Showing posts with label Critiques. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Critiques. Show all posts
Thursday, September 29, 2011
Thursday, June 23, 2011
Divided the movie
Why are churches losing upwards of 80% of the youth?
Why are Christian youth increasing in childishness?
What can be done to stop the demise of the next generation?
A new, provocative movie, Divided, seeks to give an answer. The movie was shown on June 17th at the Christian Home Educators of Colorado conference in north Denver.
Summary
The movie was fifty minutes long. The producer, Mr. LeClerk, takes the viewer on a grim journey into the heart of youth ministries. He interviews church kids, youth ministry experts, statisticians, and pastors.
In an ever-spiraling descent into marketing madness, the film ably portrays the deep-seated pragmatism of the teenagers and their would-be pied-pipers. One youth leader bluntly told the camera that the youth did not need more Biblical truth but more practical things, more relationships, more fun.
Mr. LeClerk then "discovers the shockingly sinister roots of modern, age-segregated church programs..." The roots do not begin with Mr. Raikes of late eighteenth-century England but with Plato and Rousseau. And even more, there is no biblical precedent for such programs. Therefore, the solution is to tear down the entire youth ministry--branch, root and all.
To rescue a lost generation it will take churches and families following the Word of God. Churches should stop usurping parental responsibilities. And parents should take back their God-given duty to train and nurture their own children. This will rescue the next generation.
Analysis
The movie was created in conjunction with the National Center for Family Integrated Churches (NCFIC). The president of this organisation, Mr. Brown, figures predominately in the movie.
The photography, mood and music were spot-on. This is obviously a professionally made film. The pacing was good. Its presentation was not over-the-top or in-your-face, but subtle and dramatic. Aesthetically, the movie deserves full marks.
But presentation aside, what of the content? Given the applause at the end of the Friday night showing in Denver, it grabbed the audience. Setting the problem up with multiple teen-interviews, peppered with real-time video of Christian "rock concerts," LeClerk masterfully guides the audience through the entertainment-minded youth ministries of today.
This is a serious problem. Children, teenagers and youth alike are baptized in a sea of childish entertainment all for the sake of "relevance." If the statistics are only partially accurate, they are astounding enough. Too many youth are leaving the church.
And the parental problem is equally heinous: too many parents feel godly sending their children off to youth camp while neglecting family worship, home discipleship and basic doctrinal fidelity. Added to this problem are too many churches willing to accept the status quo.
In fact, a Pew study shows 57% of confessing Evangelicals deny that Christ is the only way to heaven. Barna numbers suggest that being a homeschooler is no sure defense either: half of those polled believe that salvation is not by faith alone.
Although the show does a good job presenting the youth problem, it misses the wider context of that problem. With such wide-spread doctrinal ignorance, is it any wonder the youth leave the shallow churches?
Unfortunately, the history section leaves much to be desired. Pointing out that Plato wished to send children to the state schools is not the same as proving this as the intellectual source of today's age-segregation. The omission of the fact that the Reformers and Puritans practiced age-segregation is another problem.
What of the solution: to demolish youth ministries and incorporate family discipleship?
The solution is wonderful...if understood correctly. But proper understanding cannot come from the movie since it leaves out important pieces of information. For instance, Mr. Brown believes there are times and occasions for the family to be separated (see his book, A Weed in the Church). Likewise, Mr. Phillips thinks there are times to speak to teenagers as teenagers.
In other words, the rhetoric of the movie would forbid any and all age-segregation. When in actuality the leading proponents have a more nuanced position. If the film were twenty-minutes long this lack of nuance could be tolerated.
What family discipleship entails was lightly touched upon. But the proper role of the church was not clearly articulated. In contrast, Mr. Brown's book helpfully clarifies that the pastors and laymen have a role in the life of the youth.
Overall, the movie delivers the content and delivers it well. The problem is that the content is one-sided. There is a youth problem but there is a larger problem of Gospel ignorance. It would be better to read the book, but at least the movie will challenge Christians to rethink the role of youth ministries.
Friday, June 17, 2011
Recent articles about family integrated churches
This week was full of family-integrated church articles.
For those interested in intelligent interactions on this issue I offer the following. The first is an article I hope many proponents of FICs can agree upon.
1. Uniting Church and Family The proper relation requires the Gospel.
2. A Weed in the Church: A Review. I may expand on this in detail.
3. Family-Integrated Church Series by Prof. Sam Waldron. Part 17 here. It is an irenic engagement.
4. Christian homeschooling conference: who is Doug Phillips? There is a lively exchange in the comment section. Unfortunately, it is not as productive as the discussion with Mr. Glick here. Many ardent supporters of this movement tend to jump the gun and assume that if you critique them then you are against parents having the primary responsibility of instructing their children.
For those interested in intelligent interactions on this issue I offer the following. The first is an article I hope many proponents of FICs can agree upon.
1. Uniting Church and Family The proper relation requires the Gospel.
2. A Weed in the Church: A Review. I may expand on this in detail.
3. Family-Integrated Church Series by Prof. Sam Waldron. Part 17 here. It is an irenic engagement.
4. Christian homeschooling conference: who is Doug Phillips? There is a lively exchange in the comment section. Unfortunately, it is not as productive as the discussion with Mr. Glick here. Many ardent supporters of this movement tend to jump the gun and assume that if you critique them then you are against parents having the primary responsibility of instructing their children.
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
A Weed in the Church: A Review
Overview
There is a crisis among the Christian youth. They drop out of church. They remain childish. They are biblically illiterate. The church is losing the next generation.
Author Scott Brown, pastor and director of the National Center for Family-Integrated Churches (NCFIC), insists this youth problem is of “epic proportions,” requiring repentance and change right now.
This book is his clarion call to change youth discipleship. It is divided into five sections: orientation, history, solution, objections, and implementation. The first section is a much-needed explanation of what family-integration (FI) is and is not. He offers ten qualifications that help nuance the concern and the solution. He also explains his view of sola Scriptura in relation to not only worship but discipleship.
The second section of the book traces the history of age-segregation. Section three (the largest part) collects the biblical data for youth discipleship for both the family and the church. Section four rebuts eleven arguments against age-integrated discipleship. The last section tersely explains nine steps to planting an age-integrated approach.
The thesis of the book argues that this problem among the youth (drop-outs, childishness, etc.) is caused by (among other things) “systematic age-segregation.” Age-segregated youth ministry “is the result of apostasy in the church,” the supplanting of the Word with man-made traditions of discipleship (p.43). But the modern youth ministry is not only defined by age-segregation or Sunday school but by a curiously long, heavily-descriptive sentence (p.47).
The author offers a two-fold solution: stop age-segregation and start age-integration (especially get the fathers involved). This dual solution is to be implemented en toto and not piece-meal (p.249ff.). Obedience to God is a hard calling, but ministers must persevere for the sake of the families.
Analysis
A Weed in the Church does the church a service by graphically illustrating the corrosive effects of a youth-oriented, niche-market culture. It rightly calls fathers back to their God-given duties to disciple their children and to lead their families. It rightly denounces children worship services.
The opening chapters include details that attempt to clarify the concerns. But the highly-specific definition of youth ministry (p.47) is partly a loaded definition that poisons the well of discussion from the very beginning. For instance, youth ministries are described as methods “that usurp parents’ authority over their children.” Many good churches that are careful in their use of Sunday school and the like would take great umbrage at being labeled thus without evidence.
The book does not make the historical case that age-segregation is secular and evolutionary in origin. There is no explicit tie-in between each historical segment. Lining up quotes is not the same as proving their connection. Further, the omissions of the many age-segregated meetings in history—such as age-specific meetings in Puritan New England—are conspicuous by their absence.
The heart of the book, the theological assertion, is tenuous at best. It is asserted that God did not tell the church to use age-segregation for discipleship; therefore it should not be used (p.47, 85). This appears to be (what I dub) the “regulative principle of education,” a confusion between Christian liberty and the Reformed doctrine of worship (cp. chapter 5). This approach is assumed but never proven.
Further, segregation “does not properly fulfill” the biblical requirements for discipleship and is contrary to the “primary examples” of church gatherings (p.203, 74). What a “primary example” is in contrast to secondary examples is not clear. And since segregation does not “properly fulfill” biblical requirements it is odd that some age-segregation is allowable (p.231).
It is true: churches should stop abusing age- and family-segregated meetings like a drunkard abuses wine. And many families feel godly using the multitude of programs to bypass their own responsibilities. But the author simply throws all such meetings into the waste basket of evolution—almost. He admits there are times and occasions for the family to be separated (p.61, 231), yet never explains when and why such a time should be an “exception.” In contrast, he actually argues that even if fathers were properly instructing their children and youth groups were Bible-centered with only one-hour a week meetings, it would still be wrong (p.57, 218, 222, 225). What is given in one hand is taken by the other.
Conclusion
I am a child of age-segregated discipleship. I grew up with Sunday school. I attended my local youth ministry. I went to school. If Scott Brown was the typical youth group leader, I was the typical teen target for that leader.
Yet I was not a typical youth. By God’s grace, I paid attention to the pastor. And I paid attention to my parents, my father in particular. But, like many today, I was ignorant of much Christian doctrine and practice.
So I tried to obey God’s Law to gain heaven. I tried so very hard until the Law shattered my ego. Around the age of sixteen, I recognized my inability to save myself through good works. I cried out to Christ to save me from myself. A few years later, through the doctrines of sovereign grace, I matured in my faith.
Are youth-oriented, programmatic “ministries” a problem? Yes. Do fathers need to take their duties seriously? Yes. And this book is a needful reminder of these facts. But there is a greater problem that is harming youth and families alike: a soil of widespread ignorance of the Gospel. The basic truths of Christianity are needed in the churches. The conversion of a teen-ager twenty years ago illustrates this dire need.
[More analysis of the book may be forthcoming. A picture of what uniting church and family should look like, here. More about family-integrated beliefs here.]
There is a crisis among the Christian youth. They drop out of church. They remain childish. They are biblically illiterate. The church is losing the next generation.
Author Scott Brown, pastor and director of the National Center for Family-Integrated Churches (NCFIC), insists this youth problem is of “epic proportions,” requiring repentance and change right now.
This book is his clarion call to change youth discipleship. It is divided into five sections: orientation, history, solution, objections, and implementation. The first section is a much-needed explanation of what family-integration (FI) is and is not. He offers ten qualifications that help nuance the concern and the solution. He also explains his view of sola Scriptura in relation to not only worship but discipleship.The second section of the book traces the history of age-segregation. Section three (the largest part) collects the biblical data for youth discipleship for both the family and the church. Section four rebuts eleven arguments against age-integrated discipleship. The last section tersely explains nine steps to planting an age-integrated approach.
The thesis of the book argues that this problem among the youth (drop-outs, childishness, etc.) is caused by (among other things) “systematic age-segregation.” Age-segregated youth ministry “is the result of apostasy in the church,” the supplanting of the Word with man-made traditions of discipleship (p.43). But the modern youth ministry is not only defined by age-segregation or Sunday school but by a curiously long, heavily-descriptive sentence (p.47).
The author offers a two-fold solution: stop age-segregation and start age-integration (especially get the fathers involved). This dual solution is to be implemented en toto and not piece-meal (p.249ff.). Obedience to God is a hard calling, but ministers must persevere for the sake of the families.
Analysis
A Weed in the Church does the church a service by graphically illustrating the corrosive effects of a youth-oriented, niche-market culture. It rightly calls fathers back to their God-given duties to disciple their children and to lead their families. It rightly denounces children worship services.
The opening chapters include details that attempt to clarify the concerns. But the highly-specific definition of youth ministry (p.47) is partly a loaded definition that poisons the well of discussion from the very beginning. For instance, youth ministries are described as methods “that usurp parents’ authority over their children.” Many good churches that are careful in their use of Sunday school and the like would take great umbrage at being labeled thus without evidence.
The book does not make the historical case that age-segregation is secular and evolutionary in origin. There is no explicit tie-in between each historical segment. Lining up quotes is not the same as proving their connection. Further, the omissions of the many age-segregated meetings in history—such as age-specific meetings in Puritan New England—are conspicuous by their absence.
The heart of the book, the theological assertion, is tenuous at best. It is asserted that God did not tell the church to use age-segregation for discipleship; therefore it should not be used (p.47, 85). This appears to be (what I dub) the “regulative principle of education,” a confusion between Christian liberty and the Reformed doctrine of worship (cp. chapter 5). This approach is assumed but never proven.
Further, segregation “does not properly fulfill” the biblical requirements for discipleship and is contrary to the “primary examples” of church gatherings (p.203, 74). What a “primary example” is in contrast to secondary examples is not clear. And since segregation does not “properly fulfill” biblical requirements it is odd that some age-segregation is allowable (p.231).
It is true: churches should stop abusing age- and family-segregated meetings like a drunkard abuses wine. And many families feel godly using the multitude of programs to bypass their own responsibilities. But the author simply throws all such meetings into the waste basket of evolution—almost. He admits there are times and occasions for the family to be separated (p.61, 231), yet never explains when and why such a time should be an “exception.” In contrast, he actually argues that even if fathers were properly instructing their children and youth groups were Bible-centered with only one-hour a week meetings, it would still be wrong (p.57, 218, 222, 225). What is given in one hand is taken by the other.
Conclusion
I am a child of age-segregated discipleship. I grew up with Sunday school. I attended my local youth ministry. I went to school. If Scott Brown was the typical youth group leader, I was the typical teen target for that leader.
Yet I was not a typical youth. By God’s grace, I paid attention to the pastor. And I paid attention to my parents, my father in particular. But, like many today, I was ignorant of much Christian doctrine and practice.
So I tried to obey God’s Law to gain heaven. I tried so very hard until the Law shattered my ego. Around the age of sixteen, I recognized my inability to save myself through good works. I cried out to Christ to save me from myself. A few years later, through the doctrines of sovereign grace, I matured in my faith.
Are youth-oriented, programmatic “ministries” a problem? Yes. Do fathers need to take their duties seriously? Yes. And this book is a needful reminder of these facts. But there is a greater problem that is harming youth and families alike: a soil of widespread ignorance of the Gospel. The basic truths of Christianity are needed in the churches. The conversion of a teen-ager twenty years ago illustrates this dire need.
[More analysis of the book may be forthcoming. A picture of what uniting church and family should look like, here. More about family-integrated beliefs here.]
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Puritan Classical Education Besmirched
Recently a Reformed magazine re-published Gary North's innocently titled "Classical Education." But the subtitle gives it away: Classical Christian Education is Like Marxist Christian Education, But a Lot More Subtle.
In his typical shocking manner, he contends that "at least a third" of Christian mothers have adopted a curriculum based on the worldview that endorsed homosexuality, polytheism, slavery, and female infanticide--pagan humanism.
Of course, being a short article steeped with unfounded generalizations and assumptions, it is not exactly clear what the author is condemning when he attacks 'Classical Education.' Such an education is a three-step process of grammar, dialectic and rhetoric. And it teaches Latin. But it is the Latin that appears to be the focus of this diatribe:
"To force a child to learn Latin is to encourage him to accept the premises either of medieval Catholicism or the Renaissance"
The unspoken assumption is that learning a little Latin with edited sources will lead the child to read the entire Latin source--the sources being either the original Greeks and Romans or the medieval or Renaissance variations. Then the poisoning of the mind will be complete and humanistic elements will converge into a full-blown pagan worldview (or at least a severely retarded Christian world-view). As though that has not already happened before the popularity of Latin!
Assuming that the typical Christian has a weak grasp on the Biblical antithesis, this is a serious concern. And assuming that Latin is or can only be taught with the classics, this could be a concern as well.
Not only that, the poor near-sided Puritans imbibed the same sewage. North admits that the Puritans used the classical curriculum from the grammar schools to the universities (but fails to mention that Luther, Calvin, Knox, et. al. used it as well). More importantly, he fails to explain the cultural milieu in which the Latin (and the rest of the subjects) were taught.
The English society was homogeneous on a level modern Americans little comprehend. Even when the Puritans were outnumbered (most of the time), many of the laws and social expectations were strongly influenced by the Bible. The same schools that taught Latin, instructed in Bible reading, rehearsed the catechisms and reviewed the Sunday sermon. This religious instruction, integrated with the Protestant Gospel, included the work of the ministers (sermons, catechizing, weekly lectures and home visitations) and especially the household instruction, catechizing and devotions by the parents.
When the young are encircled by such a spiritual phalanx, learning Latin with edited texts was not a means to "separate Christian children from their parents." Not by a long shot.
On the other hand, such a culture no longer exists. And many self-proclaimed Christians are biblically ignorant on a scale that makes the Statute of Liberty appear like a toy doll. So, learning Latin (even without reference to the pagan sources at all) will do little and may even be harmful.
It is claimed that using such a method (or rather learning Latin?) for over 1800 years is a surrendering of education because it violates the Christian antithesis--isn't that what Van Til taught? Using the classical educational approach apparently imported "alien philosophical categories into the Church." Yet these 'categories' are never listed. And the historical "evidence" is vague at best. Many things are linked to unfaithfulness in the rise and fall of churches.
In fact, it is not exactly clear why using some useful tools of unbelievers (like learning a foreign language) is necessarily wrong or will necessarily lead to humanistic compromise. Much of the article is based upon a slippery slope assumption--a logical fallacy taught by unbelieving logicians everywhere. In fact, Aristotle first systematized logic--does that make it suspect? Perhaps the children learning logic may be tempted to read Aristotle?
Such an amazing effort to run Latin into the ground by asserting its negative affects in history leads to a curious logic: the last 150 years has seen the disappearance of Latin with a corresponding increase in secularism and decrease in confessional Protestantism. If this is the fruit of no Latin, give me Latin schools any day!
I do agree with him that a good dose of Calvin's Institutes is more needful than Latin. But then, do I have to have one without the other? Or cannot families and schools teach Latin and Greek (as they used to)?
More significantly, with all this hammering going on North has certainly hit upon something here. It is Calvinism that is needed now, not Latin. It is a renewed knowledge of the Law & Gospel thundered from the pulpit that is the crying need of the hour. To return to the good ol' days of educational superiority, families and churches need to ignore all the educational hype and turn to the good ol' confessions of yesteryear. Rather than hyping up the power of this or that curriculum or method, we ought to return our children to the lost tool of learning that should structure any legitimate method, the Puritan ABCs: Alphabet, Bible & the Catechism.
In his typical shocking manner, he contends that "at least a third" of Christian mothers have adopted a curriculum based on the worldview that endorsed homosexuality, polytheism, slavery, and female infanticide--pagan humanism.
Of course, being a short article steeped with unfounded generalizations and assumptions, it is not exactly clear what the author is condemning when he attacks 'Classical Education.' Such an education is a three-step process of grammar, dialectic and rhetoric. And it teaches Latin. But it is the Latin that appears to be the focus of this diatribe:
"To force a child to learn Latin is to encourage him to accept the premises either of medieval Catholicism or the Renaissance"
The unspoken assumption is that learning a little Latin with edited sources will lead the child to read the entire Latin source--the sources being either the original Greeks and Romans or the medieval or Renaissance variations. Then the poisoning of the mind will be complete and humanistic elements will converge into a full-blown pagan worldview (or at least a severely retarded Christian world-view). As though that has not already happened before the popularity of Latin!
Assuming that the typical Christian has a weak grasp on the Biblical antithesis, this is a serious concern. And assuming that Latin is or can only be taught with the classics, this could be a concern as well.
Not only that, the poor near-sided Puritans imbibed the same sewage. North admits that the Puritans used the classical curriculum from the grammar schools to the universities (but fails to mention that Luther, Calvin, Knox, et. al. used it as well). More importantly, he fails to explain the cultural milieu in which the Latin (and the rest of the subjects) were taught.
The English society was homogeneous on a level modern Americans little comprehend. Even when the Puritans were outnumbered (most of the time), many of the laws and social expectations were strongly influenced by the Bible. The same schools that taught Latin, instructed in Bible reading, rehearsed the catechisms and reviewed the Sunday sermon. This religious instruction, integrated with the Protestant Gospel, included the work of the ministers (sermons, catechizing, weekly lectures and home visitations) and especially the household instruction, catechizing and devotions by the parents.
When the young are encircled by such a spiritual phalanx, learning Latin with edited texts was not a means to "separate Christian children from their parents." Not by a long shot.
On the other hand, such a culture no longer exists. And many self-proclaimed Christians are biblically ignorant on a scale that makes the Statute of Liberty appear like a toy doll. So, learning Latin (even without reference to the pagan sources at all) will do little and may even be harmful.
It is claimed that using such a method (or rather learning Latin?) for over 1800 years is a surrendering of education because it violates the Christian antithesis--isn't that what Van Til taught? Using the classical educational approach apparently imported "alien philosophical categories into the Church." Yet these 'categories' are never listed. And the historical "evidence" is vague at best. Many things are linked to unfaithfulness in the rise and fall of churches.
In fact, it is not exactly clear why using some useful tools of unbelievers (like learning a foreign language) is necessarily wrong or will necessarily lead to humanistic compromise. Much of the article is based upon a slippery slope assumption--a logical fallacy taught by unbelieving logicians everywhere. In fact, Aristotle first systematized logic--does that make it suspect? Perhaps the children learning logic may be tempted to read Aristotle?
Such an amazing effort to run Latin into the ground by asserting its negative affects in history leads to a curious logic: the last 150 years has seen the disappearance of Latin with a corresponding increase in secularism and decrease in confessional Protestantism. If this is the fruit of no Latin, give me Latin schools any day!
I do agree with him that a good dose of Calvin's Institutes is more needful than Latin. But then, do I have to have one without the other? Or cannot families and schools teach Latin and Greek (as they used to)?
More significantly, with all this hammering going on North has certainly hit upon something here. It is Calvinism that is needed now, not Latin. It is a renewed knowledge of the Law & Gospel thundered from the pulpit that is the crying need of the hour. To return to the good ol' days of educational superiority, families and churches need to ignore all the educational hype and turn to the good ol' confessions of yesteryear. Rather than hyping up the power of this or that curriculum or method, we ought to return our children to the lost tool of learning that should structure any legitimate method, the Puritan ABCs: Alphabet, Bible & the Catechism.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Radical Homeschooling: Defined
'Radical' means "to go to the root."
And there is a movement within the movement of homeschooling that wants to get 'radical'.
In American society this word normally connotes a negative idea of rank anger and irrationality. But in this series of articles about an up and coming sub-movement within homeschooling, it will not be used in such a derisive sense. I struggled with finding a suitable adjective or even a noun, but I think 'radical' works best because when rationally examined, the word dovetails with the movements goals: to return to the supposed root of Western Civilization educational methodologies--homeschooling.
The other usage of 'radical' involves a relatively extreme commitment to a particular cause--which describes the leaders of this movement because they believe homeschooling (and other derivatives) is either demanded by the Bible or the best option that fulfills the Bible (not all who think homeschooling is the best option are radical as I define it in this post).
The word can also denote advocating drastic change. The leaders of this movement are not interested (as displayed by their actions) in presenting or propagating their views piece-meal. They want change and they want it now.
Why this much ink for a single word? Because being labeled is no fun and some people will react negatively to the word. But labels are necessary for those who wish to be disassociated from differing views. This tripartite definition--the historical, moral and urgent elements--may not set well with some, but it is my humble attempt to understand this unique approach to Christian education. I will try to only label this theoretical position and not the people.
Now to the point: Radical homeschooling is the doctrine that homeschooling is the sine qua non of biblically based parenting.
In other words, homeschooling is commanded by the Bible:
"Of course, my prayer is that every family would homeschool from birth. If that's not you, my prayer is that you will homeschool from now on. It may require difficult changes. It may require the awkward work of repenting to your wife and to your children for how you have abdicated your responsibility." (p.133, When You Rise Up)
" 'Therefore thou shalt love the LORD thy God, and keep His charge, and His statutes, and His judgments, and His commandments, always'" (Deut. 11:1). This is why we should homeschool. God commands parents to teach their own children God's law, and we must be obedient." (p.9, Homeschooling from a Biblical Worldview)
In fact the about page of Vision Forum asserts: the "modern classroom…is a distinctly Greek and pagan approach to education."
One of the more influential homeschooling leaders, the founder of the NCFIC (family-integrated church group), clearly stated his position a few years back:
"Our reasons for home educating are not preferential, but principled, being derived from God’s Word.... Wrong educational methodology can lead a child to Hell…" Doug's blog, Oct. 8, 2004
Is this his personal opinion? (As though that could be divorced from his public efforts.) Fortunately, this sentiment has been stated and rather boldly at the parent website, Vision Forum's about page:
"Most men are gripped by fear. They fear the loss of job security. They fear the unknown. They fear the opinions of others. This fear prevents many fathers from beginning home education — the educational approach most consistent with both the methodology and goals of education as articulated in Scripture. This fear prevents other fathers from making lifestyle changes which will allow them to spend more time walking beside their children, as God commands...Methods are not neutral. The rise of the home education movement is not merely a response to the failure of government education; it is an affirmation of a distinctively Biblical approach to both the methods and the objectives of Christian education."
The author boldly declares homeschooling as the "most consistent" approach to the Bible. Naturally, Christians would not settle for the second most consistent approach of anything in the Bible. Who would not want to spend "more time walking beside" their children--as God commands? Vision Forum is about homeschooling. It is about more, but it is in the business of propagating homeschooling as the Biblical approach. This statement is further amplified in a radio interview:
“Home educators, almost by definition, have turned their heart to their children [Mal. 4]… So, there’s been a revival that’s taking place in the heart of these homeschool families. And this revival works itself out to the local church...our prayer: every Christian in the world is in a family integrated church. And there should be nothing but that, but you know what that is going to lead to? That’s going to lead to people homeschooling! And vice-versa; they play off of each other. Because when you understand the importance of discipleship you move in that direction…” [1]
Clearly the speaker's prayer (and goal?) is to make every church in the world--not Reformed, not Dispensational, not Baptistic--but a family-integrated, homeschooling church. Why? Because homeschoolers "almost by definition, have turned their heart to their children." Homeschooling is a revival.
A clear and unequivocal statement, such as, "God commands homeschooling," is not needed because it is the warp and woof of this movement.
This unique approach to education presumably allows for exceptions to homeschooling (presumably because I have not actually found any such evidence), yet a biblical command is a biblical command, exceptions notwithstanding. If this is a message you wish to follow, dear reader, then by all means join the organization and help them make their point loud and clear. But I hope in this continuing series to demonstrate that, in spite of some of the laudable goals of RH, its view of the history of Christian education is mistaken and its understanding of key elements of Christian nurture is misguided.
Soli Deo Gloria
[1] Phillips quoted from “The Family-Integrated Church Movement,” interview, Generations Radio, sermonaudio.com, June 12, 2006.
And there is a movement within the movement of homeschooling that wants to get 'radical'.
In American society this word normally connotes a negative idea of rank anger and irrationality. But in this series of articles about an up and coming sub-movement within homeschooling, it will not be used in such a derisive sense. I struggled with finding a suitable adjective or even a noun, but I think 'radical' works best because when rationally examined, the word dovetails with the movements goals: to return to the supposed root of Western Civilization educational methodologies--homeschooling.
The other usage of 'radical' involves a relatively extreme commitment to a particular cause--which describes the leaders of this movement because they believe homeschooling (and other derivatives) is either demanded by the Bible or the best option that fulfills the Bible (not all who think homeschooling is the best option are radical as I define it in this post).
The word can also denote advocating drastic change. The leaders of this movement are not interested (as displayed by their actions) in presenting or propagating their views piece-meal. They want change and they want it now.
Why this much ink for a single word? Because being labeled is no fun and some people will react negatively to the word. But labels are necessary for those who wish to be disassociated from differing views. This tripartite definition--the historical, moral and urgent elements--may not set well with some, but it is my humble attempt to understand this unique approach to Christian education. I will try to only label this theoretical position and not the people.
Now to the point: Radical homeschooling is the doctrine that homeschooling is the sine qua non of biblically based parenting.
In other words, homeschooling is commanded by the Bible:
"Of course, my prayer is that every family would homeschool from birth. If that's not you, my prayer is that you will homeschool from now on. It may require difficult changes. It may require the awkward work of repenting to your wife and to your children for how you have abdicated your responsibility." (p.133, When You Rise Up)
" 'Therefore thou shalt love the LORD thy God, and keep His charge, and His statutes, and His judgments, and His commandments, always'" (Deut. 11:1). This is why we should homeschool. God commands parents to teach their own children God's law, and we must be obedient." (p.9, Homeschooling from a Biblical Worldview)
In fact the about page of Vision Forum asserts: the "modern classroom…is a distinctly Greek and pagan approach to education."
One of the more influential homeschooling leaders, the founder of the NCFIC (family-integrated church group), clearly stated his position a few years back:
"Our reasons for home educating are not preferential, but principled, being derived from God’s Word.... Wrong educational methodology can lead a child to Hell…" Doug's blog, Oct. 8, 2004
Is this his personal opinion? (As though that could be divorced from his public efforts.) Fortunately, this sentiment has been stated and rather boldly at the parent website, Vision Forum's about page:
"Most men are gripped by fear. They fear the loss of job security. They fear the unknown. They fear the opinions of others. This fear prevents many fathers from beginning home education — the educational approach most consistent with both the methodology and goals of education as articulated in Scripture. This fear prevents other fathers from making lifestyle changes which will allow them to spend more time walking beside their children, as God commands...Methods are not neutral. The rise of the home education movement is not merely a response to the failure of government education; it is an affirmation of a distinctively Biblical approach to both the methods and the objectives of Christian education."
The author boldly declares homeschooling as the "most consistent" approach to the Bible. Naturally, Christians would not settle for the second most consistent approach of anything in the Bible. Who would not want to spend "more time walking beside" their children--as God commands? Vision Forum is about homeschooling. It is about more, but it is in the business of propagating homeschooling as the Biblical approach. This statement is further amplified in a radio interview:
“Home educators, almost by definition, have turned their heart to their children [Mal. 4]… So, there’s been a revival that’s taking place in the heart of these homeschool families. And this revival works itself out to the local church...our prayer: every Christian in the world is in a family integrated church. And there should be nothing but that, but you know what that is going to lead to? That’s going to lead to people homeschooling! And vice-versa; they play off of each other. Because when you understand the importance of discipleship you move in that direction…” [1]
Clearly the speaker's prayer (and goal?) is to make every church in the world--not Reformed, not Dispensational, not Baptistic--but a family-integrated, homeschooling church. Why? Because homeschoolers "almost by definition, have turned their heart to their children." Homeschooling is a revival.
A clear and unequivocal statement, such as, "God commands homeschooling," is not needed because it is the warp and woof of this movement.
This unique approach to education presumably allows for exceptions to homeschooling (presumably because I have not actually found any such evidence), yet a biblical command is a biblical command, exceptions notwithstanding. If this is a message you wish to follow, dear reader, then by all means join the organization and help them make their point loud and clear. But I hope in this continuing series to demonstrate that, in spite of some of the laudable goals of RH, its view of the history of Christian education is mistaken and its understanding of key elements of Christian nurture is misguided.
Soli Deo Gloria
[1] Phillips quoted from “The Family-Integrated Church Movement,” interview, Generations Radio, sermonaudio.com, June 12, 2006.
Friday, January 16, 2009
Malachi 4:6 & the Revival of Homeschooling
“Home educators, almost by definition, have turned their heart to their children [Mal. 4.6]… So, there’s been a revival that’s taking place in the heart of these homeschool families..."--Doug Phillips, 2006
"More and more parents are beginning to teach their children at home. God is beginning to “restore the hearts of the fathers to their children and the hearts of the children to their fathers” (Malachi 4:6).... Homeschooling is a spiritual revival." (The Heart of Homeschooling, 2006)
What are we to make of these assertions?
In another posting I critiqued the idea that homeschooling is a revival. This posting builds upon that critique by examining the supposed biblical foundation. If the above statements are true, then woe unto him who stands in God's way! However, if the above quotes are an egregious handling of God’s Holy Word, then what?
First of all, I will, in the spirit of Malachi 4:6 & the Fifth Commandment, quote my spiritual forefathers: Calvin, Henry, Keil/Delitzsch and Jamieson/Fausset and Brown. They all exegete Malachi 4:6 in a similar vein:
"6...Explained by some, that John's preaching should restore harmony in families. But Luk 1:16, 17 substitutes for "the heart of the children to the fathers," "the disobedient to the wisdom of the just," implying that the reconciliation to be effected was that between the unbelieving disobedient children and the believing ancestors, Jacob, Levi, "Moses," and "Elijah" (just mentioned) (compare Mal 1:2 2:4, 6 3:3, 4 )."--Jamieson, Fausset & Brown, Commentary
A good exegete will consider the immediate context, the book context and the overall Biblical context. Anyone can quote a verse and repeat it until everyone is convinced. Jamieson does something better: he points to book-level context and Bible-wide context. Malachi on two other occasions mentions other spiritual fathers in contrast to his present wicked generation of "sons". Mal. 1:2 contrasts the faithful spiritual seed of Jacob with the ungodly spiritual seed of Esau. Mal. 2:4, 6 & 3:4 contrasts the faithful seed of Levi with the ungodly seed of then-present priesthood. Malachi 4:6 continues this contrast, that God would turn the hearts of the unfaithful sons in line with the spiritual path of their fathers.
Second, quoting Luke 1:16ff. settles the question:
Luke 1:16, 17 "And he [John the Baptist] will turn many of the children of Israel to the Lord their God. He will also go before Him in the spirit and power of Elijah, 'to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children,' and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just, to make ready a people prepared for the Lord." (NKJV)
Verse sixteen is the ground-motive of these verses: to turn the children (sons) of Israel to their God (Father)! Salvation is the issue. Also, note how the New Testament does not quote the OT word for word but interprets it for the reader: John the Baptist will turn the hearts of the fathers to the children "and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just..." The symmetry points to the fathers as 'just' and the sons as 'disobedient'. Of course, there are biological blessings; entire households were saved in the NT (cp. Henry). Yet, individuals were saved as well. At root this blessing, as with so much of the Bible, is spiritual.
Ask this: was Malachi thinking of homeschooling or family-integrated churches or any other method-based movement? Is this how John was to "make ready a people prepared for the Lord"? A serious reading of the life of John demonstrates that his primary purpose was to preach repentance: to turn the children of Israel to God--to bring salvation not homeschooling! Are these leaders preaching repentance to homeschoolers?
Third, Elijah--John the Baptist (Mat.11:14)--is the agent of God changing hearts. And this prophet is a man with an ordained office from God. God used an ordained church-officer to bring about this revival. I have never read or heard any homeschool leader assert as much—except that by their actions they are the ones leading this revival! Some of these men are ministers. That is good. But their articles and speeches are clearly not done in the context of being a minister. They announce themselves as concerned fathers. It is not the fathers that turn the hearts of the children, but the Spirit working through the ministry of the Word. Faithful ministers are used of God—as a rule—to bring revival. A cursory glance at the history of revival demonstrates as much.
Fourthly, with such unqualified claims of revival, where does that leave churches that are not homeschooling en masse or eradicating Sunday schools in toto? Or to put it in more personal terms, what about godly men and women who lose their families because they stand upon the truth of God’s word? They gently tell their nominally Christian spouse that they must follow God by attending a faithful church--the husband by leading the family. Then their wives rebel, leave or torment them. Then what? Is there no revival there? Is the Spirit not moving in the hearts of the fathers? Must all revivals (or only this one!) involve peace and growth in the biological family? What does Christ say?
"Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword. For I have come to 'set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and 'a man's enemies will be those of his own household.' " (Mat. 10:34)
In fact, Christ defined a 'father' and 'son' in their most fundamentally spiritual sense:
" Who is My mother and who are My brothers?" And He stretched out His hand toward His disciples and said, "Here are My mother and My brothers! For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother. (Mat. 12:48)
Once this verse is thrown into the mix, the simplistic and dangerous interpretation of Malachi 4:6 becomes apparent. It is simplistic because it is only part of the truth, rooted in biology instead of spirituality. And it is spiritually dangerous to announce to people that they are blessed of God when they are under his judgment.
Judgment? Hosea 4:6 warns us that God's people were destroyed for a lack of knowledge--a lack of right thinking and right actions.
Half of the homeschoolers polled believed in salvation by good works! Only 15% were Evangelical anyway--an Evangelicalism so vaguely defined by Barna that orthodox Trinitarianism is not even mentioned! It gets worse: 57% of Evangelicals polled by the Pew Foundation believe that there are other ways to heaven outside of Christ. And high-percentages of born-again believers contend that they have obeyed vast portions of God's Law! Do these numbers reflect a blessing or a curse?
To apply this verse today without a clear understanding of the text itself, its direct application to the NT era and knowledge of American whole-sale ignorance is hazardous.
There is a correct and wholesome application of Malachi 4:6 today. It is a heartfelt prayer that God would raise up Elijahs in our midst to preach repentance, to turn the hearts of the dead American church to the heart of God.
Soli Deo Gloria
"More and more parents are beginning to teach their children at home. God is beginning to “restore the hearts of the fathers to their children and the hearts of the children to their fathers” (Malachi 4:6).... Homeschooling is a spiritual revival." (The Heart of Homeschooling, 2006)
What are we to make of these assertions?
In another posting I critiqued the idea that homeschooling is a revival. This posting builds upon that critique by examining the supposed biblical foundation. If the above statements are true, then woe unto him who stands in God's way! However, if the above quotes are an egregious handling of God’s Holy Word, then what?
First of all, I will, in the spirit of Malachi 4:6 & the Fifth Commandment, quote my spiritual forefathers: Calvin, Henry, Keil/Delitzsch and Jamieson/Fausset and Brown. They all exegete Malachi 4:6 in a similar vein:
"6...Explained by some, that John's preaching should restore harmony in families. But Luk 1:16, 17 substitutes for "the heart of the children to the fathers," "the disobedient to the wisdom of the just," implying that the reconciliation to be effected was that between the unbelieving disobedient children and the believing ancestors, Jacob, Levi, "Moses," and "Elijah" (just mentioned) (compare Mal 1:2 2:4, 6 3:3, 4 )."--Jamieson, Fausset & Brown, Commentary
A good exegete will consider the immediate context, the book context and the overall Biblical context. Anyone can quote a verse and repeat it until everyone is convinced. Jamieson does something better: he points to book-level context and Bible-wide context. Malachi on two other occasions mentions other spiritual fathers in contrast to his present wicked generation of "sons". Mal. 1:2 contrasts the faithful spiritual seed of Jacob with the ungodly spiritual seed of Esau. Mal. 2:4, 6 & 3:4 contrasts the faithful seed of Levi with the ungodly seed of then-present priesthood. Malachi 4:6 continues this contrast, that God would turn the hearts of the unfaithful sons in line with the spiritual path of their fathers.
Second, quoting Luke 1:16ff. settles the question:
Luke 1:16, 17 "And he [John the Baptist] will turn many of the children of Israel to the Lord their God. He will also go before Him in the spirit and power of Elijah, 'to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children,' and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just, to make ready a people prepared for the Lord." (NKJV)
Verse sixteen is the ground-motive of these verses: to turn the children (sons) of Israel to their God (Father)! Salvation is the issue. Also, note how the New Testament does not quote the OT word for word but interprets it for the reader: John the Baptist will turn the hearts of the fathers to the children "and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just..." The symmetry points to the fathers as 'just' and the sons as 'disobedient'. Of course, there are biological blessings; entire households were saved in the NT (cp. Henry). Yet, individuals were saved as well. At root this blessing, as with so much of the Bible, is spiritual.
Ask this: was Malachi thinking of homeschooling or family-integrated churches or any other method-based movement? Is this how John was to "make ready a people prepared for the Lord"? A serious reading of the life of John demonstrates that his primary purpose was to preach repentance: to turn the children of Israel to God--to bring salvation not homeschooling! Are these leaders preaching repentance to homeschoolers?
Third, Elijah--John the Baptist (Mat.11:14)--is the agent of God changing hearts. And this prophet is a man with an ordained office from God. God used an ordained church-officer to bring about this revival. I have never read or heard any homeschool leader assert as much—except that by their actions they are the ones leading this revival! Some of these men are ministers. That is good. But their articles and speeches are clearly not done in the context of being a minister. They announce themselves as concerned fathers. It is not the fathers that turn the hearts of the children, but the Spirit working through the ministry of the Word. Faithful ministers are used of God—as a rule—to bring revival. A cursory glance at the history of revival demonstrates as much.
Fourthly, with such unqualified claims of revival, where does that leave churches that are not homeschooling en masse or eradicating Sunday schools in toto? Or to put it in more personal terms, what about godly men and women who lose their families because they stand upon the truth of God’s word? They gently tell their nominally Christian spouse that they must follow God by attending a faithful church--the husband by leading the family. Then their wives rebel, leave or torment them. Then what? Is there no revival there? Is the Spirit not moving in the hearts of the fathers? Must all revivals (or only this one!) involve peace and growth in the biological family? What does Christ say?
"Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword. For I have come to 'set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and 'a man's enemies will be those of his own household.' " (Mat. 10:34)
In fact, Christ defined a 'father' and 'son' in their most fundamentally spiritual sense:
" Who is My mother and who are My brothers?" And He stretched out His hand toward His disciples and said, "Here are My mother and My brothers! For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother. (Mat. 12:48)
Once this verse is thrown into the mix, the simplistic and dangerous interpretation of Malachi 4:6 becomes apparent. It is simplistic because it is only part of the truth, rooted in biology instead of spirituality. And it is spiritually dangerous to announce to people that they are blessed of God when they are under his judgment.
Judgment? Hosea 4:6 warns us that God's people were destroyed for a lack of knowledge--a lack of right thinking and right actions.
Half of the homeschoolers polled believed in salvation by good works! Only 15% were Evangelical anyway--an Evangelicalism so vaguely defined by Barna that orthodox Trinitarianism is not even mentioned! It gets worse: 57% of Evangelicals polled by the Pew Foundation believe that there are other ways to heaven outside of Christ. And high-percentages of born-again believers contend that they have obeyed vast portions of God's Law! Do these numbers reflect a blessing or a curse?
To apply this verse today without a clear understanding of the text itself, its direct application to the NT era and knowledge of American whole-sale ignorance is hazardous.
There is a correct and wholesome application of Malachi 4:6 today. It is a heartfelt prayer that God would raise up Elijahs in our midst to preach repentance, to turn the hearts of the dead American church to the heart of God.
Soli Deo Gloria
Thursday, January 15, 2009
The Revival of Homeschooling
“Home educators, almost by definition, have turned their heart to their children [Mal. 4.6]… So, there’s been a revival that’s taking place in the heart of these homeschool families...And this revival works itself out to the local church…" (Doug Phillips, 2006)
Wow.
What am I to think of this breathtaking assertion? Homeschooling is a revival?
Maybe I'm missing something?
Maybe this is an isolated instance?
Have a Look Around
Consider this excerpt from a popular book, The Heart of Homeschooling:
"Homeschooling is back. More and more parents are beginning to teach their children at home. God is beginning to “restore the hearts of the fathers to their children and the hearts of the children to their fathers” (Malachi 4:6)....the Holy Spirit has moved on hundreds of thousands of families in the United States and around the world to understand the need for training their children in His ways." (online, 2006)
The glaring oddity is how blithely the author equates "training their children in His ways" with homeschooling. What about those 55%+ children attending school in 1840? Don't these men and others always point back to the glory days of education in early America? Also consider the misuse of Malachi 4:6. The author hopes this will cinch it for most readers. Yet Luke 1:16ff. clearly interprets the prophecy in a spiritual sense.
Further, if homeschooling is a movement of God woe to him that resists it! One should not lightly throw weighty claims around.
But there is more:
"Homeschooling is a spiritual revival, a revival that brings many blessings but demands great sacrifice. The greatest rewards are in heaven..."
What was implicit is now explicit: homeschooling is a revival. But what of these rewards in heaven? Are they different from what others receive who do not homeschool? Sometimes people get too caught up in a movement.
But wait! There's more!
One rising star labeled an entire chapter, "The Coming Revival: Is the Church Ready for Family Driven Faith?"
Ready? Besides wondering what a "family driven faith" entails and even if one wants a "family driven faith" (instead of a Christ-driven faith or a Gospel-driven faith), the book encourages leading, teaching, disciplining, nurturing...doing. Change the method (from lazy fathers to energized leaders) and revival comes to pass? If the fathers do but retain a false worldview, so what?
One article, "The Exciting Future of Home Education in America," mentions twice the revivalistic powers of homeschooling. After painting a dismal picture of America's corruption, the writer rejoiced that homeschooling was "beyond any doubt, a veritable reformation of life...unmatched by anything we have seen in the last century or two in Europe or America." This over-zealous leader wishes to instill this commitment to homeschooling because "it will make a profound difference in the heart of a child, not to mention the future of a civilization and a faith."
Is it "beyond any doubt" that homeschooling is a reformation of life? Has rhetoric triumphed substance? It is true that homescholing can make a profound difference, but to what end? Rhetoric using triumphalisitc claims is usually suspect. It seems the claims of the power of homeschooling are only getting wilder and the leaders more desperate.
Eyes Wide Shut?
Mislabeling something a 'revival' is very serious: it misleads people into a false hope. Read the latest book, UnChristian, and you will discover, dear reader, what Barna has known for years: 94-97% of Christians have an unbiblical worldview. No Gospel there. 57% of Evangelicals polled by the Pew Foundation deny Christ alone for salvation. No Gospel here. And homeschoolers are not exempt: Barna notes that half of them depend upon their own works for salvation. No Gospel there either.
Historically, the Reformation and the first two Great Awakenings in America were not centered on educational methods. Instead, preaching repentance from dead works and faith in the Living Savior was central. Calvin, Luther, Knox, the Puritans and the Pilgrims all promoted schooling for education and the church for revival. Today too many leaders are confusing the two agencies.
The greatest event two hundred years ago was the Second Great Awakening. The Presbyterians reported revivals among their people. And even the children were revived, even in Sunday school classes. Did the leaders immediately create a “Sunday-school Integrated Church” society, promoting Sunday school as the best thing for America in one-hundred years? No, they rejoiced in the Lord and kept on preaching Law & Gospel.
Biblically, there is no effort to defend these amazing assertions of revival other than flippantly quoting Malachi 4:6. That verse is dealt with extensively later. One question though: does this text mention an educational method as a catalyst for revival?
These leaders ought to know their history and especially their bible. They ought to know about the dismal state of modern Evangelicalism. But if one is blinded by success, hardened to criticism or motivated to do something right now, it is easy to see America falling apart without understanding the root cause: there is little Gospel at the center of our churches. And a church with a little Gospel will have little impact upon society.
SDG
Wow.
What am I to think of this breathtaking assertion? Homeschooling is a revival?
Maybe I'm missing something?
Maybe this is an isolated instance?
Have a Look Around
Consider this excerpt from a popular book, The Heart of Homeschooling:
"Homeschooling is back. More and more parents are beginning to teach their children at home. God is beginning to “restore the hearts of the fathers to their children and the hearts of the children to their fathers” (Malachi 4:6)....the Holy Spirit has moved on hundreds of thousands of families in the United States and around the world to understand the need for training their children in His ways." (online, 2006)
The glaring oddity is how blithely the author equates "training their children in His ways" with homeschooling. What about those 55%+ children attending school in 1840? Don't these men and others always point back to the glory days of education in early America? Also consider the misuse of Malachi 4:6. The author hopes this will cinch it for most readers. Yet Luke 1:16ff. clearly interprets the prophecy in a spiritual sense.
Further, if homeschooling is a movement of God woe to him that resists it! One should not lightly throw weighty claims around.
But there is more:
"Homeschooling is a spiritual revival, a revival that brings many blessings but demands great sacrifice. The greatest rewards are in heaven..."
What was implicit is now explicit: homeschooling is a revival. But what of these rewards in heaven? Are they different from what others receive who do not homeschool? Sometimes people get too caught up in a movement.
But wait! There's more!
One rising star labeled an entire chapter, "The Coming Revival: Is the Church Ready for Family Driven Faith?"
Ready? Besides wondering what a "family driven faith" entails and even if one wants a "family driven faith" (instead of a Christ-driven faith or a Gospel-driven faith), the book encourages leading, teaching, disciplining, nurturing...doing. Change the method (from lazy fathers to energized leaders) and revival comes to pass? If the fathers do but retain a false worldview, so what?
One article, "The Exciting Future of Home Education in America," mentions twice the revivalistic powers of homeschooling. After painting a dismal picture of America's corruption, the writer rejoiced that homeschooling was "beyond any doubt, a veritable reformation of life...unmatched by anything we have seen in the last century or two in Europe or America." This over-zealous leader wishes to instill this commitment to homeschooling because "it will make a profound difference in the heart of a child, not to mention the future of a civilization and a faith."
Is it "beyond any doubt" that homeschooling is a reformation of life? Has rhetoric triumphed substance? It is true that homescholing can make a profound difference, but to what end? Rhetoric using triumphalisitc claims is usually suspect. It seems the claims of the power of homeschooling are only getting wilder and the leaders more desperate.
Eyes Wide Shut?
Mislabeling something a 'revival' is very serious: it misleads people into a false hope. Read the latest book, UnChristian, and you will discover, dear reader, what Barna has known for years: 94-97% of Christians have an unbiblical worldview. No Gospel there. 57% of Evangelicals polled by the Pew Foundation deny Christ alone for salvation. No Gospel here. And homeschoolers are not exempt: Barna notes that half of them depend upon their own works for salvation. No Gospel there either.
Historically, the Reformation and the first two Great Awakenings in America were not centered on educational methods. Instead, preaching repentance from dead works and faith in the Living Savior was central. Calvin, Luther, Knox, the Puritans and the Pilgrims all promoted schooling for education and the church for revival. Today too many leaders are confusing the two agencies.
The greatest event two hundred years ago was the Second Great Awakening. The Presbyterians reported revivals among their people. And even the children were revived, even in Sunday school classes. Did the leaders immediately create a “Sunday-school Integrated Church” society, promoting Sunday school as the best thing for America in one-hundred years? No, they rejoiced in the Lord and kept on preaching Law & Gospel.
Biblically, there is no effort to defend these amazing assertions of revival other than flippantly quoting Malachi 4:6. That verse is dealt with extensively later. One question though: does this text mention an educational method as a catalyst for revival?
These leaders ought to know their history and especially their bible. They ought to know about the dismal state of modern Evangelicalism. But if one is blinded by success, hardened to criticism or motivated to do something right now, it is easy to see America falling apart without understanding the root cause: there is little Gospel at the center of our churches. And a church with a little Gospel will have little impact upon society.
Judgment begins in the house of the Lord (1 Pet. 4:17).
Revival begins in the house of the Lord (2 Chron . 34).
Revival begins in the house of the Lord (2 Chron . 34).
SDG
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)