To read the Keystone magazine click this link:
Category Archives: Keystone Magazine
Authority Debate: Balance of Power
Authority Debate: Balance of Power
Posted in Craigs Keystone articles
We were in an independent fellowship for 14 years, all our married life, where all our children grew up, where all our best friends were, our only spiritual home. When the Lord developed within us through His Word the convictions of Christian education and home schooling, we were stunned that others did not share our enthusiasm for this way of raising a generation of disciples for Christ. We thought their disinclination for bringing the Word of God to bear on tbe political scene regarding public morality was a cultural hangover from the good old days when Christians never had to be involved in such things. But when immorality, humanistic heresies and even the trampling of their own traditions were not spoken against when they happened in the congregation, we knew something was wrong.
One day I was handed a copy of a letter by the elders, written to someone else which said they did not believe in either the PRINCIPLE or the PRACTICE of home schooling and would never want to see their pulpit used to promote such a thing. We had been home schooling for five years. WHY HADN’T THESE ELDERS TOLD ME!! WHY HAD THEY LET ME GO DOWN A PATH AND TAKE MY FAMILY DOWN A PATH THEY CONSIDERED HARMFUL? WHAT KIND OF SHEPHERDING, PASTORING, ELDERSHIP IS THAT??!!
We knew we had to go. Why? Because these shepherds not only refused to shepherd, but also let each person go his own way. We either had to find a church that WOULD shepherd us properly or do the job ourselves.
Working through the issues involved in that little choice took us SEVEN years. We found the issue of authority to be a crucial one, right next to fidelity to Christ and His Word. We found some surprising things.
First, there are some things which are inescapable. Therefore these things affect everybody and cannot be ignored. One is the deceitfulness of sin. We found most Christians underestimate the degree to which they are susceptible to the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes and the pride of life. That last one especially, the pride of life, is what causes us to deny that Jeremiah 10:23 applies to us: “I know, 0 Lord, that the way of man is not in himself; it is not in man who walks to direct his own steps.” “Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall.” (I Corinthians 10:12). The deceitfulness of sin is inescapable. Therefore we must be constantly on guard AND open to the admonition of others.
Then there is doctrine. The fellowship we left would say that love unites, but doctrine divides. But that in itself is a statement of doctrine. That is what they believe, it is what they teach. One elder told us, “Well this is what we believe, and if you don’t like it, you can leave.” That was a statement of doctrine. When I told them, which was difficult through my uncontrollable sobbing and tears, that we felt we had to leave, only one of the eight elders tried to talk to us about it. That showed the commitment of their love to unity. Everybody has doctrine: the one they profess may be different than the one they live by, but doctrine is inescapable. So the question is, which doctrine is closest to Biblical doctrine.
A third inescapable item is the way in which God has ordained under His own authority other spheres of authority. The family, the church, and the state are three main ones ordained by God, each with its own sphere of influence and each accountable and subservient to God’s authority. You know this is inescapable by the amount of trouble inevitably caused when one authority tries to extend its sphere of influence into that of another or is actually invited by the other to do so, as when the state relieves the family of its social welfare, health care and educational responsibilities.
We must not complain about man-made structures because they too are inescapable. We WILL have one structure or another, always man-made, no matter what we do. Even if we stay home and not even meet with any other believers, that too is a man-made structure, made by ourselves. (Personally because it is made by myself to suit myself rather than to help and encourage others I would therefore tend to trust it all the less as this kind of system is humanistic to the core, being self-centred rather than Christ-centred. Of course if there is no Christ-centred church within a reasonable distance, then you probably do need to stay at home, rather than come back from a service in such a place complaining about it in front of the family and feeling unclean.) And so, the question is which man-made structure is closest to the Biblical pattern.
So, when the authority of the church begins to eclipse that of the family, you come up with strongly authoritarian church structures, from huge international organisations to local personality cults, where the doctrine is determined by an elite person or group, and more and more of the family’s activities are determined for it by the church. On the other hand, when families believe they can fulfil for themselves the responsibilities of the church, you can get antinomian* structures where doctrine tends to be rather fuzzy at the edges to the point where each family determines its activities for itself with no reference to the church, the Body of Christ of which this family is meant to be a part.
Just because the church structures we have experienced seem restrictive to us does not mean church structures are wrong. That is like saying because my marriage seems restrictive, marriage is wrong. Why do we tend so quickly to blame the institution and not the sinners (ourselves) who are in tbe institution? Could it have something to do with this “do your own thing” generation in which we live, which rebels against whatever doesn’t suit ME? Have we possibly been influenced more by the world and our own deceitful sinfulness than by the Lord’s Word in these situations? Why do we focus more on, “What (probably new thing) does the Lord want ME to do?” rather than “How can I more effectively do what the Lord HAS ALREADY TOLD ME to do in the Scriptures?” I am not saying that we should stay put in a “church” which has compromised, apostacised or grossly overstepped its boundaries, but neither should we despise the churches as a whole simply because what we have experienced has been unsatisfactory.
The perfect church does not exist on earth, but then neither does the perfect Christian exist on earth. That means that being an imperfect member of an imperfect church will give us plenty of opportunities to obey some of the clear commandments the Lord has already given us: to bear with the failings of the weak (Romans 15:1), not neglect to meet together to stir one another up to love and good works (Hebrews 10:24-25), to bear one another’s burdens (Galatians 6:2), to do good to the brethren (Galatians 6:10), and to love one another so that the outsiders may see (John 13:34-35).
It seems to me that the Scriptures do clearly state that elders are to be appointed in every place (Titus 1:5), that they are to rule over us (I Tim 3:4-5, 5:17, Hebrews 13:7, 17) , that we should submit to them (I Peter 5:5, Hebrews 13:17), that we should call them when ill (James5:14), and that we pay them well (I Tim 5:17-18). Yes, the elders certainly have directives as to how they are to look after us (I Peter 5:l-3, Hebrews 13:17) and must be held accountable to that by way of exhortation (I Tim 5:1).
The Church on earth, the Body of Christ, is made up of ALL SORTS: the weak, the immature, the lazy, the strong, the keen. I am commanded to bear with them all and not to please myself, but to serve and to love all my brethren. Apart from the Bible verses above that indicate that I should be a member of a local congregation under elders, from a practical, logistical point of view, I can best fulfill the commandments to serve the brethren by being committed to a local congregation. Because I do not have a corner on tbe truth, I must concede that I can learn something, probably quite a bit, from every brother and sister in the congregation, if I would only take the time to listen and learn …. to love and serve them as I have already been commanded by the Lord to do.
The organisational church is not meant to usurp the authority of us fathers within our families, but to strengthen and equip and support us in that role. The authority of the church is over corporate areas of worship, discipline, the sacraments, etc. If the pagan Roman Empire could be commended by the Lord in Romans 13 as a minister of God to whom we should submit, how much more can we joyfully submit, in those appropriate areas, to the appropriately constituted church of our Lord Jesus Christ, to Whom be glory forever, Amen !
*Antinomianism (against the law) stresses freedom from the condemnation of the law to such an extent that it can come to mean freedom from the law itself. It also tends to reflect a modern existentialism or “here and now” attitude as if it had nothing to learn from the church’s 2000 years of history, struggle, practise and scholarship.
From Keystone Magazine
May 1996 , Vol. II No. 3
P O Box 9064
Palmerston North
Phone: (06) 357-4399
Fax: (06) 357-4389
email: craig@hef.org.nz
KEYSTONE Vol.II No.II March/April 1996
To read the Keystone magazine click this link:
Religion
Religion
Posted in Theologically Speaking
There are two things to remember about this term, “Religion”, that will help us home educators train our children in Godly wisdom. First, that everybody has a religion of one kind or another. Second, that there are ultimately only two religions.
Even unbelieving sociologists confirm that all cultures of all times have had a religion of one sort or another. But what exactly is “religion”? My Oxford Dictionary, Bible Encyclopedia and Dictionary of Theology all found the word very hard to handle. However, it is usually defined as the human practice stemming from some sort of belief in the divine.
Non-theistic evolutionists have tried to say that it is some sort of development to meet some sort of need, or something clever con men thought up to exercise power over people and secure an easy income. But these explanations assume, without actually saying so, that mankind does have that “God-shaped vacuum” within. Otherwise the need would never arise and the con man would not be able to con anyone. So even the unbelieving evolutionist does acknowledge, although begrudgingly, that human nature is inescapably religious. After all, that is the way the Creator created us.
There is another understanding of “religion” that is very helpful to us home educators as we endeavour to pass on to our children a concept of why other people we meet do what they do. One definition in my Oxford is, “Devotion to some principle; strict fidelity or faithfulness; conscientiousness.” Notice there is no reference to the divine. Self-conscious atheists and agnostics I have met have been fairly articulate about what they believe … .that is, they could explain why they believed as they did with a lot of confidence and clarity. These people are religious because they are devoted to some set of principles, and are conscientious about it, even if those principles can be summarised as “Me”. Ultimately even the common man in the street is as religious as a priest (no disrespect intended) since he will and does operate according to SOME set of beliefs or concepts about the nature of reality and the way things work. Whatever that set of beliefs is, even if they are contradictory (and they probably are), that set of beliefs is that person’s “statement of faith”, his “creed”, his religion, even if it supposedly does not acknowledge the existence of God or any kind of supernatural.
Now although some would have us believe life is terribly complex, it is really fairly simple at the foundations. All the worId’s philosophies, religions, belief systems, creeds or whatever can be divided into two simple groups. One is Biblical Christianity, wherein man trusts in the only true God, the Creator. The other group is everything else, all of which by definition trust in some thing which is created: man or some man-made idea or institution. This is known as the religion of humanism. Even atheistic, secular humanists refer to their belief system as a religion.
The Bible itself says there are only two kinds of people, and you will find that concept all through Scripture, even in John 3:16 (those who perish and those who have eternal life). Knowing there are only two, really makes life easy: you answer all the others in roughly the same way, that is, either focusing upon their misunderstanding of Christ, His finished work, His Divinity, etc.; or focusing upon the fact that they ultimately trust in man or some human agent for salvation. The Muslim, the Hindu and all the rest practice a religion of salvation by human works; the atheist and agnostic are trusting that their own human speculations regarding the non-existence or unknowability of God are correct. In either case, they are ultimately trusting in man or some other created thing. Biblical Christianity is on the opposite end of the scale, as true Christians trust in God the Creator.
Now this idea of religion, that everybody is religious and that there are really only two religions, Biblical Christianity and humanism; this idea of religion is useful to us home educators as it helps us to easily evaluate ideas that are presented to us in books, on TV, on radio talk-back, in lectures, in conversation. It is easy to recognise where other ideas are coming from as there are really only two possibilities: from the Creator God or from some thing which He created. When we can evaluate ideas in this way, no matter how they are wrapped up, we will be less likely to be deceived. Also, we can more easily evaluate OUR OWN thinking as to whether it is Biblical or too tainted with humanism to be compatible with a life of faithful obedience to God.
We must watch our own thinking very carefully since most of us parents have been trained to think like humanists in our public school classrooms. This is why we must strive all the more to re-train our minds to think God’s thoughts after Him, allowing His Word to continually flush out the garbage as we read, study, memorize and meditate on the Scriptures. The objective is to take every thought captive to obey Christ (II Corinthians 10:5). Not only do we parents need to be able to think this way, we must train our children to think this way, and show them how to easily distinguish between right thinking and wrong.
The issue we must face today in our pluralist society in the areas of education, literature, entertainment, medicine, justice and all things else is not whether it is right for us Christians to force our religious values on others. The issue is whose religious values will we accept being forced upon us.
From Keystone Magazine
March 1996 , Vol. II No. 2
P O Box 9064
Palmerston North
Phone: (06) 357-4399
Fax: (06) 357-4389
email: craig@hef.org.nz
What Are Public Schools REALLY Designed to Do to Our Children?
What Are Public Schools REALLY Designed to Do to Our Children?
Posted in Tough Questions
Our public schools are staffed by well trained professionals who teach according to a modern up-to-date curriculum which is designed to bring children to their full potential that they may easily integrate into today’s society and the workforce. How can you deny them these great advantages?
This is a typical statist comment, the kind that would also go on to say that children are our nation’s greatest resource and therefore demand the best money can buy. You see, they quite quickly equate children with sides of lamb, butter and other “resources” of our nation which are sometimes sold to the highest bidder , sometimes bartered off to reduce debt and sometimes given away. I resent my children being spoken of in those terms. Thy also assume that money buys the best.
Well, what exactly is behind the National Curriculum? On April 19, 1987, the then Assistant Director , Resources Development, Department of Education, Wellington, met with a number of leaders of home schooling groups in Auckland. This gentleman stated that his own idealism had been somewhat tarnished after years in the state education system when he realized, in his own words, that education “was not only about children and learning, but also about money and politics.” The Christchurch Press of November 5, 1985, had an article about the then Under Secretary of Trade and Industry, Mr Neilson, and his six-point programme for making Labour “the natural party of Government.” Point three of this programme called for the introduction “of peace studies into the education system to achieve this end.” The idea is to train children in the schools to think a certain way so that when they become voters they will just “naturally” think along Labour political lines and just “naturally” vote for Labour. At a speech at Massey University in mid-1990, Finance Minister David Caygill was reported in the papers as saying that Governments should mould public opinion, not follow it. He said it was the politician’s responsibility to pursue policies that were in the public interest “even when the public disagrees.” What better way to mould public opinion than when the public within the state education system is not yet old enough to have its own opinion?! Apparently , both Mr Neilson and Mr Caygill understood what Abraham Lincoln said over 100 years ago: “The philosophy of the classroom is the philosophy of the government in the next generation.”
During the 1986 school trials of the draft programme Keeping Our Selves Safe, the Police Youth Aid Officer in Palmerston North chaired a public meeting to explain the programme to interested parents at Central Normal School. He was asked why the KOSS programme was targeting potential victims, school aged children, and educating them to understand and recognise perversions such as incest, sexual molestation, rape, exhibitionism, etc., rather than targeting potential offenders and educating them in self control. The constable answered with a shrug of the shoulders and the words, “I guess the children are easier to reach since they are a captive audience in the classroom each day.”
A few years ago Massey University Education professor Ivan Snook said that the furore over sex education, morals in the schools, etc., was only a smoke screen. The real issues were power and control: whose were the children and who will control their education? Karl Marx was committed to seeing communism take over the world. He worked out a 10-point plan to see this objective succeed. One of the points was the establishment of free, compulsory and secular state education systems in order to train up the next generation in the philosophy of the state.
Many Christians and other concerned parents were thrilled with the way parents were promised a lot more say in running schools as a result of the changes brought about by the Tomorrow’s Schools document. But most were totally misled. It turned out that what Tomorrow’s Schools did was to off-load much of the expensive administrative headaches onto volunteer Boards of Trustees who receive token remuneration, while the core curriculum, what was actually being taught in the classroom, remained even more tightly in the control of the Ministry of Education. A quote by Phillip Capper of the Post Primary Teachers Association which appeared in the Dominion Sunday Times of 14 October 1990 is one of the most straightforward and honest statements by a professional educationalist one would ever hope to read. He said, “What I would like to see in the political debate about education is a recognition that public education is an exercise in social engineering by definition.” And here is a snippet from the Manawatu Evening Standard of 4 December 1990. “Unresearched government-decreed practices in schools could socially, emotionally and intellectually deform children,” says Christchurch Teachers’ College principal Colin Knight. Dr Knight said the education system placed children at risk by continuing to neglect educational research. ‘It is of serious concern to me that, despite the far-reaching effects of teaching on society, few educational practices have a sound research basis.’ He said changes in what went on in schools were mainly brought about by politically initiated reviews and reports on questionnaires and Gallup polls, by parliamentary debate and political expediency.’
The New Zealand public school system is designed and operated according to political considerations. I have no qualms about keeping my children out of such a system.
From Keystone Magazine
March 1996 , Vol. II No. 2
P O Box 9064
Palmerston North
Phone: (06) 357-4399
Fax: (06) 357-4389
email: craig@hef.org.nz