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
http://sharperiron.org/2007/10/08/why-churches-should-have-e2809ckid-ti…] Why Churches Should Have “Kid Times”
http://sharperiron.org/2007/10/11/biblical-kids-times] Rebuttal
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.
Our church has both a family integrated class and traditional Sunday School. They both have their advantages. For example, children on the autism spectrum or with other special needs often fare better in a family integrated class.
Like homeschooling (and we home schooled), there are those who view it as a choice (as we did), but there are those who condemn others who make another choice (as we did not). Whatever happened to freedom and respect for those who choose differently?
"The Midrash Detective"
We have some of these people who attend our church on Sunday mornings for the preaching service only, but they refuse to become members, they never come on Wednesday nights, and generally don’t particpate in any other way in the life of the church.
Pastor Mike Harding
[npaul] Isn’t this movement largely a result of Gothardism, even though it’s modern proponents would likely deny Gothard was the modern “father” of this movement?I think there are some separate routes that have landed folks in similar places in their thinking. I’m pretty sure Voddie Baucham and the NCIS folks have little in common with “Gothardism” — though I suppose it depends partly on what you mean by the term. Brown, Baucham etc. are not disciples of Gothard.
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.
2. Independent Baptist Church (Evangelical Christian-Baptist) is a multi generational church. It was organized twenty years ago by Russian speaking EC-B immigrants to Sacramento. IBC is four generations deep (as religious refugees, the folks immigrated by families from the babes in arms to the grandparents.) Sunday services are all ages affairs. However, on Friday nights, the adults meet for a prayer meeting and the children have the age appropriate Bible classes. The singles meet on Saturday nights for their Bible class.
Hoping to shed more light than heat..
I agree that some churches (and not just FICs) take the role of the father too far and deny the children and wives individual liberty before God, but overall, the premise is that the church isn’t to exclude ANYONE. However, this often happens in segregated ministries where one group of people- singles, elderly, childless- never meet up with anyone outside of their demographic. The point of FICs is to facilitate and encourage generational fellowship, which includes all ages and marital statuses. To continue to speak as if a FIC somehow excludes singles or childless is arguing a point that has never been made.
The comparison to Gothard is IMO a backhanded way of dismissing and disparaging the idea without having to deal with the issues at hand.
The FIC movement is reactionary- I’ll grant that. But a reaction to what? I believe that the hyper-segregation that takes place in many, if not most, churches, IS harmful. Parents who want their children with them in church are treated like they’re stupid, over-protective, and blahblahblah. On the other hand, there are parents who often talk about their kids in terms of how often and for how long they can ‘get rid’ of them- at church and at school, and it’s obvious they are only pretending to be joking. This is not only acceptable, it’s expected and considered normal. I think it is an abomination. The family unit is under attack, and churches (generally) aren’t doing very much to edify and admonish parents or encourage children to turn their hearts toward their parents. I see that in the way people talk about sending kids to Christian college to get grounded in the Word- they are 18 years old- why aren’t they grounded YET? Apparently it is someone else’s job to teach and train children- SS teachers, the pastor, the Christian school teachers, and then Bible college professors. By all appearances, the role of parents is to foot the bill.
What about the fact that there is no indication in Scripture that people are taught by being segregated into several demographics? We see gender segregation to a degree, and that’s the extent of that. Is this truly an argument from silence? I don’t think so. The Bible is NOT silent about the family- husbands, wives, fathers, children… are given many directives in Scripture, and we have plenty of examples and patterns of family life. That is NOT the same as padded pews and hymnbooks and air conditioning.
Are FICs they going too far the other way? It’s possible, but that has to be judged on a church-by-church basis, in the same way that IFB churches are not all the same in faith and practice.
(1) Never separate into age groups (FIC)
(2) Always (or nearly always) separate into age groups (I’m not sure who believes or does this but I accept that it exists)
(3) Use togetherness and separateness prudently
The FIC POV does not accept that #3 exists or is possible, but routinely lumps church practices into two headings: always-together and unbiblical.
So that’s the real problem. I have no problem whatsoever with a family or congregation that says “We think always together is the best approach.” This is fundamentally different from saying “Ever age grouping at all is unbiblical.” The latter is what FIC actually teaches.
(The relative silence of Scripture on the subject of forming groups by age is not a strong argument… just as its silence is not a strong argument for anything else. And, as I pointed out in Why Churches Should Have ‘Kid Times,’ there is evidence that groups within the church do have special needs that require special attention.)
As for who’s job it is… the NT is clear that discipleship is indeed the responsibility of the church. This doesn’t erase the parent’s role, but when you look at passages about discipleship and growth in the faith, the vast majority of them assume or directly attribute this to the ministry of the body. Eph.4:11-16 is one example. (See also Matt. 28:19-20, Rom. 15:14, Col. 3:16, Heb.10:24-25)
Family under attack… no doubt about that. The problem is that the FIC point of view assumes a particular cause and particular solution and its case for that assumption is pretty weak (mostly because it assumes rather than supports that analysis… where it does support, it relies heavily on correlation=causation fallacy). My own belief is that the attack on the family is the result of changing beliefs and values in western culture and not a particular Christian Ed. model. If that’s the case, changing the model will not fix anything. Only correcting the beliefs and values will lead to solutions.
I keep going back to my own experience: four generations (and counting) of strong Christian families discipled in “age segregated” churches. I’ve yet to hear an FIC adherent explain how that is possible in their analysis. Their writings basically insist that it is not possible. But in the circles I grew up in, it’s not only possible; it’s routine.
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.
But at no point does the church override parental authority unless a parent is violating Scripture. I understand that some parents do absolutely nothing with regards to teaching and training their children- but is the church supposed to step in and take over? Or hold those parents accountable for their lack of obedience to the Word? Christian parents who are not grounding children in the faith are disobedient and in rebellion against God. Get that part straight and then consider age-segregation.
I’m still waiting for some real evidence that ‘corporate worship’ really means ‘a unified body of individuals that are over 18’. Far too much of what we do in church guided by practical considerations instead of Biblical ones. “We have to have SS Classes” so what we end up with is Sunday Schools guided mostly by women, people teaching classes who have the spiritual maturity of coleslaw, and regenerate children being taught right along with unregenerate children, being told to ‘ask Jesus to come into your heart’ by talking cucumbers, and singing “If You’re Happy and You Know It”. Then they turn 18 and think church is a joke. In the words of this generation- “Duh”.
Edited to add: That’s not fair, Aaron. You edited your post while I was writing mine! :)
Yes, strong families are possible in age-segregated churches. I don’t doubt that. But was it the church that accomplished this, or spiritually mature parents brought up by spiritually mature parents? There’s no doubt in my mind that the last few decades have seen a hyper-emphasis on age-segregated fluffball children’s and youth ministries. It doesn’t surprise me to see a strong reaction to this, and a pendulum that has swung all the way to the opposite pole.
Does the FIC movement divide churches? Probably- but that’s not necessarily a bad thing. There are parents who want to be part of a church that helps them with the responsibility of teaching and training children. If they can’t find it in a traditionally organized church, then they may see a FIC as very attractive- whose fault is that?
Doug, reasoning is an amazing thing. I see what you are saying about FICM hermeneutic; is there a New Testament example of age segregaration within the local church ? This may have gotten lost in the points that you make and address.
Thank you for your time to answer this quick question.
Bob Rogish
It burdens my spirit to see such articles coming from fundamental Baptist sources, as one of those “fundamentals” most assuredly is the authority and sufficiency of Scripture in all matters of life and practice. This article and others like it that I have seen, are in my opinion, very shaky hermeneutically and offer no solid Biblical evidence for the age-segregated model.
For instance, Dr. Brown takes exception to using the Regulative Principle in defense of an argument from silence (a defensible position), but does not attempt to answer the argument from Scripture that he himself acknowledged (“…At the same time, he points to examples in Scripture where families worshiped together as the normal pattern”). We cling to many practices/beliefs that have no direct command/prohibition in Scripture, but which we recognize as Biblically correct or needful because of the principles, patterns, precepts and overall testimony of the Word.
He states that the “make disciples” mandate is to reach all people, regardless of their ethnicity, gender, age, or family status. Somehow he assumes that the FICM is prohibitive to this! Promoting corporate worship as a single unified group, rather than split up into multiple classes speaks of inclusion, not exclusion!
He goes on: “The church is not required to reach individuals through their families”, yet the FIC model reaches all individuals at the same time with the same message, clearly promoting rather than discouraging unity. This also assumes facts not in evidence; namely, that the FICM has no means of discipling anyone outside of the complete family unit. This is an area of misunderstanding and controversy that has been dealt with at length by prominent FIC pastors/leaders.
Dr. Brown views Eph. 4:7-16 as a biblical argument for age-segregated ministry. In my view, there are some serious logical loopholes and assumptions happening in this argument. He basically equates the “work of the ministry” with teaching alone. This probably comes as a great surprise to some that thought their works of service, helps, hospitality, etc. were actually part of the ministry! He also evidently assumes that this teaching needs to include “Christian education programs”. He gives no evidence for how these education programs are “Biblical” other than the fact that they involve teaching. In the FIC model, the pastor(s) and teachers instruct the congregation in doctrine, etc. and expect the congregants to then teach and instruct their own families, fellow congregants, and neighbors in a relational rather than classroom method. Does this not fit perfectly Dr Brown’s stated goal of “pastors…train and equip the saints to teach”? Who is being left out in this model?
In his practical argument, he asserts that the FICM has not proven that age segregation is the cause of the mass exodus of the next generation from the faith. Perhaps I might ask for proof that age segregation is not the cause!
Dr. Brown laments the fact that this issue in some churches is causing division. While I (and I believe most of the FIC leaders) would agree that this issue should not be an issue of dissociation, one might ask — is it ever necessary for there to be division or purification? Is it possible that those entrenched in the “age-segregated” mindset might have any part in this division (after all it takes two varying opinions to cause division)?
I personally believe from my study on this issue that there is a much stronger Biblical case for the FIC model than the age-segregated model. Articles from this side of the issue seem to be very reactionary, while in my experience, the arguments from the other side seem to have arisen out of a close examination of Scripture and a genuine desire to reform areas which have been revealed to have been in error. I believe there is a strong resistance to change from the age-segregated model, not so much because of the Biblical evidence, but because of human factors (breaking with “tradition”, phasing out paid positions, open evidence of poor child training, reluctance of parents to bear more responsibility, etc).
It seems clear to me that the overriding focus in this issue should be the Biblical evidence for or against these competing methodologies, and that Christians everywhere should submit to their consciences as they are informed by the Word of God. As such, I believe that the result of such action will invariably be a truer and closer unity.
A Detailed Response to Doug Brown’s Critique of the FICM
Hoping to shed more light than heat..
[Rob Fall] What was Hamilton Square Baptist Church supposed to do from the late ’50s to the early ’90s? We didn’t have enough families to be our core. We did have older/younger singles and empty nesters.Rob,
This type of concern tends to come up often (situations w/singles, divorced, etc). The simple answer for me is that, because the underlying principle (based upon the consistent pattern of Scripture) is a unified gathering for corporate worship, the overall family status of any congregation is of only secondary significance. Simply follow the pattern and precept in the Bible of the entire congregation worshiping together.
No “movement” is perfect, and the Family Integrated Church Movement is no different. I think the name tends to give pre-conceived notions that it is only for “complete” families. This is an unfortunate misnomer. One could simply call it the “Integrated Church Movement”, and that might give a more accurate description. Or perhaps you could call it a “Inter-generational Church Movement”. The emphasis in the movement is not so much on “families” per se (although the movement has a lot to say about the family and our church culture), but on worshiping together rather than in peer groups.
I should also say that this does not preclude the principle of discipleship among the members of the congregation. However, this “teaching” would not take place in the cultural normative model (teaching=classroom), but in a relational (one-on-one) type of model. Titus 2 discipleship is viewed as relational, personal, realized by older men discipling younger men & older women discipling younger women (inter-generational), and would typically not be seen as including children (the older women are to be teaching the younger to “love their own husbands”, be “love their children”, etc — strongly implies older adults teaching younger adults).
Hopefully this helps.
Without even getting into all of the doctrinal aberrations common in the FIC movement, the whole notion of an unsegregated 1st century church is simply uninformed. The early church gatherings modeled earlier synagogue meetings, which were definitely segregated. Women sat on one side with girls (or all the children) while men sat on the other side (sometimes with the boys). Furthermore, Jewish boys went to the rabbi during the week for religious training, a practice Paul seems to have modeled with Timothy. There was absolutely segregation in the synagogue on which the early church was modeled. Any of the NT passages promoted by the FIC can support the model I have just described, which was a gender and age segregated congregation that was most certainly not patriarchal in structure.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
Featured Resource
Discussion