Children need regular biblical teaching just like adults do, and the fact is that children can often grasp more truth than we give them credit for. Certainly some deeper theological truths may be challenging for a child to comprehend, but we must teach the core truths of Scripture to our children from the earliest ages so they will come to truly know God.

Do you have a mission statement for your family?
Every successful business has a mission statement that carefully articulates the company’s central vision and primary objectives. Yet the mission statement does not exist simply to be placed in an employee manual or on a plaque in the conference room. It exists to set the parameters for the structures and methodologies the company employs in pursuit of that mission.
In a similar way, to determine what is best for our children, we need to begin with consideration of our end goal. Every family needs a mission statement.
All Christian parents want to rear children who trust Christ for their salvation and live lives committed to him. Every church wants to disciple children who grow to be faithful servants of Christ. Yet to establish the best way to accomplish these goals, we need to have a sound biblical picture of what we are trying to accomplish.
Perhaps the best place to start is with the core confession of faith God gave to his people in the Old Testament. Known as the Shema, from the first word of the confession in Hebrew—“Hear”—this statement encapsulates a valuable model for what it means to be a true follower of God:
Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might. And these words that I command you today shall be on your heart.
(Deut. 6:4–6)
To Know God
The Jewish confession begins with a requirement to believe certain things. The first of these affirmations is that the Lord, the God of Scripture, is our God. We believe in him, we affirm him as our God, and we trust in him. But then Moses adds an additional qualification. Not only is the Lord our God, he is the only God. There is one and only one true and living God. In other words, only one being in the entire universe deserves to be worshiped. The one true God is the Lord, the God of the Bible.
At the core of our desire for our children is that they truly know this. We want them to know God, to believe in him, and to trust him. We want them to know that he created them and what he has done throughout history. We want them to know he requires perfect obedience and does not tolerate sin. This very desire informs our intent to give them biblical teaching so they can understand truth about God.
The New Testament, of course, adds the complete revelation essential to salvation, and that is that Jesus Christ is “the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through [him]” (John 14:6). Jesus is both God and man, and thus knowing him is the only way to truly know God. Our children need to be taught that since sin deserves everlasting judgment and prevents us from having fellowship with God, they must come to God through Christ, who died to pay the penalty that sin deserves. We need to teach them that those who repent of their sins and trust in Christ alone for their salvation will be forgiven of their sin and given everlasting life.
This is why the Word of God must be prominent in the lives of our children from the earliest of ages. This was true of Timothy, to whom Paul says, “From childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus” (2 Tim. 3:15). Timothy’s grandmother and mother had faithfully communicated truth about God from the Scriptures to him as a child (1:5).
Children need regular biblical teaching just like adults do, and the fact is that children can often grasp more truth than we give them credit for. Certainly some deeper theological truths may be challenging for a child to comprehend, but we must teach the core truths of Scripture to our children from the earliest ages so they will come to truly know God.
To Obey God
The immediate context of the Jewish confession in Deuteronomy 6 is the giving of the law to the people of Israel, the “statutes and the rules” God gave to Moses. God required certain things of his people, and their adherence to those requirements resulted in either blessing or curse. In verse 3, Moses told them to be careful to obey these things.
Read More
Related Posts:

Written by Albert D. Taglieri |
Monday, July 4, 2022
Scripture is the source of the church’s life.  The church does not precede Scripture but arises in response to Scripture.  The church obeys and preaches the Scriptures, not judges them.  While the church hears Scripture, Scripture stands in judgment over the church.  If controversy is churchly, then it must be characterized by Scripture, for attention to Scripture defines the nature of church life. 

Introduction
Church meetings can be contentious.  When controversial topics are up for it is worthwhile to reflect on an essay by John Webster contained in his book The Domain of the Word, entitled “Theology and The Peace Of The Church.”[1]
Webster consistently addressed topics by following the “material order” of theology: God in himself prior to God’s works.  Here he moves starting from God through creation, redemption, church, theological reason, finally to controversy.  This ensures that the nature and conduct of controversy is rightly understood by its place within God’s economy.  The result is an extended theological meditation for approaching controversy.
I aim to highlight four lessons from Webster’s essay for consideration.  First: Webster views peace primarily as an indicative reality, accomplished by God—not merely as an imperative.  Second: Webster articulates a distinction between sinful anger and faithful zeal.  Third: Webster distinguishes between controversy within the fellowship of the saints and sinful conflict.  Fourth and finally: Webster emphasizes that Scripture is the rule of controversy.
In doing this, while I have my own perspectives on the various controversial topics, my goal is to avoid explicitly advocating any specific position—though I will use some of the topics for discussion.  Rather, my goal is to use Webster as a source of reflection on the proper conduct of controversy.
Lesson 1: Peace as Indicative
Webster consistently emphasizes God’s sovereignty.  The opening line illustrates: “in order to speak about conflict…theology must first speak about peace” (150).  Why?  Because peace is the condition, established by God, in which conflict occurs. It is therefore both real and primary.  And it starts within God: “Theology must first speak about the God of peace” before it can speak of peace in creation which God establishes (150).
To explain the sovereign reality of God’s peace, Webster tells us that “God is both pattern and principle of creaturely peace” (153).  Many acknowledge that God is the pattern of peace, but we must recall that he is also the principle, or the ground and cause, of peace.  To see him as merely an example which we must actuate is to follow Pelagianism, where Christ is merely an assistant to our efforts.  But to see him as the principle of peace acknowledges the reality that God creates peace, and we do not achieve it by our efforts.  Created peace flows out of the fullness of God’s own life: “his peace is neither enhanced by created peace nor diminished by its absence” (154).
If God creates peace, and it is therefore fundamental to the nature of the church, why do we see conflict?  Because peace unfolds in creation: “God secures the peaceful movement of created being” towards perfection (156).  Webster reminds us that God’s peace is eschatological – it is both already (real) and not yet (perfected).  So when Col. 3:5 commands “let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts,” the precept “is directed, not to making peace real, but to making it visible” (159).  Conflict is then merely “the lingering shadow which the rising sun has yet to chase away” (162).  To truly know and see this reality requires us to acknowledge God’s work as primary, and ours as derivative.
So what bearing does this have for our conduct of theological controversy?  It means that we may conduct controversy humbly and gently, even while passionately.  The work of redemption does not hang on the outcome of our controversy.  God’s action frees us from the responsibility (and stress) of guaranteeing a lack of conflict, as well as from guaranteeing perfection in the church.  This actually enables us to more honestly approach disagreements.  We don’t need to cover over disagreements for the sake of maintaining peace, because God’s peace is already real.  Only by acknowledging and addressing disagreements can God’s peace truly be seen.
God’s peace in the church also gives us confidence.  Controversy which is undertaken honestly, for “the furtherance of communion, not its erosion” trusts God to settle disagreements (168).  In this, all parties to a conflict can acknowledge that they are seeking obedience to God and peace with each other: even as that requires that God move them to repentance.  This position and intention is not victory at any costs, but rather obedience and love, preventing “self-conceit, mutual provocation and envy” (169).  Controversy is no place for pride or achievement, but a place for repentance.  It is not a place for self-justification, but for obedience.  God has spoken.  Controversy listens.
Lesson 2: The Character of Zeal
Much of Webster’s essay is taken up with the previous theme.  But as one of the final movements in his argument, he includes a discussion of the proper attitude for theological controversy.  Who is the peaceful theologian?  Out of inner peace (derived from Christ’s rule in the heart), the theologian is not disturbed or agitated by his conversation partners.  The contrast between anger and zeal explains this.  Evil anger follows the passions – it is moved by one’s opponent and reactive.  Zeal “is cooler and more objective,” even while an intense and deep spirit of opposition to evil (167).
Zeal can be corrupted by either deficiency or excess.  Deficiency in zeal is “indifference, weariness” which leads the church into error (167).  It too easily declares a false peace by finding points of unity.  But this is a self-established peace, not a God-established one—and a minimalistic one at that.  Zeal requires controversy to occur, that God’s truth may be obeyed.
Zeal in excess however, is also dangerous.  It too quickly becomes unrighteous anger.  Zeal may be tempered from excess by reinforcing the first theme: peace is from God.  If it is accomplished by God, then zeal is not for making peace, but for showing peace.  Webster prompts reflection by a helpful and thought-provoking, statement: “Zeal in a world in which God’s peaceful judgement is utterly real is a very different undertaking from zeal in a world where evil will not be stopped unless I shout it down” (168).  By refusing to concretely define the difference, he invites us to ponder it with Scripture.
Zeal must not let divergences in opinion “become weapons of the will” which divide the unity of Christ (169).  Zeal must start from the position of peace, and therefore must recognize that God’s peace is established not just between him and man, but also as “a society in which hostility is put to an end and peace is made” (157).  Controversy is conducted within the fraternal love of the church.
Lesson 3: Controversy, not Conflict
This churchly nature of controversy is one main way in which Webster differentiates between “controversy” and “conflict,” which is a sinful fight for dominance over others.  This theme comes into focus especially throughout Webster’s five rules “for edifying controversy” at the end of his essay (168).  In fact, the first four rules all in some way highlight this churchly nature of controversy.
Perhaps the most important thing to be kept in mind about the churchly nature of controversy is Webster’s third rule, which distinguishes “divergence of opinion” from “divergence of will” (169).  Are there “fundamental divergences about the Gospel” at stake in the controversy?  The situation is either within the church, or a disagreement concerning what the church is.  Only in the latter situation, where there are such “fundamental divergences about the Gospel” does controversy leave the bonds of a united will (169).
This provides an easy temptation in two ways though.  Certainly, some issues in current controversies can be seen as affecting the Gospel.  Does the divergence on the issue of sanctification and homosexuality constitute such an issue?  Or is there a more moderate diagnosis whereby a “fundamental divergence” can be distinguished from what is correctible error?  Certainly none of us is perfect, and this is a question that must be decided by every member of the controversy.  The temptation to over-diagnose an error into a charge of heresy must be combatted.  So must (and oftentimes more) the temptation to under-diagnose an error.  Surely the principles of Presbyterianism, while allowing certain latitudes, are not in any way “latitudinarian.”
Perhaps a few questions about divergences can help to illuminate the nature of certain controversies.  First: how is the Gospel articulated?  And then, secondly: how is obedience to the Gospel instructed in pastoral counsel?  A difference in articulation is no doubt cause for concern.  But our sin often implies our failure to practice what we preach.  Thus, agreement in articulation might camouflage a practical difference.  Since divergence is not only in opinion, but may also be in will, the second question further illuminates divergences.  What pastoral counsel is given, that characterizes the shape of obedience to the Gospel?  Is it pastoral counsel which declares the perfection of God’s redemption, and exhorts trusting him alone in faithful use of his means of grace?  Or is it pastoral counsel which declares a possible redemption, and encourages a routine of works and achievement, looking to works as the sign of acceptability before God?
While this may not be a total divergence in will, there is no doubt that it tends towards one.  The question of sanctification is certainly important, and requires characterization.  But there should be no doubt that some other questions, such as the composition of the PCA’s Standing Judicial Commission (SJC), do not even approach being divergences about the Gospel—even while remaining important questions.  It is less a matter of what obedience is, than it is about the precise manner which best actualizes such (agreed upon) obedience.
One final thing may be mentioned under this heading:
If controversy is within the church, then this shapes church discipline as controversy.  Discipline is not to be regarded as an evil process.  Too often, instead of distinguishing between controversy (good and rightly conducted) and conflict (the evil corruption of controversy), we are prone to view discipline as a “necessary evil.”  But if it is necessary, it cannot be evil because evil can never be necessary.  Conflict is sin, but controversy is the right response to sin’s presence and work.  Discipline’s reality is not necessarily a pronouncement of sin on anyone involved.  It is the context in which such a judgment, as to whether or not there is sin, may be made in obedience to Scripture.
Lesson 4: The Rule of Controversy
Webster’s final rule follows from the previous themes.  Controversy is ruled by Scripture.  He challenges the church of today: “Once confidence in the power of Scripture to determine matters in the church is lost, the politics of the saints quickly slides into agonistic practices in which we expect no divine comfort or direction” (170).
One may see a similar principle in the Westminster Confession of Faith: “The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.”[2]
The Scripture is God’s instrument of revelation and rule.  Because God’s peace is the primary reality, it is only seen and actualized by attention to his Word.  This attention is given by submission to Scripture.  Controversy can only make God’s peace visible if it is focused on hearing and obeying Scripture.
The Scripture is what zeal loves.  Zeal does not respond to offense, nor even to error considered in itself.  Zeal responds only from love of Scripture, which grounds it.  Zeal does not guard my own position or rightness.  It guards obedience and submission to God’s Word.  And so, when in controversy, zeal focuses on Scripture instead of on persons or secular philosophies.
Finally, Scripture is the source of the church’s life.  The church does not precede Scripture but arises in response to Scripture.  The church obeys and preaches the Scriptures, not judges them.  While the church hears Scripture, Scripture stands in judgment over the church.  If controversy is churchly, then it must be characterized by Scripture, for attention to Scripture defines the nature of church life.
Conclusion
God is the God of peace.  Let us give attention to him and his work above our own, trusting him to resolve our controversies by listening to his Word alone in conducting them.
Albert D. Taglieri is a member of Reformed Presbyterian Church of San Antonio.
[1] John Webster, “Theology and the peace of the church” in The Domain of the Word, 150-170.  Further citations from this essay use parenthetical page numbers.
[2] WCF 1.10
Related Posts:

Christianity has been through many conflicts throughout the centuries, some of which have been far more challenging and destructive than the current debates about justice. Being in the midst of a conflict is very hard, but God has always brought his church through those conflicts. And reorienting ourselves to the more complex world we live in is an important step in that direction.

We live in a time of division, as many of us can wearily testify, but we also live in a time of disorientation. Navigating divisions can be challenging, but the challenge multiplies when we are disoriented, and that is a less recognized element of the times we live in.
That we are disoriented and not just divided is evidenced by the numerous and diverse attempts to frame the disagreements among American Christians. Kevin DeYoung’s framing points towards postures, tendencies and fears; Karen Swallow Prior finds helpful framing in the exposure of syncretism in Tara Isabella Burton’s Strange Rites; Voddie Baucham’s book is titled Faultlines, and identifies the problem as ideological; Timothy Dalrymple diagnoses three areas of fracturing: media, authority and information among communities; Michael Graham and Skylar Flowers frame the primary conflicts between Neo-Fundamentalists and Neo-Evangelicals, and between Mainstream Evangelicals and Post-Evangelicals; and denominationally speaking, Ross Douthat sees the liberal and conservative wings of Catholicism as misdiagnosing each other, while Trevin Wax says of problems facing the SBC, “Dig below the topics of debate and you’ll find different postures, competing visions, and broken trust.”
These attempts at framing are significant for how they indicate a heightened sense among American Christians that we are in a truly significant period of time for the Church in America. It also indicates that we are aware of a deeper root to our disagreements, but that we aren’t sure what that root is exactly. It’s a feeling that Brian Fikkert captures in the intro to his book, Becoming Whole:
Life feels unstable and uncertain, as if the foundations are shifting. But it’s difficult to pinpoint exactly what’s changing, why it’s changing, and where it’s all heading. All we know is there’s a gnawing sense of anxiety that wasn’t there before.
That gnawing sense of anxiety comes from disorientation, and it’s important to find where that disorientation is coming from. We know the key issues: race, Trump, gender roles, gay marriage etc., but the attempts at framing are seeking something deeper, as well they should. For decades, we have imagined American spirituality in a simplistic, linear way, but the events of recent years have proven that framing to be outmoded and inadequate.
The Simplistic Linear Imagination of American Spirituality
Picturing various modes of thought along a spectrum can be a helpful way of organizing ideas within culture. It simplifies and organizes perspectives in a way that can be easily taught. Tim Keller – to use one example among many possible examples – uses a ‘Spectrum of Justice Theories’ to picture the different ways of understanding justice that are common in Western Culture.
It is common to imagine various strains of Christian belief in a similar linear way. The particular labels can differ, but the vision is essentially this: Fundamentalism is at one end of the spectrum, and unbelief is at the other, with evangelicals and Mainline/Liberal Christians in between:

This spectrum maps fairly directly onto Kevin DeYoung’s 4 Approaches to Race, Politics and Gender, and is a simpler version of Michael Graham’s 6 Way Fracturing of Evangelicalism, but what’s particularly important about the spectrum is not just that it is a common way of imagining American spirituality, but also that it informs what a friend of mine has called ‘Slippery Slope Discipleship.’ That is, to imagine a linear spectrum of Fundamentalism to Secularism is to imagine a spiritual world where some modes of belief are considered safe, and others are thought to be dangerous, slippery slopes that lead out of Christianity altogether.
Thaddeus Williams, in Confronting Injustice Without Compromising Truth speaks this way of Christians who embrace a particular type of social justice: “There is… a predictable pattern: one [secular] doctrine tends to lead to another, then another, until many Christians end up abandoning their faith” (p164).
Al Mohler also speaks this way in The Gathering Storm:
Liberal Protestantism and secularization have merged, creating a new and dangerous context for biblically committed Christians… because of secularization’s effect, liberal theology sometimes even infiltrates churches that think themselves to be committed to theological orthodoxy. Secularism has desensitized many people sitting in the pews of faithful, gospel-preaching churches, leading them to unwittingly hold even heretical doctrines.
This way of thinking is common among the Neo-Fundamentalist Evangelicals and the Mainstream Evangelicals (to use Michael Graham’s terminology) who are concerned about the Church drifting into and assimilating with secularism. And many Liberal Protestants would proudly see themselves as occupying a third way between the extremes of fundamentalism on one side and unbelief on the other. But the Fundamentalism-Secularism spectrum is failing as a way to understand American Christianity, and we need to understand why.
In one sense, it should not be surprising that a linear spectrum is failing as a way to frame anything today. A significant part of Charles Taylor’s analysis of secularism in A Secular Age was to describe our contemporary age as a supernova of options for belief. Taylor has outlined many of the reasons for this, but there are particular changes that in very recent years have catalyzed the shift to the supernova in American evangelicalism, and I would argue that these changes are responsible for much of our disorientation.
Conservative and Progressive Secularism
Two of these changes deserve extended attention, but it is necessary to preface them by briefly addressing one particular issue: the increasing utilization of non-Christian thinkers by Neo-Fundamentalists. Voddie Baucham, for example, in Faultlines, heavily utilizes the work of James Lindsay, and Thaddeus Williams utilizes Andrew Sullivan, Jordan Peterson, and especially Thomas Sowell (whom he calls “the second Saint Thomas”). Many other examples could be given.
The significance of this is that it disrupts the way that Mohler, Williams, and other Neo-Fundamentalists often speak of secularism, when, as quoted earlier, they describe secularism as if it was inherently aligned with progressive politics. With popular unbelieving conservatives like Ben Shapiro, James Lindsay, and Jordan Peterson, we must understand that secularism very much exists today in both left-leaning and right-leaning forms, such that if there is a ‘slippery slope’, it does not descend in only one direction. For any framing to be useful for understanding our divided times it must account for Neo-Fundamentalism being flanked by a conservative form of secularism. A slightly more accurate (but still flawed) version of the Fundamentalism-Secularism spectrum would distinguish between ‘Conservative Secularism’ (represented by Andrew Sullivan, Jordan Peterson, Thomas Sowell and others) and ‘Progressive Secularism’ (represented by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Beto O’Rourke, Bernie Sanders and others) and might look like this:

With this clarification, we can consider the two significant disruptions to this spectrum. I would identify those two key changes as:
1) the on-going development of what could be called a ‘Second Fundamentalism’ (especially involving the topic of social justice)
2) the delegitimizing of evangelical moderacy by conflicts over racism and abuse (which plays out even more broadly through the conflict between emotional health and stoicism)
It’s important to consider each one of these changes, and then seek to re-form our imagination of how American spirituality is playing out.
The Proliferation of a ‘Second Fundamentalism’ with Theological Concerns
The Fundamentalism-Secularism imagination is being disrupted in large part through a new kind of fundamentalism which has proliferated among evangelicals oriented to justice, particularly those who would identify as Neo-Evangelical or Post-Evangelical in Michael Graham’s formulation. These concerns about justice are not simply social in nature, but they are also very much theological, and this means that this ‘Second Fundamentalism’[1] cannot be simply viewed as one step away from secularism and unbelief.
Using the term ‘fundamentalism’ in any identifier can sound like a back-handed way to mark advocates of justice with disparaging terminology, but it is precisely their similarity to the original fundamentalism of the early 1900s that is important for understanding how they disrupt the simplistic linear imagination.
Consider some well-known quotes of J. Gresham Machen, which I have lightly edited to show how much Christian advocates of social justice today sound like him (with substituted words in italics):
“It is impossible to be a true soldier of Jesus Christ and not fight for justice.”
“I can see little consistency in a type of Christian activity which preaches the gospel on the street corners and at the ends of earth, but neglects the children next door.”
“Christianity is not engrossed by this transitory America, but measures all things by the thought of love.”
“Patriotism is a mighty force. It is either subservient to the gospel or else it is the deadliest enemy of the gospel.”
Or compare Machen’s rousing call to stand strong against opposition to the gospel to Beth Moore’s call to do the same in the face of White supremacy:
Machen:
Let us not fear the opposition of men; every great movement in the Church from Paul down to modern times has been criticized on the ground that it promoted censoriousness and intolerance and disputing. Of course the gospel of Christ, in a world of sin and doubt will cause disputing; and if it does not cause disputing and arouse bitter opposition, that is a fairly sure sign that it is not being faithfully proclaimed.
Moore:
If you’re gonna let a little name-calling keep you from standing up for what you believe according to the Word of God… you ain’t ready. White supremacy has held tight in much of the church for so long because the racists outlasted the anti racists. Outlast THEM.
They’re going to call you a Marxist, a liberal (their worst possible derision) & a leftist. They’re going to make fun of your “wokeness” & they’re going to say you’ve departed all faithfulness to the Scriptures. If you teach or preach, they’ll say you are a false teacher/prophet.
Just as Tom Holland has argued in Dominion that secularism is an expected and unsurprising product of Christianity, so we might also say that the Second Fundamentalism is an unsurprising way to follow the lead of Machen.
Read More