Which Schooling?
Dear Brother Don,
We have been struggling with what kind of secular education to give our children. Our eldest will be starting kindergarden in the fall. She’s currently attending three mornings a week at a co-op nursery school. For now, we have enrolled her in our area’s government funded French immersion school. After much research and conversation with other neighborhood parents, some of whom chose it while others took the local public school, we felt it was our best option. If she succeeds, she will emerge fully bilingual, which is a distinct advantage in our bilingual country (for jobs, etc.).
The idea of “Christian” school keeps coming up. We realize we need more information on this choice. We cannot quiz our neighbors about it as none use it and, of course, none have the same viewpoint on life and God as ourselves. From the reading we have done, it seems the Christian school will attempt to educate using a Biblical perspective in all areas. They claim they educate not to provide a way to make a living but to provide a way to live. That sounds great. But we see a couple of problems. First, we are concerned with the doctrinal instruction they will receive (trinity, heaven-going, personal devil, etc.). Second, the cost is $3,000 per year per child.
We don’t know how their doctrinal errors will affect the rather obvious benefits of their teaching methods and perspectives. We don’t know if this would be a good use of the money or whether it could be put to better use somewhere in the work of the Truth.
If we do choose public school, can we really teach our children enough within the family to balance a public school education? From a Christadelphian perspective, what really is the purpose of a formal education?
We are hoping for input from other brothers and sisters on this subject. How did they choose their children’s education? Why? Are they happy with it? If not, why not?
How have their children adapted? What positive and negative experiences have they had in the public, private or Christian system? What do the children think of their experiences?
If Christian schools were used, what did you think of it? What benefit was received compared to public school? How did the children feel about attending Christian school? Were uniforms a problem? Did the religious lessons conflict with the Bible?
What advice would you have for Christadelphian parents who are trying to make a decision now that will affect the rest of their children’s lives and spiritual well-being?
Of course, there is always the option of home-schooling. We would also be pleased to hear from brothers and sisters on that. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Keith & Cheryl Dawes
10 Glenmanor Dr.
Oakville, ONT
Canada L6K 2B4
Responses can be sent directly to the Dawes or to the magazine for forwarding to them and for possible publication.
In asking around within our own family, we received some definite reactions.
Public school is a bad atmosphere but you have to learn to cope with the world at some point. There are usually some fairly decent youngsters you can choose as your closer acquaintances.
Home schooling requires a great deal of organization and self-discipline on the part of both parent and child and a lot of time from the parent. Although, between helping at school and assisting with homework, some parents spend much time on school activities even though their children are in public school.
The family influence can be the most powerful of all, offsetting other factors in the life of the child.
Appropriate Words
Dear Brother Don,
Following are a few thoughts on how we refer to those not yet in the Truth..It is my conviction we should never express anything that would make us sound exclusive… Consider some of the terms we hear being used: “Outsiders,” “Insiders,” “those in the world,” “those in the Truth,” “worldly people,” “a stranger”… Consider how an unbaptized person would feel if, while attending a Bible class, unbaptized people were called “outsiders.”
…No one is an “outsider” to the Truth. God has called people to His truth and He wants them to accept the Truth and be baptized…
As for the saying, “those in the world,” this sort of statement verges on arrogance. Is not the world a condition within the heart?…
Before we speak, we should consider how it affects others…
Yours sincerely,
In the Hope of Israel,
G. Joseph Lea, Waterloo, ONT
Unbaptized At the Breaking of Bread
This section of the magazine provides opportunity for comment on issues brothers and sisters consider important. In this spirit, we have been asked by a Texas reader to publish the first section of an answer to a correspondent from the Ambassador of the Coming Age, 1866, pg. 158. We do so with some deletions that do not change the sense.
“Should strangers be present at the breaking of bread?” DJ.
Bro. Roberts’ response: Your five reasons for excluding strangers or non-brethren from the room in which you break bread, fail to justify such a line of practice. We shall consider them seriatim.
- “Because none but priests of the Most High were allowed to offer in the temple (Ezk. 28) and none but the called of God were permitted to minister in or about it, upon pain of death (Num. 1:51; 3:10,38).”
If you really feel this to be a justification of your position, you must abide all the results to which it will lead you. You must show that the apartment in which you assemble is the temple or sanctuary; you must prove that God has commanded you to wait upon Him in that particular place, and you must be ready to carry out the extreme penalty on any unqualified person presuming to enter. If you are not prepared to accept these issues, the Mosaic example avails you nothing.
But you say, “the law was the form of knowledge of the truth.” True; but we must take this in the sense which it is alleged. The law was not the literal but the enigmatically form of the truth. It foreshadowed Christ in a harmless quadruped, and typified the sinlessness of his character in the physical purity of the animal’s flesh. The same principle of enigmatical representation must be recognized in every feature of the law, and not less in that part on which you rely, for the bodily separation of Christadelphians in worship. The sanctuary or temple did not represent a stone edifice or mechanical enclosure of any kind, to be used in the worship of God through Christ. It did not represent the place where saints in the flesh should assemble. In its total arrangement, it exhibited, in the form of an architectural hieroglyph, the divine economy of things social and political, to be developed on the face of the earth in due time. Its details illustrated subordinate features of the scheme. The holy place represented heaven itself (Heb. 9:24)… .The altar represented Christ in his capacity of mediator (Heb. 13:10) in the aspects both of sacrifice and priest. The priests who ministered at the altar will not find their true antitypes until the great antitypical dispensation is itself inaugurated, when Christ and his brethren will be rulers of the earth, standing as kings and priests between the nations and “heaven itself” Hence, it follows that the antitype of the prohibition referred to in the testimony which you have quoted, is to be found in connection with the things pertaining to the future age. No one will be allowed “place and power” in that age but the kings and priests anointed — the glorified saints, who through much tribulation will have entered the kingdom of God…It is true the saints are now a royal priesthood…It is true that in the present they act as priests, offering the incense of praise before the. Almighty…This exercise of their function is not confined to place of locality. It does not depend upon their assembly. It is not a collective act; but is the kind of worship contemplated by Jesus in the words: “The hour cometh when ye shall neither in this mountain nor at Jerusalem worship the Father. The true worshipers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth.”
Mechanical sanctifies are abolished… Bodily proximity to unbelievers defileth not, but spiritual affinity with them doth. The bodily presence of an unbeliever at the breaking of bread invalidates not the memorial act, but his participation in that act, if recognized by the assembly, would, doubtless, commit the assembly to the sacrilege.. .The spiritual substance of the Mosaic separations — that is to say, the literal import of its enigmatic ritual — is to be found in the things pertaining to Christ — which “things” have only a doctrinal and practical bearing upon the present state of existence, but will have to do with nature or body in the “age to come.” The participation of unbelievers in the breaking of bread would be a violation of that import in its bearing upon the present. Mosaic analogy, would have irresistible weight against such an infringement of the law of Christ; but Mosaic analogy, logically worked out, destroys the doctrine of bodily separation, which it is now sought to found upon it.
Christ’s Benefit From His Sacrifice
Dear Don,
The letter of Bro. Jim Dillingham (2/94 pg. 74) is a red herring. The benefit under discussion is whether or not Jesus himself was redeemed by his sacrifice as set out in the “Tidings” editorial 8/93 and is not a wide ranging discussion of benefits of every sort. That Jesus had honor heaped upon him by God no one is denying. We fully agree that we are “blessed and enriched when we selflessly help others.” Jesus is held up as our example as he, “for the joy that was set before him endured the cross” (Heb. 12:2).
Part of the joy (i.e. benefit) was obtaining for himself a bride. “Christ also loved the ecclesia and gave himself for her” (Eph. 5:25). This was a selfless act on his part that God turned into a great blessing for our Lord and ourselves. The principle that self-sacrifice has God-given rewards is not in dispute.
With regard to Bro. John Dry-wood’s letter (2/94, pg. 73), what scriptural basis is there for asserting that the altar of burnt offering represents Christ? The altar was at least partially covered by brass plates made from the censers of 250 sinners (Num. 16:28). The sacrifices were tied to four brass horns at the corners of the altar (Psa. 118:27) representing human aggressiveness. Perhaps the altar types the nation of Israel who delivered up Jesus to Pilate, “For the transgression of my people was he stricken” (Isa. 53:8).
While there is no question that the sacrifices represented the Lord Jesus (“The bodies of those beasts. ..burned without the camp, wherefore Jesus also” Heb. 13:10) the altar did not (“We have an altar where of they have no right to eat that serve the tabernacle” Heb. 13:10).
Yours in the one hope,
Jim Scott, Dundalk, ONT
While Hebrews 13:10 does not “prove” Christ is typed by the altar of burnt offering, it does prove Christ is “our” altar. Of course “our” altar is different from the Jewish altar, just as “our” sacrifice, “our” priesthood, “our” covenant and “our” mediator are different from those under the law. Some difference does not destroy a type which teaches valuable lessons.
While not specifically named, the altar is surely in mind in Hebrews 9:21-23 as one of the patterns of the heavenly things which were sprinkled with blood (Lev. 8:24; 16:19). We feel the conclusion is sound that the altar of burnt offering is typical of our Lord Jesus.
Dear Bro. Don.
I have been following with interest the discussion on Christ’s sacrifice. Gerzel Gordon and Alan Eyre (2/94, pg. 75), in their letter, supplied the answer to the problem, whether they realized it or not, when they referred to Hebrews 9:12: “Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption (for us).” The two words, “for us,” are in italics in the KJV which means they are not in the original text but have been added by the translators.
The reason for the omission is that the verb “obtained” is in the middle voice in the Greek text. In English grammar, the word “voice” is used in connection with verbs and there is an active voice and a passive voice. An example of the active voice is, “he writes the letter:” in the passive voice it would be, “the letter was written by him.” In Greek grammar, there is another voice called the middle voice where the subject is acting upon himself directly or in his own interest.
Thus in Hebrews 9:12 the sentence means, “Neither by the blood of goats and calves but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for himself”
Jesus, knowing our nature, having experienced its trials and temptations during his mortal existence, is willing to share his victory over sin with all who are united with him by faith and love in baptism, followed by a striving to develop a character like his to the glory of God his Father.
I have enclosed an exhortation (to be published later, God willing, ed.) on the middle voice showing its significant usage in the New Testament.
Sincerely your brother in Christ,
Harry Perks, Stayner, ONT
Dear Bro. Don,
Greetings in the hope of Israel.
Did Christ have to die on the cross to render obedience to God?
If the answer to this question is “yes,” then obviously Christ benefited from his own death and God rewarded him by raising him and giving him the Name which is above every name.
To go further than this and debate Christ’s need for redemption and his relationship to his sacrifice may be bordering on `foolish and unlearned questions.. .that do gender strifes” (II Tim. 2:23).
Love in Christ,
Chris Sales, Dundalk, ONT
We recognize that attempts to clarify our understanding of these matters can produce harm in controversy. A right consideration, however, enriches our appreciation of the wonder of God’s grace and, hopefully, contributes to the peace of the brotherhood.
The concept we have been emphasizing is that the sacrifices were a means of instruction, not an end in themselves. Some of them were intended to teach the offerer vital lessons about human nature and were thus sacrificial offerings pertaining to our nature. We are hopeful this will be a clarifying and unifying point providing common ground for brethren who may feel they have sharply disagreed with others in the community.
What We Should Pray For
Dear Bro. Don,
One of the questions posed by Bro. Chuck Link Jr. (3/94, pg. 117) was in regard to James 5:14-16: Should the elders be called to attend to the needs of the sick? The context of the question is in regard to brethren and sisters not only praying for one another but actively seeking such prayer on their own behalf
His point is made more effectively when the context of James 5:14-16 is understood. James is not speaking of bodily illness. Think of the logical consequence of claiming such a context: “…the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up…pray for one another that ye may be healed.” There is no equivocating here. If James is speaking of bodily illness, then healing will follow the offering of faithful prayer on behalf of the afflicted one.
Experience teaches us that this is not so. Even Paul had a “thorn in the flesh” which fervent prayer did not remove. Timothy was advised to “take a little wine” to help with “his many infirmities” not to “call for the elders.” Indeed, if this passage were addressing itself to the curing of physical illness, one wonders why any who bear the name of Christ should have to die except by means of sudden accident (or old age, ed.)! Never mind the fact that a brother or sister in the grip of serious illness quite often provides an example of wonderful faith and spirituality. If James is referring to bodily illness and the faithful prayers of these stalwarts are not “good enough” to produce the promised cure, it doesn’t say much for the effectiveness of the prayers of the rest of us! Clearly, this is not the case. James is speaking of those who have become “weak in the faith,” who have succumbed to the trials of hardship and affliction and so fallen into the snare of sin.
The Greek word is the same for “suffering affliction” (v.10) and “afflicted” (v.13) (see II Tim. 2:3,9; 4:5). It means “being on the receiving end of something unpleasant.” The antithesis to this condition is described in verse 13 as being “merry” or “cheerful” (RV). The condition is spiritual, not physical. One whose perspective is godly endures trial with joy while another allows himself to be worn down by the pressure.
The words translated “sick” give special emphasis to this point. The word “sick” (v.14) is from the astheneo and is translated to mean both physical and spiritual illness. In the following passages, it definitely refers to spiritual “weakness” (Acts 20:35; Rom. 4:19; 8:3; 14:12,21; I Cor. 8:9-12). The other word translated “sick” (v.15) is kamno which occurs only three times and always means spiritual weakness (cf. Heb. 12:3 “wearied” and Rev. 2:3 “faint”). The use of kamno indicates how we are to take “astheneo.” The sickness that Jesus is dealing with is spiritual. This makes what follows in the chapter logical and full of vital exhortation.
The “prayer” of faith shall save him that is weak in the faith (v.15). “Prayer” is from “euche” which is translated “vow” in Acts 18:18 and 21:23. It is the earnest desire of the weak one to make things right, to renew his faith, that will cause the Lord to “raise him up” and forgive the sins committed during his time of weakness. The exhortation is made more powerful when we realize that it is the “weak one” who initiated the process by calling for the elders. It is only when one who has gone astray recognizes his need that he can be helped.
The rest of the context of James 5 confirms this view of the chapter. In verse 16, the healing that takes place is in the context of “confessing our faults” to one another which is clearly a spiritual, not a physical process. The example of Elijah is cited as encouragement. He was a man who could become dispirited by the pressures of persecution but who endured and was victorious through prayer. Finally, James exhorts us to care for those who “err from the truth.” Clearly, the healing that is in mind is of a spiritual nature.
Sickness and death are our lot this side of the kingdom. It may be the Lord’s will that one afflicted by a serious illness will recover in response to prayer but, just as often, the answer to such prayer is, “No.” There are no guarantees. There is nothing more certain, however, than the “healing” of one who has “erred from the truth.” One who recognizes his need, cries out to God and to his brethren for help and who returns unto the shepherd of his soul will be healed (I Peter 2:24).
Your brother by grace,
Mike LeDuke,
Kitchenerl Waterloo, ONT
Strong’s Concordance