Seven Suggested Problems with the "Family Integrated Church Movement"

[Goodcheer68]

I think the problem is not so much that churches prohibit children from the sanctuary- most will deny they do that- but that they do not encourage them to be there. So what happens is a mindset takes place within the congregation that children's place is in children's church. As a member of an SBC I run into this at my church. The leaders will say they don't prohibit it, but they NEVER say that children are welcome to stay. In fact they always say (at least in the 4 years I have attended) "the children can go to their class now" as if its where they need to go.

Another scripture is Ephesians 5 where Paul commands children to obey their parents. I would think that Paul assumes children will be present when the letter is read. Otherwise he would have told the parents to "tell your children" to obey as it will go well with them.

 

[John Carpenter]

Hi Jack,

I don't believe I've overstated my points because one of my main points is there are no commands telling us to insist on "family integrated" services. Therefore, it's not an overstatement to say that the FICM is making a major, divisive issue out of something that is not directly taught in scripture and shouldn't be insisted on.

1. Faith comes by hearing and children should be told the gospel in their children's church, if they have one. To assume that children's church is "removing our children from the Word" is groundless and unfair. Indeed, likely the main goal of children's church and other age segregated ministries is to deliver the Word to the children in a way they can best understand. It is precisely to help them hear the Word and so believe.

2. That's fine but scripture doesn't explicitly say this. Or, if unity is so important, then why do different evangelical churches meet separately in the same area? Are you also opposed to that. And why do you assume that meeting in separate rooms implies disunity? Do you also oppose different Sunday School classes going at the same time, in various rooms of the church building? Can a church have any meetings that do not incorporate everyone.

3. Actually, one could argue either, on the one hand, that he is doing a good job of spiritual leadership by sending his children to a venue where they will hear the Word in a way that is easier for them to understand. Or, on the other hand, that in the church the father is not the spiritual leader but the elders are and that insisting on his spiritual leadership in the church undermines the Christ-given offices in the church. Please see my point #4 above.

Please cite for me the "strong statements" about "a parent's spiritual leadership." And explain why, when Paul is specifically addressing the issue of ministry in the church, in Titus 2, he not only doesn't mention "a parent's spiritual leadership", he says nothing about the family at all and even speaks of addressing different age and sex differentiated groups in different ways.

 

[John Carpenter]

The problem is the FICM teaching something that is not found in scripture and being adamant and divisive about it. The problem is NOT the choice of some churches to encourage children's church because they believe (rightly or wrongly) that that is the best way to get them to hear the Word of God.

 

[Tim]

But I believe it's a consequence of my belief in the perspicuity of scripture.

I would like to pursue this a bit. Do you not acknowledge that there are some doctrines that are a bit less clear, perhaps being more implicit than explicit? That is what I am cautioning you to remember. I remember your participation in another thread (I didn't participate in that one) and that the doctrine of the Trinity was mentioned. Does this not require a bit more work to discover compared to seeing the command to sing Psalms? After all, the church was not satisfied with her formulation of the Trinity until a few centuries after Christ.

Further, I simply do not believe that God expects us to string together unrelated texts, usually out of context, and come to a conclusion that isn't spelled out elsewhere.

Well, nobody is suggesting that....

Of course, I want to see the passage that says this. But there is no such passage.

I really think this is an unfair question. Scripture is not always written this way (and this doesn't require the abandonment of an understanding of perspicuity). That is what I mean by "proof texting". We cannot always say, "See here? This passage proves it". Think of the doctrine of God, eschatology, covenant theology, etc. All of these areas of theology require a substantive amount of study. It doesn't mean that a believer cannot understand these things, but it does mean that you can't take a brand new believer, show him "a passage" and then assume that he will then know how to describe what scripture teaches on these subjects.

I think that many of the principles with regard to church polity/shepherding/family fall into this same category.

Notice how I am not commenting on your conclusions either way, just your method.

 

[John Carpenter]

Like what? The question comes not only to the perspicuity of scripture but to the competency of God as a communicator. Good communicators know how to make what they want to communicate clear to those they want to communicate to. Since God is the perfect communicator, He makes perfectly clear what He wants to make clear to those He wants to communicate to.

I think there are numerous scriptures which demand the doctrine of the Trinity. But then much of the speculation about it goes beyond what should be insisted on, which is why (in the comments about Driscoll) I'm not too bothered that he doesn't toe the line of exact theological formulas as long as he holds to what is clearly taught in scripture: monotheism, the Divinity of the Son, the Personhood of the Spirit.

Just because I say scripture is perspicuous doesn't mean I always believe it is simple. Yes, there are some things, as Peter said of Paul, "hard to understand." But that's because they are complex ideas. Anyway, I'm not fond of discussing in the abstract. I prefer dealing with particular issues, as scripture itself usually does.

The Bible does not command family integrated services and so anyone insisting on "family integration" and willing to divide over it and center a church on that, is being divisive and that is clearly condemned in scripture (Titus 3:9f).

 

[BarryR]

One thing I have found very profitable regarding this topic is the Directions of the General Assembly Concerning Secret and Private Worship

This section especially -

VIII. On the Lord's day, after every one of the family apart, and the whole family together, have sought the Lord (in whose hands the preparation of men's hearts are) to fit them for the publick worship, and to bless to them the publick ordinances, the master of the family ought to take care that all within his charge repair to the publick worship, that he and they may join with the rest of the congregation: and the publick worship being finished, after prayer, he should take an account what they have heard; and thereafter, to spend the rest of the time which they may spare in catechising, and in spiritual conferences upon the word of God: or else (going apart) they ought to apply themselves to reading, meditation, and secret prayer, that they may confirm and increase their communion with God: that so the profit which they found in the publick ordinances may be cherished and promoved, and they more edified unto eternal life.

 

[nicnap]

Like what? The question comes not only to the perspicuity of scripture but to the competency of God as a communicator. Good communicators know how to make what they want to communicate clear to those they want to communicate to. Since God is the perfect communicator, He makes perfectly clear what He wants to make clear to those He wants to communicate to.

God is a perfect communicator, sir; but in no way are we perfect hearers or receivers.

 

[MW]

I don't believe I've overstated my points because one of my main points is there are no commands telling us to insist on "family integrated" services. Therefore, it's not an overstatement to say that the FICM is making a major, divisive issue out of something that is not directly taught in scripture and shouldn't be insisted on.

Obviously the "integrated" part of family is assumed because a family is by default an integrated unit under the blessing of God. The disintegration of the family is always regarded as the curse of God. To require a "command" for the "integration" of the family ignores the fundamental theology of the "oikos" in Scripture.

 

[John Carpenter]

Hi Nicholas,

I love Francis Schaeffer! There is no scripture in question that needs to be interpreted in light of another scripture. There simply is nothing in scripture suggesting the need of "family integration" in church. And your reference to Jesus teaching children, one could argue that in Matthew 19 it appears that he was ministering specifically to the children; in other words, one could use that scripture to say that the Lord Jesus was holding a "children's church." I don't think I would take it that far but I think that use of the passage is more believable than what the FICM tries to do with such texts.

Besides, we have Titus 2 which specifically speaks to the issue of ministry in the church, says nothing about "family integration" (in the context one would expect it to be mentioned if it were a Biblical value), and actually commands Titus (the teaching elder) to specify his ministry to different age and sex differentiated groups, the exact opposite of what the FICM insists upon.

Again, we are dealing with scripture in the abstract, theoretically, instead of dealing with it's actual content. I don't think that is a wise way to proceed.

 

[John Carpenter]

Hi Matthew,

You're assuming that families are members of the church rather than individuals, that the church gathers as "a family of families". The assumption is wrong. Again, look at Titus 2, one of the few scriptures that speaks directly to the issue of doing ministry in the church. It says nothing about gathering with our family or the church gathering with families or that fathers instruct their own children and wife, etc. Indeed, Paul appears to be telling Titus to deal with different age and sex groups in different ways; whether they actually gathered separately, I don't know but Titus 2 suggests that the ministry was targeted in different ways to different groups (with no mention of families). The FICM priorities are completely absent and that in exactly the context where we would expect to see them reflected if they were really from God.

Second, please reread my final point (# 8). The Lord Jesus frequently made His challenge to discipleship precisely by telling us that we had to be willing to disintegrate our family. To be a disciple of Jesus, one must be willing to leave one's family. Hence, the church does NOT gather as a "family of families" but as an assembly of followers of Jesus who are willing to separate from their families if that is necessary to stay with Jesus.

 

[MW]

You're assuming that families are members of the church rather than individuals, that the church gathers as "a family of families". The assumption is wrong.

Please read Ephesians 2. I do not accept the dispensationalism that is inherent in your concept of the church.

 

[John Carpenter]

Hi Matthew,

What specifically from Ephesians 2 do you think is relevant here?

How specifically do you think there is dispensationalism inherent in my concept of the church?

Again, I'd ask you to read what the Lord Jesus said about discipleship (some referenced in #8 above). The Lord Jesus said to be His disciple we have to be willing to leave our family. In Titus 2, Paul makes no mention of the role of the "family" in the ministry in the church. The church is the "household of God". It is not a "family of families." Neither that phrase nor that idea is anywhere in scripture. Indeed, it is in conflict with the Biblical concept of the church as God's eternal family and of the earthly family being a temporary, earthly institution.

 

[MW]

What specifically from Ephesians 2 do you think is relevant here?

V. 12, God's curse is pronounced in terms of being "aliens from the commonwealth of Israel," a commonwealth made up of "covenant families." V. 13-17, redemption accomplished and applied is emphasised in terms of being brought near, separation removed, and unity achieved. V. 18-22, blessing is pronounced in terms of enjoying the same "household" privileges with Israel of old, with "temple-worship" and "holy habitation" motifs explicitly being transferred to this united commonwealth of Jews and Gentiles. In chapter 3:6, Gentiles are "fellow heirs, and of the same body." In chapter 4, this body is to minister to one another according to the gifts and graces the ascended Lord has given to each one, in unity and for unity. In chapter 5, this communal ministering entails communal acts of worship together. In chapters 5 and 6, the household and its constituent members is explicitly integrated in this communal society and worship.

How specifically do you think there is dispensationalism inherent in my concept of the church?

In order to advocate the kind of "spiritual separation" you have taught you must deny the continuity of the OT concept of the church as consisting in believers and their seed.

Again, I'd ask you to read what the Lord Jesus said about discipleship (some referenced in #8 above). The Lord Jesus said to be His disciple we have to be willing to leave our family. In Titus 2, Paul makes no mention of the role of the "family" in the ministry in the church. The church is the "household of God". It is not a "family of families." Neither that phrase nor that idea is anywhere in scripture. Indeed, it is in conflict with the Biblical concept of the church as God's eternal family and of the earthly family being a temporary, earthly institution.

It is obvious that the numerous statements of our Lord in relation to the family has nothing to do with an absolute state of affairs, but with a matter of priority in the relative event that family relations do not recognise one's ultimate and highest responsibility to Christ as Lord.

In Titus 2, the "teaching" of Titus to the constituent members of the family is an ecclesiastical role. When they are urged to "teach" the context limits the teaching to the familial tie. In which case the teaching of the aged women is familial, not ecclesiastical. By bringing it into the ecclesia the same radical fault is perpetuated of which the "family integrated" movement is guilty.

 

[John Carpenter]

Hi Matthew,

In verse 12, "you" (the Gentile Christians of Ephesus, etc) were "aliens" from the true Israel, the people of God. The Gentiles are included in the people of God by the work of Christ and therefore constitute being part of the true Israel. That is, the elect Gentiles are now "brought near" to the covenant people, being part of the "Israel of God" (in Galatians 6). I don't see the phrase "covenant families" anywhere in the text. Can you point it out for me? You originally said that there was something in Ephesians 2 that suggested the necessity of a "family integrated church". I don't see it either in the text or your explanation. Further, Ephesians 5-6 has to do with telling Christians how to relate to their family members. Undoubtedly at that time some of those family would be unconverted. That is, the husbands of some Christian wives were probably not Christians. You've said that the members of the households are "explicitly integrated in this communal society and worship". Really? "Explicitly" means it is overtly stated. Please quote for me the "explicit" text that says that the church is a family of families and everyone in the family is a Christian, etc.

The Bible does not teach that one is part of the church based on the faith of one's parents, in either testament. In Romans 9 Paul deals with who inherits the promise: is it based on works or family lineage? No. Both Jacob and Esau were descendants of Abraham and Sarah and yet only one inherited the covenant. Why? Because of God's election. One cannot get in a covenant with God based on family relations in either testament.

It is not at all "obvious" that the definition of the Christian life by the Lord Jesus Himself, which frequently pitted loyalty to the family against loyalty to Himself does not reflect "the ultimate state of affairs" (whatever that means). The Lord Jesus tells us that marriage is for this age only and we can infer that the same is true for all family relations. The family is a creation institution and therefore temporary, for this life, the "old earth". And so those who believe in Him, are challenged to put loyalty to that eternal relationship with the Lord ahead of the earthly relationships. I suppose someone could argue, then, that the church can reflect that by dividing up in worship. I wouldn't do that but I could see how the argument could be made. Further, in some ancient traditions of the church, like in the East (I'm not sure of the medieval Catholic tradition) and even more recent Puritanism, family members separated, with the men sitting (or standing) on one side and the women on the other. So the FICM claim that separating family members in the church is only a recent development is erroneous.

In Titus 2, Paul does NOT tell Titus to teach "constituent members of the family." That's mistaken. He makes almost no mention of the family at all, except perhaps to tell the older women to train the younger women to respect their husbands. He speaks of "older men" (not fathers), "older women" (not mothers or grandmothers), "younger women" (not daughters or wives), and "younger men" (not sons or husbands). Precisely my point is that reference to families and family relationships are mostly missing, exactly the opposite of what we'd expect if the FICM was correct. Your statement that "the teaching of the aged women is familial, not ecclesiastical" is demonstrably false. He doesn't say "mothers teach your daughters . . ."; he says, "older women [of apparently no familial relation] teach the younger women . . ." Frankly, you've completely missed the point of Titus 2 and read family relationships and concerns into it that are simply not there.

 

[MW]

In verse 12, "you" (the Gentile Christians of Ephesus, etc) were "aliens" from the true Israel, the people of God. The Gentiles are included in the people of God by the work of Christ and therefore constitute being part of the true Israel. That is, the elect Gentiles are now "brought near" to the covenant people, being part of the "Israel of God" (in Galatians 6). I don't see the phrase "covenant families" anywhere in the text. Can you point it out for me?

"Israel" itself is a "covenant family" entity. "Israel" is "the children of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob." The familial tie is essential to the "dignity" and "privileges" connected with the term. If you strip "Israel" of this redemptive-historical significance then the term used in Ephesians 2 means nothing and there was no real curse in being separated from it..

"Explicitly" means it is overtly stated. Please quote for me the "explicit" text that says that the church is a family of families and everyone in the family is a Christian, etc."

"IN THE LORD." It is explicitly stated numerous times.

In Romans 9 Paul deals with who inherits the promise: is it based on works or family lineage? No. Both Jacob and Esau were descendants of Abraham and Sarah and yet only one inherited the covenant. Why? Because of God's election. One cannot get in a covenant with God based on family relations in either testament.

Romans 9 proves that there is a distinction to be made WITHIN the covenant community between children of the flesh and the promise. It nowhere abolishes that distinction or makes such an abolition normative for the NT. If one keeps reading through to chapter 11 it is apparent that the "root" and "branches" analogy continues steadfastly in the New Testament economy.

It is not at all "obvious" that the definition of the Christian life by the Lord Jesus Himself, which frequently pitted loyalty to the family against loyalty to Himself does not reflect "the ultimate state of affairs" (whatever that means).

If you are saying that Christ intended to institute an ultimate state of affairs when he indicated there would be divisions in families, then you are teaching that Christ has instituted perpetual family divisions as normative for the NT period. I would suggest, in that case, that you are no longer preaching the gospel of peace. "Division" is circumstantial to the preaching of the gospel, not one of its directly intended results. The normative aspect of family relations is indicated in the commission of John Baptist to turn the hearts of the fathers to their children and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just.

In Titus 2, Paul does NOT tell Titus to teach "constituent members of the family." That's mistaken. He makes almost no mention of the family at all, except perhaps to tell the older women to train the younger women to respect their husbands.

Context is key. Ignore the context and you can make it say whatever you please. One would hope a Christian being guided by the Spirit of truth would be on his guard against such.

 

[John Carpenter]

Hi Matthew,

1. ""Israel" itself is a "covenant family" entity. "Israel" is "the children of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob." " I'd suggest you study Romans 9. It teaches the opposite: that to be in covenant with God, the true Israel, is a matter of God's mercy, not family relation. That's one of the essential points of Romans 9. Throughout the Old Testament we see that ethnic Israelites are often not truly God's people and ethnic Gentiles sometimes become believers (Rahab, Ruth, Naaman). Salvation does not come through the family but by God's mercy.

2. Actually, in the family code in Ephesians the phrase "in the Lord" only occurs once, specifying that children are to obey their parents "in the Lord", apparently suggesting that Christian children should obey Christian parents but leaving open the case of non-Christian parents. Please be careful of over-stating your case.

3. Romans 9 says no such thing as you are suggesting (although I'm not clear as to what you are suggesting). It states as above. The root is the elect who were ethnic Israelites and the branches are the elect who are Gentile elect. It teaches that one cannot inherit a covenant with God by family relations. I have a recent sermon on Romans 9 I could send you if you're interested.

4. I think you need to spend some time looking at the teachings of the Lord Jesus on discipleship. He said He came to bring not "peace" but a sword, to cause divisions, even within the family. That division is the result of unity with the Lord, spiritual peace. The gospel of peace is the good news that our alienation from God is done away by Christ; accepting that gospel will frequently result in divisions and hostility on earth, including within families. You've fundamentally misunderstood the call to discipleship and the reality that the Lord Jesus repeatedly told us about.

5. You're right that "context is key." I agree. There is no context of familial relationship in Titus 2 (or even the whole letter.) I'm simply pointing out there that different groups within the church are dealt with in different ways with no reference to family. To say that the relationships in Titus 2 are "familial and not ecclesiastical" about Titus 2 is to insert ideas into the texts not justified by context or exegesis.

 

[Jack K]

Hi Jack,

I don't believe I've overstated my points because one of my main points is there are no commands telling us to insist on "family integrated" services. Therefore, it's not an overstatement to say that the FICM is making a major, divisive issue out of something that is not directly taught in scripture and shouldn't be insisted on.

1. Faith comes by hearing and children should be told the gospel in their children's church, if they have one. To assume that children's church is "removing our children from the Word" is groundless and unfair. Indeed, likely the main goal of children's church and other age segregated ministries is to deliver the Word to the children in a way they can best understand. It is precisely to help them hear the Word and so believe.

2. That's fine but scripture doesn't explicitly say this. Or, if unity is so important, then why do different evangelical churches meet separately in the same area? Are you also opposed to that. And why do you assume that meeting in separate rooms implies disunity? Do you also oppose different Sunday School classes going at the same time, in various rooms of the church building? Can a church have any meetings that do not incorporate everyone.

3. Actually, one could argue either, on the one hand, that he is doing a good job of spiritual leadership by sending his children to a venue where they will hear the Word in a way that is easier for them to understand. Or, on the other hand, that in the church the father is not the spiritual leader but the elders are and that insisting on his spiritual leadership in the church undermines the Christ-given offices in the church. Please see my point #4 above.

Please cite for me the "strong statements" about "a parent's spiritual leadership." And explain why, when Paul is specifically addressing the issue of ministry in the church, in Titus 2, he not only doesn't mention "a parent's spiritual leadership", he says nothing about the family at all and even speaks of addressing different age and sex differentiated groups in different ways.

John,

I think you'd only be overstating your point if you contended that the Bible says kids should worship separately. I don't believe you've done that.

Again, your opening post made some good points. I agree with them. The FIC movement insists on some things that should not be insisted on and are probably not the best way for most churches to run things. Okay? I teach kids' Sunday school classes. I believe there's value in teaching kids separately from the whole group during part of our mornings together. But...

1. When I teach kids I don't pretend to be an ordained minister, nor to speak the Word with that level of authority when I teach. Nor do I serve the Lord's Supper or perform baptisms in my class. In short, kids can't (and shouldn't) get all they need just from me. Although I teach the Word with diligence and expect it to bear fruit, they ought to be getting it in ALL its forms. The worship service provides what I don't.

2. Please don't attribute to me views held by the FIC folks, with whom I disagree. I have nothing against separating at times. I just also believe in coming together in worship as a whole church at regular times. It's good for all of us, and appropriate for people united in Christ.

3. Parents ought to be bringing up their children "in the nurture and admonition of the Lord." That's all I'm saying. Again, I'm not FIC. I believe the church as a whole, under the direction of its elders, is also charged with the training of kids (as it is with any other believer).

I have some concern with what I'm hearing from you that you seem to see things as either/or (either kids are in the service or in children's church—you have to pick what best gives them the Word) and that you assume worship services are not understandable to kids. Neither must be the case.

Why wouldn't we prefer for kids to attend whole-church worship during part of the morning and age-oriented or group-oriented or topic-oriented Sunday school classes—whatever best helps them learn—during another part of the morning? Why not have both? Why not give them all of it? Why does having age-grouped classes mean we knock the whole-church service? Both are good.

And why not work hard at having whole-church worship services that all but the youngest kids can understand in meaningful ways and feel a part of? It isn't all that hard if those leading the service want to do it and if the congregation is eager to embrace all members of God's family. And if done right, it won't mean the service is "dumbed down," either. The gospel provides a richness that can engage both young and old, at their levels of cognitive development, at the same time. Really.



--Finally, if I may ask... what's your background and your interest in all this? We don't know you very well, so it's hard to understand why you're tooting this particular horn. It might help us address your issues if we knew why you have them.

 

[MW]

1. ""Israel" itself is a "covenant family" entity. "Israel" is "the children of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob." " I'd suggest you study Romans 9. It teaches the opposite: that to be in covenant with God, the true Israel, is a matter of God's mercy, not family relation. That's one of the essential points of Romans 9. Throughout the Old Testament we see that ethnic Israelites are often not truly God's people and ethnic Gentiles sometimes become believers (Rahab, Ruth, Naaman). Salvation does not come through the family but by God's mercy.

That is a false dichotomy. Paul says "whose are the fathers" is a distinct privilege as a result of God foreknowing Israel. The covenant privilege by virtue of family relation is therefore to be traced to God's mercy, not placed in antithesis with it. May I suggest you look at the chapter with specific regard to the terms of "natural generation" as privileges given by God. It might just surprise you.

2. Actually, in the family code in Ephesians the phrase "in the Lord" only occurs once, specifying that children are to obey their parents "in the Lord", apparently suggesting that Christian children should obey Christian parents but leaving open the case of non-Christian parents. Please be careful of over-stating your case.

5:22, "as unto the Lord;" v. 25, "even as Christ also loved the church;" 6:1, "in the Lord;" v. 4, "in the nurture and admonition of the Lord."

You are limiting terms. The Holy Spirit does not say, "Christian children;" the statement is, "Children." They are regarded as being part of the covenant community.

3. Romans 9 says no such thing as you are suggesting (although I'm not clear as to what you are suggesting). It states as above. The root is the elect who were ethnic Israelites and the branches are the elect who are Gentile elect. It teaches that one cannot inherit a covenant with God by family relations. I have a recent sermon on Romans 9 I could send you if you're interested.

The analogy cannot refer to election in and of itself; the elect cannot be cut off; the branches were cut off and could be cut off. The analogy pertains to the privilege of belonging to the covenant entity.

4. I think you need to spend some time looking at the teachings of the Lord Jesus on discipleship. He said He came to bring not "peace" but a sword, to cause divisions, even within the family. That division is the result of unity with the Lord, spiritual peace. The gospel of peace is the good news that our alienation from God is done away by Christ; accepting that gospel will frequently result in divisions and hostility on earth, including within families. You've fundamentally misunderstood the call to discipleship and the reality that the Lord Jesus repeatedly told us about.

Divisiveness is a vice, not a virtue, Romans 16:17-18.

5. You're right that "context is key." I agree. There is no context of familial relationship in Titus 2 (or even the whole letter.) I'm simply pointing out there that different groups within the church are dealt with in different ways with no reference to family. To say that the relationships in Titus 2 are "familial and not ecclesiastical" about Titus 2 is to insert ideas into the texts not justified by context or exegesis.

"Aged men;" "aged women;" "younger women;" "young men;" "servants." All relevant to a family.

 

[John Carpenter]

Hi Jack,

Thanks for the thoughtful, courteous reply. I'm sorry if I've been to combative. I think basically we agree. As above, I'm no great lover of "children's church" and prefer in my church for the children to stay in the service with us, even the toddlers who don't know what's going on -- and I wish we could just relax and understand that they'll make a little noise and not be distracted by it. Even for Sunday School, currently our church is meeting together for it too. I like the article linked above by Piper on families meeting together. And about the gospel, I agree with you, that it can engage everyone, young and old. I was simply taking the position of an advocate for "children's church" and showing how such a person could mount a defense, even using some of the same texts FIC people do -- and probably with more validity.

What I don't like is the insistence of the FICM that this is a big deal, for all the reasons listed above. It is equivalent to having a "Pew Sitters Church Movement" that adamantly insisted that the novelty of chairs in churches should be rejected. Any error, no matter how small the issue per se, can become a major error when it is made the center of the church, something worth dividing over. It's instructive that one of the few sins that we're specifically told to practice church discipline over is divisiveness.

My interest is two-fold. First I lived for about five years in East Asia where the ethic of Confucianism reigns, and did a Master's thesis on Confucianism. In it, family is central. The fundamental religion of the Chinese can be said to be "familism." Christians in that context then frequently have to face direct challenges to their faith, usually in the form of loyalty to family. Christians are frequently pressured to burn incense to departed loved one or otherwise show veneration to their ancestors as an expression of family loyalty but usually understand that they simply can't do that. The scriptures about Christ coming with a sword to separate families, then, for them is real and practical. The FICM seems to have taken no real consideration of the call of discipleship. "When Christ bids a man, He bids him come and die" has become, "He bids him to make sure he sits with his family in church". Ok, I'm mocking now.

Secondly, I've dealt with a few of these people as a pastor. As above, I was told my one prospective elder in a FICM church that if only Jesus knew what we knew about how to keep families together and train our kids to be good Christians, He wouldn't have said what He said about leaving family! I'm paraphrasing but I believe I've captured the gist of it. This man, I believed, simply wanted to be in a church that vociferously reinforced his primacy in the family, i.e. his pride. And I suspect that drives at least some of the FIC: egocentric men who want the Word and church of God used to bolster their status. I've seen them be willing to drive long distances and even relocate to be a part of a FIC but seem to have little regard for the Word or interest in evangelism. It looks to me a lot like the cult of the family I've seen in East Asia, now dressed in Christian garb.

And, I might add, there is the unBiblical nature of it all. It frankly bothers me to see the Word of God so badly used.

 

[GulfCoast Presbyterian]

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[John Carpenter]

Hi Matthew,

Excuse me but I haven't mastered how to do the quote thing well.

1. Again, you simply don't understand Romans 9. The dominant question is "how do people receive the mercy of God?" He's disposed earlier of the proferred answer that they do so by works. In Romans 9, he disposes of the idea that they get mercy by familial relations. Your statement that one is in a covenant privilege with God by virtue of familial relation is false and is just the error Romans 9 was written to refute. The over-arching theme of the Bible of salvation by God's grace is contrary to that too.

2. You said that the phrase "in the Lord" occurs many times in the family code. Now you change the term and accuse me of limiting the term. That's not an honest way to carry on a conversation. If you are going to continue to do that, please stop responding to me. Children are to obey their parents "in the Lord"; if they aren't Christians, they aren't "in the Lord." Anyway, you've not shown a connection from this passage to Ephesians 2 that you earlier said taught the FICM ideas or the phrase "covenant families." When you are wrong, just admit it.

3. The branches that were cut off were cut off because they did not believe and thus were not elect. I don't really know what this has to do with the FICM ideas but if you're interested in Romans 11, I have a recent sermon on it too.

4. You've taken Romans 16:17f out of context and applied it in away to try to make void the teachings of Jesus about discipleship. Please stop doing that. It is a spiritual problem. The Lord Jesus told us that He came not to bring peace but a sword (Mt. 10:34). That is, one must be willing to divide from ones family. The Romans 16:17f passage has to with divisiveness in the church (such as caused by the FIC insisting on something not found in scripture.) Matthew, your egregious twisting of Romans 16:17f to avoid the clear words of the Lord Jesus is a serious problem. Please examine yourself as to why you'd do such a thing.

5. Again, you're inserting ideas of family that simply are not there in Titus 2. If Paul had wanted to say "fathers", "mothers", etc, he could easily have done so. But he did not. That's basic exegesis. We take what is there, not read into it. You are practicing eisegesis.

Frankly, unless I see a more honest and respectful handling of the text of scripture, I'm not interested in engaging with you any more. Your mishandling of texts in that post is grievous.

 

[Jack K]

John, the background is helpful. Thanks.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Taking a time out.

 

[MW]

Frankly, unless I see a more honest and respectful handling of the text of scripture, I'm not interested in engaging with you any more. Your mishandling of texts in that post is grievous.

There is nothing in your post which substantively answers my post in order to move the discussion along. All you have engaged in is personal detraction. I would regard it as a courtesy if you didn't engage me any more if such is to be your modus operandi.