troubles.” But there are some brothers, God bless ‘em, who seem to take a positive delight in being cantankerous, critical and nasty. They’re looking for an excuse to fight with someone, anyone, over anything! And often (not always) the more solidly reformed they are, the more unpleasant they are to be around. They have this wonderful tool called “Reformed Theology” and they just don’t know what to do with it. They’re like a little boy with a hatchet, chopping up the furniture because it’s so much fun to see things go “splinter!” Likewise, we end up cutting each other up, as the world goes to hell around us. No wonder the Christian church is ridiculed. We so often act so ridiculous!
A sixth principle of resolving conflicts is self evident to everyone except someone red faced in the middle of an argument. Proverbs 15:1-2 “A gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger. The tongue of the wise makes knowledge acceptable, but the mouth of fools spouts folly.” Here, is the solution to 95% of the conflict and confrontation problems I counsel. If we could just learn how to speak gently with each other, we could resolve most problems before our pride and arrogance blows them up into major conflicts. If instead of coming out with that snapping, biting word, and instead, learn to keep our voice calm, our words sweet, our attitude humble, most conflicts would die on the vine, and even the most recalcitrant won. But we allow our anger to feed on the others, which feeds on ours, which feeds on theirs… ad nauseam. Proverbs 30:33 says, “For the churning of milk produces butter, and pressing the nose brings forth blood; so the churning of anger produces strife.” Christians need to learn how to stop the spiral. Some of us still use schoolyard ethics, “but he hit me first” and therefore think we are justified in hitting back. But God says, “Do not return evil for evil or insult for insult, but giving a blessing instead…” (1 Ptr 3:9). Anger is a motivational emotion God gives us to resolve a problem. It is not an excuse for strife. Our task is always to speak that which builds up, never to tear down (Eph 4:28-29).
A gentle answer is one that respects the other, that comes from a humble heart, that believes in another and will not “receive a bad report” about them. It is the manner we project and the words we use that determines whether anger is stirred up, or wrath is turned away. Expressions of affection and respect in a gentle and kind tone will do much to make one’s rebuke acceptable. This principle works, even if we don’t get it right! I remember an almost violent conflict I once had with my boss at the time, a Christian leader known for his firm manner. While I no longer remember what we were arguing about (except that I am sure I was right and he was wrong; that’s a joke!), I do recall thinking it was time to step outside and roll up the shirt sleeves, when Proverbs 15:1-2 came to mind. I was so angry, I was still shouting when I said, “I love you like a father and I deeply appreciate all the years of friendship and guidance you’ve given me and you’re my boss and I’ll darn well shut up now and do what you say.” The silence that followed my bellow lasted an eternity. I then noticed my brother’s cheeks getting wet. After that, I didn’t see so well (must have gotten something in my eyes or something). We ended up hugging, expressing respect and love for each other. Giving a gentle answer (even in a less than gentle way!) was enough to break through the conflict so we could talk reasonably.
Hence Proverbs 16:23-24 “The heart of the wise teaches his mouth, and adds persuasiveness to his lips. Pleasant words are a honeycomb, sweet to the soul and healing to the bones.” The sweetness here is defined as pleasant words, which heal. The purpose of confrontation is always to bring about healing, rather than just condemnation (or to demonstrate that we are right), (Gal 6:1ff). Therefore no matter how badly our brothers have blown it, we have a duty to make it as easy for them as we can, to repent of their error and get back on track.
Proverbs 18:13 says, “He who gives an answer before he hears, it is folly and shame to him.” I paraphrase this as “Did you get all the facts before you tore them to pieces?” And the application is simple; before condemning, ask questions. I am amazed at how often Christians fight over such stupid things. But because they are more interested in opening their mouths rather than their ears, they fail to understand that they often want the same thing. Seriously! I’ve seen people scream at each other, and they were both saying the same thing! (Of course, both were rebuked, firmly, for shouting). James 1:19-20 is clear, we need to be slow to speak and slower to anger. The anger of men does not accomplish the righteousness of God.
Proverbs 29:1 “A man who hardens his neck after much reproof will suddenly be broken beyond remedy.” Some Christians just do not get it. Though a quick wit, an acerbic tongue and a condescending attitude may win arguments, they break fellowship. Often God disciplines such people with emotional, physical or even financial pain. But some people will not listen. And eventually, God will judge them, their families, their churches and their ministries.
I firmly believe that in every conflict situation, no matter what the issue, God is primarily concerned with developing within us the character of Christ (Rms 8:28-29). He could build His kingdom very nicely without us, but He is building His Kingdom through building the character of His people (1 Ptr 2:4-5). Thus in His sovereignty, He often places us in positions where our sins are exposed and we are given constant opportunities to develop into the image of His Son. Furthermore, it is through our weakness that His glory is magnified (1 Cor 1:26-31). But until we can apply the Law in the little things in life, God will never entrust us with the greater things. Social transformation begins with personal reformation.
Attack of the Cannibalistic Vegetarian Sodomites »
Sunday, April 20th, 2008Rev. Brian M. Abshire
(Disclaimer: The following column contains graphic descriptions of extreme depravity, humanist perversion and irreverent humor. The explicit content is for purely educational purposes and any sensationalism, exploitation or gratuitous aspects is purely in the mind of the reader.)
I hate painting. I really do. And I only do it under protest. Recently my lovely wife pointed out that the mold on the basement walls had grown so large it was demanding voting rights and welfare benefits. She then sweetly inquired what I thought we should do about it. I tried saying that mold too were God’s creatures and had a right to a full and meaningful life. Besides, we might run afoul of some endangered species law. Elaine simply held up an article I had written on hunting and said, “Dearest, if you can shoot fuzzie little wild animals, surely, a big strong man like you can take dominion over the basement.”
So, armed with a spray bottle of bleach, brushes, rollers and six gallons of basement sealant paint I grudgingly walked down to the utility side of the basement. My ten year old had hung a sign over the door saying “Abandon Hope All Ye Who Enter Here,” while my seven year old clung to my legs saying, “Don’t go in there Daddy, you’ll never get out again” both grinning from here to here. Oh yeah, they’re real cards, are my kids. They inherited their mother’s looks, but their father’s sad sense of irreverent humor.
My nine-year-old daughter however, didn’t like her brothers taking the Mickey out of dear old Dad and said, “Daddy, can we help you paint?” Well, misery loves company, and remembering Tom Sawyer I replied, “Of course, you can, sweetheart. In fact you can all help, but this is a special job and it will cost you something.” Unfortunately, my kids are too well read (I knew there was a down side to home schooling) and wouldn’t buy it. However, the prospect of playing with all that paint, on all those walls, and doing it legally, ended up being enough incentive all by itself.
After a few hours of washing, scrubbing and disinfecting with bleach, the mold turned out to be a good Republican, easily covered by white wash. Over all, the painting went as well as could be expected, except that we should have thrown away the brushes and just let the five-year-old roll around. He managed to get covered with paint. (”Hey Daddy, look at me! I’m Casper!”)
All and all, it was good for my sanctification. At one point, I noticed a set of handprints on the wall. “OK, ” I roared,. “Who leaned against the wall?” For a moment, there was a pregnant silence, followed by all FOUR of the oldest kids slowly holding up their paint smeared hands!
Eventually, after finishing the first coat, I stumbled upstairs to my office, exhausted, drenching with sweat and glad to be able to get back to my computer and books (meanwhile, my long suffering wife was still downstairs, cleaning up the mess and mumbling something about a nunnery). It struck me that though painting the basement was a dirty, disgusting job, my wife was perfectly correct; it was also absolutely necessary. And in one sense, that basement is a microcosm of the task facing Christians today. The basement had once been painted, a whole generation ago. But decades of neglect had allowed a small problem to become a big one. If the walls had been washed with disinfectant once a year, the mold, mildew and alien life forms setting up colonies would never have had a chance to become established. But because I had abdicated responsibility, now the clean up work was far harder then it ought to have been. But now the dungeon was clean, bright and useable. All it took was some dedication, hard work (and four coats of paint!).
Sitting in my office thinking of these things, I turned on the Idiot Box to catch the late afternoon news while downloading my email. I wasn’t really paying much attention to the One Eyed God until I heard something about over-population, and that sparked my interest. It seems that inadvertently, the channel was tuned to one of those late afternoon talk/shock shows that specialize in the bizarre. (I say, “inadvertently, ” because I wouldn’t want to admit in public that I watch this kind of freak show intentionally.)
Too tired to reach for the remote control, and against my better judgment, I began watching the program a little more closely. It seems that the day’s episode dealt with a weird religious cult concerned about there being too many people in the world. As a solution, they recommended vegetarianism, suicide, sodomy and, grab your stomach, cannibalism. One man, dressed in a clerical collar, walked around with a rubber chicken crucified on a large cross. A really ugly woman was screeching about meat packers being modern day Nazi’s (later it turned out that the ugly woman was really a male transvestite).
The specific issue revolved around a young woman interested in joining the cult and her boyfriend’s attempts to discourage her. He failed; she was inducted into the cult and immediately dressed herself in a dominatrix outfit (and shame on you if you didn’t have to look that word up!). In the interest of “equal time” the program brought on a Christian little old lady who with tears in her eyes, told the cannibals that Jesus loved them too (personally speaking, I think He has a special place in Hell for them, right next to the abyss where talk show hosts are kept).
Now the host and the audience were having a wonderful time being outraged by these refugees from a psycho ward, but believe it or not, I found myself in sympathy with the cannibals. Both they and the audience began from the same basic assumptions; i.e., man is merely an animal, human freedom means doing just what each individual wants, there are no absolute moral judgments to be made, there is a genuine ecological crises coming that demands radical solutions, etc. While the audience didn’t like the cannibal’s conclusions, they shared the exact same premises; premises taught in every public school, State University, and highlighted nightly in all the “mainstream” media. There is no logical stopping place between what the premier academics of the past hundred years have been teaching and what the cannibals are proposing. If you grant the cannibals their premises, then logically, their solutions are not only reasonable, but in many respects, inevitable. The cannibals were simply more consistent, and more honest than the bland, middle American audience jeering and hooting at them.
If man is just another animal, and there is no moral difference between the two, and if humans have rights, then why not animals as well? And if eating animal meat is moral, why not eat the flesh of dead people? That way, people who want to eat meat can, without hurting all the poor little innocent animals. Isn’t it better than just burying all that good protein in the ground? (Well, actually there are good, medical reasons for not being a cannibal, but since when do facts ever enter into this kind of religious debate?). If there are no moral absolutes apart from the individual, why shouldn’t teenagers commit suicide when depressed and despondent? Who’s to say that they are wrong for killing themselves because they didn’t get a date for Friday night? And if there really are too many people in the world, and if there is no sovereign God whose Law reigns supreme, why shouldn’t you abort babies or encourage sodomy as an alternative to normal heterosexual relations?
The simple fact is, that the Cannibalistic, Vegetarian Sodomites are simply being epistemologically self-conscious modernists. They are just taking the next, logical step in the humanist attack on the sovereignty of God. Neither the audience, nor the holier than thou host, have any moral basis to criticize their position. They may choose not to adopt the same behaviors, but they have no basis to call them immoral. For both groups deny God and His Kingdom, and one is just a little more consistent in promoting the fruits of their rebellion than the other.
What neither group wants to realize is that you cannot have the fruit of Christian culture, without the root. The world before the gospel was a vicious, nasty place, filled with the most horrendous acts. The ancient Greeks exposed their children to be eaten by wild animals while extolling the benefits of pedophilia. The Romans raped and pillaged their way through the ancient Mediterranean world, enslaving everyone they met. The Celtic tribes in Europe butchered people like hogs in their worship of demonic forces. The Aztecs in the Americas sacrificed entire nations by ripping out people’s hearts in bloody worship of the sun. Even the charming Inuit people of North America left their parents on ice floes to be eaten by polar bears, or freeze to death in the Arctic weather. It was only with the coming of the gospel of Jesus Christ that concepts such as liberty, justice, and protection of the innocent became cultural norms.
It is one thing to read in history, about the last days of a decadent culture, just before God brings the hammer down. It is something different to actually experience it. You see, like the long neglected basement walls, Christians have failed to disinfect this culture. We have allowed the rot of humanism to grow and flourish in the dark, dank places while we went merrily on our way. And now, we’ve got a lot of work to do to clean up the mess and put things back to rights. Granted, the people we are talking about are kooks (and their bizarre beliefs, a form of street theater to “raise people’s consciousness” about their social agenda). But what is said today in jest is practiced tomorrow in sincerity. When a culture turns its back on God, He turns His back on them, allowing them to become foolish in their speculations, darkening their hearts, and giving their bodies over to impurity and judgment (cf. Rms 1:20ff). These are the people who will be running this culture for the foreseeable future. And we are the ones who let it all happen.
Do these wackos frighten me? No, they are pathetic little people, hardly to be taken seriously. They are mere footnotes in the history of the death of a culture. But they are a symptom of a much greater evil, the evil of a flourishing god-hating philosophy subsidized by Christian capital because we were too lazy to clean up the mess. And like the mold on a dark, dank, basement wall; they are something that needs to be scoured clean and washed away with all the other filth. But it will take a lot of work; dirty, tiring and unglamorous work, but absolutely necessary work unless we want the cannibals to win (for a time); and our children, and grandchildren, to grow up in their world.
There is a new world coming. God IS in control. He sits in the Heavens and laughs at the foolish schemes of wicked men (Psa 2:1ff). The suicides will kill themselves, the over-population nuts will abort their future, the sodomites will emasculate themselves and the cannibals will eat each other. Our destiny is to inherit the earth. The kingdoms of this world WILL become the kingdoms of our God and King. Our Great Commission is to DISCIPLE the nations, teaching them to obey Jesus as Lord (Matthew 28:19-20). Now all we have to do is stop messing around and start working at cleaning up this mess. God will bless.
Top Ten Steps to Building a Truly Christian Marriage »
Sunday, April 20th, 2008Rev. Brian M. Abshire
My wife Elaine and I just celebrated our 24th wedding anniversary. Without being too sappy or sentimental, I can say with all honesty that I am more in love with her today, than the day, we got married. Yes, we are sinners, saved by grace; yet, with all false modesty aside, I think our marriage has stood well the test of time.
Elaine and I are best friends, and prefer each other’s company to friends or family. We laugh a lot, often at each other, and like many old married couples, complete each other’s sentences (though I do wish she would stop telegraphing the punch line of my jokes!). We still like holding hands, and taking long drives where we can talk for hours without the disruption of phone calls or distractions of work around the house. And yes, we manage to regularly embarrass our six children with public displays of affection (”Daddy, YUCK! Do you HAVE to do that in front of us?”). And when times are tough, or things look bleak, each of us knows that there is one other person on this earth who will always stand by us, no matter what.
Now, not for a moment am I claiming that Elaine and I have a “perfect” marriage (no relationship with me as a partner could ever be called “perfect”!). But we do have one that works because from the beginning, we were both committed to submission to God. Thus, when we encountered trials, problems, frustrations, or temptations, we always, instinctively looked to the Scriptures for answers; and the answers always worked. But many Christians seem either to have never known, or never applied those principles and suffer the consequences in marriages that are, shall we be charitable and say, “less than optimal?” Thus, allow me to share some of the basic Scriptural principles that make a Christian marriage, work.
#1 Keep Christ at the center of your marriage
Now I realize this sounds terribly pietistic, and the more theological astute might respond with a cogent, “Duh!” But the reality is “in Him we live and move and have our being (Acts 17:28).” Christ is the center of all things, for “all things were created by Him, and for Him and through Him (Col 1:16-17).” Thus, despite what you may have assumed, your marriage is NOT primarily about living out some romantic fantasy, but glorifying God. To make your marriage truly Christian, you, have to be committed first, foremost and always, to being God’s man or woman, centered always on Christ.
Now, but what does all that mean, in real-life terms? First, to be centered on Christ means submitted to Christ. Jesus said, “If you love me, keep my commands,” (Jn 14:15). Your views, expectations, assumptions, values and behaviors must be re-oriented to the Scriptures. This may not sound like rocket science, but at the root of many Christian marriage problems are unstated assumptions that are unbiblical, and unprofitable.
Remember, Adam already had a perfect relationship with God, before he was given Eve. True, he was not created to be a solitary individual, “it is not good for the man to be alone (Gen 2:18).” But still, he already had a perfect relationship with God before marriage.
Perhaps the most common false assumption is that somehow, marriage will fill a void or vacuum in us. Many young Christians enter marriage with the idea that they have needs that will be fulfilled by the other person. Thus, whether they realize it or not, they have a selfish orientation that then colors every other aspect of their relationship. This inevitably leads to frustration, conflict, confrontation, unfulfilled expectations and bitterness.
But Christ Himself set the standard when He said, “For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve and give His life a ransom for many (Mark 10:45).” A solid Christian marriage is based not on seeking to have our needs met, but rather in being committed to meeting our spouses’ needs. A husband takes a wife, and vows before God to protect, nurture and sanctify his bride (Eph 5:22ff). A woman takes a husband and vows to “love, honor and obey” her husband, trusting in that man, respecting him and submitting to his leadership (1 Ptr 3:1ff).
The only way you can fulfill your duties towards your spouse is if you are fully committed to obeying Christ. Remember, love in Scripture is never defined as a feeling, but as a commitment to do what is right and proper for another, regardless of the personal cost. That is what makes a Christian marriage, Christian.
How do you keep Christ at the center and maintain this kind of focus? One way is through consistent, daily, family-worship. As opposed to some dead, dry ritual, family worship requires husbands to take personal responsibility for teaching their wives (and children when they come along). Every day that he opens that Bible, reads the Scriptures to his wife, and teaches her God’s commands; he is forging a new link in their relationship. As they pray together, confess their sins to one another, and then encourage each other to apply what they are learning together, it keeps their priorities straight, puts their petty squabbles into perspective, and fuels their own intimacy and affection. Family worship is NOT just something “nice” Christians should do, but the very lifeline of their faith, their relationship with God, and each other.
#2 Marriage is a reflection of the nature of God,
The nature of God is unity in diversity; there is one God in three distinct persons. Each person has all the attributes of God, all the power of God, all the glory of God, yet they have mutually distinct roles within the Godhead. All of creation was intended to display God’s glory but nowhere is this remarkable aspect of God’s nature more clearly seen then in Christian marriage.
The relationship between husband and wife is a picture of the Trinity where there is equality of honor (1 Ptr 3:7), but distinction of function. The old women of both sexes who attack male headship never seem to understand that Biblical marriage works, because it is based on the unchanging nature of God Himself. Husbands must love their wives “as Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her.” And wives must submit and respect their husbands.
Understanding and working out the implications of this fundamental theological truth is the basis for any successful marriage. The Christian husband is not a tyrant, lording it over his family as if he were some sort of oriental potentate and she no more than either a pretty decoration, or a child-making machine. Instead, He represents the Sovereign God of Creation, and is granted true authority, to which both wife and children are bound to honor and respect. And as the head of his house, his duty is to protect his family, to care for them, if necessary even to die for them, just as Christ died for His bride, the church. Furthermore, the husband is given a divine responsibility to sanctify his wife (as well as bring his children up in the “discipline and admonition of the Lord,” Eph 6:2ff). When he takes her as a bride, he is vowing before God to work every day for the rest of his life to present her to God perfect, “having no spot or wrinkle… but that she should be holy and blameless” (Eph 5:27).
And her vow is that she will submit to Him, as the church submits to Christ. She will honor him, respect him, and yes, obey him as she would respect and obey God. She willingly lays aside her own goals and dreams, just as Christ laid aside His own glory (Jn 17:5), and becomes “one flesh” with her husband, helping him in his dominion calling (Gen 2:16).
And the husband grants her honor, as a fellow heir of salvation (1 Ptr 3:7), and treasures her (Pvbs 31:1ff) and exalts her (Pvbs 31:28-29). Thus, when husband and wife share equality of honor, yet distinction of function, they are then freed to minister to each other, and the world.
#3 Christian Marriage Represents God to the World
The honor of God’s name is in many respects, reflected in your life (Rms 2:24). Since we were created in His image, and Christ has restored the damage done to that image by sin, Christians represent the name of God to the rest of creation. As we noted above, Christian marriage is a picture of the triune nature of God. Thus your marriage, whether you realize it or not, is intended to reveal something of God’s nature to the world. And when Christians realize their marriage is a witness to the world of the glory of God in the most fundamental aspect of His nature, and when they strive to uphold that image by fulfilling their covenant obligations to one another, they glorify God and receive all the blessings He promised.
Therefore, your marriage will work, only when it is firmly grounded in its true purpose; reflecting the glory and image of God. You have a divine duty to fulfill your covenant duties towards your spouse because in doing so, you are demonstrating your true submission to King Jesus. Let us be clear here, most modern evangelicals believe that romantic love is the foundation of a successful marriage, and hence when they “fall out” of love, believe they have justification for seeking a new partner. This myth of romantic infatuation as the basis for marriage is so deeply ingrained in our thinking, that even to suggest it might be deficient garners howls of outrage in some quarters.
In our modern culture, we have lost the idea of commitment that transcends the vagrancies of our emotions. Christians today assume that life is to be lived on feelings, rather than on commitment to principles and ideals. And so, we suffer the highest divorce rate in history.
However, there is another way to live; according to the eternal, unchanging standards of God’s Law. This is true, Biblical Christianity and the sort that allowed our ancestors to enter the arenas of the Roman Empire singing songs of praise to Almighty God, even while wild animals tore them to pieces. Our fathers in the Faith, won the Empire, survived the Dark Ages, built Medieval Christian Civilization, Reformed the Church, and settled new continents for Christ, were not victims of their emotions. They were willing to sacrifice all because they BELIEVED God and were submitted to His Law.
And they bore the name of God before the nations. Your marriage therefore must be based on a mutual submission to the principles, statutes, and commandments of God, motivated by the confident assurance that in so doing, you are bearing witness to the grace, mercy and nature of God. This kind of conviction builds marriages that stand the test of time. This commitment to doing what is right, regardless of your feelings allows you to overlook each other’s faults and frailties, to meet each others’ needs regardless of your feelings, and build a true, lasting relationship that only grows stronger, and closer over the years.
#4 Be Committed to a Broader Covenant Community
Marriages are not lived in isolation. The people with whom you regularly associate will have a great influence on your values, opinions and practices. “Do not be deceived; bad company corrupts good morals” (1 Cor 15:33). Therefore, you need to belong to a covenant community where Biblical standards are taught, encouraged and reinforced by those around you. If your church family ridicules men and encourages shrewish, domineering women, then you WILL become like them. For either good, or bad, the company you keep will influence you (1 Cor 11:1, Phil 4:8).
Therefore, if you want your marriage to work, to prosper, to be a blessing to yourself, each other and your children, find a church where God’s Law is honored, discussed and APPLIED. In fact, let me go one step further, if there is no such church in your area, then move your family across the country if necessary but find a church where men are encouraged to be godly MEN, taking leadership in the home, giving their wives self-sacrificial love. Find a church where the women genuinely respect their husbands, and are content in being helpmates. After all my friend, on the great and glorious Day of Judgment, God will not be terribly impressed by your investment portfolio, or how many new cars you owned, or even by the number of toys you accumulated. But He will be mighty interested in how well a man worked to sanctify his wife (Eph 4:22ff).
#5 Children are not an added extra
Modern pagans, and sadly many Christians, see children as at best an experience and at worse a nuisance. Many Christian books on marriage do not even deal with the central role that your children play in God’s Kingdom. Marriage is now about two autonomous individuals getting together because they believe that the other person holds the key to their personal fulfillment and happiness. In this view, children may, or may not enter into the picture depending upon the personal desires of the couple.
On the other hand, the Bible sees things differently. The first command to Adam and Eve was “be fruitful and multiply.” As a direct consequence, you have a divine duty to bear and raise a godly seed for the future (in so far as God gives grace). Your children are the means by which God intends you to exercise dominion over His world (Gen 1:28). Therefore bearing children, raising children, training children, and equipping them for dominion is one of the primary ways that God uses to subdue the earth for His glory (the other of course, being evangelism cf., Matt 28:19-20).
Granted, one day they will grow up, get married and start their own families, but even so, your task is not yet done. For then you need to help them train your grandchildren, provide them an inheritance, and thus, generation by generation extend the rule of the godly over every area of life. No man, no matter how gifted or blessed by God, can accomplish all that needs to be done in one lifetime. Hence, your children are your “arrows” into the future (Psa 127:4ff) wherein you continue to exercise dominion. This orientation motivates you, protects you, and gives your marriage a purpose beyond just personal fulfillment. Couples who are committed to this principle can weather even the toughest situations, because they live not just for themselves, but for generations yet unborn.
#6 Deal with conflict and confrontation Biblically,
Look, let us be honest; you will sin against one another. You are not perfected yet, and at times, you will be selfish, inconsiderate, irritable and not easy to get along with. Husbands will not always self-sacrificially love their wives as Christ loved the church, and women will not always respect and submit to their husbands. Sometimes you will nag at each other, yell at each other, fail in your covenant duties towards one another.
So, therefore, learn how to deal with those sins properly and wisely, not holding bitterness and anger towards one another. In twenty years of marriage counseling, almost every single time when Christians come for help, no matter WHAT the presentation problem was, a little data gathering revealed a consistent pattern of both partners sinning against each other, and then not forgiving each other. In many cases, the problem that finally drove them to see me (before seeing their lawyer) was caused by a lack of forgiveness from some previous sin never dealt with.
The Scriptures say, “Do not let the sun go down on your anger (Eph 4:26).” Therefore, when you sin against each other (and you will) then confess that sin, repent of it to the other person, and ask for forgiveness THAT DAY. Never, ever, go to bed angry, frustrated or upset with your spouse. Maybe the problem itself cannot be resolved that day, but at least you can ask for, and grant forgiveness for any sins so that tomorrow, you start with a clean slate and TOGETHER, you can begin working on the problem. If you let sins build up, you will become bitter; life will become one constant lemon that ruins every aspect of your life (Hebs 12:15). Instead, realistically understand that you will sin against each other; therefore learn how to ask for, and give forgiveness to one another.
Remember, you are “one flesh.” Being embittered against each other makes as much sense as hating your arm or leg. And a couple that has not learned how to practice forgiveness on a daily basis is doomed to hatred, bitterness and judgment.
#7 Develop and enjoy a healthy sex-life with your spouse
Remember when we just talked about the central role that children play in the family? Well, God thought this was SO important, that he gave us both one of the most power drives imaginable, as well as the most pleasurable thing on earth to keep us motivated. Sadly, like every other blessing God give us, we manage to pervert and distort it. But even our sin does not change the fact that God intended us to enjoy (yes ENJOY) a vigorous, and healthy sexual life. God thought sexual love within marriage to be so important; He inspired an entire book dedicated to it!
Your bodies are not your own, and Paul says you have a divine duty to one another sexually (1 Cor 7:1ff). Not only does this keep you pure from temptation, but also builds your own intimacy with one another. Therefore, love your spouse, and be satisfied with them, seeking to please them; and have fun, often!
#8 Do not let friends, hobbies, work, etc., steal you from your spouse.
Remember, that in Christian marriage, you are “one flesh:” each one belongs to the other, and that certainly includes time and attention. Since time is limited, when you do one thing, you cannot do another. When you act selfishly by allowing your time and attention to be distracted by work, hobbies, or even church activities, you are in effect stealing them from your spouse.
As we have mentioned several times, you are under a divine obligation to your partner. Make sure, you are committed to them; and then only to other things as you have time and opportunity.
#9 Develop true emotional and intellectual intimacy,
Another consequence of being “one flesh” is that you must develop true, emotional and intellectual intimacy with your spouse. They are your best friend, and the one person you ought to be able to count on regardless of the situation. Therefore, you must never lie to them, but always “speak the truth in love” (Eph 4: 25). If there are things you can talk about with others, but not your spouse, you have a real problem.
Thus, men especially need to learn how to communicate with their wives. With exceptions noted, women tend to desire more frequent displays of affection and intimacy than men. Therefore, men MUST learn how to TALK with their wives. Now, I am not recommending feminizing men as some have done; gender roles and differences are a part of the creation. But I am saying that godly men, as a part of their duty to sanctify their wives, will learn how to communicate in ways that minister to their needs. And conversely, women must learn how to stop nagging their husbands just because he does not want to “open up” and cry, like a baby. Each must learn how the other communicates, and then seek what is best for their partner, convinced that God will meet their own needs, as they seek to meet each other’s.
#10 Learn to be satisfied and content with the spouse God has given you.
Do not let the world, the media, etc., give you unrealistic expectations of marriage (either sexual, emotional, physical, etc.,). We are bombarded with so many false expectations that we can become easily dissatisfied with what God has given us, because the grass looks oh, so much greener over the neighbor’s fence. Solomon says, “Rejoice in the wife of your youth, let her breasts satisfy you at all times, be exhilarated always with her love (Pvbs 5:19);” and that means, “do not compare her with other women,” or even with what she looked like twenty years ago.
Instead, learn how to be committed and content with the person you married, and work on fulfilling your covenant obligations to them. Yes, even the godliest of men can find their eye wandering, but acknowledge it for what it is, and repent. Instead, focus on loving THIS person, being committed to their spiritual, emotional and physical well-being. Do not covet what is not yours.
Conclusion
Marriage is only for this life; there will be no marriage or giving in marriage in the eternal state, for God will have brought all of His Elect into existence by then. But in THIS life, marriage is one of the primary means we have of reflecting God’s image, and subduing His creation to His glory. Therefore, it really does matter what kind of marriage you build; it says something about what kind of Christian you really are.
For most of us, the cutting edge of discipleship will not entail going to the mission field, or dying a martyr’s death. Just love your wife, as Christ loved the church. Respect your husband as you would respect Jesus Himself. Bring up your children in the discipline and admonition of the Lord. And if we learn how to conduct our marriages, and govern our families, in time, God will give us the world.
The Puritan Family »
Sunday, April 20th, 2008Some Thoughts on How the Puritans Lost their Children
Rev. Brian M. Abshire
Perhaps the high point of the Christian family in America was the Puritan commonwealth in New England from 1630-1700. The family was central to Puritan theology and practice. Repeatedly in sermons, and personal letters, the Puritans state that their primary motivation in settling the new world was to provide a future for their children. Preachers loved familial imagery in their sermons. Their political philosophy began with building strong families first, and then went on to church and state.
But within one generation, for all their love and attention to the family, the Puritan experiment failed. By 1662, the Half Way covenant was a tacit admission that they were losing their own children. Covenant theology taught that church members claimed the promises of the covenant on behalf of their children through baptism. But the adult children of the first generation could not meet the high standards set for church membership. Now they had children of their own who were not eligible for baptism. Were they now separated from the blessings of the covenant? The Half Way covenant allowed baptism to this third generation despite the fact that the second generation was spiritually deficient. It was a theological compromise that demonstrated a real loss of Puritan vigor. By the latter decades of the 17th century, “Jerimiads” rung from pulpits across New England warning that unless the children embraced the fervor of their grandparents, disaster would strike. By the 18th century, despite revivals and revivalism, the Puritan Congregational churches apostatized into Deism and Unitarianism. The Half Way covenant had not been enough, the Puritans had lost their children and with them, their culture.
What went wrong? Why did the Puritans, with so many advantages, fail in this most fundamental task? They left Old England to build their city on a hill to be a light to the world. Yet within two generations, the light was dimmed and the savor lost. There are potent lessons to be learned from the Puritans. They did so many things right; yet ultimately failed. It is possible that pessimillennialism began with the apostasy of Puritan families. Since the family is the beginning of Christian Reconstruction, then we must understand what went wrong with them, so that we can learn from their mistakes.
What they did Right
Without a doubt, the Christian family in New England in the 17th century stands far above the dysfunctional, fractured, atomistic family of today. Even their failures, look pretty good compared to the average Christian family today.
One of the distinctive marks of the Puritan family was a commitment to daily family worship. Fathers were required to lead their families in the knowledge and discipline of the Lord. The churches preached it, the Magistrates enforced it, and the fathers did it. Puritan fathers began and ended each day with singing of Psalms, reading of Scripture and prayer. As a result, from an early age, children imbibed a Christian worldview. Even though this dedication did not result in the numbers of conversion experiences necessary for Church membership, entire generations of New Englanders were deeply influenced by Scripture.
The Puritan commitment to family extended to finding good matches for their children. Such marriages were with the children’s consent, and often at their behest. Romance was not unknown, but was not the final arbiter of a suitable life mate. Religion was the preeminent consideration when choosing a spouse for their children, with finances coming a close second. Only then was a child asked, “Could you love this person?” Puritan parent’s made provisions for both body and soul for their children. It seems that the only occasionally did a child turn down a parent’s choice. In the Puritan family, love was expected to come after marriage, not before. As a result, Puritan families were extremely strong, life decisions were not based on hormones and children were not expected to make the most important decision of their lives at a time when they were least equipped to do so. Furthermore, children were then protected from themselves. While sexual sins did occur, they were at least uncommon (until the advent of revivalism where birth records show an interesting tendency for newly wed couples to produce children after 6 months of marriage).
A child’s future vocation was similarly decided. The concept of “calling” was crucial tp Puritan life. While used primarily in the sense of salvation, it was also true that the Puritans believed no man could expect God’s blessing in life unless he understood the calling God had given him for his vocation. Usually, the oldest son was expected to follow the father’s calling. If the father had been a faithful steward, most of his sons could expect to receive a portion of his land or business. However, very large families, and the growing mercantile class, meant that some sons might have to find a calling other than with their fathers. Apprenticeships were common. At fourteen, a boy might be apprenticed to a craftsman or merchant to learn his calling from the ground up. This normally took seven years of hard labor to master the necessary skills, with the apprentice living in the master’s home. Parents looked for good opportunities for their children, knowing that once the decision was made, it was very unlikely to change. For the more affluent, college was an option. Hence again, major life decisions were not left to random chance or the ever changing whims of a teenager. Parents worked hard to help their children develop the skills necessary to fulfill their calling.
While the child’s wishes were taken into consideration, ultimately, the parents made the final decision. Who would know better a child’s strengths, weaknesses, gifts etc. than his parents? Thus, Puritan children were not only loved and well disciplined, but productive from a very young age. They were able to exercise dominion through their calling. Indolence, rebelliousness and teenage angst were not a common problem in New England.
The Puritans took their responsibility to the family seriously. Family was important, not just for social reasons, but for business dealings as well. Their commitment extended beyond their own immediate children to include relatives of every degree. Relatives were given preferred prices and subsidized business, just because they were family. The Puritans had a complex series of relationships with cousins, aunts, uncles, etc. Marriage broadened their relationships, with in-laws considered as important as blood relations. Thus the extended family was well set up to meet both social and economic needs. The Puritans believed that “As long as the family was well ordered, as long as men respected the logic of relationships, corruption would be restrained within bounds and society would established.”
With all these things working for the family, what happened? They had strong churches, strong families, they controlled the economic and social institutions and they were in charge of the political order. The Puritan influence was so powerful, it continues to affect American values to this day. But even so, within three generations, the Puritan experiment gave way to an increasing tergiversation. Americans have taken the fruit of Puritan families, while rejecting the root. And now, two centuries later, the fruit is withered and rotten. What went wrong?
Why the Puritans Did Wrong
The Puritans, as godly as they were, fell short of the Biblical ideal in several ways. All of us are in some measure, victims of our culture. Cultural values have an enormous impact on our ability to interpret the world around us (there are no brute facts, only interpreted ones). And the presuppositions we carry will have an effect on how we understand and apply Biblical principles. Criticism of the Puritans needs to be gracious, they got so much right, that those of us blessed with hindsight should not be self-righteous in noting what they did wrong. However, though we are victims of our own cultural blinders, we might be able to see some things they missed. And it is in what they missed, that may provide a glimpse for understanding the failure of the Puritan commonwealth.
First, one needs to remember that committed Puritans did not make up the entire New England population. Within just a few years, massive immigration swamped the community of the elect. While the Puritans blazed the trail, many, many other Englishmen soon came after; Englishmen who did not necessarily share the Puritan’s same degree of theological and experiential conviction. Sermons during the period repeatedly warned good Puritans of the dangers of allowing their children to associate with the ever-larger numbers of immigrants who did not share their religious resolve. Though the Puritans had very strict laws to regulate behavior, nothing could change the hearts of the recalcitrant immigrants. As New England became settled and more civilized, the flow of non-Puritan Englishman increased (though falling off after the English civil war gave the Puritans control over old England). No matter how many children the Puritans had, they could not compete with shiploads of new settlers, who did not share their ways.
Secondly, without being denominationally biased, congregational church government and practice undoubtedly contributed to the loss of Puritan dominance. The autonomy of local churches allowed increasingly deviant pastors to enter Puritan pulpits (Harvard and Yale were specifically started to stem the tide of apostate ministers from England). The only hedge against apostasy was the knowledge and spiritual fervor of the local church. With no higher court of appeals than the local church, there was no mechanism in place to deal with heresy. Furthermore, if a church itself became unreasonably dissatisfied with their pastor, there was no way to appeal their arbitrary decision to dismiss him. This transferred power from the elders, to the congregation as a whole. For example, Jonathan Edwards is a hero today to many Reformed pastors, teachers and educated laymen. Yet he was driven out of his church because he challenged the prejudices of his congregation.
A third problem has nothing to do with congregationalism per se but does concern covenant theology. The Puritans had such a high view of the family, and of the covenant promises given to their children, that they focused their evangelistic efforts primarily on Christians and their children. Though church attendance was mandatory, church membership was restricted to an elite, to those who could “prove” they had had a conversion experience. Therefore, the “best” prospects for conversion were their own children. Hence, there was a real tendency to focus on reproving, exhorting and admonishing their children, to the exclusion of the greater masses of “unconverted.” Thus, evangelism centered on the family, rather than on the community. And as a result, they literally allowed the community to “go to hell” while they preached to their kids.
The emphasis on the conversion experience required such high standards, that undoubtedly, a great number of regenerate children (and non-church members) were denied church membership and the sacraments thus weakening their faith. Later on, both groups were admitted to the sacraments, to prepare them for conversion, hence undercutting Puritan theology. Edwards lost his church when he opposed this practice.
The confusion here had significant results. Conscientious members of the community, who doubted they had experienced what their parents, teachers and pastors repeatedly told them was essential for salvation, never grew in their own faith. Furthermore, the misuse of the doctrines of grace may have inadvertently undermined Puritan culture. If a man was not among the elect, and had no reasonable hope of ever being so, then it becomes epistemologically self-consistent for him to spend his time and energy of the matters of this life, rather than the life to come. Puritan culture did inhibit overt sin and restrained the worst aspects of man’s rebellion to God in the social realm, but also began a subtle secularization of culture. Since 90% of the community were not church members, religion per force became less and less significant. Increasingly, men found their meaning and purpose in their physical estate. When the requirements for church membership finally loosened up in the 19th century, it coincided with revivalism and theological heterodoxy.
Finally, the Puritans loved their children so much, that they were often afraid that they would spoil them. A very common practice was to place children at the age of fourteen with friends and neighbors. One primary reason was that boys needed to learn a skilled trade and it was customary for an apprentice to live in the craftsman home, while learning his craft. However, even when this was not necessary for business reasons, the Puritans often had their teenage children raised by others. The reason seems to have been the fear that their own filial affection would cause them to indulge their teenagers, rather than discipline them appropriately. There are many heart-breaking letters recording the cries of distraught teenagers as they were given over to friends to rear.
Though their motivations were sincere, this cultural aberration undermined the family during the most important time of child’s development. There were obviously some benefits; teenagers are notorious for rebelling against their parents as they seek to establish their own identities. Separating them from their parents and entrusting them to godly homes would teach young people good manners, social skills, etc., without the dangers associated with rebelling against their own parents (or of the parents being indulgent towards their children). Teenagers are also notorious for getting along better with other adults than with their own family.
However, benefits aside, the custom was a product of the English middle class, not of Biblical principles. As long as New England consisted of small communities, with families well known to each other, little damage was done. But separating children during their young adult years cut the emotional and psychological ties that bound them to their families. As the colonies spread out, children moved further and further away from home. Thus without realizing it, the Puritan’s custom, intended to benefit their children, actually contributed to the fragmentation that is now characteristic of American families.
This analysis is necessarily incomplete and simplistic, but it does allow a better understanding of how the Puritans lost their culture. Good people, with sincere motives, can fail, when they fail to apply Biblical principles consistently. The Puritans did the best they could with what they had. If their colonies had not been swamped by immigrants who did not share their convictions, if their churches had a more realistic concept of church membership, if they had not separated their own children at the time they most needed the love and discipline of their parents, New England might well have accomplished it’s founder’s vision.
However, we have their mistakes to learn from, and our own failure to motivate us to find the answers. We have lost much, but we have also learned much. May God grant us wisdom, grace and mercy as we reconstruct our families.
Weddings - Some Thoughts »
Sunday, April 20th, 2008Rev. Brian M. Abshire
On a recent Internet discussion list, the subject came up regarding whether or not the Church has the Biblical authority to perform weddings. As various people responded (”flaming” is the preferred term), some accused the Church of tyranny, others that the State overstepped its bounds for requiring marriage licenses etc. Howls of outrage (in one quarter) greeted my statement that in the conclusion of wedding ceremonies, I refused to say, “And now by the authority vested in me by the State of…). My reason is that I am not now, nor have I ever been an agent of the State in my ministerial duties. Therefore, any authority I have is ecclesiastical, not magisterial. But the question is a good one. Is there a Biblical basis for the way we conduct our marriage ceremonies? And if so, what does it mean when a minister says, “and now by the authority vested in me…”
A major tenant of Reformed thinking has been “sphere sovereignty” in relation to how God governs His creation. Each sphere of human authority has certain delegated duties, responsibilities and privileges. Tyranny, anarchy and apostasy occur when one sphere intrudes or rules the others. Normally speaking, these spheres are said to consist of self-government, family government, church government and state government. These spheres are distinct, though mutually affirming. God’s law order requires submission in all these areas. When considering the issue of marriage, all four spheres are concerned with marriage. The issue is determining which duties and responsibilities God given to each. Once we understand the roles and limits God has given to various spheres, we can then apply that understanding to the question of whether or not conducting weddings is really the responsibility of the church.
The Responsibilities of the Various Governments:
Obviously self-government has paramount importance: a husband must love his wife as Christ loved the church, being her lawful head and working to present her blameless to Christ (cf. Eph 5:19ff). In the same way, the wife is to submit to her husband. Thus, Christian marriages function Biblically as long as the individuals involved understand and have the character to fulfill their roles. In ancient Israel, a man had to pay a purchase price for his bride, equaling approximately three years worth of his labor. This “bride price” thus demonstrated to the father that a prospective suitor was a responsible, diligent and conscientious worker and would therefore be able to take care of his bride. The bride price then became the daughter’s dowry. Character, not romantic love is the essential component of a successful Christian marriage (cf. Titus 2:4).
Family government is also central. The husband leaves his father and mother, cleaves unto his wife, becoming one flesh with her, and beginning a new household. The woman leaves her father’s household, forming a new covenant relationship and ending an old one. In God’s Law, the parents (especially the father) determine whether a potential marriage is acceptable.
Church government also exercises a place, in that a marriage covenant is a lawful oath, taken before God (cf. Mal 2:14). God performed the first wedding ceremony in the Garden with Adam and Eve. He administered the oath in Genesis 1:28, blessed Adam and Eve and then told them their covenant duties: to be fruitful, to multiply, to fill the earth and subdue it, to keep His covenant law regarding the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Today, the minister administers the oath, reminding both couples of their duties and responsibilities. He warns them of the consequences of breaking the oath, gives them the details of that oath, and then blesses the marriage.
Authority
But, “by what authority” does a minister do this? Where does God in Scripture give the Church the right and authority to perform marriages? Furthermore, is this an exclusive power given to the Church? If so, where does Scripture say this? What is even meant when a pastor says, “By the authority vested in me I pronounce you…”
Most Reformed Christians know that marriage was (and is) considered a sacrament in the Roman Church. Therefore, the Church had exclusive power over it since she had the power of the keys to the Kingdom. But with the Reformation, the sacraments were reduced from seven, to two (baptism and the Lord’s Supper). Therefore, if marriage is no longer a sacrament, does the Church have any lawful authority here? Some Puritans saw marriage as a civil, not a religious union and Christian pastors were forbidden to conduct wedding ceremonies. Were they right in their thinking?
I would argue that the Church does have authority, in the right to announce that the marriage is lawful and acceptable in the sight of God and man (cf. WCF 25:3-4). Thus, the Church of Jesus Christ is a formal witness to the covenant vows, made under both self and family government. It is also a blessing of the marriage, as God did in the Garden. Marriage is a divine institution, created by God for human happiness and holiness. It is therefore appropriate that Christians seek His formal blessing, through His ministers in the Church, as they take their covenant vows before Him. However, does God’s Law require a Church wedding? Well, that is an interesting question.
It is significant that the Scriptures do not give us any details of a specific marriage ceremony. In Old Testament culture, when marriages occur, the ceremony is unclear. For example, when David married Abigail (1 Sam 25:39-44) he simply sent a proposal, which she accepted and then moved in with him. (Since the covenant with her father ended with her marriage to Nabal, after his death, she was free to remarry whomever she chose). From this (and other examples) marriage is primarily in Scripture between the individuals and the families (see, for example, Judges 14:2 where Samson, demands his father “get him a wife.”)
Marriage and Covenants
Now let me see if I can hang myself publicly and be properly tarred and feathered. I tentatively conclude that though a good thing, a person is not required to take their marriage vows before the Church to be lawfully married. I would argue (and others may well want to correct me here), that the very act of taking a woman into one’s home and having a physical relationship with her is implicitly an adoption of the marriage vows, duties and responsibilities.
The Old Testament case law regarding fornication is instructive here. Deuteronomy 22:28 lays out a case wherein a man lies with a virgin. He is required to marry here without divorce for the rest of his days. Providing the marriage is acceptable to the father (cf. Ex 22:17), the man must now formally assume the obligations of marriage, without respite, because he took the special intimacy of marriage.
The fact that in our modern culture, fornication abounds, and people change partners almost as often as they change their socks, witnesses to the apostasy and wickedness of this generation. But physical intimacy with a member of the opposite sex is a de facto acceptance of the responsibilities of marriage, and the sanctions that occur when those vows are violated, regardless of whether the individuals involved realize the implications of their actions.
Now less anyone think I am advocating “shacking up” as an appropriate means of marriage, all I am saying is that the physical act is a “de facto” marriage. Simply having sex was not an appropriate marriage can be seen in that the man had to pay a fine for taking the woman’s virginity. The formal adoption of vows makes the action “de jure.” In other words, no matter what spurious concept people may have of marriage, (e.g., as a contract to be severed at will) it is a divine covenant and they will come under both the blessings and sanctions of that covenant (cf. Matt 19:6). God sees the physical act of “cleaving” as an acceptance of the duties and responsibilities of marriage. When men break those covenant stipulations by changing partners, adultery, etc., they bring God’s judgment upon themselves.
It is significant that modern people, antinomian to the core, often refuse to have their marriage blessed by the Church. In refusing the blessing of the Church, they are implicitly refusing to acknowledge their covenant responsibilities before God. They often then write their own vows, a common ending being “as long as we both shall love…” Yet, it is also significant that sometimes, even pagans appeal to the Church to perform their weddings. A realization that even in evil times, when the truth is suppressed in unrighteousness, many still innately understand that God is the author of this covenant.
State
Where does the State come in? We live in a godless, lawless age where the State proclaims itself the savior of men and seeks to suppress all other forms of government. Yet, in an ideal situation, wherein each of the spheres of government acts in concert under the authority of God’s law, there is a godly role for the State in marriage. The State has the authority of the sword. When because of sin, the marriage covenant is broken, the State has sanctions it can apply against wickedness; i.e., executing adulterers, fornicators, sodomites etc. The State could also lawfully ensure that property settlements were handled properly (i.e., the wicked is disinherited, the offended party receives the children, etc.)
Though an appeal can be made to Church courts that could and should adjudicate such disputes today (as per 1 Cor 6:1-7), the situation in Corinth is temporary. Not always will the State be in opposition to the Kingdom. Therefore there will come a day when the State has judges that are godly men and therefore Christians can lawfully appeal to them for justice when wronged. The family and the church do not have the authority to force a man for example, to return his wife’s dowry, or to care for his children (assuming of course that there was insufficient evidence to convict him of a capital crime). The State does. However, the State has no authority to determine what marriage is, who should be married etc., apart from God’s Law. I can see no Biblical basis for the State requiring a marriage license. Marriage is primarily between families, with the Church as a witness and the godly State as an avenger.
Can the State lawfully perform a wedding? If I am correct that marriage is a solemn covenant before God, and both parties implicitly assume the duties, responsibilities and covenant obligations of marriage by the act of physical intimacy, then yes, the State can witness those vows. But then again, so could anyone. Regardless of what the State or the parties involved think they are doing, they are under God’s covenant laws regarding marriage; for when they become “one flesh,” they are married. The danger in State performed weddings, is the implicit assumption that the State has authority over the family. Once the State assumes a power, it can be awfully reluctant to give it up. Thus State marriages ceremonies are innately dangerous to the authority of the other spheres of government.
However, the fact that the State assumes authority it does not have, or that the parties do not understand the implications of what they are doing, does not excuse them from the covenant obligations. The fact that they refuse God’s blessing through His Church simply witnesses to their apostasy and the curses they will bring onto themselves. But man cannot escape the consequences of God’s covenant and His Law. He still holds them to meet His criteria.
But since they assumed the responsibilities of marriage (regardless of who witnessed their vows) a couple are truly married, and therefore if they become believers, their marriage does not have to be “re-administered” by the Church (though I have seen some folks request a reaffirmation of their marriage vows after becoming believers).
Thus, all four spheres of authority have a place in lawful marriage. The church must not assume to itself powers it does not have, and the State must be restrained from swallowing up everything to itself. Young people need to be reminded of their covenantal obligations to their families and the families of their duties to God. Finally, marriage is an oath, a solemn vow, that God’s law will be obeyed “to love honor, cherish and obey, for richer or poorer, in sickness and in health, till death do us part…”
Reforming Weddings
Hence, reforming weddings begins first then self and family governments. Fathers must assume their God given responsibility to teach their children, bringing them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord (cf. Eph 6:1ff). Children at a young age must be catechized in the true religion, and taught specifically their duties and obligations under God’s Law (cf. Deut 6:4ff). Covenant children, so instructed, admonished, disciplined and corrected, will, in God’s grace grow up internalizing God’s Law. They will therefore become responsible, productive adults, able to make wise decisions concerning their future. More importantly, if parents do their job right, their children will automatically seek life-mates who share the same values.
Secondly, in this age, the myth of romantic infatuation must be demolished as a basis for marriage. Young people will often “fall in love.” But they need to have the character to know that this has nothing to do with making a marriage glorifying to God or rewarding to the partners. Parents need to pray for their children when they are very young, that God would give them grace in terms of a life-mate. And then they need to train their children what to look for, and to have the moral courage and strength to reject inappropriate partners, regardless of their attractiveness. One important way is to not allow the family to be fractured by individualistic activities. Keep the family together when they are young, and they won’t separate into atomistic entities when they grow up.
Thirdly, children, when approaching their adult years, must be prepared not only for the emotional responsibilities of marriage, but the ethical and financial as well. They must KNOW that dating is an ungodly, non-Christian and pagan innovation and replace it with courting. Young men need to learn how to save for marriage and not dissipate their youth. Young people need to stay at home, learn how to work diligently, save and demonstrate that they are ready for their future responsibilities.
Fourthly, churches need to remember that their role is not magisterial. Churches must help the family, not splinter it. Parents in general (but fathers in particular) need to be constantly admonished, instructed, encouraged to take their covenant responsibilities seriously. They are the prime educators of their children, not the State and not even the Church. Family worship is essential and the church needs to free up families with young children from mindless religious activities and make them focus first, on raising godly children.
Hence, godly pastors will not try to replace the father’s important role. It is not up to the pastor to determine who should, or should not get married. His “authority” in the wedding is as one of the two witnesses by which “every fact is confirmed.” His primary duty is to proclaim the statutes, commandments and principles of God’s law, administering the oaths and vows that are the formal symbol of the new marriage.
When the parents do their job, and the children do their job, and the Church does its job, then we will be empowered to dismantle the messianic state.
Reforming The Family »
Sunday, April 20th, 2008The Industrial Revolution and the Sociology of the Christian FamilyRev. Brian M. Abshire
Evangelical Christianity has never come to grips with the massive sociological changes resulting from the Industrial Revolution. Until that time, agrarian culture and values undergirded Biblical concepts of the family. However, mechanization, immigration, urbanization and rapid transportation radically transformed the entire Western world. If we are not aware of the sociological impact on the family, we have no objective basis to evaluate the changes that resulted. There is a real danger that we will accommodate ourselves to prevailing cultural norms, rather than Biblical ones. And hence, the Christian family becomes salt that has lost is savor.
Before the industrial revolution, most people lived in small communities. The same families lived in the same locales for generations since the family was tied to the land. Mom and Dad usually came from the same community and therefore shared a common cultural background, values and sense of identity. Children were assets; every extra pair of hands meant the farm could produce more food (or the craftsman more products). Mom’s domestic skills, baking, cooking, sewing, etc., were desperately needed in the home. Children worked closely with their parents from a young age. Dad worked with the sons in the fields (or at his craft), Mom with the daughters in the house. Children learned not only skills, but also character and values at the same time. Work, recreation, religion and welfare were all family oriented and contributed to a sense of identity and belonging. Children had both economic as well as social incentive to maintain close family ties. They inherited the land, expanding the family’s economic basis. The extended family assisted during emergencies. The sociological background therefore reinforced Biblical family values.
With the coming of the industrial revolution, modern industries required centralized locations and large numbers of workers with new skills. Young people fled the security of small town life for the promise of a better economic future in the cities. Initially, working conditions were harsh; living conditions worse, and the normal social supports unavailable. Alcohol was often the only solace to a bitter life. Christians found that they did not have churches and pastors in the right places. Presbyterians in particular suffered from a devastating lack of pastors for most of the 19th century. Thus as the population became urbanized, they also became increasingly secularized generation by generation.
The economic benefits of mass production and cheap transportation eventually greatly benefited the family materially, but not spiritually. Specialization allowed a greater variety of goods and services. Mechanization and mass production allowed the average citizen to purchase products more cheaply than ever before. Yet the underlying effect was to create a materialistic, consumer oriented society; a society that emphasized fast-paced, instant gratification.
These changes in culture undermined and destroyed the sociological foundations that had held the family together from antiquity. Industrialism meant that a man no longer necessarily followed his father’s trade. New industries required new skills and a son could often improve his economic status simply by learning those skills; skills he did not learn from his father. As agriculture became increasingly mechanized, fewer workers were required, not only fueling the exodus to the cities, but also removing the economic incentive for large families. Children now became an economic liability. Rather than having more workers, a large family simply meant more mouths to feed and more children to educate in the specialized school systems.
In a similar way, mechanization removed much of the woman’s traditional work, making her almost unnecessary in the home. By the twentieth century, women found themselves bored and feeling useless since housework was no longer challenging or fulfilling. Technology also eliminated the traditional distinctions between men and women’s work. By World War Two enormous numbers of women entered the work force in the defense industry. Technology allowed women to work in factories doing the same work as men (for lower wages, which then became the moral justification for feminism). Women now became competitors with men for the same jobs.
Increased transportation meant that children could and did move further away from their families in search for economic improvement. This broke down traditional communities and left the nuclear family bereft of the traditional support system. Consequently, one’s identity was now less dependent upon one’s family or community than on one’s possessions or sense of self fulfillment.
Furthermore, the greater plurality of options meant decreasing commitment to any one option. For example, in small communities, there might be only a few possible life mates for a young person. In the new urban areas, there might be hundreds. The extended time required to acquire economic skills, also meant that young people put off marriage much longer than before. These two dynamics, fueled with material prosperity, resulted in “dating” replacing courtship as a means of finding a life-mate. Young people had more time, more opportunity and more alternatives. They also had less commitment to their chosen partner (after all, there were always other options available if this one didn’t work out). When connected with the humanistic ideal that the highest good is the self, widespread divorce became inevitable.
As the family fragmented, the State was quick to fill the gap with State education, welfare community “services”, etc. Public education in removing young children from the home and influences of the family, undermined traditional family relationships. Individualism was reinforced by the new humanistic enlightenment philosophies, which were the operating methodology of the State schools.
In all this, the Church badly fumbled. Rather than influencing culture, we allowed ourselves to be influenced by it. American Christians eagerly grabbed at the promise of the “good life.” We sacrificed our families at the alter of a growing economy, good jobs, career progression and a house in the suburbs stuffed with toys. The industrial revolution was accompanied by the rise of antinomian and Arminian theology. Both heresies focused on the individual because both had no concept of covenantal living. Thus Christians were hit with a one two punch of deviant theology and a changing society. We’ve been staggering around the ring ever since.
The modern American Christian family now too often looks something like this. Mom and Dad come from different ethnic and cultural backgrounds with no sense of their cultural history. They may also come from completely different parts of the country. Consequently, they often have divergent goals, interests, expectations etc., except for a common commitment to self fulfillment.
In college (or wherever) they met, “fell in love” and decided to get married. Because of large college debts, Mom goes back to work after the honeymoon, trying to recapture some of the massive investment her education required. After several years of increased consumer debt, Mom and Dad decide to have a family. But they cannot afford to have very many children. As soon as possible, Mom needs to go back to work to keep their affluent, debt ridden lifestyle going. As the children grow up, they are immediately sent into the public school system; Christian schooling is too expensive and home schooling too difficult. Time with the family is severely limited due to Dad’s career; Mom’s work and the myriad recreational activities the children are enrolled in. Quality time is defined as everyone watching the same program on TV.
Church offers no respite. The children are carefully separated from the family as soon as possible and given mindless entertainment in various youth activities. Children develop their core values from school, television, friends and the other kids at church (hence what bad habits they don’t learn on their own, their peers will soon teach them). Since the culture emphasizes personal gratification, a significant number of children will become involved in premarital sex, drug abuse, indolence, etc., much of which they will carefully hide from their parents. Many of these children will drop out of Christianity before 25. Mom and Dad will be delighted if their children stay off drugs, go to college and get a good paying job. They will be ecstatic if their kids marry a nominal Christian, show up for church (but probably not theirs) a dozen times a year and do not formally renounce the faith.
Meanwhile, Mom and Dad are frustrated with each other and adultery or deviant sexuality is a real possibility. Dad abdicates the running of the family to Mom (he’s too busy playing with his remote control). Mom wants a strong husband, but has no model of godly submission. Secularized culture has given her unrealistic expectations of what it means to be a woman (she’s to be a career minded girl, who is a super mom to the kids and a sex goddess to her husband, all while finding her sense of identity by discovering her real self). She’s frustrated, often bitter and slanders her husband at women’s Bible studies.
If the family is really spiritual, they become church fanatics, serving on endless (and mindless) committees, “religiously” attending activities, social groups etc. The family goes further into debt to get their kids through college. When the kids grow up, they usually move away from home (which isn’t really a consideration) and immediately amass considerable consumer debt of their own. Meanwhile, Mom and Dad have to invest an enormous amount for their retirement so at 65 they can drive around the country in a Winnebago visiting the grandchildren. When they die, they leave little inheritance to their children comforting themselves by thinking, “Well, money always ruins kids, let them work for it just as we did.” And the cycle starts all over again.
But with each turn of the wheel, the commitment of the individual to anything except his own pleasure grows less and less. The individual Christian is often frustrated, alienated and tries to finds satisfaction in either work or hobbies. Children are increasingly seen as an “experience” rather than as a duty to fill the earth and subdue it. Life is fractured and divided. Where one works has nothing to do with where one lives or goes to church. The church itself is simply another social club, with the membership changing annually. There is therefore a dearth of significant and meaningful relationships. Women are frustrated at their men who live increasingly irresponsibly outside of their jobs. Women run both the home and church. Divorced from any significant, lasting human relationships, American Christians end up just like their unregenerate neighbors, living a self absorbed, self indulgent lifestyle, moderated only by the thinnest veneer of Biblical morality.
And the root problem is the loss of the Biblical family. A sub-biblical family means that individual Christians do not grow in the fundamental character qualities to make effective leaders. The Church weakens, producing even less effective Christians, who in turn are more and more influenced by the world, rather than influencing it.
A comprehensive Biblical worldview gives us a divine perspective from which to critique sociological changes, and offer valid Biblical alternatives. Thus reconstructing the nation, begins with reconstructing the family from the perspective of God’s Law. The reconstructed family provides warriors for the battle, leaders for the Church, theologians and pastors who can uncompromisingly preach against the evils of this age. The family, as Dr. Rushdoony has pointed out, is man’s first School, State and Church. Therefore reconstructing the family requires we draw our model, not from contemporary culture, but from Scripture.
Allow me to offer some practical suggestions as to how the American family could be reconstructed according to Biblical norms. Not everyone will agree with my recommendations. But this is a start to redefine the Christian family in opposition to modern culture.
Some Suggestions for Reconstructing the Family:
Large families are good, even if the economic incentives no longer exist. Large families are one of the keys to dominion “be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth and subdue it” (Gen 1:26-27). Each godly child is another warrior for the Kingdom (cf. Psa 127:3-5). Therefore, normally speaking, Christians should seek to have many children as God provides
Husbands must be the heads of their family. Head means authority. Fathers must take responsibility to lead their families (cf. Eph 5:23). Men need to put away their toys and start acting responsibly, utilizing the resources of the family for the Kingdom.
Vocation must replace career in our thinking. A vocation is God’s divine call on a man’s labor. God will honor diligent labor. However, careers are artificial attempts to meet man made standards for success. Hence, some good “career” moves may have to be turned down, if the unity and solidity of the family is put at risk (e.g. Mark 10:29-30).
Families must assume personal responsibility for the education of their children. Regardless of whether one sends the children to private Christian schools or home-schools, education is the family’s responsibility. Furthermore, the father stands accountable before God for it, even if Mom is the one who does it. Fathers must teach their children God’s Law. Nothing else is as important to the welfare of the family as this task (Deut 6:6ff). Dominion starts with Dad leading the family in daily worship.
In spite of the humanistic feminization of modern culture, wives need to learn how to submit to the lawful authority of her husband (1 Ptr 3:1ff). Before accepting a proposal of marriage, a woman must ask herself, “Sure I ‘love” him, but do I respect him and can I submit to him?” (Eph 5:33). Women need to be fully employed at home, developing alternative economic strategies. Working outside the home while the children are still young, is destructive to the family, harmful to the children, subverts the husband’s role and distorts the woman’s (e.g. Pvbs 31:10ff). Once the children are grown, other options can be considered.
Singles should normally live with their parents, saving money and preparing for marriage (Pvbs 10:4). Young men should demonstrate that they are ready for the responsibilities of marriage by being debt free and possess considerable savings. Woman (and parents) should reject any potential suitor who is in debt. Fathers might want to consider a “bride price” for their daughters, i.e., a dowry (cf. Gen. 29:20, 31:15-16).
Parents must leave an inheritance for their children to further economic dominion. There is no such concept as retirement in Biblical law, only a time when one’s work no longer remains economically viable. Men continue to work until the Lord calls them home. Older men need to use their time sitting in judgment (Pvbs 13:22). Children are your social security and retirement. Inheritance can be given before death to educate, start businesses, or help purchase a home.
The primary work of all husbands must be (1) their dominion calling (2) the discipline, training and nurturing of their families and only after these two requirements are met should they (3) minister outside the home (1 Tim 3:4, 1 Tim 5:8). As children grow older (and parents grow wiser) they are then freed up for ministering outside the home. Hospitality is the normal ministry for most families (cf. Rms 12:13, Hebs 13:2, etc.).
Parents must not allow their family to be fractured by diverse interests, hobbies, entertainment, etc. Recreation especially ought to be family oriented (e.g. Amos 3:3). If you cannot do it together, then, maybe it’s not worth doing. Family comes before individuals.
The Church must not separate families; get rid of Sunday school, youth groups or other forms of religious baby-sitting (e.g. Josh 18:1). Teach children to worship from a young age. Daily family worship trains children for Sabbath worship.
Families must get out of debt (Rms 13:8).
Advanced ACADEMIC education is an expensive luxury, not an inalienable right, especially for girls. Money invested in academics may be more profitably used in other places (dowry, down payment on a house, etc.). Formal education beyond normal schooling must be evaluated in terms of its economic advantages. Therefore, a godly woman may well decide that the combined cost of an expensive academic education and four years of lost wages outweighs the intangible benefits of a degree (e.g. Luke 14:28).
Parents should give their children financial incentives to stay close to home and develop an interdependence that lasts beyond childhood. Children ought not to normally move away from their families (Pvbs 27:8). This strengthens the ability of the family to meet social/welfare needs (e.g., 1 Tim 5:8).
Christians must use their free time profitably, reading, working, playing together. Home based businesses are highly recommended (Eph 5:16). Get rid of your TV and buy several computers instead.
Teenagers should not date; parents need to carefully chaperone male/female contacts. Parents have the responsibility to ensure that mates for their children share common doctrinal, ministry, calling and life goals. Arranged marriages (with the consent of the children) are not archaic, but a wise way to ensure family stability (cf. Gen 24:1-4).
Teenagers are young adults and should not see their teen years as time to be irresponsible. Teenagers are given too much time, too much money and too much opportunity to sin. Young adults should focus their time in working diligently at their calling as early as possible (cf. Eph 5:16).
Conclusion:
Most of what passes for family “values” in this country is simply baptized secularism. Some people will agree with all the suggestions mentioned above. Some will disagree with all. The main point is to get Christians thinking Biblically about their families, and to ask themselves some hard questions about their core values. If we agree to start asking some hard questions, God may give us grace and answers.
Theology must take precedence over sociology. The way to change the culture is to apply a consistent, Biblical worldview in place of the ever-changing values of fractured American society. Covenant families, united in goal and purpose, are the basis for a reconstructed society. It may mean sacrifices, but the reward is dominion in the name of King Jesus.
Raising A Christian Army »
Sunday, April 20th, 2008Rev. Brian M. Abshire
“The harvest is plentiful, but the workers are few. Therefore beseech the Lord of the harvest to send out workers into His harvest.”
The problem is not a new one. There is a world to be rebuilt, but few Christians willing to do anything more than hold hands for Jesus. Oh, there are reasons, good reasons: lukewarm churches filled with spiritual deadwood, insipid preaching tailored for jaded ears, entertainment-oriented worship keeping people so busy playing at church they have little enough time left for real ministry. But the sad fact is that in the great war against humanism, most Christians are simply AWOL. And the few Christians who do show up for the battle are so often so badly trained, they are either quickly overwhelmed by the enemy or subverted to suit his agenda. One only has to look at the so-called “Christian” Coalition to see how easily sincere, motivated and dedicated believers can be used, abused and taken advantage of.
Some Christians can talk a better line, and make plenty of witty and acerbic comments about the failure of American evangelicalism. Yet, when it comes to actually doing something, too many are also on the sidelines. Some are too “holy” to dirty their hands with actual work. Others just don’t know how to put into practice what we so eloquently preach.
Part of the problem is that we are fighting a war on multiple fronts with all the attendant confusion, anxiety and downright panic characteristic of an army on the verge of disaster (trusted old military maxim: when in danger or in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout). The simple fact is that Christians are not ready for dominion in the “big things” yet. We are not ready because we have not demonstrated faithfulness in the “little things.” The Kingdom is like leaven, small, innocuous, and almost unnoticeable until it permeates and affects the entire loaf. And that is one of the keys to raising a victorious Christian army; start slow, exercise faithful dominion in the areas God has already given us and watch the leaven work it’s power.
God is sovereign! We are not forced to compromise God’s law now for short-term gains (or make ungodly alliances with pagans). Victory will come in the war against humanism, idolatry, paganism and apostasy. But an untrained army is an armed mob. We need trained troops, quality troops, dedicated troops that will take time to raise, train and equip. Granted, some battles must be fought now! Praise God we have some highly motivated people fighting a holding action against the worst effects of humanism. They are buying the rest of us precious time to gather the resources necessary for the great counter attack. Therefore, we need to use that time wisely in the unglamorous task of recruiting and training our army. This is not a war that will be won in a single generation, and therefore we need to plan and work toward a greater future. For the sake of illustration, I’d like to offer my church as one example (neither the only or necessarily the best) of how Christians can begin preparing troops for our eventual victory.
First, we do not like the terms “Reconstructionist” or “theonomy” to describe either our church or her ministries. Sadly, the words have been so misunderstood by so many that they just carry too much extra baggage. Much as one might object, most people think “Reconstructionism” is about power politics and “taking over” the country, executing homosexuals, adulterers and rebellious teenagers while ramming Christianity down everyone’s throat (sort of a Christian version of Iran). Such people almost cannot help but think that way. Humanism is so pervasive that few people think in Biblical categories anymore. They cannot imagine how a nation could be Christianized without a top-down tyrannical dictatorship. It just seems incredulous to them that the grace of God manifested through the preaching of the Word and the faithful obedience of God’s people could rebuild a civilization from the ground up.
Instead, we simply identify ourselves as a Reformed church, with Presbyterian polity that seeks to love and obey God. We unapologetically call for Christians to submit every area of life to the Lordship of Christ; personal, familial, social and political; in other words, for Christians to be faithful to that Reformed heritage. Sadly, many reformed Christians do not have a clue as to their reformed heritage and will throw out scare terms like “theonomy” as a means of discrediting God’s own Word. This is a logical fallacy called, “poisoning the well.” The issue is not whether we teach something that sounds like “Reconstructionist,” but are we faithfully teaching the truth of God’s Word? True story: the most controversial sermon series I ever preached was on the 10 Commandments. A small segment of the church reacted virulently to all this “reconstructionist” nonsense. It was only after the series was over that I revealed the source of my material; the Larger Catechism of the Westminster Confession!
Secondly, my job as a pastor is to teach God’s people, His law, commandments, statutes and judgments (as in Westminster Confession 19:5-7, LC Q&A 94, 95, 97, 99, etc., Matt 5:17-20, Jn 14:21, etc.). That in itself, is life-changing. Too many Reformed Christians have impeccable doctrine, but are woefully deficient in making practical application. It is almost as if some pastors have adopted essentially neo-platonic theology, i.e., right thoughts = right actions. But the Scriptures require pastors to preach so that God’s people will obey (2 Tim 4:2). We are to meditate on the Law so that we might be careful to do “according to all that is written in it” (Josh 1:8). If there is no application from a sermon, if it does not instruct us in how to grow in grace and obedience, then the pastor has wasted his time, and ours Jn 14:21).
Thirdly, though the pastor’s role is important, it is not magisterial. Pastors are not popes and the institutional church is not the army. To the contrary, the church is better viewed as Advanced Infantry Training. The institutional church preaches the word and administers the sacraments (vital and central ministries). But most of the real work of dominion occurs through the whole body as Christians exercise their individual callings. Therefore, we exhort each individual household to apply God’s law in the spheres He has entrusted to them. We have no big programs, no session mandated ministries (apart from our deacons), no grandiose plans. But our people take God’s word seriously and consistently act upon it. The session does not try to run people’s lives. We just try to give people the opportunity and support to identify and fulfill their own individual callings. We tell them what God expects and then let them get on with it.
Fourthly, if the Church is advanced training, basic training takes place in the home. Dominion begins with the family. The family is a man’s first school, church and State. If Christians fail here, then we can expect little success in the greater war. It is significant that God requires elders to manage their own households first, before they are to be entrusted with the household of God (cf. 1 Tim 3:4-5).
Therefore as a church, we have tried to reestablish the primacy of the family as the foundational sphere of government. Since men are held accountable by God for the welfare of their families, we teach, exhort, admonish, encourage and equip them to take responsibility for leading in their homes. Daily family worship is taught, emphasized, encouraged and expected. The Directory for Family Worship, (published by the Church of Scotland in 1647, reprinted by Greenville Seminary), has been of enormous benefit, as well as Rushdoony’s Toward A Christian Marriage and Doug Wilson’s Reforming Marriage. All three have been read and discussed in our Monthly Smoke Blowing, Calorie Consuming, Men’s Breakfast and Kibitzing Society. Fathers are held accountable to catechize their children, teach their wives and be responsible, self-sacrificial, godly heads of their households.
Our men meet together for intensive training in theology, hermeneutics and exegesis. Christians need a sound theological basis and a consistent, Biblical worldview if they are to exercise dominion in their callings. The men meet to encourage each other, admonish each other and help each other to be the men God wants them to be. No “touchy-feely” nonsense here; just iron sharpening iron (with the occasional spark!). We rigorously train our men in the Reformed faith: the same faith that saw our spiritual ancestors harassed, imprisoned, tortured, and martyred because they proclaimed the crown rights of King Jesus. The same faith that transformed the medieval world as Calvin turned Geneva into a “city on a hill and a light to the nations.” The same faith that motivated the Scottish Presbyterians to reform one nation, and the New England Puritans to build another.
However, it is crucial that we do not just study doctrine, but rather emphasize its meaning and application to every area of life. Instead of a bunch of ivory towered intellectuals useless in the real world, we need to develop men who are both principled and pragmatic; men who can sit in the city gate dispensing God’s wisdom; men committed to the truth, articulate in the truth, but humble and gentle toward one another (cf. 1 Cor 8:1ff). Leaders, who lovingly and gently serve their wives and children at home are the first step in exercising dominion in the world.
Some people are surprised we do not have couple’s Bible studies. The reason is partially pragmatic, partially principle. If Scripture requires husbands to teach their families (cf. Deut 6:4ff), then where do couples studies fit in? If women are to remain silent in the church and ask their husbands at home to explain the law (1 Cor 14:34-35), why encourage open discussion groups where women are often more vocal then the men? (The pragmatic reason is that I have never found a gracious way to tell a woman she’s dead wrong without offending her grievously. And once you offend the wife, the husband is honor bound to come to her defense.) Men and women think differently. Men usually like the rough and tumble challenge of swapping ideas, heated discussion and pointed remarks. Woman often find the same setting unruly and uncomfortable and so we separate them.
Therefore, godly women need to be encouraged, strengthened and supported in their counter cultural role. Women today are bombarded by the most intensive propaganda campaign in history. They are often torn, frustrated, confused and anxious because of the conflicting messages from popular culture, schools, husbands, employers, friends and the church.
We try to help women develop a clear, unambiguous vision of their role and calling. For example, in their studies, the older women teach the younger ones how to love their husbands and children, be workers at home, sensible, pure, etc. (cf. Titus 2:4-5). On their own, the woman decided not to study theological issues because they felt that it usurped their husbands’ role. Instead, they meet for prayer and fellowship, to encourage each other to be helpmeets to their husbands’ calling. Some of our women are brilliant, well educated individuals with advanced training in computer programming, engineering, sociology, nursing, etc. Yet, they cherish above all their role as wives and mothers.
Almost all of our mothers are home schooling right now, sacrificing their careers for the higher goal of raising dominion oriented children (sadly, there are no Reformed Christian schools available, but we’re working on it!). Home schooling offers a godly woman one of the most challenging and fulfilling opportunities to utilize her gifts and skills imaginable. The Industrial Revolution, urbanization and specialization destroyed traditional women’s work, leaving many feeling useless and unfulfilled. But what technology took away with one hand, it has now given back with the other. Women can now educate their children at home right through high. Home schooling provides children with the one of the best educational opportunities available while giving godly women vital and meaningful work.
These same women are also developing economic strategies for using their skills and education for when their children are older (one very young grandmother went back to work as a public school teacher just to make sure her grandchildren could afford the tuition of a Christian school!). The Biblical model of a godly woman is neither the sanctimonious saccharine Mom of the 1950’s nor the liberated androgynous creature of the 90’s. A godly woman is a business manager, real-estate agent, crafts-woman, social worker, counselor, as well as a mother and wife (cf. Pvbs 31:10ff).
Since the family is the center of the Christian life, we emphasize each household taking responsibility to use their homes as vehicles of ministry. How, is up to them, depending upon their calling. We don’t try to get everyone to sing the same note, but rather trust in the sovereignty of God, to make harmony out of the notes He gives each one to sing. Each family has its own, unique call from God. For example, some of families picket local abortuaries (one man gets quality time with his two adult sons by meeting in front on an abortionist’s house every Sunday morning before worship. Ironically, the abortionist is an elder in the “other” Presbyterian church! One of their signs reads, “Real Presbyterians Don’t Kill Babies.”), others keep a legislative watch on our local politicians or work in political campaigns, some have a ministry helping old folks in their neighborhood, others have a vision for reaching the inner city, some are involved with home school organizations, others have a heart for personal evangelism.
Every household tries to practice Biblical hospitality, ministering to the saints and adorning the gospel with personal acts of charity. Our deacons are trained to assist each family in discovering God’s call on their time and resources. Sometimes one family recruits another family and the two households work together. And all this ministry is done without the least bit of micro-management by the Session.
There is no short cut to dominion. An army takes time to recruit, train and equip for battle. But time is something postmillennialists have plenty of. To build that army, we need churches dedicated to preaching the truth in power, congregations committed to loving and serving King Jesus in the places He has put them, learning the basic principle that dominion comes through service (Mk 10:45). Men need to be men, working at their calling, leading their families, loving them, training them, giving themselves up for them. Women need to be encouraged to re-discover their God given roles in an age that gives them conflicting values. Children need to be disciplined, educated and catechized to see life from a consistent, Biblical worldview. Individual by individual, covenant household by household, each family must work at extending the Kingdom one small step at a time. Like a little bit of leaven, slowly but surely, life by life, family by family, church by church, community by community, we can infiltrate, affect and eventually rebuild the world around us.
Promises, Promises! »
Sunday, April 20th, 2008A review of David Hagopian and Douglas Wilson’s new book, A Biblical Challenge to Promise Keepers
Rev. Brian M. Abshire
Several years ago, an old friend with whom I had lost contact, called to see how things were going. As we got caught up on kids and jobs, how fat we were getting and how much hair we were losing, my friend asked me if I was involved with Promise Keepers. He then gave an impassioned commercial for the benefits of this wonderful organization for Christian men, teaching them how to be a real man, fulfill their duties towards their wives and children, etc. I finally interrupted him saying, “Hey Bob, all that sounds great, but I am already involved in just that kind of ministry, it’s called a Reformed church.” It struck me that this great new movement with Christian superstars and big rallies was just another example of broad evangelical hype on something that always has been fundamental to historic Reformed orthodoxy.
Well, I was wrong. There is far more to Promise Keepers than I realized. David Hagiopian and Doug Wilson’s new book, Beyond Promises, provides an inestimable service to the Christian community by analyzing the underlying theology of an undisputedly powerful evangelical movement. Twenty-two regional conferences in 1996 expect almost 1.5 million men participating. More than 70,000 pastors showed up at the Georgia Dome for a full-fledged stadium-styled conference. 1997 hopes to see another million man march in Washington.
Written in an irenic spirit, Beyond Promises does a marvelous job of critiquing this movement, giving full credit where due, without taking the cheap shots some of us would find irresistible. They fully acknowledge that Promise Keepers has identified a fundamental problem with American culture in general, and the evangelical church in particular; Christian men are wimps. This spirit of trying to work with Promise Keepers, rather than just criticize them runs throughout the book. However, their gentle manner makes the critique all that more effective; and critique it they do. For although Promise Keepers has correctly identified the problem, without a fully consistent Biblical worldview to offer as an alternative, their solutions are little better then the left over scraps of the Men’s movement, baptized with an occasional Bible verse and liberally sprinkled with psycho-babble. Once again, Evangelical Christianity has proven there is no fad so silly, that the Church will not scrounge the Humanist trash heap for a few forgotten crumbs.
Beyond Promises is broken down into four parts: What Promise Keepers does right, some causes for concern, a Biblical analysis of the actual promises made and a concluding chapter offering some constructive challenges. The authors also weave a Biblical alternative throughout the book. Some weaving is better than others; personally, I found their theology of the law a bit confused. However, for the most part, Beyond Promises actually provides what Promise Keepers themselves lack, a consistent, Biblical alternative to cultural models.
Beyond Promises credits Promise Keepers for identifying the crises in masculine confidence, pointing out male abdication of their role and calling, the feminization of the church, etc. Furthermore, Promise Keepers is to be commended for their striving to create a real spiritual hunger in men for a closer relationship with Christ and seeking to help men to stand up and be counted. Not the least of the praises given is that Promise Keepers has earned the hatred and fear of the feminists. Hey, the gotta be doing something right, right! Wilson and Hagopian sum up the good points of Promise Keepers by saying, “In many ways, the movement is well…full of promise!”
But, sadly, the promise is often unfulfilled. Starting in the second section, the authors expose the underlying theology of Promise Keepers, and what they find is sometimes not good. In the “Gospel of Guyhood,” Wilson and Hagopian state that “the gospel proclaimed by some Promise Keepers spokesman is, with a few notable exceptions, nothing short of moralism, pure and simple, To be saved, we must do.” How could it be otherwise? American evangelicalism long ago sold its Reformed heritage for Arminian pottage. It should not surprise us that a movement with such a mass appeal must meet the lowest common theological denominator.
This results in consistently mixed messages. While Promise Keepers desire ardently to help men be men, in the chapter entitled “The Tea Party Mentality” the authors reveal that inadvertently, Promise Keepers actually tries to make men, more like women. They lack a consistent Biblical understanding of the roles and relationship between men and women, and therefore recommend that men become more sensitive, sharing, caring individuals; in other words, they want men to relate to other men, as women relate to other women. Though Promise Keeper authors and speakers extol the family, they sometimes end up undermining the Biblical concepts of headship and submission on which a Biblical family is based. In fact, Promise Keepers seems to downplay any authority except their own. To critique Promise Keepers in some people’s eyes is to critique God.
Beyond Promises also identifies the fundamental flaw in a Promise Keepers key concept: the notion of “mentoring.” Men, need to be mentored by other men, according to Promise Keepers, men who will teach them, train them, stand alongside them, support them and hold them accountable. Who could argue with this? But it is not the need that is the problem, but the solution. God has already provided such men for “mentoring;” they are called “elders.” Of course, “most elders think their job is sitting in judgment on the pastor, rather than governing the church.” Promise Keepers are certainly right in finding the problem; it’s just that they don’t have a Biblical solution. Interesting that Promise Keepers chooses terminology from the business world, “mentoring” rather than the Biblical term “discipleship.”
The authors do give Promise Keepers full credit though for drawing a clear line in the sand. “In no small measure, Promise Keepers has had the positive impact which it has had because of this emphasis on integrity and purity, straight up.” In the area of sexual purity, Promise Keepers faces the situation head on and calls men to Biblical morality. However, the problem is that Promise Keepers does not always speak with a clear voice. Some say one thing, others say another. For example, Promise Keeper spokesman Robert Hicks wants young men to celebrate sins as “rites of passage.” Or, in a Promise Keeper book, “Strategies for a Successful Marriage” co-authored by a divorced man, divorce is seen as an unhappy event, something painful, unfortunate, but never discussed in moral, covenantal terms, there is no mention of sin, compromise, moral failure, broken vows, etc.
Furthermore, in this same book on marriage (dealing with promise #4) Beyond Promises says that an assumption is made that the feminine expectations for marriage are accurate, and that the masculine ones are not. Hence, the husband must learn to conform his behavior to his wife’s expectations. Men are exhorted to discover their wives expectations and then commit themselves to doing everything within their power to meet them. But shouldn’t a man ask first, are those expectations Biblical? Marriage exists first to glorify God. Meeting perceived needs can only occur if God is glorified, if husband and wife understand their specific Biblical roles, duties, and responsibilities.
Beyond Promises rightly states that God gives each man a dominion calling and that a wife’s calling is to help her husband. “While a man must honor, love, and cherish the one given to him to help in his ordained task, he must not begin to think that he was created for her. He was created to do something else under God, and she was created as ideally suited to help him do it.” Promise Keepers does not always seem to understand this.
The same kind of mixed message also comes through regarding parenting. While the authors cite favorably James Dobson’s clear Biblical instruction regarding discipline in Seven Promises of A Promise Keeper, they then note that the next chapter takes away with the left hand what the right hand just gave. They analyze a family confrontation where a college student has done something that he knew would make his father angry, simply because of peer pressure from friends at school. In other words, the opinion of his peers was more important to him than the wishes of his parents. The father is commended for not blowing his stack, but the son is never confronted with his disrespect and contempt for his parents. This is hardly Biblical parenting. One of the greatest gifts we can give our children is to teach them to respect and honor their parents; it is the first commandment with a promise! Of course, Dad should not have blown up, but “the father grievously failed when he refused to address a profound problem that his son clearly had an inability to resist ungodly pressure, even when the price of capitulation is hurting the family.” But the author in question just doesn’t get it and therefore sends a confused message.
Though Promise Keepers stated intention is to “complement what the church is already doing,” the reality may be far different. Hagopian and Wilson state, “some of what it has taught may subtly undermine the local church in very serious ways.” They note that while downplaying the sacraments (which they commend), Promise Keepers has initiated a new series of rituals; e.g., the “closing night coronation” or the “blessing of pastors.” They also have adopted the now defunct “encounter group” mentality as the basis for a small group program. In effect, like certain other parachurch organizations, they recruit men out of the local church, motivate them with seminars, conferences, etc., which minimize crucial doctrinal issues and send those men back into the local church on “fishing” expeditions.
There is of course much more to be said about Promise Keepers, so buy the book! In fact, Beyond Promises should be required reading for anyone concerned about the impact of the Promise Keeper’s movement. It is a fair, even handed critique, easy to read with solutions rather than just endless criticism. Hagopian and Wilson are both committed to raising the standard of Biblical masculinity in the church. They have done a fine job. Buy an extra copy and start loaning it out.
Beyond Promises: A Biblical Challenge to Promise Keepers
Canon Press, PO Box 8741, Moscow ID 83843
(about $15.)
How To Help Your Children Find the “Right” Life Mate »
Sunday, April 20th, 2008Rev. Brian M. Abshire
She was a gorgeous young thing named, believe it or not, “Barbie.” Her dad was the skipper of an oil tanker, just back from a three month trip. And I could tell right off he wasn’t much impressed with the long haired, bell bottomed, leather vest wearing, “Pimples R Us” punk who had been dating his daughter during his absence. In short, he wasn’t much impressed with ME! We were sitting in his basement, as he lovingly cleaned a beautiful double barreled shotgun in preparation for the opening of pheasant season. At one point, after asking some basic questions about me, my family, school activities, educational and vocational goals, political views, current bank account, etc., he broke open the shotgun, looked at me down both barrels and said, in a friendly, conversational sort of way, “You know Brian, my daughters are just about the most precious things in my life. If anyone was to ever hurt them, why, I don’t know what I’d do.” With that, he snapped the gun shut. The “click” was loud enough to shatter ear drums. And the message came through loud and clear. Not surprisingly, even though I had all the moral instincts of any “normal” hormone driven, sixteen year old, pagan boy (i.e., none!), my relationship with that young woman was remarkably pure.
Sadly, most fathers then, and today, do not seemed as concerned with protecting their children during the most difficult time of their lives. Since the industrial revolution, the time between the onset of puberty and Christian marriage has significantly increased, forcing a period of prolonged abstinence during the very time when a young person’s sexual desires are at their peak. Added to the problem is that we live in a sexually saturated culture, where immorality and fornication are the norm. Yet most parents, even many Christian ones, simply turn a blind eye towards their adolescent children, allowing them to be placed in situations where their morality is severely put to the test by raging hormones. Too many parents totally abdicate any real responsibility of helping their children. Most do not carefully supervise who their children “date” (a nasty and destructive practice that the Church has adopted almost without a whimper) and routinely allow young boys and girls to spend considerable amount of time together, alone, away from chaperones. “But” such parents say, “I raised my children right. I trust them!”
Yet even a rough survey of people my age (early forties) will disclose overwhelming evidence that such trust is misplaced. Any pastor can recount countless horror stories confessed by counseling cases of their disastrous experiences with members of the opposite sex during the years just before marriage. Again and again, when left essentially to their own resources, and the pervasive influence of their culture as to acceptable behavior, a significant number of Christians confess to immorality before they were married. Since so many Christians have allowed their values to be determined by a secularized and paganized society, rather than the Scriptures, is it any wonder that the Church is so weak and impotent in the world, when we cannot even instill basic, Biblical practices in our families?
When it comes to selecting a life partner, Christian parents are usually even more confused and often just as negligent. Most refuse to advise against possible mates of whom they disapprove since they fear losing whatever little influence, they still have left. Though choosing the person your child will marry is perhaps the most important decision they will ever make in this life, many parents are so scared of appearing controlling and manipulative that they will actually refuse to give their children counsel. “Whatever makes you happy dear…” is not an uncommon response. Parents give a lot more time and thought to a child’s college education or sports activities, than with whom that child will spend the rest of their life.
When you think of it, that’s not all that surprising. First of all, the parents probably know little or nothing of the partner their child has picked out, or the family he or she comes from. In American Christian culture today, children are normally separated from their parents at a very young age. They then develop their core values from popular culture, public schools and peers. From surveys done over the last 20 years in various ministries with which I have been involved, (agreed, not necessary a scientific or representative sample of the population as a whole) most young people met their life partners at college, the military or in churches they joined AFTER they left home. (The running joke at the evangelical Baptist College I attended was that the school offered two degrees, a BA for the boys, and a MRS for the girls). The prime ingredient of whether or not to marry was almost universally, “Because we’re in love.” Conspicuously absent from the vast majority of marriages was any significant parental involvement in the whole process. When it came to marriage, the parents’ views were just not considered all that important.
Yet, the Scriptures are very clear that marriage is a covenant. It involves children transferring their allegiance from one covenant to another. That’s why we have that little bit in the wedding ceremony that says, “Who gives this woman in marriage?” The father, by standing by his daughter, is formally transferring his covenant authority over her from his household, to the groom’s. The groom is leaving his mother and father’s household to set up a new one. There cannot be a transferal of covenant authority without at least the permission of the parents. Yet, surely the responsibility goes beyond mere consent. Does it not also require the active participation of the parents in helping their children find suitable partners? Is not the glory of age, the opportunity to learn from our mistakes, and pass that wisdom on to the next generation? While we certainly cannot protect our children from every bad decision, surely we should be striving to help them make THIS decision based on wisdom of God’s Law rather than the whims of transient feelings?
Therefore, godly parents need to consider practical ways they can help guide their children. It is too late to wait until your kids are sixteen years old and already looking at all the pretty candy on display before you lay down these basic principles. They need to become a part of your daily family worship at an early age. I feel deeply for the man with a 24-year-old daughter who comes to me in tears, bewailing the terrible choice of a husband she has picked out. He is caught between a rock and a hard place. If he refuses, she gets married anyway, and he loses his daughter. If he agrees, he gives his blessing to a marriage he hates. But the problem my friend, is that you should have been working with that young lady when she was 12, not 24. He has failed to pass on his values to his daughter. And now he reaps the reward by seeing his covenant seed marry a jerk! Therefore, the following principles and guidelines are offered to parents as they seek to help their children find the right life mate, before it is too late.
Right Focus (Col. 3:17, 1 Cor. 10:31)
First, we have to instill in our children the principle that the ultimate purpose of marriage, as well as every other area of life, is to glorify God, not to live “the American dream.” To glorify God means to submit every area of life to His Law and His will. We are not here to live for ourselves, but for God. Thus, if something we want is contrary to God’s Law, then we must die to ourselves (Luke 9:23-24) and seek His will instead. This basic orientation will save our children much grief and pain, for God’s Law is gracious and meant not only for His glory, but our good. Hence every decision they make, especially regarding marriage, ought to be made ultimately and finally as unto the Lord. While most people today make decisions about marriage based on the myth of romantic infatuation (I refuse to call it love), this is no Biblical basis for a life partner. Even secular psychologists acknowledge that romantic infatuation is transitory, lasting at best six months. If a relationship has nothing else going for it than this, then that couple is going to find it very difficult to make that marriage work. Our children must be warned that “romantic infatuation” is not a sufficient basis for marriage and help them to guard their hearts.
Thus, there may well be people who appear very attractive to our children, but a marriage with them would not be to God’s glory. Obviously, those who reject the faith are unsuitable as potential partners. Scripture forbids us from marrying unbelievers. But more than that, those who reject the Reformed faith are also inappropriate partners. Arminianism and antinomians are grievous errors and will undermine your covenant seed’s future. Parents need to protect their children from them. From a young age, we ought to be training our children to have discernment about these kinds of things. Furthermore, we need to make sure they don’t have the opportunity to be exposed to them where courting relationships could develop. Sadly, economics, not theology governs most parents’ actions. They send their children to various schools so they can get a good job. Then wonder what went wrong when their young’ns come home with some total flake they met in college. “But Daddy, he’s a Christian!” Yeah right.
Right People (Gen. 2:18)
The theology of finding appropriate partners for our children begins with God’s actions for his children in the Garden of Eden. God specifically created a helpmate for Adam that was suitable for him. They were not equals (God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve) but rather complements; i.e., each possessed mutually affirming gifts, strengths and insights. Each was incomplete without the other. Each person had qualities that the other needed to fulfill their covenant duties before God.
Therefore, in the same way, though there may be many possible partners for our children, we should seek to use our superior wisdom to help them find mates that will complement their own unique personalities, abilities, gifts and callings. Young people, going through the most turbulent times of their lives, do not know themselves as well as they sometimes think they do. The average American will change careers repeatedly until age and economic necessity finally make them settle down. If the divorce rate is any indication, young people are no less ready to make a final decision on marriage, then they are on vocation. They need their parents input. Sadly, too many parents do not really know their children because by the time that their kids become teenagers, they have spent virtually no time with them. Someone else has educated them (the public schools), someone else has instructed them spiritually (Sunday school, youth group, traveling revivalists, “Christian” rock artists, etc.) and someone else has been their intimate confidant (friends, neighbors, peers, etc.).
But parents, if they have fulfilled their Biblical role faithfully, should know their children better than anyone else in the world. They should have 20 odd years of experience with their children; know their moods, tempers, gifts, and weaknesses. And hence, they are providentially equipped to be in the best position to advise their children about what kind of person they should be courting. When a child reaches the age where courting is now appropriate, parents and child should sit down and do a frank analysis of themselves and potential partners.
At a minimum, young men seeking our daughters need to demonstrate before courtship that they have a clear focus on their dominion calling. Adam was given a wife only after he had begun his work in the garden. Once his calling was clear, only then was a suitable help-meet created for him. A man needs a wife who can come along side and work with him.
In the same way, young women are required by God to submit to their husbands. This has never been an easy role for godly women, not since the Garden. We have a responsibility to make sure that our sons have wives who understand their role, are comfortable in it, and will be supportive. Submission is too essential a requirement for godly women to entrust it to some slack-jawed yokel who will misuse it.
Take for example a young man who is by temperament rather shy and retiring. He’s a good boy, diligent and conscientious, but maybe not all that masterful. He may well be attracted to a strong, dominant type woman. Would it be a sin for two such people to marry? Of course not. But I can guarantee that those kids are going to have problems. He is likely to be severely tempted to abdicate responsibility to his more forceful wife. She will have to strongly resist the temptation to rule over her husband. It’s not that such a marriage could not work, but that it is going to entail a considerable degree of time and trouble and heartache. By the parents carefully and realistically working with their kids to help analyze and evaluate themselves and others, a great deal of grief can be avoided.
Right Heart (Phil. 2:3-4)
The goal of any relationship is ministry, not manipulation. We are not to seek to have our own needs met, but rather to meet the needs of others. Yet, usually, marriages are made because young people think that a certain person will meet their “needs.” Instead, we must raise our children to see life as a process of giving up rights, and taking on responsibilities.
Therefore, our children need to learn how to be “other-oriented” in their thinking. Often Christian parents spoil their children by being over-indulgent, allowing their natural affection to determine how they discipline and train them for life. The Puritans actually made their children move out of the home during their teenage years because they feared that such natural affections would lead to the parents making bad life decisions for their kids! But today, we often require no responsibilities of our children, buy them what they want, when they want it, subsidize their affluent, pleasure oriented life-style, and then wonder why their marriages break up. Selfishness, pure and simple, is the cause of most marital disasters. People want their own way, because the parents have trained them to think that they are the center of the universe.
The beauty of Christian relationships is that because we are complete in Christ, because His grace and mercy has been granted to His elect, we can be and should be channels of that grace and love to others. Husbands must be willing to give themselves up for their wives. Wives must submit themselves to their husbands. Both man and woman make genuine sacrifices to make a godly marriage. If one or both of the people are not ready or able to make those sacrifices, then they are not suitable marriage partners.
Right Mind (Phil. 2:1-2)
As Christians, we are commanded to have the same mind, to be intent on one purpose, united in spirit. If this is to be true of the church, how much more so ought it to be the norm in the home? Therefore, life mates for our children should share the same life goals and desire a complementary ministry. This also has application to our interests, hobbies, desires, etc. The only way to know this is to spend time with people. One Sunday lunch with the family is simply not enough time to evaluate a person properly. Hence, normally speaking, families ought to come together and do things as families. This allows young children to grow up together with people of a like mind.
Right Qualifications (Eph. 5:22-ff., Pvbs 31:12-ff., 1 Pet. 3:1-ff., Titus 1:6-9., Titus 2:2-ff., 1 Tim. 3:1ff.)
The best indicator of future performance is past performance. If you want to know what a person is going to be like in the future, just take a long hard look at where he has been. Now it is the grace and glory of the gospel that God transforms sinners. Yet even so, when deciding upon who is or is not suitable as a mate for our children, the past is a great indicator of what they can expect down the road.
Therefore, parents should look for potential husbands who possess headship and leadership ability. Does this boy know his calling and is he working diligently at it? Old Testament Law required a man to pay a bride price roughly equivalent to three years labor. Can the boy save and manage money and thus financially provide for the family (1 Tim. 5:8). Is he good father material (Col. 3:19-20, Eph. 6:1-2)? Look at his own father for insights as to how he will handle frustration, anger, fear, etc. Does the boy’s father trust his wife, love her, (Eph 5:21ff) nurture and care for her (Pvbs. 31:11) granting her honor as a fellow heir (1 Pet. 3:7), understanding her and being gentle with her (1 Pet. 3:7)? The way the boy’s father treats his mother is likely to be the same way he will treat your daughter. Is he a one-woman man (1 Tim. 3:2) or has he had a series of romantic entanglements? Is the boy sensible (Titus 2:6) and does he possess the general godly character qualities of a mature Christian man (1 Tim. 3:1-ff.)? If not, then no matter how friendly, charming or attractive, look somewhere else.
In the same way, potential wives for our sons should be submissive in spirit (Eph 5:19) and respectful in their attitude and demeanor. They are to be sensible, pure, workers at home, kind, loving their husbands and children (cf. Titus 2:3). They are able to do good to their husbands because they are industrious, charitable, skilled in their work, well-dressed (and modestly so), good managers of resources and of course, fear God (cf. 1 Tim. 2:9-10, 1 Pet. 3:3-4, Pvbs. 31:22). If a woman lacks any of these qualities before marriage, there is no way knowing if she will ever develop them afterwards. Therefore, parents ought to make it a point to examine potential mates according to objective, Biblical criteria. If they don’t meet the qualifications, then no matter how attractive they are, they are not suitable for marriage.
Conclusions
The person our children want to marry says much about what sort of Christian we are, about our values and priorities and how faithfully we carried out our domestic responsibilities. Granted, even in the best families, there may be reprobate children who reject our wisdom, resist our authority and refuse our counsel. And they will bear in their own lives the pain and frustration of their rebellion. But that does not leave parents off the hook. We must do our duty to love our kids, teach them, train them, and most importantly, be involved with them. There is no ministry so important, no job so crucial, no life situation so desperate, that we must sacrifice our covenant seed on the alter of expediency.
There are of course, many more important things to consider in helping our children find an appropriate life partner. While it is true that despite the principles noted above, any two Christians can marry lawfully, some marriages will take far more time and effort to make work Biblically. In this day of emotionalism and lack of commitment to anything except one’s personal peace and security, violating these standards will often mean a marriage full of trouble that will distract our children from the real work of the Kingdom. The family is the beginning of dominion, not the end. A man at war within his own home has less time, energy and effort to work for the Kingdom outside the home.
Understanding and applying these guidelines will not only result in a marriage pleasing to God, but also one that will be the most rewarding for ourselves. They provide the foundation for winning the world for Christ. Our children are our future, and the last best gift we can give to them is helping them find someone to lovingly co-labor with them for the Kingdom.
You are currently browsing the site archives
for
April, 2008
.
Check the