Johannes Weslianus

96 comments

1. Rachel Miller says:

   April 28, 2011 at 7:34 AM

   Shawn~ Thank you for this article. As a home schooler, I’m aware of Vision Forum and Doug Phillips. I’ve been concerned about some of their approach.

   Reply
2. James Hakim says:

   April 28, 2011 at 8:45 AM

   Hi Shawn,

   So-called “family integrated” churches aren’t monolithic. If you were to browse through the NCFIC church list, you would actually find many churches with Sunday Schools, youth groups, etc. I would call our congregation family integrated, but by that we basically mean:

   *an emphasis upon parents vigorously engaging in all-day, every-day discipleship of their children
   *an emphasis upon husbands daily bathing their wives with the Word unto their sanctification
   *an emphases upon the ordinary means of grace in public worship
   *a repudiation of the “youth culture” that has grown up in America, both with its inherent indulgence of childish folly (as opposed to childlike faith) and its inherent disdain for anything old, wise, selfless, noble, etc. (any attempt to mitigate this inevitably involves taking the “youth culture” out of the youth group by involving the broader church, especially elders and parents)

   Who is there that would not agree to this? Maybe some emergent-leaning types who don’t mind being foolish as long as they’re not doing anything too wicked, or perhaps some sacerdotal types who relegate discipleship almost to the realm of magic and so don’t care about what else happens so long as we do the magic thing.

   Do you not agree to the first set of principles? Another way that we might describe it is “God’s institutions, not man’s”:

   *word, sacrament, and prayer for worship as opposed to the 3 ring circus that passes for worship in some places–AND the means of grace in corporate worship as the primary place of discipleship (AND, I would argue, that this principle is actually over-against VF conferences!)
   *elders as the teaching officers of the church as opposed to the teaching pseudo-office of Sunday School teachers
   *no subchurch factions such as the youth group, the singles group, or any of these artificially/demographically formed groups that go against the wisdom in which God has assembled the congregation from “more diverse stuff”… I understand the proper motives behind such things, but what we end up with are groups that are missing out on the gifts, graces, trials, challenges, etc. of the parts of the church that are missing
   *not wanting our children to be the constant companions of fools, but rather also to enjoy the fellowship and edification of church members from every walk of life (he who walks with the wise becomes wise, but a companion of fools suffers harm… and Scripture teaches over and over again that our children are fools; ever read about Rehoboam? etc. — the effect, however sincerely conceived, of the youth group is that these inevitably become the children’s only companions… not that I would have something against a Jonathan Edwards style “youth group” that would be intensive discipling sessions with one of the elders, informing frequent meetings with the parents to alert them of where they could improve their own spiritual care of their children…)

   What many in the family integrated movement are saying is no different than what Boyce was saying when he said “what you draw them with, you save them to” or something to that effect. If only God can provide the growth, then let’s build only with God’s means. The logic of 1Cor 1-3 doesn’t apply only to message. It applies to method too. The fact that age segregated discipleship isn’t commended by any biblical precept or example should give us pause as to why so much of our effort for discipling our children is going into it. One would expect that all of this energy is just spinning our wheels and squealing our tires, and that is exactly our experience. Our children are being lost in droves. Anecdotal evidence from heartbroken parents that I know is even more convincing to me than the ever-present (and never-reliable) statistic, but both are dire.

   The historical argument may be too strongly put in some of the statements that you quoted, but does it make it right that the Jews did it? And do you not connect Finneyism and liberalism with the rise of the contemporary Sunday school and youth group institutions? It is /actually/ helpful to point out to people that the Sunday school and youth group didn’t fall out of heaven, and if we find that in fact they turn out to be unwise things (as in nearly every case), it is not a despising of our fathers in the faith to dispense with them.

   So, it is actually a case of biblical wisdom. You may be able to do a better job than I of going back through what I have written and provide prescriptive and narrative passages that make each of my points. Or maybe not, since you make the baptistic argument from the congregational meeting for the establishing of the new temple in Neh 8; and, even worse, arguing for age segregation as an institution from the fact that Jesus went to His Father’s House (the main point of that passage!) and learned from God-instituted officers. What a poor Scriptural argument you have made! When you have that on your side, and the family integrated folks have Deut 6, Eph 6, Proverbs, all of the wonderful covenantal passages, etc., you’re kind of killing your own position. Just sayin’. Did you know that Phillips is a Baptist? It’s kind of sad for a Presbyterian to be less covenantal about worship than a Baptist. Just sayin’.

   Upon whom do we depend for the fruit of our discipleship? And so does it make any sense to devise our own means and institutions for discipleship, that specifically replace God’s? There is something regulative about spiritual nurture; it is a strong criticism to point out that a method or institution of discipleship has no biblical warrant. And so the “desert island test” is not specious as you claim. Furthermore, it is beyond question that the biblical institutions for spiritual nurture are Word and prayer in the family with the parents as “officers”; and, Word, sacrament, and prayer in the church, with the elders as officers. So your entire argument falls apart.

   As for your point about some specific men and their specific statements: Yes, it’s sad that many who call themselves family-integrated are fractious. In fact, I wonder what the impetus was for your post. Have you, or a friend of yours, been burned by a specific impetus of this fractiousness? A post that describes what happened in that specific instance, and cautions against that kind of sin, would be useful. As it stands, however, your current post is as fractious as the VF folks. Unnecessary fractiousness is a great sin. But accusing those who bring biblical correction to a great error in the piety and practice of the church isn’t being unifying. It’s being fractious. So be careful that you don’t don’t do what you are accusing others of.

   If you want to write about the fractiousness of the family integrated movement, you could hit the aspects of it that I find most troubling from what I (or those I know) have personally run into:
   *congregations or people who intentionally try to draw members from other churches that have sound doctrine, and all of the marks of the church, based upon the issue of family integration–as if failing to have done this is such a sin as to make it not a true church and thus nullify their membership vows
   *fathers or families that resent having elders directly teach their children; this one is astonishing to me, in light of the fact that my own reasons for being family integrated are bound up in a desire to attend upon /God’s/ institutions in the church–here we have men and families who actually contemn God’s institution of the elders in the name of upholding God’s institution of the family!

   There are other weaknesses, and it would have been very helpful to have a post cautioning family integrated churches against the dangers with which family integration “as a movement” are fraught. I hope that I and our congregation are avoiding some of these, but even for me your post came off as if you have your head in the sand with regard to a plague of error and failure in the church; and, your main response to those who are trying to do something about it is, “some of your statements are unsupported, and some people that are associated with you are fractious.”

   To be honest, Shawn, that’s not very unifying, and it’s not at all helpful.

   Be careful that your appeal to unity doesn’t come off sounding like a desire to move away from pointedly made arguments in the interest of sharpening one another. There is a vast portion of the so-called Reformed church that is giving nearly all of its thought, zeal, energy, focus to the devices and innovations of men, rather than the institutions of God. The fractiousness of the FIC movement is a consequential judgment upon this.

   Covenant children are being reared to be pagans with just enough proficiency in the language of the gospel to convince themselves that they are saved and being sanctified. The parent of a converted child in the majority of our congregations has difficulty finding just one other same-age companion for his child who also goes hard after Christ in both heart and life.

   There is a /crisis/ in the church here, Shawn. It would be much more helpful to draw from our confessional documents (feel free to use TFU here as well) and say: “the following are widespread weaknesses and sins in our churches, which are being exposed and corrected by the sometimes fractious family integrated movement.” It squelches discussion to say, “Doug Phillips is a nutter, and and he holds to a form of this, so those who hold to a form of this are being fractious for no good reason.”

   I am thankful that there are actually parents who are specifically looking for congregations where the elders are committed to training them to disciple their children, rather than simply to provide programs and staff that do it. I am thankful that there are people who have great confidence in Christ and in the Holy Spirit, and are therefore looking for churches that are primarily devoted to the means of grace, rather than to programs and events. And I am happy to be able to list our congregation on the NCFIC website, so that people who are looking for such things know that they will find them at Harvest. We are very careful to make sure that people who come to us fulfill their vows to submit to Christ’s edlers in their current church, but there have also been some who are escaping what are not true churches (in which case, it’s saving sheep, not stealing sheep!)

   You know what would obsolete the family integrated movement (and most Sunday schools, youth groups, retreats, conferences, parachurch ministries, etc.)?

   A return to Reformed piety and practice.

   You could improve their historical argument from “we have never done this badly, so stop it!” to “this has been much more biblically done in the past, so let’s heed their example and be biblical too.”

   p.s. You don’t believe that evolution is from Hell?

   Reply
3. Adam Parker says:

   April 28, 2011 at 9:13 AM

   Thanks for the article, Shawn. As someone who attended a Family Integrated Church for a couple of years, I can agree wholeheartedly with your assessment. I am very used to hearing the claims that segregation is secular and evolutionary, and it never quite made sense to me. However, since I never felt like anything bizarre was going on, I didn’t complain. The elders looked after the church and preached faithfully from the Scriptures. My wife and I ended up leaving for pragmatic reasons. With three children under the age of 4, we were dying for a nursery to put our youngest in, and that was simply against their philosophy.

   Now that we’re attending a PCA church, I see the deep flaws in the FIC model, but I especially appreciate your observations on the historical end of things.

   Reply
4. Shawn Mathis says:

   April 28, 2011 at 9:51 AM

   Hello James,

   Fundamentally, your observation about the lack of uniformity among the signers of the NCFIC confession is irrelevant because I analyze the confession itself as well as the two main leaders of the organization.

   If churches sign a document without knowing what it means that is between them and God.

   Reply
5. Shawn Mathis says:

   April 28, 2011 at 10:36 AM

   Hello James,

   You wrote: “no subchurch factions such as the youth group, the singles group…” But also admitted, “not that I would have something against a Jonathan Edwards style “youth group” that would be intensive discipling sessions with one of the elders…”

   The NCFIC confession makes no such distinction.

   My question: what you protest is immature youth groups? And would you consider these Edwards’ style groups to be exceptions to the Bible or allowable year-round?

   thanks,

   Reply
6. James Hakim says:

   April 28, 2011 at 11:38 AM

   Shawn,

   Many of the points that you make don’t engage the statements that churches on the list subscribe to, but things that people involved in the movement have said or written elsewhere.

   That said, the current form of age segregation does not have biblical mandate, and came in upon a departure of the means of grace that was fueled by many forces during the 19th century. Evolution is just one, the rise of Marxism, the industrial revolution and its disintegration of the family, theological liberalism, and Finneyism are others. So, there is nothing inaccurate in the NCFIC statements. And, in fact, evolutionary ideas go back to modernism and the enlightenment, not to Darwin, so your referencing the date of his book is another red herring in your argument.

   The Edwards model is that of an ordained elder, focusing for a time on those who being in more formative years and with /less/ godly interaction by virtue of the fact that their friends by nature tend to be more foolish. It is an institution of God, working against the tendencies of sinful man. These were not meetings concurrent with other assemblies, and were not the youth’s primary connection to the church.

   And with the elder then turning to the parents and pressing upon them what he finds, such meetings actually shine more light on whether the parents are doing their jobs in the home, rather than enabling a paucity of discipling in the home. Of course, it also exposed such a paucity, which eventually became a problem for Edwards. I think that I just drew a perverse comfort from the fact that I am not the first pastor to run into parents who don’t want to be held accountable for the bulk of their children’s discipling.

   In short, however, what Edwards was doing was employing one of God’s instituted teaching offices in the service of another (the “office” of parent, to which you get “ordained” by conceiving).

   Not that whatever Edwards does must be a model for us, but it certainly flows out of a devotion to attending that which God has instituted as opposed to what man has devised.

   And, yes, one of the main things that I am protesting is the phenomenon of a “youth culture.” And a “singles culture.” And a “seniors culture.” And the “young marrieds culture.” While God’s diverse providence to people in various seasons of life means that the pastor makes application to them variously, I think that we must guard against allowing the church to disintegrate into these various cultures. 1Corinthians 12 makes a big deal out of how God has intentionally arranged for the one “culture” of the church to include the various parts, all interacting with each other.

   If someone reading this thinks “Oh, we should get the seniors together with the youth,” then we already have a problem. “Boomers and X’ers together” should already be a mark of a 1Cor 12 church, and if it’s not, and there are man-made institutions contributing to that problem, then one excellent solution might be to abandon them.

   How about we “segregate” the church geographically instead? At least that one is already required in God’s providence by the fact that the church is “divided” into congregations. And if a geographic segment gets big enough, with all different kinds of body parts already interacting and thriving in the segment, then what you have is a daughter church that just got planted, rather than a faction.

   The following are what I think are the biggest problems with your argument:
   1. The few Scriptures that you attempted to engage were mishandled/misused
   2. Although it is true that not necessarily all “family integrated” churches are biblical, it is also true that all biblical churches will have enough of a resemblance that the majority of believers would call them “family integrated.” So you use a couple examples of error or hypocrisy to discredit an entire group. There is absolutely no group to whom one cannot apply this criticism.

   In fact, for our part, we were just being biblical, and people started coming because we were supposedly “family integrated.” It was then that we learned of NCFIC and decided that we “held the common vision” for what the church ought to be to such an extent that we could be listed with them.

   As for your being misleading about family integrated churches, your guilt-by-association arguments come from many ideas not found in the statements that these churches publicly agree with. It’s akin to grabbing some Calvinistic statements from the WCF and then highlighting those public statements that tend most toward hypercalvinism from subscribers or even authors of the WCF. And then writing an article called, “What is a Presbyterian Church?” Your article couldn’t even rightly be titled “What Is a NCFIC Church?” But rather, “What Gives Me Pause about the NCFIC?”

   Now, I have other things to do, since the biblical brand of pastoring is actually extremely demanding. But I do think that your argument is both poor and misleading, and uses a couple men to let the vast majority of the church off the hook for something in which we really do need widespread repentance and Biblical Reformation. Even if your argument was good, this would be applicationally unwise considering the current state of things in the church.

   Reply
7. Rachel Miller says:

   April 28, 2011 at 12:01 PM

   James~ one of the practices I have seen in Family Integrated Churches is the practice of distributing the bread and wine to the heads of households who then distribute the elements to their families. Is this a common practice, in your opinion, and do you agree with it?

   Reply
8. thatmom says:

   April 28, 2011 at 12:10 PM

   Shawn, thanks so much for addressing this topic. Our family has participated in planting two family integrated churches after decades in the traditional church. We came to see many problems within this paradigm but became frustrated at trying to address them because the whole FIC movement is part and parcel of a much bigger agenda that has little to do with real spiritual truth or the Gospel. In the end, we returned to the traditional church 5 years ago and have never been more spiritually challenged or encouraged in our parenting. While I undertand all the reasons behind the FIC and the arguments made in its favor, I had to ask myself if it truly demonstrates the great commandment of loving God and loving man. I believe it does not. I wrote a series of articles called the pros and cons of the family integrated church by telling our own story. Here is the link:

   http://www.thatmom.com/articles/pros-and-cons-of-the-family-integrated-church/

   Reply
9. Chris Hutchinson says:

   April 28, 2011 at 1:03 PM

   I understand much of the impetus of the Family Integrated movement, but its restorationist and primivitist logic is self-defeating in many ways.

   For instance, something else we don’t see in the New Testament is a parachurch organization largely centered around one man and his family, and sporting a glossy catalog which sells items glorifying America and war toys in the name of Christian manhood (e.g. The Vision Forum).

   Now, I am not saying one cannot make an argument for such an organization, but it sure fails the “desert isle” test (i.e. the restorationist and primitivist impulse).

   Also, it’s really hard to start and sustain a movement unless one is able to greatly distinguish oneself from the normal practice and exaggerate its errors (i.e. Sunday School coming from the pit of hell.) This is standard political practice. In other words, the center of this movement is, in my opinion, just as worldly as what they are purport to be fixing.

   Reply
10. Shawn Mathis says:

    April 28, 2011 at 1:39 PM

    Thatmom,

    Yes, I remember that series. Feel free to link to my article if you wish.

    Reply
11. Shawn Mathis says:

    April 28, 2011 at 1:47 PM

    James,

    What makes a FIC a FIC? The rejection of age-segregation (SS, etc.). That has been dealt with in my articles (naturally it is short so extensive exegesis is not engaged).

    What stands out in the NCFIC confession? Rejection of age-segregation–and tying it to evolution and secularism. These were dealt with too.

    So, what was the error in pointing out these facts? Do FIC (who do not sign the NCFIC confession) disagree with these claims (evolutionary basis and rejection of age-segregation)? Do you?

    It seems to me that if you agree, then the article fits. And I would encourage you, if you do not, then do not associate yourself with a moniker that is broad enough to include such sentiments. Just call yourself Reformed Baptist, etc.

    thanks,

    Reply
12. 9th Dude says:

    April 28, 2011 at 3:30 PM

    Wonders aloud:

    1.) If only elders are to teach, when is it precisely that the older women are supposed to train the younger women?

    2.) How successfully the doctrine of the Trinity can be taught to a three year old?

    3.) Why Paul instructed his junior pastors to teach various things to various groups?

    4.) Why the classical model, which some believe fell from heaven, takes into account stages of learning?

    I am all for the church and the family being together more rather than less, but I think we verge on a form of super-spiritual pride when we think that family-integration has all the answers, and that nobody can ever be separated out for any purpose. Certain things the Bible instructs upon are not suited for young children. Others they can’t grasp as well.

    It is a genetic fallacy to state that, since modern educational theory came out of the Enlightenment that it is therefore bad. First, I would like to see anyone prove that everything that goes on in modern education is enlightenment-based. Some of it is empirically verifiable and some of it is bad. Take what’s good and leave the bad.

    I doubt anyone of us would decline heart surgery just because Servetus discovered how blood moved through the heart.

    There is such a danger with tacking on extra-Biblical requirements, and not allowing for some measure of liberty and prudential wisdom. It becomes an oppressive neo-legalism, and trust me I have run into this with some Phillipsites.

    Can it not be seen, too, how the rejection of all things “Greek” and “Enlightenment” feeds right into the supposed deeper Hebraic understanding of our Federal Vision “friends,” many of whom are heavily invested in stuff like this?

    Wisdom and charity, brothers, please, and Shawn, good article.

    Reply
13. Robert "Cricket" Renner says:

    April 28, 2011 at 3:38 PM

    Pastor Shawn,

    I appreciate your remarks and sensitivity on this subject. I think the FIC movement stems from two things:

    1. A reaction against both the western world’s anti-child philosophy (seen most visibly through the pro-abortion movement) and the modern evangelical church’s “youth centered” movements. In this regards, it can be a good thing. My wife and I have tried from the birth of each of our 6 children to have them in worship with us. The main purpose of this was to teach them how to worship, as well as self-discipline (sitting quietly, etc.).

    2. This reaction can result in the family becoming an idol–especially in the American church. I know from my own sinful heart how easy it was as a homeschooling family of 6 children to look down on other brothers / sisters who didn’t homeschool, have a large family (or even a desire for one), and/or didn’t want their children in church with them. My attitude was often, “Why should we have a nursery? Shouldn’t they want to keep their kids with them?” What drove us away from this sinful mentality was a chapel situation at a base where I was frequently gone on trips, so my wife would take our 4 young children at the time to the chapel. There was not even a cry room with a speaker in the chapel, so she would often stand in the foyer/hallway with a fussy baby, not learning from the sermon or enjoying fellowship. So, my wife one day expressed, “When you’re gone, why do I even go to church?” We ended up finding a great PCA church with a cry room and speaker so we could again enjoy worship. The OPC church we now attend has the same thing, and we use it on occasion when our youngest becomes a fussy toddler.

    In addition, I’ve experienced families not attending good biblical teaching in Sunday school in order to have family-centered, father-led teaching after the service. This made the family the center of Bible teaching on Sundays, rather than the church. While both have their place, shouldn’t the family-centered, father-led teaching take place the other 6 days of the week?

    Finally, re: Rachel’s comments about the practice of distributing the Lord’s supper to the head of household who then distributed to the family: I once thought this was appropriate, as I thought I was “taking care of my family spiritually.” However, I am now convinced the authority for each believer who takes communion is through the elders to Christ. The Holy Spirit, through the family and the church, brought the child to to faith, but that faith is their own. Yes, I still teach and discipline, but the church is their authority once they’re believers. A FIC emphasis can put the father above the elders (reference my 2nd point above).

    I love the liberty in the gospel that Reformed churches see in this area. What we need is the truth of the gospel (that Christ died for my sin, God raised Him from the dead, and He now sits at the right hand of the Father), rather than an emphasis on whether we do age-segregated or family-unified teaching/worship. The NCFIC statement seems to limit a church’s potential to spread the gospel.

    In His service,
    “Cricket”

    Reply
14. Anon says:

    April 28, 2011 at 4:05 PM

    9th Dude: “There is such a danger with tacking on extra-Biblical requirements, and not allowing for some measure of liberty and prudential wisdom. It becomes an oppressive neo-legalism, and trust me I have run into this with some Phillipsites.”

    This has been my experience with Vision Forum and others influenced by Doug Phillips.

    Cricket: ” re: Rachel’s comments about the practice of distributing the Lord’s supper to the head of household who then distributed to the family: I once thought this was appropriate, as I thought I was “taking care of my family spiritually.” However, I am now convinced the authority for each believer who takes communion is through the elders to Christ. The Holy Spirit, through the family and the church, brought the child to to faith, but that faith is their own.”

    Thank you for answering. I was curious about this too. It seems to me that doing communion this way (elders to father to family) goes against what Scripture says about believers being equal before God. (Not arguing for egalitarianism and certainly not for ordination of women.) But I do believe that all believers, male or female, have a direct relationship with God through Christ.

    Reply
15. Fred Greco says:

    April 28, 2011 at 4:40 PM

    Shawn,

    I appreciate your article. I believe that the fundamental problem with the FIC movement is that it is centered around a view of the family, and not the gospel. That is why on the list of recommended churches (“Find a Church” “Network of Churches”) you can find listed: Mennonite, Dispensational, Charismatic, Reformed, Calvary Bible, Primitive Baptist and more.

    Doctrine is all over the place, contradictions between such churches on issues as “minor” as the covenant, Jesus Christ, doctrine of salvation, the Church, baptism, and the Lord’s Supper. But I guess that doesn’t matter, as long as we are all against age-segregated Sunday school.

    Reply
16. Steve Tipton says:

    April 28, 2011 at 5:02 PM

    Shawn: thanks for this article, much to think on.

    I am all for the regulative principle of worship, but I also believe (confessionally) that “there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and the government of the church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are to always be observed” (WCF 1.6). Also, Calvin required (!) that children be segregated for instruction and catechism on Sunday after the morning service. So it fails on confessional and historical grounds…

    Also, I agree with Fred that the central issue is a misunderstanding of what the church actually is. The church is not made up of families, but of believers and their children.

    Reply
17. Robert "Cricket" Renner says:

    April 28, 2011 at 5:17 PM

    Fred,

    I really liked what you said, “he fundamental problem with the FIC movement is that it is centered around a view of the family, and not the gospel.” I love my family, but they NEED the gospel. My eternal family is the church, and I pray my earthly family is all in my eternal family!

    I also note from your comment something that is a common concern with church “movements” or para-church groups: that doctrine doesn’t really matter, as long as you agree with (insert issue here, in this instance, age-segregated Sunday school). However, philosophically, isn’t that in itself a doctrine … hence the NCFIC confession?!?

    In His service in Alaska,
    “Cricket”

    Reply
18. Robert "Cricket" Renner says:

    April 28, 2011 at 5:31 PM

    Another random thought from my pastor that I think applies here.

    Would you rather be known as the Family Integrated Church, the homeschoolers’ church, the fun-loving church, the modern-music church, etc, etc ….

    … or the church that preaches the gospel?

    Reply
19. Shawn Mathis says:

    April 28, 2011 at 8:27 PM

    Steve, The desert island test is more like the “regulative principle of education.”

    Reply
20. Darrell Todd Maurina says:

    April 29, 2011 at 1:28 AM

    First off, Gospel of Grace ARP in Springfield, the church I attend, is on the list of “family integrated churches.” I understand that our church has received quite a number of visitors, some of whom have become members, based on being on that list.

    Second, I have personal knowledge of the pastors of several other churches on that list, or know enough members to be able to get a fairly good idea about the practices of the church.

    Some of the descriptions being voiced here of what a family-integrated church looks like — fathers refusing to allow elders to instruct their children, churches letting heads of household decide who comes to communion, not allowing separate instruction for very young children or even cry rooms for babies, etc. — are nothing like any of the churches on that list of which I have personal knowledge, with one exception. That one exception is a church associated with Federal Vision theology and they’ve got a lot worse problems than whatever issues may arise from “family integrated” views, but even they don’t fit all of the negative things being said about “family integrated” churches.

    I am quite open to an argument that the NCFIC operates from an inherently flawed set of premises, or perhaps even that those premises are dangerous and will inexorably lead churches into unbiblical directions. Some of the criticisms being raised here do concern me, and I am very much aware of the danger of letting a camel’s nose into the proverbial tent.

    However, it seems clear that at least some churches identifying themselves with the “family integrated” movement are doing so not because they place “family integration” at the core of their beliefs, but rather because they want to reject the idea that teenagers should be treated as children and encouraged in immaturity rather than being treated as young men and women preparing for adulthood, and also because they want to see children in worship with their parents rather than separate church services for kids and teenagers.

    Those two characteristics, I would think, should be commonly held among Reformed people who take covenantal family life seriously. They are areas we share with not only Reformed Baptists but also with many other non-Reformed people who think and act covenantally in their actual family life even if their professed doctrines would lead them into different directions. On the other hand, they are secondary items (or should be) in the life of a Reformed church — the primary emphasis can and must lie elsewhere.

    Reply
21. James Hakim says:

    April 29, 2011 at 7:18 AM

    Rachel, that too is problematic, as the gospels and 1 Corinthians make it clear that it is from Christ, through the apostles, to the church generally that the supper is given. There is no indication that the sacraments should be mediated through the parents at all. So you’re correct to point out that many, noticing that God’s institution of the family is being neglected, arrogate to the family and especially to fathers things that God has not appointed to them.

    9th:
    (1) That’s the right idea; go with what Scripture says. Absolutely, in the specific areas mentioned in Titus 2, older women are to train the younger women; very specific demographics there, and very specific subjects to be taught.
    (2) As much as they can understand about anything else. You won’t know until you teach them. I know 3 year olds who get as much about the Trinity as most churches’ 30 year olds. But what about a 2 year old? Or a 6 month old? This is why all-day, every-day training of these ages in daily life is absolutely necessary, and why family interaction over the public ministry of the church is necessary, and why the fact that such things have been largely replaced by a couple hours a week of cookie-cutter stuff in a class setting is so miserably failing
    (3) Because his junior pastors are to teach all groups. Thanks for making the point.
    (4) Not sure where you seem to be getting the “teach at the seminary level to all” idea. It was the practice of some Puritans to preach some sermons to the entire congregation that were aimed especially at the youngest children. Your guess is as good as mine why a pagan Greek method of teaching is propagated as gospel by so many. But it does seem to be a good deduction from Providence that at different stages we have more facility with different types of thinking. My own practice is more of a mixture, with much in each sermon and each study explained at the “grammar stage” and so aimed at the youngest children. And do you know what most of the adults seem to get the most personal benefit from? The bits aimed at the littlest ones. If little ones aren’t understanding much of what you say, then most of what you say is probably worthless. If older ones are understanding everything that you say, then you might not be giving your congregation enough meat.

    Cricket: The “gospel v.s. family” argument isn’t really applicable here, because not all churches that might be recognized as family integrated are making that error. Anyone can fall into emphasizing anything that Scripture commands over against the gospel. The gospel–and especially the glory of God, in the glory of Christ, in the gospel–is far and away the emphasis, at least in the public ministry of our congregation. However, it is precisely because so many churches minister according to the devices of man, rather than the institutions of God, that some who are looking for a corrective to this have ended up here. If a church’s main message is family integration or homeschooling, there is a problem. If there is no application of Scripture to the people’s lives (and, if there are families in the church, this should include the duty of a Deut 6 style family life), there is also a problem.

    Fred: Although that’s a good point about the church listing, it doesn’t really define every congregation in the list. Other church lists (can’t find the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals list anymore) that are doctrinal would include some but not many of the NCFIC list. The IX Marks list emphasizes something else. The PCA Directory is unfortunately no longer a good predictor of /anything/ about a particular church. The OPC Directory is more helpful, but it’s difficult to get on there as a PCA church! An often very helpful way to learn what a church is about is that congregation’s specific website. Of course, nothing beats actually coming, sitting under the preaching, and spending time in the congregation’s homes.

    Shawn, what the church /qua church/ is to do is regulated by Scripture. If you disagree on this, then we simply disagree.

    Reply
22. James Hakim says:

    April 29, 2011 at 7:19 AM

    “Shawn, what the church /qua church/ is to do is regulated by Scripture. If you disagree on this, then we simply disagree.”

    This, by the way, is what preserves liberty of conscience in the church. Whenever elders set up institutions in the church that are not from Christ, there is an implication that those who do not participate in them are doing wrong. And that’s tyranny. Benevolent though it may be.

    Reply
23. Fred Greco says:

    April 29, 2011 at 8:30 AM

    James,
    My point is not that having some descriptors about worship, view of the family, etc., would not be useful. My point is that THE sole characteristic of this list is being “family integrated.”

    Would you seriously recommend a family integrated Mennonite church (which is wrong on the core issue of how we are right with God, what the Church is, and almost every other point of historic Confessional theology) over a happy-clappy PCA church that at least understood justification? I would hope not.

    Reply
24. Jerry Koerkenmeier says:

    April 29, 2011 at 9:16 AM

    James,

    Do elders violate the conscience of the members by specifying the time of worship, the type of building in which the worship service occurs. I assume you would agree these ought to fall under the category of circumstances which are “to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.” (WCF 1.6).

    What about handing out notes to help the congregation understand your sermon. Christ did not set up this institutions, correct? Are you implying that those who don’t distribute outlines or notes are doing wrong? For the record, I have no problem with this practice, as it is not an element but rather a circumstance of worship.

    Similarly, the church through its elders has some degree of latitude in precisely how it will carry out the Great Commission. Offering a nursery to provide a seror segregating by age during a Sunday school hour, for instance, is not prohibited, and is therefore lawful. Whether it is wise, of course, is another matter.

    BCO 12-5 The church Session is charged with maintaining the spiritual government of the church, for which purpose it has power: … to establish and control Sunday schools and Bible classes with special reference to the children of the church; to establish and control all special groups in the church such as Men in the Church, Women in the Church and special Bible study groups; …to determine the best measures for promoting the spiritual interests of the church and congregation;…

    As for my own local church, we provide a nursery, for instance, but want the congregation to understand its purpose:

    Implications for Family Worship

    The covenantal nature of worship has important implications for how we worship as families. Since worship is covenantal, it should involve the whole covenant community. Therefore, we encourage parents to keep their covenant children in the worship service as much as possible. We realize there are times when this is not possible, so we do offer a nursery during the worship service as a service to parents who would otherwise miss parts of the service regularly. But our nursery is not intended to be a place to send small children during the entire service (or even during the sermon!) regularly, week after week. We do not despise our little ones and therefore want them to worship God with us (Matt. 19:13-14), receiving the grace He provides through His Word (Luke 10:21). Don’t worry, we expect little children to make some noise during worship. We praise the Lord for the cries of little ones as a reminder of His gracious blessing in the gift of children, who are a heritage from Him.

    Matthew 21:15–16 But when the chief priests and the scribes saw the wonderful things that he did, and the children crying out in the temple, “Hosanna to the Son of David!” they were indignant, and they said to him, “Do you hear what these are saying?” And Jesus said to them, “Yes; have you never read, “‘Out of the mouth of infants and nursing babies you have prepared praise’?”

    Reply
25. Shawn Mathis says:

    April 29, 2011 at 9:22 AM

    James, you state: “The church is regulated by the Word of God”–but there is no “regulative principle of education.” Churches do not need a verse to implement SS.

    I hope you see the burden of proof is on those who espouse this historical and theological curiosity. Simply asserting that the Bible regulates the church is insufficient: all Reformed agree on that. The question is *how.*

    By your reasoning I would eliminate the NCFIC (parachurches do not exist in the bible), and bible studies, and Edwardsian youth groups, etc., b/c this preserves liberty of conscience in the church–for there is an implication that those who do not participate in them are doing wrong–nay that they are participating in “unbiblical, evolutionary and secular thinking” and practices. QED

    Reply
26. Shawn Mathis says:

    April 29, 2011 at 9:26 AM

    Dear readers,

    This is the fourth and fifth time I’ve encountered churches that have signed this document but apparently do not agree with it. Thus, I am satisfied that I was able to make clear what the document says and what the leadership believes and thus what these churches are publicly associating themselves with.

    Reply
27. Darrell Todd Maurina says:

    April 29, 2011 at 2:08 PM

    Shawn, you have got my attention on this issue. I will be reading the NCFIC document in detail. If there’s something that commits our church to unbiblical teaching I will raise my concerns, though it will be done privately and not publicly and I presumably will not be discussing it further on this list. I owe that to my church leadership in all matters which do not involve deliberate and unrepentant public sin — and this is not anywhere close to that level.

    The absolute most that can be said is that my church — and now that I’ve reviewed the list, well over a dozen other churches pastored by personal friends who I know are solid Reformed men — may have bought into something that looks good at first glance but has problems when the details are checked. Right now I need to read more.

    However, I can think of many other things a church might choose to join which have as their main purpose something which is only part of the church’s purpose. If you believe a Reformed church should not join a pro-life organization because you object to parachurch organizations, that’s fine, and we’re going to have to disagree. Same for various organizations that promote male headship in the church. Even groups like Banner of Truth and the Philadelphia Conference on Reformed Theology, if they were membership-based organizations rather than publishing companies or educational organizations, would include numerous people who are in disagreement with important parts of the Westminster Standards.

    I can work in an organization with a Baptist, a Pentecostal, or even a Roman Catholic to oppose abortion without having to buy into all the theology the Baptist or Pentecostal or Roman Catholic uses to get to a point — the importance of saving babies from being murdered — on which we all agree. But there’s no way in ten blue moons I’m going to come to Mass or get rebaptized or seek “slaying in the spirit.”

    If Reformed people can’t work with people with whom we disagree on important things to promote things on which we do agree, in most of the United States we are going to be very isolated churches that basically ignore most other Christians who want to teach and preach the Bible. I don’t think that is either necessary or prudent.

    Reply
28. Shawn Mathis says:

    April 29, 2011 at 2:42 PM

    Hello Darrell,

    Your approach in dealing with this is most biblical.

    As for cooperating in scenarios you mentioned, I have no problem. The problem with the NCFIC is that it denigrates sister churches:

    “We affirm that there is no scriptural pattern for comprehensive age segregated discipleship, and that age segregated practices are based on unbiblical, evolutionary and secular thinking which have invaded the church.”

    My church practices age segregation. Therefore, my church practices “unbiblical, evolutionary and secular” things. Such descriptives are fight’n words in conservative circles–and maybe even chargeable in some places. And certainly not charitable.

    If I wrote the same thing about non-age segregated churches (who have the liberty to do so!) they would howl to the moon.

    take care,

    Reply
29. Darrell Todd Maurina says:

    April 29, 2011 at 4:14 PM

    Rev. Mathis, I need to do some significant reading before I say much more publicly or privately on this issue. And likewise, I’m sure you already know there are Orthodox Presbyterian churches on the family-integrated worship list, and they include names of men I known and respect, so it seems clear I’m not the only one who thought — at least at first glance — that this “family integrated church movement” has a lot to commend itself to the churches.

    My initial thought is we may be seeing something similar to the Promise Keepers movement, which did a lot of good in the broader evangelical church by making it respectable again to be unabashedly in favor of male leadership but which had some serious flaws that called it into question in Reformed circles. For conservative Calvinists, male headship was never a serious question anyway so Promise Keepers wasn’t needed or even especially helpful, so its negatives, especially its charismatic leadership and “break down the walls” attitude toward denominational integrity, got much more attention than its positives.

    I am in no way an uncritical advocate of the modern Sunday School movement. I’ve written elsewhere on this blog abut the practices of Korean churches which not only have separate “children’s church” but which often maintain age-segregated worship all the way up to the college level. I do believe that needs to have some serious biblical critique — I’ve seen the fruits, and many of them are not good. However, it’s hard to look at the Korean churches and say they’re being inconsistent with the premises of the Anglo-American Sunday School movement — the Koreans adopted a system totally foreign to their family-oriented culture and took it in seemingly logical directions where very few American churches would want to go.

    Even if the “Family Integrated Church” movement has fatal flaws, I think it’s impossible to deny that the modern secular age-graded system of education owes both its origins and its development to anti-Christian sources in the 1800s and early 1900s, especially Horace Mann and John Dewey. Perhaps the NCFIC solution is not the best, but there are serious issues in the development of the American educational system and we probably should give anything a hard look if it was developed in large measure by Unitarians and liberals and was adopted wholesale in the less-than-discerning American church environment of the mid-to-late 1800s. Let’s not forget that it was the Sunday School movement that pretty much ended catechesis in Reformed circles in the 1800s, and that by itself was a major mistake.

    Reply
30. Robert "Cricket" Renner says:

    April 29, 2011 at 6:22 PM

    Shawn & Darrell,

    I very much appreciate your courteous, gracious, and (dare I say it?) charitable responses to one another. This is a model of how Christians should be able to vigorously debate ideas, with grace for the liberty we have and charity to another’s ideas.

    James,

    I agree with your comments on my comments. However, I was speaking from my experiences (and former attitudes), and what seems to be the tendency of large family / homeschooling / family-integrated church movements that seem to make the covenant family as the gospel. I’m a huge believer in the covenant family (and, oh by the way, have a large family, that homeschools, and keeps our children with us in worship) … but ONLY as God’s means of grace to bring my children to Him–and to mature me as a Christian, as well.

    And, I think like many movements or parachurch organizations, the NCFIC statement goes a ‘statement too far’ in declaring “that age segregated practices are based on unbiblical, evolutionary and secular thinking which have invaded the church.” The group has some good goals, but some poor doctrine and legalistic interpretation.

    In His service,
    “Cricket”

    Reply
31. Shawn Mathis says:

    April 29, 2011 at 10:37 PM

    Darrel,

    I know about some of these Reformed churches. And I also know the power of joining something so that one’s church can be found on a list for public exposure (as one pastor explained even after I pointed out the obvious concerns). Each church must decide but must also know what they are associating themselves with.

    I think the largest shock for people (even those who have signed it) are the quotes from Phillips. Now, I never write that the quotes represent the confession but that they help understand the confession and also show the churches who they are publicly associating themselves with. The more churches that sign this, the more promotional power the NCFIC gains.

    As for the concern about a youth-culture and age-segregation, I acknowledged those problems in the article. I simply do not highlight them.

    Your historical assertions are not obvious to me if by “modern secular age-graded system” you include Geneva’s Academy which included up to 10 grade levels. The historical claims about education (especially homeschooling) that I have encountered are mostly spurious. I have demonstrated this in many articles at my Christian Nurture blog (and hope to port some here).

    The two largest problems I see wrt educating our children is: Law, Gospel and Culture. The Barna numbers (see UnChristian) show a deplorable state I think many observers have noticed for decades: little biblical law is understood and Gospel is watered down and even confused with the Law. But even if this were repaired (such as in Reformed churches) the youth still must face a cultural milieu that fights against them. The glories of Reformed schools in centuries past were powerful and glorious because they operated in a cooperative milieu.

    I think we can all agree on that.

    Reply
32. 9th Dude says:

    April 30, 2011 at 7:52 AM

    Shawn,

    Yes, isn’t it interesting how pragmatic the FIC arguments become? Well, what we’re doing now isn’t working, so we must try something else. Women can’t do anything in the church. A 2 year old must be brought to understand the extra-Calvinisticum, or, alternately, we lisp and babble to adults (because they get those points best, after all). All with a heavy dose of judgmentalism and peering down our nose at our brothers who do it differently.

    Yes, we would rather associate with Federal Visionists, Mennonites, and Charismatics than Reformed brethren who see more room for Christian freedom and prudence. All the while, we ourselves are inconsistent because Scripture does not dictate para-church associations of churches, but we will conveniently and in pride overlook our own inconsistencies.

    It is this sort of stuff that makes me despair of the conservative Reformed movement and sometimes embarrassed to be associated with it (hence the pseudonym).

    Reply
33. Shawn Mathis says:

    April 30, 2011 at 8:02 AM

    Dear 9th Dude–don’t despair! Don’t be embarrassed! The church at Corinth was embarrassing but Paul loved them enough to reprimand them–he did not disown them.

    Keep praying, my friend. And keep supporting a good local Reformed church.

    for the peace and unity of the faith,

    Reply
34. Shawn Mathis says:

    April 30, 2011 at 8:09 AM

    9th Dude,

    In all fairness, I think the NCFIC allows such a broad-swath of churches because they wish to influence them with the Reformed faith–it’s kind of the conservative version of church growth: give them the hard stuff after they are in the door.

    You will find many references to good Reformed authors (many of whom practiced Sunday school by the way!) and good reminders on parental responsibility. But you’ll also find a tribalistic mentality of us vs. them (a recent blog post rejoiced over a church publicly repenting for using age-segregation!).

    Let’s not forget their revisionist history of Christian education (esp. Vision Forum).

    But all is not lost: this movement is still confined in small circles.

    Reply
35. Shawn Mathis says:

    April 30, 2011 at 8:31 AM

    James,

    Your concern that children not hang out with children because of the foolishness in their hearts is a laudable concern. However, your understanding of Edwards’ “youth groups” is only part of the story:

    “Another thing that many have disliked is the religious meetings of children, to read and pray together, and *perform religious exercises by themselves.*” –Edwards (qtd. p.149, emphasis added)

    The detractors concern was that children could have no profit from such meeting. Edwards rejected that claim.

    Similarly, Rev. Jeremiah Hallock heard about youth meeting together by themselves. He finally investigated after the meeting grew to 140 people. He found them (ages 8-18) praying, reading and crying for their sins (p.151).

    Children And Puritanism: The Place of Children in the Life and Thought of the New England Churches 1620-1847, Sanford Fleming, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1933.

    Reply
36. Shawn Mathis says:

    April 30, 2011 at 8:38 AM

    James,

    I am backlogged in responses. Yours being the longest and most involved, I will answer in installments. To your first response:

    1. “And do you not connect Finneyism and liberalism with the rise of the contemporary Sunday school and youth group institutions? It is /actually/ helpful to point out to people that the Sunday school and youth group didn’t fall out of heaven…”

    I may agree. It depends on what you mean by “contemporary” SS. If by that moniker you mean all the bad things, influences and mentalities wrapped up in many churches, then I would agree insofar as Finney, et.al is their spiritual heir.

    But if by that you mean simply the institution (not the mentality of) of SS, then I would disagree. The roots of SS predate Finney. Many Reformed scholars of the 19th century point that out (cp. Philip Schaf).

    It is helpful to point out that SS has a past, but a past that pre-dates Raikes. I have listened to Mr. Phillips lecture on the history of SS–he is just patently wrong.

    Reply
37. Shawn Mathis says:

    April 30, 2011 at 8:48 AM

    James, part 2:

    “you make the baptistic argument from the congregational meeting for the establishing of the new temple in Neh 8; and, even worse, arguing for age segregation as an institution from the fact that Jesus went to His Father’s House (the main point of that passage!) and learned from God-instituted officers. What a poor Scriptural argument you have made!”

    First of all, pointing out those passages debunks the *blanket language* of the NCFIC confession. If someone claims: non-age segregation is non-Biblical *without* nuance then the rebuttal is easy: quote Deut. 31:12.

    But if someone writes: most non-age segregation is non-Biblical, then the rebuttal requires more nuance.

    Secondly, I do not argue for “age segregation as an institution”–you will not find that in my paper. I actually wrote: “They are neither commanded nor forbidden, yet are perfectly allowable if used correctly.” I have no problem if a church does not use SS.

    Thirdly, the fact that Christ was segregated from His parents is germane to the unqualified language of the NCFIC leaders and their confession. If the confession made such distinctions this paper would have been written differently. See point 1.

    Thus my arguments are not poor. The confession is poorly worded.

    Reply
38. Shawn Mathis says:

    April 30, 2011 at 8:53 AM

    James, part 3:

    “When you have that on your side, and the family integrated folks have Deut 6, Eph 6, Proverbs, all of the wonderful covenantal passages, etc., you’re kind of killing your own position. Just sayin’. Did you know that Phillips is a Baptist? It’s kind of sad for a Presbyterian to be less covenantal about worship than a Baptist. Just sayin’.”

    1. FIC do not have Deut. 6, et.al. on their side: these verses never state: “only parents can instruct children and only instruct them in an age-integrated fashion.”

    That should be patently obvious. But if an unBiblical “desert island test” is employed then it is not obvious. But no one has exegetically defended this test.

    2. I know Phillips is a Baptist and a Calvinist. I find it ironic that he uses the OT and talks like a Presbyterian at times.

    Reply
39. 9th dude says:

    April 30, 2011 at 8:53 AM

    Shawn, good moderate thoughts.

    James, children don’t corrupt other children. This is the fundamental practical misunderstanding of the heart seen in the varioua familyolatries that plague the reformed world today. After pastoring folks like these for 15 years it has always been accompanied by a blindness to the sinfulness of their own children and shunning those who parent differently. My problem is never being corrupted by other people. My problem is always my own heart. Such a rudimentary nmisunderstanding makes church life most unpleasant. I’ve seen it in my own churches and in others. It inevitably devolves into a super-spiritual clique of those who get it who then exclude those of lesser spiritual status. It can be Ezzo, Wilson, homeschool onlyism, FIC or Christian school onlyism. …at root, all the same sin. : the pride of having all the right extrfa-biblical opinions. Brother, I caution you in love.

    Reply
40. Shawn Mathis says:

    April 30, 2011 at 9:00 AM

    James, part 4:

    “There is something regulative about spiritual nurture; it is a strong criticism to point out that a method or institution of discipleship has no biblical warrant. And so the “desert island test” is not specious as you claim.”

    1. Biblical warrant is needed for spiritual nurture–is there no Christian liberty?

    2. If a biblical warrant is needed for spiritual nurture and nurture includes instruction, then the instructional institution of the NCFIC is unbiblical.

    You just paint yourself into a corner.

    Besides you still have not proven the “regulative principle of education”. That would be a good place to start.

    “Furthermore, it is beyond question that the biblical institutions for spiritual nurture are Word and prayer in the family with the parents as “officers”; and, Word, sacrament, and prayer in the church, with the elders as officers. So your entire argument falls apart.”

    3. Read Titus 2:3ff.

    The verse does not say mothers teach daughters. And by Reformed exegesis (cp. LCQ 99) like kinds are implied in the Law: thus not only women teach the young (age-distinction here) but men (not fathers, not officers, men) teach the younger men.

    Reply
41. Bob S. says:

    May 1, 2011 at 10:17 PM

    Doug Phillips? Vision Forum? That’s the outfit that puts out the evangelical version of Nieman Marcus catalog for yuppie/hi income homeschoolers, right? If there are any books in the catalog that look interesting, you can generally get them far cheaper just about anywhere else.

    More to the point, Kerry Ptacek’s Family Worship: Biblical Basis, Historical Reality, Current Need does a pretty good job of looking at SSchool vis a vis the reformed faith and family worship. While it was published by Ptacek’s alma mater, Greenville Pres. Seminary in ’94, unfortunately it has been out of print for awhile.

    The link at Ptacek’s Covenant Family Fellowship (ARP) for FW is:
    http://covenantfamily.nfshost.com/fwb.html
    Chapt. X specifically mentions SSchool.

    Reply
42. Shawn Mathis says:

    May 2, 2011 at 10:59 AM

    Hello Bob,

    Thank you for the reference. I read the informative section on homeschooling (2.5 pages for the 1800s). Even with the few references cited, it still missed significant historical facts that paint a different picture.

    A few examples:

    1. 1817 (cp. 1821, 1846): “By them [poor, widowed and orphaned] were our Sabbath schools first fostered and brought into notice, which have now become such powerful engines for the suppression of vice; and in which are so extensively taught, to those who would otherwise have grown up in ignorance and unrestrained sin, the First Principles of that Religion,…The Assembly are happy to learn that Sabbath Schools have been formed, in unusual numbers, and with high promises of extensive usefulness, in almost all the Presbyteries within our bounds; and would earnestly recommend the organization of them in all parts of the United States. We advert with much satisfaction, to the schools of this kind established in the cities of New York and Philadelphia, in the former of which, from eight to ten thousand, and in the latter, and its vicinity, from twelve to fourteen thousand children, are instructed on every Lord’s day. To these schools, together with the catechetical instruction of the children of the church, which has heretofore been recommended by the Assembly, and is now to a considerable extent practised throughout our bounds, are we to look as the nurseries, where those plants are growing, that shall in nurture beautify and enrich the flourishing Vineyard of our Lord.”
    [Minutes of the PCUSA, http://books.google.com/books?id=cUgRAAAAIAAJ&dq=our%20Sabbath%20schools%20first%20fostered%20%201817&pg=PA182#v=onepage&q&f=false

    2. Samuel Miller encouraged their use, even for his own children (1828, letter).

    3. A. Alexander wrote a booklet, Suggestions in vindication of Sunday-schools, 1829. He even suggests age-segregated classes (p.26ff.).

    Reply
43. 9th Dude says:

    May 2, 2011 at 11:44 AM

    Bob,

    Yes, and at the risk of piling on, we’ve bought some of their toys, and some are just junk. The dolls are great. The other stuff, not so much. Plus, I do not think that Elsie Dinsmore and GA Henty necessarily are foundational to a Christian world-view –I think, rather, they set people up with a pollyannaish view of reality, as if the 19th century were the paragon of Christian virtue.

    Reply
44. Ferris says:

    May 2, 2011 at 12:49 PM

    I would be opposed to an “unqualified” rejection of age segregation in churches, but I am opposed to a certain type of age segregation. I know a young person who went to a church hoping to fellowship with older men, and gain from their wisdom. The church was currently considering the idea of having small groups. He was told by a leader, that he might feel more comfortable in the young adult’s small group rather than the other ones. I personally don’t understand this type of thinking. I think age segregating based on the facility of mind of the participants, which tends to correlate with age, is within christian liberty, but I think that many other brands are more geared toward keeping the participants comfortable, and an American style of thinking about age.

    Furthermore, I think the bible’s charge that older men teach younger men is meant to be universal, and not just to those formally given the duty of teaching. This is a charge for all the older members to initiate fellowship with the younger members and be an example to them in life, doctrine, and maturity. What better way to foster this than to have one adult sundayschool class in which all the post barmitzfah age folks fellowshipped, instead of having pre-adolescent, adolescent, post adolescent, young adult, and (finally) adult groups?

    Reply
45. Shawn Mathis says:

    May 2, 2011 at 7:01 PM

    Ferris: you’re right Titus 2 and the general tenor of the bible encourages the older to teach the younger. It’s a shame many churches miss this important nurturing truth.

    Reply
46. Bob S. says:

    May 2, 2011 at 9:47 PM

    Shawn,
    Then I take it that you don’t buy Ptacek’s overall thesis that SSchool helped supplant male leadership in the church and home?
    Thanks,
    Bob
    (from under the dogpile)

    Reply
47. Shawn Mathis says:

    May 2, 2011 at 11:08 PM

    Bob,

    If that thesis is based on those three pages, then I do not agree. However, the SS of the late 1800 and the early 1900 may have degraded. I have not studied it much beyond the Civil War.

    And even if I agreed that it was used that way, it would only mean that it was used wrongly. Catechizing by the pastors and elders could be used by lazy fathers to supplant male leadership for instance. No one argues (not even Phillips) that one should therefore stop catechizing.

    Pastors have always bemoaned lazy parents.

    thanks again for pointing out those pages,

    shawn

    Reply
48. Tony says:

    May 3, 2011 at 4:44 PM

    Shawn:
    As time is short I have some comments on your article. Time does not allow me to deal with your entire article. I have placed your text in quotations and then placed some comments afterwards. I pray that the tone is agreeable as I wrote this in the midst of a number of other projects but felt that a number of your statements should be commented on.

    “The family-integrated church movement, primarily within the homeschooling community, is a self-conscious challenge to classic Christian nurture. It has already affected some Reformed churches. This paper will explain what it is and examine its assertions by the Word of God and church history.”

    The claim that the NCFIC is challenging “classic Christian nurture” sets up a false premise. The NCIFC may be challenging the accepted norm of the church today but we would argue that the place the church is today is far from “classic” by any means. The fact that it as “affected” some Reformed churches seems to imply that Reformed churches are fine just as they are but that is not necessarily true. Many professed Reformed churches need to be reformed as they, as any church can, have strayed from the reformed principle of the sufficiency of scripture.

    “In other words, if the education method cannot be found in the Bible (by command or example), then it is forbidden (cp. Articles II, XI). In contrast, the Reformers stood upon the liberty of the Word of God (Rom. 14:4). For example, Christian liberty allows believers and churches to use note-taking, picture-books, and catechisms. They are neither commanded nor forbidden, yet are perfectly allowable if used correctly.”

    Rom 14:4 speaks to liberty, by the way a concept that is often stretched too far, in those areas that are not explicitly or implicitly commanded by scripture but does not speak to liberty in all areas. As the NCFIC sees the area of age segregation being contrary to God’s standards as set forth in the entirety of His word then is it not the Christian duty of others, such as the NCFIC, to point out such error. I would hope that those doing any ministry do so by the commands of God’s word and thus are compelled to profess such truth, often making others uncomfortable. I should add that listing “note taking, picture-books and catechisms” in comparison to age-segregation is setting up a false argument as the NCFIC would not disagree with those areas. The disagreement is in the area of liberty with regards to age-segregation.

    “In fact, Luke (2:42ff.) explains that as a boy, Jesus was separated (segregated) from His family while under their authority. Furthermore, the temple layout at that time was family segregated: there was a court of the men and a court of the women (and children). The synagogue, regularly attended by Jesus, the Apostles and the early church similarly divided the family.”

    As far as Luke 2:42ff; V2 simply states that the family went to Jerusalem when Jesus was 12 years old and V43 simply states that Jesus stayed behind, tarried. This passage does not set up an example of age segregation. In fact the picture is that Jesus’ parents did not know that He had stayed behind. This is not a picture of them sending Him off to some teaching as is done in Sunday School but as V49 speaks of, Christ being about the Father’s business. I would add that separated and segregated are not synonymous as you would suggest and that Jesus’ separation, again, was instigated by Himself and not the parents. I should also add that the NCFIC never says that families cannot be separated at any time, that is another false premise often set forth.

    “Moreover, the apostles preached to women and children without the presence of their male heads (Acts 16:13). Nehemiah 8:2 records the public meeting of the men and women of Israel, “all that could hear with understanding.” It appears that those of mature understanding attended, leaving those not able to understand (smaller children) at home or with the servants.”

    While Acts 16:13 does indeed show the Apostle speaking to the women this cannot be used as an argument for segregation in a corporate gathering because we are not talking about a corporate gathering in this text. Again, nowhere does the NCFIC say that such a meeting could not take place but that it would not be normative as it was not normative for the apostles do as was done in Acts 16. As far as the use of Nehemiah 8:2 it would be only be conjecture that those not young enough to understand were “at home with servants” thus this is not really a valid argument for segregation. The focus of Neh 8:2 is not on who was not mentioned but on the idea that all that understood would be there to hear the world of God, thus in truth this speaks to integration rather than segregation.

    “Next, it is asserted that many methods of education are evolutionary in origin. Yet, historically, children were separated from family, even age-segregated, before Darwin’s book published in 1859.[6] During the time of Christ many a young Jewish boy attended age-segregated day schools. The early church fathers and councils encouraged the creations of schools. New England worship services segregated the women from the men, and the children sat together elsewhere with adult supervision. Catechizing by ministers or elders could include separating children from parents and boys from girls. Larger schools, such as at Calvin’s Geneva, included seven grade levels with a typical child in a grade for about a year before testing for the next grade-level.”

    The crux of the message on Sunday School with regards to age segregation is not simply with the idea of separation, as it is clear that separation has existed throughout history. By the way this does not make it correct, even if the Hebrews did so, if God’s word does not condone it. The issue is that the idea of age-segregation is largely driven by notions lauded by evolutionary thinking. These thoughts would have easily existed before Darwin since the idea of evolution was not created by Darwin but was popularized by him. Even Plato in Plato’s Republic saw the necessity to separate children from parents so the idea is not new but Darwin simply made it accessible to the masses and we have all be influenced in some way with this type of thinking. The issue is that the whole idea of needing to separate ages is not an idea that one would discern from the words of scripture but comes from ideas instilled in us though our learning, even myself. I should also add again that nowhere does the NCFIC say older men could not teach younger men or that younger women could not be taught by older women. Thus there may be times of separation.

    “The church does not need another movement. In today’s climate of Christian darkness, churches and families do not need another method; what they need is the old message. A 2008 Pew Research Center study notes that fifty-seven percent of confessing Evangelicals believe in other ways to heaven than through Christ.[8] Ignorance about basic Law and Gospel is wide-spread as well.”

    The NCFIC would agree that a movement is not needed in place of teaching truth. However if in teaching truth there is a reformation then one may or may not call that a movement. Depending on your use of words you could call the reformation a movement since it revolved around truth and a change in the church, a movement from what it had become. It sought to bring the church back to the scriptures for its source of authority and that is what is being asked when it comes to how we do ministry. The NCFIC is intent on pressing forward that the church should return to a grounding in the word of God.

    “And in an already fragmented church landscape, an emphasis upon this narrow issue only creates another sub-culture that weakens Christian unity. It also diminishes the role of the church in nurturing the children (Matt. 28:19, 20; Deut. 31:12ff.).”

    Not sure why you would say that the NCFIC “diminishes the role of the church in nurturing the children” as its goal is to nurture the entire family, which includes children. You cite Deut 31:12ff, which of a particular gathering, that argues for a gathering of the entire family to hear God’s word. Thus it would speak to the issue of integration rather than segregation. The NCFIC, if you were to listen to sermons other than ones focused on the subject of family integration; speaks much on preaching from the entirety of God’s word. The NCFIC also had a conference in 2009 that focused on the Sufficiency of Scripture, MP3s available free here: http://www.ncfic.org/mediaorganizermodule/view_mediaorganizer/id/97/src/@random4a1fff0b0c23b/ . So it would be to wrongly picturing the NCIFC, and a great number of churches that would in some manner align with then, as churches that do not seek to preach the whole counsel of God and in the process be used by God to equip the saints (Eph 4:11-14). I’m not sure the last time I even preached on the topic of family integration as that is not a goal but an outcome from preaching the whole counsel of God.
    .

    “The views documented here are integral to the NCFIC’s very existence. To sign the confession is to publicly associate with these public sentiments. In spite of the leaders’ strong denunciations, it is hopeful that open dialogue can move beyond methods to uniting over the message of the Gospel.”

    Not sure what you mean by “In spite of the leaders’ strong denunciations” as those in the NCFIC often have to defend their positions but I would hope all that hold to any position would be ready to defend such positions. I am sure if you wanted to have dialogue with Scott Brown and others in the NCFIC they would be more than willing to do so. We too see the Gospel as of prime importance.

    I write all I have with trepidation as in answering objections in the past what I am usually met with is hostility. But that is Ok since I realize to questions ones methodology is often uncomfortable but we are not called to be comfortable but to be biblical. I have had my ideas questioned in the past, and rightly so, and had to go back to scripture to make sure they were correct. That is all the NCFIC would ask, “what does God’s word say.”

    Grace and Peace to You,
    Tony

    Reply
49. Ryan Glick says:

    May 3, 2011 at 4:56 PM

    To Shawn, and to all those who have commented above, I have been a part of family-integrated churches for the last 10 years at least. I have served in the National Center for Family-Integrated Churches (NCFIC) and have been indirectly involved with Vision Forum Ministries over the last two and a half years. I was also a member of Hope Baptist church for over two years where Scott Brown, the director of the NCFIC, is an elder, and I currently am a member of a very recent church plant of Hope Baptist where Scott is still a standing elder until the plant is complete.

    It is my desire to reply to a few (space will not afford me to respond to all that I should like to) things above in a spirit of love and charity, though with a recognition of the seriousness of the charges which are being made in reference to the work I am involved with. I pray that these things will promote the glory of the King and exalt His name the more through the clear presentation of truth and the rejection of those things which are false. I pray that all will come with an open mind and consider fully what the NCFIC teaches, to see whether it falls within the cloak of Scripture. My comments that follow will stem from my experience of being in the church of the director of the NCFIC and a member of the NCFIC staff, although I do not write as a staff member at this point. These are my own words, not an official statement by the NCFIC. The claims I make are in reference to what we as an organization explicitly endorse, and do not by default represent the position of every church which lays claim to the family-integrated title. Just as some who are Reformed in name, misuse and twist the Scriptures into varied unbiblical conclusions and doctrines, there are those who take our understanding of the patterns laid forth in Scripture and twist them and misapply them in grievous ways. Before their own Master, they will stand or fall. All we can do as an organization is proclaim what we believe the Scripture teaches and call men to receive the Word with all readiness of mind and to search the Scriptures to see whether these things are so.

    I would like to deal first with two claims that were made above:

    Thatmom writes: “We came to see many problems within this paradigm but became frustrated at trying to address them because the whole FIC movement is part and parcel of a much bigger agenda that has little to do with real spiritual truth or the Gospel.”

    Fred Greco writes: “I appreciate your article. I believe that the fundamental problem with the FIC movement is that it is centered around a view of the family, and not the gospel. That is why on the list of recommended churches (“Find a Church” “Network of Churches”) you can find listed: Mennonite, Dispensational, Charismatic, Reformed, Calvary Bible, Primitive Baptist and more.”

    I am very grieved by these statements. They are not based in truth and they cannot be backed up by the actual ministry of the NCFIC.

    First and foremost, the NCFIC has several specific purposes (http://www.ncfic.org/Mission_Statement), the first two of which I will deal with here:

    1. To proclaim the sufficiency of Scripture for church and family life

    It is our primary position that Christians, as individuals, as families, and as part of the Body of our Lord Jesus Christ are to live by the Word of God. Jesus said, “It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth from the mouth of God.” Matt. 4:4. Again, Jesus said, “Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock.” Matt. 7:24.

    Not only are we to order our lives according to the Scriptures, we believe that they are wholly sufficient to direct the course of our lives. We don’t need sources of truth outside of God. Jesus said, “I am the…truth” John 14:6. In Isaiah 8:20, the Lord God says, “To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.” Paul again affirms in the commonly quoted 2 Timothy 3:16-17 that the Scriptures are sufficient.

    This point – the suffiency of Scripture – is the central tenant of the NCFIC and the reason for this is that we are a Christ-centered organization. Jesus is the Word of God and we are to live by Him and through Him in every sphere and jurisdiction. The primary focus of Scripture is the glory of God and Christ has been given a name which is above every name. The gospel then is not about us, but about Christ. John describes the gospel as God’s message about His son: “He that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.” 1 john 5:10. Thus a Christ-centered organization is a Word-centered organization and a Word-centered organization will preach the true gospel as laid forth in the Scriptures. The true gospel in turn presents a risen Lord and King. “Repent and believe the gospel.” “That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus…thou shalt be saved.” “Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow…And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” From these passages, and many others, we see that the true gospel is about Christ and the glory of God. Repentance is turning from the works of death to the living God and thus bowing the knee and declaring that Christ is Lord. Faith is trusting in the Lord Jesus Christ to the glory of God.

    Therefore, declaring the truth of God for how we as Christians are to live is declaring the Lordship of Jesus Christ as proclaimed in the true gospel. A ministry that actually is calling people to return to “every word that proceedeth from the mouth of God” is a Christ-centered and gospel centered-movement. While specific ministries may emphasize various aspects of obedience to the words of Christ, that emphasis does not dethrone by default the person and work of our Lord and Savior. It is rather an outworking of it.

    Hope Baptist is a family-integrated church, but we actually rarely mention the term or doctrine of family integration. The actual model of worship is simply practiced while the service is focused on the verse by verse exposition of the Scriptures and the praise of our Lord. You will find as much or actually more being said about us being a pro-life church as we are directly involved in reaching out to the community as Christians in this area as well as strong supporters of our local crisis pregnancy center. But this pro-life view is an outworking of the centrality of Christ and the gospel, not a subversion of it. It is because we are Christ centered that we are pro-life.

    How does this devotion to the sufficiency of Scripture work itself out in the NCFIC? The first major national NCFIC conference which we held after becoming a stand alone ministry independent of Vision Forum was the Sufficiency of Scripture 2009 conference. We had messages covering everything from the Gospel (Paul Washer) to creation and the foundation of our theology coming from the truth of Genesis (Ken Ham). We want to call men back to the Bible as the foundation of their very existence. Jesus said, “Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.” John 17:17. God has “magnified thy word above all thy name” Psa. 138:2 and therefore we are absolutely devoted to it. (We provide the entire conference audio collection – 35 messages – for FREE at http://www.ncfic.org/audio and also on Sermon Audio.)

    The second purpose for the NCFIC’s existence is to “Promote the centrality of the church in God’s plan for families.” How does this work out in our ministry? Our second major national conference was Love the Church. It is our belief that if Christ loved His bride so much that He would die for her, we should as well. The church holds the keys to the kingdom and is the pillar and the ground of the truth. It is in the church that the word of God is faithfully preached to the congregation as the body of Christ and where the shepherds of the flock of God obey Christ’s command to Peter, “Feed my sheep.” We are 100% opposed to home churching where 1 or 2 families get together for “church” but reject the authority of the church and the assembling of the saints. We believe families should be devoted to the weekly gathering of the people of God to worship Him, under the ecclesiastical authority of a multiplicity of qualified church shepherds, through the preaching of the whole counsel of God and the right proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, singing, prayer, and the administration of baptism and the Lord’s supper and also the joyful fellowship of the saints. Families are not churches. Assemblies of the saints are churches and churches operate under the authority of church elders, not fathers. (That said, church elders don’t nullify the father’s authority either).

    I would like to address two more issues that were brought up above:

    Fred, in reference to your comment about the types of churches we allow on the NCFIC website, the NCFIC directory is not a statement by us of support for or affiliation with any church listed. The churches on our website are churches which desire to be associated with us. We have no way of individually approving churches having not visited them in person. At this point, we have required agreement with a basic confession of faith (the Nicene Creed) to be listed. We do not require complete doctrinal uniformity and we are not seeking to start a denomination. That being the case, the NCFIC leadership is comprised of thoroughly confessional, Reformed Baptists. We believe it is the duty of elders to make plain the right doctrines of God and to state them clearly for the sake and protection of their flocks as well as for the benefit of the world. We fellowship with those who are our brothers in the faith who hold to different doctrinal positions, but we make clear that we believe every church should hold to the Second London Baptist Confession, the Westminster Confession, or a like, biblical confession of faith. Specifically, the church directory is provided to help people locate churches that have the same beliefs regarding family integration as well as additional areas, including theology, ecclesiology, epistemology, and other aspects of orthopraxy.

    Shawn, you wrote: “My church practices age segregation. Therefore, my church practices “unbiblical, evolutionary and secular” things. Such descriptives are fight’n words in conservative circles–and maybe even chargeable in some places. And certainly not charitable. If I wrote the same thing about non-age segregated churches (who have the liberty to do so!) they would howl to the moon.”

    It is not uncharitable to say that a church has come to practice things which are unbiblical. The Lord Jesus, who is love, said of local churches things like: “Thou hast left thy first love” (Rev. 2:4), “Thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam” (Rev. 2:14), “So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate. Repent; or else I will come unto thee quickly…” (Rev. 2:15-16), “Thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants” (Rev. 2:20), “Thou hast a name that thou livest, and art dead” (Rev. 3:1), “I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.” (Rev. 3:15-16). Why does our Lord say these things to his churches? “As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.” (Rev. 3:19). As imperfect men, everything we do will fall short of the absolute perfection of God. It is in eternity that the bride of Christ will be made like Christ for there we shall see Him as He is, but here, we do err. Thus every church must approach Scripture with the Reformation principal of Semper Reformanda (always reforming). We always are in need of further conformity to the mind and will of Christ. To point that out is not by default uncharitable. In fact, to not point it out would be uncharitable: “Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him.” (Le. 19:17) We do not view ourselves as the picture of perfection and we recognize that we have lots of reforming to do ourselves.

    Finally my brothers, I love the body of Christ, and I have tried to write this with all charity. I realize that this is a serious subject, and the seriousness with which it may be dealt with can sometimes be seen as hard. That is not my desire. But the misinformation that has been presented above needs to be addressed with great seriousness because deliberate spreading of falsehood is condemned in Scripture. Declaring that our reason for existence, our agenda, as thatmom claimed, is something other than a desire for spiritual truth and the gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus is simply wrong. The NCFIC exists to declare the sufficiency of the Word of God for a specific area, but we also proclaim that it is sufficient for every area of life since Jesus is both Lord and the Word. No area may be removed from the authority of Him who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of Kings and Lord of Lords, not even the way we do church.

    To Him be all glory, both now and forever, world without end.

    Reply
50. Robert "Cricket" Renner says:

    May 3, 2011 at 8:27 PM

    Re: Tony’s comments:

    1. You do not provide clear biblical proof that the area of age segregation is “contrary to God’s standards as set forth in the entirety of His Word.” To state such, I think, is to take an inference too far.

    2. To be blunt, does it matter if NCFIC (as a parachurch organization) sees it as such? It is the duty of the church leaders to correct systemic error within the church. Is the NCFIC, as an organization, given the weighty privilege of administering church discipline? No, therefore, making such “perceived errors” into a movement brings division to the church–hence Pastor Mathis’ comments about not needing another movement.

    3. Pastor Mathis’ comparison of “note taking, picture-books and catechisms” with the NCFIC’s stance on age-segregation is appropriate. I’m sure you could take the same arguments FOR family integration as a requirement and apply them to picture books:
    - Jesus didn’t use picture books, therefore we shouldn’t.
    - When Jesus was separated from His family at the temple, it wasn’t to look at picture books about Old Testament stories.
    - The Bible does not command us to use picture books, therefore we shouldn’t.
    - Although Hebrews in the Old Testament may have used picture books to teach about God, that does not mean it was right.
    - Picture books are lauded by those who believe in evolution.
    - Etc, etc.

    4. Lastly, you restate that, “The issue is that the idea of age-segregation is largely driven by notions lauded by evolutionary thinking.” Many things may be driven by notions lauded by evolutionary thinking–does that make them wrong? An evolutionist, driven by notions lauded by evolutionary thinking, probably invented and refined the computers we are using to connect to the internet–does that mean blogs are therefore “unbiblical, evoluationary and secular”?

    Re: Ryan’s comments:

    1. On your last point, you didn’t state anything to prove the NCFIC’s claim that age-segregated Bible training is “unbiblical, evolutionary and secular.” While it is true that no one has perfect theology, the Bible verses that you mention merely show we all need correction.

    Agreed, but to have such a strong statement as a part of the group’s confession, without any biblical proof, is, I would submit, “by default uncharitable.” Is the NCFIC binding the conscience where God grants liberty? With such strongly-worded condemnations, it would seem so.

    2. You say the NCFIC is actually calling people to return to “every word that proceeds from the mouth of God”–yes, but is the NCFIC adding legalistic requirements to the Word of God? Think objectively on this, as many parachurch organizations have great goals, and a statement that is about 90% right-on … it’s that last 10% that makes you go, “Huh?!” [Like another great parachurch organization that REQUIRES members to sign a statement they will completely refrain from alcohol ... huh? What's that have to do with distributing Bibles?]

    3. Finally, you mention Hope Baptist is known as a pro-life church more so than a family integrated church … again, doesn’t Scripture command us to belong to a gospel-preaching church, and fulfilling the Great Commission: “Go and make disciples” rather than “Go and protest abortionists and age-segregated teaching methods”?

    No kidding finally, reread Pastor Mathis’ comments, and this quote by Phillips: “our prayer: every Christian in the world is in a family integrated church. And there should be nothing but that, but you know what that is going to lead to? That’s going to lead to people homeschooling!” Does this prayer for all churches to be family-integrated and more people homeschooling reflect the Great Commission, and what Jesus would REQUIRE of us? Read his prayer in light of Micah 6:8, as well.

    In His service,
    “Cricket”

    Reply
51. Fred Wolfe says:

    May 3, 2011 at 8:59 PM

    Concerning your remarks on the desert test:

    1. You are confusing the terms of the argument without answering the question. You really should answer this question, “Would you find yourself employing programatic age-segregation if you treated the scriptures as sufficient?” Without the NCFIC declaring need for family integration, your reactionary proof texts would be interpreted much differently. No reasonable expositor could answer this question in the affirmative. For me, this proves that the act of programatic age segregation is derived from extra-biblical sources. Catechisms, picture books, etc. are a red herring in this argument- NCFIC is not endorsing any of those in their confession. I understand your point, but it is simply a weak argument to try to prove your point with an appeal to common practice.

    2. Your extremely limited and ambiguous references to try to prove your point fail on the basis of the whole counsel of God. There are a vast array of Biblical support of the NCFIC confession, which helps to put your verses in proper perspective. Tony above has treated these verses, so I won’t take the time to give commentary.

    Your other two points don’t matter beyond this, though I believe they are misguided as well.

    1. God his given a sufficient and authoritative source prescribing how He should be worshiped.
    2. That source is the Holy Scriptures, and the scriptures alone. (2 Pet. 1:3-4; 1 Tim 3:15; 2 Tim. 3:16-17)
    3. If man worships God in a manner prescribed by scripture, he forms that worship in the image of God.
    4. If man worships God in a manner outside of scripture it is of his own invention.
    5. If man worships according to his own invention, he forms that worship in the image of man. (Matthew 15:3,8,9; 2 Kings 16:10-18)
    6. Worshiping God in the image of man is unacceptable to Christians .
    7. The scripture specifically prescribes men leading their families, and for wives and children to be subject to them in everything, including worship ((Eph 5:21-33; Col 3:18-19; Tit 2:3-5; 1 Pet 3:1-7, 1 Cor 11:7-9).
    8. The scripture specifically prescribes men to teach the scriptures in such a way that their children and grandchildren will fear the Lord. (Deut. 6:2; Lk.1:50).
    9. The scriptures specifically prescribe when and how men should teach their children the scriptures, including in multi generational sacred gatherings,(so as to fulfill #8)(Deut. 16:9-14; Josh. 8:34-35; Ezra 10:1; 2 Chr.20:13; Nehemiah 12:43; Joel 2:15-16; Luke 12:42-47; Col 4:14; Acts 20:7; Eph. 6:1-4).
    10. The scriptures do not at any time describe, nor prescribe age segregated worship gatherings.
    11. Therefore, multi-generational gatherings are the intention of God in our worship, and age-segregated worship gatherings are formed in the image of man and are unacceptable to Christians.

    Reply
52. Tony says:

    May 4, 2011 at 7:08 AM

    Robert:
    With regards to your point 1: I did not give all the pertinent biblical proof for the errors in age segregation as they are readily provided in literature and sermons provided by the NCFIC and others so to do so here would be a repeat of what has been provided in other places. I would hope that those that speak out against the FIC would have done much research as to the biblical proof given before putting forth criticism. Also Scott Brown’s book A Weed in the Church (https://www.ncfic.org/a-weed ) provides many biblical proofs.

    As regards point 2: I would hope you would see the body of Christ as larger than the PCA so that if others in the church at large, those in the NCIFC do belong to churches, bring to light what is seen as error then what error is there in that? Is error only to be mentioned by a particular pastor, elder or denomination; cannot others in the body of Christ speak to error when it is seen? I am sure that men in the PCA have spoken out about errors in the church at large and have even focused on particular churches when necessary. Can only those that administer church discipline speak to errors in the church? The purpose of the NCFIC is not to create a movement but to speak to what scripture says about the practice of the church. If that is seen as a movement then so be it but as I in my original comments one could say that the reformation was a movement and I would hope you would not see that as wrong.

    As far as point 3: I would again disagree with the comparisons given since we also would hold that there are areas of liberty and freedom. The difference is that you would appear to place age-segregation in that realm and we would not.

    Lastly on point 4: The issue is that we need to recognize how we come to our conclusions and realize that evolutionary ideas about the nature of man drive much of what we do. Due to this we need to carefully search the scriptures and combat the influences of the teaching we have all had in the past. The issue is not simply the outcome but the process, again, which is the point that is being made with regards to evolutionary thinking. We are to do all things to the glory of God and how we “do” those things is also to be to His glory.

    Grace and Peace,
    Tony

    Reply
53. Ryan Glick says:

    May 4, 2011 at 2:10 PM

    Robert,

    I would like to deal with the 3 points of your reply to me in different comments so they are more easily manageable. In reference to your first point, I would kindly ask you to consider the point I made. I was specifically proving that to say a church has adopted philosophies which are contradictory to the Bible is not in and of itself uncharitable as Shawn claimed. This is just as true as with you claiming (essentially) that we are legalists. That is not by default unloving even though you gave no support for your statements. I wasn’t specifically trying to prove the reality of the statement as it was stated in the Confession as that was not necessary. It is a confession, not a historical thesis paper. We have dealt with the history of age-segregation in other papers, sermons, books, etc. Particularly, please see A Weed in the Church (https://www.ncfic.org/a-weed) by Scott Brown. He lays out his position from the Scriptures and history and that shows why he maintains the statement in the confession.

    Reply
54. Ryan Glick says:

    May 4, 2011 at 2:46 PM

    Robert: Expanding on the thought of whether or not I proved that the age-segregated discipleship structure came from pagan philosophy, I must ask, have you proven it to be a false statement? If age segregation is not a biblical idea (i.e. developed from the pages of Scripture in some way shape or form), then it must have developed from somewhere else. The question is where? Can you show me the roots of this model? If it didn’t arise from paganism, from what did it arise?

    Consider this: the Baptist confession lays out the qualification for the circumstances of worship as such: “There are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.”

    The key statement here which is being ignored by our brothers is that all things common to society must be in accordance with “the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.” In other words, even the circumstances of worship are governed by the principles and rules of Scripture. There is no thing in which I as a Christian have complete liberty to make my own way independent of the Word of God.

    I challenge you to take the whole of Scripture concerning education, discipleship, companions, children, youth, the purpose of our existence, etc, and show how systematically separating out the ages/life stages is in accordance with the general (or specific) rules of the Scriptures.

    Here are some of the general rules of the Word that apply to this analysis of the method of worship which we employ and of the philosophies that gave rise to it:

    Jer 10:2 “Thus saith the LORD, Learn not the way of the heathen…”

    Lev 18:3-4 After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do: and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do: neither shall ye walk in their ordinances. Ye shall do my judgments, and keep mine ordinances, to walk therein: I am the LORD your God.”

    Isa 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

    Jer 8:8-9 How do ye say, We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us? Lo, certainly in vain made he it; the pen of the scribes is in vain. The wise men are ashamed, they are dismayed and taken: lo, they have rejected the word of the LORD; and what wisdom is in them?

    Deu 4:5-6 Behold, I have taught you statutes and judgments, even as the LORD my God commanded me, that ye should do so in the land whither ye go to possess it. Keep therefore and do them; for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the nations.

    Psa 119:98-100 Thou through thy commandments hast made me wiser than mine enemies: for they are ever with me. I have more understanding than all my teachers: for thy testimonies are my meditation. I understand more than the ancients, because I keep thy precepts.”

    Pro 13:20 He that walketh with wise men shall be wise: but a companion of fools shall be destroyed.

    1 Cor. 15:13 Do not be deceived: “Bad company corrupts good morals.” (NASB)

    Psa 119:63 I am a companion of all them that fear thee, and of them that keep thy precepts.

    Pro 9:6 Forsake the foolish, and live; and go in the way of understanding.
    Eph 6:4 And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.

    Deu 6:6-7 And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart: And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up.

    How then do modern age-segregated, peer-oriented education philosophies fit with these principles? Even if the model of our worship is a circumstance and no more, how does your view submit to the general rules of the Word of God? I submit that it simply doesn’t. I think the fact that the primary people calling for a return to the Word of God as the basis of our methods in worship are those calling for age-integrated worship and that the primary people calling for liberty in the area of discipleship within the church are those calling for a system found nowhere in the pages of Scripture should be very sobering to those who decry us as legalists. Men were created to glorify our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, to obey all things which He has commanded us. Our liberty in Christ is the freedom to live righteously apart from those ceremonial laws which were added because of transgressions which bound men until Christ came. But that liberty does not allow us to throw off the principles and commands of God in any area which we would like to do in our own way. That is not liberty, that is rebellion and rebellion requires repentance.

    As a group, the FIC has presented sufficient Scriptural evidence that age-integrated worship is in accordance with the general rules of Scripture. No person can say that it is unbiblical to keep children in the worship service. No person can say it is unbiblical to not have a Sunday School or Youth Group. No person can say that it is unbiblical to practice family worship throughout the week. No person can say it is wrong if the primary instruction of children is from their fathers and the main systematic instruction they receive from the church is through the preaching of the word of God to the whole body (as Paul did in Ephesians and Colossians). At the very least then, family-integration is not unbiblical. At this point, I believe it is safe to say that the age-segregated advocates have no such foot to stand on. We plead with those, for the sake of the next generation, who would argue for the legitimacy of systematic and comprehensive age-segregation in the church to show the legitimacy of age segregation when viewed through the general principles and rules of God. And for the record, Jesus and Samuel don’t count. Neither one was in age-segregated settings. Neither one was in Sunday School. Neither one was in youth group.

    Reply
55. Ryan Glick says:

    May 4, 2011 at 2:55 PM

    Robert: In your final point, you take issue with my comment about Hope Baptist being pro-life. For the record, I did not say we are known for being pro life. I actually said you will find us talking more about pro-life issues than family integration since that is very important to us. I must say that I am intensely grieved that anyone would write what you did under the guise of being gospel-centered. You imply that upholding the great commission requires that we throw out the rest of the Bible and that is a sad thing for a Christian to say.

    Jas 1:27, “Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.” Pro. 24:11, “If thou forbear to deliver them that are drawn unto death, and those that are ready to be slain; If thou sayest, Behold, we knew it not; doth not he that pondereth the heart consider it? and he that keepeth thy soul, doth not he know it? and shall not he render to every man according to his works?” Pure religion visits those who are drawn unto death, the fatherless, the needy. What religion is that which claims we shouldn’t because we are supposed to be about preaching the gospel not saving babies? I submit that is unholy religion and defiled before God. When our people go to the local abortion clinic, we preach the gospel to those going in. We plead with them to consider their ways, repent, and turn unto the one who can save their souls. We plead with them to spare the lives of these precious children. That is the gospel and it is definitely not wrong for a church to be known as pro-life. A church should be known as a giving church, a loving church, a holy church, a Word based church. Consider in the book of Acts: Act 2:44-47, “And all that believed were together, and had all things common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart, Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.” This church was a gospel-centered church, but they were known by the fruits of the gospel worked out in their lives. Why? Because the gospel calls us to submit to Christ as Lord and He has commanded all these things. If one claims the gospel, and is not pro-life, he has joined ranks with those who hate God: Pro 8:36 “But he that sinneth against me wrongeth his own soul: all they that hate me love death.” I kindly ask you to retract your statement and acknowledge that there is no crime against God for a gospel-centered church to be known as one which loves life.

    Reply
56. Ryan Glick says:

    May 4, 2011 at 3:13 PM

    Robert: In reference to your last comment about Doug Phillips praying for all Christians to be homeschooling and in family-integrated churches, I could not agree with him more. To put this very bluntly lest anyone misunderstand where I as a individual stand on this issue: sending your child to a public school is wicked and rebellion against the clear commands of God. Some may be ignorant and not in wanton rebellion, but that does not make them in compliance with the Lord’s commands. Those who utilize public education are sacrificing their children on the altar of a false god, blaspheming the most high God, teaching these children to walk contrary to the true and the living God, and defiling them with the most corrupt moral degradations of society. God has explicitly commanded fathers to raise up their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, to teach them day in and day out all the commands of God and that the Lord our God is One Lord. He has declared that there is no wisdom or light in any who reject the Word of the Lord: “The wise men are ashamed, they are dismayed and taken: lo, they have rejected the word of the LORD; and what wisdom is in them?” He has called every spirit that does not declare Jesus Christ to have come in the flesh the spirit of anti-Christ. He says that all who deny the record that God bear of his Son make God out to be a liar. That is blasphemy against our Lord and King! God has said that those who pervert morality and follow after strange flesh do so because they have refused to glorify God as God. We make the issue of education out to be a issue of Christian liberty, but those who send their children to the public Schools must realize that they are giving their children to people who are the children of Satan, to people who teach the doctrines of devils, to people that God has called dogs and whoremongers, to people who will not inherit eternal life. They are sending their children to be trained by the spirit of anti-Christ in to the abominations of the heathen. Upon what basis shall I as a Christian not plead with God that He would awaken parents from their slumber so that they would immediately pull their children out of these God-hating, devil-worshiping institutions? Does not the love of Christ and the love of our neighbor wrench our heart so that we can do nothing less? And if throwing our children in to age-segmented societies where they are being trained by their foolish peer groups provides the same corrupting influence upon children, should I also not plead with God to plant family-integrated churches that preach the Word in season and out of season, and who worship God (not the family) in spirit and in truth?

    I will conclude by answering your final question: Does this reflect the great commission which requires us to go into all the world, making disciples and teaching them to obey all things He has commanded? Absolutely! These are merely the manifestations of the gospel lived out. The gospel presents the love of God and the love of our fellow man. No biblical love for God or man will ever send a child to a public school to be trained by those who hate God.

    Jer 9:12-16, “Who is the wise man, that may understand this? and who is he to whom the mouth of the LORD hath spoken, that he may declare it, for what the land perisheth and is burned up like a wilderness, that none passeth through? And the LORD saith, Because they have forsaken my law which I set before them, and have not obeyed my voice, neither walked therein; But have walked after the imagination of their own heart, and after Baalim, which their fathers taught them: Therefore thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Behold, I will feed them, even this people, with wormwood, and give them water of gall to drink. I will scatter them also among the heathen, whom neither they nor their fathers have known: and I will send a sword after them, till I have consumed them.”

    In Christ,
    Ryan Glick

    Reply
57. Shawn Mathis says:

    May 4, 2011 at 3:36 PM

    Gentlemen,

    Thank you for your willingness to dialogue.
    With so much written so far, Lord willing, I will respond to your statements with another article.

    Reply
58. Shawn Mathis says:

    May 4, 2011 at 5:27 PM

    Mr. Glick,

    I am desirous that I accurately portray the NCFIC.

    Since you did not deny my summary of this organization’s position and beliefs (even of the leaders), can I assume that I have stated the positions correctly?

    thank you,

    Reply
59. Robert "Cricket" Renner says:

    May 4, 2011 at 6:50 PM

    Ryan,

    My response will be very short, as I must attend a church meeting this evening.

    1. Didn’t you prove my point about the NCFIC statement being legalistic with your discussion of public schools? Are you really stating that EVERY person who sends their children to public school is doing so out of wickedness and in rebellion to the CLEAR commands of God? Such a statement, still lacking biblical proof texts, would seem to define legalism in my simple Alaskan mind (although I may’ve been affected by the long winters!). Does that mean you think your (all) churches should discipline their members who choose to send their kids to public schools?

    May I ask, where did you attend school?

    2. This is more for a discussion at a different time and place, but we can’t “be” or “live” the gospel — we are called to preach it. Since the gospel is Christ died for my sins, rose again from the dead, and now sits at God’s right hand, how can I “be” or “live” that? I can’t (thanks be to God!), but there are definitely ways I should live out of gratitude for what He has done. Prayerfully considering how to school my children is one way.

    3. I am sympathetic to some of the NCFIC’s statements, but again, I think they drive a wedge in where one is not required. For instance, my OPC church is having our monthly teen night this Saturday, where we gather teens to play ultimate frisbee and have a great theological discussion. I agree the youth culture can become an idol, but so too can age-integration. At our teen nights, we’ve had some great, deep discussions that would not have worked with 5 year olds in them–besides the teenagers would’ve probably crushed the 5 year olds in frisbee. Again, I think age-integrated worship services should be the norm, but the statement that ALL age-segregated teaching is unbiblical and based on evolutionary ideas is unfounded.

    4. Finally, for my knowledge of who I’m debating with, your blob says you are employed full-time by NCFIC, yet you’re not listed on their web-page. The link to your blog profile lists “The Marriage Blog of Scott & Deborah Brown” as one of your blogs. Is Ryan Glick your real name? I’m just wondering.

    In His service,
    “Cricket”

    Reply
60. Kassandra says:

    May 4, 2011 at 8:40 PM

    Shawn,
    Not to add to your list of things to address, but I have noticed among the more fervent family-integrated-church/patriarchy crowd of my acquaintance a spirit of rebellion toward both civil and eccliesiastic authority (and paradoxically, among the women, disrespectful manipulation of their own husbands and encouragement to other women to do the same). They remove themselves from oversight of elders to have “church” as a family, speak scathingly and pejoratively of the civil authority, encourage women whose husbands haven’t bought in to the patriarchy message to plague or manipulate them into changing their minds about education decisions, etc. I was wondering if this lack of submission toward civil and church authority is actually a part of the official teaching of the movement or an unintended consequence of the elevation of family integration over all else in the family-integrated ecclesiology. Any thoughts?

    -Kassandra

    Reply
61. Ryan Glick says:

    May 4, 2011 at 9:05 PM

    Robert thanks for the reply.

    Two things: First and foremost, I want to tone down my presentation of what I believe is the truth. I admit to feeling very strongly about these topics as I see the fruit of some of these, like sending children to public schools, splitting the families up, etc. working havoc in the church. However, I don’t want to be contentious or heated in my replies and I think I too strongly stated my position above and could have worded it with more grace. I was just reading in Proverbs 15 this evening and it has lots to say about how the righteous use the tongue and that a soft answer turns away wrath. I desire that for myself and I apologize for the bluntness of some of my words. I will seek to do better by God’s grace. I view my brothers in Christ who practice age segregation as brothers (not enemies) and I very much want to treat them as such. I’m not perfect either (hence this statment), so I always need grace too!

    Second, Ryan Glick is my real name. I simply posted blogs Scott Brown wrote on his marriage blog when he initially came up with the idea, although it is not currently active. I was an intern in the first half of 2009 and have been employed full time since – though again, I have made all comments on the behalf of my personal convictions on the matter and not on the behalf of the NCFIC. I was not requested to write anything. I am not on the website for the NCFIC because I don’t really have an official title. I just do whatever needs to be done. Sort of a jack of all trades and trying to master them since I am fairly new to the computer world. I am a finish carpenter by trade.

    Hope that clears that up for you.

    Until next time,
    Ryan Glick

    Reply
62. Shawn Mathis says:

    May 4, 2011 at 9:46 PM

    Cricket,

    Ryan has answered your question. The only thing I can add is a picture!
    He’s part of the 2009 intern class at NCFIC:
    http://raisedinthebarn.blogspot.com/2009/06/ncfic-intern-class-spring-2009.html

    Reply
63. Shawn Mathis says:

    May 4, 2011 at 9:52 PM

    Kassandra,

    I cannot speak to these individual cases other than the fact that I have heard of them in person and elsewhere.

    I can say that Mr. Phillips has explicitly denounced home churches (and Mr. Brown, if I recall) and encouraged submission to local church elders. The confession touches upon that (to their credit).

    However, my initial take is that many homeschooling families have an isolationist attitude already contrary to Prov. 18:1. And most of these families have little to no Reformed background. This is a bad combination. So, the NCFIC’s reputation reflects upon those who sign the document and, ironically, by the same token any wacko churches or families that sign it (or use the title) can reflect negatively upon the NCFIC.

    Whether the reputation is deserved is another question. I think from NCFIC’s end, they do not deserve their reputation to be identified with those who undermine churchly authority.

    Reply
64. Ryan Glick says:

    May 5, 2011 at 7:07 AM

    Shawn:

    I’ll answer your question concerning your description of the NCFIC as soon as I get the chance.

    In reference to your response to Kassandra, you are correct that we denounce the “home church” mentality that rejects biblically ordered, New testament churches with operational authority. It is our belief that churches should be governed by a multiplicity of elders and that any group that rejects the establishment of actual church leaders is not functioning as a true church. From the NCFIC website:

    “We do not believe that a single family meeting in a home qualifies as an expression of the true church. For more information, please listen to “What About Home Churching.” (http://www.ncfic.org/mediaorganizermodule/view_mediaorganizer/id/11/src/@random4a1fff0b0c23b/)

    “We define a biblical church as one where the Word of God is preached, the ordinances of the church are observed and where church discipline is practiced. Our ministry to churches is to be a resource to them in planting and growing their churches after biblical patterns of ministry. We are working for the planting of Christ-centered, biblically ordered, evangelistic, expository preaching, family-integrated churches.

    If you do not subscribe to this understanding of the church, please do not submit an application. For more information on what we believe about the church, please listen to, “What is a Family Integrated Church.” (http://www.ncfic.org/mediaorganizermodule/view_mediaorganizer/id/31/src/@random4a1fff0b0c23b/) Our constant encouragement to families is that they involve themselves deeply with biblically ordered local churches. If there is no biblically ordered, family-integrated church near them, we exhort them to not neglect the church and to find a biblical church close to them.”

    I hope that makes our position clear.

    In Christ,
    Ryan Glick

    Reply
65. Shawn Mathis says:

    May 5, 2011 at 7:22 AM

    Ryan,

    I am glad you pointed out that restriction from the sign-up page
    http://www.ncfic.org/church_listing_signup

    As I recall that restriction was not there before the 2009 NCFIC website launch. This is a good addition.

    Reply
66. Ryan Glick says:

    May 5, 2011 at 7:55 AM

    Robert:

    In answer to your question about school and legalism, the Lord has commanded Fathers to train up their children in the way they should go. It is sin to take a child and place them under the tutelage of anti-Christ, to be taught 5 days a week that there is no God, that Jesus Christ – the most precious and holy Son of God – is a lie, that the gospel is false, that all things are a matter of chance, that morality is relative, that whatever sexual perversion you desire is permissible, that fornication is normal, that abortion is good. That is a violation of the clear commands of Christ. Like I said, there is much ignorance, but ignorance does not remove the violation. It is still to be repented of and preached against. I believe all churches should preach the truths of child discipleship and parental responsibility for education and once the veil has been removed, refusal to take responsibility should lead to fathers coming under disciplinary action. The eternal souls of children are on the line, and we act as though this is not serious. But it is! We should plead with our brothers to get their kids out of the public schools. Besides, it’s socialism. Tax me to send your kid to school? That’s theft.

    A very good friend of mine is producing a documentary called IndoctriNation: Public Schools and the Decline of Christianity in America (watch the trailer http://www.indoctrinationmovie.com/). I believe this will be a vitally important documentary calling parents to get their kids out. I also just spent part of the weekend with E. Ray More from the Exodus Mandate (EM), which is also calling parents to take their kids out of the Public schools. The EM group produced a short film called, the Call to Dunkirk (read an article and watch the video at http://christianobserver.org/call-to-dunkirk-ministry-issues-call-to-exit-public-schooling/). On this video, Voddie Baucham calls government schools “Christ-dishonoring, academically inferior, soul-killing, government indoctrination centers.” Amen Brother! The Lord has blessed Hope Baptist with some amazing testimonies: a public school principle who resigned because of his Christian faith, a public school teacher who was fired for teaching about Christ in his math class, a public school teacher who resigned because she was not allowed to tell her students about the Lord. I love it!

    So where was I schooled? At home. I never attended a public school or a Christian school and I praise God and thank my parents that that is the case. I wouldn’t want it any other way. And in case you were wondering, I’ll be home schooling my own children!

    Reply
67. Shawn Mathis says:

    May 5, 2011 at 8:04 AM

    Dear Ryan,

    Since you attend a plant of Mr. Brown’s church and Mr. Brown is your standing elder, I would not be surprised if you informed him about this article. If not, feel free to inform him so that, Lord willing, better public dialogue may ensue.

    for the unity and purity of the Church,

    shawn

    Reply
68. Robert Graham says:

    May 5, 2011 at 8:48 AM

    Great conversation, I am very encouraged that folks are speaking to these things. Please continue to do so, as it helps the whole boby of Christ and be sharpened.

    I would like to mention a few things about my experiences that I think are truly of great concern.

    First, I at one time spent a year of my life in an NCFIC/Vision Forum church. A church that listened to the leaders of these groups and tried to change things where they were members, were denied and left the churches they were in and started a new one with like minded families. I am not saying all are like this one, but I am aware of many, many that are.

    Here is the underlying problem. The men that I know that follow the NCFIC are being rightly encouraged to be men of God on so many fronts that are lacking in most churches today and are encouraged all things to the Glory of God. But what happens is that men are encouraged to change things where they are, and most places are not open to the FIC model, so the men leave. I have even had a leader associated with VF tell me personally that it is then best to go start a new church with like minded families. This is schismatic and I would think does greater harm to the church than having your children in age-segregated sunday school.
    Again, I am not saying that this happens on all accounts or that NCFIC promotes this. But this is the natural deduction of the principles being instilled, especially in the men that are not leaders in their churches.

    The fellowship that I attended and others that I have visited have all had the constant and great emphasis on the family. The family and its culture seemed to be more foundational than the Gospel itself. Daughters being ladies, sons being manly, Fathers being heroes, and mothers being Proverbs 31(great things). This culture dominates the conversation and importance. The Gospel is barely visible in the teaching at this fellowship which I tried to bring to the men there, but they would have none of it.

    I by no means am implying that this is what is promoted or happening in other NCFIC principled churches. I am just speaking of what I have seen.

    NCFIC must take into account all the men that have been encouraged but then have taken authority of the family and put it in place of the church. This cannot be ignored or dismissed.

    My suggestion is that schism and division be seriously addressed by NCFIC in their principles. With what I have seen, I have many times thought that Vision Forum’s name should be changed to Division Forum. Again, I have great respect for the leaders of these groups. Its just what I have seen some men that follow them do, as seems the natural conclusion.

    Shall we divide the church that we can unite the family?

    Reply
69. Robert "Cricket" Renner says:

    May 5, 2011 at 11:49 AM

    Ryan,

    Thanks for your lovingkindness and grace in this debate. I enjoy a good debate, and am sure there are MANY areas we would strongly agree on and enjoy one another’s fellowship in.

    As I had my wife read this article/posts, and I’ve thought more about it, maybe I can offer a brief restatement of my view.

    I think age-integrated worship services should absolutely be the norm. Worshipping the Lord together as the complete body!

    To state, however, that ALL age-segregated biblical training is sin, I think, is misguided. I think you could use all the same passages to prove that all biblical training should be sex-integrated, couldn’t you?

    I agree with 90+% of the NCFIC statement. It’s just that one little bit that I think derails it as an organization and makes it divisive, as Robert clearly mentioned.

    I say all this from someone who has repented of being so legalistic in looking down on other Christians who don’t homeschool, have large families, or keep all their kids in the church service with them. (By the way, we homeschool our 4 youngest kids [the oldest 2 are in college], and all our children stay in church with us.) At our little church, however, I teach the teen/adult Sunday school that would not benefit my 5 year old. And, my 16 year old daughter has benefitted greatly from teaching the 4 kids in her 5 year old class.

    In grace and love, for unity in truth and peace,
    “Cricket”
    P.S. Nice photo of yours. I can’t grow that much facial hair! So, you know what I look like, here’s a little slide show my wife & I made for my retirement from the USAF last year: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24xNWJafeFQ

    Reply
70. Ryan Glick says:

    May 5, 2011 at 8:45 PM

    Robert, I’ve had a beard for the last 7 years I think. I can’t imagine what it would be like to not have it!

    Shawn, I really appreciate your willingness to have an honest discussion and your willingness to make sure what you have written is accurate. Thank you. I have great respect for that.

    I did show the article to Mr. Brown when I first ran across it.

    I actually have time at the moment to answer part of your question about your description of the NCFIC. So, what do I think of the actual article? I’ll just make a couple comments:

    1. “It is if your church practices the usual age-segregated Sunday school according to a new church movement.” While the movement as it currently stands is new, the things we are saying are not so new. For example, in 1834, particular Baptists met in Black Rock, Maryland and made the following statement about Sunday Schools in the Church: “Sunday Schools come next under consideration…They claim the honor of converting their tens of thousands; of leading the tender minds of children to the knowledge of Jesus; of being as properly the instituted means of bringing children to the knowledge of salvation, as the preaching of the gospel that of bringing adults to the same knowledge, &c. Such arrogant pretensions we feel bound to oppose…because such schools were never established by the apostles, nor commanded by Christ. There were children in the days of the apostles. The apostles possessed as great a desire for the salvation of souls, as much love to the cause of Christ, and knew as well what God would own for bringing persons to the knowledge of salvation, as any do at this day. We therefore must believe that if these schools were of God, we should find some account of them in the New Testament.”

    2. “The family-integrated church movement, primarily within the homeschooling community…has already affected some Reformed churches.” It is interesting how much of the FIC “movement” is at least claiming to be reformed. All of the primary leaders of the FIC are confessional, Reformed men: Scott Brown, Doug Phillips, Voddie Baucham, Kevin Swanson, etc. Other men who have come to speak on behalf of this return to the sufficiency of Scripture for ministerial methods include Paul Washer and R.C. Sproul, Jr., also reformed men. Currently, 142 of the churches listed on the NCFIC church directory claim the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith, and 177 claim the Westminster confession. I can’t wait to see most (would like to see all) of the FIC claiming the Baptist confession (sorry Presbyterian brothers out there – I’m Baptist so I’m a little biased)

    3. “The NCFIC, among other things, is about “uniting church and home,” inveighing against the typical Evangelical church’s abundance of age-segregated, special-interest programs. It unequivocally rejects age- and family-segregation that separates children from parents.” To be really honest, I have spent about 3 hours at least pouring over this point, and I have decided to keep it really simple and qualified. To match how the NCFIC would have said it, I would add three words to the final sentence. “comprehensive” and “discipleship methods.” “It unequivocally rejects comprehensive age- and family-segregation discipleship methods which separate children from parents. That doesn’t do a whole lot to explain how that works out, but I think for time and space, that would make it accurate as far as the NCFIC is concerned. I’ll get to my position on that point at another comment.

    Since I spent so much time trying to formulate in my mind my exact position on that last statement, the rest of my comments will have to wait for now. I have another project to accomplish.

    Until next time,
    Ryan Glick

    “If you want your child to grow up in the church and love the church – love the church. Don’t send them off to Sunday School or children’s church. Show them how you love to worship God.”

    – John Piper, Raising Children Who Hope in the Triumph of God

    Reply
71. Kassandra says:

    May 5, 2011 at 9:06 PM

    Thanks, Shawn. That’s helpful.

    Reply
72. Shawn Mathis says:

    May 5, 2011 at 9:45 PM

    Ryan,

    Your third point dealt with my opening summary: “The NCFIC, among other things, is about “uniting church and home,” inveighing against the typical Evangelical church’s abundance of age-segregated, special-interest programs. It unequivocally rejects age- and family-segregation that separates children from parents.”

    You said you preferred ” To match how the NCFIC would have said it, I would add three words to the final sentence. “comprehensive” and “discipleship methods.”

    This may be preferable, but Article VII does not use those words, rather it states: “substituting family-fragmenting, age-segregated, peer-oriented, youth driven, and special-interest programs…” (nor Article X, nor the lectures I listened as I recall). So, it is not unreasonable that I may summarize it thusly.

    Even so, I do quote the first half of Article XI with the word ‘comprehensive’. And the summary itself does have the phrase ‘typical Evangelical church’s abundance…” These are the very programs NCFIC is against, no? I am using both the language of the uninitiated audience mixed with direct quotes from the confession–frankly, people do not know what ““family-fragmenting, age-segregated, peer-oriented, youth driven, and special-interest programs” means anyway (I know, I’ve asked non-FICs).

    Lastly, and more importantly, what is the practical and theoretical significance of “comprehensive” anyway (which is not explicated in the confession).

    See, now public discussion is getting somewhere,

    Thanks,

    Reply
73. Shawn Mathis says:

    May 5, 2011 at 9:54 PM

    Ryan,

    You reference to the particular Baptists is exactly what I have been looking for! Thank you for such a specific citation. This is where the historical debate should be, not in the vague generalities. I hope you realize that what I wrote in the historical section is but a summary of my historical evidence.

    First of all, quoting a particular Baptist to a Presbyterian concerning the realm of Christian nurture and instruction is not going to get this debate far. We do not hold to the the hermeneutic expressed in that public declaration (note also the lack of OT referent). Thus it is ironic that any modern Presbyterians would subscribe to this narrow exegetical tool (what I dub the “regulative principle of education”).

    Second, you will need more than the unique views of particular Baptist to prove it as a the classic model of Christian nurture. So far, in my research, this is an oddity in the broader Calvinistic circles.

    thanks,

    Reply
74. Darrell Todd Maurina says:

    May 5, 2011 at 10:24 PM

    Ryan wrote: “To put this very bluntly lest anyone misunderstand where I as a individual stand on this issue: sending your child to a public school is wicked and rebellion against the clear commands of God. Some may be ignorant and not in wanton rebellion, but that does not make them in compliance with the Lord’s commands. Those who utilize public education are sacrificing their children on the altar of a false god, blaspheming the most high God, teaching these children to walk contrary to the true and the living God, and defiling them with the most corrupt moral degradations of society.”

    I’m well aware that similar things were being said by the Christian Reformed Church not just in the 1940s and 1950s but as far back as the 1800s when the public schools were being blasted as anti-Christian because they were not sufficiently Reformed to be safe places to send Dutch kids.

    In other words, your words are not as extreme or unprecedented as they might appear to many modern Reformed ears.

    However, brother, I’d encourage you to seriously reconsider your denial of even the possibility of a public school being an option for Christians. I don’t have a problem with saying Christian schooling is a better option than even the best public school options in modern America because of Supreme Court decisions, and I don’t have a problem with saying that in many cases public schools truly are “teaching these children to walk contrary to the true and the living God, and defiling them with the most corrupt moral degradations of society.”

    To say that is happening in every case without exception is to state your point in a form that drives people away because of their knowledge of personally godly Christian teachers in the public schools and (especially in rural America) public schools where the majority of the teachers are evangelicals.

    Your response likely will be that even the best teachers in a modern public school have unacceptable restrictions on their teaching and therefore parents should choose better options for their children. You’re not going to hear me disagreeing with you.

    Some problems require a sledgehammer approach. Others require a scalpel. I’d suggest that you’ve chosen the wrong tool in this case to blast all of public education — though if you were talking of certain schools in certain large-city school districts, I think I might use even stronger terms than yours.

    Reply
75. Ryan Glick says:

    May 5, 2011 at 10:26 PM

    Shawn,

    4. “Churches interested in associating with this organization must be in “substantial agreement” with the NCFIC confession, a “working document.” Churches are not officially endorsed and denominational affiliation is no barrier to enrollment.[2] Although not a church planting agency, it wants to “encourage new church plants” based upon this model.” That would be correct. We will list churches that have variances with us on the Confession. We do not officially endorse any church simply because it is on the website, it merely provides a starting point for people to investigate churches. We do try to keep really bad churches from being listed if we see them. We are stricter now than we were in the VF days so there are some churches left over from then which wind up being removed when we find them. We do encourage biblically ordered church plants.

    5. “For instance, it rejects “family-fragmenting, age-segregated, peer-oriented, youth driven, and special-interest programs” (Article VII). This is another way of rejecting typical Sunday schools, youth groups and the like.” That would be correct.

    6. “While the confession never uses the words “Sunday school” and the like, the unqualified language and logic is clear: “age segregated practices are based on unbiblical, evolutionary and secular thinking”; modern Sunday schools are age segregated; therefore, they are based on “evolutionary and secular thinking.” This serious charge is also publicly asserted by the leaders of this organization.” That would be correct.

    7. “Even so, do such abuses warrant rejection of any type of special-interest programs or age-segregation? Are all age-segregated approaches unbiblical, even evolutionary?” That depends on several things. Who is making the special interest groups an what are they in? What ages are we looking at? What is the purpose of the age-segregated approach? Etc. I’ll deal with that later, since it really ties directly into point three. Officially however, the NCFIC answer would be that the abuses are not the root issue. The issue is what gave rise to the programs, special interest or age segregated. And officially, the NCFIC maintains that there are certain circumstances where it is legitimate to be less inclusive outside the corporate meeting of the church. Just a comprehensive system of segregation is still rejected. Within the corporate worship of the church, the answer is easy: segregating the local body into multiple groups is contrary to the formation of the New Testament church. Outside the church, the answers, at least in my opinion, become a little less readily clear, though I have at this point a way in which I interpret how a non-integrated event can be judged. There are a lot of things to consider, which I will try to do when I more fully deal with point 3.

    8. “Such a serious charge is supported with three main claims: the “desert island test” of the Bible, the evolutionary roots of modern education, and the revival of families.” That would be correct, though there could be more added to the list.

    9. “In other words, if the education method cannot be found in the Bible (by command or example), then it is forbidden (cp. Articles II, XI).” I would disagree that this is what the NCFIC holds on education methods. More properly worded, “Because the Bible lays out explicit commands for education and discipleship, if the education methods cannot be justified by the actual teaching of Scripture, they are forbidden.” In other words, if the method is not in conformity with the commands and patterns of Scripture, it is a violation.

    10. “Moreover, the apostles preached to women and children without the presence of their male heads (Acts 16:13).” This statement implies that the NCFIC requires male heads of households to be present for instruction to take place. That would be incorrect. Much more could be said about this and there are all sorts of nuances, but suffice it to say, we do not require heads of households to be present for instruction to take place. But that does not justify comprehensive age segregation as a mass discipleship method.

    11. “Next, it is asserted that many methods of education are evolutionary in origin.” I think it could be better said that the secular ideas of child discipleship found a basis in evolutionary thinking and exploded into the monolithic, diabolical, fiasco we see to day. Aspects come straight from an evolutionary mindset, and aspects come from the secular ideas that found a support system in evolution. That said however, there was evolutionary thinking long before Darwin which provided the context for the anti-Christian philosophies that sought to take children from their parents to take root. Darwin just codified it.

    12. “In summary, even though this confession’s emphasis on family is commendable, its unqualified rejection of age-segregation is biblically unfounded and contrary to historical facts. There is no Biblical “desert island test”; there is no biblical prohibition against properly practiced segregation; and there is no revival that focuses on family-integrated churches.” First, there is one qualification in the confession and that is the term comprehensive. That needs tons of explanation, but it is qualified by it. The desert island test is biblical. I will deal with that later. I think that Doug’s point about the revival has been misinterpreted. The prophesy was that through the ministry of John the Baptist, the hearts of fathers and children would tern to each other. As this same revival spreads once again in the hearts of families, it gives rise to two major manifestations: homeschooling and family-integrated churches. I believe that that would be correct. Besides, most of the reasons people give for age segregation become null if fathers actually disciple their children and children actually turn their hearts to their fathers.

    13. “The views documented here are integral to the NCFIC’s very existence.” So, in answer to your question, overall, the description was accurate and I greatly appreciate all the references. Some have slammed us and not even attempted to prove that it was so. That said, in all respect, I disagree with much of the analysis. There are many things which need to be said that I simply skipped in favor of dealing with your description of the NCFIC, but I will have to deal with those in later comments.

    In Christ,
    Ryan Glick

    Reply
76. Darrell Todd Maurina says:

    May 5, 2011 at 10:46 PM

    Cricket wrote: “So, you know what I look like, here’s a little slide show my wife & I made for my retirement from the USAF last year”

    Thank you for your service, LTC Renner. Those of us who have a Reformed view of the civil magistrate can’t say those words often enough to those who wear the uniform to do things most of us either can’t or won’t do, but which most emphatically must be done if we want to remain a free nation.

    BTW, I’m a civilian living outside Fort Leonard Wood in Missouri and previously lived outside Cannon Air Force Base in New Mexico. My father was stationed back in the early 1960s at one of the Air Force bases where you’ve served, according to your YouTube video.

    Reply
77. Ryan Glick says:

    May 6, 2011 at 10:52 AM

    There are so many things on the table right now… Where shall I start?

    I guess first will be the public schools. Darrell: “To say that is happening in every case without exception is to state your point in a form that drives people away because of their knowledge of personally godly Christian teachers in the public schools and (especially in rural America) public schools where the majority of the teachers are evangelicals.”

    I agree that some schools are worse and some are better on the scale of evil to horribly evil. But the best school in the government school system will still be between evil and horribly evil and is still run by the spirit of antichrist: 1Jn 2:22 “Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.” “1Jn 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.” 2Jn 1:7 “For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.” The public schools by nature of being government run deny Jesus Christ. That means they are schools of the antichrist. It doesn’t matter who the teacher is, it is against the law for a teacher to instruct as the core of their curriculum that Jesus Christ is the true and living God unto whom every knee must bow and every tongue confess to the glory of God the Father. That is the end of education and that is illegal.

    However, taking the scalpel approach instead of the shotgun or sledgehammer, let me divide the joints and the marrow. The life blood of public education as it currently stands is a mixture of two things: the belief that government is permitted to be involved in education and the belief that education is aspiritual. I.e. you can acceptably teach math or any other subject in the PS curriculum in the absence of the Christian God and that is within the realms of Christian liberty to have your children taught in said manner.

    Dealing with the first part, I would call for the shutdown of PS even if they were the most orthodox Christian education centers in the world. Rom. 13 lays out the purpose of government, but 1 Pe 2:14 is more concise: “Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.” Government has two purposes, the praise of the righteous and the punishment of evildoers. Education is jurisdictionally forbidden to the government. God commands individuals to disciple one another, the family to educate children, the church to preach the whole counsel of God, and the state to praise that which is good, and punish the evil. The education of children is beyond the jurisdictional reach of the state and a violation of God’s law on the most fundamental level. The current state of the school system simply adds insult to injury. (And as I said before, the public school system is socialist – take from the all to educate the few. Thou shalt not steal applies here.)

    The second aspect of the life blood of the school system deals with the issue of Christian teachers in the public school system. Many Christians think that these teachers make PS acceptable choices for parents, even though the subjects taught are still taught with the absence of God. The idea is, the subject is just a set of facts and can therefore be taught without God as the point and the Christian teacher makes everything sound nice. That thinking, however, plays right into the philosophies of the world. Col 2:8, “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.” There are two things we should look at immediately in the attempt to answer the question of whether or not a subject in education can be biblically taught in an aspiritual way: The first is the place of Christ; the second is the purpose of education. It will quickly be seen that the spiritual state of the teacher becomes completely irrelevant. The spiritual state of the education seals the PS’ fate.

    1. The place of Christ: Rom 11:36 “For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen.” Col 1:16-18, “For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.” Jesus has been given all power in heaven and in earth, he has been given a name which is above every name, all things exist by and for him, and he has been given the preeminence in everything – no exceptions. That means math exists by and for Christ and He is to be preeminent in our study of math. Math should promote the worship of Christ in His glory. The same goes English, reading, writing, or any other subject: Christ is to have the preeminence. All things are to be studied for His glory and manifest for the praise of His majesty. To declare otherwise is to say that something other than Christ may have the preeminence, that there exists something that is not about His glory, that there is operating in this world something that exists independent of the power of Christ. This is the doctrine of the antichrist. There is, then, no such thing as an aspiritual subject. The presentation of the subject is either for Christ or against Him. Education has no middle ground.

    2.The most fundamental purpose of education is to promote the worship and glory of God through the raising up of children in the fear and admonition of the Lord. All education is therefore inherently religious and will either teach the fear of the true God or it will reject Him for a false god. A Christian, being commanded to raise children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord and who has been told that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom and the knowledge of the holy is understanding, cannot use atheistic education for his children. No matter the school system, teaching Christianity in the PS is against the law. I am friends with a former PS math teacher man here who was fired from his school in Nebraska because he brought religion into the class room. In a system that rejects God, no subject can give Christ glory and the end of the education is the exaltation of man or nature. Anything we give our children other than a God-centered education is saying that the subject is superior to God Himself and that the physical world exists and can be understood in a spiritual vacuum. That is practical atheism. It is a declaration that God is unnecessary. The Bible says it is the fool who says in his heart that there is no God. The Bible also says of the wicked man “God is not in all his thoughts.” Psalm 10:4 We fall on the bad side of that equation when we leave the knowledge of God and the fear of the Lord out of any subject.

    I hope that explains my thinking a little more and shows why public education is anathema to a Christian worldview. In the end, the principle here is directly related to family integration. The Scriptures are sufficient to govern our lives and to show us the way our Lord would have us live. While we may have to look hard to prove what is acceptable unto the Lord (Eph. 5:10), the Scriptures have the answer.

    In Christ,
    Ryan

    Reply
78. Darrell Todd Maurina says:

    May 6, 2011 at 3:06 PM

    Ryan, one part of what you’ve articulated is essentially the standard Christian Reformed position I saw for many years growing up in Grand Rapids that public schools are unsuited for Christian children because teachers are by law barred from giving glory to God and it is impossible to have neutrality in education. Calvin professor D.H. Kromminga wrote a book which used terms as strong as yours — incuding antichrist — to describe the public schools of the 1930s and 1940s.

    Although I think your view will be perceived by many if not most Reformed Christians as extreme, I think we need to deal with the reality that even back when public schools were far better than they are today, the leaders of what was then by far the largest group of Reformed churches promoting Christian education were using terms just as strong as yours.

    And if push comes to shove, Ryan, while I would never use words such as yours because I believe they needlessly offend Bible-believing people who should be allies, you aren’t going to hear me disagreeing with your point.

    However, the second part of what you say rests on theonomic presuppositions regarding Scriptural limits on the role of civil government. You are on far less solid ground here and most modern Reformed people will disagree with you, some very strongly so.

    I don’t disagree with you that Scripture indicates that God has established separate administrative authorities for his rule in the church, the family and the civil government. However, to say that you “would call for the shutdown of PS even if they were the most orthodox Christian education centers in the world” is to say something contrary to the practice of virtually the entire history of the Christian church. Christian civil rulers have used the government to sponsor Christian education more or less consistently after Roman persecution ended and the civil magistrates became supporters rather than enemies of Christianity, and that continued until the 1800s and to some extent even the 1900s. It’s easy to attack late Roman or medieval practices as corrupted, but how are we to account for the fact that the Reformation was accompanied by a great expansion of schools for the average laity, most though not all of it sponsored by civil governments?

    Perhaps in an ideal world with an ideal Christian-run civil government we would have only parent-controlled Christian schools with no state involvement in education, but that’s so far from realitic under present circumstances — and virtually unprecedented in Christian history — that I don’t think it’s helpful to level fiery attacks at public education when those attacks would condemn the educational practices of Calvin, Knox, the English Puritans, and the Dutch Reformed in the days of Dordt.

    As Protestants we have every right to say those men were wrong and had confused the sphere of the state with the sphere of the family, and they should have done things better. I concur that government-run Christian schools are not realistic under present conditions and I’m quite prepared to believe they are a bad idea from a biblical perpective. However, we need to know our own Reformed history if we’re going to level attacks of the type I’m seeing here.

    The bottom line, Ryan, is this: Please consider toning down your language several decibels. You’re offending people who should be supporting you by using inflammatory language when you could make the same or similar points more effectively with less extreme rhetoric.

    Reply
79. Shawn Mathis says:

    May 6, 2011 at 8:21 PM

    Ryan,

    You wrote: “So, in answer to your question, overall, the description was accurate and I greatly appreciate all the references. Some have slammed us and not even attempted to prove that it was so.”

    Thank you.

    My mentor drilled into my head: be able to know your opponent’s system so well that what you write about it they will recognize.

    Reply
80. Ryan Glick says:

    May 7, 2011 at 9:08 PM

    Shawn: Back on the whole comprehensive issue, officially, the NCFIC maintains from the overall pattern of Scripture, and the commands for discipleship, etc, that we should default to integrated, though there may be times that segregation could be appropriate outside the meeting of the church. Currently the church defaults to segregated, and every once in a while integrates. That is not what we see the Scriptures presenting. I actually have a much more extensive personal position on this issue. However, it is quite complex, and though it has been well received by those to whom I have explained it, I have not worked out the whole thing to its logical end in every area. I hope soon though to have a written explanation from the Scriptures explaining what I as an individual believe concerning age segregation outside of the meetings of the church. Sorry about the delay.

    Darrell: In all respect for you, I understand your request, but I do not see how I can change my stated analysis of the public schools. To what shall I lower my description? How shall I make it more palatable? If these were Muslim schools, teaching the doctrines of Allah and studying the Koran, should not the entire church be up in arms if Christians sent their children there to be taught? And shall we view it any less serious that the schools are temples of a genuine religion founded in those doctrines perpetrated by the great enemy of our Lord? I am crying to the church, get your kids out of the Public Schools! Shall I call evil good, darkness light, and bitterness sweet? Shall I cry peace, peace when there is no peace? I have great love for my brethren who differ from me on this point, but I cannot help but fall back to an event which took place March 23, 1775 at St. John’s Church in Richmond, Va. Just this past year I was there to remember a well known speech delivered by a strong Christian: Patrick Henry. “Delegate Patrick Henry presented resolutions to raise a militia, and to put Virginia in a posture of defense. Henry’s opponents urged caution and patience..” Let me change his words a little: “No man thinks more highly than I do of the desire for the spread of the gospel, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have called for children in every school in America to be a witness for Jesus Christ (Franklin Graham). But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do, opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely, and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The question before the Church is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of life or death for our children; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our families. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of hatred toward my fellow brothers in Christ, and of an act of disloyalty toward the majesty of heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.

    “My dear friends, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for discipleship of our children and the salvation of those around us? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their eternal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to declare it.

    “I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided; and that is Word of God. And judging the future by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of these child missionaries which we have these many years cast into the belly of the beast, to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves, and the church?”

    I shall leave off, but as you can see, the words of Patrick Henry were offensive. The truth, as sad as it may be, sometimes offends people. Paul asked, ” Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?” Gal 4:16. I did not come up with the terms I used to describe the schools; I simply sought to say the same things the Word of God says. If men find that offensive, then it must so be, though I wish it was not so. I don’t want to butter up my description of the Public Schools to make it more appealing. If that is offensive to those who think that liberty is just total educational freedom, I can’t help that. I will not call evil good, or even semi-good. I will not call darkness light, or semi-grey. I will not make bitter sweet, or even palpable. I wish this wasn’t even an issue. I wish the church could move on to other things, but Christians do not realize what God says about education, or what they are doing when they send their children to a public school. I think of Lot, a righteous man, who lost his entire family except two daughters because he immersed them into the culture of Sodom. And even the daughters were lost spiritually, as was seen after the Lord pulled them out of the city. He let his children learn the ways of the heathen, and he lost everything.

    Men may cry liberty, but liberty does not apply to moral issues. We are not free to do as we please and violate the law of God. God put it to the children of Israel this way: Jer 7:8 “Behold, ye trust in lying words, that cannot profit. Will ye steal, murder, and commit adultery, and swear falsely, and burn incense unto Baal, and walk after other gods whom ye know not; And come and stand before me in this house, which is called by my name, and say, We are delivered to do all these abominations? Is this house, which is called by my name, become a den of robbers in your eyes? Behold, even I have seen it, saith the LORD.” The people of Israel claimed liberty and used that to justify all manner of wickedness. God used strong language to point out this sin. It was offensive language. I am willing to cause offense (though I do not seek to), I am willing to not be licked, I am willing to be publicly condemned, if by it there are parents awakened to the evil that is the Public School system.

    In reference to your second point about my view of government jurisdiction being on shaky ground, I am willing to go contrary to all these men if they leave the mooring of the word on any subject. I will leave Calvin and Knox, and any other who demands the baptism (sprinkling) of infants. I will leave all those in the reformation who propagated a state church that dictated what local churches could or couldn’t due. All the historical arguments do is give us cause to rethink our interpretation or to strengthen the point, but they are non-authoritative. The Scripture alone must inform us of how to live and education of children is not within the biblical jurisdiction of the state.

    I will end with the words in Hos 13:4, 9, “Yet I am the LORD thy God from the land of Egypt, and thou shalt know no god but me: for there is no saviour beside me…O Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself; but in me is thine help.” Thou shalt know no other god. When we send our children into the public School, we are teaching them to worship another god and it will be true that we destroy ourselves.

    Reply
81. Shawn Mathis says:

    May 7, 2011 at 10:03 PM

    Ryan, Fred, et.al.,

    The powers-that-be have informed me that my rejoinder to various issues brought in the comment section will be published some time next week.

    Also, I hope to write a positive presentation of how historic Reformed nurture was practiced.

    I suggest we pick up the comments from here to that article.

    thank you,

    Reply
82. Ryan Glick says:

    May 8, 2011 at 4:12 PM

    Thanks Shawn

    Reply
83. Darrell Todd Maurina says:

    May 9, 2011 at 8:33 PM

    Ryan wrote on May 7, 2011 at 9:08 PM: “In reference to your second point about my view of government jurisdiction being on shaky ground, I am willing to go contrary to all these men if they leave the mooring of the word on any subject. I will leave Calvin and Knox, and any other who demands the baptism (sprinkling) of infants. I will leave all those in the reformation who propagated a state church that dictated what local churches could or couldn’t due. All the historical arguments do is give us cause to rethink our interpretation or to strengthen the point, but they are non-authoritative. The Scripture alone must inform us of how to live and education of children is not within the biblical jurisdiction of the state.”

    Ryan, I have a two decades long history fighting liberalism and damnable heresy in the church. Those who know my background will not consider me to be someone who says “peace, peace,” where there is no peace. However, I am painfully aware of the tendency of many conservatives to use sledgehammers rather than scalpels, and to use scattershot rather than rifles, thereby doing tremendous collateral damage as well as alienating friends.

    It is not enough to yell “charge!” at the top of your lungs. Such bravery can be commended, but if the charge is led in the wrong direction, or if the leader doesn’t take into account opposing arguments and choose the target carefully, great damage will result and ridicule may be the reward rather than victory.

    Part of what Shawn Mathis was trying to say right from the beginning is that churches are signing onto the “Family Integrated Church” movement without understanding its premises and presuppositions. This discussion has been quite helpful to me in understanding the thoughts of the Family Integrated Church movement, and I must say that I am seriously concerned — and that’s coming from someone who is STRONGLY in favor of children in worship, and of covenant nurture of children, and of the role of the elders in teaching fathers how to teach their children. I’ve seen great damage done to churches by having the children taught forms of entertainment-centered worship and a watered-down theology, often led and taught by women, that is at radical variance from what is taught in the “adult church.”

    If all the “Family Integrated Church” movement were doing was to teach the importance of not dividing the family in church, we’d be in full agreement. Your movement, however, appears to go far beyond that point and buys into a series of presuppositions defended with extreme language which many people who should support you will find either imprudent or unwise, even if they agree.

    Ryan, I was familiar with your Particular Baptist quote on Sunday Schools long before this discussion. I am beginning to believe that perhaps you are being consistent in the outworking of your historic Baptist positions. After all, if you do not believe that states have any right to establish a church (the mainstream Puritan position) or even to recognize a church (the Covenanter position), then your attack on any state support for schools, no matter how Christian they may be, is consistent and makes sense.

    I have tremendous respect for Reformed Baptists. Note that I am granting you the adjective “Reformed,” which some of my “TR” brethren will not — I think it is unwise at best to deny that description to such men as Bunyan and Spurgeon, and I’m speaking here as a person who helped my wife translate Spurgeon’s “Morning and Evening” devotional into Korean.

    However, there are fundamental differences which go back all the way to Puritan days between the English Particular Baptist movement and all the rest of Puritanism. All other Puritans, whether Anglican (think Archbishop Ussher), Presbyterian or Congregational, believed in the right and responsibility of the state to in some way provide support and encouragement the churches. The English Baptists, however, shared with the continental Anabaptist a profound sense that the state was something inherently problematic. Obviously the English Baptists did not go so far as the Anabaptists in declaring it sinful to be a civil magistrate, but the roots of the trees are too close for comfort even if they are not the same root.

    Baptists in America are not sectarian. Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, for all their failings, act much more like classic Presbyterians in their view of church-state relations than like their Baptist forebears. However, Baptists in England and America were historically sectarian to a great extent until simple mathematics made Baptists the dominant evangelical church group in most of the South.

    Ryan, I will never blame a person for being true to his confessions and his history. You have Baptist history on your side. It is not, however, a history that is shared by the rest of the Reformed church world, and I think perhaps we need to candidly acknowlege that brothers can and will disagree on these issues.

    That then raises the question of how closely non-Baptists should be aligned with the “Family Integrated Church” movement. I don’t have an answer, but I do have concerns.

    Reply
84. Ryan Glick says:

    May 10, 2011 at 9:40 AM

    Darrell,

    I try to keep this short since the discussion should be moved, but I felt I should say a little in reference to your last post (my apologies to the powers that be who would like this discussion moved). As I mentioned at the beginning, all that I have written about the public school system is my own personal position and I do not seek to represent anyone else in the matter. I do thank thank you for your desire to see the truth propagated in a way that does not drive people away. I do not want to ever take a sledge hammer to Christians, to my brothers in Christ. I cannot say that the same is true for the public school system. I love my brothers in Christ. They are not my enemy. But Paul loved the church and he had to say things that were hard. Some in the church disliked him greatly for the stands which he took. Consider how he said that if any be circumcised they were fallen from grace and Christ had become of no effect to them. Now that is offensive language. All that said, I am a sinner, and I confess that I do allow at times my passion against a thing become primary. To the extent I have not spoken with edification and provoking to good works, I apologize. I want to provoke parents to raise their children to be worshipers of Jesus Christ. I want my speech to honor my king. I do not mind, though, being ridiculed for condemning the public schools.

    I do not say charge indiscriminately. I have my sites fixed on a clear objective. My charge is directly hemmed in by biblical principles. Fathers are commanded to be the primary disciplers of their children in both the Old and New Testaments. The state is not given this command. Jesus is to have preeminence in education and the purpose of education is to train up a godly people for His glory. This places both barrels on the public school system, leaving no room for compromise. Christians have to get back to the Bible as the basis for their daily life, in everything proving what is acceptable to the Lord. Jesus is our life, can we do any less? We do not fight against flesh and blood, but every high thing which exalteth itself against the knowledge of God: “For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh: (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;) Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ.”

    On the issue of government involvement in the church, I merely want government to take its rightful place. I am in full support of religious tests for government officials. The Scripture commands us to choose able men, such as fear God, men of truth, who hate covetousness to be our rulers. David said that he who rules over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God. The Scripture also commands that we only place a brother over us, and not a foreigner. I believe that applies to spiritual as well as physical. I think that Christ should have the preeminence in the church, the state, the family, the individual. Every sphere of government was created of, for, and by Christ and is subservient to Him and duty bound to glorify Him alone. Because of this, there are jurisdictions. The church holds the keys of the kingdom, not the state. The state does have a responsibility in certain aspects of religion, but it does not have the authority to establish a state church or to dictate to churches how they should operate before God. The state should however be explicitly Christian (kiss the Son lest He be angry) and a terror to that which is evil. My appeal here is simply to the jurisdictions found within the pages of Scripture as they are the only rule for faith and practice for every sphere of government.

    On the issue of extreme language, is extreme language wrong? God says that every spirit which denies Him is the spirit of antichrist. Jesus said, “He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.” Mat 12:30 Our Lord is an extreme God. He says that we must give all or nothing. Lukewarmness doesn’t suffice. We are to be a merciful people. We come along side and assist, we encourage and provoke to good works, but the public schools are the enemy of Christ. They teach that God is a liar. How can men who love Christ place their children in such a context for discipleship and education? I understand the sincerity of men like Franklin Graham who want to see children be witness for Christ in these contexts, I admire their passion for the gospel, but sincerity and passion cannot excuse the fact that God told us how to educate children and it is to be in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, not in the ways of the heathen.

    In reference to history, brother, I am a Baptist. I will always be a Baptist. But I am a Christian first. I am bound as a bondservent to Jesus Christ, to seek His glory in all things, to desire nothing but that which fulfills His Word. Because that is true, I will fellowship with all true believers in the Lord, Baptist or not. I may not be able to attend your church, but at the end of the day, a Christian is a Christian and we are all one in Christ. The family-integrated church movement is not just a Baptist movement and not just Baptists are calling their children out of the schools. Douglas Wilson, a Presbyterian (I believe anyway) who I in no wise endorse on every point, also is calling parents to get their kids out for many of the same reasons, both spiritually and jurisdictionally, that I do. http://www.reformed.org/webfiles/antithesis/index.html?mainframe=/webfiles/antithesis/v2n1/ant_v2n1_issue1.html I do not make my stand because I am Baptist, but because I am Christian and therefore all Christians, no matter the theological background, can call Christians to come out of the public schools on the basis of the commands of Christ.

    Well, I should cut off here. Let us love the Lord Jesus with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength and do with joy all things whatsoever he has commanded us for the glory of the King of kings and Lord of lords. The Lord’s blessings to you,
    Ryan Glick

    Reply
85. Shawn Mathis says:

    May 10, 2011 at 11:12 AM

    Ryan, et.al.,

    The rejoinder is up.

    http://www.weswhite.net/2011/05/rejoinder-family-integrated-churc/

    Naturally I did not cover every concern. Some of those may be addressed in the comment section.

    Reply
86. Uniting Church and Family « Johannes Weslianus says:

    June 17, 2011 at 7:25 AM

    [...] about the current movement to unite church and family here and here. A review of a new book about this unity [...]

    Reply
87. Shawn Mathis says:

    June 17, 2011 at 9:00 PM

    Ryan, et.al.,

    My view of uniting church and family is up:
    http://www.weswhite.net/2011/06/uniting-church-and-family/

    I think there will much to agree upon

    Reply
88. Divided: A Review – MisterRichardson.com says:

    July 22, 2011 at 7:17 PM

    [...] video. Super-blogger Tim Challies wrote so negatively about it that I thought he had been hacked. Others have been just as [...]

    Reply
89. Catechizing Children says:

    July 23, 2011 at 4:33 PM

    [...] of this movement. [To fully understand the NCFIC and her leaders please read my article, What is a Family Integrated Church? (According to a current church member of Mr. Brown's church and one-time intern for Mr. Brown and [...]

    Reply
90. Matt Viney says:

    July 28, 2011 at 6:06 AM

    I agree with much of what “9th dude” said – most of the way up the list of comments.

    At our church the children share in half of the worship time with the rest of their church family and then proceed to age-specific gospel-focussed learning. They enjoy it, understand it, and benefit greatly from it.

    The main sphere for teaching our children is in the home – in times of family prayer, devotions, etc. If they don’t get it (and see it practiced) at home, what they learn at church won’t stick.

    Reply
91. FIC Elder talks with Reformed Pastor says:

    November 10, 2011 at 8:58 PM

    [...] an explicit solution. If it did, Adventists could not sign it along side Calvinists. Calling it a revival (like Mr. Phillips and others do) changes nothing. Are youth-oriented, programmatic [...]

    Reply
92. A short summary of the family-integrated church | Wide White says:

    November 11, 2011 at 5:51 AM

    [...] National Center for Family-Integrated Churches (NCFIC). As Christie noted, this organization was reportedly part of Vision Forum until 2009 and their homepage features a post showing Vision Forum president Doug Phillips speaking [...]

    Reply
93. Jon Greco says:

    December 21, 2011 at 3:21 AM

    Good discussion. Upon surveying the multitude of material offered by Vision Forum, I caught a scent of the spirit of error. Immediately, I saught any verse by verse bible teaching and specific doctrinal stances. I was concerned with the EMPHASIS and front burner treatment given to the family IMAGE. While holding some biblical ground of truth, I agree with one of the poster above that the movement is not gospel centered.

    But why? Well, that is the natural end of covenent theology (where all your family members are sovereignly save if you are). The family has to be the vehicle to instil a cultural agenda. I did not write that to start a theological debate, but the end goal explains the VF approach. The natural conclusion of a more literal belief in scripture (again this is just common sense not a theological debate, believe what you want) will look toward Christ to establish the kingdom, not the Church through social and political change. Again, the root cause is what one believes. I’m sure we have a mixed crowd on the blog so we will leave it at that.

    But I can come up with 500x more verses in the old and new testament to show our EMPHASIS should be reaching the lost with the gospel, waiting for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our Lord and Saviour (VF is not looking for him, they are looking to bring the kingdom in theirselves), and not making IDOLS out of our families. The fashions of this world passeth away.

    Reply
94. John says:

    January 10, 2012 at 2:27 PM

    You could add that in Titus 2 the Apostle Paul instructs his disciple Titus on how to deal with four age and sex segregated groups: old men, old women, young women, and young men. Not once does he say to deal with them as family units, only through the heads of their families.

    Reply
95. Shawn Mathis says:

    January 11, 2012 at 10:37 AM

    John, yup! I make a similar observation in my Uniting Church and Family article on this site. Acts 16 also shows women and children taught by the riverside without their husbands.

    Reply
96. Shawn says:

    January 21, 2012 at 9:52 PM

    Jon: you wrote: “Well, that is the natural end of covenent theology”…

    And yet this movement and the bulk of its adherents are Baptists…

    Reply