Christ Our Hope PCA blog - Tony Phelps, pastor

"NOT that, but THIS"

Reformed theology is a wonderful thing.  For many Christians who "discover" the riches of Reformed theology - after many wandering years in the Semi-Pelagian wilderness - it's almost like a second blessing...  A necessary part of Reformed theology is what we can call the apostolic "NOT that, but THIS."  Read Paul's epistles - and then read the likes of Luther and Calvin - and you'll see what I mean.  The Gospel is counter-intuitive.  Men - even redeemed men - have a tendency to diminish the radical corruption of sin, and as result, the radical wonder of God's grace to us in Christ.  Paul must tell the Galatians, and even the Corinthians, "NOT that" (your varied distortions or denials of the Gospel, with the raising up of your own righteousness), "but THIS" (the glory of the grace of God to us in Christ crucified - who alone is our righteousness).  Reformed theology, likewise, in an effort to be faithful to the apostolic Gospel, must say, "NOT that" (Joel Osteen, Arminianism, fundie legalisms, etc), "but THIS" (Christ's Cross and Righteousness alone). 

However, a sad reality is that many who make the pilgrimage into Reformed theology seem to trade their old self-righteousness ("I don't smoke or chew or dance with girls who do," etc), for a completely inappropriate NEW self-righteousness ("I thank you, God, that I am REFORMED, and not like those awful Arminians, fundies, and Pentecostals").  In other words, their supposedly new gains in theological maturity do not translate into a grace-driven spiritual maturity.  One legalism is swapped for another. 

What's the remedy?  Perhaps it is to recognize that the "NOT that" of Reformed theology is not the heart of the matter; the "but THIS" is the most important thing.  The negations are necessary, but not sufficient for spiritual maturity.  At the heart of the "but THIS" of Reformed theology is THIS:  I am a GREAT SINNER (radically depraved, helpless and hopeless to save myself), and Christ is a GREAT SAVIOR (the radical wonder of His grace and mercy to me).  God have mercy on me, a sinner.  Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners - of whom I am chief.  Amen.

A post-modern confession: "I'm spiritual, not religious"

In David Wells' The Courage to Be Protestant, he makes the following apt analysis of post-modern spirituality on p.69:  "In an eye-catching reversal [of the rationalism of the Enlightenment]..., by the 1990's, 78 percent of Americans were describing themselves as 'spiritual.'  The problem with much of this spirituality... is that so many of these 'spiritual' people are stripped of any reference points outside of themselves, whether in the past, in the present, or in a God external to themselves.  What is sacred is within and indistinguishable from the self.  It arises within the self and is accessed from within the self and asks nothing the self is unwilling to give. This kind of spirituality really is a sanitized version of Hinduism, there for the taking in America by its affluent and self-indulgent.  And it really does not change the fundamental inclination of Western postmodern societies to think that there is nothing that stands over against the self and calls it to account." 

Of course, the Gospel stands in radical antithesis to this new/old idolatry.  It declares that there is a God, our holy Creator, who will call us to account.  It warns us that our self-made spiritualities, our self-righteousness, and our other sins (!) are just the varied forms of our rebellion against His rule.  And it declares the good news of Jesus Christ, the Son of God sent by His Father, who invaded human history to save sinners such as us.  Salvation is not about looking within, but looking outside ourselves in faith to Christ, whose Cross & righteousness alone reconcile us to God

I think some Christians make the mistake of presenting Christianity as a better "spirituality" than its competitors, by highlighting subjective religious experiences such as getting "born again," being indwelt by the Holy Spirit, enjoying subjective feelings of peace & joy, finding a sense of meaning, personal worth, living in "authentic community," etc.  While some of these are consequences of believing the Gospel, they are not the Gospel.  And if we present them as the Gospel, we have presented another gospel - and have potentially left people to perish in their idolatrous and self-centered "spirituality" now deceptively re-labeled as "Christian."  The Gospel is the message of Christ crucified and risen for the salvation of sinners - not a "new & improved" spirituality product.  

Does God still speak via new revelation today? (part 2)

Continuing Budgen on 1 Cor 13:8-13:
6. The word used for the cessation of the revelatory gifts is very strong (Gr. katargeo) - meaning "destroy."  It is used in v. 8 re: prophecy &  knowledge and in v. 10 in reference to all these gifts.  He quotes Judisch:  "The cessation of the prophetic gifts was to be a complete obliteration beyond recall.  Paul left no room for any thought of a temporary lapse and revival.  If the prophetic gifts ever ceased, they ceased for all time.  But that they did cease at one point or another is clear from history.  Therefore they have ceased for all time." 
7. "Perfection" is a fitting description of the Scriptures, i.e. 1 Pet 1:22-2:2 which contrasts the living, abiding, eternal Word of God (the gospel) with that which is fading, and 2 Tim 3:16-17 which presents the God-breathed Scriptures as fully sufficient for doctrine, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness to meet the ministry needs (good works) of the "man of God" (that is, the one who proclaims the Word of God). 

Does God still speak via new revelation today? (part 1)

Someone inquired recently about how to show from Scripture that God no longer gives new revelation today - contra charismatic views of on-going revelation via tongues / prophecy.  He cited the following from Westminster Confession of Faith, and asked whether 1 Cor 13:8-13 is the best passage to appeal to:

1.1. Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men inexcusable; yet they are not sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of his will, which is necessary unto salvation. Therefore it pleased the Lord, at sundry times, and in divers manner, to reveal Himself, and to declare that His will unto His Church; and afterwards, for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the Church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing: which maketh the Holy Scripture to be most necessary; those former ways of God's revealing His will unto His people being now ceased.

Here's my brief initial response:

'The two passages I go to first to show that God's special revelation is now completed are Heb 1:1-2 and Eph 2:20.  First, we need to understand the WHY of revelation.  God has spoken in history in order to save us. Revelation serves God's plan of redemption. It's not simply divinely revealed information.  It has a saving purpose.  One theologian put it this way, in reference to Heb 1:1-2:  "As God's saving acts are complete [in Christ], so also is the verbal revelation that explains them" (P. Adams, New Dictionary of Biblical Theology).  Eph 2:20 shows that the church is built on the FOUNDATION of the apostles and prophets, i.e., that foundation was laid once for all in the apostolic era.  The apostles and prophets are agents of God's Christ-centered revelation, which is now complete. 

'The 1 Cor 13 passage has good reformed pedigree, in defending the position that God's Word-revelation is now complete.  Jonathan Edwards gave exposition of it to argue that the "perfect" refers to the completion of biblical revelation which was completed at the close of the apostolic era. Others more recently have argued against this view by understanding the "perfect" to refer to when Christ returns.  Personally, I think Edwards argument still has merit and should not be lightly dismissed.'

A modern defender of this traditional interpretation of 1 Cor 13:8-13 is Victor Budgen in his biblical & historical assessment Charismatics and the Word of God (Evangelical Press).   Here is a summary outline of his defense that "the perfect" means the completed revelation of the NT (75-86):

1) When the apostle Paul speaks of prophecy, tongues, and knowledge, he is "speaking of supernatural God-given revelation."  Budgen approvingly cites John Wesley's suggestion regarding the gift of knowledge may have been "'...an extraordinary ability to understand and explain the Old Testament types and prophecies" as James did in Acts 15:12-17. 

2) In 1 Cor 11:26, Paul declared in Spirit-inspired words that the Lord's Supper would be continued "...until He comes."  Why not similar language in 1 Cor 13:10, if he intended to convey that special revelation would continue until Christ's return? 

3) Likewise, in 1 Cor 15:24, Paul unambiguously describes the language of Christ's return as "the end." 

4) By God's superintendence, Paul used the Gr. word to telion in verse 10 for "perfection," which means "a completed thing."  Used 18x in the NT, it never refers to heaven or the return of Christ / consummation.  It is often translated as "mature" (i.e. 1 Cor 2:6). It also conveys the sense of coming to maturity or completion. 

5) "Therefore it is the full development and maturing of prophecy, other languages and knowledge that is in view.  These gifts are the three gifts whereby God communicates supernatural, authoritative, infallible truth.  At the time when 1 Corinthians was written he did this in a partial but not imperfect way through the gifts.  What is the final completed form of God speaking supernaturally, authoritatively and infallibly?  Is it not beyond all doubt the NT Scriptures?  These are the prophecy to end all prophecies and are frequently termed as such (Rom 16:26; 2 Peter 1:19; Rev 22:18)" (76).  The NT is now the key to understanding God's prior revelation in the OT, and how it is fulfilled in Christ and His Church. 

(to be continued...)

How does doctrine relate to choosing a church?

Here's a recent email response to someone asking about the importance of doctrine and choosing a church:

I would agree with what the pastor said - that there will always be differences of theology in a particular congregation.  Yet (I'm sure he would agree) there is a basic "theology" that must be believed if someone is even to be considered a Christian.  The Apostles' Creed was one historical effort to express that.  This creed was often confessed when someone was baptized.  As another example, when someone joins a PCA church, they take five membership vows at a public worship service.  These, I believe, are a basic, biblical summary of what it means to be a Christian. 

These vows are basically, 1) Do you believe you're a sinner, helpless to save yourself from God's just wrath?  (i.e., Rom 3:9-12, etc.); 2) Do you trust in Christ alone to save you from God's wrath? (John 3:36, 14:6, Acts 4:12, Rom 3:21-31, etc); 3) Do you now resolve, with humble dependence upon the grace of the Holy Spirit, to seek to live a life fitting for a follower of Christ? (Eph 2:8-10, Rom 12:1-2, Mt 28:18-20, etc.); 4) + 5) Do you promise to support the Church in its worship and work to the best of your ability? Do you promise to submit yourself to the government & discipline of the church, and promise to diligently pursue its purity and peace? (Heb 10:25, Eph 4-6, Mt 18, Heb 13:7, etc.) 

To summarize:  A Christian is one who agrees with the Bible that he is a sinner, that Christ is the only Savior and Lord, who trusts in Him alone for salvation, and submits to His Lordship as expressed through His church. 

But what is the church called to do?  Christ commands His Church to make disciples by means of baptizing them in the Triune name, and teaching them to obey all He has commanded.  Now, this includes not only obedience to His moral law, but also to the faith taught in His Word (Rom 1:5).  He commands us to believe His Word, and to obey it (all in dependence upon His saving and renewing grace!).  The Bible is a big book, and pastors are to follow the apostles' example and teach the "whole counsel of God" (cf. Acts 20:27) - how Christ is revealed from Genesis to Revelation (Luke 24:44-47).   

As the Church, we are also called to pursue not only a Christian unity of love and peace with one another (Eph 4:1-3), but also a unity of "the faith," a doctrinal unity (Eph 4:4-16, esp. v 13).  So how does this all fit together at the local church?  In the PCA, those seeking membership take the vows I mentioned above - a basic, biblical summary of what it means to be a Christian.  In the process, they submit as disciples of Christ the King to the "government & discipline of the church," which includes the biblical teaching of that church. 

But there is higher standard for those ordained to leadership/teaching in the Church.  Christ's Church is to be governed by elders - including a class of elders who teach & preach (1 Tim 3, Titus 1, 1 Tim 5:17). All elders are to be sound in doctrine (Titus 1:9).  In the PCA and the historic Presbyterian Church, we have doctrinal standards to measure this, which we believe are a faithful summary of biblical teaching, subordinate to the ultimate authority of the Bible alone.  As you know, these are called The Westminster Standards.  Every elder, as he is ordained in the PCA, takes the following vow:  "Do you sincerely receive and adopt the Confession of Faith and the Catechisms of this Church, as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures; and do you further promise that if at any time you find yourself out of accord with any of the fundamentals of this system of doctrine, you will on your own initiative, make known to your Presbytery the change which has taken place in your views since the assumption of this ordination vow?"  This is what makes the PCA a "confessional church." 

To summarize:  The church is to pursue doctrinal unity and maturity, as the fullness of the Christ-centered Scriptures are taught by men who are sound in apostolic doctrine, and as the church is governed according to that doctrine. 

Now more directly to your question regarding which church a Christian should unite with.  The basic standard is the Gospel.  Is the Gospel / Word of God taught there faithfully?  Are the sacraments administered in agreement with the Scriptures?  Does the church faithfully shepherd its members?  The Protestant Reformers summarized these as the three "marks" of the church - Word, Sacrament, and discipline.  Yet among various Gospel-preaching churches, there are degrees of purity.  The Westminster Confession puts it this way:  "This catholic [i.e., universal] Church hath been sometimes more, sometimes less visible. (Rom. 11:3–4, Rev. 12:6,14) And particular Churches, which are members thereof, are more or less pure, according as the doctrine of the Gospel is taught and embraced, ordinances administered, and public worship performed more or less purely in them. (Rev. 2–3, 1 Cor. 5:6–7)" [25.4]   

Ultimately, our consciences must be informed by the Word of God as we seek to unite with a church as members; and we must make such decisions prayerfully - always seeking the peace and purity of the larger body of Christ. 

Hope this is helpful to you.  Please feel free to follow up with other questions.

Some thoughts on the canon of Scripture

Well, it's been a while!  Not much blogging action on my end - and not many folks checking in, either!  I'll continue to post now and again, perhaps serving nothing more than the vanity of my "blego" (blog-ego). 

I recently had an email exchange with someone who had a question about the canon.  Here are some excerpts of my comments.  Hope someone finds them helpful!

//

...Are there particular questions you have, or is it more a general interest?  Is your interest mainly in the NT canon? 

Short answer (kind of):  the NT books were in wide circulation & use from the first century forward, and were recognized as having apostolic authority (either directly, or an understood "sanction" by apostolic association - i.e., Mark=Peter, Luke=Paul).  There were heretics who either selectively excluded certain authoritative books (i.e., Marcion) or who circulated later fraudulent books beginning in the mid-2nd century (i.e., the Gnostics with stuff like the Gospel of Thomas).  The Church was finally forced to declare those books that were authoritative / apostolic contra heretical versions - and used the language of 'we receive,' acknowledging the God-given authority inherent in those books (rather than the way the RC church declares that they authoritatively created the canon - as in, the church made the Bible when in fact it is God's Word that creates God's Church!). 

It is also helpful to think about the canon from the perspective of the covenant - that is, God has always bound His people to Himself by His written Word through His authorized representatives, i.e., the prophets & the apostles.  The "canon" (which means the authoritative measure) is a function of the covenant - the covenant Lord who speaks and who "inscripturates" that revelation as the authoritative basis of His relationship with His people.

Hope that helps a little... 


//

...Ultimately, we rest on Christ's promise to us - "Heaven and earth will pass away, but My Word will by no means pass away" (Mt 24:35).  That promise is not dependent upon the church, or compromised by the intrigue of man & the threat of heretics - but it depends solely upon the living Christ who speaks and preserves His Word.  How do we know we have the right books / the "right" Bible?  Because Christ the King keeps His promises, and providentially preserves His Word. 

The most widely recognized / authoritative evangelical Protestant work is FF Bruce's The Canon of Scripture (IVP).  That will give you a very comprehensive study of the history of the canon of Scripture, Old and New Testaments.  His implied apologetic approach is evidentialist - which has its weaknesses (the main one being what Van Til and Bahnsen called the "myth of neutrality").  It's very much worth reading, but keep in mind that the idea of looking at the evidence with supposed neutrality is actually already a skeptical assumption.  Fact is, none of us are neutral - we're either biased against God's truth by our sin, or bent towards God's truth by His grace.

Evidence has it's place - but it must always be subordinated to the ultimate authority of God's Word.  The evidentialist says, "Understand in order to believe" (reason is king), while the presuppositionalist says, "Believe in order to understand" (revelation is king).  By its very nature, evidentialism must be forever tentative / skeptical - because new "evidence" may emerge which overturns our previous conclusions.

Sproul summarizes the evidentialist view of the canon when he compares the different views in this way:  1) the RC church declares they have an infallible collection of infallible books (b/c of their assumption that Rome has the ultimate authority to determine which books are canonical); 2) the "classical" Protestant view is that we have a fallible collection (!) of infallible books; 3) the liberal view is that we have a fallible collection of fallible books.  I agree that 1 & 3 are accurate, but 2 I reject. 

I love and respect Sproul and benefit greatly from his stuff, but I part ways with him on issues like this.  The presupp Prot view is we have an infallible collection of infallible books because God is our sovereign, covenant King who governs us by His Word - and who therefore providentially preserves His Word for His glory and the good of His church.  I think this is consistent with the Westminster Confession, which after listing the canonical books of the OT and NT simply says, "All which are given by inspiration of God to be the rule [i.e., canon] of faith and life." God doesn't speak and "waste His breath" as it were.  If His Word is written to govern the faith and life of His people, He will omnipotently superintend its preservation.

A lesser known, hard to find, sometimes difficult to read, but excellent work is Meredith Kline's The Structure of Biblical Authority.  He is presupp, and works out the canon question from the perspective of the covenant. He interacts with history (especially the covenant treaties prevalent in the Ancient Near East, contemporary with the Patriarchs & Moses), but always with the assumption that the sovereign covenant God binds His people to Himself by His Word, which He preserves to that end.

Obama, the Bible, and social justice

Via Drudge / breitbart.com, I came across an article entitled, "Obama Says Some Have 'Hijacked' Faith."
Speaking at a church convention last Saturday, he criticized the religious right for politicizing religious beliefs in an effort to create division.  His answer?  Apparently, to baptize liberal political views! 

The article quotes him as follows:  "There was even a time when the Christian Coalition determined that its number one legislative priority was tax cuts for the rich," Obama said. "I don't know what Bible they're reading, but it doesn't jibe with my version."  Setting aside his first statement, I'd like to ask, what does that last sentence imply?  That the Bible justifies the socialist assumption of a government coerced redistribution of wealth?   Liberal Christianity gratuitously assumes that when Jesus speaks of caring for the poor, He is endorsing the welfare state.

However, when Jesus speaks of the "poor," He is primarily speaking to the covenant community - the Church - and its care of the poor among its members.  An interesting example is John 12:1-8.  Mary, the sister of Martha, anoints Jesus with a very costly fragrant oil.  Judas puts on a pretense of righteousness and says, "Why was this fragrant oil not sold for three hundred denarii [about a year's wages] and given to the poor?"  Now, the question is, who are the poor to which Judas refers?  Ostensibly, this is a "righteous act," because in the context of the Mosaic covenant, Jews were to care for their poor "brothers" - i.e., poor Jews (see Deuteronomy 15:7-11). 

Jesus, however, sees through Judas' pretense and hypocrisy, commends Mary's action, and concludes with these words:  "For the poor you have with you always, but Me you do not have always."  In a fallen world, poverty is an inevitable reality.  The "poor" the Bible commands the Church to care for are those who are impoverished by circumstances such as disaster, death, disease, etc.  The widow and orphan in particular are to be objects of care within the covenant community. 

Those who hold to a liberal world view believe that poverty is caused by "social injustice" and government should forcibly intervene, by way of coercive taxation and redistribution of wealth, to "fix" the problem.  That is socialism, pure and simple - justifiable perhaps from the Marxist "scriptures," but in no way justifiable from the Christian Scriptures.  Senator Obama, please don't "hijack" the Bible to justify your politics! 

Jesus loves the little children, all the children of the world?

Related to the last post, many folks who believe that all children dying in infancy are saved will cite Matthew 19:13-15 (with the parallel passages in Mark 10 & Luke 18), where Jesus rebukes the disciples for hindering those who wanted Him to bless their children.  Jesus says, "Let the little children come to Me and do not hinder them; for of such is the kingdom of heaven."  Again, there is a covenant context to Jesus' words.  These are not pagan children, but covenant kids - including boys who had received the covenant sign of promise (circumcision, which signified Gospel promises).  From this, we can legitimately infer that little covenant children have an interest in the kingdom of God - but not all children without exception.

"Age of accountability" or "elect infants"?

Someone recently inquired with me about an evangelistic conversation he had.  This Christian brother was relating to a non-Christian friend how we are enemies of God, and under His judgment, even from birth.  His  friend asked if that means that children dying in infancy would be eternally condemned.  Not sure what say, this brother used the "age of accountability" answer - but wasn't sure if it was biblical.  Here's my response:

The question you raise is a difficult one to address – especially in a pastoral or evangelistic context.  Sometimes, those who defend the “age of accountability view” will cite 2 Samuel 12:22-23.  Through Nathan, the LORD rebuked David for his adultery with Bathsheba, and for his murderous conspiracy against Uriah.  As a consequence, the LORD announces that the child born as a result of David’s adultery would die.  David fasts and weeps while the child is ill – interceding for God’s mercy – but once the child dies, he eats & worships.  He explains why in these words:  “While the child was alive, I fasted and wept; for I said, ‘Who can tell whether the LORD will be gracious to me, that the child may live?’  But now he is dead; why should I fast?  Can I bring him back again?  I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me.” 

 The last line is cited with the following inference:  David expresses confidence that he will see his son in heaven.  Therefore, all children dying in infancy must go to heaven.  However, I don’t think that’s a legitimate inference – that ALL who die in childhood NECESSARILY go to heaven.  David is a covenant man – and has confidence in God’s covenant mercy to his covenant children (even one born out of a sinful relationship).  So at best, I think we can infer that David had confidence in God’s mercy in the context of the covenant – but it doesn’t necessarily follow that this mercy is extended to all children universally (i.e., that the same hope automatically applies to non-covenant children). 

The problem, as you noted, is the fact that we are born (even conceived!) into a broken relationship with God.  In Adam, we are accounted as sinners because of his transgression – as Romans 5:12-21 makes clear.  There is no “age of accountability” clause in Romans 5.  Psalm 51 tells us that we are conceived in sin.  Psalm 58:3 says “the wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies.”  Thus, we have rebel hearts even from the womb – we’re conceived and born as sinners, not as morally neutral until a supposed age of accountability.  Even harder – you have God commanding Israel in the conquest of the land of promise to wipe out all of the pagan occupants, men, women, and children.  Israel was acting as God's agent of pure justice – a kind of “sneak preview” of the consummate Day of Wrath. 

 These things, of course, are both very hard to hear and very hard to convey even to Christians, never mind a non-Christian!  The Westminster Confession of Faith provides the following biblically balanced statement on the matter of infants & salvation:  “Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit, who works when, and where, and how he pleases: so also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word” (10.3).  Notice, it doesn’t say ALL infants are saved, nor does it say that NO infants are saved – instead, it says there is a category of “elect infants,” i.e., those to whom God freely shows MERCY and GRACE, even though He would be just in showing only His justice, since infants too are accounted as sinners in Adam, and bear sinful corruption even from the womb.  I think covenant parents, like David, have good reason to hope in God’s mercy to their children dying in infancy.  But outside of the covenant, these things ultimately belong to the secret counsel of His will. 

 It’s hard to relate these things to a non-Christian – it may be helpful to redirect the focus of the conversation, if possible.  We can acknowledge how horrible it is to lose a baby – and how that points to the reality that things are not as they should be in this world.  Death entered the world through sin – but Christ has overcome both through His Cross and resurrection, for all who would trust in Him.  Because of Christ, and by faith in Him, we can look forward to a day in which there will be no more suffering, or crying, or death, or pain – for this “old order of things” will give way to the new order of things, secured by His Cross & resurrection for all eternity.   The only sure hope we can have in the face of tragic losses and death is Christ crucified for us sinners & risen from the dead. 

 If your friend were to continue to press the issue regarding the eternal state of a non-covenant child dying in infancy, the only answer you can honestly provide is, “I don’t know.”  You can only relate that God is both just and merciful, and He’s in charge of these matters.  But you can gently remind your friend that God is calling him to understand his own guilt before God’s Law – and his own need for Christ and His saving grace.  Ultimately, God is not “on trial” – we are.  And our only hope is to trust in Christ alone, and receive God’s gracious verdict of “not guilty, but righteous” because of His Cross and righteousness on our behalf.   

I hope that’s helpful. 

Yours in Christ,

Pastor Tony

Youth ministry, Christian Education, and age-segmentation

Generally, I reject the idea of a youth ministry which engages in an artificial age-segmentation that apes public school philosophy, and jettisons covenantal assumptions.  A post from some time ago relayed my view.  A person in our church who shares my convictions was recently challenged to explain why we would have a graded "Sunday School," but resist the typical evangelical youth ministry approach.  Here's my response:

I think we can make a legitimate distinction re: Sunday school.  CE ministry supports Christ’s command to make disciples as we seek to intentionally instruct our covenant children in the Gospel (supporting the primary duty of the parents to raise their covenant children in the fear & the admonition of the Lord).  CE is a discipling extension of the ministry of the Word.  As to “age-related” Sunday school, we are simply responding to the reality that we are not born adults, but physically and intellectually mature throughout childhood.  Therefore, instruction must be age-appropriate. 

 What is the aim of youth ministry?  Done biblically, it can be a “just in time” means of discipleship as older covenant children are making important transitions in their teen years – another way in which the church can support parents in the discipling of their covenant children.  More often, however, it seems to adopt the presuppositions of age-segmented socialization found in public / private schools.  The older teens are allowed to adopt the cultural idol that the worst thing in the world is to be publicly associated with your parents – not to mention younger children.  And so we segregate them and seek to keep them “engaged” with various “dog-and-pony show” approaches.

 Where did this idea come from?  Is there any biblical basis for it – that God designed the teen-age years to be a transitional period where teens renounce identification with their parents & family, and become more identified with their own peer group?  That this is a “natural” period of social transition – i.e., some measure of teen rebellion against parental authority / family identification is inevitable?  I submit that this idea is at least in part the bitter fruit of Dewey’s philosophy of public education (which assumptions are built into the entire system):  to make children well-oiled cogs in the State machine, freed from the religious superstitions imparted by their ignorant, unenlightened parents.  “Socialization” ultimately means intentionally separating children from their family identification, to identify more with outside “society” (via their peer groups) – i.e., to become “good citizens” of the State. 

 The covenant community must vigorously resist conformity to this truly “worldly” pattern.  “Youth ministry” should follow biblical patterns and priorities, which reinforce a child’s primary identification with their covenant families, and the larger covenant community, the church.  It doesn’t mean that we can’t have issue-oriented, “just in time” discipleship to address issues that teens do face in the larger culture – but the very nature of that discipleship must be covenantal and therefore counter-cultural!  Teens must be discipled to understand that they are baptized, set apart from the world; thus, they belong to the Triune God and are called to serve Him and His purposes.  They are part of a covenant family, and a covenant community.  And so, the transition they are making in their teens years is not with a view to becoming a cog in the State machine, but with a view to eventually starting their own covenant families, and raising a “holy seed” to the Lord – through which they will convey God’s covenant promises in Christ to the next generation. 

 A practical implication is that the church should try, as much as possible, to involve families, in whatever social activities we do as a church – rather than reinforcing the cultural idols of peer identification by separating our teens from their parents and younger siblings / covenant children for the “fun stuff.”  Yes, age-specific instruction for discipleship is wise; but generally, we should minimize age-segmented socialization activities as the church, as we can end up serving anti-covenantal, cultural idols.

 Sorry for the lengthy response!  Hope this helps!

 Yours in Christ,

 Pastor Tony