Thoughts on the Family Integrated Church Movement - the "FIC movement is reactionary"
I completely understand, and that is essentially what I’m saying- I don’t know many individuals who can handle anything that is remotely challenging. How many do you know IRL that read and study the Scriptures daily? You might know plenty because of the kinds of people you interact with on a daily basis. But we (my husband and I) aren’t in the ‘upper echelons’ of anything. I’m on the ground floor, mostly helping people who are trying to overcome addictions or keep their marriages together or just get out of bed in the morning. I don’t get the fun of recommending something that requires a level of maturity and discernment.
I would again point out that it isn’t primarily FIC churches that take patriarchy and jump off a cliff with it. I know of 2 churches personally that have SS, kids’ programs, etc… but believe in the ownership of women- all women- by their husband, their father, their brothers… we assume that a certain dynamic lends itself to certain false teachings, but all you need in a church for false teaching to take hold is people who are 1) power-mongering and manipulative or 2) unskilled in Scripture. You don’t need the NCFIC or T4G or the BBF. On a side note, I wonder how these other associations and organizations handle false teaching and practice in their member churches. (*cough*markdriscoll*coughcough*)
I’m with you on that one- my bookshelves have everything from Dr. Ruckman to Charles Colson to Dr. Laura. As a matter of fact, I recommend Dr. Laura more than I recommend someone like the Pearls or VF. http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php] http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-scared004.gif
I would again point out that it isn’t primarily FIC churches that take patriarchy and jump off a cliff with it. I know of 2 churches personally that have SS, kids’ programs, etc… but believe in the ownership of women- all women- by their husband, their father, their brothers… we assume that a certain dynamic lends itself to certain false teachings, but all you need in a church for false teaching to take hold is people who are 1) power-mongering and manipulative or 2) unskilled in Scripture. You don’t need the NCFIC or T4G or the BBF. On a side note, I wonder how these other associations and organizations handle false teaching and practice in their member churches. (*cough*markdriscoll*coughcough*)
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’m with you on that one- my bookshelves have everything from Dr. Ruckman to Charles Colson to Dr. Laura. As a matter of fact, I recommend Dr. Laura more than I recommend someone like the Pearls or VF. http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php] http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-scared004.gif
Paul,
I’m not trying to be elitist here - all I’m suggesting is that if in an exchange between two posters on one thread, if those posters are answering each other’s question, it’s OK if not all the readership is enthused or even engaged in that single exchange. Please….I’m not saying everyone should just “drop off” the thread. Sorry I wasn’t clear.
To the rest of you,
I cannot hide the fact that I am not a fan of the FIC movement. I have serious reservations. I still believe that most of the FIC movement is infiltrated with primarly “home school families” that have not learned how to live in an ecclesiastical community with families that do not share their approach to education. Too often these families become isolationistic to the detrement of both their family and the larger Church Universal. It is my take that they have tried to codify an educaitonal methodology that has become as important (if not more important) as doctrine….and as such are in danger of being something of a neo-pharisaism. Feel free to contact me in person if you want to discuss this further. Anything else I would say publically would essentially be “re-hash” which doesn’t further the discussion.
Straight Ahead!
jt
I’m not trying to be elitist here - all I’m suggesting is that if in an exchange between two posters on one thread, if those posters are answering each other’s question, it’s OK if not all the readership is enthused or even engaged in that single exchange. Please….I’m not saying everyone should just “drop off” the thread. Sorry I wasn’t clear.
To the rest of you,
I cannot hide the fact that I am not a fan of the FIC movement. I have serious reservations. I still believe that most of the FIC movement is infiltrated with primarly “home school families” that have not learned how to live in an ecclesiastical community with families that do not share their approach to education. Too often these families become isolationistic to the detrement of both their family and the larger Church Universal. It is my take that they have tried to codify an educaitonal methodology that has become as important (if not more important) as doctrine….and as such are in danger of being something of a neo-pharisaism. Feel free to contact me in person if you want to discuss this further. Anything else I would say publically would essentially be “re-hash” which doesn’t further the discussion.
Straight Ahead!
jt
Dr. Joel Tetreau serves as Senior Pastor, Southeast Valley Bible Church (sevbc.org); Regional Coordinator for IBL West (iblministry.com), Board Member & friend for several different ministries;
I’m not in the upper echelons of anything either — I tried to get up there once but the bouncer wouldn’t let me off the stairwell :bigsmile: ;)
Church Ministries Representative, serving in the Midwest, for The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry
I, for one, have enjoyed reading along with the conversation between Joel and Charles. There is a local intrigue/influence of the FIC, and it helps me to get some insight beyond reading the website of the NCFIC. Though I know neither of these men, I regard them posting at SI as them being pretty “regular guys” who happen to be very serious about their walk with the Lord.
It helps a realtive neophyte to these discussions “hear” the experience of others regarding these and other church matters. Finally it is a bonus to see two Godly men who might disagree have a sane discussion without demeaning one another. To me, that alone was refreshing, to be very honest about it, and I gleaned a great deal from reading their posts, even if they took some time to do so (actually, I printed them out to read through again later).
It helps a realtive neophyte to these discussions “hear” the experience of others regarding these and other church matters. Finally it is a bonus to see two Godly men who might disagree have a sane discussion without demeaning one another. To me, that alone was refreshing, to be very honest about it, and I gleaned a great deal from reading their posts, even if they took some time to do so (actually, I printed them out to read through again later).
It seems to me that the big problem that the FIC is trying to tackle has more to do with the “structure” of the church more than the “substance”. In the movie ” http://www.reformingbaptist.blogspot.com/2012/01/fic-film-identifies-pr… Divided “, which is sponsored by the NCFIC, they hardly dealt with the bad theology of all the churches that have youth groups and children’s ministries. They just went after the structure or the form. Churches like Grace Community Church in California that are not FIC have strong families, teens, college kids, etc. because they have a strong pulpit.
To me, it seems that blaming the decline on the Christian family on the institution of the Sunday School is just as absurd as blaming the decline in the African American Family because of the prohibition of the institution of slavery.
To me, it seems that blaming the decline on the Christian family on the institution of the Sunday School is just as absurd as blaming the decline in the African American Family because of the prohibition of the institution of slavery.
The question works both ways- does a segregated church model lend itself to certain problems? The premise of this thread seems to be that the family integrated model tends toward a few particular doctrinal ‘extremes’ and is simply a reaction to the pendulum swinging too far the other way with highly segregated, program driven, entertainment oriented churches.
But does the premise of the NCFIC have some merit- that segregating the congregation tends to head down that particular road if boundaries aren’t set and precautions aren’t taken?
Let’s face it- It isn’t as if definitive studies have been done, and there is (IMO) no way to do such a study and accurately account for all possible particulars. We all react and respond to these issues based on what we believe Scripture teaches about how to minister effectively, our ideals of organization and efficiency, and we’ve seen and experienced.
So I’m reacting to what I’ve seen- churches that had a family-integrated dynamic begin to incorporate age-segregated classes and programs into their structure, only to watch the congregation fracture, and youth groups deteriorate into unGodliness. Then the church blames the parents and the parents blame the church, and the mulberry bush has a nervous breakdown.
The church/family relationship is symbiotic- if one goes downhill, it affects the other. Parents can’t lay all blame on a church for their family issues, but churches that don’t reinforce and encourage the family bond and recognize parental authority can’t pretend they aren’t causing division in homes. I see segregation as one of those wedges that has the potential to drive children away from their parents instead of toward them, because I’ve experienced it as a teen, as a youth worker, and as a parent. I don’t see church leadership (in general) taking this potential seriously.
Therefore, I think we are seeing parents react to this lack of concern. What do those in church leadership expect parents to do? Not take responsibility for the spiritual health of their home? Not follow their conscience to where they believe their concerns are being addressed? Wait it out and hope for the best?
If families are walking away from segregated churches and to the family integrated model, instead of criticizing the FIC movement, why not ask what was done/not done to prevent the exodus? And then we might have an answer as to how to avoid more families vamoosing from the apparent doctrinal purity and security of the segregated model.
But does the premise of the NCFIC have some merit- that segregating the congregation tends to head down that particular road if boundaries aren’t set and precautions aren’t taken?
Let’s face it- It isn’t as if definitive studies have been done, and there is (IMO) no way to do such a study and accurately account for all possible particulars. We all react and respond to these issues based on what we believe Scripture teaches about how to minister effectively, our ideals of organization and efficiency, and we’ve seen and experienced.
So I’m reacting to what I’ve seen- churches that had a family-integrated dynamic begin to incorporate age-segregated classes and programs into their structure, only to watch the congregation fracture, and youth groups deteriorate into unGodliness. Then the church blames the parents and the parents blame the church, and the mulberry bush has a nervous breakdown.
The church/family relationship is symbiotic- if one goes downhill, it affects the other. Parents can’t lay all blame on a church for their family issues, but churches that don’t reinforce and encourage the family bond and recognize parental authority can’t pretend they aren’t causing division in homes. I see segregation as one of those wedges that has the potential to drive children away from their parents instead of toward them, because I’ve experienced it as a teen, as a youth worker, and as a parent. I don’t see church leadership (in general) taking this potential seriously.
Therefore, I think we are seeing parents react to this lack of concern. What do those in church leadership expect parents to do? Not take responsibility for the spiritual health of their home? Not follow their conscience to where they believe their concerns are being addressed? Wait it out and hope for the best?
If families are walking away from segregated churches and to the family integrated model, instead of criticizing the FIC movement, why not ask what was done/not done to prevent the exodus? And then we might have an answer as to how to avoid more families vamoosing from the apparent doctrinal purity and security of the segregated model.
I cannot add much here that Charles has not dealt with but I do think that the conversation comes down to why the NCFIC and family integrated churches exist. The NCFIC is not simply founded on a reaction to youth groups and such but works to see the church grounded in the sufficiency of the word of God for faith and practice. It may have been an observation of a lack in the church as a whole in a particular area of church life that led to a more thorough look at the practices of the church but it is not the reason the NCFIC continues to exist. One may disagree with the conclusions that have been reached but that is where the debate needs to reside it; with the interpretation and application of scripture.
I cursory reading of any literature from the NCIFC or listening to the sermons given at their conferences will show that at the heart of what is said by them reveals a desire to be true to scripture, all of scripture, for all of life. One may disagree with their exegesis of passages but again that is where the argument needs to be and not based on anecdotal examples. If you read Scott Brown’s book A Weed In the Church (https://www.ncfic.org/a-weed ) he gives a host of biblical reasons for what the NCFIC promotes what it does and is a good place to go to see where the NCFIC is coming from.
Also, I believe, at issue is how ones sees the regulative principle and its place in dealing with worship. The NCFIC and many of those churches affiliated with it hold to the regulative principle which is simply an expression of the sufficiency of scripture for the all of life and in this case the actions of the church. Thus they look at the activities of the church and seek to avoid those activities not commanded by scripture and only seek to do what God has called the church to do in His word. This is a good resource on the regulative principle of worship: http://www.founderspress.com/shop/store.php?crn=206&rn=399&action=show_…
As a last note, there is often a claim that the NCFIC and those affiliated with it, are blurring or infringing on the church. I think, again, if you read or listen to those that speak for the NCFIC you will hear that they speak often about the jurisdictions of the Church, Family and state (these are stated here in no particular order, except alphabetical ,so that no one reads anything into it). Thus they work to not blur the lines but set distinctions and that is rarely found in other groups. It is well defined lines of authority that help the church rather than the blurred lines of demarcation, often found, between the three God ordained institutions.
In all of this the goal of all should be a church grounded and supported by the all sufficient word of God and not man’s opinions. Yes we may disagree in the interpretation and application of God’s word but that is where the conversation needs to be.
Grace and Peace
I cursory reading of any literature from the NCIFC or listening to the sermons given at their conferences will show that at the heart of what is said by them reveals a desire to be true to scripture, all of scripture, for all of life. One may disagree with their exegesis of passages but again that is where the argument needs to be and not based on anecdotal examples. If you read Scott Brown’s book A Weed In the Church (https://www.ncfic.org/a-weed ) he gives a host of biblical reasons for what the NCFIC promotes what it does and is a good place to go to see where the NCFIC is coming from.
Also, I believe, at issue is how ones sees the regulative principle and its place in dealing with worship. The NCFIC and many of those churches affiliated with it hold to the regulative principle which is simply an expression of the sufficiency of scripture for the all of life and in this case the actions of the church. Thus they look at the activities of the church and seek to avoid those activities not commanded by scripture and only seek to do what God has called the church to do in His word. This is a good resource on the regulative principle of worship: http://www.founderspress.com/shop/store.php?crn=206&rn=399&action=show_…
As a last note, there is often a claim that the NCFIC and those affiliated with it, are blurring or infringing on the church. I think, again, if you read or listen to those that speak for the NCFIC you will hear that they speak often about the jurisdictions of the Church, Family and state (these are stated here in no particular order, except alphabetical ,so that no one reads anything into it). Thus they work to not blur the lines but set distinctions and that is rarely found in other groups. It is well defined lines of authority that help the church rather than the blurred lines of demarcation, often found, between the three God ordained institutions.
In all of this the goal of all should be a church grounded and supported by the all sufficient word of God and not man’s opinions. Yes we may disagree in the interpretation and application of God’s word but that is where the conversation needs to be.
Grace and Peace
Discussion