< Introduction: Preliminary Considerations

Examining the Doctrine of No Greater Joy Ministries

The faith statement page on the NGJ website opens with the declaration, “In these days and times, it is important that you know what a ministry believes.”

We heartily agree.

Scienda’s somewhat lighthearted doctrinal statement, as mentioned last week, is on the Semper Fidelis page.

Two points in particular leap out in Pearls’ faith statement: the doctrine of man, and certain specifics of the doctrine of salvation. There is also some suggestion that the Pearls’ first point, their stance on the inspired value of the King James Version, may affect their understanding of child-training passages — you may wish to evaluate the contrasting original-language examination of this Israeli author (PDF), locate other viewpoints along the spectrum (ministries such as Focus on the Family are high-profile, and their materials easy to locate), and study through to your own conclusions.

On that note, our purpose here is to advocate careful thought and freedom of personal conviction. While recognizing there is always worldview conflict in social ethics, politics and legislation on this topic, we remind that today’s focus is critical thinking on theology and hermeneutics.

We advise those who read NGJ’s doctrinal statement to also read the Scripture references listed as supporting passages, particularly where the Gospel is concerned. You may find the results surprising; certainly doctrinally revealing. For clarity and convenience, verses we cite are linked to the King James Version at BibleGateway.com.

The points we’ll look at here are not totally foreign to conservative Christians (many are young-earth creationists, many believe in an age of moral accountability, and many cherish the belief that infants who die will go directly to heaven without condemnatory moral culpability). For those who hold such convictions, the insertion of modified theology may not immediately stand out.

We’ll open with Cat’s concerns followed by Dave’s doctrinal analysis. As women often tend to be the ones who read and absorb homeschooling and child-training materials before their husbands do, we include the following exhortation.

Cat: Does the Bible specifically instruct women to be discerning?

Dave: If it speaks to them about salvation, it speaks to them about discernment. In the Bible, discernment is not gender-specific. Also, the Proverbs woman is not just an active woman, she’s a thinking woman.

Cat: I see that she knows how to do good and not evil throughout the full span of her marriage. (Prov. 31:12) That’s highly discerning, actually.

The Doctrine of Man

We’ll begin with some thoughts on the doctrine of humankind. Points of interest to us are in bold text.

MAN

We believe that man was created in the span of a twenty-four hour period. He was created perfect physically and constitutionally, including the moral and spiritual essence. Man, though complete and entire, wanting nothing, was, in his innocence, without character. The tree of knowledge of good and evil, a moral testing ground, was, in the wisdom of God, the perfect opportunity for spiritual development. The natural constitution of man (desire for food, etc.) became the basis for temptation.

Because there’s no Scripture on which it’s based, it’s impossible to say what sinless humans being “without character” means in biblical terms, or what precisely they lacked in “spiritual development.” However, To Train Up a Child makes the following claim (p. 5, 2008 edition):

PLANT YOUR TREE IN THE MIDST OF THE GARDEN

When God wanted to “train” his first two children not to touch, He did not place the forbidden object out of their reach. Instead, He placed the “tree of knowledge of good and evil” in the “midst of the garden” (Gen. 3:3). Since it was readily accessible in the middle of the garden, they would be exposed to its temptation more often. God’s purpose was not to save the tree, but rather, to train the couple.

Note that the name of the tree was not just “knowledge of evil,” but, “knowledge of good and evil.” By exercising their wills not to eat, they would have learned the meaning of “good” as well as “evil.” Eating the tree’s fruit was not the only way in which they could come to knowledge of good and evil, but it was a forbidden shortcut. [all emphases in original]

Cat: Concerns

Note that the plain purpose of the origins account — to give an account of origins — has been co-opted into an unsupported hypothetical about God’s purposes, His thoughts, and His “training” in an ideal world. There is a subtle false dichotomy created here: the idea that, in choosing to disobey, Adam and Eve gained the knowledge of evil; whereas, in choosing to obey, they would have learned the knowledge of good. However, from the greater context of Scripture, the knowledge of good is not founded on our perfect obedience, nor the exercise of our will to good, but in the character of God. [1]

The explanation is attractive because it inserts a sense of reasoning into the passage regarding the tree’s name — what other purpose could a tree with such a name have? (I can think of at least one alternative which does have Scriptural support.) However, in this very passage, we see the same sort of eisegesis [2] committed by a scale-sporting character defined therein as the epitome of anti-God.

“For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.” ~Gen. 3:5

This, too, makes unsupportable claims about what God is thinking and what His motivations are. In order to be true to my profession of being a Bible-believing mother, I cannot accept eisegesis as the foundational grounds for a system of child-rearing. It is not doctrine, it is personal speculation about hypothetical doctrine. 2 Pet. 1:20 gives the Bible’s take on that: no Scripture is of any private interpretation.

Dave: Doctrine

The fact that Adam could commune with God (Gen. 2:15ff.) meant that he had moral character. God says that He made man in His own image. (Gen. 1:26) God would have been lying to make that statement if He created them “without character.” God Himself, in His own image, has moral character.

Moral testing ground? How much more developed, spiritually, can you be than being “without sin”? That is our ultimate goal, to be sinless in the presence of God. (Rom. 8:29, 1 John 3:2)

The natural constitution of man as the basis for temptation? Pearl is blending two states. We were not created in a state of sinless perfection; only Adam was. “In sin my mother conceived me.” (Ps. 51:5) The natural constitution of man today is sinful (James 1:13-15), but that’s not the basis for Adam’s temptation. Adam was in a sinless state, as Christ (“the last Adam,” Rom. 5:14, 1 Cor. 15:45) was when He was tempted. So we have to ask, if the natural constitution is the basis of temptation, and if Adam was created in the image of God, how does that correlate to Christ’s temptation? (Matt. 4) The basis for temptation in both cases was Satan’s lies.

PLANT YOUR TREE IN THE MIDST OF THE GARDEN (Cont’d)

The beauty of this is that thereafter, every time the children pass the ‘No-No’ object (their “tree of knowledge of good and evil”), they are gaining knowledge of good and evil from the standpoint of an overcomer. As with Adam and Eve in the garden, the object and the touching of it is, in itself, of no consequence; but the attachment of a command to it makes it a moral “factory” where character is produced. By your enforcement, your children are learning about moral government, duty, responsibility and, in the event of failure, accountability, rewards and punishment.

Cat: Concerns

With the phrase “moral government,” Pearl’s basis becomes much clearer. From this informational page,

Moral government theology claims that man is born morally neutral and is always capable of choosing whether or not to sin, and his moral character is determined by his choices.

Pearl uses the creation account and teachings on the “age of accountability” to render his beliefs about sin and salvation in language which may be more appealing to a broader range of consumers, at least on the surface. However, age of accountability too is a point that, he acknowledges, has no clear Scriptural definition, though he seems willing again to insert a number of ideas into the passages he references on the topic. Pearl acknowledges in the article (The Salvation of Children, 2007) that he holds “a singular view,” yet he is not deterred from presenting it on the authority of years of practice.

Again, as a Bible-believing mother, the fact that an individual holds and practices a conviction for years cannot be my rationale for accepting it. It must be clearly founded on Scripture, not on eisegesis.

Dave: Doctrine

All children are learning from not touching a “no-no” object is not to touch it, or they will be punished. There is no “why.” God gives us a “why” if we seek it. “If anyone lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all men generously and without reproach, and it will be given to him.” (James 1:5)

What if the parent is wrong? We’re fallen creatures ourselves. Pearl doesn’t leave room for cases where the parent is wrong, because kids are supposed to obey without questioning, even if they know it’s wrong. [3]

Discussion:

What are your thoughts on this?

What biblical applications do you see in the first three chapters of Genesis for parents?

Please share. (NB First-time comments require moderation, after that you’re free to participate. )

Footnotes and Further Resources

[1] For advanced commentary on God as the source of goodness, please see: Less Real Than We Think, More Real Than We Want and Thoughts on the Euthyphro Dilemma by Marc Schooley

[2] See also: The Garden of Eden by Dana Hanley

[3] For potential consequences of this type of training, see The 49 Character Qualities of Ruth #11 at No Longer Qivering. Rather than teaching the knowledge of good and evil, it teaches children to deny both their innate conscience and their taught knowledge of good and evil, which can in fact open them to abuse by adults around them, even in a “gated” spiritual community. The unavoidable problem with abusers is that they are highly skilled at manipulating a community’s “gating” rules and abusing trust, including our trust as parents. Something more than rules and obedience to them must prevail.