Singles within the Family of Families?

[PuritanCovenanter]

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

I have experienced some churches that do hold to a practice that the married are considered more mature by their practice. It wasn't said or publicly pronounced. I have heard pronouncements upon the single minded people that they bore a certain attitude of selfishness. I might agree with that but I am not so sure it is a sinful selfishness.

OPC,

I do not believe a woman is under the headship of her father after she is older. That is what becoming an adult is. Putting away childish things is becoming a person under the headship of their own responsibility. If we are Christians and single, Christ is our head. Unless a woman is married of course. Than she submits to her husband as a picture of Christ and the Church.

I wasn't trying to be overly nosy in the post where I asked you very pointed questions. I hope I didn't hit a nerve and make you uncomfortable. I agree, if I were in your shoes I would prefer someone to ask my mother for my hand in marriage also. She was your parental head and leader. Unfortunately your Dad abandoned his job for whatever reason. It might have been a maturity issue where he never learned it, understood it, nor experienced it, thus leaving him confused and heartless for the situation.

I imagine most of the youth of our Nation have this same problem.

 

[ubermadchen]

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

I have experienced some churches that do hold to a practice that the married are considered more mature by their practice. It wasn't said or publicly pronounced. I have heard pronouncements upon the single minded people that they bore a certain attitude of selfishness. I might agree with that but I am not so sure it is a sinful selfishness.

OPC,

I do not believe a woman is under the headship of her father after she is older. That is what becoming an adult is. Putting away childish things is becoming a person under the headship of their own responsibility. If we are Christians and single, Christ is our head. Unless a woman is married of course. Than she submits to her husband as a picture of Christ and the Church.

I wasn't trying to be overly nosy in the post where I asked you very pointed questions. I hope I didn't hit a nerve and make you uncomfortable. I agree, if I were in your shoes I would prefer someone to ask my mother for my hand in marriage also. She was your parental head and leader. Unfortunately your Dad abandoned his job for whatever reason. It might have been a maturity issue where he never learned it, understood it, nor experienced it, thus leaving him confused and heartless for the situation.

I imagine most of the youth of our Nation have this same problem.

Yes, going along with OPC'n point, I hope for my mother to walk me down the aisle should I get married. I don't intend to make it some type of feminist statement (I've been accused of that before), but I believe it to be the most honorable thing I could do for the only parent in my life who has been with me since birth. Also, knowing my father and stepfather, I believe they too would agree with her placement.

I am enjoying the discussion thus far on this topic!

 

[Montanablue]

I have heard pronouncements upon the single minded people that they bore a certain attitude of selfishness. I might agree with that but I am not so sure it is a sinful selfishness.

There's a lot of truth in this statement - but (you knew the but was coming, lol), some people (and I'm speaking specifically of women here) just simply haven't been proposed to.

 

[fredtgreco]

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 disagree. The movement (not an individual church) certainly believes that "family integration" is important enough to have a "Confession" - and that Confession does not address a host of fundamental issues, but rather focuses on a tertiary matter. (Otherwise churches as varied as a heretical Mennonite church and a systemic error-prone Dispensational church could not stand side by side with a Presbyterian church).

The implicit statement is that it is more important to be in a "family integrated church" than a sound church. Color me skeptical, but I think it is more Biblical to actually teach the Scriptures and have age segregated Sunday School than to have the whole family be lead astray by error.

 

[Tripel]

I have heard pronouncements upon the single minded people that they bore a certain attitude of selfishness. I might agree with that but I am not so sure it is a sinful selfishness.

There's a lot of truth in this statement - but (you knew the but was coming, lol), some people (and I'm speaking specifically of women here) just simply haven't been proposed to.

I guess I haven't been exposed to these selfishly single people. We have a fairly small number of singles in our church, and I bet they would all jump at the opportunity to enter into a marriage (with the right person, of course).

 

[Montanablue]

I have heard pronouncements upon the single minded people that they bore a certain attitude of selfishness. I might agree with that but I am not so sure it is a sinful selfishness.

There's a lot of truth in this statement - but (you knew the but was coming, lol), some people (and I'm speaking specifically of women here) just simply haven't been proposed to.

I guess I haven't been exposed to these selfishly single people. We have a fairly small number of singles in our church, and I bet they would all jump at the opportunity to enter into a marriage (with the right person, of course).

I do know some people (although upon reflection none of them are Christians) who have chosen to remain single for "selfish" reasons (examples: wanting more freedom to move where they want, wanting to make sure they do not have children right away, wanting to finish school first). Although those reasons could be considered "selfish," I don't think they're neccessarily wrong. I think that's what Puritan Covenanter was getting it - and its what I meant as well. For the most part though, I think you're right. Most Christian singles would probably be happy to marry the right person.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

The implicit statement is that it is more important to be in a "family integrated church" than a sound church. Color me skeptical, but I think it is more Biblical to actually teach the Scriptures and have age segregated Sunday School than to have the whole family be lead astray by error.

I also think that age appropriate teaching should be considered. Toddlers, adolescents, and young adults need to be fed differently. Their understanding and maturity levels require that they be taught and have teaching that is applicable to the things they deal with. Adolescents, singles, and married couples do not have the same struggles nor applications in life that are completely similar. Therefore classes and applicable teaching should vary for each group.

 

[nasa30]

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 disagree. The movement (not an individual church) certainly believes that "family integration" is important enough to have a "Confession" - and that Confession does not address a host of fundamental issues, but rather focuses on a tertiary matter. (Otherwise churches as varied as a heretical Mennonite church and a systemic error-prone Dispensational church could not stand side by side with a Presbyterian church).

The implicit statement is that it is more important to be in a "family integrated church" than a sound church. Color me skeptical, but I think it is more Biblical to actually teach the Scriptures and have age segregated Sunday School than to have the whole family be lead astray by error.

Disagreement noted. But that being said, if you are going to propose a point of view you would need something to lay out the beliefs. Call it a confession if you like. Most of the Anti-FIC folks slam Vision Forum and Doug Phillips but if you check out the church that he is an elder at, they list their confession as the LBC 1689 and no other confessions. No FIC confession.

Your take on the implicit statement is not correct in my opinion. If folks only read from the FIC items, you do not understand the whole message. The FIC items are to explain the principle and are not meant to be all-inclusive as to all you need to do in church. Trust me sir, we do teach the scriptures and we do it in a non-age segratation fashion.

If you read a manual on a microwave, it will only talk about a microwave. If you read FIC information, it will just explain the FIC.

 

[Megan Mozart]

This thread is great...

A lot of wise things being tossed about from all sides.

-----Added 10/21/2009 at 12:54:14 EST-----

Thanks to all who are participating.

 

[fredtgreco]

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 disagree. The movement (not an individual church) certainly believes that "family integration" is important enough to have a "Confession" - and that Confession does not address a host of fundamental issues, but rather focuses on a tertiary matter. (Otherwise churches as varied as a heretical Mennonite church and a systemic error-prone Dispensational church could not stand side by side with a Presbyterian church).

The implicit statement is that it is more important to be in a "family integrated church" than a sound church. Color me skeptical, but I think it is more Biblical to actually teach the Scriptures and have age segregated Sunday School than to have the whole family be lead astray by error.

Disagreement noted. But that being said, if you are going to propose a point of view you would need something to lay out the beliefs. Call it a confession if you like. Most of the Anti-FIC folks slam Vision Forum and Doug Phillips but if you check out the church that he is an elder at, they list their confession as the LBC 1689 and no other confessions. No FIC confession.

Your take on the implicit statement is not correct in my opinion. If folks only read from the FIC items, you do not understand the whole message. The FIC items are to explain the principle and are not meant to be all-inclusive as to all you need to do in church. Trust me sir, we do teach the scriptures and we do it in a non-age segratation fashion.

If you read a manual on a microwave, it will only talk about a microwave. If you read FIC information, it will just explain the FIC.

You are making my point. If I want to use a microwave, I expect a manual on a microwave, not a detail manual on a light bulb (even though a microwave has one) or a freezer. The FIC "movement" has not only the cart before the horse, it is making an emphasis on "what the church should be" that is uneven and out-of-proportion.

 

[Pilgrim72]

Some churches seem quite uncomfortable with older singles. Early to mid 20s - fine. Mid 30s? not so much so.

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.

 

[nasa30]

I disagree. The movement (not an individual church) certainly believes that "family integration" is important enough to have a "Confession" - and that Confession does not address a host of fundamental issues, but rather focuses on a tertiary matter. (Otherwise churches as varied as a heretical Mennonite church and a systemic error-prone Dispensational church could not stand side by side with a Presbyterian church).

The implicit statement is that it is more important to be in a "family integrated church" than a sound church. Color me skeptical, but I think it is more Biblical to actually teach the Scriptures and have age segregated Sunday School than to have the whole family be lead astray by error.

Disagreement noted. But that being said, if you are going to propose a point of view you would need something to lay out the beliefs. Call it a confession if you like. Most of the Anti-FIC folks slam Vision Forum and Doug Phillips but if you check out the church that he is an elder at, they list their confession as the LBC 1689 and no other confessions. No FIC confession.

Your take on the implicit statement is not correct in my opinion. If folks only read from the FIC items, you do not understand the whole message. The FIC items are to explain the principle and are not meant to be all-inclusive as to all you need to do in church. Trust me sir, we do teach the scriptures and we do it in a non-age segregation fashion.

If you read a manual on a microwave, it will only talk about a microwave. If you read FIC information, it will just explain the FIC.

You are making my point. If I want to use a microwave, I expect a manual on a microwave, not a detail manual on a light bulb (even though a microwave has one) or a freezer. The FIC "movement" has not only the cart before the horse, it is making an emphasis on "what the church should be" that is uneven and out-of-proportion.

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.

 

[ubermadchen]

Some churches seem quite uncomfortable with older singles. Early to mid 20s - fine. Mid 30s? not so much so.

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.

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...

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

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.

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.

 

[nasa30]

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.

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.

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.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

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.

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.

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.

 

[JML]

Kids pick up so much that we do not give them credit for being able to do.

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

 

[nasa30]

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.

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.

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.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

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.

 

[nasa30]

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.

 

[cbryant]

Some churches seem quite uncomfortable with older singles. Early to mid 20s - fine. Mid 30s? not so much so.

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?

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

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.

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.

 

[Edward]

There's a lot of truth in this statement - but (you knew the but was coming, lol), some people (and I'm speaking specifically of women here) just simply haven't been proposed to.

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.)

 

[nasa30]

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.

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.

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.

 

[TimV]

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.

 

[nasa30]

Hey Patricia,

In the other thread, you had said

I've posed this question before and it has yet to be answered by the FIC folks: "how can a single be considered a "family of one" in the "family of families" description?" How exactly does that work out in a day to day operation? Are we considered full and effective members of the Church? I looked at your five part argument and singles aren't even addressed once.

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.

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.

 

[ubermadchen]

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.

 

[nasa30]

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.

 

[Timothy William]

I have experienced some churches that do hold to a practice that the married are considered more mature by their practice. It wasn't said or publicly pronounced. I have heard pronouncements upon the single minded people that they bore a certain attitude of selfishness. I might agree with that but I am not so sure it is a sinful selfishness.

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.)

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.

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?

 

[shead]

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.