In this post, I want to defend the conscience of believers who choose different approaches to educating their children while also arguing for defaulting to explicitly Christian education and, if possible, removing children from the public school system.
Continue reading “Why Default to Christian Education?”Abstract: “This paper argues that divine simplicity safeguards God’s love by ensuring its infinitude, supremacy, unconditionality, purity, and immutability. By grounding love in God’s simple nature, believers can have confidence that His love is neither bounded, caused, nor changeable, but flows freely and eternally from who God is.”
“I will extol you, my God and King,
and bless your name forever and ever.
Every day I will bless you
and praise your name forever and ever.
Great is the Lord, and greatly to be praised,
and his greatness is unsearchable.”
– Psalm 145:1-3
Among the most important concepts you’ll ever learn:
Semantic range.
Or: Words are like suitcases.
For example, “light” can mean something that shines, something not heavy, or even a gentle feeling.
Words can carry more than one meaning. The nerds also call this “range of meaning.” It’s the different things a word can mean depending on how it’s used.
Wisdom requires us to slow down and ask how a word is being used. Provocative language often plays with this range, pulling in a curious reader, tickling or even shocking your semantic expectations.
Patience or pride make all the difference. Reflecting on “semantic range” takes humility. Pride chooses to be triggered; humility pauses to troubleshoot a riddle.
“Let a wise person listen and increase learning,
and let a discerning person obtain guidance—
for understanding a proverb or a parable,
the words of the wise, and their riddles.”
– Proverbs 1:5-6
“If one gives an answer before he hears, it is his folly and shame.”
– Proverbs 18:13
“Good sense makes one slow to anger, and it is his glory to overlook an offense.”
– Proverbs 19:11
So, reflect, don’t react.
That’s one reason to read books. Not just for what they say, but for how they train your mind to wait, to wade, and to weigh words.
When I went to Kansas City for seminary in 2020, I held to “elder-rule” polity. This can mean, among other things, that pastors have the authority to act unilaterally in adding or removing members from a church.
Fortunately, I think for many Christians the experience between elder-rule and elder-led churches feels inconsequential. As Andy Naselli writes,
“A healthy and humble elder-rule church may look similar to a healthy and humble elder-led church because those elders are involving the congregation as they should.”
In other words, in healthy elder-ruled churches, elders seek to act in unity as a whole church in major decisions. So it can look a lot like an “elder-led” church, even though it isn’t on paper.
A pivotal moment for me came in 2021. A brother asked, “Who holds the binding and loosing keys of the kingdom—the congregation or the elders?”
That question arrested me and set me down a path of study. I argued for elder-rule polity with some humble seminary friends. They gently pushed back.
Some key questions emerged:
Another question that fascinated me: How do I make sense of local churches that, for some providential, temporary reason, lack any officers? Do they not possess the keys of the kingdom? Do they not still have the responsibility of binding and loosing? Do they not exercise a kind of authority when adding their first pastor?
Eventually, I came to share Jonathan Leeman’s view of elder-led congregationalism:
“The congregationalist’s basic contention is that the authority which belongs to the congregation is of one kind, and the authority which belongs to the elders is of another kind. The congregation’s authority pertains to the foundation or very existence of the church as an eschatological embassy of Christ’s kingdom. The elders’ authority pertains to the function of the church—they lead life together within the community, including in the church’s use of the keys.” (“Putting in a Good Word for Congregationalism”)
In 2020, I would have argued (in essence) that the elders distinctly possess the keys, either directly from Christ or delegated from the congregation.
In 2025, I now believe that the congregation has the binding and loosing keys of the kingdom to add or remove members from a local church, expressing the mind of Christ as a unified body.
Elders shepherd the flock in exercising this responsibility but do not act in its stead.
I love my non-Baptist “Bible church”, Anglican, Lutheran, and Presbyterian friends in Christ. Many pastors of non-Baptist polity gently shepherd their churches in expressing the mind of Christ as a unified body. But I think the best way to represent that reality at the level of ecclesiology (in church government) is by finally deferring to the local church. It is the gathered local church which finally expresses a majority decision in admitting or removing members or officers.
Polity notwithstanding, I join my non-baptist brothers in celebrating the significance of the weekly gathering of saints. Something remarkable is happening in the cosmic theater of heavenly powers. Angels watch in amazement.
We approach the throne of Christ together. Christ – who alone is head of the church – is gathering and governing his people by his word.
Further reading:
I love being called a “creedal Christian”, even though the term has been used as a dismissive slur here in Utah.
The term “creedal” reminds me that my unity and (c)atholicity with Christians is based on substantially (not superficially) shared beliefs about Jesus. Not belonging to a specific a denomination or tradition (Baptist, Presbyterian, Calvary Chapel, Assembly of God, etc.). This unity holds even in the midst of variegated Christian families and diverse institutional representations.
The “we believe” or “I believe” creedal expressions, expressed in community, are precious.
If anything, we evangelicals need to be more creedal, not less.
Notes of a friend summarizing a lecture by Richard Barcellos
Source: Ronnie Kurtz, “Light Unapproachable: Divine Incomprehensibility and the Task of Theology”, pp. 186-187
Thesis one: The doctrine of divine incomprehensibility is a revealed doctrine that has exegetical justification as well as support from theological reasoning. The Scriptures declare, demonstrate, and demand the doctrine of divine incomprehensibility.
Thesis two: The proper dogmatic location for the doctrine of divine incomprehensibility is the Creator-creature distinction. It is due to the distinction between God and his creation that he is out of the intellectual jurisdiction of humankind.
Thesis three: As the proper dogmatic location for the doctrine of divine incomprehensibility is the Creator-creature distinction, we negate alternative locations. While notions of “the size of God” or the “noetic effects of sin” may impact the creature’s ability to comprehend God, God is first and foremost incomprehensible not because he is merely bigger than sinful creatures but because he is altogether different from created beings.
Thesis four: Due to God’s being incomprehensible, he is out of both the intellectual and linguistic comprehension of creatures. Divine incomprehensibility and divine ineffability are therefore distinct but related theological affirmations.
Thesis five: Since God is outside the intellectual and linguistic jurisdiction of creatures, we cannot possess archetypal knowledge of God, nor can we name God univocally.
Thesis six: While naming God univocally is not obtainable for creatures, we can hope for more than theological equivocation. Due to God’s accommodation, the Spirit’s illumination, and creaturely participation, we can meaningfully name God using analogical language.
Thesis seven: While archetypal knowledge of God is not obtainable for creatures, we can still hope to possess meaningful ectypal knowledge as God has condescended and revealed himself in correspondence to our faculties allowing creatures to participate in divine wisdom.
Thesis eight: Ectypal knowledge and analogical language are meaningful and true. These are not “lesser” forms of knowledge and language for God, rather these are the forms of knowledge and language fitting for the creature.
Thesis nine: Given that theological contemplation is only possible because of God’s gracious act of accommodation, Christian theologians ought to see theological humility not only as virtuous but ontological necessary since the task of theology would be impossible unless God permits (Heb 6:3).
Thesis ten: Divine incomprehensibility brings into focus the eschatological telos of theological contemplation as we currently work as pilgrims, theologia viatorum, on our way toward the theologia beatorum. As we do theology in the crosshairs of the already/not yet, between the fall and the beatific vision, we continue to apprehend, but never comprehend, God.
Carl Trueman’s four “foundations of creedalism” (from “The Creedal Imperative”), summarized by my friend Farris Lyons.
1. God is a God of words, and therefore Christianity is a wordy religion. Words are essential and adequate for God’s self-revelation to man and for communicating about God to other people. (Gen 1:1-4; Ps 115:7; Amos 8:11-12; Jn 1:1)
2. Because human nature is a thing–and there is a uniquely linguistic element to what that thing is–words are essential and adequate to communicate truth from men in one time in history to men in another. (Gen 1:27; Gen 2:19)
3. We are taught in God’s Word to pass down the truths in Scripture by expressing them in faithful ways and teaching those faithful expressions to subsequent generations. (2 Thess 2:15; 1 Tim 1:15; 2 Tim 1:13; Tit 3:8)
4. The institutional Church–and her official ministers especially–has a duty to guard these faithful expressions of the faith–and guard against unfaithful expressions–for the current generation and for posterity. (Rom 16:17; Gal 1:6-7; 1 Tim 1:3-11; 1 Tim 1:19-20; Tit 1:9; Jude 3)
I Am Aaron Shafovaloff 