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?

__________________

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.

__________________
Shalom,
jessi
PCA
Steelers fan exiled to Virginia


“Whatever your heart clings to and confides in, that is really your God.”
Martin Luther

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 worshiping 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.

__________________
Scott
PCA
North Carolina


"Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised)"
Hebrews 10:23

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.

__________________
Toni Cunningham, Wife of Bill (Theognome)
Parkwoods OPC, Overland Park KS

"Vice is a monster of so frightful mien, As, to be hated, needs but to be seen; Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face, We first endure, then pity, then embrace." ~ Alexander Pope

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

__________________
Andrew DeShazo
Husband of Kathryn
Father of Phillip-Giles B. DeShazo
Deacon
Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church, Memphis, TN
"From out of the depth of unbroken Infinfity arose the Question, "Who am I?" And to that Question there is the answer, "I am God!" -Meher Baba, died 1969.

"I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." Christ, died 33 AD, ressurected three days later.

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.

__________________
Kevin, husband of a truly angelic woman, and father to ten.
Zion United Reformed Church of Sheffield
Ontario, Canada

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.

__________________
Zack Flummerfelt
Evangel Presbyterian (PCA), layman
Wichita, KS


As of September 12, 2009 I am married to dear Jlynn!!

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

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

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-----

I hear you, brother.

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.

__________________
N.
PCA, Tennessee
[B]Deuteronomy 6:4-9
Psalm 127:3-5[/B]

[I]Woman was taken out of man; not out of his head to top him, nor out of his feet to be trampled underfoot; but out of his side to be equal to him, under his arm to be protected, and near his heart to be loved.- [/I][B]Matthew Henry[/B]

This is a charge i have heard dispy'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.

__________________
Flavio
Particular Baptist, 1644er
Visiting churches
Bond servant of my Lord Jesus
Husband to Hanna, father to Nathan, Chloe, Caleb, & Lily

kvanlaan,

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

__________________
Adam
Orthodox Presbyterian Church
Deerfield, Illinois
Trinity Evangelical Divinity School Student

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-----

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-----

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.

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-----

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, IMHO, 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-----

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.


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.

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

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.

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.

kvanlaan,

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 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

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.

__________________
Ben
Chaplain, US Army
Ft. Riley, KS
TE Ohio Valley Presbytery, PCA

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.

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:

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 IMO.

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.

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 IMO.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 IMO.




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!

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

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

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

100%

__________________
Martin - Reformed
Husband to the most godly, honorable and loyal wife Line
Searching for a Church
Webpage www.5solas.dk
Free Online Reformed Seminary - http://www.tnars.net
Soli Deo Gloria

I believe that this is the thread being discussed: Biblical Manhood - Voddie Baucham

__________________
Kathleen M
nondenominational
Montana

Amen, brother! I've seen both.

__________________
Brad
Member- Eagle Heights PCA
Winchester, VA

Pro 16:33 The lot is cast into the lap; but the whole disposing thereof is of the LORD.

Isa 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

kvanlaan,

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.

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

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."

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.

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!

__________________
Yvonne
Reformed Presbyterian
Currently seeking a Church

"A man's most glorious actions will at last be found to be but glorious sins, if he hath made himself, and not the glory of God, the end of those actions." -T. Brooks

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.

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

__________________
Scott Shahan
Member of First Evangelical Free Church, EFCA
firstfreesf.org
Sioux Falls, SD

Better is the sin which humbles me, than that duty which makes me proud.
Thomas Watson

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!)

__________________
Mark
Independent baptist
Singapore