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.
Doug Brown Bio
Douglas Brown has served at Faith Baptist Bible College and Theological Seminary since 1999. He has earned BA and MA Faith, MDiv from Central Baptist Theological Seminary and PhD from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. Dr. Brown is a member of the Evangelical Theological Society and has presented papers at ETS meetings. He has served as an associate pastor at Faith Baptist Church (Cambridge, IA) since 2000 and serves as adjunct faculty and Associate Dean at FBTS.
- 85 views
[Aaron] So the attitude should be something more like “you apply the Scriptures by dividing into age-based groups sometimes; we apply them by not ever dividing into age-based groups—you do your thing and we’ll do ours.”It’s important to understand the actual sequence of events. Long before I wrote about Kid Times, I wrote a two-article piece against FIC here at SharperIron. (It disappeared either in the server crash in ‘06 or maybe before due to the near-riot that ensued when I wrote it).
I think this is a great conclusion to come to…but that doesn’t seem to be what either side is doing. The “age/peer-segregated” people are troubled that the FIC people do not apply Scripture in the same way they do, and vice versa. Correct me if I’m wrong, but this fact seems to be evident in the original post of this thread, in your article about why churches should have “kid times,” and in Baucham’s writings (and other FIC writings) as well. And, as we all know, the FBFI actually drafted a “resolution” against the FIC movement not too long ago…That’s part of what got all of the discussions going in our circles.
Even in ‘05, what I wrote was in reaction to what the FIC movement was already doing that was resulting in unnecessary conflict in local churches. The FBFI resolutions were also reactions… as is Doug’s piece here.
What are they reactions to? They are not reactions to the idea that teaching families together might be a better method. This is not what the FIC has been claiming from the beginning. Rather, their verbiage out of the gate has been to characterize age-grouping as unbiblical, humanistic, and responsible for virtually all the defections of young people from congregations. In my original articles on the subject I quoted Scott Brown and others accusing churches that age-group of not caring about children, of adopting a procedure invented by anti-God humanists, then intentionally painting a veneer of Scripture over it in order to more effectively spread the poison.
I showed that these assertions are not only factually incorrect (age grouping has been going on since way before humanism, for example) but that it was not appropriate to attack the motives of those who incorporate this in their Christian ed practices.
Some defenders were adamant that I’d gotten Brown and Phillips et. al. all wrong, but they never could explain how I had misquoted them.
Compared to much of the FIC movement rhetoric, Doug Brown’s language in the OP is quite even handed. And my own writings on the subject have frequently suggested that the division the movement has fueled is not intended by its leaders—but that it is a consequence, nonetheless.
So… I don’t mean to imply that these matters of application cannot be debated. They should be. But both sides should refrain from over-the-top accusations and generalizations about the motives of those who simply want to do something different.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Every church with adequate resources should include kid times in its ministry.I just perused the original thread in which your article was the OP. There was quite a lively discussion about what you meant by using the word should in your title and conclusion. At one point, you admitted that perhaps you’d gotten a bit too “fiery” in your reaction to the FICM. I’m glad you took a minute to clarify again on this thread that you believe that this issue is a matter of application, method, and preference, and that churches (with or without adequate resources) which do not offer “kid times” are not remiss in obeying Scripture.
Do you tell him to obey his father?
Back to my question. Would you tell the son to carry out disobedient actions in the cases I asked about? Or would you say the church, the pillar and ground of the truth, supersedes parental authority in those cases?
A major point of hermeneutical confusion in the debate is what to make of silence. An example of ‘age segregation’ in the NT is not required any more than we need an example of passing a plate to collect an offering (or having a box at the back if that’s your method). What we have is a mandate to teach and even a mandate to teach particular things to particular sub groups (some of which are age-based). So the details of method are in the sphere of application.I agree there is a mandate to teach, and that there is teaching to take place among some age-based “subgroups” (although whether this takes place under the roof of the church may be debatable). However, I do not consider the overall heading of “teaching” as it relates to the church to be a matter of silence. I would also take exception with the broad sphere of applying Scripture, at least as you stated it here.
There is also no inconsistency with the sufficiency of Scripture in applying Scripture in this way … or any other way. Nobody believes that sola scriptura demands what we only apply Scripture in ways that we see it apply itself. That is, even the regulatory principle doesn’t exclude the idea that revealed principles must be applied in not-revealed ways.
With regards to making application, I would agree that it is certainly true that revealed principles are by necessity applied in non-revealed ways (such as applying I Cor. 4:2 to financial matters in addition to spiritual). It is through these types of applications that we are able to bring all matters of faith and practice into subjection to Him.
However, when we are making these applications, we must make sure that such applications are harmonious to the testimony of Scripture as a whole. For instance, if the church acquired funds through a raffle, I believe most of us would agree that trying to apply I Cor. 4:2 to how we use those funds would not be the most important consideration.
I believe the same is true as we deal with this issue. And this brings me to the issue of silence. The assumption in many comments and arguments seems to be that Scriptures command the church to teach; that this mandate includes all age groups; and that beyond that there is silence, and therefore liberty in regards to methodology. I believe this is a false assumption.
It is true that the Scriptures command the church to teach. And as per previous comments, the Scriptures call the NT church the pillar and ground of the truth. Beyond this, however, we see numerous examples of what and how the church is to teach and perform its functions. We are given the church offices of pastor and deacon, and the lifestyle expectations of men occupying these offices (Acts. 6:1-7, I Tim. 3, Titus 1). We are given regulations on how church is to be conducted (I Cor. 11, I Cor. 14:26-40, I Tim. 2:8-12, I Tim. 5, Col 3:16). We see instructions from Paul on what types of things to teach (Titus 2, II Tim. 4:1-4). We see examples of this teaching fleshed out in sermons in Acts as well as all the epistles to the churches. Beyond this, we have numerous examples of corporate teaching in the Old Testament.
The overall pattern in both the OT and NT of corporate teaching and worship is inclusion and integration of all God’s people (Deut. 12:12, 16:11, 29:10-11, 31:10-13, Josh 8:34-35, I Kin. 8:14, II Kin. 23:1-2, II Chron. 20:13, Ezra 10:1, Neh. 8:1-3, 12:43, 13:1-3, Matt. 14:21, Mk. 10:13-16, Acts 2:46-47, 12:12, 14:27, 20:7-9, Heb. 10:25, Jas. 2:1-4). Never in all the instances of corporate worship recorded in the Word do you find a “children’s class” or “children’s church”, whereas you do find children specifically called out as being a part of the general assembly in numerous instances. When you find instances of children being taught in Scripture, it is done in the midst of the assembly or by the parents (or, in the exceptional case of Samuel, one-on-one mentor-ship by a Spiritual leader).
Furthermore, the responsibility and command to teach children is always given to the parents! (Deut. 6:6-7, 11:18-19, Eph. 6:4). Children have another “level” of authority over them. This does not mean that children are not also under the teaching of the church, but that this teaching occurs in a more indirect way because of the additional jurisdiction above them. This same principle is even applied (albeit with different caveats due to the somewhat different nature of the jurisdictional relationship) to married women — I Cor. 14:34-35. This is an important principle which everyone seems to miss!
Furthermore, commands are given by the church authority (the epistles to the churches) to its membership (as these letters were read) about familial relationships. What is taught by the church to distinct members within a family only affirms this jurisdictional relationship (Eph. 5:22-6:4, Col. 3:18-21)! In addition, the fact that Paul writes instruction directly to children (as well as other “sub-groups”) in his epistles implies that these parties would be present to hear the instruction (in the general assembly). Therefore, in the church setting, you have the pattern of a unified assembly being taught by pastors/elders, and specific additional instruction within the family unit being given by the father/husband in a home setting.
Therefore, you may justly say that the Scripture is silent with regards to age-segregation as it is practiced in the church today. This is because Scripture by pattern and principle teaches a different model! Therefore, to mandate another model would be in effect to “teach for doctrines the commandments of men” (Matt. 15:9, Col. 2:20-23). In addition, I would think that in this area careful consideration should be given to the principle of Deut. 4:2, 12:30-32, Prov. 30:6 & Rev. 22:18-19.
You can find Scriptures that describe the meeting of the church as a corporate gathering, using language indicative of one unified group. You can find Scriptures that speak of children (and/or families) gathered with this unified assembly. You can find children being taught/blessed by the leader of the assembly. You can find principles of familial jurisdiction/relationships and commands given by the church for how that is to be fleshed out. I’ll leave the Titus 2 sub-group teaching application for another day, but just say that in this case the teaching in view is being carried out by one pastor, with the exception of the “young women”; in no area are children in view.
It is primarily upon all this “NON-silence” that I take my stand on this issue. I could go into secondary practical considerations, but I wanted this post (and the focus on the issue in general) to be a biblical one. Unfortunately, we’ve been doing “ministry” in such a pragmatic and “classroom” oriented mindset for so long, it can be quite difficult to think outside of the box. However, I believe it is necessary because it appears to me as if our box and God’s box are not the same. :) And, if any of you have made it this far, let me either congratulate you on going directly to the bottom, or apologize to you for such a long post. :D
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
[Aaron Blumer]The main FICM apologists I’m most familiar with (Phillips, Brown, Baucham) do indeed teach that the FIC is a better method; but you’re right, they don’t stop there. The argument that I’ve always heard is that the current method is unbiblical and in need of reform. Therefore, since they view it as unbiblical, it naturally follows that they won’t simply lay down and say “you do it your way and we’ll do it ours”. I would hope that none of us would say that in an area of conviction.
They are not reactions to the idea that teaching families together might be a better method. This is not what the FIC has been claiming from the beginning. Rather, their verbiage out of the gate has been to characterize age-grouping as unbiblical, humanistic, and responsible for virtually all the defections of young people from congregations.
[Aaron Blumer] In my original articles on the subject I quoted Scott Brown and others accusing churches that age-group of not caring about children, of adopting a procedure invented by anti-God humanists, then intentionally painting a veneer of Scripture over it in order to more effectively spread the poison.Again, it’s unfortunate that we can’t refer back to these original articles. I personally was not even aware of this “movement” until around the 2005-2007 time frame. My interest came due to personal convictions that I had been forming on my own, and then “discovering” various resources that were aligning with and fleshing out some of those convictions. Therefore, I can’t speak very well to anything being said at or before ~2006.
I showed that these assertions are not only factually incorrect (age grouping has been going on since way before humanism, for example) but that it was not appropriate to attack the motives of those who incorporate this in their Christian ed practices.
Some defenders were adamant that I’d gotten Brown and Phillips et. al. all wrong, but they never could explain how I had misquoted them.
However, I can certainly say that from all the material that I’ve read/watched, I have never seen the attitude that you’re painting in the above comments. From what I’ve heard, you may be mistaking their claims of “effect” for “intent”. That is, it is common to hear them say that the effect of systematic age segregation is detrimental to children and has it’s roots in humanism and evolutionary thinking. I have never heard anyone claim that the intent of any of the churches or persons involved in these ministries was to promote humanism or harm children. In fact, I’ve heard more than once a statement just the opposite (people mean well but because methodologies are un-scriptural, the result is harmful).
From your comments, I take it you think the movement stems from personal opinions regarding the subject, and then persons with these opinions try to isogete the Scriptures to support their claims. This is certainly debatable, but again, I’ve never detected this spirit among the FICM advocates I’ve heard. If what you say is true, they are either huge hypocrites or greatly deceived, because again and again they refer to the sufficiency of scripture in concert with their teachings (even devoting an http://www.ncfic.org/mediaorganizermodule/view_mediaorganizer/id/97/src… entire conference to the subject alone).
[Aaron Blumer]While I do not agree with some of the doctrines these men might hold to (amillennialism, infant baptism, etc.), I will say that in listening to Phillips and Brown in particular, they are some of the most gracious and heartfelt speakers I’ve encountered. They say what they believe, but from what I’ve witnessed do so in a very “speaking the truth in love” kind of way. If you ask me, a lot of the language in the FBFI resolution was much harsher (“denounce”, “does violence”).
Compared to much of the FIC movement rhetoric, Doug Brown’s language in the OP is quite even handed. And my own writings on the subject have frequently suggested that the division the movement has fueled is not intended by its leaders—but that it is a consequence, nonetheless.
At the same time, I am not accusing either you or Doug Brown of spouting harmful rhetoric or attacking the motives of those in the FICM (Baucham himself in http://www.gracefamilybaptist.net/voddie-baucham-ministries/blog/detail… his response acknowledged the tone of the Doug Brown article as “refreshing” and “encouraging”).
[Aaron Blumer]I absolutely agree. I just haven’t seen the attack on motives from the leaders in the movement that you’re claiming here.
So… I don’t mean to imply that these matters of application cannot be debated. They should be. But both sides should refrain from over-the-top accusations and generalizations about the motives of those who simply want to do something different.
[JG] Larry, you never answered my question, but I’ll answer yours. Belief (or unbelief) can’t be ordered. If the son believes, he believes, and can’t un-believe, whatever dad says. A strange question from a guy who considers himself, if I remember correctly, at least somewhat Calvinistic. :)I’d like to weigh in on the questions regarding a son wanting spiritual growth and the parent seeming to be squashing it .. and how the church would/should react ..
Back to my question. Would you tell the son to carry out disobedient actions in the cases I asked about? Or would you say the church, the pillar and ground of the truth, supersedes parental authority in those cases?
I was that 15 yo - ( but a girl.. laugh). My mother was a Christian, yet did not go to church.. My father a former Catholic that we never have been sure if he accepted Christ or not. I wanted to be baptized from about the age of 10 .. I’d try every couple years - and my parents would not allow it .. This was over 2 or 3 churches.. I was allowed to go to Sunday School, and as I was older to church. But never did they allow my baptism… SO - I would go forward for baptism .. I’d go home .. be told no .. and in every instance the ( age segregated) churches advised me to obey my parents… as a result I didn’t get baptized until I was married.
I dont’ see how your argument related to FIC vs non FIC churches.. that could happen anywhere .. with differing results.
Because I was from an “unchurched” family - I’ve been to various churches of differing denominations .. (of course the “FIC movement” was not going yet..) - But looking back I can see how the Lord led me to the right churches, at the right times. Some churches weren’t that great .. some were teeny tiny .. some large IFB churches .. In every one I felt loved and accepted .. and was thankful to meet kids of my own age who wanted to learn about Jesus, something I didn’t find among my friends in school (a largely Roman Catholic neighborhood in Chicago.)
Now as an adult - who is ministering to some similar “unchurched” kids .. as well as the “churched” ones. I uphold the same principles of supporting parental decisions.
From my experience I don’t think a “family integrated church” necessarily turns out “better” Christians, families, kids than a “traditional” church. I realize what I’m about to say is a blanket statement - that does not reflect ALL families that attend FICs. From what I’ve observed because the families are large, homeschooled and often serious in their teaching there is a unique “pecking order” with little cliques among the kids.. ( Just like in “traditional” churches..) Now granted - the “popular” kids are the ones with more “biblical knowledge” .. not the worldly kids - or the jocks .. but often to me there is even more of a sense of arrogance with these kids… They are the kids who are great public speakers, or musicians or can win a Bible drill hands down .. but they also give off a sense of arrogance and pride. I’ve judged some “fine arts” type programs for some local homeschool groups (many if not most of them that attend FICs ) .. and to be honest I was SO disappointed in the lack of friendliness and kindness of the families .. Also the “closed society” feel I got from them. Later when I thought of it those kids were no different than a group of Christian school kids, public school kids or traditional church kids .. They were KIDS .. running around, having to be shushed in the halls, breaking up into their little groups (by age) .. Confident kids, shy kids, boisterous .. just KIDS.
The bottom line is ANY gathering of Christians are going to have human faults .. to me if a family wants to be in an FIC church .. that’s cool .. for our family “traditional” church has worked best .. All I look for is a church where all the fruits of the Spirit are found in the people.
[Julie Herbster] Thank you for taking time to clarify those points, Aaron. In your article about “Why Churches Should Have Kid Times,” this is your conclusion:Well, I don’t think “should” is too strong. I do believe using some age grouping is better than the alternative. There seemed to be more fuss about my saying it was “biblical” or “more biblical.” But I generally use “biblical” to mean “consistent with Scripture” and use something stronger when I mean “required by Scripture.” I would certainly not say that having zero age grouping is contrary to Scripture.Every church with adequate resources should include kid times in its ministry.I just perused the original thread in which your article was the OP. There was quite a lively discussion about what you meant by using the word should in your title and conclusion. At one point, you admitted that perhaps you’d gotten a bit too “fiery” in your reaction to the FICM. I’m glad you took a minute to clarify again on this thread that you believe that this issue is a matter of application, method, and preference, and that churches (with or without adequate resources) which do not offer “kid times” are not remiss in obeying Scripture.
Still, it’s one thing to say you believe your approach is biblical and another to say that another approach is unbiblical. And it’s yet another thing to say that another approach is nothing more than whitewashed humanism or hatred of children, etc.
And then if you have conferences—not local church events—where you encourage folks to come from their churches, tell them that age grouping is something only bad people do, and that the conference is intended to lead a “new reformation,” then send them back to their churches with that thinking… the dynamic is divisive. (The “reformation” language alone encourages folks to think that the practice of age-grouping is on a par with selling indulgences or something).
All of this for something that happens for, in most cases, an hour or two a week (at our church is adds up to less than an hour).
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[PLewis] I dont’ see how your argument related to FIC vs non FIC churches.. that could happen anywhere .. with differing results.Larry made a theological argument that, effectively, when it comes to teaching truth church authority supersedes parental authority. I’m asking how far he wants to push that theological argument.
It relates because if his theological point is pushed far enough it can seriously undermine parts of the FIC approach. I don’t think it is valid to push it that far, and is not a good argument to use against the FIC philosophy — in fact, I think it is dangerous to use.
But let me hit a few here real quick and then hopefully be done.
Preface: As Susan said, we (all of us) probably don’t disagree as much as it might appear But having said that, I think there are some severe problems with her (Susan’s) description that I think threaten to undermine the gospel itself and the church’s mission of evangelism and discipleship. Perhaps more on that some other time.
To Jon, thanks for your answer. I wanted to get your answer first because I wanted to illustrate formally what we all agree on, that there is a continuum of issues show the parent is not the final authority in all things, and we do not always command children to obey parents. I am not persuaded that “belief vs. action” is the right way to categorize it. But my point is that you (and Susan and whoever else) recognize that at some point we “must obey God rather than man” so parental authority is not the final issue. Truth is, and the truth has been committed to the church. The question is at what age and in what issues do we “obey God rather than man”?
The church has the authority to command certain things, and to expect obedience. This requires that a church rigidly adhere to the biblical qualifications to avoid dictatorship, and it also requires that the church avoid elder rule, where a group of men can mandate things with no accountability.
The church also has the authority to do things in certain ways (not necessarily matters of obedience) and expect participation. I tell our church all the time that we do things as a church and that I don’t even like everything we do. But we do it together as a body for the sake of the body and our guests. I tell my kids the same thing … that I realize that things we might do as a family are not what they might do as an individual, but we do it as a family, and they are expected to do it with us. Another time, we might do what they want to do.
Now again, as I said, we don’t even have SS. So I am not defending that. We don’t have a YG, so I am not defending that either. My point is about deference for the sake of ministry in the community, and contrary to Susan’s point, I think people of all ages can have ministry. So as soon as my son could walk and hold out his hand, we (by which I mean my wife) was teaching him how to walk into church and greet people, particularly the older generation. There are kids in his class that are a negative behavioral influence on him, but we willingly embrace that for the sake of ministry and recognize that the other 167 hours a week belong to us to work on that.
Now, to the specific questions from Jon, isn’t the dad clearly wrong? In the first case, he is undeniably wrong, and by allowing baptism to be postponed, you are telling someone to disobey God in order to obey man. In the second case, he may be wrong but until we know what the false doctrine supposedly is we don’t know if he wrong. My presumption is that if he is accusing our church of false doctrine, he is wrong because I am fairly confident in what what we teach. But having said that, attending another church is not necessarily sin. In the third case, it is fairly easy to determine whether or not the complaint is legitimate. He may just be a critical spirit in need of humility and repentance and love for others.
Don’t we all know parents who are messed up? Don’t we all know parents whose experience and spiritual immaturity leads them to make bad decisions or bad evaluations? (And isn’t ironic how much someone else’s “wisdom” tends to look just like our own?) Some of you say, “Well we need to disciple the dad so he can lead his family.” And I agree. And that is the admission that the dad is wrong. And it also leads us to say that we should not abandon teaching children until the dad straightens up. The point is that there is some external standard given to the family and that is the truth as held and proclaimed by the church. (Again, I am not talking about the authority of certain structures such as SS, YG, or whatever.)
That is the point: Truth is not left up to the changing whims of parents, their spiritual level of maturity, etc. whatever their spiritual state. Truth was committed to the church. Regardless of family (and there are both good and bad), the church is the pillar and support of the truth. It’s not that the family is not important, or that dad’s don’t have responsibility. But in the NT church, the locus of spiritual food and authority is moved outside the family primarily.
Now, in answer to your questions, I answer them the same way you do. But not because I think the parents are equal in truth authority to the church, but because I think it is a matter of wisdom and gospel testimony. And I am not sure I am right on that. I think it might be possible, particularly in the first case of baptism which is a clear and undisputed command of Scripture, for the child to say, “Dad, I respect you and love you and will obey you as much as possible, but I can’t disobey God to obey you.”
So it’s not easy, but that’s life in the ministry.
To your last comment:
Larry made a theological argument that, effectively, when it comes to teaching truth church authority supersedes parental authority.Isn’t that what 1 Tim 3:15 says? That truth has been given to the church?
It relates because if his theological point is pushed far enough it can seriously undermine parts of the FIC approach.I think it absolutely undermines it, and with serious ramifications.
Back to the main point, I think it is common sense that we should teach different age groups differently, both in form and content. It is incredible to me that people think otherwise.
I am still not sure where the passages are that show the NT church doing all of its learning and worshipping in an age-integrated fashion. You cite a number of OT passages, which I am not convinced make your point, but also take place in the OT economy where family had a different role because of the covenant.
The NT is where we need to focus, and none of the passages you cite give any indication that would support the idea that there is no age segregation. Those passages simply don’t indicate who was there, and certainly not as a regular practice. The mass feedings have women and children, but there were two of those. That is hardly enough to show a pattern. And a few times they brought children to Jesus for blessing and the disciples got upset. Their being upset would be strange if children had been regular attenders. It seems that perhaps the children were out of place because they weren’t regulars.
I think the strongest argument you have is that the epistles address children as if they are in the congregation where the letter is being read. But that doesn’t really help since it doesn’t say there were no other venues of teaching in the weekly life of the church. Furthermore, in our church, the children are in for the public reading of the Scripture and then leave for their class teaching time.
I think what is often missed in the whole sufficiency of Scripture/regulative principle argument is that there is no weekly schedule modeled in the NT. And I think it is a mistake to try to mandate that. We simply do not know how exactly they did things. That’s actually an act of grace and wisdom it seems to me. We are free to carry out the purposes and mission of the church in the ways that work best in our cultures. We are not bound to a culture that no longer exists, or at least that doesn’t exist universally.
I think most of your arguments have some fairly large holes in them that won’t stand up to scrutiny, at least in my mind.
But at the end of the day, you seem to acknowledge that there is teaching that takes place in age-based subgroups, which renders the rest of your post pretty meaningless to me since you already gave away the farm in the first admission. Once you acknowledge that there is teaching that takes place in age-based subgroups, you have acknowledged the very principle that I am arguing for.
I appreciate your kind interaction, as well as everyone else.
For me, I am not convinced there is one right way to do it, and I would encourage us all to stop short of mandating that. At the same time, I would encourage us to support the work and mission of the local church in which God has placed us.
contrary to Susan’s point, I think people of all ages can have ministry. So as soon as my son could walk and hold out his hand, we (by which I mean my wife) was teaching him how to walk into church and greet people, particularly the older generation.Civil behavior and human kindness are not the kind of ministry of which I was speaking, and the idea that this issue is just about people satisfying their whims is also not remotely close to what I have been discussing. I don’t know what I described that has “some severe problems with her (Susan’s) description that I think threaten to undermine the gospel itself and the church’s mission of evangelism and discipleship”, so let me say that our family, including our children, are involved in ministering to others in various ways, some of which are ‘official’ church ministries, and some that aren’t, like training service dogs to work with handicapped children, or my dd and I growing out our hair to donate to http://www.locksoflove.org/ Locks of Love . But I don’t expect my kids to disciple or evangelize until they themselves are regenerate.
I think it is common sense that we should teach different age groups differently, both in form and content. It is incredible to me that people think otherwise.To a certain point this makes sense, especially if we are talking about children who are at different developmental stages. But many segregated congregations go beyond this to organize classes for youth groups, college/career, singles, young marrieds, senior citizens… and I truly do not see the sense in that. I do believe that this actually harms the unity of the church, and in a sense, dismembers it.
Age/peer segregation could perhaps in some situations be practical, but it is not necessary. And I think that is the crux of the matter.
Granted, this thread is supposed to be focused more on the language of the FICM and how, in the author’s estimation, their black/white interpretation of the issue could be causing division. I haven’t seen enough of that to say it’s happening or not, so I’ll take a powder.
1. How do you know the father doesn’t have excellent reasons for telling the son not to get baptised? Maybe the father doubts the son’s salvation, with good reason.
2. Are you putting “wisdom” and “Gospel testimony” before truth? Your theology would state that the child should always get baptised, “wisdom” and “Gospel testimony” notwithstanding. If you answer the questions they way I would, it either demonstrates that you prefer “wisdom” to your ecclesiology or that you really do believe that ecclesiastical authority has its limits in respect to parental authority.
3. What if the child is 12? 10? 8? At what age is it wrong for a child to disobey his parents and get baptised / go to youth group / whatever?
The church is to uphold the truth. The truth upholds other authorities. Those who are under other authorities are not free agents, and the church should not treat them as if they are. The extent to which they have freedom is the extent to which they are accountable for putting into practice the true teachings of the church. A prisoner in a Roman prison who converted was not free to be baptised. That does not mean the church did not teach baptism.
The church should not consider children in the home to be entirely free agents. They are under parental authority.
I am persuaded that the Biblical response to some of the errors in the FIC movement does not include exalting church authority over parental authority. The church is responsible to teach and uphold the truth. This may even, in some extreme cases, necessitate church discipline against a parent who uses his authority contrary to truth. It does not include the sweeping away of parental authority, which is the logical end of your statement, if not your practice.
As for the organization of classes for YG, College, young singles, young married, seniors, etc., again it seems really obvious that the application of the Bible is different for different age groups. Therefore, segregated classes allow for more intentional and directed Bible teaching … a rifle instead of a shotgun, if you will. And that is actually a good thing. It only disunifies the church if it is done wrong.
To Jon, we could multiply specifics all day in dealing with hypotheticals, and I am not sure that is something that is helpful or necessary. We all have to make these decisions based on the information we have at hand in real situations.
1. How do you know the father doesn’t have excellent reasons for telling the son not to get baptised? Maybe the father doubts the son’s salvation, with good reason.I don’t. Until we have real information we simply can’t answer this other than a blanket, broad brush response. Maybe the dad is scared you are going to drown his son, or carry him off to Timbuktu in a boat after the baptism. :D … There are all kinds of hypotheticals that we can’t deal with.
2. Are you putting “wisdom” and “Gospel testimony” before truth? Your theology would state that the child should always get baptised, “wisdom” and “Gospel testimony” notwithstanding. If you answer the questions they way I would, it either demonstrates that you prefer “wisdom” to your ecclesiology or that you really do believe that ecclesiastical authority has its limits in respect to parental authority.Tough isn’t it. Think of the other side, as I mentioned. If you refuse to baptize the boy, you are refusing to allow him to obey Jesus in favor of obeying man. When we live in a fallen broken world, things are complicated. My answer is that since baptism is a matter of the intent and desire, and not a matter of eternal life, it says enough that he desires to get baptized (assuming his profession is credible) for me to say “Wisdom says let’s wait and see if our willingness to defer to dad might be an opening for the gospel.”
3. What if the child is 12? 10? 8? At what age is it wrong for a child to disobey his parents and get baptised / go to youth group / whatever?I don’t know. My typical approach is that if you are living at home under your dad’s roof and out of your dad’s refrigerator, you need to honor him with obedience. If you do not want to, you can always move out and pay your own way. But again, it’s hard.
I am persuaded that the Biblical response to some of the errors in the FIC movement does not include exalting church authority over parental authority.I agree and I have tried to frame my comments consistently in light of the authority of the truth, or as you say, ” The church is responsible to teach and uphold the truth.”
It does not include the sweeping away of parental authority, which is the logical end of your statement, if not your practice.I completely disagree with this because I have no intent of sweeping away parental authority. My point is that parental authority is under the truth as held and propagated by the church in the Bible. We have no right to disregard that.
And while the Bible “speaks to everything,” it doesn’t actually “speak to everything.” Wisdom does play a role in understanding and applying the Bible to life. Witness previous discussions here at SI on child baptism. If the father of a 4 year old is insistent on baptizing his child because he believes the child is saved, will you defer to his authority? I wouldn’t.
Many of these are matters of wisdom and context. A church meeting in a building with two rooms, one of which is the bathroom, is probably unwise to have a fully age-graded SS regardless of biblical commitments. A church with twenty adults and sixty-five elementary school age children attending would be wise to take that into consideration when structuring their programs. In a community where you have mostly nuclear families, you can do things differently than you can in communities where those nuclear families have gone the way of Hiroshima.
IMO, the silence of the Bible on the specifics is a measure of grace to us that we are not constrained based on a world that we no longer live in. The Bible was not intended to give us weekly schedules, program formats, etc. That is not the RP in any sense. The Bible tells us what to do, not how to do it necessarily.
Here’s the question, particularly with respect to Karl’s argument about the absence of age-graded classes in the NT. I generally reject the “can’t use pews, offering plates, air conditioning etc if you use the RP” because I think it is a silly and simplistic argument that doesn’t understand what the RP is about.
But why don’t we see people using cars in the NT? Does that mean that the absence of mechanized transportation is wrong for the church? I think we would all say no. But how do we explain the absence of cars? We explain it by culture and technology. It wasn’t possible for them to use it. So what is age-graded teaching is more like cars than preaching in church? After preaching is part of the RP. It is commanded even though we have record of how the weekly preaching and teaching was carried out in the church. Perhaps the reason age-graded classes didn’t exist was a matter of space — the houses they met in didn’t have room for them. Perhaps it was a matter of teachers — they did not yet have enough teachers in some of these fledging congregations. Perhaps it was a matter of culture — the use of specific age-graded teaching was not widespread.
The point is we simply don’t know why they didn’t use it and we would be wise not to make it a major issue.
And to the point of the thread, it is possible for people of the FIC type mindset to divide churches by making it a major issue when it isn’t.
And hopefully by now I have made this long enough that no one will read it. (And I am not rereading it so if there are mistakes, I won’t catch them probably.)
Discussion