Thoughts on the Family Integrated Church Movement - the "FIC movement is reactionary"

My issue with the FIC churches that are orthodox (and I’d be careful to make sure a FIC congregation is) is really not that they choose to be “Family Integrated.” If we believe in the autonomy of the local church, at some level there has to be an allowance for different methodologies as long as the Gospel is preached and the Bible is taught and Jesus is worshipped. I would say the same thing about churches that have a “no CCM” approach. Internal to their own congregation, if the leadership and the membership believe that to be the best approach, God bless them. With both the NoCCM churches and the FIC churches the poison is swallowed when we say our particular method is a Biblical absolute and must be followed by all churches (Error #1 which is bad). They often take it one step further - because your church uses CCM or your church teaches occasionally based on age - not only is your method wrong but we will have nothing to do with you (Error #2 - this is one is really bad). So….not only are you making an absolute on that which the Scriptures do not (and thereby elevate the teachings of man to the doctrines of God)….you go one step further in being schismatic….that is to say heretical. Those “No CCM” churches that do this and FIC churches that do this are in fact a danger to the body exactly because of this schismatic approach. Those who simply say, “this is the approach we think best for us….but God bless you as you do something different,” I think we can embrace at some level. Those who say, “you are wrong and we’ll have nothing to do with you” are a different kind…the kind we probably should mark and move on without…because now they are actually being “divisive.” In both cases you do not have reasonable men. Dr. Bob Sr. used to say, “good men are reasonable men.”

Straight Ahead!

jt

Joel,
I’d like to address what you are calling Error #1. Your argument is based on the assumption that it is impossible that God has a prescriptive opinion on how churches and families should interact in worship (you make the same assumption about the details of music, but that’s another discussion). But instead of debating this issue, which is a pretty big part of the NCFIC’s argument, you want to skip over it completely and effectively call FIC practices nothing more than an administrative decision along the same level of “when should our Sunday morning service start, at 10:00 or 9:30?” (when everybody knows that all churches who truly fear God start at 10:00)

I have specific issues with this sentence: ” If we believe in the autonomy of the local church, at some level there has to be an allowance for different methodologies as long as the Gospel is preached and the Bible is taught and Jesus is worshipped.” At “some level” sure, but that’s a big part of the question that is being asked isn’t it? The NCFIC is asking, have we drawn the line way too low here? Have we ignored the teaching of Scripture? Have we treated the prescriptive details of worship to lightly?

Does that make sense?

I’ll just say that I thought that the article was focused on extremes and maybe some bad personal experiences , and not representative of any FIC church or family that I have ever known. I would say that there is much legitimate discussion about the abandonment of parental involvement in the local church, the rejection of children as a blessing in a family, and the ignoring of much of what the Bible does say about gender roles and responsibilities in the home and beyond.

I am not one that fully embraces a fully FIC philosophy, but I would say that seem to have some very legitimate arguments in a time when the Church has become so individual focused and entertainment oriented. I also so no Biblical warrant for the forms that local churches have adopted today. If anyone is to be on the defense, I would asking the fully age-segregated, program driven churches to give it a shot. The patterns and norms of the Scriptures have no hint of such things.

Charles,

So your response was actually a good response to my post. So….because I don’t have the time it would take to share all I believe here - I often post short statements that wrap up my “macro-view” and the reader is left without the details on how I got there. I wish I had more time to sit here behind the key board and do this - but my time here at SI is limited….to say the least. However, your push back is fair. So let me expand as a pastor, father and friend to seveal who are in the FIC movement(s).

Because I”ve actually had families that are connected to me in one way or another in the movement, I’ve read and re-read a variety of works that serve as an apologetic for a FIC approach. Now your earlier point was well made - not all FIC ministries are created equal. So that’s fair.

Bottom up first - I’ve never once been satisfied that the FIC method is sourced in solid exegesis that points to a kind of regulative principle they way some FIC ministries demand - such as the idea that children must be always taught with parents within the institution of the church? or a pastor/elder/bishop who is especially gifted with young people and their parents are somehow automatically undermining the authority of the home when serving in the church. This one actually is a gross twisting of the Scriptures. (Many of) you too often run over the institution of the church with the internal authority of the institution of the home. Foul! You can’t legitimatly pit one institution against the other. In some cases it actually looks like the FIC ecclesiology is almost a blending of the institution of the home with the institution of the church. Much of the FIC failure is hermeneutical - too often (many of you) do not respect the separation from Church and Israel - so I’m not surprised when you’re not careful of the distinction between the institutions of the church and home.

My experience with FIC leaders is that often times these families have been “put out” by the demands of nonFic leaders, and because they have swallowed a “home-school” mentality that often spits on the values of local church leadership, they want to throw the authority structure of the local church on it’s ear so they can essentially enjoy at church the same way they enjoy home schooling - done “there way.” OK - Charles - I would guess that your FIC approach is more principled - I’m happy with that.

So….while I am appreciative of several FIC “big ideas” and can even sympathize with several of these - I don’t at all believe that the FIC applications are clear implications from the text that demand that FIC compliance….accross the board…..and so I reject that these are mandated for the rest of us. I say it again….don’t have a problem (I do have worries for your kids - more on that later) if you say this (FIC method) is for us. However when you say “this is for you” you have taken your distinctives to the level of absolutes.

Do you guys still believe/teach a singler women, on her own out of the house has no ability/authority/rights to minister within the church because they really don’t make up there own family unit? Where in the world did you guys come up with that one? My guess is this is Bill’s umbrella deal. Other FIC corollaries that bother me or worse bother Heaven might be some of the following: Most FIC churches have theology statements that say little and offend no one. I’m for some theological cross-breading in a church - but I often shake my head in amazment at the way FIC believers see theology as a “non-issue” when compared to the method’s of church education, family education, etc……I remember asking one family that started to attend a FIC church that was associated with an evagelical mennonite congregation about the theology they were opening themselves up to. There response: “We don’t care - the families make their kids dress just like we make our kids dress!” Charles - did you hear that? That is not abnormal from this movement or movement of movements.

The strength of the nonFic church is that you have to - or you get to react with other believers who may not be exactly as you are in your methodology or school choice. There is something sanctifying about worshipping with another Christian family that does not pick the same school choice as you do. So to recap - The FIC church foundation is almost always method - not theology. This is a formula for disaster. This leads to the same kind of heretical nonsense that one sees often with the Bill Gothard groups. A mis-emphasis on family vis-a-vis the Biblical primacy of the local church; a wierd approach to hermeneutics that often trades normal interpretation for a (un)healthy dose of typology/allegory/etc……not to mention a twisting view that places women’s priesthood and place within churchlife that is somewhere back either in the nursery ministry or in the church kitchen/ and finally most FIC ministries do a horrible job of really understanding what an elder is. The fact that he is a man is just the first condition….not the only condition.

So a bit more by way of detail. Charles, I’m sure there are principled FIC churches that are not guilty of the observations I make here - But these issues are not just small issues to me. The fact that they demand unhealthy practices make the entire movement at least suspecious to me. Much of the motivation seems to be the children. So let’s talk about the children of the FIC movement. This is where I can be strong in my emotion as a pastor who loves the children placed in my care as a pastor. Frankly too many FIC families remind me of the disciples who wanted to keep the kids away from Jesus. You guys like allegory - there’s a little allegory.

This is my prediction - Because you do not allow more Biblical teachers (children’s church leaders, youth pastors, etc….) to impact your children - and because you limit the effective God-given design of pastoral and church ministry coming along to make up of the weakness of the home - your ministries will begin to loose a larger portion of your children to the society and to worldliness in general than conservative nonFic assemblies. I’ve watched as some families close to me have tried to go the FIC route over the last decade or so - and in these cases they are loosing their kids into the world a high %. Why? Well - yep - the dad did all or most of the teaching - the church was kept back in the background - when they went to church they emphasis that it was “we do church on the side because the home is most important.” The kids are left primiarly with mom and dad - who are not as Godly or consistent as the pastor or children’s church teachers who they have spurned and so the quiet kid who wore a nice tie at 17 in the FIC home and the FIC Church is running …. no swiming in the sins of the world.

The dangers for the FIC movement then are the same dangers in the hyper-fundamentalist movement. If the kids pick up methodology without Biblical principles and loyalty to the text you end up with twice the pharisee that the parents are or they see the hypocracy and run headlong into the world. So after 21 years of pastoral ministry - this is what I’ve seen thus far - for whatever it’s worth.

Charles - if you want more real life examples - zip me a note off line.

Shalom my man!

Straight Ahead!

jt

ps - my apology for the length of the post

Gang - the last post is limited to what I’ve observed. If there is a FIC orb that avoids the dangers I’ve noted, I’m more than happy to learn of them.

Straight Ahead!

jt

[Susan R] The only difference between a traditional church and a FIC church is that they don’t segregate into classes for seniors, singles, young marrieds, college/career, youth group, Sunday School…

I simply cannot grasp why age integration is looked on with such trepidation and disdain- apparently no one here has ever seen Anne of Green Gables or Little House on the Prairie. I agree that it isn’t the ONLY way to minister and teach, but let’s stop acting like it is a concept that was invented last week.

Susan,

I don’t know what you are seeing that’s calling itself FIC, but they generally are FAR different from what you describe here. Their entire concept of the church is far different from historic Christianity; in fact, they have diluted and denigrated the place of the church into near oblivion. Their patriarchal system is an abandonment of the NT in favor of a return to OT tradition. I only wish they were more Little House and less FIC in nature. Please take sometime to read up on Vision Forum to get a more complete picture. Age desegregation is only a natural conclusion of their teaching, there is much more at the core.

Who is “they”?

Vision Forum and the family-integrated model are not Siamese twins. There are FI churches that are not patriarchal, just as there are traditional churches that are patriarchal.

The question I asked earlier still applies. When the family integrated model is discussed, clarification is in order- are you talking about any and all churches that prefer non-segregated study and worship, self-identifying Family Integrated Churches, or churches that are ‘members’ of the NCFIC?

I’ve read up on VF and do not recommend them to anyone.

Joel,

I’ll try to go through and respond section by section. I had to split it into two parts because of the comment length limit.

Because I”ve actually had families that are connected to me in one way or another in the movement, I’ve read and re-read a variety of works that serve as an apologetic for a FIC approach. Now your earlier point was well made - not all FIC ministries are created equal. So that’s fair.

Bottom up first - I’ve never once been satisfied that the FIC method is sourced in solid exegesis that points to a kind of regulative principle they way some FIC ministries demand - such as the idea that children must be always taught with parents within the institution of the church? or a pastor/elder/bishop who is especially gifted with young people and their parents are somehow automatically undermining the authority of the home when serving in the church. This one actually is a gross twisting of the Scriptures.

Just out of curiosity, are you aware of any other national FIC movement/organization other than the NCFIC? I am only aware of one other - the one associated with J. Mark Fox. Have you read the NCFIC confession or any of it’s other documents/materials? I’m just interested in what your exposure has been as from reading through your reply you’ve had experiences diametrically opposed to my own. My frustration with many NCFIC critics is that we end up dealing with people who will not engage at the doctrinal level, we get a lot of unsourced references and anecdotes, and basically end up having to deal with what is effectively the equivalent of theological rumor. This frustrates me to no end at times.

(Many of) you too often run over the institution of the church with the internal authority of the institution of the home. Foul! You can’t legitimatly pit one institution against the other. In some cases it actually looks like the FIC ecclesiology is almost a blending of the institution of the home with the institution of the church.

Obviously, it’s difficult to respond to this because there is no specific issue or doctrine referenced. At our church and in agreement with how I understand the NCFIC to represent itself, the home has no specific authority within the church. Families do not join the church as families, but at the individual level (frequently they will join at the same time, but their membership is not joint or collective). Unsaved spouses or children are not considered to be members of the church because of the husband’s membership. In short, the church is very cognizant that as a local church body, it is made up of those professed redeemed who have covenanted together, and that the church has no disciplinary jurisdiction over non-members.

Much of the FIC failure is hermeneutical - too often (many of you) do not respect the separation from Church and Israel - so I’m not surprised when you’re not careful of the distinction between the institutions of the church and home.

I’m actually a bit stumped on this one. Can you be clearer? Are you talking about the applicability of the law of God to man or dispensational Zionism or what? I’m not clear at all on this.

My experience with FIC leaders is that often times these families have been “put out” by the demands of nonFic leaders, and because they have swallowed a “home-school” mentality that often spits on the values of local church leadership, they want to throw the authority structure of the local church on it’s ear so they can essentially enjoy at church the same way they enjoy home schooling - done “there way.” OK - Charles - I would guess that your FIC approach is more principled - I’m happy with that.

Ok.

So….while I am appreciative of several FIC “big ideas” and can even sympathize with several of these - I don’t at all believe that the FIC applications are clear implications from the text that demand that FIC compliance….accross the board…..and so I reject that these are mandated for the rest of us. I say it again….don’t have a problem (I do have worries for your kids - more on that later) if you say this (FIC method) is for us. However when you say “this is for you” you have taken your distinctives to the level of absolutes.

How would you describe your position on the regulative principle of worship vs the normative principle? Do you hold to either one of these? How would you justify splitting the unified body of Christ during times of corporate worship based on Biblical patterns/teaching?

Do you guys still believe/teach a singler women, on her own out of the house has no ability/authority/rights to minister within the church because they really don’t make up there own family unit? Where in the world did you guys come up with that one? My guess is this is Bill’s umbrella deal.

What do you mean by minister? What do you mean by authority? We don’t allow deaconesses or female elders, but that is not a distinction of the NCFIC. A single female who is a member of the church, but is not a member of any other household in the church has a vote in church issues.

Other FIC corollaries that bother me or worse bother Heaven might be some of the following: Most FIC churches have theology statements that say little and offend no one. I’m for some theological cross-breading in a church - but I often shake my head in amazment at the way FIC believers see theology as a “non-issue” when compared to the method’s of church education, family education, etc……I remember asking one family that started to attend a FIC church that was associated with an evagelical mennonite congregation about the theology they were opening themselves up to. There response: “We don’t care - the families make their kids dress just like we make our kids dress!” Charles - did you hear that? That is not abnormal from this movement or movement of movements.

I grew up among evangelical churches, and I’ve seen more than my fair share of churches with minimal theology statements. Most FIC churches that I am familiar with are Reformed and typically confessional, which I would say precludes the criticism that you are leveling here. I believe the NCFIC encourages participation in confessional churches.

The strength of the nonFic church is that you have to - or you get to react with other believers who may not be exactly as you are in your methodology or school choice. There is something sanctifying about worshipping with another Christian family that does not pick the same school choice as you do.

I’m not sure that there is anything specifically sanctifying about heterogeneity in school choice in particular, so I’m not wiling to accept your premise here. (Maybe you can re-articulate this?) Having said that, I agree with you that our association with other brothers and sisters in Christ who bring with them their own gifts and weaknesses is valuable, and from my experience, there is a great deal of difference among those within our own church and within other FIC and non-FIC churches with which I’ve had the privilege to associate.

Joel,

Here’s the second half of my reply.

So to recap - The FIC church foundation is almost always method - not theology. This is a formula for disaster.

So obviously, I don’t believe that you’ve established that in any way that would relate to my church or to the NCFIC (and I’m not saying that you’ve failed. I’m assuming that you would probably agree in that you’ve made no particular attempt to do so). I would hold that orthodoxy drives orthopraxy.

This leads to the same kind of heretical nonsense that one sees often with the Bill Gothard groups. A mis-emphasis on family vis-a-vis the Biblical primacy of the local church; a wierd approach to hermeneutics that often trades normal interpretation for a (un)healthy dose of typology/allegory/etc……not to mention a twisting view that places women’s priesthood and place within churchlife that is somewhere back either in the nursery ministry or in the church kitchen/ and finally most FIC ministries do a horrible job of really understanding what an elder is. The fact that he is a man is just the first condition….not the only condition.

Agan, I’m not sure what branch of FIC you have associated with. I’m genuinely curious. I’ve been at Hope Baptist for about four and half years and have been familiar with the NCFIC for 2 years before that, and it turn out to be that I am just completely ignorant, but after several years of asking people who fall into the critic camp to identify who the leaders of these FIC movements that promote these awful practices of family worship, father worship, etc, are, I’ve gotten no closer to getting any meaningful answers. And from my perspective, identifiable movements are really all that matters. Even the Emerging church movement, which swore up and down that it wasn’t a structured movement had identifiable leaders in it. And you could pin down things that they said and identify them and argue about them.

So a bit more by way of detail. Charles, I’m sure there are principled FIC churches that are not guilty of the observations I make here - But these issues are not just small issues to me. The fact that they demand unhealthy practices make the entire movement at least suspecious to me.

Again, I’m not aware of anyone associated with what can be identified as the FIC movement that is actively teaching these unhealthy practices. I know of some home churches (that aren’t really churches) that are basically ecclesiastical anarchists who have some really bad practices. But rebels do not a movement make.

Much of the motivation seems to be the children. So let’s talk about the children of the FIC movement. This is where I can be strong in my emotion as a pastor who loves the children placed in my care as a pastor. Frankly too many FIC families remind me of the disciples who wanted to keep the kids away from Jesus. You guys like allegory - there’s a little allegory.

This is my prediction - Because you do not allow more Biblical teachers (children’s church leaders, youth pastors, etc….) to impact your children - and because you limit the effective God-given design of pastoral and church ministry coming along to make up of the weakness of the home - your ministries will begin to loose a larger portion of your children to the society and to worldliness in general than conservative nonFic assemblies.

So yesterday my wife listened to a message to fathers by Scott Brown titled Family Discipleship where he is talking about the need for the church, he says “Let’s talk about the importance of preaching in a family. It’s important that families receive the preaching of the word of God. They hear another voice. They hear the voice of another shepherd. They have a shepherd called their father. But they are exposed to a whole other range of speaking through other shepherds and they deliver the inerrant word of God. So they end up being brought up in the training and the admonition of the Lord through another means. Because a father’s means is not enough. You dads, you’re not enough. You are inadequate for all of what God has. You’re not inadequate for your task, but you’re inadequate for the larger objectives that God has for his people. And so his people need the preaching of the word of God. They also need the prayers of the saints. They need the fellowship of the saints. They need the Lord’s table. They need all these things that only the gathered church brings.”

I’ve watched as some families close to me have tried to go the FIC route over the last decade or so - and in these cases they are loosing their kids into the world a high %. Why? Well - yep - the dad did all or most of the teaching - the church was kept back in the background - when they went to church they emphasis that it was “we do church on the side because the home is most important.” The kids are left primiarly with mom and dad - who are not as Godly or consistent as the pastor or children’s church teachers who they have spurned and so the quiet kid who wore a nice tie at 17 in the FIC home and the FIC Church is running …. no swiming in the sins of the world.

I’ve seen exactly the opposite. But like I’ve said earlier, anecdotes are fairly irrelevant, whether positive or negative.

The dangers for the FIC movement then are the same dangers in the hyper-fundamentalist movement. If the kids pick up methodology without Biblical principles and loyalty to the text you end up with twice the pharisee that the parents are or they see the hypocracy and run headlong into the world. So after 21 years of pastoral ministry - this is what I’ve seen thus far - for whatever it’s worth.

I appreciate you taking the time to reply. I hope we can have a profitable discussion.

If I may re-enter this fray — even if against my better judgment… :~

1) Vision Forum offers lots of excellent materials. I recommend them highly for discerning readers and listeners — which all of us should be. For instance, they carry some of Dr. Whitcomb’s materials. Other resources such as the “Jonathan Park” radio drama are almost without peer.

2) A friendly admonition to both Joel and Charles: Seriously guys — if you want people to read you and you are trying to make a point, you need to write concisely and densely. Cut the stream of consciousness down to a sound bite and try to be persuasive. If you don’t have time to write something more concentrated than this, you can’t realistically expect anyone to read it… Sorry :cry:

Paul,

I most always write conciesly here at SI - take a look at the overwealming majority of my posts. The length of the exchange is because Charlie has asked for more detail - which is fair. Furthermore, in this case I’m not sure Charlie or I care too much if others “drop off.” The conversation between us is actually meaningful and even helpful. All things being equal you are right - writing fewer words is usually the better way to go.

Stright Ahead!

jt

Charles,

The rest of our interaction will be in private - Let me quickly answer a few of your questions from your follow-up from my follow-up:

1. Actually in addition to your gorup and VF, there are a ton of independent little groups and smaller fellowships that have adopted the FIC approach - Many of them are within the King James Only World. You would probably not know them because of their approach to separation - which is total.

2. I have respect for the regulative principle but am not convinced that there is not the ability to do much in worship. My view is that corporate worship should typically involve that which is commanded in the Scriptures - namely corporate song, prayer, proclamation and some kind of meaningful body-building koinonia. The intergration issues of when and where and how to teach children is commanded no where in the Scripture. The only command is to “disciple” …… “teach.” That means my view is a blend of Reg and Norm approach to worship…..which explains some of our difference here. I would say many of the decisions as to how and when congregants should be taught is for the elders to decide in most cases.

3. I’m thrilled you allow a single woman the authority to vote. It was my understanding that many FIC churches are essentially 3 point complementarians and as such do not allow single women…..or married women a vote. I’m thrilled to hear this is not the case with your group.

4. The overwealming interaction I’ve had with FIC Churches have not been confessional - I’m thinking that several of my concerns with non-confessional FIC churches may not be applicable with your kind - which again is a thrill. Frankly, almost every FIC ministry I’ve had contact with complain that the church is all over the map on theology.

The rest of the issues I’ll respond in private. Any one else that wants that interaction just let me know and if Charlie gives me permission I’ll share our private stuff back and forth. The last thing I want to do is hijack a thread - unless I really want to hijack a thread - which would not be the case in this case!

Straight Ahead!

jt

[Joel Tetreau] Furthermore, in this case I’m not sure Charlie or I care too much if others “drop off.”

Joel, I’m not the Miss Manners of Internet protocol, nor even an administrator on SI, but I’m not sure that’s what we’re supposed to be doing here…sounds more like an e-mail to me…
When I write posts, my point is normally to attempt to persuade others of (or encourage others in) a particular viewpoint within the context of a thread of many replies. It’s very enjoyable to read a series of well-thought-out posts that quickly follow this type of trail. I rather enjoy seeing what a variety of people think on a given issue such as this one — where the reaction is actually quite mixed across all kinds of boundaries if you go back and read through it.
I just think it discourages that kind of interaction when you suddenly have a post that takes you 10 minutes to skim through.
(BTW, I would say the same thing when someone says something like, “You have to read the following five books or don’t bother to reply to me…” H:))
My thoughts — for what they’re worth…

1) Vision Forum offers lots of excellent materials. I recommend them highly for discerning readers and listeners — which all of us should be. For instance, they carry some of Dr. Whitcomb’s materials. Other resources such as the “Jonathan Park” radio drama are almost without peer.

I agree that VF materials can be beneficial for discerning readers and listeners, but that is why I don’t recommend them. I don’t know many people IRL who are discerning readers. I know too many people whose faith was shaken by The Da Vinci Code.

I also agree that the Jonathan Park dramas are terrific, and we have all of those. I forgot that we got them from VF. When people level criticism against VF, they are, in my experience, usually thinking specifically of Doug Phillips and VF materials that emphasize patriarchy.

But I can’t buy the part about not recommending VF because people are not discerning enough to handle it. I might handle things that way — with VF or anything else — in the case of a specific individual. But overall I just can’t live my life that way.
I guess I have been forever affected by the denomination I grew up in, where the code of ethics at the time was basically that if it does not have our name on it, it is not to be considered — and if you do consider it you have just become suspect. I just could never go back to that type of mindset. Almost did for a while within fundamentalism — then realized what I was doing and caught myself H:)