PCA pastor calls for more state control over home...
(Tim) As I've mentioned before, one of the most important journals for elders, pastors, and Titus 2 women to read as we shepherd God's flock and our own families is the Howard Center's "Family in America." (Full disclosure: my longtime friend, Bob Patterson, edits the journal.)
In order to live and lead "wise as serpents and harmless as doves," we should spend time studying our culture. There's no issue pastors, elders, deacons, fathers, and mothers of covenant children should study more carefully than the interface between the church, her families, and the civil magistrate--an area of the public square commonly referred to as family policy.
Recently, a friend of mine who's stated clerk of Central Indiana Presbytery (PCA) wrote an oped piece for his local paper calling for more review and discipline of homeschoolers by state government:
What do we do with home schools?
Leave them alone? Regulate them? Ban them?
...So I ask: is it in the interests of the state, to keep an eye on this? I say yes....
Some oversight and regulation seems reasonable. This might include submission of a curriculum, occasional visits and participation in the standardized tests. Yes, this addition to our bureaucracy will cost money, but how does that compare to what we pay for a lifetime of dependency?
...Let's not stick our heads in the sand about what is happening or what could happen. We can value freedom and urge responsibility.
Hello, legislators. Anybody ... home?
If this may be taken as an indication of the training my friend received at Covenant Theological Seminary concerning the interface between God's covenant people and the civil magistrate, it's little wonder Christian parents who live with their eyes open live in increasing fear of Child Protective Services kidnapping their covenant children.
As I've often warned, the modern state moves in the direction of totalitarianism in relation to any competing authorities, and this is particularly true of mediating institutions like the home and the church. In the past couple of years, our church families have been visited by Child Protective Services three times. And without warrant. This will only increase as Christians continue to follow Christ while the civil magistrate goes the way of Hillary Clinton's nanny state promoted in her book, It Takes a Village.
It takes a village? Actually, no: that village is a gang or a group home.
What it really takes is a home. It takes a father and mother. It takes God and the natural sovereigns He's put over sons and daughters--Papa and Mama.
Those authorities that undermine or remove the authority of fathers and mothers by transferring their authority to the state are rebels against God.
So how is this transfer going forward and what arguments are being used to promote it to voters and their pastors?
Read "The Family in America" and learn what you need to know to lead and teach and shepherd your fathers, mothers, and children.
For starters, here's a good article Bob wrote titled, "Fiscal Conservatism Is Not Enough: What Social Conservatives Offer the Party of Lincoln."
Clearnote Churches
Clearnote Fellowship
Christ the Word
Monthly archive
- May 2013 (21)
- April 2013 (33)
- March 2013 (43)
- February 2013 (28)
- January 2013 (41)
- December 2012 (31)
- November 2012 (37)
- October 2012 (38)
- September 2012 (21)
- August 2012 (28)
- July 2012 (46)
- June 2012 (50)
Popular Posts
Tags
Recent Comments
- Emily Burlingham on Why move to Bloomington?
- Robert Woodyard on Some pics for your enjoyment...
- Tim Bayly on Some pics for your enjoyment...
- Christopher Lee on Some pics for your enjoyment...
- Sandy Pryor on Why move to Bloomington?
Comments
One wonders as well how a Covenant Seminary-trained man who fancies himself equipped to teach adults finds himself flummoxed by 2nd grade homeschoolers.
My favorite part of this one is this:
Problem; the government schools are evading responsibility for dropout rates by telling kids to call themselves homeschooled.
Solution: regulate all homeschoolers.
I nominate this as the prime example for "non sequitur" in Covenant Seminary's "logic" classes.
:^)
This is either evil or grossly naive.
This is what I see by "some oversight and regulation:" extensive evolution requirements, including testing my children to see if they know how many millions of years ago those dinosaurs supposedly lived, and many quadrillions of years ago this big bang thing happened. The penalty for them not knowing being removing my kids from their "deficient" home school and putting them in public school.
Furthermore, I see us being required to teach sex-ed to our 5th graders from the state's rebellious safe-sex curriculum and testing on subjects like how to use a condom, and sex is okay as long as it's safe.
It's already illegal in Colorado for a public school to teach only an abstinence program; they have to teach the kids about how to use birth control too. Why would home schoolers be exempt if the state started to regulate our curriculum?
My son's tagline on his email used to be: "I believe in the Big Bang. God spoke and BANG--it happened." Somehow I don't he'd be allowed to remain in our home school for very long if the state were to scrutinize our creation-based science curriculum.
You don't need to drag Covenant Seminary into this.
""To make Christianity a private affair while banishing all privacy is to relegate it to the rainbow's end or the Greek Calends.' - CS Lewis
>>drag Covenant into it?
A pastor's leadership is no reflection on his training?
Right. And there's no connection between Calvin and the CRC's fall, right?
For many readers, here, the Covenant connection is the most pertinent part of this post.
Love,
Stein graduated from Geneva in 1986 and Covenant in 1991 (nearly twenty years ago). Unless TE Stein has been frozen in his intellectual and spiritual development, it seems quite a stretch to tie this view of his to his educational background.
But if we were to pursue the connection, balance demands our noting that among those teaching at Covenant, Stein had opportunity to study under Drs. George W. Knight, III (1988-89), Joseph H. Hall (1988-89) and Robert Reymond (1988-90).
>>it seems quite a stretch to tie this view of his to his educational background...
A seminary is known by its fruit, and after many years of presbytery ordination exams...
>>Stein had opportunity to study under Drs. George W. Knight, III (1988-89), Joseph H. Hall (1988-89) and Robert Reymond (1988-90).
Also Bryan Chapell, Jerram Barrs, and David Jones.
Still, Wayne, there are few men I'd rather have disagree with me. It's an honor.
Where a man receives his training may be an important part of understanding his perspective. Then again, it may not be. I went to Moody Bible Institute for my undergraduate education and am neither a dispensationalist or a baptist, etc.
As for a relationship between Covenant Seminary and this man's perspective on the state's relationship with home schooling, no clear examples or evidence are given that CTS teaches or promotes what he wrote. Do you have specific evidence that suggests Covenant promotes such thinking.
I'll grant that I could have missed it in my three years there, but I paid pretty close attention to such matters and am totally clueless as to what you could be referring to. I check this blog somewhat regularly and don't think you take cheap shots, am I wrong?
>>am I wrong?
Keep in mind I wrote, "If this may be taken as an indication of the training my friend received at Covenant Theological Seminary..."
I think so. You think not. Time will tell.
God bless you.
Love,
I think that just because a person espouses or holds an incorrect view of a subject, it does not necessarily reflect poorly upon where or with whom he studied.
I submit for your consideration the case of Judas Iscariot.
Respectfully,
Well, look, I go to a church with a couple of thousand members. It's a conservative church, where the bible is taken seriously, where we are called to repentance and warned of judgement regularly from the pulpit. But it's also an old and wealthy church and I am quite sure there are people in the pews who do not hold those views or who, as we all do, fall short of the mark in our Christian lives. I would surely hate for one of my fellow congregants who did not hold to Christian orthodoxy be cited in the manner above- "if this is indicative of the spiritual shepherding he receives at First Presbyterian Church....." Well, it in and of itself is insufficient to prove that it is indicative of that more or less than any other of thousands of factors in his life. So, in regard to covenant- are there other Covenant men making similar claims? Are their covenant professors teaching these things in their classes, and you can show us syllabi, or required readings, or transcripts of lectures? If so, show them. If not, 2 Corinthians 13:1 has something to say about this sort of thing.
It seems fair to critique a PCA pastors particular public statements. Somehow drawing the seminary he graduated from (or his former college, church, etc) seems a stretch with no evidence to substantiate the connection. It seems careless to me and not typical for what you post on this blog.
Is the point of the post to bring to light a PCA pastor's comments? Fine. The CTS statement seems like a cheap shot absent any evidence or examples they somehow contributed to this pastors views in this area.
The protesters here want to act like nothing else has been written on BaylyBlog about CTS even though Tim pointed out that regular readers would see the Covenant connection as significant.
It’s not like this post came out of nowhere without any background, though. Instead, I think this one serves as another example to support the ongoing point.
If you really don’t know what I’m talking about, just click the Covenant Seminary category to the left.
Matthew, I took your direction and clicked on Covenant and read the first several posts all the way back to the ones about the Strategic Plan.
While I can tell there is a general critical perspective about CTS here (founded or unfounded), I still don't see how that informs this particular post. The posts reveal a bone to pick with various PCA entities, but no particular insight is given about the purported connection between CTS and a particular view of how the state relates with home schooling.
If I'm missing such a clearly stated connection, by all means, point it out. I'm not protesting this blog nor am I defending CTS. I read many posts on this blog and seldom comment. This one just struck me funny.
It seems unfair to point out a guys questionable (indeed, objectionable to me) view on something, then imply the seminary he went to might be promoting the same view- yet have no substantiation. When questioned- "time will tell" isn't really valid unless it is meant that evidence is forthcoming shortly.
I've said all I need to, I mean not to be a jerk. I just don't get it.
I'm going to be fair about this; although my wisecrack (foolishcrack? Oops?) was directed at Covenant, it's not like any number of other seminaries and Bible colleges wouldn't benefit from requiring logic for graduation....
So yes, this reflects on Covenant in 1991, and to a lesser degree today--and, hey, let's say it; lots of schools, sad to say.
Bike,
Fair enough per your comment, but I'm holding to my original wisecrack.
TE Stein has used his seminary degree as verification/certification that he's capable to teach in a PCA church. When he laments his ability to teach little children, then it should reflect poorly upon himself and the institution which trained him.
"Yet behind all that, is this: What do we do with [churches]?
Leave them alone? Regulate them? Ban them?
I run in circles where [church-going] is often present, and sometimes popular. [Churches] are like anything else: Some are good, and some are bad. Some [pastors] are passionate, diligent and competent. Other [pastors] are lukewarm, negligent and unqualified.
I admire those who do it well. [I] surpassed my [church-going needs] somewhere around first grade.
So I ask: is it in the interests of the state, to keep an eye on this? I say yes.
Let's say the [churches] do happily say goodbye to frustrating and failing kids through this [church-going] loophole, and never see them again. Or let's say exasperated [pastors] do [see the fruit of their gnostic, name-it-and-claim-it, rapture-at-any-moment influenced deficient theology of work.} What is the result? Uneducated, unskilled, unmotivated people who will barely survive in the work force and might eventually drop out altogether. Then, since we are so generous with our social programs, we will have another group of people who take far more than they give.
Is this what we want? I hope not. Some oversight and regulation seems reasonable. This might include submission of a [doctrinal] curriculum, occasional visits and participation in the standardized tests. Yes, this addition to our bureaucracy will cost money, but how does that compare to what we pay for a lifetime of dependency?
As with many issues these days, we tend to run to the extremes.[Ain't that the truth?]
One side might say, "Do not touch my [church-going]!" The other side might say, "Just outlaw it!"
But can we do better than that? [Church-going] is an excellent path for some. But it is not for everyone -- especially those who merely [use spirituality as a guise to get out of work].
If we believe we need to help people who need help, we need to help them when they are kids, so we do not need to help them when they are adults.
Let's not stick our heads in the sand about what is happening or what could happen. We can value freedom and urge responsibility.
Hello, legislators. Anybody ... home?"
(**this is parody-- please no one take it seriously. Not that I'm good at it, but this letter is silly enough to warrant a shot)
>I would surely hate for one of my fellow congregants who did not hold to Christian orthodoxy be cited in the manner above- "if this is indicative of the spiritual shepherding he receives at First Presbyterian Church....."
But we are not talking about some obscure member. Suppose it were an elder in the church with corrupted views. Could that be cited as a legitimate reflection on the overall state of the church?
Now Ken, I wasn't being as nice as I think you were thinking I was....I was simply spreading the rebuke around a little bit without thinning it in the least. :^)
On the very serious side, though, my family has just left a church where there were very similar lapses in logic, but impacting the theology of the church. The need to teach leaders--and for that matter laymen--the principles of logic is immense. Not just a PCA issue at all.
(and pray for us as we look for a new church if you will)
Dear Brothers,
It seems clear to me that my brother Tim has apportioned blame for Tom Stein's troubling piece to Covenant Seminary for the simple reason that he likes and believes in Tom and finds it difficult to understand such a woefully misinformed piece without looking beyond Tom to the forces that shaped him and led him to think so myopically as a pastor.
Think about it: Tom just called on the state to come and exercise authority over child-parent relationships in the homes of his church. How on earth does a pastor come to view this as the responsibility of the state?
Well, Tim says in his post that he likes Tom. He tells me privately that Tom is bright, that he demonstrates courage in the pulpit, that he actually encouraged Tom to be stated clerk of the new Central Indiana Presbytery.
Obviously, Tim views the issue as one of training and teaching rather than merely one of ignorance or willful dereliction of duty as a pastor. Tom Stein made a grievous pastoral error in urging the state to enter the homes of his church. Why? If he's sharp, if he's a good man in other ways, doesn't it seem obvious that the best answer is the milieu in which he was formed as a pastor?
Can you imagine a graduate of Greyfriars Hall writing such a piece? Greenville Seminary? Even Westminster West?
If a man were teaching well, would we dismiss the seminary that produced him as readily as when he teaches poorly? This is where the establishment of a pattern among Covenant graduates becomes relevant. If Tom's weakness in understanding the shepherding responsibility of a pastor is a one-off affair, then leave Covenant out of it.
Tom calls on the state to assume authority over the home even as--I would be willing to bet--he has never led his session to investigate within his church the very thing he calls the state to assume authority over. This is a category error, a failure to think strategically or biblically that ultimately speaks more of Tom's milieu and training than of his personal ability to employ logic.
Love in Christ,
David
Deviating a moment from the questions around CTS...
Wow, I don't know what to say other than it makes my blood boil to know a PCA pastor has actually invited the God hating state to further usurp the authority of parents over the children. Astonishing.
When a pastor goes off the deep end like this into the political stratum, at what point has he deviated from our confessional standards to become unfit for office? I'm not saying this particular incident makes this pastor unfit for office, but this event begs the question: is there anything in the political realm that would disqualify someone for the office of ruling elder?
There are probably some PCA pastors who voted for Obama.
So calling for state control of families is not a stretch for such folks.
"how does that compare to what we pay for a lifetime of dependency?"
Something we ensure against when we send kids to public schools, right?
You have to wonder how many DCS people this guy has known. Many (not all) of them are childless themselves and many (not all) are haters of men.
I spoke with my friend, Pastor Tom Stein, about his oped piece. We had a good conversation and, afterwards, he forwarded this e-mail he's used to respond to those who wrote him complaining about his column:
* * *
Dear -----
I am writing in response to your email about my recent article on home-schooling. I am responding with a generic answer to all the emails, since I have many responsibilities, and since many of the responses presented similar arguments.
First, I ask the forgiveness of you and others who were offended by my article. Early in the article, I made a light-hearted remark about offending people, but that was truly not my intent. Obviously, that was the effect. I pray you will extend the grace of forgiveness to me.
Second, I hope your remarks were in response to my actual article, and not the HSLDA posting about me. I believe that posting was misleading, inflammatory and unfair. To their credit, I believe they did provide a link to the article. Please read it - and make sure you read all of what I said.
Third, you need to know that I have been a pastor for almost 17 years, and I have always had home schoolers in my two congregations. I believe I have always been supportive of them and encouraging to them. If you will re-read (or read) my article, you will notice that I praised those who do it well. I admire them for their commitment and hard work.
Now for a general response: I wish I had written the article differently. As I reflected on it, I realized I should have said this: doesn’t it stink that we have people who do this good thing well (home schooling), and now their efforts are being tarnished by people who are abusing the laws?
I would have gone on to ask, “Does anybody have any good ideas as to how we can protect the freedom of home schoolers, yet address the real concerns that are here?” I say that, because this issue is a real concern here. Some of you accuse me of being misinformed, but you have no idea about the content and weight of the issues surrounding the schools in this community. As citizens, we cannot ignore the issues involved here.
I am no fan of more government involvement. I felt I gently suggested a few ideas as possible ways to address the issues we are facing here. If there are better ways, I am open to them.
As I close, I would offer this: some of your letters were written with respect and even kindness, and some were not. I challenge you to take heed of the way you “speak.” In Colossians 3:12-14, we are given a guide for how we are to treat one another, especially in the body of Christ. I urge you to read it, pray over it, and ask if your words to me met that standard. Disagree with my views if you like, but honor Christ in your disagreement.
I hope my words are helpful.
Grace,
Tom Stein
Wow, discouraging article. And yes, I read the orginal, it didn't get any better reading it ad fontes.
The underlying premise, whether intended as offense or not, is that the state really has responsibility to educate children and if more laws are required to acheive this "noble" end (on which we should 'obviously' agree) then we should make more of said laws and enforce them even if it means losing liberty of conscience for all, and thereby undermining the goals of many in the church. Gotta do what you gotta do for the good of the "state" and to serve the assumed good of the "people" even at the expense of the freedom of the family and by extension the church.
Spheres are a great thing...shame when they are all chucked aside under the false assumption that the state and her supposed well being trumps all.
While we're talking about spheres of responsibility, though, we can't blame the seminaries for the problems of the church. The ordaining and training of men is the work of presbyteries, not seminaries. If we delegate, and I think we can, the buck still stops with us when the wheels fall off.
Add new comment