# Can "family" be an idol?



## calgal

I was reading the Voddie thread and something in Adam's response jumped out at me and made me ask the question. I like a lot of what Voddie Baucham says but his views on the role of family to me appear to be veering in the direction of idolatry.

I know infertile families who have the child as an idol and that the LDS certainly idolize "the family" but is that something that is done in the visible church? I would hope this is rare but how does one elevating the "family" above the Lord?


----------



## he beholds

I think anything can be an idol. Husbands, sons, daughters, family, pastors, elders, TV, toothpaste.
Anything that you will aim to please more than God is an idol.
Anything that pleases you more than God is an idol.


----------



## Scott1

John Calvin has described the human heart as an "idol factory."

Dr. Sproul says that idolatry is perhaps the most basic human sin (cf "What is Reformed Theology"? by Dr Sproul).

If you study the first and second commandments carefully (the Westminster Larger Catechism with Scripture proofs is helpful in this), "idolatry" is worshipping or setting anything with, alongside or in place of God.

The manifestations of this in our fallen hearts is family manipulation, clanishness, tribalism, racism, cultural presumption- the whole rotten range of human behaviors that elevate identity to an equal place with or replace our Triune God.

This is a very difficult thing to accept in our thoughts, words and deeds, that our primary identity really is in Christ, and always will be, and that this world is not our home.

All this does not mean family is not important- it is, particularly to those of us who believe covenant theology (just look at the importance of children signified by infant baptism, and of the "covenant community taking vows to help). But it does mean God alone requires the utmost place in our life- our thoughts, words and deeds.


----------



## Knoxienne

Pastor Jeff Pollard has an excellent, very balanced sermon on this very topic, called Family-olatry. It's available on sermonaudio.com. Yes, like anything else, family can be an idol.


----------



## Zenas

How many times have you seen peole forsake God's commandments "for the children"? :yuck:


----------



## kvanlaan

Yes, all of the above are true, but I think this is a mischaracterization of what Dr Baucham is saying. Let's face it, there are few things worth less to today's society than the God-ordained image of a famliy. And to have a black male, in today's society, champion the Christian family is, to me, truly a move of the Holy Spirit. We have all sorts of numbskulls talking about what 'family' should be and how it can no longer bear any resemblance to a biblical model, and the closest we have to a 'popular' Christian voice for the family is a theologically-impoverished Arminian.

Can family be an idol? Yes, but that is not what he is getting at. He is calling SERIOUSLY wayward men to task. Look at the SBC's staying power with their kids during/after college - it's _horrible_. If men are properly taking their position in the home, then this result is a sad commentary on their application of scripture. 

But my belief is that they are not even getting that far. _In no wise_. 

(This is not a shot at SBC fathers. It's just that they're the only ones who are big enough to generate those sorts of statistics.)

I know few men who truly step into the role as they should. Children who talk back to parents and parents who shrug it off. _It's *disgusting*._ I honestly have a hard time watching that sort of thing (and the other myriad ramifications/consequences of this negligence) because it is _sinful_. Those people are honestly in *sin*. Knee deep. God has revealed to us that we are the pinnacle of creation. The Creator has for some reason (and here is a measure of how much grace we are granted) given us, these corrupt vessels, the privilege of birthing and raising God's masterwork. Without a full-time Biblical soaking, it is the blind leading the blind. This message is in need just a little less than the gospel. How is it that we have MILLIONS of Christians in North America and we have the wretched condition of the family that we do? It is because MEN ARE NOT DOING THEIR JOB AND COULD CARE LESS. I know that sin is sin, but when you take a creature that has named all the animals of the world, taken a fall from grace to merely be the father of all men, then taken that vaunted position and perverted it again by murdering his brother, then taken that and etc. etc. etc. to where we are today (I think we run a national average of Homer Simpson as head of the household, and often average less). There is no reason to revere him as Father/Head by any rational means. 

It takes _Biblical manhood_ to raise godly children. This is a message that should be tattooed onto the bodies of most men _in the church_, never mind the pagans of the world. 

I honestly think that taking him to task on this topic is straining at gnats in the worst way.


----------



## ZackF

Yeah it can. This is a tough one for pastors whom I imagine are trying to buffer their sheep against a family-cynical Western culture. Unfortunately too much law exhortation on this can pinch the smoldering wick of many members who have had atrocious family histories.

Dr. Horton on the WHI, spoke about a women with a rotten marriage who left her Evangelical church during a series on marriage to find a church that would talk about the work of Jesus. He recounted a similar anecdote about a conservative pastor and his entire family who were exposed to the gospel. The pastor resigned his call and placed himself under the care of a Reformed church. Pretty moving stuff.


----------



## kvanlaan

> Unfortunately too much law exhortation on this can pinch the smoldering wick of many members who have had atrocious family histories.



If their identity is in Christ, their personal history doesn't matter. Christ showed that again and again and again.


----------



## ZackF

kvanlaan said:


> Unfortunately too much law exhortation on this can pinch the smoldering wick of many members who have had atrocious family histories.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If their identity is in Christ, their personal history doesn't matter. Christ showed that again and again and again.
Click to expand...



Exactly. Too many people never hear that with the emphasis and consistency that they need.


----------



## kvanlaan

> I think anything can be an idol. Husbands, sons, daughters, family, pastors, elders, TV, toothpaste.



Yes, even toothpaste. 

But I see family as a weapon, if you will, that God has given us against the Devil. Godly families will stand the crushing blows that the world levels at them (and this doesn't always mean father + mother + child; we don't all draw that hand), ungodly ones will not stand the heat and will crumble.

Men need to stand up and respond to their calling, as God has revealed it.

Full stop.

-----Added 3/23/2009 at 10:54:26 EST-----



> Exactly. Too many people never hear that with the emphasis and consistency that they need.



I hear you, brother.


----------



## Happy2BHome

Calgal,
I have to agree, I have seen some families that make their children out to be idols. An example that I can think of is the overzealous father who is pushing his son or daughter to be the next great sports star. These fathers are living out their hopes and dreams vicariously through their children. Recently a Pastor friend has had to deal with this very thing, because a father in the congregation allows his family to miss church so that the children can participate in their sporting events. I praise God for Dr. Baucham's zeal for the preservation of the Biblical family and his willingness to call fathers back to their Biblical role as leaders in their home.


----------



## kvanlaan

> Recently a Pastor friend has had to deal with this very thing, because a father in the congregation allows his family to miss church so that the children can participate in their sporting events.


----------



## the particular baptist

This is a charge i have heard Dispensational's levy against covenantalists lately. 

I can understand why many think what Voddie is saying is not alltogether kosher, because family structure has been progresivelly turned on its head for the last 40 years. What is described in Romans 1 is now normal, and the biblical family unit seen as queer.

What Voddie is teaching now was the norm back when the family was the backbone of this country.


----------



## Hebrew Student

kvanlaan,



> Can family be an idol? Yes, but that is not what he is getting at. He is calling SERIOUSLY wayward men to task. Look at the SBC's staying power with their kids during/after college - it's horrible. If men are properly taking their position in the home, then this result is a sad commentary on their application of scripture.
> 
> But my belief is that they are not even getting that far. In no wise.
> 
> (This is not a shot at SBC fathers. It's just that they're the only ones who are big enough to generate those sorts of statistics.)
> 
> I know few men who truly step into the role as they should. Children who talk back to parents and parents who shrug it off. It's disgusting. I honestly have a hard time watching that sort of thing (and the other myriad ramifications/consequences of this negligence) because it is sinful. Those people are honestly in sin. Knee deep. God has revealed to us that we are the pinnacle of creation. The Creator has for some reason (and here is a measure of how much grace we are granted) given us, these corrupt vessels, the privilege of birthing and raising God's masterwork. Without a full-time Biblical soaking, it is the blind leading the blind. This message is in need just a little less than the gospel. How is it that we have MILLIONS of Christians in North America and we have the wretched condition of the family that we do? It is because MEN ARE NOT DOING THEIR JOB AND COULD CARE LESS. I know that sin is sin, but when you take a creature that has named all the animals of the world, taken a fall from grace to merely be the father of all men, then taken that vaunted position and perverted it again by murdering his brother, then taken that and etc. etc. etc. to where we are today (I think we run a national average of Homer Simpson as head of the household, and often average less). There is no reason to revere him as Father/Head by any rational means.



However, the problem is that, in that instance, it has nothing whatsoever to do with family, but it has to do with sin. Will we do poorly at the task to which God has called us if we think only about ourselves? Yes. However, it is the thinking only about ourselves that is the problem.

The real problem here has nothing to do with family. Dr. Willem VanGemeren told us one time in class that he believes the major problem in the church today is that we teach what is right and what is wrong, but we do not teach the wisdom to discern what is right and wrong. You see, it is very easy to bind extranious things to the contience of people to keep them from doing something. However, that will not teach them the wisdom and discernment they need to decide between right and wrong. Eventually, they will get themselves into a complicated situation where all that they have are these extranious rules, and no wisdom, and they will fall.

One book of the Bible that we need to be teaching our young people early is the book of Proverbs. Teach them to gain wisdom so, whether God calls them to marriage or to singleness, they will have the tools for good discernment in whatever situation they are.

Also, I have no problem with getting back to Biblical Manhood, Biblical Womanhood, and a Biblical view of marriage. I am just concerned with the lack of serious Biblical exegesis that I see in the discussion, and the multitude of traditional models that I see. When I look at someone presenting a sermon, and saying things that simply no commentator would agree with, or saying things that, while possible, are not likely, I have to wonder if we are being serious with the text, or rather, allowing the way things have always been to drive our exegesis of the text. If we are truly going to get back to Biblical manhood, womanhood, and marriage, then it would seem that we should be taking more care to make sure that we are being "Biblical," and "examine all things" and "hold fast to that which is good" [1 Thessalonians 5:21].

God Bless,
Adam


----------



## calgal

kvanlaan said:


> I think anything can be an idol. Husbands, sons, daughters, family, pastors, elders, TV, toothpaste.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, even toothpaste.
> 
> But I see family as a weapon, if you will, that God has given us against the Devil. Godly families will stand the crushing blows that the world levels at them (and this doesn't always mean father + mother + child; we don't all draw that hand), ungodly ones will not stand the heat and will crumble.
> 
> Men need to stand up and respond to their calling, as God has revealed it.
> 
> Full stop.
Click to expand...

I someone really wants to strengthen families, then the church (as a whole) should be training the men to be leaders in the home and training the women to be able to understand what submission to headship is and is not. If one is not granted the proper tools, how can they have a God honoring family? Seriously Kevin how can this be done? 

-----Added 3/23/2009 at 11:20:39 EST-----



Happy2BHome said:


> Calgal,
> I have to agree, I have seen some families that make their children out to be idols. An example that I can think of is the overzealous father who is pushing his son or daughter to be the next great sports star. These fathers are living out their hopes and dreams vicariously through their children. Recently a Pastor friend has had to deal with this very thing, because a father in the congregation allows his family to miss church so that the children can participate in their sporting events. I praise God for Dr. Baucham's zeal for the preservation of the Biblical family and his willingness to call fathers back to their Biblical role as leaders in their home.



How is Dr Baucham teaching men to revere God (or even love their wives as Christ loves the church)?

-----Added 3/23/2009 at 11:23:32 EST-----



PactumServa72 said:


> This is a charge i have heard Dispensational's levy against covenantalists lately.
> 
> I can understand why many think what Voddie is saying is not alltogether kosher, because family structure has been progresivelly turned on its head for the last 40 years. What is described in Romans 1 is now normal, and the biblical family unit seen as queer.
> 
> What Voddie is teaching now was the norm back when the family was the backbone of this country.



The norm when all the dysfunction was hidden? Mom had plenty of classmates who got back alley abortions and were quietly gay. nevermind the abuse, quiet alcoholism and drug abuse. One thing I don't see is this: where is the safeguard of elders being able to intercede when the family goes bad (substance abuse and abuse/incest happen in apparent covenant families too)? Family first precludes session/consistorial oversight.


----------



## kvanlaan

Agreed, the foundation of Biblical manhood must be the Bible and its proper exegesis. But I think the disconnect comes in people who have the gospel, they simply don't apply it, and stop with the idea of personal salvation (which does indeed go back to the main problem being sin first and foremost).

However, at that point I would depart from your thinking, Adam. I know families that are solidly Christian but don't apply scriptural ideals to their family unit in the way Dr Baucham suggests. It's a mess, for the most part. There are those I have seen who don't and their family functions, but not well. I do think we must have a multi-generational idea in mind when we raise our children. I do see the test of my child-rearing being in the faith of my grandchildren, to a degree.

-----Added 3/23/2009 at 11:35:38 EST-----



> I someone really wants to strengthen families, then the church (as a whole) should be training the men to be leaders in the home and training the women to be able to understand what submission to headship is and is not. If one is not granted the proper tools, how can they have a God honoring family? Seriously Kevin how can this be done?



Yes, it should. But mostly, this is where the fathers _must_ take up their crosses in this regard. Because the church has largely _not_ been doing this training, it is up to the generation at hand to begin it now. And I'm not talking Promise Keepers, but a serious man-to-man 'conversation' of daily time together between father and son. I don't know that it is all on the church (though it certainly would help matters), but the priesthood of the believer extends, In my humble opinion, to the raising of children. We are not Catholics that take our lead from the church, we are autonomous Believers who, when we do devotions with our children, should be using that as well to 'catechise' our children with biblical lessons. We send our sons to Cadets, where we know the counsellors and know that they are also getting a dose of 'how to be a man' from 'the church' in that regard as well. As for me, the Bible and a view to what my children will be dealing with some day give me plenty of teaching material and plenty of motivation to get this training done.

-----Added 3/23/2009 at 11:42:23 EST-----



> where is the safeguard of elders being able to intercede when the family goes bad (substance abuse and abuse/incest happen in apparent covenant families too)?



That is where today's version of _huisbezoek_ is fairly milquetoast compared to what it should be. Johnny had a hockey game, and Molly went to a friend's house. Just wife, hubby and little Jimmy to visit with the elders...and let's not get too deep. 

It's atrocious. 

I know that communion tickets were a bit too far in the other direction, but at least there was spiritual digging to a degree. Now in many churches it's more a social welfare call.




> How is Dr Baucham teaching men to revere God (or even love their wives as Christ loves the church)?



I think this sermon is more of a wakeup call than a "how to". As in "Here's your sin, whatcha gonna do about it?" If you don't open your Bible at that point, you're already likely in a tailspin.


----------



## Hebrew Student

kvanlaan,

I guess what I am questioning is whether or not Dr. Baucham is properly exegeting the scriptures before he is applying them. If you have an improper exegesis of the text, you will only get a proper application by accident. The point is that our goal is not to be pragmatic, but to be Biblical.

I guess what I am wondering is whether or not we can come up with a perspective by really wrestling with the text, by pulling commentaries off of the shelf, and looking at the conservative scholarly interpretations of the passages, and really thinking about which interpretations are correct, and why they are correct. It is this kind of background study that I just don't see being put into people who promote these things.

God Bless,
Adam


----------



## kvanlaan

I think that there _is_ a great deal of study in that direction (especially by those who I know) but that there is also some leaning on godly example. 

I mean really, we're on the Puritan Board. Crack a book on family written by a Puritan/American 'Pilgrim' and it is Bible, Bible, Bible. The New England Primer - wonderful little school book with more Biblical doctrine in it than most Sunday School materials we use today. I could go on, but I do think that Dr Baucham has exegeted with a fine toothed comb on this, he is speaking to Christians so he assumes that we're all on the same page (in that we have the Gospel, and we are familiar with our Bibles). I see it as a call to apply what we already (should) know, most of all.


----------



## Happy2BHome

Calgal you said,

_How is Dr Baucham teaching men to revere God (or even love their wives as Christ loves the church)? _

1.) By traveling around the country and pointing out to pastors the churches deficiency in this area.

2.) As a teaching elder in his church, he is personally discipling men in this area.


Also, you said,

_I someone really wants to strengthen families, then the church (as a whole) should be training the men to be leaders in the home and training the women to be able to understand what submission to headship is and is not. If one is not granted the proper tools, how can they have a God honoring family?_


Great point! I think that you have hit the nail on the head. This is the very thing that Dr. Bacham is encouraging churches to do. I can see how some might be confused by what he says in his lectures. I think that we should keep in mind that he often speaks at retreats for men and it is only natural to address fathers personally.


----------



## Hebrew Student

kvanlaan,



> I mean really, we're on the Puritan Board. Crack a book on family written by a Puritan/American 'Pilgrim' and it is Bible, Bible, Bible. The New England Primer - wonderful little school book with more Biblical doctrine in it than most Sunday School materials we use today.



Oh, I agree. However, they also did not have some of the things we have today. For example, they did not have Bibleworks, which can do word searches for particular stems, or particular constructions that would have taken months to do back then [and would have been very, very boring]. We also have discovered cognate material such as Akkadian [which, in turn, enabled us to decipher Sumerian] and Ugaritic both of which were unavailable to the Puritans. Likewise, we were able to decipher Egyptian Hieroglyphics in the early nineteenth century. We also did not have many of the Northwest Semitic inscriptions that we have today. Also, consider the fact that advanced linguistic studies in the field of semantics is very new, and it was first applied to the Hebrew Bible at around the 1950's or 1960's. All of these have increased our knowledge of Hebrew greatly since the time of the Puritans.



> I could go on, but I do think that Dr Baucham has exegeted with a fine toothed comb on this, he is speaking to Christians so he assumes that we're all on the same page (in that we have the Gospel, and we are familiar with our Bibles). I see it as a call to apply what we already (should) know, most of all.



I guess I will have to ask, then, if you can find me a commentator who agrees with his connecting Genesis 2:24 and Exodus 20:12. Can you find anyone who believes that the "reason" in "for this reason" is marriage? Can you find any commentator who does not believe that there are connections in the discourse of the text between Genesis 1:28, 2:18 and 3:16? Again, if Dr. Baucham has gone over these things, it should be easy to answer what his response is. However, this is the point where I often see the discussion ending, because Dr. Baucham isn't informing his audience that he is taking an unusual interpretation at those points. These are things I think that his audience should know, and should be wrestling with.

I think that we all should. God commands us to be diligent to present ourselves approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. That means that we need to think through things, and not just accept something because it comports with our traditions.

God Bless,
Adam


----------



## SolaScriptura

You people have mentioned loving family above God being demonstrated by taking your kids OUT of church...

I say you can have family FIRST... and faithfully fill the pews every time the doors are open.


----------



## kvanlaan

Ben, I don't think that anyone is advocating skipping church because "I can do a better job than that dumb old pastor" but instead supplementing. Being there to be fed is a pre-req. But then we also tell little Jimmy that the way Christ loved the church is how Dad should love Jimmy's Mom and the children and thus how (if the pastor doesn't take it that far) we should likewise blah blah blah (insert important life lesson here).

As for the minutiae of Voddie's exegesis, you've got me there. I say he has done his work with a fine-toothed comb because everything else I've heard from him I've always considered well done and solid. I don't think he is resting his entire argument on this one particular comparison and I'm not going to jettison a brilliant talk for one oddity (because, let's face it, no one would be able to hold Piper in any esteem if they dumped him every time he slipped up to the extent of that Dr Baucham apparently did). Not that I'm saying we shouldn't question it if he's wrong, but I am hard pressed to find fault in what the man is saying overall. His message is, to me, a wonderful application of spiritual truths that is needed _so_ badly today.


----------



## calgal

Happy2BHome said:


> Calgal you said,
> 
> _How is Dr Baucham teaching men to revere God (or even love their wives as Christ loves the church)? _
> 
> 1.) By traveling around the country and pointing out to pastors the churches deficiency in this area.
> 
> 2.) As a teaching elder in his church, he is personally discipling men in this area.
> 
> 
> Also, you said,
> 
> _I someone really wants to strengthen families, then the church (as a whole) should be training the men to be leaders in the home and training the women to be able to understand what submission to headship is and is not. If one is not granted the proper tools, how can they have a God honoring family?_
> 
> 
> Great point! I think that you have hit the nail on the head. This is the very thing that Dr. Bacham is encouraging churches to do. I can see how some might be confused by what he says in his lectures. I think that we should keep in mind that he often speaks at retreats for men and it is only natural to address fathers personally.



But how can that be done when one's primary focus is on strengthening your eternal family? The end result is a lot like this:
[video=youtube;k1S2JdmSp-Y]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1S2JdmSp-Y&feature=related[/video]

To the LDS their family BECOMES God. Keeping the family "faithful through the generations" is one of the core LDS doctrines. At an LDS temple wedding (creepiest thing ever) the bride and groom are directed to look in the mirrors on either side of the sealing room to represent "what eternity looks like" aka your forever family. And more food for thought: how different really is this mindset of "multigenerational faithfulness" to Federal Vision and why? 

It is one thing to teach your children faithfully and another to "play God" in a way and try to look 5 generations down the road. That is too close to soothsaying in my opinion.


----------



## kvanlaan

But the LDS model has a motivation that is abhorrent. We as Christians are in the same boat: if we are doing something for the wrong reason, it is just sin. It's about motivation. Theirs is wrong, ours is right. (But can become wrong if you make it an idol).

Anything can become an idol, but let's not paint Mormons and Christians with the same brush; it's a totally different animal. It's like saying that Hitler liked Corn Flakes, so we shouldn't eat them.


----------



## Happy2BHome

Calgal, you said,

_To the LDS their family BECOMES God. Keeping the family "faithful through the generations" is one of the core LDS doctrines. At an LDS temple wedding (creepiest thing ever) the bride and groom are directed to look in the mirrors on either side of the sealing room to represent "what eternity looks like" aka your forever family. And more food for thought: how different really is this mindset of "multigenerational faithfulness" to Federal Vision and why? 

It is one thing to teach your children faithfully and another to "play God" in a way and try to look 5 generations down the road. That is too close to soothsaying in my opinion.It is one thing to teach your children faithfully and another to "play God" in a way and try to look 5 generations down the road. That is too close to soothsaying in my opinion._




I am sensing some animosity from you towards those of us that love our families and enjoy our "blessings" (Psalm 127: 3-8) and want to disciple our children and bring them up in the fear and admonition of the Lord. I hope this is not the case and you are genuine in asking questions. 

I think that your accusation that Dr. Voddie Baucham is somehow teaching LDS doctrine is unfounded and uncalled for. I am not wanting to argue with you about this, but I don't know how anybody who is reformed could argue that having a multigenerational vision for your family is wrong, in light of the fact it is clearly taught in Scripture. In case you haven't noticed the WCF also includes a larger and shorter catechism to assist parents and churches in a multigenerational path in discipling the children. If you will read the reformers, puritans, and pilgrims what you will find is that they are in agreement with Dr. B. I know for my family when we began to read from these 3 groups, that we felt like we had discovered an ancient christian civilization and then began to ask ourselves, does anyone still believe these great truths? As it turns out there are many among the Presbyterian and Reformed Baptists that still believe and teach these biblical truths, such as R.C. Sroul, Sr. and Junior, Doug Phillips (Reformed Baptist), Kevin Swanson (OPC), Joe Morecraft (RPCUS), John Otis (RPCUS), Bill Einwechter (Reformed Baptist), Bruce Shortt (SBC), Kenneth and Randall Talbot (RPCGA), Jeff Pollard (Ref. Baptist), Ken Gentry, Gary DeMar (PCA), Greg Bahnsen (OPC), R.J. Rushdoony (OPC), Terry L. Johnson (Ind. Presbyterian), Elisabeth Elliot, Jay Adams, just to name a few.

BTW, I am not sure about your trying to connect the FV with the idea of the multigenerational view of the family. If by chance the FV does have a biblical view of the family, then kudo's to the FV for finally getting something right.

Please note, after posting this and rereading it. I wanted to add that I am not trying to be abrasive and do not want to come across that way, just discussing from one sister to another. Thanks!


----------



## UKPuritan40

Sorry maybe I missed this, can someone explain to me what's a Voddie thread and where do I find it? 

Susan Nye Ferrell
Member Sovereign Redeemer, Boise, Idaho


----------



## the particular baptist

calgal said:


> The norm when all the dysfunction was hidden? Mom had plenty of classmates who got back alley abortions and were quietly gay. nevermind the abuse, quiet alcoholism and drug abuse.



Yes there was a time when shameful things where whispered among the reprobate and now they hold parades and the watching world heartily approves.



calgal said:


> One thing I don't see is this: where is the safeguard of elders being able to intercede when the family goes bad (substance abuse and abuse/incest happen in apparent covenant families too)



We can start with less money being spent on Sunday School material and Youth Groups and more time and treasure spent on training fathers how to lead/teach their families. 

Here is an example of a couple churches statement on the subject. (Mind you, there are others)

Grace Life Church of Muscle Shoals http://www.gracelifeshoals.org/


> *Parent-Driven Children’s Ministry* – Parents are primarily responsible for the discipleship and discipline of their children. The church should not usurp the authority of godly parents, nor assume the responsibilities of parents who are lax in their duties. The church should give itself to teaching the biblical principles of parenthood and to holding parents accountable to carry them out in the context of families. While we have an active program for children, it should be viewed as an extension of the parents’ roles, and it is never to replace them.
> 
> *Parent-Driven Youth Ministry* – The youth ministry is not designed around the presumed unique needs or desires of young people, but it is centered on God’s will for young people as revealed in His Word. Our youth ministry is parent-driven. Our goal is to strengthen parents in their God-called responsibility to “bring up their children in the discipline and instruction of the Lord” (Ephesians 6:4). The so-called “generation gap” and the “adolescent years” are a result of sin and should not be encouraged by the church or youth ministries. Our youth ministry is not centered on music, drama, comedy, or other entertainments but on the faithful preaching of God’s Word and Small Groups for application of Scripture, meeting personal needs, and one-on-one discipleship and accountability. While other activities may be allowed, they must never take the place of or de-emphasize the preaching of the Word or the leadership of fathers in discipling their children.



Front Range Alliance Church http://www.frontrangealliance.org/home/index.cfm


> *Family Motivated. * We shall emphasize the priority of the family and family life, especially the role of the father as spiritual head of his household. We shall therefore be careful in the conduct of our ministries to make certain that we seek to compliment the role of parents and not usurp their God-given responsibility. We shall be careful to allow time for families to be together and encourage them to use it. We shall help equip mothers and fathers to better fulfill their roles as godly parents. We shall teach strongly the divine view of marriage with regard to its sanctity and permanency. At the same time, we recognize the value and special needs of other individuals, such as singles, single parents, seniors and widows within the body, and seek to minister to them as well.


----------



## PresbyDane

he beholds said:


> I think anything can be an idol. Husbands, sons, daughters, family, pastors, elders, TV, toothpaste.
> Anything that you will aim to please more than God is an idol.
> Anything that pleases you more than God is an idol.



 100%


----------



## Montanablue

UKPuritan40 said:


> Sorry maybe I missed this, can someone explain to me what's a Voddie thread and where do I find it?
> 
> Susan Nye Ferrell
> Member Sovereign Redeemer, Boise, Idaho



I believe that this is the thread being discussed: http://www.puritanboard.com/f32/biblical-manhood-voddie-baucham-43961/


----------



## Mushroom

> But I see family as a weapon, if you will, that God has given us against the Devil. Godly families will stand the crushing blows that the world levels at them (and this doesn't always mean father + mother + child; we don't all draw that hand), ungodly ones will not stand the heat and will crumble.


Amen, brother! I've seen both.


----------



## Hebrew Student

kvanlaan,



> I don't think he is resting his entire argument on this one particular comparison and I'm not going to jettison a brilliant talk for one oddity (because, let's face it, no one would be able to hold Piper in any esteem if they dumped him every time he slipped up to the extent of that Dr Baucham apparently did). Not that I'm saying we shouldn't question it if he's wrong, but I am hard pressed to find fault in what the man is saying overall. His message is, to me, a wonderful application of spiritual truths that is needed so badly today.



kvanlaan, his entire argument was from Genesis 2. Also, not only is that verse a problem, but you also have the rest of the book of Genesis which clearly show that marriage has been affected by the fall. Consider the fact that, right after the fall and first sin, you have Lamech's polygamy [Genesis 4:19], [possibly Noah's nakedness, depending on how you interpret the sin of Ham (Genesis 9:22)], you then have Abraham's polygamious relationship with Sarah's handmaid Hagar [Genesis 16:1-6], the story of Sodom and Gomorrah [Genesis 19], Rebekah's deception of Isaac [Genesis 27], Jacob's polygamy [Genesis 29:18ff], Judah and Tamar [38:13-26], and one could even argue that Joseph marrying and Egyptian woman was not so good [Genesis 41:45]. Do these things sound like things that are "good?" No, obviously not. The point of them being included here is to show that there is a real effect of sin upon marriage. Marriage, while it is, in and of itself, good, has been effected by our sin, and made to be just as "not good" as singleness of Adam [Genesis 2:18]. Hence, there is no way one can argue that there is some necessity for people to get married on the basis of Genesis 2:18. Until Christ comes back, we only have the two options of not good in singleness, or not good in marriage.

I also think it is important that the book of Genesis makes it painfully clear that, far from sanctifying us, marriage can often times bring out the worst in us, precisely because it has been affected by the fall.



> I am sensing some animosity from you towards those of us that love our families and enjoy our "blessings" (Psalm 127: 3-8) and want to disciple our children and bring them up in the fear and admonition of the Lord. I hope this is not the case and you are genuine in asking questions.



Not at all. There is no animosity towards loving family, and enjoying those blessings. The issue is binding things to the contience of God's people that are not found in God's word, and elevating marriage so high that one can call marriage "your whole life," as Voddie Baucham did. For those who have families, the whole reason why we love our families is because of the fact that our whole life is service to *God,* and part of the service to which he has called us is to love our families. Marriage is essential to the culture and to the covenant community, but, as far as its essential nature to most individuals after the fall, I do not think the Bible teaches such a thing. I do, however, believe that it is essential for the covenant community as a whole to have a ministry of having and raising covenant children. Indeed, I would say it is commanded for every covenant community to have people who are about the task of having and raising covenant children.

The issue is whether it is commanded for almost every individual, whether or not it sanctifies, and whether or not we are to consider it "our life." Hence, the issue is not whether we should enjoy the good gifts God has given us, but, rather, whether Albert Mohler, Voddie Baucham, et al. are telling us things that are Biblical about marriage, or, instead, making marriage out to be something that the scriptures just do not teach us.

God Bless,
Adam


----------



## calgal

Happy2BHome said:


> Calgal, you said,
> 
> _*To the LDS their family BECOMES God. Keeping the family "faithful through the generations" is one of the core LDS doctrines. * At an LDS temple wedding (creepiest thing ever) the bride and groom are directed to look in the mirrors on either side of the sealing room to represent "what eternity looks like" aka your forever family. And more food for thought: how different really is this mindset of "multigenerational faithfulness" to Federal Vision and why?
> 
> It is one thing to teach your children faithfully and another to "play God" in a way and try to look 5 generations down the road. That is too close to soothsaying in my opinion.I_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am sensing some animosity from you towards those of us that love our families and enjoy our "blessings" (Psalm 127: 3-8) and want to disciple our children and bring them up in the fear and admonition of the Lord. I hope this is not the case and you are genuine in asking questions.
> 
> I think that your accusation that Dr. Voddie Baucham is somehow teaching LDS doctrine is unfounded and uncalled for. I am not wanting to argue with you about this, but I don't know how anybody who is reformed could argue that having a multigenerational vision for your family is wrong, in light of the fact it is clearly taught in Scripture. In case you haven't noticed the WCF also includes a larger and shorter catechism to assist parents and churches in a multigenerational path in discipling the children. If you will read the reformers, puritans, and pilgrims what you will find is that they are in agreement with Dr. B. I know for my family when we began to read from these 3 groups, that we felt like we had discovered an ancient christian civilization and then began to ask ourselves, does anyone still believe these great truths? As it turns out there are many among the Presbyterian and Reformed Baptists that still believe and teach these biblical truths, such as R.C. Sroul, Sr. and Junior, Doug Phillips (Reformed Baptist), Kevin Swanson (OPC), Joe Morecraft (RPCUS), John Otis (RPCUS), Bill Einwechter (Reformed Baptist), Bruce Shortt (SBC), Kenneth and Randall Talbot (RPCGA), Jeff Pollard (Ref. Baptist), Ken Gentry, Gary DeMar (PCA), Greg Bahnsen (OPC), R.J. Rushdoony (OPC), Terry L. Johnson (Ind. Presbyterian), Elisabeth Elliot, Jay Adams, just to name a few.
> 
> BTW, I am not sure about your trying to connect the FV with the idea of the multigenerational view of the family. If by chance the FV does have a biblical view of the family, then kudo's to the FV for finally getting something right.
> 
> Please note, after posting this and rereading it. I wanted to add that I am not trying to be abrasive and do not want to come across that way, just discussing from one sister to another. Thanks!



Why you took my OP as calling Voddie or anyone else LDS is a bit baffling. The LDS overemphasis on "families are together forever" not their assortment of interesting and heretical beliefs was the subject. The LDS DO emphasize a multigenerational view of the family. This is a core doctrine of theirs in fact. The problem comes when we humans try to plan out the future. As a nice Southern Baptist I knew said: "That is above my paygrade." God alone knows the future. We can build a foundation then have to trust in the Lord that He will build upon that foundation. 

Micah 7:6-7 sums up my thoughts far better than I could express 

*Micah 7:6 For the son dishonoureth the father, the daughter riseth up against her mother, the daughter in law against her mother in law; a man's enemies are the men of his own house.

Micah 7:7 Therefore I will look unto the LORD; I will wait for the God of my salvation: my God will hear me. *

Geneva Study Bible notes state this: "The Prophet shows that the only remedy for the godly in desperate evils, is to flee to God for help."


----------



## Happy2BHome

Calgal said,

We can build a foundation then have to trust in the Lord that He will build upon that foundation. 


This is the very point Voddie is making in his lectures.


----------



## Idelette

This is a really interesting thread......I've been following it because I have such mixed feelings on this subject. On the one hand, I agree that we should endeavor as believers to uphold the sanctity of marriage and see families as a gift from God rather than a burden as our culture and time eludes too. It is a good and godly thing to raise children in the fear of the Lord.....and encourage the younger generations to be family-oriented as well. However, at the same time, I often wonder if some covenant believers have (in response to our culture) swung the pendulum all the way to other extreme. I say this because I know quite a few reformed people, that in my opinion are very close to worshipping their families. Although, I deeply respect them and value them as believers this has often been a concern to me. And while their intentions are good, and they are striving to teach their children good things, sometimes I feel they prize their families far more than God Himself!

I think of that quote by Luther "all that your heart clings to and confides in....that is really your God". In an essence if we confide more in our spouses than in the Lord then there is a problem.....and if we cling more to our children than the Lord, then there is a problem. I think there is certainly a danger in idolizing our families just as anything else. So, I guess I've come to the conclusion that we ought to take delight in and be good stewards of everything that the Lord has entrusted to us (including our families), but at the same time we ought not cling so tightly to them. We ought to be willing to part with them, as anything else, because they are not ours to begin with. They are only entrusted to us for a time. Ultimately, they are the Lord's! And so whether we are single or married, whether we have children or not, in whatever position we find ourselves....we ought to live as unto the Lord, being careful not to make idols of anything He that has given to us!

-----Added 3/25/2009 at 01:08:23 EST-----

btw, I didn't look at the Voddie thread....I was just discussing the question whether "family" could be an idol!


----------



## kvanlaan

> The problem comes when we humans try to plan out the future.



_Nobody's_ trying to plan out the future; this is a board full of confessional Calvinists, for pity's sake! God is sovereign, so are we then to sit back and let the kids 'coast' into heaven? No. We are to raise them, prune them, dung about them, train them up in the way they should go, etc. etc. etc. I'm talking about being responsible and the gravity of raising children. That upbringing is best done in the bosom of the family, and thus I feel an image of the family that Voddie is teaching is one that can weather the wiles of the world and the Devil in taking our children from us. _It happens every day_. I know so many families in which the parents are now aged and sit alone in church. The children have fallen away, and in many of the cases I've seen, there was no incubating family, no strong ties amongst them. It was "do as you will, enjoy your time at the mall, here's some extra cash and (fast forward five years) how is it that you've gotten into drugs and your girlfriend is pregnant????" 

That's simple: the family wasn't there. There was no net to catch the falling child, in fact, there were no barriers/safety features at all.

"Lo, children are an *heritage* of the LORD: and the fruit of the womb is his reward." 

We aren't planning our family's future, He is. But we have to listen.

Read ANY Puritan (I can't remember if it was Increase or Cotton that wrote some VERY specific stuff on the family, but there were plenty others as well) and we will see what Puritan Calvinist Christians (who we think are very cool indeed) thought a family should look like. Now put that model (albeit based on Scriptural implications, not verbatim ordinances) next to what we think is a good idea today. We come up mighty short.


----------



## Scott Shahan

I made my family my idol and the Lord took my idol from me. Now Jesus has my undivided attention..


----------



## calgal

kvanlaan said:


> The problem comes when we humans try to plan out the future.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Nobody's_ trying to plan out the future; this is a board full of confessional Calvinists, for pity's sake! God is sovereign, so are we then to sit back and let the kids 'coast' into heaven? No. We are to raise them, prune them, dung about them, train them up in the way they should go, etc. etc. etc. I'm talking about being responsible and the gravity of raising children. That upbringing is best done in the bosom of the family, and thus I feel an image of the family that Voddie is teaching is one that can weather the wiles of the world and the Devil in taking our children from us. _It happens every day_. I know so many families in which the parents are now aged and sit alone in church. The children have fallen away, and in many of the cases I've seen, there was no incubating family, no strong ties amongst them. It was "do as you will, enjoy your time at the mall, here's some extra cash and (fast forward five years) how is it that you've gotten into drugs and your girlfriend is pregnant????"
> 
> That's simple: the family wasn't there. There was no net to catch the falling child, in fact, there were no barriers/safety features at all.
> 
> "Lo, children are an *heritage* of the LORD: and the fruit of the womb is his reward."
> 
> We aren't planning our family's future, He is. But we have to listen.
> 
> Read ANY Puritan (I can't remember if it was Increase or Cotton that wrote some VERY specific stuff on the family, but there were plenty others as well) and we will see what Puritan Calvinist Christians (who we think are very cool indeed) thought a family should look like. Now put that model (albeit based on Scriptural implications, not verbatim ordinances) next to what we think is a good idea today. We come up mighty short.
Click to expand...


That is a very good point Kevin and I agree with you. 

Now the danger I see and the one I hope I can explain is when well intentioned believers are cleaving too closely to ones family. That means no kids being *allowed* to work outside the family business, not being *allowed* to attend university (a note: if the family indeed taught the children well and there IS a foundation of strong personal faith the child is not going to fall away) and not being *allowed* to decide whether to stay around mom & dad or to move away for work or as God wills them to do. I have no problem when someone does not personally want higher education: it is not for everyone BUT when it becomes "forbidden" (and Voddie himself has stated he opposes his kids going to college) then there is a BIG red flag that goes up. Same goes for how a family operates. There are plenty of families (GM families around these parts) who had a sudden shift in the breadwinner. Does that negate the headship of dad? Not at all unless Dad has never been head of the family in the first place.


----------



## kvanlaan

> Now the danger I see and the one I hope I can explain is when well intentioned believers are cleaving too closely to ones family. That means no kids being allowed to work outside the family business, not being allowed to attend university (a note: if the family indeed taught the children well and there IS a foundation of strong personal faith the child is not going to fall away) and not being allowed to decide whether to stay around mom & dad or to move away for work or as God wills them to do.



It depends on the situation, I think. If I have a son who is 21 and married/out of the house, he may do as he pleases - I've had 21 years to mold him and shape him as best I can, and he can make his own decisions, my opinion notwithstanding. But if I have a 17 year old who, though a believer, is impetuous/immature and still under my roof, although he may be qualified to attend university from an academic point of view, he's not going. If he is the same way at 20 and still at home, he's still not going. And should I believe, for whatever reason, that a boy needs to earn a living "by the sweat of his brow" and take up a trade, and not attend university, then that is how I will raise my son to think (not to forbid something at the last minute that he's been working towards for his whole life), and such is life. He'll never even know the difference in that case because it has never been an issue. 

But that's why so much depends on the wisdom of our fathers. I have known families that have been dragged through the mud due to decisions of foolish fathers, that's why my children pray for me every day, that the Lord may grant me wisdom. But at the end of the day, it is my responsibility and my decision how I raise my child in the light of how I read my Bible and how I am fed in the pew. It may seem like a chauvenistic way to run a family, but it is a position of enormous, almost crushing, responsibility. As I mentioned earlier, we have for some reason or anther been given the reigns to God's masterwork on earth; that's *huge*.



> I have no problem when someone does not personally want higher education: it is not for everyone BUT when it becomes "forbidden" (and Voddie himself has stated he opposes his kids going to college) then there is a BIG red flag that goes up.



So Voddie's line may produce a long line of godly plumbers/carpenters/electricians/mothers. But I think what you will find is that he is not arguing against higher education _per se_, but against the _necessity_ of higher education. His own daughter is enrolled in a distance learning program. I think it was Voddie that was a jock at university when he was saved; he has seen the bottom of the barrel and knows what a cesspool universities can be (and that's _outside_ the classroom!) so he is careful with the children he's been given, that's all. Really now, _he himself_ has advanced degrees - I don't think he's preaching that higher education is an evil in and of itself.


----------



## the particular baptist

Suppose the state mandated that an i.d. be tattooed on the back of every child in the country if for nothing more than i.d.'s sake. I think most people, even unbelievers would object. Why then do we think its okay for the state to imprint and indoctrinate our kids minds with humanism and all the cultural filth of the day ? I think the latter is far more insidious. 

Deut 6 does not give my conscience the liberty to give my kids minds to the state. If the Lord gave me the children then He holds me responsible and accountable for them. I take that very seriously. It has zero to do with idolizing my family and everything to do with being faithful to God.


----------



## satz

kvanlaan said:


> And should I believe, for whatever reason, that a boy needs to earn a living "by the sweat of his brow" and take up a trade, and not attend university, then that is how I will raise my son to think (not to forbid something at the last minute that he's been working towards for his whole life), and such is life. He'll never even know the difference in that case because it has never been an issue.



I don't think it is possible to deny that this would be 100% within a father's authority as given to him by God.

I am not so sure if fathers should be encouraged to exercise their authority in this manner, which to me, does at first glance come of as somewhat overbearing and arbitrary.

I do not think parents should be making decisions for their children that are going to affect them for the rest of their lives (and long after the parents have departed) based solely on the parent's preferences. To an extent (and I'll admit I have no bible proof for this) I think parents should allow children their liberty in these matters when it does not contradict God's word. So as much as possible, I think parents should allow children to chose their own way of making a living (it is the children go are going to do the work for the rest of their lives after all). 

Now if a parent thinks that university is unsuitable because of the evil communications it will involve, that is a biblical reason to make a choice against university. If university is impossible without incurring massive debt, that too is a biblical reason to make a choice as a parent. To have a preference (and I believe that is all it is) for working by the sweat of his brow is, I think, not really a good reason to dictate the rest of a child's life to him. Still within the authority God has given? Yes. But I don't think it should be encouraged.

(I know you were just using it as an example!)


----------



## Idelette

Scott Shahan said:


> I made my family my idol and the Lord took my idol from me. Now Jesus has my undivided attention..



I'm sorry Scott!


----------



## Scott Shahan

In His Grip said:


> Scott Shahan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I made my family my idol and the Lord took my idol from me. Now Jesus has my undivided attention..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry Scott!
Click to expand...


I look at it as part of my sanctification process. The Lord will remove our idols from us. He is a jealous God, and demands to be #1. Jesus showed me that He needs to be my ultimate Love, and not other things/people. I was blinded to my idolatry until the Lord began to remove my idols. Sin breeds spiritual blindness.. I am grateful for His Chastisment, and for the much suffering that came with all the loses, for it made me depend on Jesus all the more. I am a changed man because of the afflictions.. Soli deo Gloria!


----------



## Hebrew Student

kvanlaan,



> But if I have a 17 year old who, though a believer, is impetuous/immature and still under my roof, although he may be qualified to attend university from an academic point of view, he's not going. If he is the same way at 20 and still at home, he's still not going. And should I believe, for whatever reason, that a boy needs to earn a living "by the sweat of his brow" and take up a trade, and not attend university, then that is how I will raise my son to think (not to forbid something at the last minute that he's been working towards for his whole life), and such is life. He'll never even know the difference in that case because it has never been an issue.



This is another reason why I have criticized Voddie Baucham and others, and that is because of the fact that this will not cure him of his immaturity. If he is immature before he takes the hard labor job, what makes you think that the hard labor job and marriage is going to somehow make him more mature? I have met plenty of immature people in my lifetime, yes, even those who are married, and have hard labor jobs. In fact, even worse, most of them tend to get fired. Then they have no money, no job, and a wife and kids that they refuse to take care of. You see, unless his heart is changed from immature to mature, which can only happen by the work of the Holy Spirit in his life, he will just jump around from job to job and never be able to be responsible.

Marriage and hard labor cannot cure a child of immaturity. In fact, if he ends up with a wife and kids with no job, or jumping around from job to job, the situation will be even worse. The problem is the immaturity, not his lack of a hard labor job, or his lack of a spouse.

I believe a child should be able to do what God has called them to do. If he has called them to do scholarship, then they should be able to postpone marriage so that they can get their Phd. If God has called them to a simple hard labor job to marry and have kids, then they should be able to have a hard labor job to marry and raise children. The problem is that we need both of these people in the church. 

For instance, I don't know if any of you heard, there was a controversy at Westminster Seminary recently over a now former professor by the name of Peter Enns. Now, I have known for quite some time that many people who call themselves evangelicals in the field of Old Testament studies really do not have an orthodox view of scripture. The reason for this is the field of Old Testament studies is extremely liberal. We handed over the Old Testament to the liberals along time ago, and they have been shredding it ever since. We really need good, Godly Christian men in this field, who have orthodox views of scripture, and are good at polemics. In fact, given the way the field is now, we have far too few. It is dishonoring to God's law to just tell people they must marry young, and therefore, cut down on the number of people that are going into this field thus throwing the Old Testament to the liberals for them to abuse.

On the other hand, it is also dishonoring to God to have everyone to into that field, and neglect that the church also needs men who work a hard labor job just to put food on the table and a roof over the heads of their family, but who raise them, and teaches them after Christ. Such a person is essential to any church community, as they will produce children who may be used of God to go into academic pursuits, may produce more men of God, or may have some other service to which God has called them. 

The point is that we need people to serve God in both of these ways, and it is all going to depend on God's calling. However, no matter what your calling, there is no excuse for spiritual immaturity. If a person is not growing in Christ, then I would have serious concerns about that person spiritually. We need to be careful to recognize that there are certain things God calls unacceptable no matter what vocation God has called us to.

God Bless,
Adam


----------



## AThornquist

Hebrew Student said:


> kvanlaan,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But if I have a 17 year old who, though a believer, is impetuous/immature and still under my roof, although he may be qualified to attend university from an academic point of view, he's not going. If he is the same way at 20 and still at home, he's still not going. And should I believe, for whatever reason, that a boy needs to earn a living "by the sweat of his brow" and take up a trade, and not attend university, then that is how I will raise my son to think (not to forbid something at the last minute that he's been working towards for his whole life), and such is life. He'll never even know the difference in that case because it has never been an issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is another reason why I have criticized Voddie Baucham and others, and that is because of the fact that this will not cure him of his immaturity. If he is immature before he takes the hard labor job, what makes you think that the hard labor job and marriage is going to somehow make him more mature? I have met plenty of immature people in my lifetime, yes, even those who are married, and have hard labor jobs. In fact, even worse, most of them tend to get fired. Then they have no money, no job, and a wife and kids that they refuse to take care of. You see, unless his heart is changed from immature to mature, which can only happen by the work of the Holy Spirit in his life, he will just jump around from job to job and never be able to be responsible.
Click to expand...


So wasting money at a university and placing him in a position to cause great spiritual harm would be better? I think I...hmm nope, I don't understand.

And saying that he won't mature while staying home to grow for a season is pure speculation. There are people who have done it. And if we have to wait until the Spirit suddenly moves in a persons life to make them mature, which includes responsibility and stability as you say, how is university an environment more conducive to this growth? Are we to throw our children to the wolves so that after a time of deep spiritual wounds they can finally return to God in tears, or are we to raise our children to manhood and _then_ let them fight the wolves?


----------



## Hebrew Student

AThornquist,

I am saying that they should be ready before they go . For example, I studied for three years at an Lutheran Church Missouri Synod university, and am now about to get my masters at Trinity before I even go into the university setting. Also, I am not objecting to someone waiting until they are more mature, but rather, to someone saying that they must work a hard labor job and marry as their vocation just simply because they are immature. They have the responsibility to do what God has called them, and, if that means that they have to not go off to college for a while, then that is what it means.

Secondly, the problem in each instance is the immaturity. My point is that, in either case, the immaturity needs to be dealt with, and neither hard labor nor marriage will do it. God must deal with the person's heart. I would say the person who gets eaten up at university because of immaturity, and the person who dishonors his spouse and kids because of immaturity are in an equally bad situation, because the root problem of sin was never addressed in the first place, and neither marriage, hard labor, or the university are going to help. Only God can help what is truly the problem.

God Bless,
Adam


----------



## AThornquist

Hmm. I'm still  about some of the statements in this thread then, but that's okay. I do agree that immaturity is an issue in both circumstances but there are also different kinds of immaturity (though I don't care enough to jump into _that_ discussion!). A person may be ready for certain labors and a marriage while not ready to be immersed in the company of the wicked for one reason or another. 
Regardless, we can agree on the fact that on one hand we need to follow the Lord's guidance, as you said, but we also need to raise our children to respect our parenthood and submissively follow our loving guidance. Kevin mentioned that he would raise his child in such a way that he or she will follow his guidance in the fear of the Lord. He is the head of his household and is ultimately responsible for the way he raises his children. Thus, I do _not_ want to be the man who wrongly criticizes him for how he trains up his own.


----------



## Hippo

If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple. 

(Luke 14:26)


----------



## Hebrew Student

AThornquist,



> He is the head of his household and is ultimately responsible for the way he raises his children. Thus, I do not want to be the man who wrongly criticizes him for how he trains up his own.



I agree, and I wasn't meaning to imply that I was trying to force Kevin to not do what Voddie Baucham is saying, and I am sorry if I came across that way. You are right, it is ultimately him who is going to have to make his own decision.

However, I am going to be a father one day. I am engaged, and my fiance has said that she would like to have children. These are going to be questions that I am going to be asking, and I think we all need to be going back to God's word, and asking the appropriate questions, and really wrestling with the text of scripture in order to find the answers.

God Bless,
Adam


----------



## Scott Shahan

Hippo said:


> If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.
> 
> (Luke 14:26)


----------



## the particular baptist

Hebrew Student said:


> I think we all need to be going back to God's word, and asking the appropriate questions, and really wrestling with the text of scripture in order to find the answers.



There are sufficient biblical principles to convince _me_ that handing over the minds of my children to pagan humanists to indoctrinate is wrong. 

In the end, it is an area of Christian liberty and i cannot and will not judge anyone who chooses the school system for their children.


----------



## Hebrew Student

PactumServa72,



> There are sufficient biblical principles to convince me that handing over the minds of my children to pagan humanists to indoctrinate is wrong.



Actually, let me quote from one of my earlier posts:



> I am saying that they should be ready before they go . For example, I studied for three years at an Lutheran Church Missouri Synod university, and am now about to get my masters at Trinity before I even go into the university setting. Also, I am not objecting to someone waiting until they are more mature, but rather, to someone saying that they must work a hard labor job and marry as their vocation just simply because they are immature. They have the responsibility to do what God has called them, and, if that means that they have to not go off to college for a while, then that is what it means.



I agree that we should not be sending children off to pagan humanists to have them indoctrinated. However, let me ask you this, should we continue to allow the liberals to abuse the Old Testament, and have as the only professors available at our seminaries, people who will train our pastors to have contempt for the law of God? Of course not. We do need to "indoctrinate" our children with Christianity before they go off to study. They need to understand a Christian worldview as well as the worldview into which they are going. However, that does not mean that we never enter these fields of study simply because of the fact that they are antagonistic to a Christian worldview. We are seeing the results of just such thinking in the Old Testament departments of secular, liberal, and now even conservative institutions. I would think that those who love God's law would see this as a problem.

God Bless,
Adam


----------



## kvanlaan

> To have a preference (and I believe that is all it is) for working by the sweat of his brow is, I think, not really a good reason to dictate the rest of a child's life to him. Still within the authority God has given? Yes. But I don't think it should be encouraged.



A preference? I don't think so. You don't base life decisions for your children on 'personal preference'.

We should talk after you have children of your own. It's mostly armchair academics until you have have little bodies with eternal souls dependent on you for their welfare and upbringing.

-----Added 3/25/2009 at 04:26:17 EST-----



> This is another reason why I have criticized Voddie Baucham and others, and that is because of the fact that this will not cure him of his immaturity. If he is immature before he takes the hard labor job, what makes you think that the hard labor job and marriage is going to somehow make him more mature? I have met plenty of immature people in my lifetime, yes, even those who are married, and have hard labor jobs. In fact, even worse, most of them tend to get fired. Then they have no money, no job, and a wife and kids that they refuse to take care of. You see, unless his heart is changed from immature to mature, which can only happen by the work of the Holy Spirit in his life, he will just jump around from job to job and never be able to be responsible.
> 
> Marriage and hard labor cannot cure a child of immaturity. In fact, if he ends up with a wife and kids with no job, or jumping around from job to job, the situation will be even worse. The problem is the immaturity, not his lack of a hard labor job, or his lack of a spouse.



You're missing the point entirely here. I am not saying that it is about hard work curing immaturity (nor, I believe, is Dr Baucham). It is about a direction for one's life and what must be involved in the career choices you make. Plumbers need not run the gauntlet of university.


----------



## LawrenceU

I've just finished reading this thread. Kevin, you are right on the money. I can't add a thing . . . yet.


----------



## Hebrew Student

kvanlaan,



> You're missing the point entirely here. I am not saying that it is about hard work curing immaturity (nor, I believe, is Dr Baucham). It is about a direction for one's life and what must be involved in the career choices you make. Plumbers need not run the gauntlet of university.



Ok, I must have misunderstood what you were saying. I know I have heard Albert Mohler talk about people's called to marriage simply because marriage is something of a sanctifying agent [for things like immaturity]. I guess I must have read that into what you were saying.

My apologies.

God Bless,
Adam


----------



## calgal

PactumServa72 said:


> Hebrew Student said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think we all need to be going back to God's word, and asking the appropriate questions, and really wrestling with the text of scripture in order to find the answers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are sufficient biblical principles to convince _me_ that handing over the minds of my children to pagan humanists to indoctrinate is wrong.
> 
> In the end, it is an area of Christian liberty and i cannot and will not judge anyone who chooses the school system for their children.
Click to expand...


What about Christian schools?


----------



## satz

kvanlaan said:


> To have a preference (and I believe that is all it is) for working by the sweat of his brow is, I think, not really a good reason to dictate the rest of a child's life to him. Still within the authority God has given? Yes. But I don't think it should be encouraged.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A preference? I don't think so. You don't base life decisions for your children on 'personal preference'.
Click to expand...


Kevin,

I was only responding to your particular sentence about training up a child not to go to university because you believed working by the sweat of your brow was better (I wasn't really sure if you actually held to it or was only using it as an example). 

Since the bible never (to my knowledge) states that physical work is better, it still seems that for a parent to take such a position _for that reason alone _ is a matter of that parent's personal preference. As I tried to explain in my post, there are many biblical reasons to decide why the university route is not appropriate for a child.



> We should talk after you have children of your own. It's mostly armchair academics until you have have little bodies with eternal souls dependent on you for their welfare and upbringing.



I admit that not being a parent I will probably never be able to understand certain things. 

Still, since you didn't explain why you held to that position (if indeed you did) you didn't really give me a chance...

I don't think it is a matter of armchair academics. If you say it is not a matter of personal preference, than you should be able to give at least a bible argument (not necessarily a command, but at least a principle) to back up your position.

Looking at your earlier statement: 



> "And should I believe, for whatever reason, that a boy needs to earn a living "by the sweat of his brow" and take up a trade, and not attend university, then that is how I will raise my son to think (not to forbid something at the last minute that he's been working towards for his whole life), and such is life. He'll never even know the difference in that case because it has never been an issue."


Could you explain how it is not personal preference to decide from the time your child is only young what means of earning a living he will take?


----------



## calgal

kvanlaan said:


> To have a preference (and I believe that is all it is) for working by the sweat of his brow is, I think, not really a good reason to dictate the rest of a child's life to him. Still within the authority God has given? Yes. But I don't think it should be encouraged.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A preference? I don't think so. You don't base life decisions for your children on 'personal preference'.
> 
> We should talk after you have children of your own. It's mostly armchair academics until you have have little bodies with eternal souls dependent on you for their welfare and upbringing.
> 
> -----Added 3/25/2009 at 04:26:17 EST-----
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is another reason why I have criticized Voddie Baucham and others, and that is because of the fact that this will not cure him of his immaturity. If he is immature before he takes the hard labor job, what makes you think that the hard labor job and marriage is going to somehow make him more mature? I have met plenty of immature people in my lifetime, yes, even those who are married, and have hard labor jobs. In fact, even worse, most of them tend to get fired. Then they have no money, no job, and a wife and kids that they refuse to take care of. You see, unless his heart is changed from immature to mature, which can only happen by the work of the Holy Spirit in his life, he will just jump around from job to job and never be able to be responsible.
> 
> Marriage and hard labor cannot cure a child of immaturity. In fact, if he ends up with a wife and kids with no job, or jumping around from job to job, the situation will be even worse. The problem is the immaturity, not his lack of a hard labor job, or his lack of a spouse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're missing the point entirely here. I am not saying that it is about hard work curing immaturity (nor, I believe, is Dr Baucham). It is about a direction for one's life and what must be involved in the career choices you make. Plumbers need not run the gauntlet of university.
Click to expand...


As a married man and father, do you really think it matures a man to be a husband and father or working at a "hard labor job"? In fact, the immature child would be at the same or greater risk of "doing stupid stuff" at the jobsite where the guys are all going out drinking (or to the strip club) as they would be in a college. And the impact on the wife and kids would be far far worse than a single college kid being stupid.


----------



## the particular baptist

calgal said:


> PactumServa72 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hebrew Student said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think we all need to be going back to God's word, and asking the appropriate questions, and really wrestling with the text of scripture in order to find the answers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are sufficient biblical principles to convince _me_ that handing over the minds of my children to pagan humanists to indoctrinate is wrong.
> 
> In the end, it is an area of Christian liberty and i cannot and will not judge anyone who chooses the school system for their children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What about Christian schools?
Click to expand...


I dont have a bias against Christian schools. Education is important (my 1st grader is capable of 3rd grade curriculum), but my first priority is their character and my wife and i are the best qualified for that job at the moment.


----------



## kvanlaan

> As a married man and father, do you really think it matures a man to be a husband and father or working at a "hard labor job"? In fact, the immature child would be at the same or greater risk of "doing stupid stuff" at the jobsite where the guys are all going out drinking (or to the strip club) as they would be in a college. And the impact on the wife and kids would be far far worse than a single college kid being stupid.



But that's just my point, I _don't_ think that it would mature a man to be working a hard labour job - that has nothing to do with it. See here:



> _I am not saying that it is about hard work curing immaturity (nor, I believe, is Dr Baucham). It is about a direction for one's life and what must be involved in the career choices you make. Plumbers need not run the gauntlet of university._



This is NOT saying that, 'well, he's too immature for college and the white collar world, he should become a plumber.' It is saying that we should 'flee from sin' and thus marinating my son in the Bacchanalian splendor of a local university by him living on campus is not good for him, be he wise or unwise. He could live at home, taking class during the day if he really wished to go.

But I think I would keep an eye on my son and look for what he's good at, see what interests him. I already know that he my eldest son does not want a desk job, he wants to work with his hands. So we will find him a trade.

Take for example an electrician. Up here, our Reformed churches are full of self-employed tradesmen. Were my son Judah to show an interest in becoming an electrician, I would look around the churches here for an electrician under whom he could do an apprecticeship, at whatever age he felt ready. He would learn job skills from a Christian man before he began working for one of the smaller companies around here (many are run by local reformed men) and then he's a licensed electrician. He could go out on his own or work in any company he chose. That's my plan of attack. My cousin did exactly this and makes over $50K a year. It's a fine, respectable job. 

But I think what you are missing here is that a trade is not a job to take because he is immature, it is because he is more inclined to work with his hands. If I truly felt that university was not suitable (with regards to being a poor environment for a young Christian man), I would recommend either living at home and taking class during the day, or taking a distance learning course, I'm not going to quash his desire for knowledge and call it evil. At this point, it is _how_ he acquires the knowledge that is my concern. We'll get to subject matter later, depending on what his interests are. For now, he's 14, and trade skills are good to have anyway, so he helps me around the house when I do projects. He will learn how to use an axe, a chainsaw, and do small repairs in the next couple of years. This is just handy to know in running his own family, it need not become a trade.

-----Added 3/25/2009 at 08:42:59 EST-----



> I was only responding to your particular sentence about training up a child not to go to university because you believed working by the sweat of your brow was better (I wasn't really sure if you actually held to it or was only using it as an example).
> 
> Since the bible never (to my knowledge) states that physical work is better, it still seems that for a parent to take such a position for that reason alone is a matter of that parent's personal preference. As I tried to explain in my post, there are many biblical reasons to decide why the university route is not appropriate for a child.



Mark, I think that with regards to working by the sweat of their brow, I am only using that phrase as an example, though I know that many Amish/Mennonite types use God's words at the time of the Fall as reason to concentrate their job choices on farming and carpentry. I'm not sure that holds a lot of water, it's just what came to mind.

-----Added 3/25/2009 at 09:11:31 EST-----



> Could you explain how it is not personal preference to decide from the time your child is only young what means of earning a living he will take?



First, I am not deciding how my child will earn a living, he will. I will counsel him strongly based on my personal experience and interpretation of scripture. If he wants a BA in business, I won't forbid it, but I will do my best to ensure that the _means_ of his getting it keep him from a harmful environment. I am hoping he will learn from my mistakes, that's the main thrust of this comment. In the case of my eldest, I already know that he wants to work a trade, he's told us he is interested in working with his hands. My focus now is on showing him the wisdom of saving his earnings and not blowing them as many do. If he starts saving his money from part-time work now, and then moves into an apprenticeship when he's 18/done with highschool, he could be buying his own house by the time he's 20 without too much in the way of a mortgage.


----------



## Mushroom

Am I imagining things, or is it mostly folks without kids that are skeptical of what Kevin's saying? Now *that's* a big surprise!

Your doin' fine, Kev, I'm with you all the way. Guess now I've gotta set aside the time to watch Voddie's video.


----------



## satz

Thanks, Kevin.

I don't disagree with anything you wrote, and to be honest, I thought what I initially posted was more or less exactly what you have explained.

Maybe I was reading too much into that one statement (probably).


----------



## calgal

Thank you Kevin. That logic makes sense. And I could take a guess that the men you would have your son working with would be stable, mature Christians. 

And no Brad we don't have kids and may very well never have them so thanks for the reminder. We DO however struggle with a child as an idol. If God deems us worthy of parenthood (it appears He has NOT done so and that is a stumbling block between me and God) it will be a struggle to not make the child an idol or worse a "special snowflake." 

Lastly, No family is perfect and no family this side of heaven is going to get their offspring or other relatives into heaven on the strength of "multigenerational planning." I am sure you all have thought of that as part of the "plan."


----------



## Mushroom

Gail, my statement was not meant to hurt you, just to point out that having children may affect how one looks at this issue. My apologies for the unintended slight.

While I'm sure humans are capable of making anything an idol, even a child, I don't see where anyone is advocating that. As someone said earlier, you could make toothpaste an idol, but to repair that situation, you wouldn't stop using toothpaste. The fear of idolizing children is no reason to instead intentionally expose them to the infections of worldly lusts. You wouldn't walk a child through a yellow fever ward without first making sure they were properly innoculated, and the same is true of the fetid swamps of higher education.

My family is far from perfect, due in large part I think because _I_ am woefully imperfect, but by the grace of God I will trundle on in this stewardship He has given me, trusting in His covenantal promises towards them.


----------



## calgal

Brad said:


> Gail, my statement was not meant to hurt you, just to point out that having children may affect how one looks at this issue. My apologies for the unintended slight.
> 
> While I'm sure humans are capable of making anything an idol, even a child, I don't see where anyone is advocating that. As someone said earlier, you could make toothpaste an idol, but to repair that situation, you wouldn't stop using toothpaste. The fear of idolizing children is no reason to instead intentionally expose them to the infections of worldly lusts. You wouldn't walk a child through a yellow fever ward without first making sure they were properly innoculated, and the same is true of the fetid swamps of higher education.
> 
> My family is far from perfect, due in large part I think because _I_ am woefully imperfect, but by the grace of God I will trundle on in this stewardship He has given me, trusting in His covenantal promises towards them.



I understand and agree (this is a big big stumbling block for me as you probably guessed). The family as an idol is not directed at anyone with kids but at the idea that the family is first (before God). And that is frighteningly easy to do.


----------



## Hebrew Student

Brad,



> Am I imagining things, or is it mostly folks without kids that are skeptical of what Kevin's saying? Now that's a big surprise!



Well, in a sense I guess you could say that is true. Why is it that Baptists and Presbyterians read the Bible differently? Certainly our experiences can play a role in what we see in the text. However, we have to go beyond that and say, "Does the text say that, or am I reading my own experiences into the text?" That is really the issue. As someone has already said, we cannot bind to the contience of God's people things that are not found in his word, whether we are married with children or single. That is why it is important to go back to scripture and wrestle with the text.

God Bless,
Adam


----------



## BG

[


----------

