Singles within the Family of Families?

Status
Not open for further replies.

ubermadchen

Puritanboard <strong>Outlaw</strong>
I don't know if this is the correct forum for this topic. I have a question about the "family of families" model that seems popular these days within the reformed camp. I was recently told that I, being single, am a family of one. How exactly does this work? I know some of you follow the FIC model, how are singles incorporated into your church?
 
This is an excellent question.

-----Added 10/19/2009 at 09:45:14 EST-----

If I may add a question:

Ought it work differently for a single man and a single woman (because of the headship of her father, even though he may not live in the same city)?
 
Yes, excellent question. I'm interested in seeing the responses. I grew up in a "Family Integrated Church," so I could recount my experiences, but I'm hoping that they were atypical.
 
This is an excellent question.

-----Added 10/19/2009 at 09:45:14 EST-----

If I may add a question:

Ought it work differently for a single man and a single woman (because of the headship of her father, even though he may not live in the same city)?

Yes, especially in a case like mine where my biological father is unable to be my head and my stepfather, being an unbeliever, is unwilling.
 
I'm single and CERTAINLY would never consider my father as headship over me. He has his own house and I have my own. I do consider myself my own "family" within the church. As such, I'm under the headship of the governing church in matters of biblical principles only. Otherwise, I'm headship of my own household and those who desire to live in my house (i.e. my mother).
 
What is FIC and Family of Families?

FIC = Family Integrated Church.

"Family of Families" is a phrase that describes the function of the church as a group of varying families that make up the larger Church. Essentially, the building blocks of the Church is made up of family units (one block per family) with singles/widows/divorcees making up individual blocks (or incorporated into someone else's block; it's not yet clear to me). It also sees the primary evangelistic role of the Church executed through the family within their home. In addition, marriage and family are seen as the ideal state of the Christian life. I hope I have that interpretation correct but that's how it's been explained to me.
 
Last edited:
The scriptures talk about the family and the scriptures talk about the church, so it might make some intuitive sense to put the two together. The only trouble is, the Bible doesn't put them together. You even have Paul saying that it is more practical to be single and ministering to others.

So if someone wants a church to be a Family of Families, you end up with people who don't fit -- namely the single folks. This is painful and useless distinction. Yet you see all types of people functioning effectively in the New Testament church.

No doubt, there is hope that the gospel is passed on from generation to generations within families, as we see Abraham's family expanded through history. But making artificial distinctions in the name of the church seems dubious to me.
 
Some churches seem quite uncomfortable with older singles. Early to mid 20s - fine. Mid 30s? not so much so.
 
Some churches seem quite uncomfortable with older singles. Early to mid 20s - fine. Mid 30s? not so much so.

What do you mean?

Not ducking your question; I'm thinking about how to word it. If I don't get back to you in the next day or so, remind me again.

------------
Answered by private message.
 
Last edited:
What is FIC and Family of Families?

FIC = Family Integrated Church.

"Family of Families" is a phrase that describes the function of the church as a group of varying families that make up the larger Church. Essentially, the building blocks of the Church is made up of family units (one block per family) with singles/widows/divorcees making up individual blocks (or incorporated into someone else's block; it's not yet clear to me). It also sees the primary evangelistic role of the Church executed through the family within their home. In addition, marriage and family are seen as the ideal state of the Christian life. I hope I have that interpretation correct but that's how it's been explained to me.

I'm not sure I'm understanding your question.

I don't see there is a difference- people are at different stages of life and in different situations. While marriage is the "norm" and commended by, indeed instituted by Scripture, being unmarried is also commended by Scripture.

People are single for several reasons, there might be biblical bearing on someone not marrying, or "unduly delaying" marrying in some (not all, not even most) cases, there is no less a place in the church for those in that situation.

Westminster Larger Catechism

Q. 139. What are the sins forbidden in the seventh commandment?
A. The sins forbidden in the seventh commandment, besides the neglect of the duties
required,780 are, adultery, fornication,781 rape, incest,782 sodomy, and all unnatural lusts;783 all
unclean imaginations, thoughts, purposes, and affections;784 all corrupt or filthy
communications, or listening thereunto;785 wanton looks,786 impudent or light behaviour,
immodest apparel;787 prohibiting of lawful,788 and dispensing with unlawful marriages;789
allowing, tolerating, keeping of stews, and resorting to them;790 entangling vows of single
life,791 undue delay of marriage,792 having more wives or husbands than one at the same
time;793 unjust divorce,794 or desertion;795 idleness, gluttony, drunkenness,796 unchaste
company;797 lascivious songs, books, pictures, dancings, stage plays;798 and all other
provocations to, or acts of uncleanness, either in ourselves or others.799

There's a couple sides to this:

1) We don't want to unduly complain about the Body not focusing on single status, and
2) We wan't to make an effort to be accomodating and hospitable to the needs single people might have also

It's a two way process, but in all the focus must be on God- not resenting others because they don't minister more to us in single status.

I don't see there being much biblical limitation based on this status- in my experience a single man can even be qualified for officer (one of our elders was single 24 years). I don't see limitations at all.

There were times before I was married where I wished families would have invited me over for dinner, particularly holidays. But I quickly resolved it was best not to focus on that, but rather serve to the maximum and direct efforts that way (even if it appeared marriage to the right person was not going to happen).

One should not in any way feel inadequate in single status is what God has called you to, not at all, it gives some freedom to serve God others don't have, and Scripture acknowledges that. But, we also all need to be aware of the needs of people around us- particularly in the household of faith, including those who are single.

Am I answering your question and the aspect you asking about?
 
Scott - Are you in/speaking of an FIC? The approach/view that you take seems to me to be pretty common in the PCA, but my sense is that most PCA's are not FIC's. Is that correct?

My interest is more in how most FIC's view singles -especially since I grew up in one that did not really tolerate singlehood.
 
My interest is more in how most FIC's view singles -especially since I grew up in one that did not really tolerate singlehood.

What do you mean by "did not really tolerate singlehood"? Did they encourage eunichs to get married? Were they too pushy when someone wasn't yet ready to be married? Were single people not allowed to become members? Or, did they simply encourage the marriage of those people who didn't really have any good reason not to marry since that is the ordinary pattern.

The first three are inappropriate. The last should be encouraged in every church.

-----Added 10/20/2009 at 06:45:10 EST-----

What I am getting at is that in this day and age, many are probably guilty of undue delay of marriage (see Scott1's reference to WLC 139 above). I include myself in this. In such cases, those folks really should be encouraged and helped in this issue. I hope that such encouragement should not be taken as intolerance, but I will have to wait to see what you mean by intolerance.
 
Scott - Are you in/speaking of an FIC? The approach/view that you take seems to me to be pretty common in the PCA, but my sense is that most PCA's are not FIC's. Is that correct?

My interest is more in how most FIC's view singles -especially since I grew up in one that did not really tolerate singlehood.

Exactly. I'm talking about the churches that are associated with this movement: Welcome to NCFIC.org - Promoting Biblical Harmony Between Churches and Families

Even if a church isn't officially associated with this network, I know of several reformed folks that follow its tenets and seek to see them embraced in their own churches.
 
Scott - Are you in/speaking of an FIC? The approach/view that you take seems to me to be pretty common in the PCA, but my sense is that most PCA's are not FIC's. Is that correct?

My interest is more in how most FIC's view singles -especially since I grew up in one that did not really tolerate singlehood.

Exactly. I'm talking about the churches that are associated with this movement: Welcome to NCFIC.org - Promoting Biblical Harmony Between Churches and Families

Even if a church isn't officially associated with this network, I know of several reformed folks that follow its tenets and seek to see them embraced in their own churches.

Thanks for the link.

I'm not familiar enough with this organization to comment. There are some reputable people listed in their conference schedule but this term, or "movement" (FIC) is not something officially embraced in the PCA- not that I've ever heard of.

Not saying there aren't some good principles stated, but this "FIC" seems to be a movement of its own.

We're strongly covenant community, covenant family but it is an incident of covenant theology, not a movement in itself.
 
My interest is more in how most FIC's view singles -especially since I grew up in one that did not really tolerate singlehood.

What do you mean by "did not really tolerate singlehood"? Did they encourage eunichs to get married? Were they too pushy when someone wasn't yet ready to be married? Were single people not allowed to become members? Or, did they simply encourage the marriage of those people who didn't really have any good reason not to marry since that is the ordinary pattern.

The first three are inappropriate. The last should be encouraged in every church.

-----Added 10/20/2009 at 06:45:10 EST-----

What I am getting at is that in this day and age, many are probably guilty of undue delay of marriage (see Scott1's reference to WLC 139 above). I include myself in this. In such cases, those folks really should be encouraged and helped in this issue. I hope that such encouragement should not be taken as intolerance, but I will have to wait to see what you mean by intolerance.


I don't really want to derail the thread by talking about my unfortuante fundamentalist past. I'll be more specific though. By "not tolerate," I mean that singles, especially older single women, were demeaned. They were pressured (not just encouraged) to marry. Singles of a certain age were considered to be outside of the will of God. This view came from the pulpit and was reflected in the attitudes of the members.
 
I was recently told that I, being single, am a family of one

Hey, Patricia.

You can either follow the clear Biblical model or make up your own. At least that's how I see it. And in this case I know people who are smarter than me see it differently, but in any case:

Num 30:2 If a man vows a vow to the LORD, or swears an oath to bind himself by a pledge, he shall not break his word. He shall do according to all that proceeds out of his mouth.
Num 30:3 "If a woman vows a vow to the LORD and binds herself by a pledge, while within her father's house in her youth,
Num 30:4 and her father hears of her vow and of her pledge by which she has bound herself and says nothing to her, then all her vows shall stand, and every pledge by which she has bound herself shall stand.
Num 30:5 But if her father opposes her on the day that he hears of it, no vow of hers, no pledge by which she has bound herself shall stand. And the LORD will forgive her, because her father opposed her.
Num 30:6 "If she marries a husband, while under her vows or any thoughtless utterance of her lips by which she has bound herself,
Num 30:7 and her husband hears of it and says nothing to her on the day that he hears, then her vows shall stand, and her pledges by which she has bound herself shall stand.
Num 30:8 But if, on the day that her husband comes to hear of it, he opposes her, then he makes void her vow that was on her, and the thoughtless utterance of her lips by which she bound herself. And the LORD will forgive her.
Num 30:9 (But any vow of a widow or of a divorced woman, anything by which she has bound herself, shall stand against her.)
Num 30:10 And if she vowed in her husband's house or bound herself by a pledge with an oath,
Num 30:11 and her husband heard of it and said nothing to her and did not oppose her, then all her vows shall stand, and every pledge by which she bound herself shall stand.
Num 30:12 But if her husband makes them null and void on the day that he hears them, then whatever proceeds out of her lips concerning her vows or concerning her pledge of herself shall not stand. Her husband has made them void, and the LORD will forgive her.
Num 30:13 Any vow and any binding oath to afflict herself, her husband may establish, or her husband may make void.
Num 30:14 But if her husband says nothing to her from day to day, then he establishes all her vows or all her pledges that are upon her. He has established them, because he said nothing to her on the day that he heard of them.
Num 30:15 But if he makes them null and void after he has heard of them, then he shall bear her iniquity."

OK, here's how I see it for you personally, as a young woman whom I presume is living with her dad. If he's unwilling to take headship, your "vows" i.e. rights and obligations, are the same as a man or a divorced woman or a widow. So in YOUR case, not as a generic single young woman, you would be a family of one, at least as far as rights and obligations. But it's trickier since you still live with your parents, and so are still part of their household, and if your step dad ever got his act together you would lose those rights and obligations. Must be difficult for you! But the Lord is good, and in YOUR case you do have elders to help with guiding you. And from your posts it seems you've got your head screwed on properly.
 
Scott - Are you in/speaking of an FIC? The approach/view that you take seems to me to be pretty common in the PCA, but my sense is that most PCA's are not FIC's. Is that correct?

My interest is more in how most FIC's view singles -especially since I grew up in one that did not really tolerate singlehood.

Exactly. I'm talking about the churches that are associated with this movement: Welcome to NCFIC.org - Promoting Biblical Harmony Between Churches and Families

Even if a church isn't officially associated with this network, I know of several reformed folks that follow its tenets and seek to see them embraced in their own churches.

Thanks for the link.

I'm not familiar enough with this organization to comment. There are some reputable people listed in their conference schedule but this term, or "movement" (FIC) is not something officially embraced in the PCA- not that I've ever heard of.

Not saying there aren't some good principles stated, but this "FIC" seems to be a movement of its own.

We're strongly covenant community, covenant family but it is an incident of covenant theology, not a movement in itself.

It certainly is a movement of its own. When I can go to the website, and the churches in my community include an EP Presbyterian Church (of a denomination of about 5 five churches), a Dispensational Baptist Church, and a Mennonite Church, I'm thinking that "family integration" has been raise to an out-of-proportion importance.
 
I was recently told that I, being single, am a family of one

Hey, Patricia.

You can either follow the clear Biblical model or make up your own. At least that's how I see it. And in this case I know people who are smarter than me see it differently, but in any case:

Num 30:2 If a man vows a vow to the LORD, or swears an oath to bind himself by a pledge, he shall not break his word. He shall do according to all that proceeds out of his mouth.
Num 30:3 "If a woman vows a vow to the LORD and binds herself by a pledge, while within her father's house in her youth,
Num 30:4 and her father hears of her vow and of her pledge by which she has bound herself and says nothing to her, then all her vows shall stand, and every pledge by which she has bound herself shall stand.
Num 30:5 But if her father opposes her on the day that he hears of it, no vow of hers, no pledge by which she has bound herself shall stand. And the LORD will forgive her, because her father opposed her.
Num 30:6 "If she marries a husband, while under her vows or any thoughtless utterance of her lips by which she has bound herself,
Num 30:7 and her husband hears of it and says nothing to her on the day that he hears, then her vows shall stand, and her pledges by which she has bound herself shall stand.
Num 30:8 But if, on the day that her husband comes to hear of it, he opposes her, then he makes void her vow that was on her, and the thoughtless utterance of her lips by which she bound herself. And the LORD will forgive her.
Num 30:9 (But any vow of a widow or of a divorced woman, anything by which she has bound herself, shall stand against her.)
Num 30:10 And if she vowed in her husband's house or bound herself by a pledge with an oath,
Num 30:11 and her husband heard of it and said nothing to her and did not oppose her, then all her vows shall stand, and every pledge by which she bound herself shall stand.
Num 30:12 But if her husband makes them null and void on the day that he hears them, then whatever proceeds out of her lips concerning her vows or concerning her pledge of herself shall not stand. Her husband has made them void, and the LORD will forgive her.
Num 30:13 Any vow and any binding oath to afflict herself, her husband may establish, or her husband may make void.
Num 30:14 But if her husband says nothing to her from day to day, then he establishes all her vows or all her pledges that are upon her. He has established them, because he said nothing to her on the day that he heard of them.
Num 30:15 But if he makes them null and void after he has heard of them, then he shall bear her iniquity."

OK, here's how I see it for you personally, as a young woman whom I presume is living with her dad. If he's unwilling to take headship, your "vows" i.e. rights and obligations, are the same as a man or a divorced woman or a widow. So in YOUR case, not as a generic single young woman, you would be a family of one, at least as far as rights and obligations. But it's trickier since you still live with your parents, and so are still part of their household, and if your step dad ever got his act together you would lose those rights and obligations. Must be difficult for you! But the Lord is good, and in YOUR case you do have elders to help with guiding you. And from your posts it seems you've got your head screwed on properly.

I don't live with my parents; I apologize for not making that clear. My father lives on the west coast and my stepfather lives on the east coast. I live in Texas. I assumed I didn't have to live under the same roof to be considered still under a father's (I have no idea who that would be) headship. Thank you for your encouragement, though! Sometimes I wonder if I even have my head on...
 
I'm single and CERTAINLY would never consider my father as headship over me. He has his own house and I have my own. I do consider myself my own "family" within the church. As such, I'm under the headship of the governing church in matters of biblical principles only. Otherwise, I'm headship of my own household and those who desire to live in my house (i.e. my mother).

I am not so sure how to take this.

I agree that when you were a child... But you are no longer a child and that you are on your own, therefore you have some separation in the matter. But at the same time, shouldn't a man who desires to be a courtin you want to go to your father and ask for your hand in marriage. Is he to be totally left out of the situation now? That might be the way it is suppose to be. But I personally think he should have more say in this kind of matter than others. I do believe the Church should be there to make sure you marry in the Lord also. Whether or not you consider your Father in this matter or not might be crucial in honoring him. We are called specifically to honor our parents in the decalogue. We are also called to honor our Elders but that is a side issue in comparison to the decalogue's command in my estimation. When we are told to obey our elders it comes with a pre set observance of watching their character and seeing it fits the bill first. I am not so sure that stipulation is set up for parents.

Just bouncing some thought here.
 
I'm single and CERTAINLY would never consider my father as headship over me. He has his own house and I have my own. I do consider myself my own "family" within the church. As such, I'm under the headship of the governing church in matters of biblical principles only. Otherwise, I'm headship of my own household and those who desire to live in my house (i.e. my mother).

I am not so sure how to take this.

I agree that when you were a child... But you are no longer a child and that you are on your own, therefore you have some separation in the matter. But at the same time, shouldn't a man who desires to be a courtin you want to go to your father and ask for your hand in marriage. Is he to be totally left out of the situation now? That might be the way it is suppose to be. But I personally think he should have more say in this kind of matter than others. I do believe the Church should be there to make sure you marry in the Lord also. Whether or not you consider your Father in this matter or not might be crucial in honoring him. We are called specifically to honor our parents in the decalogue. We are also called to honor our Elders but that is a side issue in comparison to the decalogue's command in my estimation. When we are told to obey our elders it comes with a pre set observance of watching their character and seeing it fits the bill first. I am not so sure that stipulation is set up for parents.

Just bouncing some thought here.

I suppose if my father had decided that he had actually wanted us when we were first born and if he had put up a fuss when my mother left him instead of helping her pack up the truck and driving us to our new home, and if he had at least said that he wished I could come live with him when I called and asked him about a year later after leaving him or if he had allowed me to live with him when I was 17yr and actually wanted to live with him,....in short if he had ever acted like he was interested in his children, then I suppose I would agree with you. To be fair, he did pay a small amount of child support without him being made to do so and he came to see us about 5 times maybe. However, I don't think this qualifies him to be my headship over me. If anything else, I would prefer the man who wants to marry me ask my mother for my hand in marriage. So yes, I think he should be left out of the headship thing. I can honor him by being kind and helpful to him when he needs my help. I honor him by calling him on holidays and his birthday.
 
To be quite honest, I'm not completely convinced from Scripture that women should be the heads of their own households. It seems that the pattern in Scripture is that women are under the headship of their fathers until marriage. I think there is a reason that the Church was commanded to care for widows and orphans.... part of it was certainly financial but part of it was also spiritual oversight. Personally, I believe that single women fall into this category as well if they do not have the headship of a father. In that case, I believe it is the responsibility of the church session to take spiritual headship over her.

On another note, I'm not familiar with the movement mentioned above, but I have often seen singles treated as though they were sinning or purposefully causing "undue delay of marriage" .....which is not always the case! Marriage should certainly be encouraged, but at the same time we need to be sensitve to these matters. Not every single has been given opportunities for marriage, and many have and are actively seeking to be married. I would just love to see the Church at large come alongside of singles more so, and really provide oversight and more spiritual encouragment in this area!
 
Good discussion,all.

This thread is uncovering the pain and conflict of some practical situations and hopefully we can discern some biblical clarity- these situations are not new.

So, are we saying something to the effect that an unmarried woman is under the parental authority of her father until or unless she marries except that if he is deceased, she falls under authority of the church as something like I Timothy 5 "widows indeed"?

(Not advocating one way or the other, only trying to understand)

For purposes of a question, assuming the above is the case, isn't parental authority much different when a woman is an adult and can support herself?

Would it make any difference if the father actually or practically abandoned that role?(seems like it would)

Further, if the father was not a Christian, would he still have the parental authority that would, in effect, prevent the disciplines of the Christian life (e.g. Lord's Day worship, tithing, Christian service, etc.?
 
Last edited:
As an elder in a "Family Intergrated" church, I wanted to repost this. One of our other elders was responding to Sam Waldrons article on FIC but he also describes the thought behind FIC. Please note the Bolded sections for application to this thread and the OP.

It is unfortunate that you have picked a few questionable examples and statements from the FIC movement to critique. Let me give here a much more broad and balanced description of the basis for age integration within the Church.

The Scripture defines and details an architecture, a model, a pattern for the people of God. The Bible tells us who we are and what we should be doing. When the glorious Gospel pierces our hearts and we repent, we are converted and placed into the Lord’s precious family. There is a wonderful picture of this process at work in Acts 2:37-47.

The Church
We need to be very careful how we describe the Church because it is Christ’s body and His precious bride. A couple of statements concerning the architecture of the Church need to be made before listing the characteristics of a family integrated church. First, family integration is only one element in the architecture.
The Church, this beautiful structure that is Christ’s body and bride, is much bigger than her age integration. Second, the foundation of the architecture depends on your beliefs about Scripture. Family integrated church structure rests on the doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture. We need nothing else but what the Bible teaches in principle, precept and command to rightly structure and operate the church of Jesus Christ.

Paul wanted Timothy to know three things: 1) Scripture is perfect(2 Timothy 3:16), 2) There is a way we should engage ourselves in the Church (1 Timothy 3:15) and 3) There is a fixed pattern of church life (2 Timothy 1:13). Biblical Christianity begins with God and His pattern. The church is not subject to men or the world but to God and His Word alone.

Once we understand that age-integration is only one part of church structure and we are resting on the doctrine of sufficiency of Scripture then we can rightly examine the marks of a biblical congregation. Here are fourteen characteristics of a Family Integrated Church:
1. An orthodox church that is faithful to biblical theology and practices. The gospel is the central message. Orthodox biblical ecclesiology is lived out. Scripture is the basis for the things that we do in the church. Biblical preaching is practiced. The Lord’s Supper is celebrated. Baptism is practiced. Prayers are lifted up and songs are sung. Biblical church discipline is implemented. Biblically qualified leaders are appointed. The emphasis is on the Word of God. We don’t start with the family. We start with God. A family integrated church does not have its center in the family. The glory of God is the center of the church (Ephesians 3:21).
2. Families worship together. Age segregated, family dividing ministry and the exclusion of children from worship is a recent, unbiblical result of creative Christianity. You will not find these practices in the Scripture or in historic Christianity. If you study church history you will find that family integration, family worship, and church structure flowing from leadership to fathers were core components of movements back to biblical authority, especially during the Reformation. The pattern of age integration is found throughout the Scripture.
3. Singles are incorporated into the full spectrum of church life. Nowhere in the Scripture do you find certain groups separated from the fellowship of the church. Every member should be ministered to, and be ministering, in the context of the body. Singles have a great opportunity and responsibility to minister in the body, not separate from it.4. Fathers are equipped to be the spiritual leaders of their homes. It is painfully obvious what has happened in our culture. There has been a massive meltdown of the biblical family. The Bible says that children are to be trained by their father. When you bypass the father you have rejected the clear teaching of the Bible. In most churches tremendous energy and resources are devoted to programs and activities. Are the resources of your church focused on promoting the equipping of fathers?
5. Biblical roles and jurisdictions are in order. There are three jurisdictions in Scripture; civil government, church, and family. Each has a distinct function. What we have in modern evangelical Christianity is a violation of biblical jurisdictions. The church is trying to do what the family should do and the state is trying to do what the church should be doing.
6. Children are not isolated but incorporated as full participants in church life. Adolescence is regarded as a myth in family integrated churches. There is no evidence in the Bible that children are to be isolated. Children are to live, work and grow next to their parents and assume adult responsibilities early in life. Age segregation in every area of life is a modern, unbiblical phenomenon and works against multi-generational discipleship and faithfulness.
7. Biblical youth ministry is implemented. Biblical instruction and discipline in the home by the father, solid biblical preaching by pastors in the congregation and cross-generation discipleship in church life is how Scripture defines youth ministry. Where do the concepts of youth group, Sunday school and children’s church come from? You won’t find them in Scripture. The fact that modern evangelical Christianity has lost the next generation is a statistical reality. Unbiblical practices fail and biblical obedience is blessed.
8. Wives are functioning in their role as complement to their husband and nurturer of children in the home. God has established gender-oriented roles. The Bible is clear as to the roles and responsibilities of men and women. The Christian wife/mother is to be a fully educated, highly skilled, spiritually strong, motivated and productive agent of God – under the leadership of her husband, working at home and lovingly bringing children to godly maturity. Civilization hangs in the balance on how wives and mothers respond to the commands found in Titus 2:3-5.
9. Biblical offices and Biblical requirements for church leaders are applied. There are only two offices prescribed in Scripture, elders and deacons. The Scripture has much to say about the office of elder/pastor/overseer. There are two main problems facing modern evangelical Christianity with regard to this office; 1) There is no biblical basis for the office of chief executive pastor, recreation pastor, youth pastor, singles pastor, etc. These man-made offices work against Biblical church structure, 2)Many of today’s leaders are not qualified to hold the office because they are not managing their own households well.
10. Family integration, as a principle, guides the programs for equipping and evangelism. In general, families are walking together in evangelism, missions, discipleship, etc. The ministry of evangelism, discipleship, serving, and all other ministries should flow from elders equipping the saints to do the work. There is a beautiful picture of this in Acts 21 as the entire congregation ministered to Paul when he left. We do not believe that families must always be together but that age integration is key to fulfilling Biblical commands.
11. The household and hospitality are the centerpieces of community ministry. There are many hospitality commands in Scripture. Conduct a word study of “household” in Scripture. Modern evangelical Christianity has the erroneous understanding that ministry only happens within the walls of the church building or by church program.
12. The ministry of the body is not primarily programmatic but relational. There are about 50 “one another” commands in the New Testament. The ministry of the church is very personal and very relational. We need to be extremely careful not to over program the local church.
13. The fatherless are brought into the mainstream of church and family life. What do we do with the ocean of youth who do not have families or have non-Christian families? What we ought to be doing is engaging what God has given us toward them. The Scriptures have a road map for caring for the fatherless and widows. Go to them, bring them into your families and minister!
14. Multi-generational faithfulness is promoted. Parents are to teach their children how to know God. Then those children are to teach their children, and so on. This is the clear and unmistakable command of Scripture.

There is a complementary pattern for church and family life. There is a design for church structure and Almighty God is the Great Designer. In the architecture of this great family of God, families are brought together. Every aspect of this architecture is not designed to exalt the family but to use the family to glorify God and communicate the Gospel from one generation to the next. Family integration is only one architectural element of Biblical church life but if you lose that one element you have lost much.

O Lord, we are ready for the imprint of the pattern of sound words (2 Timothy 1:13).

MPoe

-----Added 10/21/2009 at 07:18:02 EST-----

It certainly is a movement of its own. When I can go to the website, and the churches in my community include an EP Presbyterian Church (of a denomination of about 5 five churches), a Dispensational Baptist Church, and a Mennonite Church, I'm thinking that "family integration" has been raise to an out-of-proportion importance

The point behind the listing is so people can locate churches that follow this structure. It is no different than a list of EP churches so people can find them. It is not that it has been raised to an out-of-proportion importance. "Family Integration" is not a sacred cow but a distinction. One that some want to locate, thus the list.
 
I understand that's how your church sees singles in theory, but how does your church takes these principles to practice? Do you see them being treated as full members? The point of the thread isn't "do you think singles should be included in the church," but "how?" How are singles incorporated? I don't think any FIC would be so be so bold as to say publicly, "Go away, singles! Get married and then maybe you could come back!"
 
We do not have a singles ministry, we have a ministry-period. For example, when we have a mens study the men gather. All of the men. If a man has a son, he brings him, if not or if he is single, he comes and we all study together. It does not matter if they are married, single,college student,whatever. Same goes for the ladies.
Yes, they are full members and no, we do not start telling them they should get married.

Because we do not break off into separate Sunday School groups, no one is "singled" out (pun half way intended). No one feels out of the group because we are all the group. We have none of the "Well, you should go to this class or that class because you are not this or that" We all study together.
 
I don't think any FIC would be so be so bold as to say publicly, "Go away, singles! Get married and then maybe you could come back!"

Oh you would be unpleasantly suprised

That is so sad. But it is not limited to any one group to do stuff like that. You should hear what is said when folks bring their little ones in to the "big people" service.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top