Kuyperian, Author at Kuyperian Commentary

On October 29, 2013 By Kuyperian In Culture, Politics, Theology, Wisdom, Worship Like

The KC Team: What’s in a Name? Abraham Kuyper

“On this day in 1907,” writes George Grant, “the entire nation of the Netherlands celebrated the seventieth birthday of Abraham Kuyper (1837-1920). A national proclamation recognized that “the history of the Netherlands, in Church, in State, in Society, in Press, in School, and in the Sciences the last forty years, cannot be written without the mention of his name on almost every page, for during this period the biography of Dr. Kuyper is to a considerable extent the history of the Netherlands.”

To celebrate the birthday of this titanic figure in history, we, Kuyperian Commentators, would like to tell you briefly what we have learned from this giant of history who called us to see the Lordship of Jesus over all things.

Kuyper turned my world upside down! Not only did he engage every sphere of life with a joyful passion, but he provided the intellectual tools to develop a compelling narrative of the Christian Gospel. —Uri Brito, Founder of Kuyperian Commentary.

Kuyper was a man who refused to abandon God’s covenantal blessings in any area of life. We are the heirs of this Kuyperian vision of incarnational theology. That by Christ’s death salvation has come to all men, giving us dominion over death, and all creation has been made new. This is the Gospel. May we live as Kuyper describes here: ” instead of monastic flight from the world the duty is now emphasized of serving God in the world, in every position in life.” — Steve Macias, Kuyperian Commentary Contributor

“The spheres of the world may each have an earthly head, but those heads are all subject to the one sovereign, the Lord Jesus Christ.” — Luke Andrew Welch, Contributor

Kuyper made me more conscious of my tendency to abstract spiritual matters, instead of applying them. A common problem, I know, but Kuyper was the kick in the pants that this guy needed. — Joffre Swait, Contributor

Abraham Kuyper’s life drives me to dream bigger than I feel I ought, and then take one step toward that goal, even if it’s a small one. And then another. And then another. He was a living, breathing, long-suffering, succeeding example of Calvinism at work: an unswerving faith in God’s good plan and an unrelenting struggle to take every thought captive to the obedience of Jesus Christ. —Marc Hays, Contributor

Some of my favorite Kuyper quotes and paraphrases:

“Never forget that all state relief for the poor is a blot on the honor of your savior. The fact that the government needs a safety net to catch those who would slip between the cracks of our economic system is evidence that I have failed t…o do God’s work. The government cannot take the place of Christian charity. A loving embrace isn’t given with food stamps. The care of a community isn’t provided with government housing. The face of our Creator can’t be seen on a welfare voucher. What the poor need is not another government program; what they need is for Christians like me to honor our savior.” ~ Abraham Kuyper, The Problem of Poverty

“If you see a thing, you are called to it.” ^a

“A Christian culture is established through the education of a Christian populace. You cannot teach mathematics apart from God because math implies order, and God is the creator of order.”

“In the midst of corruptions, your duty as an equipped disciple of Christ is to always seek to uphold that which is honorable, that which is lovely and that which is of good report among mankind.”

“Kuyper’s desire for the Netherlands was that the nation would revive and persevere in its Calvinistic heritage with its doctrine of limited government that respects the autonomy of all spheres of authority and thereby guarantees the freedom of its citizens. ” ~ James McGoldrick ^b
— Aaron W Eley, editor and contributor

What has the work of the Holy Spirit through Abraham Kuyper meant in your life?

<>в топ

On October 26, 2013 By Kuyperian In Books, Scribblings Like

Marc Hays: Lust of Flesh and Eyes & Pride of Life

In 2009, Athanasius Press published Peter Leithart’s commentary on 1 John. It is included in their “Through New Eyes” commentary series, and is entitled “From Behind the Veil.” In chapter 5, he elaborates on the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life:

“…John focuses attention on the relationship between the world and “desire.” He enumerates three evil desires, or lusts (epithumia): the lust of the eyes, the lust of the flesh, and the boastful pride of life.

The desires John lists are, first of all, variations on the desires evoked by the tree of knowledge. Eve saw that the tree was good for food, a delight to the eyes, and desirable for wisdom (Gen. 3:6); she was gripped by the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the boastful pride of life. Adam and Eve took the fruit of the tree of knowledge prematurely, but the things they desired from the tree were truly desirable, and God planned eventually to fulfill the desires of Eve’s heart.

In the Old Covenant, Yahweh offered Israel the tree of knowledge in the form of three gifts, and then stored them away in the temple, hidden in the Most Holy Place, until the fullness of time, until Israel became mature enough to receive her inheritance. These are the three gifts in the Ark: a jar of manna, the gift of food and life; the tablets of the law, written with the finger of God, the gift of instruction and wisdom; and the rod of Aaron that had budded with almond blossoms, the gift of authority, the gift of glory. Israel had these gifts in part: they had life in the presence of Yahweh, they had the wisdom of God in Torah, they had a share in the glory of God. But for Israel the fulness of these gifts lay in the future, and the life of each Israelite, and the life of Israel as a nation, was to be directed by the desire for these three gifts, by the anticipation that someday the veil would be rent and the gifts would be opened and distributed freely. Yahweh promised that when he came forth from his tent, he would bring these gifts with him.

That is the gospel, which is, once again, the gospel of the rent veil. In the fulness of time, God sent these gifts not in part but in full. God sent Torah in the flesh, his Eternal Word and Wisdom; the Father sent bread from heaven, the One who is the way, the truth and the life; he exalted humanity to heavenly places to share in his authority to judge. By his death and resurrection, Jesus tore down the veil where the gifts of God had been hidden away. By his death and resurrection, Jesus made these gifts available to anyone who trusts in him. Jesus is the life of God; Jesus is the wisdom of God; Jesus is the glory of the Father, the exact representation and image of his Father. In Jesus we have life and wisdom and royal glory. In Jesus, who is the ark of God, the gifts of God are freely offered to those who are united to Jesus and follow him. He is the tree of knowledge as he is the tree of life. Under the Old Covenant these gifts were holy, taboo, unapproachable. But no longer; now, it’s holy things for holy people.”

Good gifts to be thankful for as we enter into worship tomorrow morning, as we proclaim the Preface and Sanctus together with our kin in Christ atop His holy mountain.

<>site

On October 25, 2013 By Kuyperian In Culture, Family and Children Like

As Temperatures Drop, We’re Getting Warmer

by Marc Hays

Fireplace by Clay Chapman

Three years ago, while building our house, we installed both a chimney and an electric heat pump. The heat pump was for present use. The chimney was for the future, standing cold and dormant while the heat pump did its work. For all the benefits that it does have, there is something missing from the heat pump experience; something crucial, like heat. Although a heat pump keeps the pipes from freezing, one cannot stand over the grate and actually get warm. Instead, there’s a draft– a mildly lukewarm breeze that actually sends chills down my spine just thinking about it.

Last winter, due to rising energy prices coupled with the desire to complete one of my several unfinished projects, I built a brick hearth and installed a Buck stove. My wife was very happy to see the electric bill drop, as expected. I was happy to check one thing off my chore list, as expected. The wood was happy to burn and the smoke happy to rise, but then something unexpected happened. The living room got warm. I mean, I knew it would get warm. Fire tends to do that sort of thing, but the room actually became a place where you wanted to be. The room became cozy.

Like moths to a flame, the children began to congregate around the wood stove. Puzzles, board games, books, Legos and baby dolls made their way out of the nether regions of the house and assembled in the living room. Since there’s no TV in that room, the children did things with one another, and unlike the lukewarm air that used to be forced into the rooms, the children were not. They gathered and played quite naturally.

Fireplace by Clay Chapman

Now on Saturdays we drive the crew cab into the woods, fell the trees, and cut them into pint-size pieces. My pint-size people load them into the truck and then unload them behind the house. As a family, we are together more, and more importantly, we are working together more.

As idyllic as all this sounds, however, we are not the perfect family. We bring our sin into the living room with us, and quarrels are kindled more often than the fire. We have miles and miles left to go before we reach our destination, but by the grace of God through an old Buck stove, we’re getting warmer.

Check out more of Clay Chapman’s work at periodarchitecture.com

<>site

On October 22, 2013 By Kuyperian In Scribblings Like

Uri Brito: The Myths of the Reformation

Over at my blog I began a short series on Reformation myths. Surely there are more, but I chose four. These are short readings. Take a look.<> продвижение а в 10 yandex

On October 19, 2013 By Kuyperian In Scribblings Like

Marc Hays: Your Weekly Dose of Rosenstock

I hope the owners of the copyright for Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy’s Out of Revolution don’t mind these regular quotes. If they do, I’ll send them the royalties. Maybe if some you go and buy the book, they’ll consider this an effective advertising campaign and send me a check. Hint, hint.

I’ve had the opportunity to read for several hours today, and I continue to be “blown away” by the narrative of Western Civilization’s Autobiography as told by Rosenstock-Huessy. I’m still working my way through the portion on Lenin and the 1st and 2nd Russian Revolutions. Here’s a gem from today’s reading:

“The materialistic outlook of the Marxists was much truer than they imagined. According to their own theory, changes in economic conditions create new thoughts in men; but in spite of this fact, most of the Russians believed in 1917 that the dream of a world revolution could be realized after a World War. They habitually overlooked the fact that the War itself had created new economic conditions unknown to Marx. The soldiers of the Great War, in their humble and unconscious role as soldiers, made the real revolution. Like Hamlet, they could say to any Marxian dogmatist, “our withers are unwrung.”

When the French bourgeoisie began to take the first steps toward revolt, about 1750, its leaders had in mind specific economic conditions and abuses which were recurrent for the next forty years. The Great War, on the other hand, made a complete change in the economic conditions of the world. Not until the depression of 1929 was the change taken seriously. Prophets, Cassandras, demagogues, had foretold it; but the overwhelming majority of governments and parties had tried to return to the conditions of 1914. These conditions were progress, bigger and better conditions of living, an upward trend for everything, a cheering up from year to year. In so far, the Communists in the Kremlin shared the illusions of the people who held the World Fair of a Century of Progress in Chicago as late as 1933. For had not Socialism and Marxism been born under pre-War conditions? According to the Marxian creed itself, how could a theory be workable after a change in its material government? It was a triumph of Marxism over the Marxists when the Great War, a real and substantial material fact, proved to be of more importance than any volition on the part of parties or individuals. The World War was a World Revolution: it ended Marxism as it ended liberalism.”

You’ll find the book for sale here.<>поиск ключевых слов

On October 19, 2013 By Kuyperian In Scribblings Like

Marc Hays: Paul Johnson on Karl Marx

In his 1988 book, Intellectuals, Paul Johnson analyzes, scrutinizes, and then shreds some of the most pivotal thinkers in modern history. In the opening essay he reveals his overall plan to the reader:

One of the most marked characteristics of the new secular intellectuals was the relish with which they subjected religion and its protagonists to critical scrutiny. How far had they benefited or harmed humanity, these great systems of faith? To what extent had these popes and pastors lived up to their precepts, of purity and truthfulness, of charity and benevolence? The verdicts pronounced on both churches and clergy were harsh. Now, after two centuries during which the influence of religion has continued to decline, and secular intellectuals have played an ever-growing role in shaping our attitudes and institutions, it is time to examine their record, both public and personal. In particular, I want to focus on the moral and judgmental credentials of intellectuals to tell mankind how to conduct itself. How did they run their own lives? With what degree of rectitude did they behave to family, friends and associates? Were they just in their sexual and financial dealings? Did they tell, and write, the truth? And how have their own systems stood up to the test of time and praxis?

In other words, this is one table of contents that you do not want to see your name in. There are 13 chapters covering the likes of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Karl Marx, Henrik Ibsen, Leo Tolstoy, Ernest Hemingway, Bertrand Russell, and Jean-Paul Sartre. Each chapter is an essay about 30 pages long. The chapters cohere under the subject heading, but they also stand on their own as individual academic essays. This makes the book a good one to keep handy, in case you find yourself in need of a good, short read.

Tutoring an economics course to my 9th grade Classical Conversations students, I’ve found myself enamored with the study of Karl Marx. As I introduce the students to the virtues of the Austrian, Monetarist system, I also paint them a contrasting picture of communism: a dark picture where Marxism, in the words of John Dos Passos, “not only failed to promote human freedom, it failed to produce food.” Johnson’s brief study of Marx is, in fact, the reason that I picked up Intellectuals in the first place.

Here’s an example of Johnson’s critique from the chapter, “Karl Marx: Howling Gigantic Curses,”

What Marx could not or would not grasp, because he made no effort to understand how industry worked, was that from the very dawn of the Industrial Revolution, 1760-90, the most efficient manufacturers, who had ample access to capital, habitually favored better conditions for their workforce; they tended to support factory legislation and, what was equally important, its effective enforcement, because it eliminated what they regarded as unfair competition. So conditions improved, the workers failed to rise, as Marx predicted they would. The prophet was thus confounded. What emerges from a reading of Capital is Marx’s fundamental failure to understand capitalism. He failed precisely because he was unscientific: he would not investigate the facts himself, or use objectively the facts investigated by others. From start to finish, not just Capital but all his work reflects a disregard for truth which at times amounts to contempt. This is the primary reason why Marxism, as a system, cannot produce the results claimed for it; and to call it ‘scientific’ is preposterous.

He concludes the chapter by examining the personal aspects of Marx’s character that shaped his ‘poetic vision’: “his taste for violence, his appetite for power, his inability to handle money, and, above all, his tendency to exploit those around him.”

If you find yourself studying, or think you might one day study, any of the men or women listed in the table of contents of Intellectuals, you would do well to add this volume to your library.

You can buy it on Amazon here.

<>site

On October 17, 2013 By Kuyperian In Worship Like

Good things badly

Guest Post by Benjamin Miller

I don’t usually write about personal pet peeves, but recently one of mine got triggered, and I’m inspired to write about it, so . . . there.

I’m from the neck of the ecclesiastical woods known as “conservative” and “Reformed.” We’re known for small churches that keep to the old paths. I love the old paths; I can’t say I’m crazy about the smallness – I certainly don’t regard it as a virtue – but it depends on why we’re small. Which brings me to my pet peeve.

I hear all the time from leaders of small churches that are struggling in various ways: “Well, we don’t need to concern ourselves with results or numbers; we just need to be faithful doing what God has told us to do, and leave the outcomes to Him.”

This sounds really good. It has a nice pure ring to it. Do your duty. Be faithful at it. Let God be God. I’m down with all of that.

But one thing I almost never hear in conjunction with this is the possibility – just the possibility, mind you – that we’re doing all the right stuff, but doing it really badly. We’re preaching the Word every Sunday. That’s a good thing, but what if our preaching is just plain boring? We’re maintaining tried-and-true traditions in worship, but what if our liturgy is desultory or plodding? What if the whole atmosphere of our worship is stale, yea, even funereal? We’re not out there “peddling” the gospel with gimmicks and glamor, but what if our outreach (and our inreach, for that matter) is dull, unimaginative, uninspired, and pretty darn pessimistic (not that we expect bad things to happen; we just don’t expect much of anything to happen)? We’re Christ-centered, but what if we talk about Christ in a way that leaves Him apparently disconnected not only from the everyday life of the guy who walks in off the street, but even from the lives of most of the people nodding (take it as you will) in the pew?

I’ve sat through “faithful” Reformed sermons that were simply horrible; you didn’t have to be a communications major to figure it out. I’ve listened to sermons full of true sayings about God and the gospel that were so badly constructed, so hard to follow, so freighted with in-house jargon, so gloomy, so emotionally manipulative, so interminable, and/ or so out of touch with the real world, that all I wanted was to go stretch my legs – and I’m a pastor, for crying out loud. I’m supposed to like sermons.

Don’t even get me started on the stuff that happens before and after the sermon. I’ve been trotted at breakneck pace through liturgies without a moment to get my emotional bearings. I’ve puzzled my way through liturgies without any discernible theme or logical order. I’ve sat through good liturgies led by people who, to all appearances, couldn’t wait for it to be over. I’ve heard prayers that droned on for twenty minutes, followed by sharp admonitions about failure to stay focused. I’ve been subjected to song selections and congregational singing that would soothe the dead. It’s all “faithful.” It’s all doing our duty. It’s all – in principle – good stuff. And I think we ought to be ashamed of ourselves.

Then there’s the whole outward face of the church. We small conservative Reformed folk aren’t known for caring about reaching the lost – if God wants them to come, they’ll come; and if He’s really working in their hearts, they’ll love bad sermons and boring worship as much as we do. (I exaggerate mildly for effect.) Amazingly, this is sometimes true. People do come to worship, and they do sometimes stay. I wonder, though: Why are we so bad at taking the gospel out to where everyday life happens? Why doesn’t our message seem to “connect” outside the walls of the church? Why don’t we work harder at meeting people where they actually live, talking about questions they’re actually asking, using media to which they can actually relate? Why do we think preaching the Word and administering the sacraments inside the four walls of the church is where all the action is, and fail to develop anything approximating excellence in taking the Word out into the world? What’s with all these drab, outdated websites (if we have them at all); church leaders who are social media illiterate; and “outreach” events that consist of handing out church postcards door to door? Are we trying to be ineffective? Worse, are we self-satisfied because, after all, we’re doing our duty behind closed doors every Sunday? Really?

There’s no excuse for doing good things badly. There’s no excuse for poor preaching, deadness in worship, or outreach literature that looks like it was printed twenty years ago. “At Iconium,” writes Luke, the apostles “spoke in such a way that a great number of both Jews and Greeks believed” (Acts 14:1). This isn’t a denial of God’s sovereignty; it’s a simple statement of human responsibility. Preach like Jesus really is the Logos and communication matters. Worship in a way that’s well thought-out, engaging, lively, and participatory. Act like you expect the gospel to do something, in worship and outside the walls of the church. Cultivate good ideas, stuff that will grab people’s attention. Tell great stories that lead naturally to the Great Story. Be creative: think about how to relate the gospel to the real lives of real people out in the real world who have never heard the term “effectual calling.” Speak in such a way, inside and outside the church, that people believe. Who knows? Maybe God will start to fill our small churches, and not only we but also thousands of others will have great cause to glorify His name.

Ben Miller is the organizing pastor of Trinity Church in Huntington, New York. he blogs at Relocating To Elfland.<>seo услуги продвижение ов в yandex

On October 12, 2013 By Kuyperian In Culture Like

Faithful In Facial Follicles

by Marc Hays

That’s me. I’ve had a mustache and goatee for about 13 years–nonstop facial follicles. There has never been an urge to shave them because I didn’t grow them by accident. They are not merely the result of not shaving. They are a result of a principled not-shaving.

Prior to my present state of faithful, facial follicility, I was fickle. I tried on a mustache to look older and to look more “cowboyish.” The Justins, the Wranglers, and the Stetson only displayed my desire to look more cowboyish, which was not the intended effect. The accompanying mustache only made me look like I wanted to look older. It didn’t actually accomplish that either. So, I got rid of the whole look.

A few years later, the decision to grow my mustache and goatee was different. I’m not sure where I heard it, maybe Douglas Wilson, but I remember hearing someone talk about the fact that facial hair was distinctively male. Beards are distinctively male, and this is probably not news to anyone. For a man to have a beard is entirely natural, and at one level, intrinsically laudable. By that I mean that no number of effeminate, beard-donning men can change the nature of a beard from that which is masculine into something else; it will forever be a badge of the sex of the one who wears it.

However, a woman with a beard would more than likely be seeking laser hair removal. It would in no way be a badge of her femininity and would instead be source of embarrassment. So far, no amount of egalitarianism has managed to convince Madison Avenue to market Rogaine specially designed for a woman’s chin; although the day it happens, I will not be surprised. An anti-beard advocate once told me that he thought that beards made a man look feminine, and I’m still trying to figure that one out. Needless to say, he did not convince me, and I have been in the state of facially-follicled felicity ever since.

As an aside, one might ask me, “Why just the goatee? Why not the full meal deal?” Well, the Apostle Paul says that in whatever state a man finds himself, he should be content. I have zero sideburns and the cheeks are in need of some major, facial, follicle fertilizer. I’ve grown it all out before and I looked like a teenaged, Mennonite boy attempting to grow a beard and not quite yet accomplishing it. I keep it at the goatee level so that I can say I have accomplished my task rather than forever be trying to get it done. (Those of you fellas that are in that “teenaged Mennonite boy” stage but are still just letting it grow, I applaud you.)

One more thought concerning the masculine aspect of beardedness. In the face of some terribly immature behavior by some heavily-bearded men, a wise woman–a paragon of femininity, once said, “The man makes the beard. The beard does not make the man.” G. K. Chesterton could not have said it better, which means it could not have been said better.

So, as we bearded ones look in the mirror, or scratch our chins, or wipe the soup out of it when our wives give us the subtle clue, may we forever remember that we have been called to be men, which means far more than allowing the pores on our faces to do what comes by them naturally. We are called to be like the Son of Man, who was the only one to ever live up to his beard, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

<>биржа текстов

On October 12, 2013 By Kuyperian In Scribblings Like

Marc Hays: Rosenstock-Huessy on Tolstoi and Dostoevski

In his 1938 work, Out of Revolution, Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy spends nearly 100 pages on Russia, Marx, Lenin, and the Russian Revolution. Tucked in between his discussion of Marxism and his introduction of Lenin, he diverges into a brief aside about the importance of Fyodor Dostoevski (1821-1881) and Leo Tolstoi (1828-1910.) For your Saturday morning reading pleasure, here’s his summary:

“Tolstoi–not exiled to Siberia like Dostoevski, but living as a voluntary hermit in the social prison of his environment, Tolstoi, the wizard of Yasnaya Polyana–became the centre of enlightenment for the Eastern nations. His letters, published by Paul Biriukov, are full of political counsel for the emancipation of Asia. The importance of the Russian revolution for Asia is well illustrated by Tolstoi’s influence.

Leo Tolstoi

He too offers no solution of the social question. Less orthodox than Dostoevski, he even taunts the church which he detests. The Sermon on the Mount, the sermon to the masses, is all he keeps of the Christian tradition, dropping as he does all that Jesus taught in the inner circle of the disciples. Tolstoi, who is a saint in Russia even today, [written in 1938, M.H.], prepared the way for the Revolution by his song of the majesty of the people. Dostoevski revealed the individual. Tolstoi’s theme is the majesty of the people, not the nation in the Western sense of the word. The people’s face is like that of the simple Moujik. As long as it is not corrupted by consciousness, as long as it does not ask for a constitution, the people in its pre-Adamitic stage that lies before all political volition opens like a door so that the higher power may enter and take possession of the soul.

To be sure, Tolstoi has no solutions to offer. But by his assertion he destroys everything superimposed upon his genuine layer of “the people.” Tolstoi and Dostoevski together composed a new creed. One gave to it his doctrine of the weak and trembling individual, the other enriched it by his faith in the majesty of the people, which reacts like the ocean, the cornfield, the forest, because it is patient, passive, obedient.

Fyodor Dostoevski

The Revolution itself practically abolished literature. The statistician superceded the novelist. The poet was a man, “in the air,” as the term is. One of the better novels of post-war Russia is called Concrete. Concrete took the place of the air, economy the place of poetry.”<>регистрация а в google контент а это

On October 10, 2013 By Kuyperian In Culture Like

Public Schools–Mohler, McDurmon, and Christianity Today

by Marc Hays

One month ago, Answers in Genesis published an article by Dr. R. Albert Mohler, Jr. entitled “Is Public School An Option?” In it he addresses the brief history of public schools as well as the more recent “progressivist” agenda of John Dewey and his fellow humanists. Dr. Mohler then addresses the “political and ideological” secularization of the public schools. He states, “The ideological revolution

has been even more damaging than the political change. Those who set educational policy are now overwhelmingly committed to a radically naturalistic and evolutionistic worldview that sees the schools as engines of social revolution. The classrooms are being transformed rapidly into laboratories for ideological experimentation and indoctrination. The great engines for Americanization are now forces for the radicalization of everything from human sexuality to postmodern understandings of truth and the meaning of texts. Compulsory sex education, the creation of “comprehensive health clinics,” revisionist understandings of American history, Darwinian understandings of science and humanity, and a host of other ideological developments now shape the norm in the public school experience. If these developments have not come to your local school, they almost surely will soon.”

He wraps up by re-asking his opening question, “Is public school an option?” He answers,

For Christians who take the Christian worldview seriously and who understand the issues at stake, the answer is increasingly no. The number of Christian parents coming to this conclusion increases each year. We can understand the nostalgia that many Christians hold about the public schools. I spent every minute of my school life from the first grade to high school graduation in a public school. And yet, I saw the ideological transformation of the schools before my own eyes. Long ago, the public schools entered a Brave New World from which no retreat now seems possible.”

You can read it in its entirety here.

Most often, when one offers his opinion publicly, some folks will think he went too far, other folks will be sure he didn’t go far enough, and still others will say he’s just plain wrong. Such is life, and I’m sure Dr. Mohler is not taken aback by this. He’s been at this a while.

One very recent, very popular article that would most assuredly disagree with Dr. Mohler’s answer was published on Christianity Today’s website on October 7. It is entitled “Why we send our kids to the poorest public school” and was written by Jennifer Slate. The subtitle is, “It’s not just my own kids’ well-being that matters anymore.” In the article Mrs. Slate rejoices in how God has used the trials and hardships of being involved with extremely poor children in their public school to open doors of Christian ministry in their lives. She sounds like a very dedicated mother and neighbor and sees all these ministry opportunities being made possible via their involvement in the public school system. Toward the end of the article she states,

But it is worth it. Not only for the other children to have experiences of dignity and hope and joy, not only for my children who are learning that everyone is not just like them, and that the world doesn’t revolve around them either. It is worth it also for me. I am trusting God, and trusting that the “best life” is this one that he has given us. Trusting that he is the One ultimately working for common good, trusting that he is inviting me to work with him, and with all the other families, teachers, coaches, and neighbors here.

She never expressly disagrees with anyone’s position nor does she malign those who would educate their children at home or a private institution, but she’s believes she and her family would be less active in the kingdom if that was the case for them.

It would be fairly easy to take my children back to an all-white, all-Christian, all-moneyed, educated world. And in times of doubt, I think about doing it.

Lots of folks are enjoying this article. It’s up to about 14,000 Facebook “likes” as I write this. You can join that number by clicking here.

Another author believes Dr. Mohler did not go far enough. His name is Dr. Joel McDurmon and has published a critique over at The American Vision. His article is entitled, “Al Mohler calls for public school exodus, sort of.” Dr. McDurmon begins by stating that Dr. Mohler begins “laudably.” Dr. McDurmon’s concluding assessment contains far less approbation,

So when he [Dr. Mohler] concludes, “Is public school an option? For Christians who take the Christian worldview seriously and who understand the issues at stake, the answer is increasingly no,” I have to remain a bit miffed. While I am thankful if this leads more Christians to abandon public schools, they will be doing it with misguided thinking, and they will be liable to return to the mire. Indeed, some will be tempted to stay there based upon even the slightest excuse, merely because Mohler hinted that public schools may be an option for some. The correct answer he should have given his readers is not “increasingly no,” but “No, never, and should have never.

You can read it all here.

So there you go. Three opinions on a very hot topic right now in Christendom. Read all three. Study hard. Then, make wise, biblical decisions concerning the paideia and nouthesia of your covenant children.

Ephesians 6:4 – Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord.

<>