United Families Dividing Churches

Reprinted with permission from Faith Pulpit (Jan-Mar, 2012)

The Family Integrated Church Movement (FICM) is having a growing impact within fundamental Baptist churches. Since the mid-1990s an increasing number of families within fundamental churches have gravitated toward the family-integrated approach. In addition, families entrenched in the movement have been drawn to fundamental churches because of their emphasis on Biblical preaching and conservatism. At first glance the influence of the FICM might seem entirely beneficial for traditional churches, but unfortunately not all of the impact has been positive. The FICM mindset can divide churches.

Understanding the FICM

The FICM is comprised of evangelical churches, pastors, and laymen who share a distinct philosophical approach toward the family and church. Advocates of family-integrated churches (FIC) believe that families should always worship and fellowship together in age-integrated (i.e., multigenerational) services and activities. Conversely they insist that virtually all age-segregated ministries and activities at church, such as Sunday School or youth ministries, are unequivocally unbiblical. Also, they often speak of the father as the conduit of spirtual growth in the family.

The FICM is not a denomination but rather a loose association of churches and organizations represented by a variety of denominational perspectives. Some key leaders are the following:

  • Scott Brown, director of the National Center for Family-Integrated Churches (NCFIC)1
  • Doug Phillips, president of Vision Forum Ministries2
  • Voddie Baucham Jr., professor, author, and pastor of Grace Family Baptist Church near Houston, Texas3
  • Eric Wallace, president of the Institute for Uniting Church and Home (IUCAH).4

The NCFIC, founded in 2001, is the flagship organization for the FICM and has a national network of more than 800 churches. It should be no surprise that the FICM has close ties to some currents of the homeschooling movement. While homeschooling is not essential to the FICM, the vast majority of families in FIC homeschool their children.5

The central concern of the FICM

God has established three institutions to bring order to creation and fulfill His purposes: the family, the state, and the church. Scripture delineates specific responsibilities for each institution, and ideally the relationship between the family, state, and church should be harmonious and complementary, each institution fulfilling its God-given role within its distinct jurisdiction. According to those in the FICM, the fundamental problem within evangelical churches is the skewed relationship of the family and church.6 Leaders of the FICM argue that churches have usurped the responsibility and role of families and consequently enabled families (and especially fathers) to abdicate and abandon their God-given responsibility to train their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.

According to the FICM, this distortion and blurring of jurisdictions have led to an alarming crisis within the American church. Youth are abandoning the church and Christianity at incredible rates. Studies suggest that as many as 40% and up to 88% of today’s young people are leaving evangelical churches once they leave the home.7 In addition, only about 10% of churched teens have a Biblical worldview.8 These statistics are shocking and prove that something is clearly wrong. Those within the FICM believe the root of the problem rests in the current way churches relate to families.

Adherents of family integration identify the culture of age segregation within church ministry as the key culprit. They consider ministries that separate families by age (or for any other reason) as unbiblical and a form of “practical apostasy.”9 These ministries include Sunday School; youth ministry; children’s church; children’s clubs (like Awana and Kids4Truth); VBS; youth camps; college, singles, and senior ministries; and often nurseries.

Scott Brown contends that age segregation is inherently wrong for several reasons.10 First, using the Regulative Principle and historical-grammatical hermeneutics, he argues that age segregation is not found in Scripture and is therefore unwarranted and indefensible. At the same time, he points to examples in Scripture where families worshipped together as the normal pattern. Second, he asserts that the very concept of age-segregated training is the product of humanistic philosophers, educators, and sociologists and is therefore corrupt. Consequently, the church has inadvertently replaced Biblical truth and methodology with pagan, non-Christian philosophies and practices. Third, Brown suggests that age-segregated ministries are wrong because they have failed to produce lasting fruit and are not working.

Distinctives of the FICM

The leaders of the FICM see themselves as part of a reformation movement within the church similar to the Protestant Reformation. As Voddie Baucham states, “This is a reformation, a paradigm shift… . We are not talking about a new program; we are talking about a complete overhaul of the philosophy that is accepted in our churches, colleges, seminaries, and homes as the only way to do it.”11 They describe the church as the “family of families” to explain the complementary relationship between the church and family, that is, the church should acknowledge the authority and jurisdiction of families within the church.

So what do family-integrated churches look like?12 First and foremost, they worship together as families. Virtually all services and activities are intergenerational. Second, there is conversely an absence of age-segregated ministries. Baucham summarizes, “The family-integrated church movement is easily distinguishable in its insistence on integration as an ecclesiological principle… . There is no systematic age segregation in the family-integrated church!”13 Third, “the family is the evangelism and discipleship arm of the family-integrated church.”14 Advocates in the FICM lay the responsibility of making disciples on the shoulders of parents, and primarily fathers, based upon the Bible’s clear teaching on childrearing (Deut. 6:1–9; Eph. 6:1–4). Fathers are expected to lead their families in worship and catechism.15 As a result, church takes a secondary role in the discipleship process, primarily training and equipping fathers and mothers to do the work of the ministry. Intergenerational teaching (when the older teach the younger, e.g., Titus 2:3, 4) takes place not through church programs but rather through informal relationships. Their youth ministry philosophy could be summarized in Malachi 4:6a, “And he will turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers.”16 Families are expected to reach their own children with the gospel and reach the lost outside the church through simple obedience to the Great Commission and hospitality.17 Fourth, family-integrated churches place an emphasis on education as a key component of discipleship. This involves not only family catechism but also homeschooling for most.

Other common characteristics in family-integrated churches include an emphasis on strong marriages, male headship and Biblical patriarchy, elder rule ecclesiology, courting, and the “quiverfull” approach to family planning. While it would be wrong to see the FICM as monolithic, the majority of leaders fall into either the Presbyterian/Reformed or Baptist wings of the Reformed tradition. Most see themselves as carrying the baton of the Puritans in matters related to the family and church.

Evaluating the FICM

How should one evaluate the FICM? I find several areas of agreement. First, those in the FICM have a high view of Scripture and correctly see it as the sole authority for doctrine and practice in the church. Second, they place a high value on expository preaching. Third, proponents should also be commended for staying in the church. Their ecclesiology reflects the New Testament more closely than other family movements such as some cell churches and home churches who have virtually abandoned a full ecclesiology. Fourth, those concerned with worldliness in the church will find an affinity with FIC authors.

Finally, I also believe FIC proponents are essentially correct in identifying the breakdown of the family as the fundamental problem in why youth are deserting the church. Those who work with youth need to acknowledge that parents have the greatest spiritual impact.18 So the FICM’s emphasis on parental responsibility in the spiritual training of their own children is welcome and needed. I have personally benefited from some of their writings on family worship.19

I find, however, several areas of disagreement with the FICM.20 The seminal problem with the FICM is the tendency for family concerns to override church ministry. For example, their inflexible position toward age-segregated ministries is wrong for a number of reasons. First, it is wrong hermeneutically. FIC advocates protest vigorously that since there are no explicit Biblical directives or examples for age-segregated programs, they are unbiblical. However, this kind of hermeneutical approach is flawed. Using this reasoning, things like church buildings, pews, musical instruments, and technological advancements, along with church officers such as clerks and treasurers, would have to be deemed unbiblical as well. FIC adherents press the Regulative Principle too far. This Reformation principle was intended to regulate corporate worship at Sunday services, not the outworking of the Great Commission in other activities.21

Second, it is wrong theologically. The mandate to “make disciples” is given to the church (Matt. 28:19, 20). This mandate is to reach all people, regardless of their ethnicity, gender, age, or family status. The church is not required to reach individuals through their families. Although this normally may be the case, it certainly is not mandated. In fact, Jesus announced that He came to bring division to families, which is often the practical effect of the gospel (Matt. 10:34–36; Luke 12:51–53). Technically, churches are not comprised of families; they are comprised of believing individuals (at least in Baptist polity). In this sense, the church’s authority to disciple individuals both includes families and transcends families. The Bible gives both examples and instructions showing how God’s grace can triumph in less-than-ideal family situations (e.g., Acts 16:14, 15, 40; 1 Cor. 7:14; 2 Tim. 1:5; 3:15; 1 Pet. 3:1, 2).

Further, in Ephesians 4:7–16, we see a Biblical rationale for teaching ministries in the church. Paul wrote that God gifted the church with leaders, such as pastors and teachers, to equip the saints to accomplish the work of the ministry (4:11, 12). This work is essentially discipleship, and the heart of discipleship is teaching. So pastors are to train and equip the saints to teach. This is a principled, Biblical argument for qualified men and women to teach the body of Christ. Christian education programs are simply venues to accomplish Biblical discipleship.

Third, inflexible insistence on family integration is wrong practically. In my opinion, the leaders of the FICM have failed to prove that age-segregated ministries are the cause of the problem. Instead, the family integration philosophy has actually generated divisions in traditional (nonintegrated) churches rather than unity. Families involved in the FICM tend to make their convictions a test of fellowship, choosing to disassociate with believers in their own church who do not share FIC values. Both Scott Brown and Voddie Baucham acknowledge this unfortunate phenomenon in their writings and sermons. In addition, the emphasis on family discipleship within the FIC has the potential for alienating or neglecting those outside of nuclear families (e.g., singles and broken families).

In conclusion, the emphasis in the FICM on parental responsibility and spiritual discipleship in the home is welcome and needed. Instead of uniting the church and home, however, the FIC philosophy often leads to division in the church. By potentially elevating the family above the church, the FICM tends to diminish the proper role and authority of the church.22

(The text of this article, as well as a Theology of the Family outline, are currently available at the Faith Pulpit website.)

Notes

1 The NCFIC website (ncfic.org) has numerous articles and resources that articulate the vision for family-integrated churches. Particularly noteworthy is the NCFIC Confession and the documentary Divided, The Movie.

2 Vision Forum Ministries (visionforumministries.org) provides resources on many issues related to the family, such as home education, civil and legal issues, and family integration. Especially informative for the FICM is its statement on Biblical Patriarchy.

3 Baucham is probably the most mainstream spokesman for the FICM. In addition to his books, his church website and blog have a wealth of information about the FICM (gracefamilybaptist.net).

4 Wallace promotes more of a mediating position between what he calls the Traditional Ministry (with multiple programs) and the Over-Corrective Designs (where the church focuses on nuclear families alone). He calls it the Household Relationship Design (unitingchurchandhome.org).

5 J. Mark Fox, Family-Integrated Church: Healthy Families, Healthy Church (USA: Xulon Press, 2006), 43, 44.

6 The majority within the FICM would also advocate that the relationship between the family and state is askew as well. Most are strong advocates for homeschooling and believe the state has no right to educate youth.

7 Ken Ham and Britt Beemer, Already Gone: Why Your Kids Will Quit Church and What You Can Do to Stop It (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2009), 19–36; Scott T. Brown, A Weed in the Church: How a Culture of Age Segregation Is Destroying the Younger Generation, Fragmenting the Family, and Dividing the Church (Wake Forest: National Center for Family Integrated Churches, 2010), 37, 38.

8 Voddie Baucham Jr., Family Driven Faith: Doing What It Takes to Raise Sons and Daughters Who Walk with God (Wheaton: Crossway, 2007), 176, 184.

9 Brown, A Weed in the Church, 37.

10 Brown, A Weed in the Church, 71–130. See also Baucham, Family Driven Faith, 176–85.

11 Baucham, Family Driven Faith, 197, 204.

12 Baucham, Family Driven Faith, 195–203; Brown, A Weed in the Church, 141–94.

13 Baucham, Family Driven Faith, 196, 97.

14 Baucham, Family Driven Faith, 197.

15 This is developed in Baucham’s newest book, Family Shepherds: Calling and Equipping Men to Lead Their Homes (Wheaton: Crossway, 2011).

16 See Paul Renfro’s contributions in T. P. Jones, ed., Perspectives on Family Ministry: Three Views (Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 2009).

17 Brown, A Weed in the Church, 215–19.

18 I made this same argument in my January 2000 Faith Pulpit article, “Family-Based Youth Ministry.”

19 Their views on patriarchy, however, are a distortion of Biblical complementarianism.

20 For critical reviews of the FICM, see A. J. Köstenberger and D. W. Jones, God, Marriage, and Family: Rebuilding the Biblical Foundation. 2nd ed. (Wheaton: Crossway, 2010), 260-67; J. Webb, “The Family-Integrated Church Movement: An Exploration in Ecclesiology” (MAR Thesis, Reformed Theological Seminary, 2009).

21 See Terrry Johnson, “What Does the Regulative Principle Require of Church Members” 9Marks eJournal 8, no. 3 (May/June 2011): 32–34 (accessed February 21, 2012). Ironically, Scott Brown quotes Mark Dever’s definition of the Regulative Principle in making his point about age-segregated programs (A Weed in the Church, 83), yet Dever’s 9Marks eJournal for Jan/Feb 2012 is dedicated to the subject of the Sunday School (accessed February 13, 2012). Here’s the point: not everyone who subscribes to the Regulative Principle would agree with Brown’s application of it to age-segregation.

22 So also Köstenberger, God, Marriage, and Family, 259.

Discussion

[Larry] Here’s another heretical statement for you: It is commonly said by some that the church should support what goes on at home. Again 1 Tim 3:15 seems to contradict that. The home should support what is going on in the church. I have seen enough homes that I do not want the church to support what goes on there. Out of all the declarations, images, and metaphors for the church in the NT, one image not used is anything that communicates an instrument of support for parents. Again, heretical I know. But what does the NT actually teach?
Larry, if both a church and a family are united around belief in the truth, wouldn’t “who is supporting whom” be a moot issue? The family is a part of the church, after all, not an island unto itself. The family “supports” the church in that it learns from the teaching of the pastor and applies truth properly. The church in turn “supports” the family in that it provides opportunities for growth and discipleship. If the father is teaching truth to his children at home, the church’s teaching will indeed be another source of reinforcement for that teaching.

[Susan R] I also agree that the obvious solution is to provide quality materials. But if one MUST have age-segregated SS for kids, one should separate ‘churched’ kids from ‘unchurched’ kids, for lack of a better description.
How does this equate to body life. Or does that part of ecclesiology only apply to adult Christians, not the minor Christians? This overbalance toward one institution to the detriment of another is one of the inherent problems with the FIC movement. Would you want to segregate the adults too? Perhaps two services - one for the mature and one for the novices?

Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?

You are making my point for me. If one believes in segregation, then Scripturally it makes more sense to separate those on a milk diet from those on a meat diet, rather than an arbitrary and senseless division by chronological age or marital status. Or we’d end up with widows ministering to each other instead of being cared for by the church body.

I do not believe, (nor does the FICM) for the average worship service, segregation is ‘needed’ AT ALL.

But I think this line of thinking is scary, and it is exactly what I was talking about earlier. If parents make a decision as to how to best minister to their own child, they are ‘selfish’ or ‘isolationist’.

If SS were the only place a person could minister to others, I’d buy the argument. But it ain’t, so I don’t.
FYI, I didn’t use “selfish” or “isolationist.” But notice how you didn’t really address the point. Tell me why you are not being consumeristic here at the expense of ministering to others?

Since SS is not the only place of ministry to others (your children included), why would you not have your children in the SS for the purpose of ministering to others and then minister to your own children elsewhere as well? Are your children better off being taught that we give up some things for the sake of ministry to others? Are other children better off because your children are around them, even when they could be somewhere else?

Again, I make the point that Christianity in the NT is not an individual thing, but a team sport. It’s where we all serve each other, even when that is inconvenient to us personally.

You can minister to your children all week long. You can only minister to others when you are around them in the church meetings. You are giving up the latter (which is more limited) for the former (which is virtually unlimited, particularly when you home school).

Larry, if both a church and a family are united around belief in the truth, wouldn’t “who is supporting whom” be a moot issue?
No, not in the NT. The church is the foundation, the pillar and support of the truth. It is the central feature of NT Christianity.

OF course I want to support parents when the are doing what is right. But the fundamental relationship in the NT with respect to truth seems to place the priority on the church.

So yes, I want parents leading their families, particularly fathers. But I recognize that many do not, and kids should not be at the mercy of those who don’t.

BTW, I think one reason for this is that in the OT, the primary spiritual relationship was familial, in the covenant community. In the NT, the primary spiritual relationship is not familial.
If the father is teaching truth to his children at home, the church’s teaching will indeed be another source of reinforcement for that teaching.
This is my point: That seems to be worded backwards with respect to the NT. The church is not a source of reinforcement for the home’s teaching. The church is where the truth has been committed to, and the home is to support what is being taught by the God-ordained repository for truth which the church (1 Tim 3:15).

Obviously many churches are failing this in that you all sorts of aberrant teaching, both in doctrine and in practice. But aberrancy doesn’t mean we give up the biblical model.

If there was a Biblical mandate to put one’s child in a SS class, I’d understand the argument. But there isn’t. We are free to do what we believe best nurtures our children in the Lord. Churches do not get to take an extra-Biblical idea and make it a Biblical commandment in any dispensation.

Children in their formative years are often NOT in the position to minister to others, and oftentimes they are not regnerate themselves, and thus CANNOT minister to others spiritually. Is church leadership going to say that they know better where a child is spiritually than a parent?

Furthermore, when church leadership expects parents to support their decisions about the family, and insists that parents bow to their judgment against the parent’s own, where are they when it’s time to pick up the pieces? Is the church going to take responsibility when the result is a prodigal? Are they offering a 30 year money back guarantee?

Oh wait- when a kid becomes a prodigal, it must have been the parent’s fault. The church that has claimed primary accountability and responsibility all those years is suddenly staring in wide-eyed innocence “It wasn’t OUR fault!”

Sorry- churches can’t have it both ways. Both parents and churches have a responsibility to the body and the children that are part of that by presence or conversion, but somebody has to have the overriding veto power, and that rests with mom and dad.

If there was a Biblical mandate to put one’s child in a SS class, I’d understand the argument. But there isn’t. We are free to do what we believe best nurtures our children in the Lord. Churches do not get to take an extra-Biblical idea and make it a Biblical commandment in any dispensation.
No dispute, but since no one is making that argument, I am not sure why this is here. SS is not even a mandate (we don’t have SS here). The issue is more one of wisdom and ministry.

I would love to have some families in our church who are spiritually strong and whose children are faithfully involved. I think it would be an overall negative to have families who thought their children were too good or too advanced for the children’s classes because of the other children in them. I am not attributing this to you, but wouldn’t this lead to pride on the part of your children? Someone says, “Why aren’t you in the class?” “Well, that is too young for us and we are past that.” Think of you own situation: “We listen to Spiros Zodhiates all week, so listening to 65 year old Miss Smith for forty-five minutes is below us.” Again, it just seems to me that it smacks of individualism rather than community.

Again, we have all week long to minister to our children. Since that hour of SS is not the only hour for ministry during the week, why not serve the body during that time by involving them in body life for the sake of others, and use the other 67 hours for personal influence?

There’s a lot of stuff I do, not because it is best for me, but because it is best for those around me. I defer for their sake, and take care of myself and my family in other venues.
Children in their formative years are often NOT in the position to minister to others, and oftentimes they are not regnerate themselves, and thus CANNOT minister to others spiritually.
I completely disagree with this. We are always in our formative years to one degree or another. I think people underestimate the influence of others, even with their mere presence. There is nothing so discouraging to a teacher at any level as having no one show up, or having very few. Even worse is knowing that some who could be there but are not there because they (or their parents) think they are above it or don’t need it.
Is church leadership going to say that they know better where a child is spiritually than a parent?
Quite often, I would say yes. In your case, or mine, perhaps not. But in the case of real families (i.e., those who are not as spiritually committed), it is much more likely that mature Christians can evaluate the spiritual condition of children better than parents. For example, we have had some children attending for several months. Yesterday, for the first time, their mother came. Now, who do you think is better able to evaluate where the child is spiritually? Who has the better categories for that? I would say the church does. I am not even sure that an unsaved parent has the categories for spiritual evaluation.
Furthermore, when church leadership expects parents to support their decisions about the family, and insists that parents bow to their judgment against the parent’s own, where are they when it’s time to pick up the pieces? Is the church going to take responsibility when the result is a prodigal? Are they offering a 30 year money back guarantee?
Again, this doesn’t seem relevant. First, no one here is mandating that parents bow down to church leadership. Second, and more to the point, I doubt there are a lot of kids who went prodigal only because their parents put them in SS and spent the other 167 hours a weak teaching them spiritually. My guess is that there are some other things going on. As you say, the SS hour is not the only hour during the week. My guess is that if a parent spends time daily with their children teaching them, praying for and with them, catechizing them, etc., they will not be greatly damaged by an hour or two with a dedicated and faithful Christian who teaches them in the corporate gathering of the church.
Both parents and churches have a responsibility to the body and the children that are part of that by presence or conversion, but somebody has to have the overriding veto power, and that rests with mom and dad.
Obviously parents can do what they want. But that doesn’t make it good necessarily. Some things parents do, even with good intentions, are wrong or at least unwise. I think this fits into the latter category.

Thanks for the exchange.

[Larry]
Larry, if both a church and a family are united around belief in the truth, wouldn’t “who is supporting whom” be a moot issue?
No, not in the NT. The church is the foundation, the pillar and support of the truth. It is the central feature of NT Christianity.
I guess my point is that the family is part of the church. The “family” and the “church” have a symbiotic relationship; they are not entirely separate entities. The church wouldn’t be the church without the people that make it up.
So yes, I want parents leading their families, particularly fathers. But I recognize that many do not, and kids should not be at the mercy of those who don’t.
No disagreement here.
BTW, I think one reason for this is that in the OT, the primary spiritual relationship was familial, in the covenant community. In the NT, the primary spiritual relationship is not familial.
No…but with respect to children (including as yet unregenerate children), the NT clearly places the “bringing up” of the children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord squarely upon the fathers’ shoulders. So, shouldn’t churches be focusing more on teaching the fathers to fulfill their God-given responsibilities than they should on providing an “out” for the ones who aren’t up to snuff? If the majority of the fathers in a congregation aren’t doing their jobs, and have to rely on others to “parent their kids” for them, then wouldn’t you agree that the church has a primary responsibility to help those fathers and not just give them another reason to shirk their duty (by undertaking the child training for them)? I know that I’m speaking in broad terms here, and that every church dynamic is different (urban ministries are definitely different than suburban, etc.), but I don’t think that in a healthy church, the problem of “untaught kids” should be overwhelming enough to merit complete age segregation.
If the father is teaching truth to his children at home, the church’s teaching will indeed be another source of reinforcement for that teaching.
This is my point: That seems to be worded backwards with respect to the NT. The church is not a source of reinforcement for the home’s teaching. The church is where the truth has been committed to, and the home is to support what is being taught by the God-ordained repository for truth which the church (1 Tim 3:15).

Obviously many churches are failing this in that you all sorts of aberrant teaching, both in doctrine and in practice. But aberrancy doesn’t mean we give up the biblical model.
I get what you are saying, and I agree with you. I guess I don’t see how this negates the father’s responsibility as head of his home and chief “bringer upper” of his children. :)

In case you missed it, I see no problem with age-segregated SS done correctly…however, this method (seeing that it really has no biblical mandate) shouldn’t be considered an “iron cage” or “the way things ought always to be done in every church.”

There are far too many separate points and “what if” scenarios to address now. Suffice it to say that I believe there are spheres of authority that often overlap and occasionally supersede each other. The individual, the family, the church- all have Biblical principles to follow. When each are fulfilling their duties, all will benefit in the manner that God intended.

My only objection in this whole shebang is when the church leadership believes it is in the position to mandate extra-Biblical ideas to individuals and families, be it SS or movies or music. Biblical principles guide us quite far down the path, and then after that we have some liberty to figure out how to best minister to ourselves and to each other.

It may sound like pride or selfishness to say that one must attend to one’s own spiritual needs first, but that is exactly what Scripture teaches. I cannot minister to anyone else unless I am in the position to do so, and neither can my kids. The Bible further commands that pastors, elders, deacons, and teachers have certain qualifications, and in each passage dealing with church leadership, they are commanded to have their families in order. If they do not have their families in order, they cannot lead the church of God. That tells me something about what God believes the proper relationship between church and family should be.

Again, it is not either/or, and there is no blanket rule for every family to follow. Not participating in SS is not being a ‘consumer’ or ‘me-centered’. Kids would much rather play games and chatter with friends than sit with mom and dad in church and be expected to pay attention and intelligently discuss the spiritual truths presented. It takes a lot more effort to take responsibility for one’s children in every aspect of their lives than to delegate and hope for the best.

For families and children who are from broken homes, obviously the church should minister to them, and ‘churched’ kids can be a part of that. But it is still a parent’s duty to decide if their child is mature enough to be any kind of help. Unfortunately, many SS classes are comprised of kids whose parents aren’t involved or don’t care, where kids are using foul and sexually explicit language, boys and girls are flirting instead of paying attention, shallow material is used week after week because it is assumed that kids won’t pay attention without it… that is not the kind of sacrifice that Christian parents or kids are called to make. That is why I said that the church is commanded to have their ducks in a row first before they can adequately minister to a congregation, much less dictate to parents how they should teach and train their kids.

[Julie] I get what you are saying, and I agree with you. I guess I don’t see how this negates the father’s responsibility as head of his home and chief “bringer upper” of his children. Smile

In case you missed it, I see no problem with age-segregated SS done correctly…however, this method (seeing that it really has no biblical mandate) shouldn’t be considered an “iron cage” or “the way things ought always to be done in every church.”
I agree with you on all that.

Suffice it to say that I believe there are spheres of authority that often overlap and occasionally supersede each other. The individual, the family, the church- all have Biblical principles to follow. When each are fulfilling their duties, all will benefit in the manner that God intended.
I agree.
My only objection in this whole shebang is when the church leadership believes it is in the position to mandate extra-Biblical ideas to individuals and families, be it SS or movies or music. Biblical principles guide us quite far down the path, and then after that we have some liberty to figure out how to best minister to ourselves and to each other.
Again, I agree.
It may sound like pride or selfishness to say that one must attend to one’s own spiritual needs first, but that is exactly what Scripture teaches.
I agree, but that’s not really the issue here.
If they do not have their families in order, they cannot lead the church of God. That tells me something about what God believes the proper relationship between church and family should be.
I don’t agree here. The requirements you mention regarding families deal with leadership in the church, and the relationship between one leading the church and the way he manages his family. That is not applicable to the membership of the church. It should be taught, but it is not demanded. So here, I think you are comparing apples and oranges.
Not participating in SS is not being a ‘consumer’ or ‘me-centered’.
Not necessarily, but it can be.
Kids would much rather play games and chatter with friends than sit with mom and dad in church and be expected to pay attention and intelligently discuss the spiritual truths presented.
As with some stuff above, not sure why this is here. No one has suggested this, have they?
It takes a lot more effort to take responsibility for one’s children in every aspect of their lives than to delegate and hope for the best.
If parents delegate and hope for the best, then they are sinning. But I don’t think anyone has suggested that, have they?
Unfortunately, many SS classes are comprised of kids whose parents aren’t involved or don’t care, where kids are using foul and sexually explicit language, boys and girls are flirting instead of paying attention, shallow material is used week after week because it is assumed that kids won’t pay attention without it… that is not the kind of sacrifice that Christian parents or kids are called to make.
First, some of this is just life in ministry. And if you want to avoid it all, you must go out of the world. Second, no one here is defending this. So running to an extreme to argue against a norm is not all that helpful. If you disagree with what you list here, then I welcome you to the party. I oppose it all, and have for a long time. That’s not really the point.
That is why I said that the church is commanded to have their ducks in a row first before they can adequately minister to a congregation, much less dictate to parents how they should teach and train their kids.
I am not sure what this means. The church is the congregation, so I am not sure how the church can have its ducks in a row before ministering to the church. Furthermore, it seems to me that a healthy church will never have all its ducks in a row. There will always be foul mouthed people, flirting, bad influences, etc. It’s called ministry.

In the end, I imagine that most of what you oppose is what I oppose and what I work against in our church. But I have been around enough to see some severe dangers with some of the “solutions” that the FIC approach brings. Not to mention the whole lack of a biblical model for it.

Regardless of all the ink spilled (cyberly speaking of course), at the end of the day, the Bible still uses age related metaphors, still speaks of growth and teaching people where they are at, and still gives the church to responsibility to defend and propagate the truth. Families should be strong families, and fathers should lead their families. Churches should teach and disciple men to lead their families. And when men do that effectively, most of the danger that you are concerned about is greatly minimized.

Again thanks, and I will give you the last word if you want it.

we appear to be talking past each other. I think we agree far more than it appears on the screen. C’est la vie.
The requirements you mention regarding families deal with leadership in the church, and the relationship between one leading the church and the way he manages his family. That is not applicable to the membership of the church. It should be taught, but it is not demanded. So here, I think you are comparing apples and oranges.
I didn’t say it applied to the membership, although, in a sense, it does. Christian parents who do not disciple their children are in rebellion against God.

My point was more to the fact that church leadership can’t/shouldn’t lead if their families aren’t in order tells me that God places a high priority on an orderly family as much as He does an orderly church. The two expectations are not in competition, but rather are essential to each other. When I said the church needs to have their ducks in a row, I was still speaking of the leadership, not the church body in general. Sorry if I was not being very clear on that.

Then my next point was about the state of the church and the re-examination of our methods to see if they truly are Biblical, and to examine the fruit. It is simplistic to say that age-segregation is alone responsible for a falling away of young people, but I believe it is a link in a chain of more and more secularization in the church, more marketing, more gimmicks, more fluff etc… aimed at kids in order to bring in families, and the result has been a shallow faith, if not a counterfeit faith. Age-segregation seems to beget a more entertainment oriented dynamic, and I think kids suffer spiritually because of that. If a church can have classes and avoid those traps, more power to ‘em.

My dh and I were looking into this issue long before we’d heard of the FICM, because we were seeing some very poor fruit coming from many of the SS classes and kid’s clubs in church, and of course I had my own upbringing to fall back on. My dad’s attitude was that church was SERIOUS BUSINESS. The first time my dh ate a Tootsie Roll in church I thought God would strike him down where he stood. Even if he does have blood sugar issues- a Tootsie Roll? Oy vey.

But as my dh and I look around for something different, we’ve found that there is very little that is different. Every church is doing the same exact thing, with practically the same curriculum, the same silly songs, and the same kinds of well-meaning but inexperienced/spiritually immature/ungifted teachers.

And let me just say that I appreciate these lovely, caring people who really, really want to help and volunteer outside of their… skill set- they are not at fault here, IMO because they probably have not received proper teaching about qualifications and gifts in the church, and many churches are desperate for warm bodies to fill in the spaces.

So- what does a family do but stay and do the best they can where they are? That’s where you get parents who opt out of SS or YGs for their kids, because for the most part they love their church, but they believe some aspects are out of line, and instead of just leaving they stay and try to work through it, ministering to their kids and addressing issues with the church leadership the best they can. But eventually their family has to take priority if church leadership is unresponsive. I am talking about real Biblical concerns, here, not petty complaints.

BTW, my description of a SS class was not worst-case scenario, but the norm, in my experience. The purpose of SS is supposed to be to ground kids in truth, not subject them to immorality and call it ‘ministry’, especially when many of them are newborn babes in the Word. We do ‘leave the world’ to a great extent when we walk through the doors of the church, which is the topic here. We have different expectations, Scriptural expectations, for church than we do for a visit to the grocery store or the zoo. I think our kids should be able to engage in learning and worship without being distracted and harassed by other kids who are not interested. We would never expect the adults of a congregation to tolerate rowdy behavior, immoral speech or conduct during a service, and in some cases physical assault, so why should our children? What woman is going to feel worshipful or even be able to focus if the man behind her was pulling her hair the entire service? Would we tell her to deal with it because it was just part of ministry, he’s from a broken home, he’s lost and he doesn’t know better? Of course not.

You don’t have to answer, Bro. Larry. Sorry to go on and on. The mulberry bush is worn pert near to a nub. :)

[Susan R]

My only objection in this whole shebang is when the church leadership believes it is in the position to mandate extra-Biblical ideas to individuals and families, be it SS or movies or music. Biblical principles guide us quite far down the path, and then after that we have some liberty to figure out how to best minister to ourselves and to each other.
I agree with this totally - which is why it took us a LONG time to find a church teaching the Bible that was a good fit for our family.
[Susan R]

Again, it is not either/or, and there is no blanket rule for every family to follow. Not participating in SS is not being a ‘consumer’ or ‘me-centered’. Kids would much rather play games and chatter with friends than sit with mom and dad in church and be expected to pay attention and intelligently discuss the spiritual truths presented. It takes a lot more effort to take responsibility for one’s children in every aspect of their lives than to delegate and hope for the best.
I do not think it’s fair to make a statement that implies that families that participate in SS are taking less effort and therefore less responsibility for their children. If a church is on target Biblically, and is loving .. there should be no reason why a parent should feel that their children would not be taught the correct things .. afterall - if the teachers are Christians, spending time preparing and in prayer - it’s really the Holy Spirit who will be speaking to the hearts isn’t it?

If a man’s 15 year old son (living at home) wants to get baptized and the father says no, will you baptize him?

If his dad tells him he can’t come to your church anymore because he is convinced your church teaches wrong doctrine, so they are going somewhere else, will you tell him to disobey his dad?

Suppose his dad decided that they will attend your church, but he doesn’t have confidence in the youth group leaders and teen Sunday School teachers, so he says they won’t go to that. If the son wants to be part of the youth group, will you tell him to disobey his dad?

Unless the answers to these questions are yes, then I don’t think you actually have described very well where you think the division of responsibility / authority lies between home and church.

I believe in I Timothy 3:15, too, but I would answer to all of these that the son obeys his dad. I think the way you’ve expressed yourself on the verse in this thread presses the point farther than it was intended, and farther than you probably actually practice.

[PLewis] I do not think it’s fair to make a statement that implies that families that participate in SS are taking less effort and therefore less responsibility for their children. If a church is on target Biblically, and is loving .. there should be no reason why a parent should feel that their children would not be taught the correct things .. afterall - if the teachers are Christians, spending time preparing and in prayer - it’s really the Holy Spirit who will be speaking to the hearts isn’t it?
Quite a bit of this issue revolves around motives. A parent who feels confident that the church’s SS programs and teachers are going to minister to their kids is far different from the parent who by default sends their kids to SS regardless of the curriculum or teacher qualifications in order to ‘get a break’ from them. Also, my qualifying statement was about kids going to SS to “play games and chatter with friends”. A SS program that involves sober study is not what I was talking about. The problem is that I seldom see SS programs that really embrace a serious, studious, reverent attitude toward Scripture.

Part of the problem, IMO, is some harmful attitudes that are tolerated about family and children. There’ve been far too many instances where I’ve heard snarky comments about teaching and training children from parents who “can’t wait until the bus rolls up each morning” and “could never homeschool because I couldn’t stand being with my kids all day”. This is wicked, IMO, but it is not only accepted, it’s expected, and often a source of amusement. If someone talked like that about their spouse, we’d be concerned about the health of their marriage, and yet it’s OK to talk about kids like they are inconvenient burdens? I adore being with my kids- they are fun and interesting. We stood in the kitchen talking and laughing last night for 3+ hours- at which point Mr. Raber’s carriage turned into a pumpkin. :) But if SS is basically for the purpose of keeping kids quiet and out of the way so the adults can worship- which is how I’ve heard it described more than once- that’s a harmful, unBiblical attitude. Anyway, the point is that while SS can be used to teach and train kids, it can also be used to abdicate responsibility.

I was thinking last night about how many elements of discipleship and worship the church accepts and adopts that at root have extra-Biblical origins, like the altar call and revival meetings, but we often can’t seem to view them as extra-Biblical. They’ve become part of the fabric of the church, and just the idea of suggesting that we should reconsider the whole thing is shocking. SS is another one of those things that the church uses but seldom asks where the idea came from and why, and if it is indeed extra-Biblical, it should receive a double heapin’ helpin’ of scrutiny.

I also sometimes wonder who invented the sticker chart. :p