Youth Groups: Teen Subculture in Church Clothes
This secular teenage subculture is the foundation upon which the modern youth ministry is built. All youth ministries begin with the assumption that teenagers are a subculture within the community, whose social and spiritual needs cannot be met by the church body as a whole; therefore, teens require their own activities, their own Bible studies, and their own pastors. Building upon this foundation, early youth ministries, such as Youth for Christ, filled ball stadiums with teenagers eager to listen to “lively gospel music, personal testimonies from athletes, civic leaders or military heroes, and a brief sermon, climaxing with a gospel invitation to receive Jesus as personal Savior.”[1] Youth leaders offered teens a Christian peer group alternative to the culture of the public high school. Fun activities, entertaining music, and the opportunity to socialize with other Christian teens were the chief attractions of the youth group. Contemporary Christian music was an outgrowth of early youth ministries. Youth for Christ co-founder, Percy Crawford, was one of the first to combine contemporary musical sounds with Christian lyrics. Although youth groups were initially para-church organizations, local congregations adopted the methodology and started their own youth groups.
Today, the youth group has become so institutionalized that Christians can scarcely imagine church life without it. Teens have their own pastors, fellowships, revivals, camps, recreational activities, outreach programs, small group studies, mission trips, and prayer meetings.
* * *
As David prepared to move the Ark of the Covenant, all of Israel celebrated with harps and psalteries and timbrels and cornets and cymbals. One can imagine their reaction to anyone who suggested that they shouldn’t move the Ark on a cart: “All that matters is that we get the Ark to Jerusalem.” “We’re just trying to serve the Lord; stop stirring up strife.” “We’ve already made it to Nachon’s threshing floor.” “There’s nothing wrong with using modern methods.” Indeed, had the Lord not killed Uzzah, Israel would have been quite pleased with their efforts.
Suggesting today that youth groups are not biblical is a lot like suggesting to Israel that the Ark of the Covenant shouldn’t be riding on an ox cart. The objections follow the same pragmatic line of thinking: “All that matters is that we reach teens for Christ.” “We’re just trying to serve the Lord; stop stirring up strife.” “We’ve already seen many teens saved.” “There’s nothing wrong with using modern methods.” There is ample anecdotal evidence that youth ministry works. Almost everyone knows someone who was saved in a youth group or in a youth camp. We can point to specific youth ministries and see their impact on the lives of teens. Indeed, with no apparent “Uzzahs,” we are quite pleased with our efforts.
But there have been casualties. Our attempt at doing God’s work with man’s methods has resulted in thousands upon thousands of “Uzzahs.” We “see” them every Sunday as empty places in the pews. The 20th-century rise of youth ministries was simultaneously accompanied by the greatest dereliction of duty in the history of Christianity. Christian fathers by droves ceded their God-given responsibility of training the next generation to youth leaders often barely out of their teens. Instead of “walking in the way” (Deuteronomy 6) with Godly parents, teens jumped on the merry-go-round of afterglows and lock-ins and church camps.
If the past seventy years of youth ministry has been successful, our churches should be overflowing. Every church in America should be engaged in a building program. Instead, many churches are shutting their doors. The greatest loss of youth in church history has paralleled the last seven decades of increased emphasis on youth ministry. Today, six out of ten young people leave the church after graduating from high school.[2] How many “Uzzahs” must the church lose before it realizes that age-segregated, peer-based youth ministries are not God’s way?
It is time for pastors and parents to re-evaluate. If we want to rear up a generation that serves the Lord, we need to follow God’s instructions. Fathers must disciple their own children. Children must receive their values from parents and not peer groups. We need courageous parents who will challenge the status quo. It is possible to provide ministry opportunities and fellowship to teenagers apart from a peer-based youth group. Pastor Steve Haymond writes:
“Everything that can be accomplished (that is, instruction in the Lord, wholesome activity, service to God and others, reaching unbelievers, keeping kids out of trouble, etc.) through a typical youth activity or trip can also be accomplished through a family-based activity or trip while at the same time re-establishing dads as spiritual leaders in the home, strengthening family relationships and avoiding the peer dependence that occurs in most youth groups.”[3]
Eventually, David did bring the Ark of the Covenant home to Jerusalem. But it was only after he repented from doing the Lord’s work in his own way. 2 Samuel 6:13-14 say, “And it was so, that when they that bare the ark of the LORD had gone six paces, he sacrificed oxen and fatlings. And David danced before the LORD with all his might.” When we set aside our own ideas of youth ministry and focus again on God’s plan for youth, the family, we, like David, will rejoice again in the blessings of the Lord.
Public High Schools – The Incubators of Teen Subculture
It is impossible to understand the rise of youth ministries without first comprehending a shift that occurred in the culture at large following World War II. At the turn of the century, “teenagers” did not exist. “There were young people in their teens, but there was no culture or institution that united them or fostered peer group development on a societal scale.”[1] In fact, the words “teen” and “teenager” did not even enter the language until the 1920’s. Generally speaking,
“A teenager growing up prior to the end of WW II was forced to take life fairly seriously. Males were expected to join the services or to go out get a job, help support his [sic] family or a new bride. Women were expected to meet a man, marry and have children.”[2]
Post-war prosperity, however, changed expectations. No longer required to work, greater numbers of teens were attending public high schools, where they had “more time to themselves to be social and form peer bonds.”[3] The rise in high school attendance has been cited as the single most important factor in the creation of teenage culture. “High school, based on biological age, reshaped the experiences of thirteen- to eighteen-year-olds”[4] and was “the crucial prerequisite for the emergence of teenagers [as a subgroup within the culture], giving them a common location in which to develop strong peer affiliations.”[5] (clarification mine)
From the incubator of public high schools emerged a new subculture as teenagers developed their own dress code, social morés, and music. For the first time, teenagers were viewed as a separate element of society, and businesses quickly capitalized on the new teen subculture by marketing magazines, movies, music, and clothing directly to teenagers. As college became accessible to more young people, they “stayed in their newly found culture longer, thus delaying adulthood.”[6]
[3] Ibid.
[5] Nan Enstad – review of Some Wore Bobby Sox: The Emergence of Teenage Girl Culture, 1920-1945, by Kelly Schrum – www.hbs.edu/bhr/archives/bookreviews/79/nenstad.pdf
And David arose, and went with all the people that were with him from Baale of Judah, to bring up from thence the ark of God, whose name is called by the name of the LORD of hosts that dwelleth between the cherubims. And they set the ark of God upon a new cart, and brought it out of the house of Abinadab that was in Gibeah: and Uzzah and Ahio, the sons of Abinadab, drave the new cart. And they brought it out of the house of Abinadab which was at Gibeah, accompanying the ark of God: and Ahio went before the ark. And David and all the house of Israel played before the LORD on all manner of instruments made of fir wood, even on harps, and on psalteries, and on timbrels, and on cornets, and on cymbals. And when they came to Nachon's threshingfloor, Uzzah put forth his hand to the ark of God, and took hold of it; for the oxen shook it. And the anger of the LORD was kindled against Uzzah; and God smote him there for his error; and there he died by the ark of God. And David was displeased, because the LORD had made a breach upon Uzzah: and he called the name of the place Perezuzzah to this day. (2 Samuel 6:2-8)
This account of David moving the Ark of the Covenant is a classic example of doing the right thing in the wrong way. David loved the Lord. He was a man after God’s own heart (1 Samuel 13:14), but he was trying to do the Lord’s work with man’s methods. Many years earlier, God gave Moses specific instructions about transporting the Ark of the Covenant. It was to be carried on poles by the Kohathites, a subgroup of the Levites. (See Exodus 25:13-16; Numbers 1:51, and Numbers 4:15.) David ignored the Word of the Lord and tried to move the Ark his own way. The result was disastrous.
King David was neither the first nor the last person to apply man’s methods to God’s work. By the middle of the 20th century, many Christians were deeply concerned about the direction of American youth. With the very best of intentions, they set out to bring these wayward teens to Christ. The result of their efforts was the modern “youth group.” Jon Pahl, author of Youth Ministry in America: 1930 to the Present, writes, “Youth groups and organizations are among the most notable 20th-century examples of the institutional creativity of Christianity in the United States.” [1] “The cultural innovation of adolescence,” continues youth leader Nikomas Perez, “set a youth culture in motion that has steadily gained momentum in both the American culture and the Church.”[2]
The age-segregated, peer-based youth ministry model that developed in the mid-20th century can properly be described as “creative” and “innovative” because it had no biblical or historical precedent. Wherever the instruction or training of youth is mentioned in the Bible, it is always in the context of the family. Passages such as Deuteronomy 6:6-7 and 11:18-20, and Proverbs 1:8, 4:1, and 6:20 clearly place upon parents, in particular fathers, the responsibility of instructing their children in the ways of the Lord. The family is God’s youth ministry.
For nearly two thousand years, the Christian faith was passed from one generation to the next through the family unit. This did not minimize the importance of the Church. It merely recognized that God has ordained different spheres of government: family government to train children, and church government to equip and edify the saints. The New Testament recognizes the distinction between these two spheres of government. While Jesus welcomed children into the kingdom (Matthew 19:14), He gave instructions for discipling them to fathers (Ephesians 6 and Colossians 3). In fact, having succeeded at discipling one’s own children is a qualification for leadership in the church (1 Timothy 3:4, 12 and Titus 1:6). Noticeably absent from the canon of Scripture, however, are specific instructions regarding youth ministries or the qualifications of youth leaders.
[1] See review by David F. White at http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_6_119/ai_84434070/
The goal of public education has never been to teach reading, writing, and arithmetic. Benjamin Rush, a signer of the Declaration of Independence and one of the earliest advocates of common schools, proposed a system of public education to train young people "to perform their parts properly in the great machine of the government of the state." Other early proponents of public education, such as Horace Mann, believed the purpose of education was to unite the country though the production of "good citizens" for the state. Mann was particularly concerned about neutralizing the influence of Massachusetts' Irish-Catholic immigrants. (The Catholics responded by creating their own school system.) Mann and others modeled their proposed system of public education on the early 18th century Prussian schools, whose overriding goal was unifying the German state. The German Volksschule has been described as "education to the State, education for the State, education by the State."
When loosed from the moorings of the Bible, conditioning children to be "good citizens" can take on an insidious character. In 1967, federal and state education agencies launched two educational projects, each resulting in approximately 1000-page training manuals for teachers. The Designing Education for the Future manual described education as "a means to achieve important economic and social goals for the national character." The document further states that "each state education department must be an agent of change." The Behavioral Teacher Educational Project envisioned "the impersonal manipulation through schooling of a future America in which few will be able to maintain control over their own opinions." Another teacher's guide, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, is described by its editor, Dr. Benjamin Bloom, as "a tool to classify the ways individuals are to act, think or feel as the result of participating in some unit of instruction."
By definition, socialism is "a system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole." Socialism is antithetical to private ownership of property. Though we don't often think of conscience as property, our Founding Fathers did. James Madison wrote that "conscience is the most sacred of all property." When statements from the aforementioned education manuals are considered, it is clear that the goal of public education is the collectivization of conscience. Public school students are stripped of their property - their own opinions - and told by the school system how they are to act, think, and feel.
I believe that what we commonly call "political correctness" is really the collectivization of conscience. By degrees, we are being manipulated and intimidated into surrendering our "most sacred" property, our individual consciences, and into embracing the collective conscience. Anyone who possesses and expresses a private opinion contrary to the collective conscience is immediately marked for ridicule and intimidated into silence. Just ask Brit Hume.
If the goal of public education is to produce good citizens by conditioning students to accept certain opinions, then public education is socialist at its core, and it is not reformable or redeemable. A lot of Christians today are concerned that the Obama administration has America on the fast track to socialism, but the truth is that most of these concerned Christians have been on the socialist highway themselves for quite a long time. As long as Christian parents continue to utilize the public school system, they are abetting the socialization of America and ceding their most sacred property to the collective.
Sources:
John Taylor Gatto, speech to the Vermont Homeschooling Conference, http://4brevard.com/choice/Public_Education.htm
A Guide to American Christian Education for the Home and School, James B. Rose, American Christian History Institute, 1987.
Andrew's project was inspired by a chubby squirrel we dubbed "Chester," who visited our front porch every morning. Andrew began with the principle that God created mammals on the sixth day and that the first pair of the squirrel-kind contained all of the genetic information necessary to produce the variety of squirrels we see today. He researched the squirrels common to the United States: the Eastern Grey Squirrel, the Fox Squirrel, the Red Squirrel, and the Flying Squirrel. He also made distribution maps showing where each species was located. (He even placed a little dot right in the middle of our state, representing the flying squirrel Uncle B and Aunt E found in their house!) Andrew researched the habits and habitats of squirrels and learned that their nests are called "dreys." He studied the physical features of squirrels and labeled a diagram of a squirrel. When researching the definition of squirrel, Andrew learned that it is derived from the Norman word esquirel. Prior to the Norman invasion in AD 1066, Ango-speakers called squirrels acweornas, meaning "of the oak." After the invasion, acweorna came to mean the nut of the oak tree. Finally, Andrew concluded his project by learning a little more about another member of the squirrel family, the prairie dog.
Sarah's project on slavery was inspired by a book she had read earlier in the year. For her Bible principle, she noted that man was created in the image of God and given dominion over every other creature (Genesis 1:26), but God did not give man dominion over man. Therefore, slavery is wrong. Sarah researched the origin of slavery in the United States and how the economy of the South encouraged slavery. She covered plantations, the life of a slave, religion and abolition, the Underground Railroad, and the Emancipation Proclamation. She wrote about William Lloyd Garrison, editor of the abolitionist paper, the Liberator, as well as about former slaves Harriet Tubman, George Washington Carver, and Phyllis Wheatley. Her notebook included pictures of plantation houses and slave quarters, slave ships, slaves working in the fields, and a map of the free and slave states at the time of the Civil War.
Lauren's love of music led her into a study of the history of the piano. She noted that our music, whether made with a piano or some other instrument, should bring glory to God (Psalm 66:1 and Psalm 81:1). Lauren researched the santur, hurdy-gurdy, clavichord, and harpsichord - all precursors to the piano. She researched the life of Bartolomeo Cristifori, the inventor of the piano, and described the six main parts to Cristifori's design, including a picture and a diagram of a Cristifori piano. She also researched several Viennese piano makers and the contributions they made to the instrument. She wrote about Sebastien Erard, the inventor of the double escapement grand piano and noted other improvements that were subsequently made to the instrument, such as the cast-iron frame. Lauren classified modern pianos and described the modern manufacturing process. She wrote about the care and maintenance of a piano and, finally, concluded her project by discussing the individuality of piano makers.
I have to add a footnote here about Mary (2 1/2), who worked on her own little project. She began a notebook about the alphabet, collecting pictures of things that start with a, b, etc. Due to the brevity of her attention span, she only completed her book through j, but it was a good beginning for a little scholar!
Sometimes it is difficult to comprehend the significance of legislation that does not affect us directly. The NH legislation, which requires additional testing and reporting by homeschool families, however, is not about making sure homeschooled kids get a good education. Nationally, under existing laws, homeschooled children outperform their peers on standardized tests. Writing for the peer-reviewed educational journal, Educational Policy Analysis Archives, Lawrence Rudner of the University of Maryland, discovered that on average homeschooled children in grades 1 through 4 perform one grade level higher than their public school counterparts, and by the 8th grade, homeschooled children perform on average four grade levels higher than children in public schools.
If academic performance is not an issue, then why are NH and other states considering more restrictive homeschooling laws? The real issues are tax dollars and control. School districts receive federal tax dollars for every child enrolled. With somewhere between 1.6 and 2 million children being homeschooled in the US, school districts are beginning to feel the loss of revenue. The greater issue, however, is one of control. Who will exert the greatest influence on America's children?
The goal of public education has never been to teach reading, writing, and arithmetic. Benjamin Rush, a signer of the Declaration of Independence and one of the earliest advocates of common schools, proposed a system of public education to train young people "to perform their parts properly in the great machine of the government of the state." Other early proponents of public education, such as Horace Mann, believed the purpose of education was to unite the country though the production of "good citizens" for the state. Mann was particularly concerned about neutralizing the influence of Massachussetts' Irish-Catholic immigrants. (The Catholics responded by creating their own school system.) Mann and others modeled their proposed system of public education on the early 18th century Prussian schools, whose overriding goal was unifying the German state. The German Volksschule has been described as "education to the State, education for the State, education by the State."
When loosed from the moorings of the Bible, conditioning children to be "good citizens" can take on an insidious character. In 1967, federal and state education agencies launched two educational projects, each resulting in approximately 1000-page training manuals for teachers. The Designing Education for the Future manual described education as "a means to achieve important economic and social goals for the national character." The document further states that "each state education department must be an agent of change." The Behavioral Teacher Educational Project envisioned "the impersonal manipulation through schooling of a future America in which few will be able to maintain control over their own opinions." Another teacher's guide, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, is described by its editor, Dr. Benjamin Bloom, as "a tool to classify the ways individuals are to act, think or feel as the result of participating in some unit of instruction."
From the perspective of the government, highly literate students, who have been taught to think and reason from the Bible, do not make good citizens because they still maintain their own opinions. They have not been instructed in social change, or in the proper ways to think, act, and feel. A German judge, explaining a ruling against a homeschooling family, expressed the fear of many in American government when he wrote that the German government "has a legitimate interest in countering the rise of parallel societies that are based on religion."
The bottom line is that students who have received a distinctively Christian education (whether in a Christian school or in a homeschool) are impediments to the socialist agenda. Whether Christian education is slowly strangled by legislation or swiftly decapitated by federal mandate remains to be seen. For the moment, homeschools are the easiest target for increased government control. (Any attempt at controlling Christian schools would have to deal with the behemoth of Roman Catholic parochial schools.)
The proposed New Hampshire homeschooling law (if passed) will set a precedent for other state legislatures to consider. Our freedom as a nation is directly tied to the way we educate our children. Writing in 1779, Samuel Adams declared, "A general dissolution of principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy. While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but when once they lose their virtue then they will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader." In a later letter, Adams stressed the importance of Americans "educating their little boys and girls, of inculcating in the minds of youth the fear and love of the Deity and universal philanthropy, and, in subordination to these great principles, the love of their country; of instructing them in the art of self-government, without which they never can act a wise part in the government of societies, great or small; in short, of leading them in the study and practice of the exalted virtues of the Christian system."
True "good citizenship" begins with instruction in Christian principles not indoctrination in social change. It is vitally important for the future of our country, therefore, that Christian education remain free. I encourage you to pray for the vote in New Hampshire and to stand with Christian educators whenever and whereever their freedoms are threatened.
***
"I advise no one to place a child where the Scriptures do not reign paramount. Every institution in which men are not increasingly occupied with the Word of God must become corrupt." - Martin Luther
The people that walked in darkness have seen a great light: they that dwell in the land of the shadow of death, upon them hath the light shined. - Isaiah 9:2
We have been studying ancient civilizations in history this year, and I have been continually astounded at the depth of wickedness of these civilizations. With the exception of the Hebrews and the few elect Gentiles to whom God revealed Himself, the civilizations of the world were universally idolaters, who worshiped their pantheons of gods with all kinds of debauchery. Even helpless newborns were tossed into rivers or burned to death upon the white-hot hands of Molech. Human rights did not exist as every man did what seemed right in his own eyes. Might made right, and almost everyone lived under some form of tyranny.
Perhaps God suffered these thousands of years of wickedness so that we could understand the true condition of the human heart. As Jeremiah wrote, “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?” Because of Adam’s sin, it is impossible for man to be anything other than wicked. God would have been perfectly justified in destroying the whole human race at any point in time and condemning us all to eternal punishment. But in His mercy, God promised a Savior instead.
One night in Bethlehem, a Great Light shined into the darkness of the pagan world. God Himself had become a man. The birth of Jesus Christ, the Light of the World, was the turning point in world history. No longer would darkness pervade every land, but the light of the Gospel would shine into every corner of the globe. Slowly, Christianity spread from Jerusalem into Judea and Samaria, and then into Asia, Africa, and Europe, and finally to the Americas.
The true Gospel message is that we are all born sinners. We cannot change our sinful natures; we cannot simply choose to do right. Yet we are accountable to God for our sins, and we will be eternally punished for them. “For the wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:23). “But God commendeth his love toward us in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us” (Romans 5:8). Christ bore the punishment of sin so that all who believe on Him can have their sins forgiven, be transformed into children of God, and receive eternal life. “I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness” (John 12:46).
As we celebrate the coming of the Savior this year, I trust that you have left behind “the land of the shadow of death” and are walking in the light. Have a blessed Christmas!
One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it.
Simply put, if it bothers your conscience to celebrate Christmas, you should not celebrate it. For my own part, however, I have never found the arguments against celebrating Christmas to be persuasive.
One such argument is that the symbols of our celebration (the tree, evergreen wreaths, mistletoe, etc.) are of pagan origin. Opponents claim that the use of these symbols in our Christmas celebration is syncretism, a mixing of two religions. There are at least three problems with this position, however.
Firstly, the premise of this argument is a non causa pro causa logical fallacy. The fact that ancient druids used evergreen trees in their worship does not mean that Christians borrowed the practice from them. One event preceding another chronologically does not necessarily establish a causative relationship between the two events. The first documented association between evergreen trees and Christian celebrations comes from sixteenth century Germany where evergreens were decorated for the Feast of Adam and Eve on December 24th.
Secondly, the "Christmas has pagan origins" position misunderstands the meaning of syncretism. The dictionary says that syncretism is "the attempted reconciliation or union of different or opposing principles, practices, or parties, as in philosophy or religion." For syncretism to occur, the borrower must intend to merge or reconcile two opposing religions. While some historians do believe that the celebration of Christmas was the Roman Church's attempt to "Christianize" the pagan celebration of Saturnalia, there are historical evidences that Christ's birth was observed much earlier in the days of the church fathers. Clement of Alexandria writes about such a celebration in Egypt as early as A.D. 200. In A.D. 388, Chrysostom urged believers in Antioch to celebrate the nativity on December 25. Neither of these Christmas celebrations were in response to the pagan observance of Saturnalia.
Finally, it is fallacious to argue against something based on its origin unless that origin affects the object's present day value (genetic fallacy). For example, even if one could definitively establish the Christmas tree's pagan history, logically, one would also have to establish a present-day association with paganism in order to condemn the use of Christmas trees in Christian homes.
Another objection that Christians sometimes make to celebrating Christmas is that we are no where in Scripture commanded to celebrate Christ's birth. This is true, but an absence of a command does not make the optional observance of Christ's birth wrong. If the voluntary observance of special days were forbidden, Paul would have said so. Instead, he wrote regarding the observance of special days, "Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind."
Some contend that the corporate observance of Christmas by a church violates the Regulative Principle of Worship. According to the Westminster Confession, "the acceptable way of worshiping the true God is instituted by himself, and so limited by his own revealed will, that he may not be worshiped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representation, or any other way not prescribed in the Holy Scripture." Other creeds similarly state the principle. Most Christians who adhere to the Regulative Principle agree that the principle includes the reading and preaching of God's word, confession of sin, the administration of communion and baptism, the collection of tithes and offerings, and the singing of psalms and hymns. Beyond this, however, there is much disagreement about the Regulative Principle. Personally, I do not see the observance of Christ's birth (or any other event from His life) as violating any of the above elements of worship.
Why I Celebrate Christmas
We are commanded in Scripture to remember the mighty acts of God and to teach them to the next generation. The Incarnation of God at the birth of Jesus Christ is history's watershed event. Four thousand years of history, hundreds of prophecies, and types, and shadows led up to the coming of the Savior of the world. Surely this momentous event, more than any other event in history, deserves a special day of remembrance. We use the advent season to remind our children that the people who were in darkness have seen a Great Light.
It is true that many aspects of our Christmas celebration (such as the Christmas tree) have nothing to do with Christ's coming. But we include these traditions handed down from our ancestors as part of our cultural heritage. It is doubtful that the Pilgrims ate pumpkin pie at the first Thanksgiving, but serving pumpkin pie at Thanksgivng has become a part of our cultural heritage. And the Founding Fathers didn't celebrate the signing of the Declaration of Independence by grilling hot dogs, yet grilling out has become a traditional part of our Independence Day festivities. So we decorate our Christmas tree with lights and ornaments, wrap gifts in red and green paper, bake cut out cookies and fudge, and carol to our neighbors because these are the traditions handed down to us.
Whether you celebrate Christmas or not, whether you have a tree or not, are matters for your own conscience. This is the true liberty we have in Christ.
My new GE range was delivered last night, and I inaugurated it by baking a walnut-pumpkin cake this morning. This is my first smooth top range, and I think I'm going to like it. (The photo isn't exactly like mine, but it's close enough.)
So what is the point of this post? Well, I am thankful that the Lord provided funds to replace the stove, but more importantly, I am thankful that our marriage has lasted longer than our appliances! A lot of marriages don't.
The Doctrine of the Lesser Magistrate. In the Bible, God gives government the responsibility to “bear the sword” (Romans 13:4). This means that government is to protect the persons and property of its citizens from evildoers. This is the responsibility of government regardless of whether it is a local government or a national government. Calvin reasoned that if a national government (the greater magistrate) fails to protect its citizens, the local government (the lesser magistrate) is still obligated to do its job. A lesser magistrate may even have to protect its citizens from the wrongful actions of the greater magistrate. This Doctrine of the Lesser Magistrate was the philosophy behind the American Revolution.
The American War for Independence was not, as many have been taught, a citizens’ tax rebellion. It was the collective effort of thirteen colonial governments (lesser magistrates) to protect their citizens from the wrongful actions of the king (the greater magistrate).[1] In 1772, when the crown-appointed governor of Massachusetts refused to allow the colony’s General Court to convene to hear the grievances of the citizens, Samuel Adams proposed that local town assemblies (as the lesser magistrates) should hear the grievances of the people. Later, the thirteen colonial governments joined forces in the Continental Congress to appeal to King George to redress his wrongs. When he refused, the colonial governments (as the lesser magistrates) declared their independence from England. In so doing, the thirteen colonial governments were fulfilling their obligations to protect their citizens from the tyranny of the English crown.
James Madison, one of the framers of the Constitution, called the Doctrine of the Lesser Magistrate the Doctrine of Interposition. A more recent example of the Doctrine of Interposition is the case of Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore refusing a federal court order to remove the Ten Commandments from the Alabama statehouse in 2005. Most Americans, even Christians, are ignorant of history (and the Bible) so that they do not understand what happened in Alabama in 2005. The state constitution of Alabama (rule of law) invokes “the favor and guidance of Almighty God” as the basis of its laws and justice system. As the highest court officer in Alabama, Chief Justice Moore was required to uphold the state constitution. When a federal court, acting unlawfully,[2] ordered Chief Justice Moore to remove God’s Law from the statehouse, he (as the lesser magistrate) refused in order to preserve for the citizens of Alabama their right to acknowledge God as the Supreme source of their state laws.
Some Concluding Thoughts
Rose Weiner of Maranatha Publications penned the following introduction to Charles Coffin’s The Story of Liberty, in which she eloquently connects the events of the Reformation with American history:
“Most Americans are ignorant of the fact that the fruits of civil liberty which they enjoy have their origin in Christianity."
What was at first only a little stone began to strike at the foundations of the religious and civil institutions of Medieval Europe. That which was destined to become a great mountain of refuge for the oppressed and afflicted of the earth, that civil and religious liberty which was destined to make its home in the wilderness of America, would not be established without cost. Over the ensuing centuries, liberty would be purchased by the blood of the martyrs and the testimony of the servants of Jesus. It would encompass over 500 years of struggle as the human race endeavored to climb from slavery to freedom.
The rebuilding of America’s Christian foundation and its superstructure of individual freedoms begins in the homes of American Christians, when the adults of this generation put a stop to the ignorance of American’s Christian history. The rich heritage of Christian self-sacrifice that was the foundation of America should be set as a “seal upon the heart” of every adult and every boy and girls who want to see their religious and civil liberties preserved.
America’s history and the events that preceded her founding pertain to Christ. It is His story of civil freedom and civil government. It is by diligently pondering the divine influence behind America’s history that we begin to understand the goodness of God in establishing the nation of America for His gospel purposes.
* * *
Today, most Americans have studied history rewrites, which have been designed to separate America from her spiritual roots and to debunk the true character of those who gave their lives to make America great. For too many, history is a boring incomprehensible enigma.
As the bible was preached to the masses and translated into the language of the people, the Reformation arose, awakening men’s consciences and intellects and stimulating science, literature, and invention. A free church, free education, free association, the right to speak and to write – these are the consequences of the liberty of conscience proclaimed by the Reformers.
The Bible in the hands of the individual became the root of America’s Christian form of civil government – a Christian Republic. The bible was first the means of transforming the life of the individual, and later the means of transforming not only church government but civil government as well.
* * *
We cannot neglect the present and hope to enjoy in the future blessings of the past. Liberty was purchased by Christian courage, self-sacrifice, and unceasing vigilance. Only by these virtues can we hope to keep it. We must, by God’s grace, be as determined to protect our liberties as our forefathers were to win them. “Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage (Galatians 5:1).
[1] You will recall that the King had tried to set an Anglican bishop over all of the colonies, denying them their religious freedom. He tried to retract (and in one case physically steal) the colonial charters. He deprived the colonists of the use of their property (Quartering Act) and of their prosperity (by forcing them to trade only with England). And he unlawfully allowed Parliament to tax the colonies. (The charters placed the colonies under Crown-appointed governors who reported directly to the King. Parliament had no jurisdiction over the colonies.)
[2] In its decision, the federal court cited the First Amendment’s “establishment of religion” clause, which says: “Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion.” The First Amendment, however, does not prohibit government from acknowledging God. After all, our national motto is “In God we trust.” Furthermore, the First Amendment concerns what Congress (i.e. the federal branch of the government) can do. Ironically, the First Amendment actually disqualifies the federal court from intervening in matters of religion. Therefore, the federal court had no jurisdiction in the Alabama case.
The United States was actually born out of a violation of New Testament principles, and any blessings God has bestowed on America have come in spite of that disobedience by the Founding Fathers.
Nothing could be further from the truth. From Jamestown to Yorktown, the American colonies were greatly influenced by the writings of the Reformers. At the time of the American Revolution, fully two-thirds of the colonists belonged to Christian denominations that ascribed to Reformed confessions of faith, leading German historian Leopold von Ranke to observe, “John Calvin is the virtual founder of America.” Calvin derived principles of government from the Bible, including: human government is necessary because of sin; the powers of government must be several and separated because of man’s sinful tendency to abuse power; and all power ultimately originates with God who is the True Sovereign.
It is beyond the scope of this lesson to study the full extent of Calvin’s influence, but I do want to mention two specific areas where the Reformation shaped American thought.
The Rule of Law. The Reformers firmly believed in Sola Scriptura - “the Bible alone is the Word of God.”[1] Therefore, the Bible is man’s final authority. This belief was in great contrast to Catholic Church’s teaching that the Pope and church traditions were the final authority. Calvin saw in the Bible that government is ordained by God and endowed by Him with certain, limited powers. Calvin reasoned that government then, has no inherent powers, but only those powers delegated to it by God. Therefore, government must conform to God’s Word. Calvin further realized that the highest authority in government must not be men, but a written “rule of law” based on the Word of God. Everyone (even the King) must be subject to the written “rule of law.”
The earliest legal documents in America recognized God as the Source of Authority. The Mayflower Compact (1620) said that the Pilgrims’ settlement was undertaken “for the Glory of God, and the advancement of the Christian Faith.” The Fundamental Orders of Connecticut (1639) acknowledged that “there should be an orderly and decent Government established according to God.” Two centuries after Calvin, the American Founding Fathers created a constitutional republic based on the written rule of law. The highest authority in America is the U.S. Constitution, which, in turn, is founded on Christian principles.
Because the U.S. Constitution does not specifically quote from the Bible or reference God, many people assert that the Founding Fathers intended to create a secular state and that there are no Christian principles to be found in the Constitution. Certainly, the Founding Fathers could have created a more specifically Christian document, but we need to remember two factors that influenced their thinking. Firstly, while it is true that the Founding Fathers were influenced by Enlightenment thought[2] (the “leaven in the lump”), they were still very much the products of a Christian society. When they spoke of “religion,” they had nothing but the Christian religion in mind. They never envisioned a Muslim America or an atheist America. So the Founding Fathers simply assumed that the Constitution would be interpreted in light of a Christian worldview.
We need only to read the writings of the Founding Fathers to observe that they were the products of a Christian society. John Adams wrote in 1798, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” Shortly after the Constitutional Convention in 1787, Alexander Hamilton said, “"For my own part, I sincerely esteem it [the Constitution] a system which without the finger of God, never could have been suggested and agreed upon by such a diversity of interests." In a speech to the Virginia House of Burgesses in 1765, Patrick Henry stated:
“It cannot be emphasized too clearly and too often that this nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religion, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason, peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.”
Even Benjamin Franklin, who was not known to be a believer, said in a speech to the Constitutional Convention:
“God governs in the affairs of man. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this. I also believe that, without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel.”
The second concern of the Founding Fathers was that of limiting the powers of the federal government because of man’s sinful tendency to abuse power. They knew well the lessons of the previous two centuries when kings and queens had tried to force a particular form of religion on their citizens. Consequently, the U.S. Constitution forbids the federal government from making laws regarding the establishment of religion. The framers of the Constitution believed strongly that matters concerning religion properly belonged to local government. Many of the early state constitutions were explicitly Christian (see below), and some of the state constitutions even included the Ten Commandments.[3]
[1] The beliefs of the Reformers can be summarized with five Latin phrases: Sola Scriptura (the Bible alone), Solus Christus (Christ alone), Sola Gratia (Grace alone), Sola Fide (Faith alone), and Soli Deo Gloria (the Glory of God alone).
[2] Philosophers of the Enlightenment period emphasized human reason.
[3] Unfortunately, most of the original state constitutions have been rewritten, removing explict references to God and the Bible.
Since I don't know how to embed a video in this blog, I'll just have to supply a link: All Things Were Made By Him
A Brief Overview Of the Reformation
The Protestant Reformation is an important part of church history that, unfortunately, has been largely ignored by the modern church. Many Christians today are unaware that our spiritual and civil liberties are the result of the sacrifices of the sixteenth century Reformers. Someone has said that if we want to regain the liberties that we have lost in this country we need to understand how those liberties were first won in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.
Throughout the Middle Ages, common men were kept in spiritual bondage by the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church and in physical bondage by the whims of kings and emperors. The Church was able to keep men in subjection because access to the Bible was very limited. Before the invention of the printing press in 1454, Bibles had to be laboriously hand copied. Gutenberg’s press increased the number of Bibles in circulation, but they remained expensive, and they were written exclusively in Latin. Since only the most educated class could read in Latin, the Bible remained a mystery to most people.
In the place of the Bible, the Catholic Church taught traditions and the doctrines of men. Salvation was something to be earned by good works. The Church also taught that men could receive pardon for their sins by purchasing indulgences, and men were taught to pray to “saints” and to worship relics rather than God.
Additionally, the leadership of the Catholic Church was corrupt. Church offices were frequently sold to the highest bidder. Pope Leo X (1475-1521), the Pope who excommunicated Martin Luther, was an immoral man, who surrounded himself with vulgar companions. He used church offerings to support his own sinful lifestyle, and he tortured and killed everyone who opposed him.
The Catholic Church did not suddenly become corrupt in the sixteenth century, however. Two centuries earlier, good men had questioned its teachings and leadership. John Wycliffe of England was one of those men. Wycliffe realized that the only way to combat spiritual darkness was to get the light of God’s word into the hands of the people. He translated the Bible out of Latin into Old English. But Wycliffe was continually opposed by the Church. He was posthumously (after death) found guilty of heresy, and his bones were exhumed (dug up) and burned by the Church. Another early critic of the Church, Jan Hus, was burned at the stake in Bohemia in 1415.
On October 31, 1517, a German monk named Martin Luther, wrote out 95 statements (or theses) against the Catholic Church and nailed them to the door of Castle Church in Wittenberg, Germany. (The church door was like a public bulletin board.) Luther hoped to start a public discussion about the errors of the Church. Instead, his 95 Theses were copied and distributed all over Europe, eventually finding their way to Pope Leo X. Leo X pretty much ignored Luther for three years, during which Luther continued to write both against the corrupt practices of the Church and about correct Bible doctrines. Luther had become convinced that justification was by faith alone, and not by a combination of faith and works as the Church taught. Finally, in 1520, the Pope warned Luther that he risked excommunication if he did not retract 41 statements from his writings. The Pope sent his written warning, called a papal bull, to Luther on June 15, 1520. Upon receiving the papal bull, Luther built a bonfire and publicly burned it. For this shocking action, Luther was excommunicated from the Catholic Church in January of 1521.
In April of the same year, Luther was ordered to appear before the Diet of Worms, which was the general assembly of the estates of the Holy Roman Empire (basically, the civil government). Luther was ordered to recant (take back) his writings against the Church and its teachings or be punished as a heretic (which at that time meant being burned at the stake). The following day, Luther gave his now famous reply:
Unless I am convinced by proofs from Scriptures or by plain and clear reasons and arguments, I can and will not retract, for it is neither safe nor wise to do anything against conscience. Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me. Amen.
Luther escaped death by burning because his friends “kidnapped” him and kept him safely hidden in Wartburg Castle for more than a year. While he was in hiding, Luther translated the Bible into the German language. Luther also continued to write, and his writings influenced many other men. One of those men was William Tyndale.
William Tyndale was an English scholar with a passion for getting God’s Word into the hands of the common Englishman. Tyndale, the master of several languages, was particularly suited to Bible translation. He translated the New Testament into English while hiding in various places on the European continent from agents of King Henry VIII and the Pope. Tyndale was working on a translation of the Old Testament when he was betrayed by a “friend.” After spending a year as a prisoner in Vilvoorde Castle in Belgium, Tyndale was strangled and burned at the stake on October 6, 1536. Tyndale’s dying prayer was “Lord, Open the King of England’s eyes.” Within two years, God answered Tyndale’s prayer when Henry VIII authorized the Great Bible to be placed in every church in England.
“Thy word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path” (Psalm 119:105). For the first time,[1] English-speaking people could read the Bible in their own language. Its impact was tremendous. More and more men began to speak out against the corrupt doctrines of the Catholic Church. Many of them, like Hugh Latimer and Nicholas Ridley, were martyred.[2] The English Bible instructed John Knox, the Scottish Reformer, as well as the Puritans and Separatists who followed the Reformation.
Knox was a student of one of the greatest of the Reformers, John Calvin.[3] Calvin was a French-born lawyer turned theologian, who had fled to Geneva, Switzerland, to escape persecution in France. Calvin became pastor of a church in Geneva in 1536, but he is best remembered for his writings. Access to the Scriptures led the Reformers to discover many Bible truths that had been “lost” during the dark years of Medieval Catholicism, and John Calvin brilliantly articulated those principles in his writings. His commentaries on the Bible and his Institutes of the Christian Religion are still read today. Calvin also helped exiles from England to prepare the study notes for the Geneva Bible. The Geneva Bible became the Bible of three generations of English-speaking Christians, including the Scottish Reformers, the Puritans and Separatists of England, the great English writers, Milton, Shakespeare, and Bunyan, and the Pilgrims and Puritans of New England.
[1] Wycliffe’s Bible was hand-written, and, therefore, not widely distributed.
[2] October 16, 1555. Latimer and Ridley were martyred for denying the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation. According to this doctrine, the bread and wine of communion actually become the body of Christ when eaten. Thus, Christ is crucified every time communion is taken. Latimer, Ridley, and other English Reformers understood that this teaching undermined the entire Gospel message of the finished work of Christ, and they were willing to die for their beliefs.
[3] Just for the record, Calvin was not the author of the so-called Five Points of Calvinism. These five points came out of the Synod of Dort in 1618, about 54 years after Calvin’s death. Calvin’s name was not attached to the Five Points in 1618 either. It was only later that they became known as the Five Points of Calvinism. The Five Points do, however, represent the beliefs of almost all of the Reformers, as well as the majority of pastors, theologians, evangelists, and missionaries of the next two centuries.
Lesson 4 - The Antediluvians
History texts often describe ancient man as primitive [simple, unsophisticated], and in our minds we visualize him as an illiterate, hairy, club-toting oaf with a small brain and big feet. But is this really an accurate picture of early man? Taking the Bible as our authority, we must answer with a resounding “No!”
Genesis 1 tells us that Adam, the first man, was created in the image of God. This means, among other things, that he was created as an intelligent being. From the very beginning, Adam could communicate through a spoken language. Adam understood the job God gave to him, and he named all of the animals (Genesis 2:19). In Chapter 3, we find Adam and Eve talking with one another, with the Serpent, and with God. No caveman “ughs” here.
Many history texts speak of a pre-agricultural era, as though early man did not know how to tend animals and grow crops. But Genesis 4:2 tells us that Adam's son, Abel, was a “keeper of sheep” and his other son, Cain, was a “tiller of the ground.” History texts also speak of a “Stone Age,” supposedly lasting for tens of thousands of years, during which man did not know how to make tools from metal. But the Bible says that Adam's 7th great-grandson, Tubal-cain, was “an instructor of every artificer in brass and iron” (Genesis 4:22) In other words, he was a metal worker.
Let's look at what else the Bible says about these early men. Enoch, Adam's great-grandson, built a city (Genesis 4:17). Jabal, the half-brother of Tubal-cain, raised cattle (Genesis 4:20), and his brother Jubal was a musician and maker of harps and organs (Genesis 4:21). During the life of Enos, another of Adam's grandsons, men began to “call upon the name of the Lord” (Genesis 4:26), dispelling the myth that early man knew nothing about religion. And then there was Noah, who built a sea-worthy ship that was 510 feet long, 85 feet wide, and 51 feet high. We call these pre-flood people, Antediluvians [from “ante” meaning “before” and “deluge” meaning “flood”], and the Bible describes them as “mighty men which were of old, men of renown” (Genesis 6:4). The word renown means famous or of a wide-spread reputation. They were hardly primitive men! It is also worth noting that the Antediluvians lived very long lives. Think of all you could accomplish if you lived 900 years!
If the Bible teaches us that the earliest men were intelligent and creative, where does the idea of primitive man come from? It comes from the imaginations of evolutionists. In order to support their theory that man evolved slowly over millions of years, they must also theorize that man's intelligence and abilities also slowly evolved. Therefore, early men must have been less intelligent than we are. Sadly, even many Christian books have adopted the primitive man idea. Consider this quote from Streams of Civilization, a Christian history text:
Ancient history may be divided into two parts: (1) preliterate, or prerecords, the time before there were any written records; and (2) literate, the period after about 3000 B.C. When written records were kept.1
Given all we know about the Antediluvians, why should we assume that they were unable to read and keep records? This is simply evolutionary bias on the part of the authors of Streams of Civilization.
Another example of evolutionary bias can be found in The Golden Bible Atlas. In a chapter entitled “The Beginnings,” the book shows early settlers in Mesopotamia plowing the ground with hand-held tools. The caption reads:
The invention of the plow marked the beginning of settled civilization; it allowed man to till the soil and grow his food instead of wandering in search of it.2
Hmm . . . I thought Cain was tilling the soil way back in Genesis 2? One of the problems here is that the antediluvian civilization was destroyed by the Flood. Only Noah, his three sons, and their wives, survived the Flood. It is likely that some of the skills acquired by the Antediluvians perished with them and had to be rediscovered by post-Flood generations. Likewise, the dispersion of the population at the Tower of Babel probably resulted in some loss of knowledge for each people group. It is clear from the text, that after God confused their languages, the builders were unable to finish the tower, meaning that no single-language group had all of the skills necessary to complete the work. So if the iron-workers migrated off in one direction, and the stone-masons in another, neither group had as many skills as they had when they were all together at Babel. In spite of these set backs, however, it is important to remember that none of these early people groups could accurately be described as primitive.
Rather than witnessing the evolution of man from primitive beings into complex societies, we have seen just the opposite. The Antediluvians were more knowledgeable than their immediate successors after the Flood. Throughout the ages, however, there have been truly primitive societies – groups of naked savages who lived in huts or caves, hunted with spears, and had only stone implements. How do we explain these people groups? Romans 1:18-32 gives us the answer. Men were created intelligent and with a knowledge of God, but as they rejected God, God darkened their understandings and gave them up to their own foolishness. So the “primitive” peoples we meet throughout history are not undeveloped societies, but societies that have deteriorated because of their own wickedness.
Notebooking:
-
Make your own chart of Adam's line from Adam to Noah. Leave some extra room because we will be adding to this chart later. Make your beginning date 3975 B.C. and your ending date 1969 B.C. Mark off 100 year segments at the top of the page.
-
Adam 3975 to 3045
-
Seth 3845 to 2933
-
Enos 3740 to 2835
-
Cainan 3650 to 2740
-
Mahalaleel 3580 to 2685
-
Jared 3515 to 2553
-
Enoch 3353 to 2988 (went to heaven; did not die)
-
Methuselah 3268 2319
-
Lamech 3101 to 2324
-
Noah 2919 to 1969
-
Read Romans 1:18-32.
Jr. and Sr. High Supplemental: As we study history, we will find that even pagan societies had elements of truth in their beliefs and legends. For example, the Chinese believed that a man named Fuhi and his wife, three sons, and three daughters escaped a great flood and were the only people left on earth. The Egyptians worshiped many gods, but they believed that Ptah was the most-important, all-knowing god, and the only god who could appear in human form. They also believed in eternal life. How do you explain these pagan cultures having elements of truth in their belief systems? Does Romans 1 help? Write out your explanation, and put it in your notebook.
1Streams of Civilization. Albert Hyma and Mary Stanton. Christian Liberty Press, Arlington Heights, Illinois, 1976. Page 6.
2The Golden Bible Atlas. Samuel Terrien. Golden Press, New York, 1957. Page 10.
A few years ago, researchers at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill under the direction of Christian Smith conducted a survey of teenagers and their religious beliefs. When the data was analyzed, Smith and his researchers concluded that a new religion had emerged among America's youth. The basic tenets of this religion were that God exists, He wants us to be fair and nice to each other, and He wants us to be happy. The UNC Chapel Hill researchers named this new religion “Moralistic Therapeutic Deism” (MTD).
The first time I read about MTD, I thought there was something vaguely familiar about it. “Be fair. Be nice. Be happy.” And then it struck me. MTD has become the religion of most American teens because that is the central message of most Sunday school curricula. As a former Sunday school teacher, I was well familiar with the message: “Be fair. Be nice. Be happy.”
My Sunday school class used curriculum from Regular Baptist Press. Here is how Regular Baptist Press presents the accounts of Abraham and Lot, David and Mephibosheth, and Jeremiah and Ebed-Melech.
- Abraham and Lot – The central theme is “God is pleased when we are kind to people.”
- David and Mephibosheth - The central theme is “God is pleased when we show kindness to people.”
- Jeremiah and Ebed-melech - The central theme is “God is pleased when we do the right thing and are kind to people.”
In each of these lessons, the student's response is supposed to be “to desire to please God by being kind.”
Now certainly, we should be kind, and kindness is a theme that could be drawn from each of these Bible stories. But is this the way we are supposed to teach the Bible, as an anthology of moral stories? Do students taught by this method understand the central theme of the Bible is the redeeming work of Jesus Christ? I am not suggesting that Regular Baptist Press does not teach the Gospel in its curriculum. It does. Usually, however, the Gospel message is awkwardly tacked onto the end of each lesson.
But the Gospel is an integral part of every Biblical story. Consider the account of David and Mephibosheth. David, the great king, sought out Mephibosheth, a poor cripple, and gave him a place at the king's table. Mephibosheth did not deserve David's kindness; he describes himself as “a dead dog.” But David showed mercy to Mephibosheth for Jonathan's sake. What a picture this is of the Christian's relationship to God the Father! God sought us while we were dead in our sins and exalted us to a place at His table, not because of our own merit, but for the sake of Jesus. When this account is reduced to “David was kind to Mephibosheth. So you be kind, too,” its meaning is lost.
In his new book, Already Gone, Ken Ham contends that America's youth begin their departure from the orthodox Christian faith while still in middle school, and he argues that Sunday school is hastening their departure. Based on my experiences as a former Sunday school teacher, I must concur. If we are to produce another generation of faithful Christians, we must teach the Bible as the real historical account of God's calling a people to Himself through the redeeming work of His Son. “Be fair. Be nice. Be happy” won't cut it.
Lo, children are an heritage of the LORD: and the fruit of the womb is his reward.
As arrows are in the hand of a mighty man; so are children of the youth.
Happy is the man that hath his quiver full of them: they shall not be ashamed, but they shall speak with the enemies in the gate. Psalm 127:3-5
The Bible clearly teaches that children are a blessing, especially the children of one's youth. They are as arrows in the hands of a mighty warrior - powerful weapons against the enemy. The man whose quiver is full of such arrows will not be put to shame when he contends with the enemy. If these words from the Bible are true, why do so many Christian couples go into the battle with an empty quiver?1
The answer is simply that they do not believe the Bible. No matter how much they may protest otherwise, they do not believe that children are a heritage from the Lord. Instead of arming for battle, many young Christian couples are pursuing careers, acquiring assets (and debt), and indulging in an extended, responsibility-free adolescence. They do not want to be saddled with parenthood yet. Maybe later, when they are well into their thirties, they will have a child or two, but for now they will satisfy that paternal urge by playing "mommy" and "daddy" to a poodle or a great dane.
In the meantime, the enemy continues to make advances. Government schools churn out tens of thousands of humanist converts every year. The Muslims have an annual growth rate of 2.13 percent compared to only a 1.36 growth rate for Christians. The enemy is increasing in strength, and the church is almost out of ammunition.
Not only are the church's quivers empty, many of her soldiers are AWOL. In 2006, George Barna of the Barna Research Group reported that six out of ten twentysomethings "disengage from active participation in the Christian faith during their young adult years - and often beyond that."2 In his new book, Already Gone, Ken Ham uncovers an even more startling statistic. While they were physically present in Sunday school and youth group during their teen years, spiritually speaking, these twentysomethings were "already gone," having lost faith in the veracity of the Scriptures while in middle school and high school.3 Ham's research puts the loss rate at nearly 80 percent. Most congregations cannot survive such attrition rates. Unless something drastically changes, we will witness the death of the Christian church in America in less than a generation.
1I am not referring to couples whose womb the Lord has sovereignly closed, but only to those couples who choose not to have children or who choose to delay having children until later in life.
2See "Most Twentysomethings Put Christianity on the Shelf Following Spiritually Active Teen Years," The Barna Group, September 11, 2006, www:barna.org.
3See Already Gone: Why your kids will quit church and what you can do to stop it, Ken Ham and Brit Beemer, Master Books, May 28, 2009, www.answersingenesis.org.
Historically, homeschooling parents have been pretty good marksmen. Their children, more often than not, have matured into faithful adults. But recent data collected by Answers in Genesis for Ken Ham's book Already Gone suggests that being homeschooled is no longer an indicator of whether or not a young person will remain in the faith. In fact, earlier data compiled by the Nehemiah Institute showed a similar trend. While some homeschooled students scored very well on the Nehemiah Institute's worldview test, at least twenty-five percent of the homeschooled students tested could be described as having a humanistic worldview. How can this be? Have parents become complacent? Are we not aiming our arrows anymore?
I would suggest that homeschooling parents are still diligently honing and aiming their arrows, but that over the past decade, someone has subtly moved the target. The goal is no longer to rear children who will live for Christ. The new goal is to rear children who will succeed in the world.
Just this week, two articles have crossed my desk illustrating this point. In "What is wrong with American education?" from The Classical Teacher, Martin Cothran argues that education has become disconnected from Western culture, "that amalgum of beliefs and affections that informs our thoughts and actions." Cothran argues that this "amlgum of beliefs," having its roots in Athens, Rome, and Jerusalem, was what enabled the West to reach great achievements in arts, literature, and science, and he believes that classical education is the vehicle to pass on these beliefs. He concludes that nothing is wrong with American education that "a good dose of classical education wouldn't cure."
I beg to differ. The problem with American education is that it has lost its Christian foundation. The Pilgrims and Puritans understood that "the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge" (Proverbs 1:7). Saving Western culture through classical education will not produce a generation of young people who are faithful to Christ. While there are aspects of the classical education movement that I can appreciate, taken as a whole, I believe it represents a shifting of the target.
The second article was a blog post by Gary DeMar at American Vision entitled "Homeschoolers Are Only Good for Cleaning Toilets." In this post, Mr. DeMar defends Christian homeschoolers against a charge made by an atheist that they are only capable of cleaning toilets. In his defense, Mr. DeMar points to graduation rates, test scores, and the fact that many top colleges actively recruit homeschoolers as evidences that homeschooling is superior to public education. He also invites homeschooled graduates to post comments and share their career achievements with "Mr. Atheist." While I appreciate Mr. DeMar taking up for homeschoolers, his defense underscores the target shift that has occurred. Success as a homeschooler is now measured by academic and career highlights and not by obedience to Christ.
Can homeschoolers be obedient to Christ and be academically and professionally successful? Absolutely! But we can never achieve both if we do not aim our arrows at the first target. "Seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you" (Matthew 6:33).
life." This means that the Bible provides us with instruction and guidance
for every area of our lives, whether it be finances, marriage,
child-rearing, or education, etc. Of course, the Bible does not always
provide this guidance through verses that say explicitly "Thou shalt" or
Thou shalt not." Often, we must study the whole counsel of God to derive the
principles by which we are to govern our lives. A principle rightly derived
from Scripture, however, is just as authoritative as a "Thou shalt" or "Thou
shalt not" commandment. And, a principle rightly derived from Scripture
cannot be overthrown by anecdotal evidence to the contrary. In other words,
I cannot make void a Scriptural principle just because I did it differently,
and everything turned out okay for me.
When someone presents me with a principle that she believes is from
Scripture, my first response should be to search the Bible to see if this is
indeed a biblical principle. If I am convinced from the Bible that this is
indeed a principle, then I should follow it. If I remain unconvinced - if I
believe my sister has misinterpreted the Bible - then I should present her
with my understanding of the Scriptures. My argument may not convince her,
and we may have to "agree to disagree." But if we "agree to disagree," we
should not pretend that both of us are correct. One of us is wrong. One of
us has misinterpreted the Bible, and the knowledge that I might be the one
who is wrong should keep me humble.
While I should be willing to acknowledge that I may have misinterpreted the
Scriptures, I should never affirm that there are many "truths." The Bible
does not allow for pluralism. I don't have my set of biblical principles and
you have your set of biblical principles. If our principles disagree, then
one of us has adopted some unscriptural principles. This is easy to do given
that we live in a culture that is the antithesis of Christianity.
One way to root out these unbiblical assumptions is to keep our discussions
focused on what the Bible says rather than on what grandma or Aunt Sue or
Cousin Ralph did. We all know people who have violated scriptural principles
in one area or another and who did so without any apparent repercussions.
But we should not use these stories to argue against the principle. They are
not proofs that there are many principles by which one may live; they are
instead examples of God's mercy.
Modern culture has made Christians vulnerable to a creeping pluralism. We
are conditioned to accept everyone's ideas as equally valid and to embrace
our differences. Our differences notwithstanding, however, a principle is a
principle. If it can be demonstrated from the Scriptures that the principle
is true, then none of our objections matter. Our varied backgrounds and
circumstances do not equate to various principles. If the Bible is indeed
the rule for all of faith and life - if it does speak to every area of life
- then when it speaks, it speaks authoritatively.
We ought then to examine our beliefs in light of the Scriptures, and to hold
fast to those truths contained therein.
A cousin's wedding
Thanksgiving at Great-Grandma's house
Whose birthday?