Douglas Wilson

What the Lord’s Brothers and Sisters Knew

Douglas Wilson on December 22, 2013

Introduction

Jesus had four brothers, and at least two sisters (Mark 6:3; Matt. 13:55-56). The names of His brothers were James, Joses, Judah, and Simon. James was the author of the book of James, and Judah was the author of the book of Jude (Jude 1:1). With Joseph and Mary having that number of children, it would not be hard for their descendants to number in the many millions today. You ought to be nicer to the person you are sitting next to— they might be related to Jesus. But of course, as we will see, the Lord calculates the importance of these things differently.

The Text

“His brethren therefore said unto him, Depart hence, and go into Judaea, that thy disciples also may see the works that thou doest. For there is no man that doeth any thing in secret, and he himself seeketh to be known openly. If thou do these things, shew thyself to the world. For neither did his brethren believe in him. Then Jesus said unto them, My time is not yet come: but your time is alway ready. The world cannot hate you; but me it hateth, because I testify of it, that the works thereof are evil. Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up yet unto this feast; for my time is not yet full come. When he had said these words unto them, he abode still in Galilee. But when his brethren were gone up, then went he also up unto the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret” (Jn. 7:3-10).

Summary of the Text

At this point in the Lord’s ministry, the Lord’s brothers were not persuaded by Him. They were not believers. They were pious Jews, observing the Feast of Booths here, but they did not believe the claims Jesus was making. They taunted Him—if you want to make a name for Yourself with these miracles that You are doing, you need to go to the big city to do them (vv. 3-4). The text then says explicitly that they were talking this way because they did not believe in Him. The reply that Jesus makes to them shows the true nature of the true antithesis. Jesus says that every time is “their time,” but His time has not yet come (v. 6). The world cannot hate them, which means that in some fundamental way, they were still part of the world system (v. 7). Members of His immediate family belonged to “the world.” Jesus, however, testified to the world that its works were evil— in a way that His brothers could not do. He told them to go up to the Feast, which they did (vv. 8-9). Jesus followed later, but went secretly (v. 10).

Sorting Some Things Out

Several of the disciples were named James also. One was a son of Alphaeus (Acts 1:13). Another was a son of Zebedee, brother to John, and he was martyred by Herod (Acts 12:1-2). A third James, James the Lord’s brother, was a leader in the church at Jerusalem, and was called James the Just by Hegesippus, a second century historian. This James is the one who wrote the book of James. His brother Jude, another half brother to the Lord, wrote the book of Jude.

True Relations

All the references we have to the Lord’s siblings prior to the resurrection indicate that they were not impressed with Him. We have the evidence of our text in John 7, of course, and in Mark, when Jesus made His first big “stir,” they showed up at the crowded house in order to take Him in hand. We see this by the response the Lord gave to them.

“There came then his brethren and his mother, and, standing without, sent unto him, calling him. And the multitude sat about him, and they said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee. And he answered them, saying, Who is my mother, or my brethren? And he looked round about on them which sat about him, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother” (Mark 3:31-35).

In the third century, blood relatives of the Lord were called desposyni, those belonging to the master. Now something like that would be fun to discover on ancestry.com, but look at how the Lord places it all in perspective. Anyone can be His brother, His sister, or His mother. How? By doing the will of God.

The Impact of the Resurrection

So before the resurrection, to the extent we have information about it, it shows that the Lord’s siblings did not believe in Him. We know that Mary did believe in Him, but there were family dynamics going on. But immediately after the resurrection, everything apparently changed. After the resurrection, we don’t have any record of unbelief in the Lord’s family. James, the Lord’s brother, is reckoned among the apostles (Gal. 1:19), and a pillar in the church (Gal. 2:9). The Lord’s brothers were reckoned among those in ministry (1 Cor. 9:5). The key appears to have been the fact that Jesus made an appearance to James after the resurrection (1 Cor. 15:7).

What is Faith?

Scripture tells us that faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God (Rom. 10:17). Scripture tells us that faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen (Heb. 11:1). But most of all, we see in Scripture that faith is a gift, a grace, a present (Eph. 2:8-10).

The gift is not automatic. Someone could have grown up right next to Jesus—in the bedroom next to His—and not have faith. Proximity does not create faith. An encounter with the risen Christ does.

We understand the connection between the baby Jesus and the risen Jesus because we have heard the entire story. But some want a sentimental Christmas with the baby Jesus only. If He stays in the crib, He can’t mess around with my life. Genuine faith cannot function in this way.

What Mary Knew

Douglas Wilson on December 15, 2013

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Introduction

Last week we considered what Joseph knew, and obviously Mary knew all the same things, and for the same reason. But she had more direct experience with the marvels that came to earth through her. For example, the angelic communication with Joseph came through dreams, but came to her directly.

The Text

“And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women” (Luke 1:28).

Summary of the Text

At the Annunciation, the angel Gabriel was sent to Nazareth in order to deliver a message from God to a virgin named Mary (Luke 1:26). Mary is the English form of her name—to those who knew her at the time, she was Miriam. This is of course the verse from which the famous Hail, Mary prayer is derived, and so we must note a few things about that. The word hail here is simply a respectful greeting by the angel, not a prayer of supplication. He implies the name of Mary without saying it, and notes that she is “greatly blessed,” which the source of the phrase “full of grace.” The distinction is that Gabriel is saying that she is a recipient of grace here, not that she is a reservoir of it for others. And of course, the Latin form of Hail, Mary is Ave, Maria.

Provided we understand these words in their original context, there is nothing wrong with Protestants saying or singing these words—they are in the Bible. To refuse to do so is the display the very kind of superstition we think we are objecting to.

Sorting Some Things Out

Because a cult of Mary grew up in the history of the Church, and certain problematic doctrines came out of that, we have to take a moment to define our terms. As Protestants, we affirm the virgin birth of Jesus Christ. That is to say, we affirm that at the time of Christ’s birth, Mary was still a virgin, never having known a man. This is a distinct doctrine from the perpetual virginity of Mary, which we do not affirm. (This is why we have a comma in our use of the Apostles Creed—“born of a virgin, Mary”). The title the Virgin Mary refers to a permanent status. That is the doctrine that Mary was a virgin throughout the course of her entire life, along with the doctrine that the birth of Jesus was a distinct miracle, not violating Mary’s virginity. Some early Reformers (Luther, Latimer, and Cranmer) held to the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity, but it was rightly abandoned by Protestants fairly early. As we noted last week, Jesus had at least six siblings, and Matthew tells us that Joseph refrained from having relations with Mary until after the birth of Jesus (Matt. 1:25).

Another phrase we should be familiar with is the immaculate conception. This is commonly (and wrongly) assumed to refer to the conception of Jesus in Mary’s womb, when it is actually referring to the conception of Mary in the womb of her mother— who, according to tradition, was named Anne. The concern was to make Mary sinless by a miracle, in order to be a fit receptacle for the sinless Messiah. As long as we are here, we should mention another common confusion—the Ascension of Jesus should not be confused with the Roman doctrine of the Assumption of Mary.

And then, of course, Americans have complicated things by dragging these terms into discussions of football— the Hail Mary pass, and the famous Immaculate Reception by Franco Harris of the Steelers.

Taking Care of Background Assumptions

When discussions of prayers to the saints (and to Mary) come up, as they do from time to time, many Protestants don’t know how to answer this argument. We ask one another to pray for each other all the time. We do it in this service. Why can’t we ask dead saints to pray for us in the same way that we ask living saints to pray for us? Why do you have to be alive on earth to pray? The answer is that you have to assume functional omniscience on the part of whatever deceased person you are talking do, and this shapes everything else you do. It becomes, of necessity, a prayer, and not a simple request to a fellow saint.

Now it is a shame we have to spend a lot of time removing clutter in order to develop a biblically high view of Mary. But that is why we should be doing it.

What Mary Knew

We do not know this from Scripture, but based on the customs of the time, Mary was probably between 14 and 16 years of age when Jesus was born. As we consider the remarkable faith of this remarkable young woman, we should meditate on the following things that we know Mary knew.

Mary knew her Bible: “My soul doth magnify the Lord, and my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour (1 Sam. 2:1; Hab. 3:18; Is. 61:10; Deut. 32:3). For he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden: For, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed (1 Sam. 1:11). For he that is mighty hath done to me great things; and holy is his name (Ps. 71:19; 1 Sam. 2:2). And his mercy is on them that fear him from generation to generation (Ps. 103:17). He hath shewed strength with his arm; He hath scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts (Ps. 89:13). He hath put down the mighty from their seats, and exalted them of low degree (1 Sam. 2:8; Job. 5:11). He hath filled the hungry with good things; and the rich he hath sent empty away (1 Sam. 2:5; Ps. 107:9). He hath holpen his servant Israel, in remembrance of his mercy (Is. 41:8-9; Ps. 98:2) as he spake to our fathers, to Abraham, and to his seed for ever (Gen. 15 & 17)” (Luke 1:46-55).

Mary knew her calling: After the angel had announced God’s intention for her, and explained it, and answered a basic question, Mary responded with a spirit of glorious submission (Luke 1:38). She did this, knowing that it would result in a very hard conversation with Joseph—and possibly others. This was not a “no cost” obedience. Mary knew her salvation: She knew that Jesus would have an everlasting throne (Luke 1:32). She knew her child would be called the Son of God (Luke 1:35). She knew God was her Savior (Luke 1:47). She knew Jesus was that Savior (Luke 2:11). She knew that He was the salvation of the entire world (Luke 2:32). She knew that a sword would pierce her own soul (Luke 2:35). And she was there when it all happened (John 19:25).

What Joseph Knew

Douglas Wilson on December 8, 2013

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Introduction

Before discussing what Joseph knew, we should perhaps begin by considering what we know about Joseph. Despite the fact that we tend to assume we know very little, we may be surprised to discover how much in fact we do know. This is even more surprising when we consider that in the entire scriptural narrative, Joseph never says a word.

The Text

“And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ” (Matt. 1:16).

Summary of the Text

Matthew gives us an account of the genealogy of Joseph, descended from David, meaning that Christ’s covenantal lineage was Davidic, as well as His physical lineage (through Mary) being also, as is likely, Davidic. The fact that genealogies are given the place they have in Scripture should indicate to us that they are important, and not given to us so that we might have occasion to roll our eyes at all the begats.

What We Know

We know that Joseph’s father was a man named Jacob (Matt. 1:16). We know that Joseph was of the royal Davidic line (Matt. 1:6). Luke makes a point of telling us this (Luke 1:27), just as the angel had called Joseph a son of the house of David. We know that Joseph was a good man, both righteous and merciful (Matt. 1:19). We know that he was a prophet—an angel appeared to him in a dream and gave him a word from God (Matt. 1:20). We know that Joseph was an obedient man—when he woke from sleep, he did just what the angel had commanded him in that dream (Matt. 1:24). When the Lord’s life was in danger, God entrusted the protection of the Messiah to Joseph, sending an angelic warning in a second dream (Matt. 2:13). God led that family through the head of the family. After Herod died, God gave Joseph a third dream (Matt. 2:19). We know that the legal and covenantal lineage of Jesus was reckoned through Joseph, because that is how Jesus came to be born in Bethlehem (Luke 2:4), and the prophet had insisted that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2).

When the shepherds came, they found Joseph together with Mary and Jesus (Luke 2:16). We know that Joseph was diligent to keep the law (Luke 2:27). When Simeon blessed Jesus, Mary and Joseph together marveled at what was said (Luke 2:33). Given what they heard from Simeon and Anna (and from Elizabeth, and from Mary herself), they knew a great deal. And don’t forget the shepherds and the wise men. They knew something huge was up. Remember that Joseph was the second person on earth to believe in the virgin birth, Mary being the first and she almost doesn’t count.

We think we know that Joseph was a carpenter, which he might have been (Matt. 13:55). In the parallel account in Mark (Mark 6:3), Jesus Himself is called a carpenter. The word in both occasions is tekton. The word can refer to a swinger of hammers, but it could also mean builder (as in, contractor), or even architect. In fact, our word architect comes from this word—archon + tekton. We know that whatever business he had, it wasn’t off the ground yet when Jesus was born. The offering they presented at the Temple for Jesus was two turtledoves, the offering available for poor people (Luke 2:24). This also may have had something to do with the “newlywed” adventure they had in Bethlehem, when they couldn’t get a room in an inn.

Joseph lived long enough to be present when Jesus was twelve (Luke 2:43), and we know that he is absent from the narrative after that. At the same time, we may infer from the number of Christ’s siblings that Joseph lived well past the Lord’s twelfth birthday. Jesus was the eldest of at least seven, which normally wouldn’t fit within twelve years (Mark 6:13).

The Namesake

The name Joseph means God will increase, like the Puritan name Increase Mather. It is a name that denotes blessing and abundance. Joseph of the Old Testament sheds some light on Joseph, the husband of Mary. For example, both men shared a name, and both of their fathers shared the name of Jacob (Gen. 30:23-24; Matt. 1:16). Rachel named Joseph Increase because that is what she was looking for—and received in the birth of Benjamin. The one through whom all God’s promises would come to fruition and increase, Mary, was protected and cared for by a man named Increase. Both Josephs had prophetic dreams. Both Josephs were righteous men. Both were connected in some way to a sexual scandal involving false accusation. Both of them were a wonderful combination of integrity and compassion. Both went down into Egypt and were thereby means of saving their respective families. Both were used by God to provide for a starving world.

Just and Merciful

In the Scriptures, justice and mercy are not at odds with each other. “Mercy and truth are met together; righteousness and peace have kissed each other” (Ps. 85:10).

In Deuteronomy 22:23-24, we are given the death penalty for a betrothed woman who committed adultery. Such commandments were never meant to be applied woodenly, but rather with a firm grasp of the principles involved. For example, consider what the law says about the city limits. Now, under the rule of the Romans, it would not be possible for the Jews to apply such a law. One of the things we see in the New Testament is the use of the ultimate penalty from another government in lieu of the one excluded by an unbelieving government. And thus it is we see Paul requiring excommunication at Corinth, while citing this and four other places that required execution. In the same way, a family could apply disinheritance or divorce. This is something that Joseph is resolved to do.

But we are told something else. We are told that Joseph had a tender heart (Matt. 1:19), and that this was an example of his commitment to justice. Joseph, we are told was a just and righteous man, and because of this, he was resolved to do the right thing, but without humiliating Mary publicly. We know that Jesus grew up in a home that could not have seen Joseph as one of the men with stones in the famous incident of the woman caught in the act of adultery (John 8:7).

What Joseph Knew

We may presume that what Joseph marveled at was part of what he knew. At a bare minimum, Joseph knew that the salvation of Jews and Gentiles both was growing up in his home. “For mine eyes have seen thy salvation, which thou hast prepared before the face of all people; A light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel” (Luke 2:29-32).

And here we find our gospel conclusion.

Why Children Matter #4

Douglas Wilson on December 1, 2013

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Q&A

Introduction

Biblical parenting is much more than a bag of tips and techniques. Techniques are helpful if you are learning to paint-by-numbers, but that is not the kind of thing we are doing when we are bringing up little children. Godly parenting is a function of becoming more like Jesus in the presence of little ones, who are also in the process of becoming more like Jesus.

The Text

“For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel. Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me. For this cause have I sent unto you Timotheus, who is my beloved son, and faithful in the Lord, who shall bring you into remembrance of my ways which be in Christ, as I teach every where in every church” (1 Cor. 4:15-17).

“Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ” (1 Cor. 11:1).

Summary of the Text

The word translated as follower in both texts is mimetes—imitator. In this passage, we learn that real Christian discipleship is driven by a paradigm that is much more familial than it is like a lecture hall. One father is worth ten thousand instructors (v. 15). For that reason, Paul pleads (because he knows the example is good) for the Corinthians to be his imitators (v. 16). This is why he sent Timothy to be with them—he was a beloved son, which meant that they could imitate the grandfather, Paul, through the son. The son would help bring them into remembrance (v. 17). In our second text, we learn that we are imitating an imitator (1 Cor. 11:1). The pattern was not set by Paul, but rather by the Lord Jesus. He imitated Christ, and we are to imitate him. One of the central things we must imitate is the pattern of imitation itself.

Two Kinds of Imitation

Last week I said that true progress in godliness is something that occurs through imitation. But because human beings are necessarily imitators, the same thing is true of ungodliness. We make progress in that by imitation also. We learn by imitation, but we envy that way too. We have to learn how to copy without ego-comparing. If the whole process is occurring “in Christ,” then we are safe. Outside Him, everything is deadly.

Another tell is this. When we are imitating biblically, the more we do it, the more we become like ourselves— naturally, easily, and as a heavenly grace. The more we ego-copy, the more tangled up we get, the more envious we become, and the more like to lash out we are. The first are last, and the last are first (Mark 9:35).

The Authority of Imitation

We are all familiar with the jibe embedded in the saying, “Do as I say, not as I do.” But we sometimes think that hypocrisy in an authority simply provides the one under authority with an argument to use when he is caught doing something. “Well, you do it too.” It does provide this argument, but something much deeper is going on. The example is the true catechism; the example is what has the true shaping authority.

This means that when parents are confronted with a challenge, their first reaction should not be to “put a stop to this,” but rather to prayerfully ask if the Lord is revealing something to them about their behavior and pattern of life. Is it possible that God is using this occasion to hold up a mirror so that parents would begin their correction with repentance?

Some Examples

Suppose a child is guilty of bad manners at the dinner table, and his father snaps at him. The child has bad manners, sure enough, and his father said not to have them. But . . . it is plainly authorized to have bad manners at the table here—snapping at children is far worse than playing with your potatoes with your knife.

Suppose a child ignores a mother’s pleading, even though she has repeatedly asked, “How do you think this makes me feel?” The child is not learning to give to his mother. Rather, the child is imitating his mother, and it making all his calculations based on how things make him feel.

Take a positive example. Suppose instead of a father saying, “Go help your mother clear the table,” he says instead, “Come, let’s help your mother clear the table.”

Parents have a tendency to mislabel the lesson. Say that a toddler is standing at the coffee table, and repeatedly wants to mess with the vase. Too often parents think the lesson is entitled “How Not to Mess with Vases,” when the actual lesson is called “How Not to Get Exasperated with Other People.”

Deep Imitation

There are many occasions when imitation is right on the surface. It is harder to keep your kids from smoking if you smoke. It is harder to keep them from anger if you are constantly angry yourself. But there is another way of opening the way to ungodly imitation, even if your kids never see you doing whatever it is. God is present, remember, and God sees what doors you are opening in your household, what locks you are leaving unlocked. For example, a father with a secret porn habit can’t be shocked to discover that his son develops the same problem—even if his son didn’t know of the father’s sin. This is because the father is granting “covenantal permission”—he is saying, before God, that this kind of behavior in his household is all right with him. In other words, secret sin can be imitated also.

All You Need is Love

This truism is quite true, but not really the way the Beatles meant it. Love is at the center of the way God is, and God is Lord over all things, and so His way of loving is connected, wonderfully, and authoritatively, to absolutely everything. God is love (1 John 4:8). This is why, if we detach love from whatever it is we are doing, the result is spiritual bankruptcy. If I have mastered all the parenting techniques, if I lead a bunch of seminars, if I keep my kids from squirming in church, but have not love, I am nothing.

Godly teaching, godly character formation, godly discipleship is simply this: loving God and loving the thing you are currently, in the presence of another, whom you also love. Imagine a father and a son in the presence of an unsplit cord of wood. What is the father’s duty here? It is to take two axes, hand one to his son, and to love God, and to love a morning of splitting wood, and to do so alongside his son, whom he also loves. That is it. Love God, love what you are doing, and love the people God gave you to do it with.

Why Children Matter #3

Douglas Wilson on November 24, 2013

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Q&A

Introduction

Last week we distinguished discipline from punishment. That initial distinction was that discipline is corrective and punishment is concerned with retribution. But once we have accepted the duty of administering parental discipline, we discover that discipline falls naturally into two categories—corrective and formative.

The Text

“And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord” (Eph. 6:4).

Summary of the Text

The charge here is given to fathers. Taking all of Scripture together, we know that both father and mother are engaged in this crucial task, but it is worth noting that the central charge is here delivered to the father. The father is responsible. He is responsible in the first instance not to be a provocation to his children. If he stumbles them into wrath, his sin is prior to theirs, and is much more grievous (Luke 17:2). Instead of this kind of provocation, he is required to provide them with a Christian education and upbringing. The words underneath nurture and admonition are paideia and nouthesia. Taken together they encompass and necessarily require a Christian education. What we mean by education is not as big as this charge, but is necessarily a critical component of it.

Raw requirement without instruction is a form of provocation. Don’t allow requests for explanation to displace obedience, but if your child routinely hears nothing more than “because I said so,” something is wrong. The two phrases in this verse are connected.

Two Kinds of Discipline

So what is the difference between the kinds of discipline I mentioned above? When something has gone actively wrong, corrective discipline puts things back on track, restoring the fellowship between parent and child. This kind of discipline fixes something that has gone wrong. The second kind of discipline prevents things from going wrong in the future. The second kind of discipline instills character, against the challenges of a future day. It is corrective in anticipation.

The first kind of discipline would occur if mom told her son that she wanted him to get his math homework done before playing any video games, and she then discovered that he had done nothing of the kind. When the consequences fall on him that would be a sample of the first kind of discipline, a corrective discipline concerning an incident in the past. The second kind of discipline is the exercise of having to do the math homework in the first place. That is equipping him for a future day, it is hard in the meantime, and that is formative discipline. It is corrective also, but it is preventative correction.

Character Formation

One writer has helpfully noted that education is not about information, but rather formation. Education, done right, is a character-building process. One of the grand mistakes that parents often make is that of opposing academics to character issues. They are not in opposition. Learning to do the kind of work that children have learned to do for millennia is not opposed to character formation, it is character formation.

If a group of boys were working with shovels to dig a big ditch, and the father of one of the boys came out and pulled his boy aside to spend the morning doing anything other than digging, this would not be an example of “focusing on character instead.” It would be an example of declining to do so.

Culture Formation

The word that Paul uses here—paideia—is an enormous word. Every language has common nouns, like chair or shoelace, and every culture has large, all-encompassing words. In our culture, an example of one of the large words would be democracy. You wouldn’t be astonished to find a three-volume study of that word in a used bookstore. But if you found someone had done the same thing with a common noun, studying shoelaces through history, you would begin to suspect deep personal problems. I say this because the word paideia was one of the ancient world’s “all- encompassing” words, and what it meant was this. It referred to the process of enculturation. It was the education of the citizen, preparing him to take his responsible place in the polis. The apostle Paul saw our participation in the commonwealth of Israel as an exercise in the glorious citizenship of the heavenly city.

Now Paul requires fathers to provide a Christian paideia, and he required this before there was such a thing as a Christian culture for the children to be “enculterated” into. In order to fulfill his requirement here, the early Christians had to build such a culture—which they went out and did. We are privileged to have significant aspects of what they built still functioning as part of our heritage. We don’t have to start from scratch, but we still have a lot of rebuilding to do.

Stop Experimenting on Children

When children are little, parents can fall prey to the “grip of an idea.” They may have all kinds of fantastical notions about education stratagems, health weirdness, child discipline, food phobias, and so on. For much of this stuff, we can (and should) say with Paul, “Let every man be fully convinced in his own mind” (Rom. 14:5). But we should also make a point to note that those who compare themselves with themselves are not wise (2 Cor. 10:12).

If you have never seen this kind of example, spend some time seeking it out. But be careful. We learn by imitation, but we also envy that way. You have to learn to copy without comparing.

This is important because one of the great truths I discovered while building my house concerned the nature of concrete work. The one bright spot was that a couple hours after the pour, no matter what, you were all done. Now your children are that wet concrete.

This does not obligate you to a particular course of action, but it does obligate you to a certain demeanor. Your people surrounding you have taken a vow before God to help you in the Christian nurture of your children. You are not obligated to do “whatever” anybody says, but you are obligated to be willing to hear about it without getting your back up (Ps. 141:5). This is because certain sins and blunders run out ahead of you, but others trail behind (1 Tim. 5:24). Parental folly is the kind of thing that has a long fuse. “Whoever loves discipline loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid” (Prov. 12:1, ESV).

Preparation of Launch

So fathers are given the charge to educate here, but the charge flows out (necessarily) past the boundaries of the family. There is a feedback loop here. The children are being prepared to take their place among their people, and their people are preparing to receive them.

In bringing up children, success is found in them going away. In The Four Loves, C.S. Lewis comments on a kind of “need love” that doesn’t want to let go. That is not what we are after.

And what happens in the Christian school family or homeschool family is not supposed to be happening in isolation. Part of the reason this is such a challenge is that “our people” are often sinful and unreasonable. That is precisely why they need us, and why we need them. Hiding from the sin out there won’t protect us from the sin in here. And this brings us back to the touchstone of grace. The only place to hide from sin is in Jesus Christ.