Lucy brings up a good point in her most recent post. She is the head of her household, and as such attends the HoH meetings for her church. And people often refer to those meetings as ‘men’s meetings’, when they aren’t such a thing.

At my church, the same thing happens. We don’t have any female head of households, so it really isn’t a big issue. But I’ve often wondered whether we should call the head of household meeting the ‘men’s meeting’. Or, when we pray corporately for the heads of households, whether we should pray for the HoH to lead their wives and children. Should we avoid this language because of the few exceptions (as Lucy said, she’s the only female HoH in her parrish…), or should we just use it as a generalization? Generalizations aren’t bad.

So anyhow… that’s just something I’ve contemplated a time or two.

sometimes I wish I were wealthy, so that I could buy things for the various bloggers that I know (and don’t know).

It seems my poor blog is being neglected. Sorry blog.

This week I’ve relistened to AAPC 2003. I realized that much of Pipa’s colloquium general critique is actually the same material from his critique of Steve Wilkins from the ’03 conference. That’s disappointing.

Anyhow… Doug Wilson’s summary of the ‘Federal Vision’ perspective was simply fantastic. A few weeks ago I was debating with a gentleman on a webboard about the presence of faith and/or conversion in covenant children. My argument is that we make such judgements by covenant, and since baptized children are in the covenant, we are to believe that they are indeed regenerate (in the theologically precise understanding). We are to believe they have saving faith, are converted, and are of God’s elect.

I had trouble expressing myself on one point, and I think Mr. Wilson did a fantastic job in that paper in getting across what I was trying to. He says that we make this judgement about our children based on their position in the covenant. He says we do not make a dogmatic, absolute claim about their faith and/or election, but because they are in the covenant, we treat them as though they do believe, and are elect. And then he says that, at the same time, we really do believe these things. We really believe that they are elect. To paraphrase John Barach, we aren’t just making a judgment of charity. We aren’t saying, well, they might or they might not really be elect, so we’ll just be charitable, and treat them like they are elect. No, that’s not what we do. We don’t doubt their salvation… we don’t doubt their faith. We really and truly believe that they trust in God for their salvation, to the capacity that their frames allow.
My household, including my one and two year old children, trust the Lord for their salvation. That is what I believe. If you were to ask me if my daughter Geneva is a Christian, I will answer with an unqualified ‘Yes’. She is a Christian. If you ask me if she trust in Christ, my answer will be the same. And I will also give the same answer if one were to ask me if she is elect. Yes, yes, yes. She is. And if I doubt that, recognizing her position of good standing in the covenant, I am doubting what God has said, and as such I am sinning. I believe God, and therefore trust that my girls are among that number which will be with Christ at the end, for eternity.

Does that mean, though, that if my girls do not remain faithful to the covenant; if they do not continue in God’s goodness to them, and trust in Christ alone for their salvation, that they will still end up in the same place? That nothing further is required of them in this life? Absolutly not. They need to obey God, and be faithful to what He has required of them. If they break covenant with Him, and refuse to repent, then they will be cut off. The danger is real.

So, in summary, be sure to read Doug Wilson’s ‘Federal Vision’ summary article from the AAPC Colloquium.