In Preparation for Communion

Have you ever had someone show up and randomly start telling you how to do your job? It’s frustrating! Especially if you are forced to put up with that person because of their status. In my case, I was the college-educated boss’s kid on the construction job, working with guys that had been doing this work for years. I knew that my best bet was to keep my lips sealed, my head down, and work hard at whatever task was put in front of me.

There’s an interesting story about Jesus, only recorded in Luke 5, where Jesus shows up and starts telling some blue-collar guys how to do their job. Luke writes: Then He got into one of the boats, which was Simon’s, and asked him to put out a little from the land. And He sat down and taught the multitudes from the boat. When He had stopped speaking, He said to Simon, “Launch out into the deep and let down your nets for a catch.” But Simon answered and said to Him, “Master, we have toiled all night and caught nothing; nevertheless at Your word I will let down the net.” (Luke 5:3-5)

Jesus, who is not a fisherman, tells Simon the fisherman how to fish. And the day has already been unproductive. Simon tells Jesus, “Master, we’ve already been at it all night and haven’t caught a thing!” But Simon also has respect for Jesus as a spiritual teacher, so he indulges his Master a little. You can almost hear Simon and the other fishermen muttering beneath their breath! “We’re going to get these boats ready and out there again and Jesus will see it’s exactly like we said: there’s no fish! Stick to the preaching, Jesus. Leave the fishing to us.”

But what happens? “And when they had done this, they caught a great number of fish, and their net was breaking. So they signaled to their partners in the other boat to come and help them. And they came and filled both the boats, so that they began to sink.” (Luke 5:6-7) Not only do these experienced fishermen haul in an astounding catch, they take in so much that it becomes dangerous! What happened?

What happened is summed up in Peter’s words, which he probably wasn’t even thinking about, “At Your word I will let down the net.” It is not the skill of these fishermen that makes the difference; it isn’t the wisdom of men who’ve probably spent their whole lives on these waters, hauling in fish. It is the word, the commandment, of Jesus that makes the difference and turns this fishing venture from a bad catch to an overwhelming abundance.

There’s another place in Scripture where Jesus commanded something that sounds strange to us: when He instituted the Lord’s supper at His last supper with His disciples. There He broke the Passover bread and He told them: “Take, eat; this is My body.” Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.” (Matthew 26:26-28)

If we were doing things with man’s wisdom, we could probably come up with a much more impressive sacrament than the Lord’s supper. In fact, the communion table is astoundingly unimpressive to the flesh: a little bread, a small taste from the cup. And yet, because Christ Himself instituted this meal with His own words, His own commandment, the table becomes for us the very place where we taste by faith the body and blood of our Savior. Through the Spirit’s power and blessing that little bread and little cup become for us spiritual nourishment and encouragement for our souls. And as we eat the meal together we have the curtain peeled back and get a brief glimpse of eternal life, where we will eat the everlasting meal at the Lamb’s wedding table. As we come to the Lord’s table this week, let us come in obedience to the very words of Jesus, believing that His word transforms scarcity into abundance, death into life, and the cross into eternal victory. God bless you all until we gather at the table once again.

  

Christmas: Man-Made Idolatry? Or Faithful Celebration?

Around this time of year there are certain predictable posts among Reformed Presbyterians: posts that lament the idolatry of the church, especially in celebrating man-made "holy days" like Advent and Christmas. Some of you, unfamiliar with Reformed history or practice, may wonder what the big deal would be. What faithful Christian wouldn't want to celebrate Christmas!? Isn't that just for the Grinch? Well, the reality is that a lot of faithful Reformed forefathers and mothers didn't celebrate Christmas, not because they were Grinches, but because they took very seriously the Bible's command to not worship God any other way than He Himself had ordained. The Westminster Confession, for example, says in chapter 21 Of Religious Worship and the Sabbath Day:

But the acceptable way of worshipping the true God is instituted by himself, and so limited to his own revealed will, that he may not be worshipped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representations or any other way not prescribed in the Holy Scripture.

God warned His people against thinking they knew better than He about how to properly worship Him. One very clear example of this would be Deuteronomy 12:32, "Whatever I command you, be careful to observe it; you shall not add to it nor take away from it." In worshiping God, we are only to do those things God has ordained, not add to them with our own ideas, nor take away from them through laziness. For many of our Reformed forebears, this forbade them from anything like annual Christmas celebrations. After all, nowhere in His word does God command the annual celebration of Christ's birth. 

It was timely that our men's Bible study at Trinity Chapel wrapped up this week by finishing the book of Esther. The book of Esther closes with the institution of a yearly holiday for the Jews. Because God has delivered them from Haman and their enemies in the Persian empire, Mordecai writes a letter to all the Jews in the empire that they should remember this occasion every year: "as the days on which the Jews had rest from their enemies, as the month which was turned from sorrow to joy for them, and from mourning to holiday; that they should make them days of feasting and joy, of sending presents to one another, and gifts to the poor. So the Jews accepted the custom which they had begun, as Mordecai had written to them." (Esther 9:22-23) 

This is the Jewish feast of Purim, the yearly celebration of God's deliverance from their enemies. It is, in a sense, a "man-made holyday." Nowhere do we read that God commanded Mordecai to institute it. Rather, following the example where God ordained holy days for His people to remember their past deliverances (e.g. Passover, the Feast of Tabernacles), Mordecai institutes this holiday to remember the Jews' most recent deliverance. 

We are not told whether God approves of Purim. Based on other Scriptures, like Deuteronomy 12:32, plenty of Reformed teachers say that this cannot be approved by God, as it is a man-made holyday, not instituted by God. It's frustrating, as God doesn't make any explicit appearances in Esther: He only shows up behind the scenes, never even named, but working through His providence to direct all things and deliver His people. So we aren't told if He disapproves of Purim or not. The way we read the story, it seems like we are meant to approve of it. Esther, in some sense, is a story recorded to explain the holyday of Purim. You can imagine young Jewish boys and girls asking their parents, "Why do we celebrate these days each year?" And, like the Passover, those Jewish parents open the book of Esther and tell them the story of God's saving grace and power. 

Christmas, in my estimation, is similar to Purim. Are we ever explicitly commanded to make a yearly remembrance and celebration of Christ's birth? No, we aren't. There is no verse in all the Bible that says, "Be sure to celebrate Christ's birth every year in late December. Chop down a tree and move it into your living room. Then exchange gifts among one another and with the poor." For some people, that means it is forbidden. I would not agree with that assessment, but why?

As I understand it, a definition of the regulative principle that says, "Anything not explicitly commanded is forbidden," leaves us with a lot of additional problems. Where is the explicit command to gather for worship on Sunday, and not Saturday? (That, by the way, is the chief argument of the "seventh-day" movements: nowhere in Scripture does God explicitly change the Sabbath day from the seventh day to the first. So, they say, we don't have a right to change it.) The reality is that we know the Sabbath day has changed, not because of an explicit command, but by deduction and example. We see that early Christians gathered on the first day, not the seventh. We know that the 4th commandment teaches a perpetual Sabbath of one-in-seven days to be holy to the Lord. Therefore, we deduce that the 4th commandment Sabbath is changed under the New Testament from Saturday to Sunday, in recognition of the world-changing power of Christ's resurrection, which was on the first, not the seventh day. 

By deduction and example, I think we can make a case for at least an annual remembrance of Christ's first coming in Christmas. Just as the angel in Revelation came to John on the Lord's day, thus signifying the true significance of Sunday over Saturday, so also angels appeared to celebrate the incarnation of God's Son. "'For there is born to you this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord. And this will be the sign to you: you will find a Babe wrapped in swaddling cloths, lying in a manger.' And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God and saying: 'Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, goodwill toward men!' So it was, when the angels had gone away from them into heaven, that the shepherds said to one another, 'Let us now go to Bethlehem and see this thing that has come to pass, which the Lord has made known to us.'" (Luke 2:11-15)

One reason I think many of our Reformed forebears reacted so strongly against things like Christmas was their connection to medieval Romanism and all the ungodly idolatry of that system. For centuries the papal antichrist had invented all sorts of superstitious celebrations for saints, angels, and the virgin Mary. The calendar had become full of so-called "holy days of obligation" that crept in and replaced the weekly Sabbath celebration on the Lord's day. They had made these days equal to the Lord's day, in that all the faithful were obligated to attend mass on these days, and rest from work and recreation (which was the whole point of the Sabbath in the first place). 

Let me be clear: Christmas is not such a day as this. In no way is our annual celebration of Christmas a replacement for or even equal to the weekly obligation of the Lord's day Sabbath. My wife and I used to travel home every year for Christmas. Often, we would drive all day on Christmas day back to Chicago. We spent money on gas and eating at Waffle House (the only place on the road open on Christmas). Nor did we attend a worship service. My wife can testify that none of those would be the case for us on the Lord's day. The Sabbath alone is the day to not spend money, to buy or sell, to refrain from usual recreations and work, and instead to spend the whole day in worship and rest. 

If you are reading this as a "Chreaster" (someone who only goes to church on Christmas + Easter) you are living in rebellion against God. God has commanded the weekly gathering of saints to worship Him in the Spirit and to rest from our usual worldly employment and recreation. If Sunday is football day for you, or the day for travel sports with kids, or the day to stay in your pajamas and binge watch Netflix, God is not pleased with you. He doesn't care how many candles you light, or how much caroling you do, or that you put up a tree in your living room. 

But for those of you who are striving to keep the Lord's day, to spend the Sabbath day worshiping the Lord and resting from worldly things. To those of you who are seeking to be faithful, and also feel inclined to celebrate Christmas, I wouldn't fret as much. Keep it in its proper place: well below the weekly Lord's day Sabbath. But enjoy it. Make these "days of feasting and joy, of sending presents to one another and gifts to the poor." Remember that these days are not ultimately about family gatherings, not enjoyable light shows, not even the presents, but that God became man, lost and fallen man to save. Unashamedly proclaim the true Reason for the season:

Hail, the heav'n-born Prince of Peace!
Hail the Sun of Righteousness!
Light and life to all he brings,
ris'n with healing in his wings.
Mild he lays his glory by,
born that man no more may die,
born to raise the sons of earth,
born to give them second birth.

Hark! the herald angels sing,
"Glory to the newborn King!"

The Benefit of Singing Infallible Songs

Your statutes have been my songs 
in the house of my pilgrimage. (Psalm 119:54)

"I just feel like a lot of contemporary Christian music isn't good. It's either mindlessly repetitive, focuses too much on me and my feelings, or makes unbiblical statements." Thus said a young Christian man I spoke with in my favorite coffee recently. Perhaps you've heard a similar sentiment in your own life. Many evangelicals, especially young people (as I have found), are seeking something more profound, rich, and meaningful than the latest 12-song cycle on K-Love. In our discussion on Christian music, I asked this young man, who had grown up in the church his whole life, if he had ever once sung a Psalm in worship. Unsurprisingly, his answer was, "No." (Funny aside, when I first asked him, he assumed I meant a hymn, which he had sung a few of. When I explained that I actually meant a Psalm from the Bible put to music, it was almost like he'd never even thought of that!) 

In an effort to escape the commercialism and sometimes unbiblical nature of the Contemporary Christian Music industry (CCM), young Christians, like this young man I was speaking with, go the exact opposite direction. They embrace avant garde worship, imagining that authentic Christian worship is just taking the hipster approach to music and baptizing it. While this may be less commercial than the typical CCM approach, it still often suffers from the same issue: how do I know if this music is good? How do I know that this music is reflecting actual truths and not just how I'm feeling?

This is one of the unseen benefits of singing psalms in worship. Unlike K-Love, CCM, or even avant garde music just dripping with 'authenticity', singing psalms actually represents a radical departure from the norm. When we sing psalms, one thing we are doing is dying to ourselves. We put our own desires to death and subject ourselves to the words of God. Much of CCM consists of us telling God how we feel. When we sing psalms, we let God tell us how we should feel. 

Additionally, you never need to wonder if the Psalm you are singing is true, good, or godly. Because you are singing God's very words, you are always singing truth! You know that these words were not first approved by an executive, packaged for radio, and blasted out through the corporate machine. They were approved by God, not man! They were packaged by the Son of God! And the Holy Spirit blasts them out as God's own word, which shatters the idols of culture and time.

I am not advocating here for the position known as "exclusive psalmody," as if it were wrong to sing anything but the 150 Psalms of Scripture. But what a joy it is to pick up your Psalter in worship on the Lord's day, and know that you are singing songs which the Spirit Himself sent down! To know that you are singing God's word back to Him in faith, singing the same songs that Jesus Himself sang and still sings in heaven. What a joy to have the infallible book; what a joy to sing infallible songs!

You Don't Need to Earn a Hearing!

"No one cares how much you know until they know how much you care." Maybe you've heard that saying before. It's a popular one and there's a lot of truth in it! Generally, it means that if I want to speak into someone's life, situation, or story, they are much more inclined to listen if they know I am genuinely interested in their well-being.

In contemporary American Christianity, this idea gets expressed in phrases like "earning the right to be heard." As Christians, we know that we are commanded to share the gospel; to tell others about what Jesus Christ has done in His cross and resurrection. "But," the supposed wisdom says, "people will be much more likely to hear us out if they know we care about them. If we've developed a relationship and demonstrated our sincere love for them, they will be more open to hearing us talk about Jesus." This is also sometimes referred to as relational evangelism, evangelism primarily accomplished through developing relationships with non-Christians. 

Let me just be up front and say I have no problems with relational evangelism. Just as Jesus ate and drank with sinners, developing relationships with them and investing His life into theirs, so we should have non-Christian relationships that we pour into with sincere love. It is true that unbelievers are often way more inclined to give you a hearing when talking about Jesus if they know you aren't just there to berate them. If they know that you are actually trying to tell them the truth in love (Eph 4:15), they are more open to hearing you out. 

The problem is when we think that relational evangelism is the ONLY way to share the gospel. I recall a specific conversation I had in the last few years with another minister: we were discussing the merits/downsides of street preaching. His main objection was that, in street preaching, I had no relationship with the people I was preaching to. To use the phrase: I had not "earned the right to be heard" with the people passing by. In his mind, this made it an unacceptable way to share the gospel. He instead recommended I have non-Christians over to my house for dinner. (Something I also love doing!)

Do Christians need to earn a hearing? If the question is necessity, the answer is no! Consider Paul's words, "Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us: we implore you on Christ's behalf, be reconciled to God." (2 Corinthians 5:20) An ambassador is someone who is sent to represent their country. They don't go on their own authority; they are sent. And they are not answerable to the land to whom they are sent: they are answerable only to the one who sent them. 

Paul also uses the image of a herald: someone who is officially sent to spread a message publicly. "And how shall they preach unless they are sent? As it is written: 'How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the gospel of peace, who bring glad tidings of good things!'" (Romans 10:15) A herald in the old days was sent out under an authority (a duke, a king, a government, etc.) and his job was simply to publish a message. He was not responsible to first develop relationships with everyone in the town he went to: he simply proclaimed the news! 

Christian, you have been sent under authority. When Jesus Christ called His Church to preach the gospel to all the world (Matthew 28:18-20; Mark 16:15) He wasn't giving you an option. He is the King of kings, and He sends you into the world as a herald of His victory. You are not sent on your own authority, but you speak on behalf of the King. There is nothing more that Jesus needs to do to earn a hearing from the world. He demands to be heard. If they will not hear, that's their problem. Your job, Christian, is to herald Him. Tell the world about Him. Don't wait until you've reached some arbitrary relational milestone to tell your neighbor, your coworker, your loved one about Jesus. Tell them now! AND show them you care through loving action and sharing life together. 

May our bold proclamation of Jesus, matched by the evidence of His transforming power in our lives, produce an abundant harvest of disciples for His kingdom. He is worthy of it all!

On the Backbone-Strengthening Power of Psalm Singing

Let the saints be joyful in glory;
Let them sing aloud on their beds.
Let the high praises of God be in their mouth,
And a two-edged sword in their hand,
To execute vengeance on the nations,
And punishments on the peoples;
To bind their kings with chains,
And their nobles with fetters of iron;
To execute on them the written judgment—
This honor have all His saints.

Praise the Lord! (Psalm 149:5-9 NKJV)

One of the unique things about my congregation, as well as a number of other good Reformed churches, is our practice of regularly singing biblical psalms in worship, usually at least one every service. We might sing a psalm relevant to the sermon text, we might sing a portion of a psalm as a confession of sin, or even as a preparation to hear and receive God's word. Regardless, at least one portion of psalm singing takes place each Sunday. Usually more than one, if we can help it!

If that practice is just a nice tradition, or something we do just to distinguish ourselves as Reformed believers, it'd be pretty stupid. But I am increasingly convinced that psalm singing is not just an interesting tradition, or something done for the sake of separating ourselves from evangellybeans and their limp-wristed contemporary songs. No, singing God's songs must be so much more than that! 

One aspect of singing psalms that is sometimes overlooked is that singing psalms makes very clear the nature of spiritual warfare. The Bible is crystal clear that there is a war raging around us, even if we can't always see it. The war between God's kingdom and the powers of darkness. It is not an equal fight. The powers of darkness: the world, the flesh, and the devil, are all rebels within the sphere of God's sovereign power. They can go no further than He allows. But He does give them leash to run with. And with that extra leash length they wage war against His kingdom and servants. 

There are not many contemporary worship songs that deal with spiritual warfare. If anything, they will address it along the lines of "The enemy wants to make me feel bad, but I overcome through God's power and I feel good about myself again." Not a bad statement, just not sufficient to capture the fullness of what's happening. The Christian, as a soldier of Jesus Christ, joins the kingdom of God in warring against the powers of darkness (Eph 6:12). 

If you have never sung psalms before, one thing that will quickly strike you is how many times you will sing about enemies who speak evil against you, or who seek your life. The psalmists are often engaged in battle, crying out to God for victory against their enemies. They are fitting songs to sing as Christians in an increasingly hostile climate. They are good songs to sing every day as you wrestle personally with the temptations of the flesh. They are stirring songs that move you into battle against the sinful world and its powers of darkness. They are triumphant songs that remind you that, although the devil and all his demonic powers oppose you, Jesus Christ has and is gaining the victory over them (Col 2:15). 

So, if you don't already, start singing psalms! These are the war cries of faithful Christians engaging in the struggle. They are the victory songs which Jesus your King sings over you and invites you to sing with Him. Fill your mouth with God's praises, take up the two-edged sword of the Spirit in hands of faith, and prepare to do battle. The Captain of your salvation fights for you, Christian! Won't you take up His battle cries and fight at His side?

The Problem with "Shepherdess" Teams

It seems to me that a growing number of (otherwise) biblical, confessional, Reformed churches are embracing a new ministry innovation. Correctly understanding that the Bible teaches that only called, qualified men are able to hold office in the Church (minister, elder, or deacon), but with a stated desire to better care for the women of the churches, they create what are often called "Shepherdesses". These are women with demonstrable wisdom, of good standing in the local church, who are appointed (not called or installed) to come alongside the pastor and elders to better oversee the spiritual wellbeing of the women in the church. From the outside this option appears as an attempted middle ground between the outright ordaining of women to authoritative church offices (which would clearly violate God's word), and the supposed ignoring of women's needs, who are instead forced to suffer under inattentive male leadership in the church without any female mediator between them.

What is apparently happening is that women, like the Greek-speaking widows of Acts, are being neglected in the daily distribution: not of food, but of spiritual care and oversight from their sessions. Because of the difficulties in communication and trust between men and women, Christian women in the churches need to be shepherded by their pastors and elders through the added medium of a female companion. So, let's say a wife in the church needs to bring a situation before the session. Are we really going to expect her to go sit alone before the tribunal of men and be truly heard and feel cared for? Of course not! Men aren't that good at listening, right? The wisdom then following says that what she needs is an advocate, a female mediator between her and the session who can (like Jesus) lay hands on both parties: she has the benefit of being female, therefore being better acquainted with female needs and desires; but she is also wise and able to understand the session's duty of care, oversight, and discipline. Thus, we get the shepherdess. 

Let it be said that the Bible does have plenty of room in the church for wise female leaders who can help serve the needs of women. In Titus 2, Paul says these words about older men and women in the church, none of whom (in the context) are authoritative church officers, just wise older saints: "But as for you, speak the things which are proper for sound doctrine: that the older men be sober, reverent, temperate, sound in faith, in love, in patience; the older women likewise, that they be reverent in behavior, not slanderers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things--that they admonish the younger women to love their husbands, to love their children, to be discreet, chaste, homemakers, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be blasphemed." 

Clearly, when it comes to people pouring wisdom and direction into the lives of women in the church, Paul envisions more parties than simply the pastor and elders. Women can teach women. Women need to help in the discipleship of other women. Older women in particular must come alongside younger women in the church and advise them in life. Of course, it's very interesting that the older women are to exhort younger women to be loving wives and mothers, to be homemakers, and obey their husbands. I have a sneaking suspicion that many shepherdess teams don't have this enshrined as their mission statement!

So, Keith, what problem do you have with the idea of the "shepherdess"? Well, the problem isn't that women are being ordained to church offices (they aren't). And the problem isn't that women are being heard in the church! Women, as much as men, are Christians and have a right to the care and oversight of their sessions. They are not second-class Christians, nor are their concerns less deserving of consideration. The main problem I see with the shepherdess idea is that it introduces an unnecessary and biblically foreign concept into the functioning of the local church. 

Let's think about just one implication of introducing the shepherdess into the churches, namely, that the session is no longer seen as fully capable and sufficient to handle the oversight of all church members. The men whom Christ has appointed in the Church to rule, oversee, and shepherd are not able to sufficiently do the job. Maybe we think that, because they are men, they cannot sufficiently oversee the souls of women without female mediation. Does that mean they also cannot sufficiently oversee the spiritual needs of children without a child mediator? Could a Hispanic elder truly shepherd a black man in the church without a black mediator? Where does the line fall, and why? 

I wonder what we would think about Christ's relationship to His female followers. Jesus Christ came into the world as a man, a male. He remains a man. He is still male. Is Jesus able to care for women's souls? Or is His ability to understand them limited by His maleness? If you say, "Yes, but Keith, Jesus is sinless. He is able to perfectly care for His female disciples, in spite of His maleness, because He is without sin." Ok, so if that's the case then the problem is ultimately sin, women being asked to submit themselves under the leadership of sinful men. This issue is not resolved by putting shepherdesses in place, as those women would be just as sinful as any man. 

Maybe we think about situations where women have been abused by men, spiritually, physically, or emotionally. Should those women really be subjected to the oversight of an all-male session without official female mediation? Again, I would point to the previous point about the male nature of Jesus Christ. If a woman who has suffered abuse cannot be entrusted to the care of the men Christ has chosen without female mediation, can she entrust herself to Jesus? Maybe the Romanists are on to something and women could find mediation with Jesus through Mary! After all, Jesus is a man, and you know what men are like! Furthermore, one of the chief qualifications for an elder in the church is the quality of gentleness (1 Tim 3:3). If a man is not gentle enough to biblically handle the spiritual needs of an abused woman, he is not gentle enough to be an elder. I would stress that word "biblically", though. Jesus Christ is the determiner of whether a session has handled something biblically, not the party involved. Just because a woman (or any man, for that matter) doesn't feel like she has been heard and cared for, doesn't mean that she hasn't been. 

Much more could and should be said about this. I think the main point to come back to is the headship of Jesus Christ over His Church. He is the King and Head of the Church, and He is the one who raises up godly men into authoritative office to lead His people. When Jesus established His church and gave us the church's structure, He put three offices in place: ministers, elders, and deacons. It's clearly been shown that there is a place for strong women of faith to help serve the needs of other women in the church. I simply feel that the practice of official shepherdess teams, acting as mediators between the women of the church and the session, is unnecessary at best. In the worst case, it is a springboard for the unbiblical practice of ordaining female church officers and the further erosion of biblical practice in American churches. 

Are elders perfect? Of course not. Pastors aren't perfect either. But Christ has ordained that all Christians, male and female alike, need the imperfect leadership of their pastors and elders. They need the unfiltered exhortation and conviction of God's word, given straight from the mouths of their leaders. Men need it, which we see every year around father's day, with biblical exhortations given from the pulpit. Men are soundly rebuked for their shortcomings and sins, and exhorted to pursue greater righteousness as men. I wonder how many mother's day sermons there were this year on the sinfulness and failure of women, exhorting women to repent and serve Christ better as wives, mothers, and sisters in Christ? Women, you need the unfiltered truth of Christ, straight from the mouths of those whom Jesus Himself has put over you, to care for your souls. 

May Christ Himself be pleased to help us increasingly pursue this true and better life together, according to His instruction and desire, and to the good of our souls and the glory of His name. 

Rule or Be Ruled: AKA Why Christian Children Don't Belong in Government Schools

There's an interesting section of Scripture in 1 Corinthians 6. The apostle Paul is writing to the Corinthian Christians, all of whom seem to be having a rough go of it. There's division, superiority complexes, sexual immorality, and selfishness running rampant in the churches. Paul gets to chapter 6 and shames the Corinthians: in their selfishness, the Corinthian believers were suing each other, taking one another to court before the secular judges. "Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unrighteous, and not before the saints?" (1 Cor 6:1)

The problem isn't just that the saints are taking each other to court before the ungodly, thus making Jesus look bad in the eyes of the world, but they are also forgetting who they are in Christ. "Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world will be judged by you, are you unworthy to judge the smallest matters?" (1 Cor 6:2-3) Jesus Christ is King of kings, and His saints are ruling and reigning with Him from heaven. Christ, through His Spirit, has equipped believers with wisdom beyond any worldly judge. For the Corinthians to go to court before unbelievers is to effectively say that there is more wisdom among the ungodly than among the saints of Christ, as if there were more wisdom in the secular books of law than in God's own word the Bible. 

Paul further clarifies where the problem comes from: the selfishness and unruliness of the Corinthians. "Now therefore, it is already an utter failure for you that you go to law against one another. Why do you not rather accept wrong? Why do you not rather let yourselves be cheated? No, you yourselves wrong and cheat, and you do these things to your brethren!" (1 Cor 6:7-8) The Corinthians are ruled by their own sins and selfishness. They are not ruling over their own lives in Spirit-led self-control, but are directed by their own lusts, living like they were still slaves of sin. And because they won't rule themselves in wisdom, they will be ruled by anything else. 

Now, all that considered, you might wonder at the title of this post. What does any of this stuff have to do with getting Christian children out of the government school system? The reality is that for generations American Christians have entrusted the education of their kids to the public school system. We viewed the school system as a neutral place, somewhere our kids could get a decent, generic education, which we could supplement with church attendance, Bible reading, and youth group. Increasingly it has become obvious that this is not the case. It doesn't work that way. We cannot hand our children over to an increasingly ungodly, anti-Christian state education system and then be shocked when they come home from college rejecting the faith we taught them. As pastor Paul Washer once said, "Your children will go to public school and they will be trained for somewhere around 15,000 hours in ungodly secular thought. And then they'll go to Sunday School and they'll color a picture of Noah's ark. And you think that's going to stand against the lies that they are being told?" 

If we want to see a change in our children's future we have to start by taking responsibility for them again. We cannot continue to hand them over to the state for education 40 hours a week. The church of Jesus needs to make use of all our resources, doing everything we can to ensure a true Christian education for our children. We need to take charge of our children's future. If we do not, someone else surely will, but our kids will be all the worse for it. And through His Spirit, God has equipped us for it! Paul didn't want the Corinthians taking each other to court before unbelievers because there should be enough wisdom among the churches to judge their own issues. A faithful Christian mom, equipped with a Bible, a willingness to learn, and a desire to truly teach her kids, is a more competent teacher than any ungodly person with every letter imaginable behind their name. At least, if your goal is to raise children who love Jesus, love learning, and are actually prepared to be competent adults. If you really want your kids to be able to name all 700 genders, feel guilty for a host of imaginary sins they've never actually committed, or apologize to the house plants for their carbon footprint, then yeah, keep sending them to the government school. 

A few closing clarifying points:

1. This is not a condemnation of faithful men and women who teach in the government school system. If you are in that position and able to use the wisdom God has given to you to truly teach and help kids in that environment, then God speed! Your position may very quickly become a missional position, bringing the light of God's love to the spiritually dark places of our society. But there is a world of difference between sending an equipped, maturing Christian into that environment, and sending an impressionable, immature child. There's a reason the First Crusade was a general success and the Children's Crusade ended in tragedy and loss. You don't send untrained children to do a mature believer's work! 

2. The fact is that, even if Christians faithfully pursue this good work, there will be many kids in our communities left behind for a time. This is the sad state of our reality. Remember that a parent's first responsibility is for their children, not their neighborhood (1 Tim 5:8). A church's first responsibility is for their covenant children, not the children in their community (Gal 6:10). The fact that we can't yet give every child a quality Christian education shouldn't prevent us from starting by giving our kids a quality Christian education. 

3. This is not an endorsement of any one method of education over another. Homeschooling is great. Private Christian schools are great. Classical Christian schools are great. The point is to get started in the right direction, which starts by taking responsibility for our kids and not giving them up to the state.