This comment sorta concerns me. Only because I'm single and 37. Does this mean that my church is probably uncomfortable with me?
I don't understand...

Some people just don't meet the right people... I've wanted to get married for a long time, I just haven't met the right person.

__________________
Alex - Orange County, CA - PCA

"I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but
Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by
faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me."
Galatians 2:20

Manton - "The sovereign dominion of God is a great prop to our faith."

But I respectfully think you are missing the point. So books on Paedobaptism should include all aspects of worship and not leave any area of worship out? That does not make sense.

I don't understand your point about it being uneven unless you still think that the FIC folks put that distinctive above preaching the scriptures which we do not do.

Yes, if you want to use a microwave, you read a manual about a microwave but that manual will not tell you how to make the whole meal. I would need to read and understand a component and then incorporate that component (if I agree with it) into the whole meal planning.

__________________
Serving Christ in Tennessee.
Judson
Elder - Reformed Baptist
Hixson, TN

www.christschurchofchattanooga.com

I don't know if it's uncomfortable as in "I judge you!" but more like "I just don't see how we can relate with each other." That's what one younger married woman said to me. Although, I don't see much merit in that statement as all of my friends are married and my closest friends are married and even grandmothers. We have a lot in common, except for the fact that I am not married. There are no single men in my church that are my age and interested in me. I think a major reason why I'm not married is because God has not brought a single man into our church to pursue me. You can't marry someone who is not there...

__________________
Patricia
Communicant Member
Westminster Presbyterian Church, PCA
College Station, TX

Give yourself to prayer, to reading and meditation on divine truths: strive to penetrate to the bottom of them and never be content with a superficial knowledge.
David Brainerd

And here is the problem. As I noted in an earlier post. You can't teach on the same level for everyone. I agree that corporate worship is just that. But there should be no problems with segregated groups in the church.

__________________

Norseman Moderator

R. Martin Snyder
1689er
http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/puritancovenanter/

"Our object should not be to have scripture on our side but to be on the side of scripture; and however dear any sentiment may have become by being long entertained, so soon as it is seen to be contrary to the Bible, we must be prepared to abandon it without hesitation."
William Symington

Click to get:Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

Here is the best part. What goes hand in hand with FIC is the fact that parents are teaching doctrine at home. For us, the usual Sunday table at lunch consists going over with our children what we learned today and helping them pick up on what was taught. This is where we break it down for them. You have no idea how profitable that is unless you do it. Kids pick up so much that we do not give them credit for being able to do.

Also, it is great for our kids to see how we should worship and I am not talking about the FIC stuff. I mean that we pray, sing, and worship God for his grace and majesty. It is better for them to see it than to just tell them about it.

I do understand. I have raised three boys who are young men now. I included them in worship after they grew old enough to watch and gain profitably from it. I also believe that varies from child to child. I also believe that there are times when they do benefit better from an age appropriate Sunday School class outside of the congregational worship. It helps back up what Mommy and Daddy are saying. It also brings new things to the table that I might have missed.

I agree. We have kids in our church that know more Scripture than many adults that I have met.

__________________
John Lanier
Elder in Training
Reformed Baptist Church
Topeka, KS

Just to clarify, my you was a you in general and not pointed to anyone. I am sorry if it did not come across that way.

Here are some good blogs on this issue.

My Introduction to the Family-Integrated Church Movement Reformed Baptist Fellowship

What is the Family-Integrated Church Movement? – Part 1 Reformed Baptist Fellowship

The Family-Integrated Church Movement ? Part 2 Reformed Baptist Fellowship

The Family-Integrated Church Movement ? Part 3 Reformed Baptist Fellowship

The Family-Integrated Church Movement ? Part 4 Reformed Baptist Fellowship

I really appreciated pt. 4 when it compares the Historical Baptist / Puritan's teaching to modern day FICM.

Seems like we lost the OP topic in a way, FIC and singles.

Please see the other thread with some of the the issues with these articles and the blurring of the lines by the blog.

Just as reiteration I actually heard (with my own ears) an Elder of a church (which I leave unnamed) that he didn't want to minister to single people (he even said he didn't want to have anything to do with them) only to married people. What is one suppose to think when they hear one of their shepherds say that they don't want to have anything to do with you?

__________________
Chris Bryant
Attending Redeemer Presbyterian Church (PCA), McKinney, TX
Member of Christ Presbyterian Church (PCA), Tulsa, OK
M.A.R., WTS/Redeemer Seminary, Dallas, TX (in progress)

Well, I agree. There might be a blurring of the lines. We just might disagree where the blurring comes from. Maybe from both sides. Maybe from one who wants to make historical revisions. The stones were thrown from one camp, so to speak. It was done to help repair in my estimation.

I have been a defender of Doug Phillips on this board. I would not allow him to be slandered as he was being slandered years ago. But that doesn't put some of his stances nor the stances and declarations of the FICM out of reach from criticism. Divisive was a term being used in the other thread, I can equate that with the Word Faith movements declarations when they were being criticized.

As I said...pt 4 of the blog is very good.

Set (and enforce) a deadline. Some guys just need a little nudge. The older the guy, the stronger the nudge. (Assuming, of course, that he is a suitable prospect.)

__________________
Edward
Deacon
PCA
Texas

And I agree with you that no one should be out of reach for criticism. My issue in the other thread was that the blurring of the lines from the RBF blog makes it more difficult to sort though what is correct and what is not due to painting with too broad a brush.

Where can I find one of those churches with all the single women? There aren't any single women around here.

But seriously, it sounds like this is just another movement du jour that will fade away in a few years.

__________________
Tim Vaughan
Member, Redeemer Presbyterian, OPC,
Santa Maria
California

Hey Patricia,

In the other thread, you had said

I wanted to start with a short description of what I had said earlier and ask you your thoughts on it and what specific questions you had.

Thanks for addressing this. Sunday schools are just one aspect of how a church functions, though. Do you see singles in your church being encouraged to lead/participate in church activities/services? If a single is in need, such as being sick or injured, do you see the church rallying to help them? One of the shortcomings I've seen of singles being thought of as a "family of one" or as a half-block or non-block/absorbed block in the "family of families" blocks of the church is that singles tend to be passed over in times of help or service. It's as if they are sub-members when they could actually be a great resource for the church.

I agree with you and that is a big misunderstanding about FIC - That the only issue is where they sit for Sunday School or Childrens Church. We make sure that we integrate everyone.

Yes, we do encourage our singles to take active roles in the service. We have singles playing all of our instruments, running the soundboard for recording of the service, leading social projects, etc. In the near future, one of our singles will be doing some teaching as needed.

We take care of our congregation. Yes, we take care of our sick or injured no matter the marital status. Without going into too much detail, we have also helped the unemployed and marital status was not the criteria.

I know that when I was single, I did feel as you do and I was not in a FIC type church. It is a shame that people put whole groups in the sub-member class. I also was in another branch of sub-member when folks "found out" that we home schooled.

I've attended quite a number of churches, and not only have I seen this in practice, I'm not sure I've ever attended a church where this wasn't the practice, to at least some small degree.

Some singles stay single for selfish reasons. Most people who marry have at least some selfishness in their reasons for marrying. It is frequently hinted to singles that they might be unwise to stay single, yet very rarely to those contemplating marriage that they might be unwise to marry (and if it is, it is invariably some version of telling one partner that they are too good for their prospective spouse and really could do better, which creates all kinds of problems of its own.)

Questions:

Why do you see it as appropriate to separate people by gender, but not by age or marital status?

Are singles fully included and treated as equals, or are they simply allowed to attend, or somewhere in between?

Does having everything open to those of all ages and both married and single mean that, in practice, most or all events are most suited to those who are married and have children (and have their children with them) and singles are expected to fit in around them?

__________________
T W Hopper
Member, Presbyterian Reformed Church
Currently between churches since PRC closed here - attending Crossroads Christian Church.
Canberra, Australia.

Judson for a minute there I thought your were one of my fellow elders who happens to work for NASA. Heh.

I'm glad to see so much discussion on this FIC topic, but wow, am I so very saddened to see so many cases brought forth as examples that are just plain bad practice and Biblically ungrounded. Where did the idea come from that not ministering to singles is a hallmark of the FIC churches? Is that a charge from a substantive investigation?

Our church (which is a also a FIC church), like nasa30's, also has many singles, we love them and could not function without them. Like his church, our single men and women attend our men and women's studies, our music leader is single as well. I'm not trying to appeal to a particular case and make that false argument that because we do it, its normative, but I'm really stunned that there would be churches who are not age segregated would NOT minister to singles. That seems to me to be more of a problem with doctrine than the issue of family integration.

And for full disclosure, we have used the term "family of families" on our church's website, we use it in the same sense that Scott Brown has been defending on the NCFIC blog - we have not intended it to be a re-definition of the nature of the church, but we have used it as a description of how our local body relates in its love for one another. Its really like a big family who love one another, serve one another, bear one another's burders, etc. I believe this phrase was most popular in the formative years of the movement and was used to describe just that sort of familial-like community as compared against the very common mega-church where one can become lost and be isolated in the crowd. I admit, I am being persuaded that it may be time to retire that phrase from our church website as it has become somewhat of a stumbling block, for I am fairly sure no one in the FIC movement foresaw our brothers equating the phrase to a definition of the nature of the church.

__________________
Scott M. Head
Husband and father
Elder at Grace Family Church (1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith)
Friendswood/Houston, TX
These are the Generations of...

This has been an interesting conversation thus far.

I am not terribly well informed on this matter, though I did just recently read a critique of FIC, and also am familiar with some of its proponents as well.

As somewhat of an ignoramus on this, I don't want to say too much. But I can see good points within FIC and also within the ideas of its critics.

I think some of the potential problems with some versions of FIC might have more to do with the problem of imbalance rather than downright "bad ideas" persay.

As for headship, it seems to me to be a fully biblical concept, valid in our area, and no-doubt important! But maybe a wooden, abstract overly rigid conception of it could cause problems. It is genuinely difficult to apply nowdays. Part of it probably has to do with the fact that headship is more out of sync with the mainstream societal values nowadays than it was in other times and other places. Back in the day even most pagan societies had some sort of strong conception of headship or something related to it!

This certainly doesn't mean we ignore headship, but rather we probably need to think a bit more about how it works in practice. We have less intact families nowdays.... That doesn't mean discarding headship, it may even mean we need it all the more! But it probably means carrying it out will be trickier and more nuanced than it was in the past.

Here's something to ponder..I'm a single guy, and I live with my mom (I am capable of living on my own, but I've chosen to live with her). Am I the head of a house? :-)

Just a few thoughts..

__________________
--
Mark J. N. -- Resides in LaSalle, Ontario
(blog: http://allthingsexpounded.com/)
A Reformed Baptist Church in Essex, Ontaro

"Soon he was lost in his labour and oblivious to everything but the problem of how to find a word of one syllable that meant Supralapsarianism." - Wodehouse in Mulliner Nights

I am very glad that you asked that question because I did leave it out there without a better explanation. The division of men and women is only on our Wednesday night gathering and not on the Lords day.

We do the division on Wed for a more focused teaching to help them where they are. Example- For married men, We expect the men to be leading in family worship at home and to some that is a new concept. We use Wed night to equip the saints and answer their questions on how to do it. For Singles, we expect them to disciple others and be able to defend the faith. We use that time to answer their questions about doctrine and the like.

Yes, singles are fully included. We make no distinctions about marital status. We just get different questions from them because of where they are in life.

We are not a program church. We meet on Sunday and on Wednesday. Sunday is a teaching and worship service were we all sit together and Wed is like I described above. No one is left out and no status is raised above another. We have a fellowship meal the first Sunday of the month and we all eat together. Again, no special treatment on marital status. When we have helped out in the community, it's " we are meeting at such and such time to help put a roof on this person in needs house" Whoever can make it, shows up with hammer in hand.

Also one more point to clarify. If you came and sat with us day in and day out, you would not hear us say, "family integrated". It is what we do, not what we preach. We preach Christ and Him crucified, not family integration. That is just our structure.

I hope my question won't seem disrespectful, as I don't mean it so: to an onlooker this seems a bit arbitrary, from what I have understood of the other positions involved. Could you explain a little more why it would be biblically justifiable to break up the family unit, for formal instruction in the church, into men and women on any day of the week (whereas if I understand correctly you would not sponsor a singles Bible study even on Thursdays), but not into children and adults etc?

__________________
Heidi
Indianapolis, Indiana

Patience must dwell with Love, for Love and Sorrow
Have pitched their tent together here:
Love all alone will build a house tomorrow,
And sorrow not be near. -Christina Rossetti

No, I don't take it as a bad question at all. We are given different roles in scripture and those differences are usually based on gender not age. Men and women are different and have different duties but no where do we see that this teens should do this and High Schoolers should do this or that. We do see the older women teaching the younger but it is within a gender first.

You never see books on the Titus 2 Man or the Proverbs 31 husband.

But surely we do have instruction for other biblical 'roles': children are to obey, fathers are not to provoke them: Paul makes a difference between the role of the single and the married in his treatment of those states. I am unable to see the rationale for dividing the family up along gender lines, but along no others, as not being somewhat arbitrary because of that (and I have also always thought the older women are instructed to teach the younger in informal settings, rather than necessarily as an official ministry of the church -- I'm not opposed to ladies' meetings, it's just that when one's view seems to require a sanction for a group meeting instead of the family, I'm not sure that an informal sanction is enough)?

Again, I mean no disrespect: I speak as a housewife, and will not argue my point :-). Thank you sincerely for your kind response.

No disrespect taken I assure you.

Yes, we do have/need instruction in the other biblical roles and those really fall under Christian living. That is our day to day and that is taught each Lords day or whenever questions are asked. I see the distinction being that the teaching for single and married is not different. The duties as Christian are the same for either and that goes for gender as well. But gender does have some uniqueness than can be better addressed by meeting together.

I'm so sorry, I've tried to keep my hands from plinking themselves down on the keys in keeping with my last post (though, in keeping with my last post, I won't argue that particular point further :-) but having reread this a few times, I think it would be useful to the discussion to point out that perhaps this statement demonstrates why a single person might feel uncomfortable in the movement.

Surely the day to day duties of a single woman are not essentially the same as those of the married, minus the small detail of a husband to obey and please in all things? Paul says that the single person is free to please the Lord, whereas the married must care about the things of the world -- how to please their spouse -- if this is a minor irrelevance, not constituting 'some uniqueness' between married and single roles (as you acknowledge there to be between male and female), then Paul's argument preferring his single state would go out the window? I don't mean to imply that single people must then necessarily meet in their own groups on Wed. night etc; but that perhaps the approach stated above may be why single people have expressed that the movement makes them feel expected to conform to the pattern of the married -- and somewhat marginalised? Perhaps it was a misunderstanding on my part, in which case hopefully at least this will serve for clarification?

Thanks for your patience.

Trust me, there is so much confusion over this and FIC in general that explanations are needed.

For the sake of clarity, the bolded section about was in reference to being a Christian day to day and that teaching is not different. We are to be obedient to God and his commands, to spread the gospel, the stand up for the cause of Christ and that is what I am talking about that you reference above.

In previous posts I said:
Yes, the single folks do have different questions than married and we address those as well. We just do it together as a church body.

I also want to note that this is not just an FIC issue. FIC churches are not above it but we have it wrong in all kinds of churches and leave groups behind, Singles, Seniors, etc. That is one reason why we try so hard to not make something like marital status or age an issue.

Thanks much for the clarification.

I still see there being undeniably 'some uniqueness' in the biblical role here as well, but that would revert back to the question of on what basis one decides to divide a family to meet in groups. I do think I understand your position somewhat better now; you've been very gracious, thank you.

Thank you for taking the time to find out for yourself and asking questions.

I do find separate responsibilities laid out in Titus 2 concerning who should teach whom.

Now you can call this a segregation of duty in my opinion. Maybe even of age as it relates to the older and younger receiving instruction. I see no problem with an older more mature instructing a group of younger people who have a certain set of particular issues in their lifes calling and station, whether it be one of adolescence, single adulthood, or marriage. Each need a different subset of particular topical teaching.

Pastor Keith Throop has been posting on this subject and giving Scott Brown his room to defend himself by posting links to his recent defenses.


Welcome to NCFIC.org - Promoting Biblical Harmony Between Churches and Families
In the same blog Scott Brown states...




Now in response to another blog by Jason Webb, Scott Brown sets the record straight.
Welcome to NCFIC.org - Promoting Biblical Harmony Between Churches and Families
I still think Jason's blog has some merit for understanding what is going on in the confused language. Especially in relation to ecclesiology, the confessions, and they way the Puritans / Presbyterian's viewed their responsibilities and training up those who were in the faith.

THE HISTORICAL CRITIQUE FROM PURITAN ECCLESIOLOGY
The Family-Integrated Church Movement ? Part 4 Reformed Baptist Fellowship


And evidently it has been confusing as Pastor Throop has stated in his blog.

I would like to make a few comments here concerning this again.

I see no problem with age segregated teaching... As in let the older teach they younger. Or to put it another way, let the mature teach the less mature. I say that remembering Paul's exhortation to Timothy considering his age, Let no man despise thy youth, at the same time remembering how Paul instructed us to relate to those who were older.

In the 1800's and I imagine much earlier. Schools of divinity and Schools in general were set up for appropriate learning. That obviously led to the Sabbath Schools and instruction for age appropriate and maturity level training. Ever since my kids were little they were involved with attending the worship service with me unless they were babes and couldn't receive cognizant instruction. When they were small enough to attend and not disrupt the order of the worship I brought them to service along with drawing utensils and paper.

Randy, that's an interesting point -- if I understand correctly -- that if one uses Titus 2 for biblical warrant, specially teaching 'the young' is equally as appropriate as teaching along lines of gender.

First off..

The very word Church implies that the Church is composed of individuals. Each individual has an interdependent relationship with the other. The very word Church signifies this. As it cries, "OUR FATHER, who art in heaven." Each relationship is different from one individual to the next. But their is a connectedness. Why state the obvious?

I find charges like this to be way overboard and just plain silly. Especially in the evangelical churches I have been aware of. Every Pastor I have known and heard counsels and teaches to all applicably to their sheep.

That has how I always understood it. I refuse to counsel a woman based upon this passage. I will entreat them as sisters and give admonition but I always will refer to an older more mature woman.

This should be the topic of another thread and would be a

-----Added 11/18/2009 at 02:30:06 EST-----

Dr Voddie Baucham has a very interesting message on this if you have the time.

This is off topic from the OP but we seemed to have ventured down a well beaten path.

Answering Objections to Uniting Church and Family

Are you familiar with William Symington's work in Scotland. He was used of God in the venture of training poor children. I am not necessarily arguing for Government Schools or the concept of Government run schools.

Judson, thank you for your polite reply. My previous post was overly contentious in tone, and I imputed the problems I've experienced as a single man in conservative churches to the FIC movement, which was unfair of me and done without knowledge. I apologise.

I'm not convinced that it is always wrong to divide into groups based on age or marital status (or by other criteria such as introductory classes or catechism for new believers). I am glad that you strive to treat everyone equally, and I see that you have solid reasons for your beliefs and practices, in particular for necessity of communal worship for the whole church on the Lord's Day.

Do you think it reasonable or allowable for there to be purely social events for people in different categories, such as singles; groups where single people can meet one another (either to find partners or just to be sociable)?

I understand that emotions do run high on this (especially when hurt in the past) so no offense is taken brother.


Yes, I believe that purely social events are a different thing all together and we should be free to have fun together. It just would not be considered teaching or worship (which I know you are not saying that it would be).

-----Added 11/19/2009 at 09:37:08 EST-----

I am somewhat familiar with his work. I have read some about him in some Covenanter books. I would agree that him teaching the poor in his area to read was a great thing. I also see that he did not set up a school for just children to read but taught adults as well so he used the school to teach those in need and not just an age group.

I would argue that his great work should not set up the standard we should strive for in our families. Just like I think that God used George Muller and his orphanage in a great service but again, we should not try to equate that to be our standard for our families.