It is only within the past hundred and fifty years that Presbyterian families have weakened, along with Presbyterian churches. Why? It is not because the great Reformed and Presbyterian principles defining and governing the church and home have failed and therefore need improvement, because these principles are firmly rooted in the unchanging Word of God. Rather our families and churches are failing because most of today’s professed Reformed and Presbyterian families and churches have left the faith of our fathers, have compromised or neglected our theology and failed to practice what we professed to believe.

So then, what is the solution? Innovations? No! A new paradigm? No! Rejection of all historical traditions and truths? No! New methods and theologies from other denominations? No! New ways of worship? No! New models for church life? No! Why do I say this? Because, it is not the historical traditions, models, methods, and doctrines of the Reformed Faith and Presbyterianism, which are rooted in the Word of God, that have failed us. We have failed them! Preachers have failed them by not teaching their churches to love our faith. Elders have failed them by not defending, implementing and enforcing our faith. Deacons have failed them in not fleshing out our faith in service. Fathers have failed them by not leading their families into the truth and life of our faith. Families have failed them by trying to live as if our faith were irrelevant. Members of our churches have failed them by not “striving for the purity and peace of the church.” And in failing our faith we have failed the world we have been commissioned to win for Christ. As Robert L. Dabney once wrote with reference to the principles of republicanism and constitutionalism, but which words obviously apply to the Biblical principles of Presbyterianism: “But this century has seen all this reversed; and conditions of human society have grown up, which made the system of our free forefathers obviously impracticable in the future. And this is so, not because the old forms were not good enough for this day, but because they were too good for it.”- “The New South,” DISCUSSIONS, Vol. IV, p. 5.

How does all this relate to Eric Wallace’s book, Uniting Church and Home? When he wrote this book he was a member of the Presbyterian Church in America . He sees the failure of the church to produce strong families and to carry out the Great Commission effectively, and it grieves him deeply, as it does me. In a sincere and earnest effort to remedy this present situation, he offers churches, including Presbyterian Churches, a new paradigm of ministry. However, although the church does need Wallace’s counsel regarding the integration of the family into the church and the restoration of the role of father in the home, the church does not need his new paradigm for the church because many its aspects are unbiblical, leading to applications detrimental to church and home. What is needed in Presbyterian Churches is not a new paradigm nor a new model; but repentance and a return to and new application of the older principles, models and doctrines. [1] Repentance is needed by denominations, local churches, preachers, elders, deacons, fathers, families and church members, because we have deserted Biblical theology, worship, discipline, ethics, church polity and mission, and family life.

I love Wallace’s passion for Christ and for the renewal of Christ’s Church. I share many of his concerns about the breakdown between church and home resulting from the breakdown of church and home. I also appreciate many of his suggestions about what it will take to restore the family and integrate it into the life and mission of the church.

He makes several important points especially in four areas: (1). The implications of programs for programs’ sake; (2). The importance of fathers; and (3). The broad, cultural dimension of the mission of the church; and (4). The need for the integration of Biblical truth into the relationships in church and home.

First, with reference to programs for programs sake in the church, Wallace makes this correct criticism: “Our churches seem like monasteries when we put programs before people. Good programs that served a useful purpose at one time have become their own self-perpetuating entities. (p. 67-68) -- The prevailing model of church ministry [with its programs every night of the week based on age] does much to split up relationships in the family and church. (p. 124)”

Second, Wallace is correct in his desire to see the church help restore the office of father in the home to its proper position and functions: “Ministry would be much more effective over the generations if fathers started to discern and develop their children’s gifts and then channeled those gifts toward a life calling! (p. 129)”

Third, I was glad to see his statements on the cultural dimension of the mission of the church and the home: “The solutions of redemption go far beyond our personal salvation thrusting into all of life—medicine, education, science, politics, law and finance, the arts and literature. Our goal should be to restore God’s glory to every aspect of creation and the fallen world. Our sons and daughters must imbibe themselves in God’s principles as we prepare them to live and work in a fallen world in order that they might be a willing instrument of God as He redeems it. The work of redemption is a mammoth challenge that requires a multi-generational vision. (p. 148) -- Redemption involves meditating on the big picture. Therefore, by focusing on the bigger plan, redeeming not just souls, but a whole fallen world in all its complexity, we can be the best witness. Our children must be equipped with this pervasive understanding of responsibility. Their commitment must be strong enough to pass on to their children. (p. 151)”

Fourth, Wallace’s longing is mine as well: the integrating of the Biblical, Christ-centered truth “taught at church into our lives at home,” and the integrating of “the love and support of the family into the life of the local church.”- p. 19

However, I have several major problems with his book, because of a difference in our understanding of Biblical theology and the Reformed Faith.

A REDUCTIONISTIC MODEL

Eric Wallace makes a mistake similar to that of Rick Warren in his books The Purpose Driven Life and The Purpose Driven Church . Both are guilty of an arbitrary reductionism: Warren of God’s purposes for His people, and Wallace on the nature of the church. Reductionistic approaches exclude key ingredients, and present an unbalanced picture, as they try to squeeze a size ten foot into a size five shoe. An example of this reductionism in Wallace’s book is this statement he quotes from PCA pastor Steward Jordan: “If the church is practicing hospitality, then there is no need for other ministries.”- p.245. Hospitality is of critical importance, to be sure; but to say that the only ministry the church needs is hospitality, and that if it does that, it needs no other ministries, is absurd. But, as I trust we shall see, Jordan says this because it is a consistent application of his and Wallace’s attempt to build churches “entirely upon household principles.”- p. 245. But, the only institution that is to be built “entirely upon household principles” is the household; the church is to be built upon ecclesiastical principles set forth in the Word of God, as the state is to be built upon civil principles set forth in that same Word.

In Uniting Church and Home, Wallace’s new paradigm for the re-creation of the functions of the church is based entirely on the nature and function of the home. More specifically, he wants to recreate the church according to the principles and methods of the home school movement. Wallace’s denials to the contrary, “household-based ministry” is a “home-school thing.” As Greg Harris says on page 1: “The time has come to apply the proven insights gained from the home schooling movement to the reformation of the local church. Eric Wallace makes a worthwhile contribution in his new book to that end.” This attempt on his part is problematic on several levels, not the least being the use of the home schooling movement as the standard by which the church is to be reformed. The church is to be reformed by the written Word of God and by that Word alone. Using “proven insights gained from the home schooling movement” to reform God’s church is a denial of the cry of the Protestant Reformation: sola Scriptura.

First, it is an arbitrary choice . On page 100, he writes: “In the scriptures, the church is described in several ways. It is the body of Christ, the bride of Christ, an army, and God’s household. Together, all these and other descriptions are components of the church’s identity.” On page 89, he writes: “God uses ‘household’ terminology to reveal how the church is to function.” Then, he proceeds to rebuild the church solely in terms of the household description, to the exclusion of the others. But the Bible also has other terminology and figures to show the church how to function, e.g., as an army, Temple , human body, bride, vine and branches, city, etc. Not all features of the household are to be imitated by the church; just as all features of the church are not to be imitated by the home. Home and church, though intimately related, are separate institutions with separate functions, separate jurisdictions and separate office holders. The “household” concept was not meant to define the mission of the church, (although, of course, some similarities exist), rather it was meant to define the nature of the church as the house and family of God.

This arbitrariness is seen in the reductionistic way Wallace sets forth the “the core purposes of the church” on pages 59f. Whereas what he includes here is true, it sounds more like Rick Warren in The Purpose-Driven Life, than the writers of the Bible. There is much more to the core purposes of the church than those listed. The reason these five purposes are given is because they are also true of the family, and are not exclusively those of the church. This blending of the functions of church and home represents an attempt to prove his point that the church must be redefined in terms of the individual household.

Second, Wallace’s definition of “household” is deficient . He did not get his definition of “household” from Biblical exegesis. Rather, he appears to have read his preconceived view of the household into the Bible because it is essential to his new paradigm for the church. He writes on page 105: “The church finds its home in the household. -- A survey through the New Testament reinforces the household as the basis of the church.” [2] If the home of the church is the household, and not vice versa, and if the household is the basis and foundation of the church, then the household, not the church, has the priority and preeminence. Rather, the household finds its home in the church of Christ , the house and family of God. A survey of the New Testament shows that the basis of the church is the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the cornerstone, Ephesians 2:20, not the home.

How does he define “household”? On page 36, he writes: “I need to define a term I believe is essential to understanding the concept of an integrated church. That word is ‘household.’ -- The word ‘household,’ as I define it, means much more than simply ‘family.’ -- In other words, it is any group of people in the church who live and fellowship together.” As a matter of fact, that is not the way “household” is used in the Bible. Besides being an unbiblical definition of “household,” such a definition would bring havoc in courts of law, allow for homosexual households, and destroy one of the central pillars of household baptism.

In the Old Testament, a household or family included all dependents of the head of a family, i.e., husband, wife, their children (adopted and natural born), and any slaves, bound together by blood and covenant, Genesis 7:1; Genesis 12:17; 17:12-13, 23, 27; 19:16; 20:17-18; 34:30; Exodus 12:27; Numbers 3:15; Joshua 24:15; I Samuel 3:12-14; II Samuel 12:10. “In the Old Testament, the parent-child relationship is organic; that is, God views parents and children not simply as individuals that happen to be related but as a divinely created unit or organism. This organism extends through the generations, Deuteronomy 7:9.”- Randy Booth, Children of Promise, p. 123. Whereas the family was to show hospitality to visitors and strangers, e.g. Acts 16:34, they were not considered members of that household.

The New Testament continues the Old Testament concept of “household,” I Timothy 3:4, 12; Titus 1:6; Acts 16:31. “When the Bible speaks of a household, it includes every member of the family—husband, wife, children (including infants), and slaves. Kenneth Gentry expresses the Bible principle of family solidarity in God’s covenant dealings when he observes: ‘There is NOTHING in the New Testament that undermines and invalidates the Old Testament covenantal principle of family solidarity. In fact, everything confirms its continuing validity.’”- Randy Booth, p. 126.

Third, imposing this viewpoint on the institutional church is a reduction of the church in its preeminence, composition, goals and mission to the world. It also includes a downgrading of the institutional church . As Wallace writes: “Let me first define the term ‘church’ as the ministry of believers and not the ‘organized’ church as such.”- p. 78. He says this because he believes that it is detrimental to uniting church and home to view the church primarily as an institution rather than a community; because the first view is institutional and program-oriented and the second view is person-to-person ministry-oriented. However, this choice is not necessary if the church is seen as an organized community with its officers and constitution taken from the Head of the Church in His Word. A community without organization is a mob.

Wallace’s paradigm reduces the preeminence of the visible church as an institution and in its ministry of the Word. One of his major points is the primacy of the home and its relationships over all other human institutions. Because it is preeminent the composition and mission of the church must be redefined in terms of it. Here are Wallace’s own words:

He [God] uses relationships in the local church as the primary tool through which He gives us strength and guidance.- p. 82

An integrated ministry uses heart-level relationships as its primary method of ministry because they are most effective.- p. 91

The primary place for ministry is the home. - p. 103

But God has ordained household relationships to be His primary structure through which the work of redemption is accomplished over generations.- p. 156

God’s primary plan for reaching the hearts of children is to work through the parents.- p. 163

This emphasis on the primacy of the home in the ministry of God is simply incorrect. As important as the home and household relationships are to the work of God on earth, the church is God’s primary institution of the ministry of saving grace on earth—The LORD loves the gates of Zion more than all the other dwelling places of Jacob. Glorious things are spoken of you, O city of God.- Psalm 87:2-3. Here the church is not only referred to as a “city,” rather than a household; but we are also told that God loves His Temple on Mt. Zion , i.e., a type of the church of Christ , Hebrews 12:22f, more than all the households of Jacob! Glorious things are spoken of the church, not the home, in this text.

It is to this visible church instituted by God, and not to the home, although it too was instituted by God, that Christ has given the ministry, oracles, and ordinances of God, for the gathering and perfecting of the saints in this life, to the end of the world; and doth by His own presence and Spirit, according to His promise, make them effectual thereunto.- Westminster Confession of Faith, 25.3. The Great Commission of Matthew 28:19f was given to the visible church represented in its officers, not to the home or to the officials in the home, i.e., fathers. As George Grant wisely says in his recommendation of Wallace’s book on page 1: “The responsibilities of the home ought to be facilitated by the church not co-opted. Likewise, the centrality of the church ought to be embraced by the home not resisted.”

“The primary place” and “primary structure” for the ministry of saving grace is the church, not the home. “God’s primary plan for reaching the hearts of children” is to work through the church. God’s “primary tool through which He gives us strength and guidance” and His “primary method of ministry” is the preached Word, along with the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper. The Spirit of God maketh the reading, but especially the preaching of the Word, an effectual means of enlightening, convincing, and humbling sinners; of driving them out of themselves, and drawing them unto Christ; of conforming them to His image, and subduing them to His will; of strengthening them against temptations and corruptions; of building them up in grace, and establishing their hearts in holiness and comfort through faith unto salvation. -- The Word of God is to be preached only by such as are sufficiently gifted, and also duly approved and called to that office.- Westminster Larger Catechism Q. 155 and Q. 158

The church of Christ is not to be identified as “a family-oriented church,” (Wallace, p. 32), but as a God-centered church. This is not semantics. Its purpose is the gathering and perfecting of the saints, whether those saints are individuals or households. And the idea that all single individuals in the church are to be “adopted” (Wallace’s word) into households in order for them to be fully integrated in the church has two problems: (1). It is not demanded of the church in the Bible, either by express statement or inference; and (2). It fails to recognize that, Biblically-speaking, a real household can include only one person, and the church must respect the legitimacy of that authority structure as it also must minister to it. This is particularly relevant to voting in congregational meetings. Since only male heads of households should be allowed to vote in congregational meetings as the federal heads of their families, adult single males adopted into families and placed under the governing authority of the father would not be allowed to vote.

In fact it would appear that the “household approach” to the church can result in a return of the church to its infancy, when the homes of men like Adam, Noah and Abraham were also the church. The church of God has come to maturity in Christ and the New Covenant. Its form under Christ’s apostles, as presented in the New Testament, is far more mature and glorious than any of its phases in the Old Testament.

Fourth, this reductionistic view of the church also broadens and limits the nature of evangelism in an unbiblical way . Wallace so broadens the definition of evangelism that he in fact destroys it. Although other examples in his book could be given, a sentence on page 199 makes the point: “Evangelism involves more than presenting the gospel; it [i.e. evangelism] includes helping our neighbors carry in their groceries, mowing their lawn…” Whereas Christians will serve unbelievers in many ways out of love for them and in order to create opportunities to evangelize them, such efforts are not evangelism. They could be called pre-evangelism. Evangelism is presenting the gospel! J.I Packer has correctly defined evangelism in his book, Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God as follows:

To present Jesus Christ to sinful men, in order that they may come to put their trust in God, through Him to receive Him as their Savior and to serve Him as their King in the fellowship of the church.

On the other hand, Wallace limits evangelism in a way that the Head of the Church does not, with his “household approach to ministry.” “Keeping families together is a theme in Harvester’s evangelism program as well. Families are encouraged to take the class and go out on evangelistic visits together.”- p. 244. While this can be a good idea, Wallace’s book leaves the definite impression that the only effective kind of evangelism is one of households. It is as if he limits evangelism to households, because the book does not encourage individuals to do evangelism as individuals, although we see this method of evangelism far more times in the Gospels and Acts than we do evangelism by whole households.

Fifth, the sacraments are downgraded in this “household approach” to the church . Baptism is neglected. On page 82 the author says: “People need the church because it is where they partake of the Lord’s Supper.” Where is baptism? The Lord’s Supper is downgraded. On page 230, he writes: “For Communion: have elders serve heads of households the elements, who then serve them to their own households.” Members of Christian families admitted to the Lord’s Table by the elders do not partake of Communion as members of a household, but as members of the visible church governed by the elders. Fathers in the home are not the guardians of the Lord’s Table. The elders of the visible church, not the fathers, admit those with credible testimonies to the Lord’s Table. Elders, not fathers, fence the Table. Elders, not fathers, serve the Lord’s Supper. Children of the covenant are not only subject to their father’s authority, they, along with their parents, are also subject to the authority of the elders of the church. Elders, not fathers, hold the power of the keys of the kingdom. Elders, not fathers, bar children and others from the Lord’s Supper. A father may not forbid his child to take the Lord’s Supper, if the elders of the church have admitted him to the Lord’s Table; just as a father may not allow his children to take the Lord’s Supper if the elders have not admitted them to the Table by the elders of the church. This suggestion from Wallace is a major blow at the authority of the church. This approach of making the home a model for the church almost gives fathers equal authority with elders in the rule of the church. It almost makes the church the home. (It is already being suggested by some that fathers baptize their own children.)

Sixth, the consequence of this household approach to the church and its ministry also downgrades congregational worship . The Bible is unmistakably clear as to how God wants us to worship Him: Whatever I command you, you shall be careful to do; you shall not add to nor take away from it, Deuteronomy 12:32. We may do in the worship of God only what He has commanded in the Bible, either in express commandment, or approved example or deduced principle. As John Knox, the Scottish Reformer said, God rejects all rites and practices of worship that originate in the brain of man. Wallace appears to have no awareness of this historical Reformed and Presbyterian principle taught several places in the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms, e.g., 1.6; 21.1.

Wallace suggests that in the Sunday morning worship service, “church leaders can select from within the congregation to offer public prayers of confession. Focus on encouraging parents to share about scriptures and trials and victories. Having households stand up and give testimony encourages other adults and children to take on spiritual leadership of their households. Have fathers, single and even mature teenage boys deliver brief messages as a way of developing their leadership capacities.”- p. 229. He makes these suggestions without any attempt to show whether they are commanded by God in the Bible for Sunday congregational worship. As a matter of fact, none of these things are commanded by God in the Bible for public worship. If these suggestions are followed, congregational worship, with all its joy, sanctity and beauty, is dissolved into an informal time of worship similar to what a father does in his own household. But, after all, that could be said to be his objective according to the “household approach.”

Seventh, the household approach to education reduces Christian education . Many home schoolers assume, and some aggressively profess, that exclusive home-schooling is the Biblical model of educating children of the church. However, exclusive home schooling of children is not the Biblical model. Parents are not the only ones given the responsibility of educating their children; in the Great Commission Christ also gave that responsibility to the church—teaching them to observe whatever I have commanded you. The Biblical model is home-schooling plus institutional instruction of children. In the Old Testament education of covenant children included home-schools and institutional education from the Levitical priests, in some cases at “the schools of the prophets,” and in the synagogues, Psalm 74:8, which were places of local worship and catechetical instruction for children, as Jesus in the Temple when He was twelve years old, and for adults. In the New Testament, the church of Christ continued to exist as a Christian synagogue with the same educational functions toward children and adults. Exclusive home schooling offers inferior education of children.

Eighth, Wallace’s “household approach” to the church is based on the reduction of theology. In a large variety of ways, the author reveals his faulty theology, or faulty theological expression, that gives a superficiality to his solutions. Here are some examples.

On page 22, he writes that “God showed me a maxim…” Verbal revelation came to end with the completion of the sixty-six books of the Biblical canon. Now all we need to be thoroughly equipped for every good work is what God has spoken in the Bible.

On page 33, we read that “the world wants truth that is integrated with life and have stopped looking for it in the church.” This sentence fails to understand the total depravity and spiritual death that characterizes the world, which Jesus said, hates the light and loves the darkness. The world in its rebellion against God does not want the truth.

On page 44, the author writes: “I wondered why the place where we worship is called God’s “house” or “the sanctuary,” when the Bible teaches that our hearts are the sanctuary and home of God.” This reveals an individualism the author himself seeks to avoid. Not only are our individual hearts the house and sanctuary of God, but the New Testament also teaches that the church corporately is the house and dwelling place of the Spirit, I Corinthians 3:16. Moreover, both testaments speak of the building in which the church, or the “Christian synagogue,” met, as “the synagogue,” Psalm 74:8; Matthew 4:23 ; 9:35 ; Luke 13:10 ; James 2:2; etc.. We must make sure that our scruples are not higher than those of the Bible.

On page 61, we read that “in the first century church it appears that hospitality was used as the primary method of church evangelism.” How can such a statement be made in the light of the traveling evangelists, itinerant preachers and missionary journies, not of households, but of ordained men, in the book of Acts. Individuals believers and believing families, of course, played their role in evangelizing the world; but the primary method of church evangelism in the book of Acts is not hospitality, as important as it is.

On page 74, Wallace claims that “churches should be places where people can go to be accepted and loved unconditionally…” But, is that really true? Conditions were placed on the acceptance and love one experienced in the church. Impenitent apostasy led to excommunication from that acceptance and placed someone outside that brotherhood, albeit ultimately for his or her restoration, as well as for the preservation of the purity of the church and the honor of Christ. Believers are not to “love unconditionally,” but in terms of the Law of God, II John 6.

On page 106, we see two statements resulting from faulty exegesis. The first claim is that the Passover meal was eaten by everyone in the household. However, F. Nigel Lee, in his doctoral thesis, Catechism before Communion, has clearly shown that uncatechized children and women in the household did not partake of the Passover meal. The second statement is the presenting of the unfortunate practice of the disciples in Jerusalem of selling all their possessions so that all had everything in common as an illustration of the care the members of the church should have for each other. However, this practice, which was never commanded by God, led to abject poverty on the part of those who participated in this “voluntary communism,” so that Paul was always asking churches to receive offerings to give relief to the poverty-stricken Christians in Jerusalem .

On page 129, Wallace writes: “The spiritual gifts outlined in I Corinthians 12 are crucial factors in the maturity process and effective leadership.” The spiritual gifts outlined in I Corinthians 12 are “the word of wisdom,” “the word of knowledge,” “faith,” healing,” effecting miracles,” “prophecy,” distinguishing of spirits,” “various kinds of tongues,” and “interpretation of tongues.” Is Wallace saying that the restoration of these extraordinary, miraculous gifts of the Spirit, which the church has always viewed as having ceased with the completion of the Biblical canon in the apostolic age, is a crucial factor in the maturing process and effective leadership in the church today? Is Eric Wallace a charismatic?

On page 143, it is asserted that “the first truth is that God loves children…” If that assertion is meant to be universal and all-inclusive, it is mistaken, for God hated the covenant-child, Esau, Romans 9:13. What does Psalm 21:10 reveal about the disposition of the Messiah toward some children?

On page 156, Wallace says that “God has ordained household relationships to be His primary structure through which the work of redemption is accomplished over generations.” This is carelessness of expression on his part. He does not believe what he has written here. God accomplished the eternal redemption of His people once-for-all in the atoning death of Jesus Christ, Hebrews 9:12. That was the significance of Jesus’ dying cry, It is finished!

On page 163, we are informed that “God wants to transform our hearts into His image.” Then we are told to “notice the operative word here is hearts not minds.” This comment fails to take into consideration that in Biblical idiom, the heart is also the seat of the intellect. Furthermore, it is insufficient to say simply that God wants to “transform our hearts into His image,” because He also wants to transform our hearts, souls, minds, behavior, character and bodies into His image, Philippians 3:21. Here is another example of reductionism.

On page 165, Wallace says that if we are going to be used by God to change other people, we must “perceive the condition of the heart,” although he carefully states that only God can “know and judge a person’s heart perfectly.” His clarification does not remove the problem with his statement that “we must perceive the condition of the heart” in order to help a person grow. If man looks on the outward appearance, and only God looks on the heart, how can man see the heart. He cannot. For that reason the one requirement for church membership is a credible profession of faith in Christ. Elders can evaluate the credibility of professions of faith, and even then they can be in error. All we have to go on is what we see in the life and hear on the tongue. To say we must be able to “perceive the condition of the heart” is more pietistic than Biblical. Moreover, this is not a peripheral issue for Wallace, for our alleged ability to perceive accurately the condition of hearts is essential to his paradigm: “The heart must be our goal, just as it is Christ’s goal. We must evaluate the effectiveness of our ministry, not by numbers and money but by the conditions of people’s hearts.”- page 223

On page 180, the author tells us that “experience, especially bad experience, is a good teacher.” Where in the Bible did Mr. Wallace get this maxim? It is not in the Bible, rather it is taken from the old, but misunderstood, maxim: “Experience is a dear teacher.” The point of this ancient maxim is not that experience is a “dear,” i.e., beloved and effective, teacher, therefore learn from her. Rather, it’s point is seen when “dear” is understood as it was originally intended, i.e., “costly and expensive.” The point, then, is this: “Experience is a costly and expensive teacher; learn by any other means, if possible.”

Furthermore, time and again in his book, Wallace leaves the impression that he has a negative view of doctrinal preaching as it has been defined and practiced generally. For example, on page 158, he writes that children “need relationships in which they can ask any question and get more than a doctrinal or theological answer that they could have found in a Bible encyclopedia.” While it is true that children need secure relationships that enable them to ask honest, heart-felt questions, any answer a Christian parent or preacher gives them that is true will be “a doctrinal or theological answer that they could have found in a Bible encyclopedia,” if they were old enough and were inclined to search for it. The point I am making is that “doctrine” and “theology” are not bad words; they speak of that body of systematically-related revealed truths in the Bible. This also presupposes that those revealed truths that we give in answer to our children’s questions will also be modeled and “fleshed out” in our lives, so they can hear and see them.

On page 181, what does it mean to say that “truths are caught, not taught,” in terms of Reformed and Biblical theology? Without explaining this cliché, it means nothing and can be confusing. Truths are revealed objectively in the Bible and subjectively in the heart by the illumination of the Holy Spirit. Then as they are faithfully taught by the church and family, that same Spirit of Christ convinces God’s people of their divine authority and truthfulness and leads them into a saving understanding of these truths. The teaching of these truths become clearer as they are taught from the sounding board of a godly and loving life.

On page 192, Wallace claims that: “God does not rant, rave, and threaten us when we struggle with sin. God lovingly and patiently convicts us and promises never to leave us.” But is that the truth! It is a half-truth! God does “lovingly and patiently convict us” and He does “promise never to leave us,” but that is not all God does to keep us faithful and to cause us to mature in Christ. To “rant” is to speak in a vehement manner. To “rave” is to speak wildly, irrationally and incoherently. To “threaten” is to issue an intention to punish and to inflict injury. Although God does not rave, He does rant and threaten, even His people, in His Word, out of love for them and for the sake of His own holiness. The entire epistle to the Hebrews in the New Testament is full of threats from the Lord to His children to keep them on the straight and narrow. For divine threatening of the church at its best, read Deuteronomy 28, the OT prophets or Jesus’ rebuke of the Pharisees, who, at that time, were members of His church. As our loving Lord and Savior warns us in Hebrews 12:25, 29—See to it that you do not refuse him who is speaking. For if those did not escape when they refused him who warned them on earth, much less shall we escape who turn away from Him who warns from heaven. -- …for our God is a consuming fire. God also makes serious threats to us through the apostle Paul in I Corinthians 10:1-12.

On page 226 we are told that “Christian teaching is often cerebral, theological, and abstract;” and on page 66 it says: “The church has an unbalanced focus on theology or doctrine. Theology and doctrine are most important. – Christians do need to learn theology and doctrine. The problem, however, is that there is a tendency to focus on inconsequential debates—such as ‘how many angels can stand on the head of a pin’—rather than learning how the study of doctrine helps develop our relationship with God and others.” Then, on page 109, he makes this same point: “…rule keeping and debates on “gray” issues…can and often do supersede relationships.” When I read such statements in the context of Wallace’s whole book, I wonder, “Who are these people that preach and teach doctrine in a “cerebral, theological, and abstract” manner? (Notice that the word “theological” is given a negative connotation along with “cerebral” and “abstract.”) And what are these “inconsequential debates” and these “debates on ‘gray’ issues” that “supersede relationships”? Wallace gives one illustration—“how many angels can stand on the head of a pin,” but he knows that no one debates that issue. I get the impression that he may be referring to those people and churches who are trying to be thoroughly Reformed in their teaching and defense of the whole counsel of God revealed in the Bible.

Ninth, much of what Wallace says, or how he says things, smacks of antinomianism, i.e., a disregard of the necessity of obedience to the revealed Laws of God in the Bible in the Christian life . I have heard before many of the clichés used by Wallace in obvious antinomian contexts. Here are some of his remarks that sound like antinomianism, or that can be interpreted and applied in an antinomian manner.

On page 78, we are told that because of the loss of sense of family and community by the church, “the result is that Christianity is viewed, even by some Christians, as a list of do’s and don’ts instead of the life-giving web of loving relationships.” But, Christianity is “a web of loving relationships” in Christ within the context of “a lists of do’s and don’ts” revealed in Biblical Law. Law is the eye of love and without law, love is blind. Equally so, love is the soul of law, and without love, law is dead.

On page 156, he correctly says that Christ “has saved us from our sins and we are to love and serve Him by seeking to govern our lives by principles found in His Word.” Why is Wallace so afraid of the word, laws? I cannot remember him saying even once that the Old Testament and New Testament give the believer in Jesus laws, as well as principles, to obey to the glory of God. Jesus does govern our lives by the principles of His Word, but He also governs us by the express commandments and statutes of His Word.

In the context of his whole book, when Wallace says that “we must avoid the legalism that has enmeshed many churches in guilt-induced, performance-based spirituality,” (page 186), I wonder: “Who is he speaking about?” What is this “legalism” he has reference to? Is it the man-made rules of American fundamentalism that rejects Biblical Law because, it says, it applies to a previous “dispensation”? Or is it the Reformed view that grace is not lawless grace, and that God saves us by grace through faith in Christ in order that we might be in a position to obey the laws of the Bible, in the strength of the Spirit? Is he throwing stones at fundamentalism’s legalism or the Reformed Faith’s emphasis on Law in the Christian life? [3]

How extensively are we to take his statement on page 192 that “rule-keeping leaves little room for loving those who don’t agree with the rules or follow them poorly.” In the previous sentence, Wallace says that “those who are ensconced in a whole list of man-made rules and legalism really do not understand the depth of their sin and the glorious remedy in Christ.” What is the significance of the conjunction “and”? Is “legalism” something in addition to “man-made rules”? I get that impression that Wallace is saying that any kind of rule-keeping hinders love toward those who disagree with our rules. However, the Bible says the opposite. It says that love is obeying from the heart the divinely revealed rules in the Bible by which God teaches us how to treat others. Jesus said, If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love… Paul said, Love…is the fulfillment of the Law, Romans 13:10. And John said: And this is love, that we walk according to His commandments, II John 6.

What in the world does Wallace mean when he says that “Jesus gave no entry requirements. He accepts us not on the basis of how we act but on the basis of what He has already done for us.”- page 193. He does accept us on the basis of His own finished work; but to say that He “gave no entry requirements” to His family, church or kingdom, is a gross overstatement at best, heresy at worst. He said in Mark 1:15—The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.

Perhaps , the reason Eric Wallace makes the emphases he does, and neglects or excludes the Law of God as he does, is because he is an adherent to the antinomian “Sonship” movement, so clearly exposed and refuted by Jay Adams, Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary and others.

Why do I say this? Because of what Wallace says on page 193: “As we preach the gospel to ourselves every day and experience God’s forgiveness, we live in Christ’s sufficiency, not our own. Our sin is no surprise to God, and because we are already totally acceptable to Him, we can run to Him not having to fear His reprisal or displeasure. We do not need to try to earn back His favor, because we already have it through Christ’s work. -- Living a life of repentance, preaching the gospel to ourselves every day, and living in the sufficiency of Christ is the way to live fully and joyfully. -- This also is the picture that we want others to have of what it means to be a Christian.”

Although this is exactly what the “Sonship” movement teaches, every word in this statement is true. The problem is what it does not say and what it leaves out. This is not the way Jesus defined what it means to be a Christian. He said, You are My friends, if you do what I command you, John 15:14. This is not how Paul defined what it means to be a Christian: Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but what matters is the keeping of the commandments of God, I Corinthians 7:19. This is not how John defined what it means to be a Christian: The one who says, “I have come to know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him; but whoever keeps His word, in him the love of God has truly been perfected. By this we know that we are in Him: the one who says he abides in Him ought himself to walk in the same manner as He walked, I John 2:4-6.

The point I am making is that Eric Wallace and the “Sonship” movement are antinomian in that they omit or downgrade the Biblical doctrine and reality of sanctification and the abiding authority of God’s Law for sanctified living by those who are justified by faith apart from the works of the Law. The historic Reformed Faith has always confessed, not the view of the book we are reviewing, but the following view from the Westminster Confession of Faith, 19.5, 6 & 7.

The moral law doth for ever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof; and that not only in regard of the matter contained in it, but also in respect of the authority of God, the Creator, who gave it. Neither doth Christ in the gospel any way dissolve, but much strengthen its obligation.

Although true believers be not under the law as a covenant of works, to be thereby justified or condemned; yet is it of great use to them, as well as to others; in that, as a rule of life, informing them of the will of God and their duty, it directs and binds them to walk accordingly… It is likewise of use to the regenerate, to restrain their corruptions, in that it forbids sin; and the threatenings of it serve to show what even their sins deserve, and what afflictions in this life they may expect for them, although freed from the curse thereof threatened in the law. The promises of it, in like manner, show them God’s approbation of obedience, and what blessings they may expect upon the performance thereof, although not as due to them by the law as a covenant of works: so as a man’s doing good, and refraining from evil, because the law encourageth to the one, and deterreth from the other, is no evidence of his being under the law, and not under grace.

Neither are the forementioned uses of the law contrary to the grace of the gospel, but do sweetly comply with it; the Spirit of Christ subduing and enabling the will of man to do that freely and cheerfully which the will of God revealed in the law requireth to be done.

AN INACCURATE IDENTIFICATION OF PROBLEM

According to Wallace, one of the leading culprits in the breakdown of the church and family is age-segregated education and ministry in the church. He drives this point home time and again. On pages 22-23, he claims that more and more churches are moving away from “the hurried, superficial, age-segregated, activity-laden ministry. They are moving toward a whole different approach that centers on freeing up the body to build godly households through heart-felt relationships and age-integrated ministry. -- The equipping that people need cannot be provided through the traditional age-segregated approach… On page 128, he submits to us “that in order to successfully train future leaders, we must change our method of ministry from our current age-segregated program approach to an age-integrated household approach.”

This is a simplistic and inaccurate identification of the problem in the family and the church. The real issue is apostasy in the heart and life. It is spiritual declension. The cause of the problem is neither conspiracy nor teaching method. The churches of God in America have left their first love. The fathers have abandoned their callings before God. Therefore, the solution will have to be far more profound and substantial than ending education according to age levels and beginning education that integrates all members of the family.

Many home-schoolers have developed this same enmity toward age-segregated education in church and school. For this reason many of them condemn all forms of institutional Christian education in schools. However, the home schools I am familiar with do not escape the method they criticize. Although the education takes place exclusively in the home with the parents as primary educators, the instruction itself and the curriculum used are based on the difference in ages of the children in the home. Parents do not require their five year olds to read G.A. Henty and R.J. Rushdoony; nor do they require their seventeen year olds to read G.A. Henty. The five year olds are not old enough to digest it; and the seventeen year olds have matured past Henty and should be reading Rushdoony. I John 2:12-18, which is referred to by Wallace on page 112, seems to imply a recognition of differences of comprehension or maturity in different age groups.

Both age-segregated methods and age-integrated methods have problems. A paradigm that coordinates both wisely seems to me to be more effective and less limiting regarding good options to parents than having to choose one over the other.

THE CHOICE WALLACE GIVES THE CHURCH

The point Eric Wallace makes repeatedly throughout Uniting Church and Home is that unless a church lays aside its dark, shadowy traditions that emphasize the institutional nature of the church, that focus on theology and doctrine, and that breed programs from an age-segregated approach, and moves into the light of an age-integrated, household approach to ministry it will be a failure at developing leaders for the future, restoring fathers to their rightful place, cultivating personal heart-level relationships, making the church a dynamic witness that is free to minister to people where they are through relationships that go deep into the real issues of life.

All I can say about these claims is that they are not necessarily true and they are to some degree slanderous. Not all churches of “the old school” fit Wallace’s criticisms; and many of those who fit his praise, are in danger of leaving the Faith within a few years, as they move farther and farther from the truth of God.

I know of many faithful churches who are seriously critical of Wallace’s approach as detrimental to the church, who have some measure of age-segregated training, who appreciate the institutional nature of the church as Christ gave it, who have a Christ-centered focus on teaching and preaching and modeling the revealed truths of the Bible, who practice the old Reformed regulative principle of worship, who have a variety of programs for the gathering and perfecting of the saints, and who seek to be thoroughly Reformed in all aspects of the life, worship, doctrine, ethics, discipline, fellowship and mission of the church. And I know that these churches develop effective leaders for the future in church, home and state, are restoring fathers and mothers to their rightful place in the family, are cultivating personal heart-level relationships among their members, and are making the church a dynamic witness that is free to minister to people where they are through relationships that go deep into the real issues of life. Furthermore, they are faithfully doing these things without the reductionism of Uniting Church and Home. In fact, the burden on the heart of these churches is not only for greater spiritual growth and deeper heart-relationships among their members, but also for more numbers of people, because every number is a person made in the image of God, fallen, and in need of the glorious gospel of our blessed God. We work, pray and look forward to the day when the number of believers in Jesus will be more numerous than the stars of the sky and the sand on the beach.

 Conclusion

 Many who share Wallace’s viewpoint draw the line in the wrong place in the sand in the battle for the church in the 21st century. He draws it between those Christian churches that practice age-segregated education and have youth directors and those churches that work to bring the family and church into harmony and unity. As we have said, that is a false dichotomy. The line is to drawn between lovers and doers of the Biblical truth of God, on the one hand, and those who ridicule and reject that truth, on the other.

In the Foreword of Uniting Church and Home, Dr. John H. White of Geneva College presents us with three challenges before the church today: “How can we have a pedagogy that more accurately reflects Biblical norms? How can we communicate a Christian message free of legalism? How can our programs and structures be delivered from the endemic individualism of our culture?” The answers to these questions, it seems to me, are not to be found in Eric Wallace’s paradigm, although as I have said his book contains many good criticisms and suggestions. The answers are to be found in repentance of our unbelief, impenitence and disobedience to God, and in a fresh commitment to and application of the historic Reformed Faith, which is Biblical Christianity in its purest human expression, as set forth in the Westminster Confession of Faith, the Larger and Shorter Catechisms, beginning with the renewal of the heart and mind.

Soli Deo Gloria

[1] This is not to say that the Holy Spirit will not lead the church into a more clarified understanding of revealed truth as history proceeds, for, as John Robinson said, “the Lord has yet more light to break forth from His Word.” However, it will not contradict true expressions of Biblical Faith in previous generations.

  [2] In using a comment in The Family by Benjamin M. Palmer to support his household approach, that “under the New Testament economy, where the Church assumes her final form, the Family is again her home,” (p. 207), Wallace show that he misunderstands Palmer. In the context of Palmer’s comment it is obvious that he meant by it that the visible church found a “home” in the houses of its members, where it met for worship on the Lord’s Day. He refers to several examples on page 207. It should also be pointed out that meeting in homes was not the first choice of the church, Acts 19:8-9. Furthermore, Palmer said the home was the “germ” of the church and the “radix” of the church, because it originated in Adam’s home, Noah’s home and Abraham’s home during its time of immaturity; but Palmer did not say the home is the basis or foundation of the church.

  [3] The Reformed Faith also emphasizes the central role of the Holy Spirit in the Christian life.