# Seven Suggested Problems with the "Family Integrated Church Movement"



## John Carpenter

*Seven Suggested Problems with the "Family Integrated Church Movement" Plus one Extra: Eight Problems!*​
The "Family Integrated Church" (FIC) movement insists on the necessity of families meeting together for the main service of the church and that if age and sex segregated ministries are to be tolerated at all, they should be done by family members, not by specialized youth ministers. They see these distinctives as important enough to form entire churches around. The problems with this, as I see them, are: 

(1) The sufficiency of scripture: To be "Reformed" is to believe in sola scriptura. I believe that the sufficiency of scripture means that scripture tells us everything that is sufficient for the essential operation of the church. Scripture does not tell us that all meetings need to be "integrated". Therefore, we have to wonder why the FIC is making such a major issue of it. For this reason I would question whether the FIC is outside the bounds of the "Reformed" camp. 

(2) Divisiveness: FIC makes an essential out of something that can't even be described as a secondary issue (perhaps a tertiary issue); whole churches are organized around something that there is not one command for the church to do. They believe their "family integration" is so important to the church that it is valid to differentiate their church from others on that basis alone. Whether they are "hyper-patriarchal" or not, the question is whether integrating every assembly of the church is a substantial enough an issue to organize a church around. Please note that practically, I prefer the advice of John Piper who doesn't support a separate "children's church" (The Family: Together in God's*Presence - Desiring God). Practically, I prefer that the children stay in the main service and that's the way our church has developed. But I don't think it is a dogmatic issue and would work with children's church if necessary. On the other hand, I would be insistent about the need to sing psalms (not exclusively) because that is a clear Biblical command. We should be insistent on those things that scripture clearly teaches us and flexible about things it does not.

If, for example, I started the "Pew Sitting Church Movement" (PSCM); insisted that pew sitting was good enough for the church for centuries; that about the same time some churches started to use chairs the church declined (so they must be connected!); that chair sitting is "modernistic"; etc. Then I insisted that to be a sound church it must use pews; and encouraged people not to go to churches that used chairs. That would be absurd because there's not a hint of that in scripture. It’s not that it’s wrong to sit in pews. What is wrong is the elevation of an extra-Biblical opinion to the level of a Biblical conviction.

(3) Contradicts Scripture: It appears to be in direct contradiction to the instruction of the Apostle Paul to the work of the pastor in Titus 2, where Paul tells Titus to address distinct age and gender segregated groups; the only group that Paul doesn't tell Titus to deal with directly illustrates even more vividly the lack of the patriarchal approach: young women are to be discipled by older women (not by their fathers or by their mothers). It is clear, in that the chapter begins and ends by mentioning the teaching role of Titus, that Paul is addressing the ministry of the church as a whole, not simply narrowly the discipleship-relationships outside the main assembly. Hence, that what the FIC insists on -- "family integration" -- is omitted completely in Titus 2 proves that the FIC’s emphasis is not a Biblical one.

(4) Undermines the Authority of the Offices in the church: Ephesians 4:11 tells us that God has called particular officers ("gifts") to build up the church (who are the elect), namely (for our day) pastors/teachers. The FIC, on the other hand, frequently suggests that the pastor normally works through the heads of the households; they will say that the family is another authority in the church. This is unBiblical. 

(5) The FIC Misreads Church History: The FIC insists that the ministry of the church wasn’t focused on specific demographic groups until very recently and is therefore the product of “humanistic” marketing techniques. This appears to be the result of a lack of understanding church history. In the early history of the church, men and women would separate, and not only worship separately but live separately. Eventually this gave rise to the monasteries and convents. Perhaps a case can be made that age segregation didn't occur in Protestant churches for the worship service until relatively recently; that would likely be true. However, sound, conscientious pastors, like Jonathan Edwards, would frequently gather the youth together for specific instruction, distinct from the rest of the body of the church. That was in the mid-eighteenth century. In the early next century, the Sunday School movement arose to organize just that kind of approach, sensing a need of the children and youth to be addressed directly. Therefore, the suggestion of the FIC that age segregation is a new development and therefore arising out of humanistic marketing techniques is highly questionable.

(6) The FIC is a Cure for a Disease that’s Not Prevalent: The suggestion that the “problem” they are addressing is really even a problem, also needs to be questioned. Today, only a few mega-churches segregate into highly niche-targeted demographics. I don't know of one church in my area that does that. Also, among those that have a “children’s church” during the main service how many would adamantly require children to leave even if a father wanted to keep them in the service? Surely very few, if any; I suspect that most churches with a “children’s church” would allow the children to stay in the service if the parents insisted that such was their preference. So this is not a widespread problem that deserves an entire movement (or even distinct churches) to address. In fact, the disease the FIC purports to be trying to cure isn't really there at all. 

(7) Misdefinition of the Church: Finally, as above, the definition of the church is flawed. It is not a "family of families". The church is the "household of God" (1 Tim. 3:15). The Lord puts people from all kinds of families and frequently (and sadly) often there are only some people from each family that are truly converted and made part of the church. The family is a creation institution that will end with the old creation. The Lord Jesus appears to say that "in heaven" that since there will be no marriage, there will be no family. The church, however, as the assembly of God's people, will last eternally. By making the church centered on or serving the family, the FICM subverts the church.

(8) Familism: the Lord Jesus pitied loyalty to the family against loyalty to Him. When He was informed that his natural family was outside and wanted to speak with Him, rather than putting “integrating” with that family as a priority, he pointed to those around Him, listening to the Word of God (the church) and said, “ “Here are my mother and my brothers!” (Mt. 12:46ff.) In other words, the spiritual family of the church takes priority over the natural family. This is the practice the church is to follow. On the other hand, the FIC smacks of “familism”. Familism — the making the family the ultimate loyalty — is an idol, a competitor to the Lordship of Christ; hence, Jesus tells us we must be willing to “hate” the family to follow Him. On paper The National Center for Family-Intergrated Churches (NCFIC), the main source for FIC doctrine, affirms this, “We affirm that the gospel may divide families because the gospel can “set a man at variance against his father” and that “He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me” and that our duty is to obey God rather than man (Matt. 10:35-37; Acts 4:19-21). We deny/reject that loyalty to the family should ever supercede obedience to God which makes the family an idol.” While that would seem to answer my objection, keep in mind that errant movements usually profess, in formal doctrine, not to take their positions to the problematic extremes. The Catholic church claims it believes in salvation by grace (just not “alone”). It also claims not to practice idolatry, only that they are “venerating” images, etc. Practice and priorities speak volumes about what a group's true convictions are, notwithstanding their formal doctrinal statements. So, we must ask, if they are not making an idol out of the family, why are they making such a priority of something not at all found in scripture? Why do they think it is so important? I once had a prospective elder in a FIC church seriously suggest to me that Jesus didn’t know what they know about how to save whole families; that Jesus’ challenge to discipleship wouldn’t be necessary if we only follow the FIC model.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

John,
You might appreciate this discussion: http://www.puritanboard.com/f117/fic-elder-talks-reformed-pastor-70997/ , and other posts (and papers) by Pastor Mathis on this topic.


----------



## John Carpenter

Hi Bruce,

Thanks for that. I agree with Pastor Mathis. And I note how obsessed the proponent of the FIC seems to be about it. Whenever someone is that focused on something scripture is completely silent about, there is a problem. It would be like someone obsessing over "Pew Sitting". On the one hand I could shrug my shoulders and say "whatever", "If you want us to sit in pews, fine" but, on the other hand, I'd think that there's something wrong with someone who makes such a big deal about it.


----------



## Fly Caster

I've stayed out of the past discussions, but one point above caught my eye. I'll go ahead and state that I am sympathetic with what is known as the FIC movement and the corrections that it is attempting to make-- all the while recognizing that with any type of "correction" certain dangers are real in taking it too far. So I don't mind critical discussion, but I'm somewhat put off by blanket condemnation.

Point #6 misses wide the mark. There is a problem and it is prevelant. And yes, I know of more than one church where children are not welcome in the worship service. I used to be an usher at one where we were instructed to go as far as escorting out of the building those who refused to comply. Of course this extreme is not as prevelant as age-segregation in general; but the difference is one of degree and not of kind. There are others ways to pressure and manipulate folks to split up the family other than showing them the door.


----------



## John Carpenter

That you admit requiring age segregation is "extreme" then proves my point: it's not prevalent. If a church encourages (though not requires) age groups to meet separately, they may be doing that as a valid attempt to follow Titus 2 which speaks directly to age (and gender) groups and does not require (nor any other place in scripture) "family integration" in the church.


----------



## Fly Caster

John Carpenter said:


> That you admit requiring age segregation is "extreme" then proves my point: it's not prevelant.




I fail to see how the extreme of escorting people from church proves your point in #6 that the “problem” is "not prevelant." One does not exclude the other. The habitual failing to attend worship is an "extreme" violation of the command to be "Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together"-- that doesn't mean the practice is not prevelant.


----------



## Jack K

Fly Caster said:


> Point #6 misses wide the mark. There is a problem and it is prevelant. And yes, I know of more than one church where children are not welcome in the worship service. I used to be an usher at one where we were instructed to go as far as escorting out of the building those who refused to comply. Of course this extreme is not as prevelant as age-segregation in general; but the difference is one of degree and not of kind. There are others ways to pressure and manipulate folks to split up the family other than showing them the door.



I've heard many complaints about this sort of thing but have never actually seen it, despite visiting a good number of broadly evangelical churches. I'm sure it exists, but I have to suspect it's still easy to find a church that allows kids in the service. Those that don't would be the exception, not the rule.

John, your post makes some excellent points.


----------



## Romans922

John, 

I would be hesitant to say that Scripture or the principles of Scripture is silent on this issue. I believe we can learn a lot from Scripture about this topic, yet I would not come down completely on the FIC side of things. I believe for the proponents of such, it is often the main issue, but the main issue is the Gospel. Can we learn things from FIC that some of the church has struggled with? Sure. Yet, it is of my opinion that FIC is just another pendulum swing that has gone too far, but does help us show some errors in the Church (though they may not be perfectly corrected with said movement).


----------



## John Carpenter

Hi Fly Caster,

If something is "extreme" by definition it is "not prevalent." One does preclude the other in the context of speaking about how common a practice is (which was the context I employed it). Extreme, in the way I used it of the practice, means to be far out of the norm. Nonattendance is an "extreme violation", yes, but if I said it was an "extreme practice" that would be wrong because it is common. Granted that you may have used "extreme" in another context and thus I'm wrong to say that you conceded my point.

But, be that as it may, my initial point is still valid: there simply are not many churches that uncompromisingly demand that family members go to their age segregated groups (like "children's church") even if they don't want to. The church you mention is the only one I've ever heard of to do so; it is extreme and not prevalent and so the "disease" the FIC seeks to address isn't widespread.


----------



## John Carpenter

Jack K said:


> Fly Caster said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have to suspect it's still easy to find a church that allows kids in the service. Those that don't would be the exception, not the rule.
> 
> John, your post makes some excellent points.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks Jack K! I appreciate it. By the way, I'm a Baptist who once worshiped with some fine PCA people!
Click to expand...


----------



## John Carpenter

Romans922 said:


> I believe we can learn a lot from Scripture about this topic, yet I would not come down completely on the FIC side of things.



Ok, then please name the scriptures for us that tell the church to be "family integrated." I don't know of any. If there are some that I'm missing, I'd like to know.

As far as I can tell, one of the few specific instructions to the elders about doing ministry to the church is Titus 2, in which Paul gives Titus instructions specific to both age and sex differentiated groups.


----------



## Romans922

John, 

Titus shows what Titus was to teach the Church. Those roles of men and women in the congregation. But like I said I am not a proponent of FIC. So I agree that older women (not just those in the family) are to teach the younger. Yet, as I said, based in what FIC is countering, we can learn or be reminded of many things.

One of those things is the need for children to be in public worship. And the abstaining from anything that resembles a "children's church". In baptist circles especially, but as we know from a recent discussion on the PB, Presbyterians as well take children out of worship and put them in the nursery or what have you. Yet Scripture is clear (Neh. 8, Deut. 29, Matthew 19, etc.) that children are to be in worship with their families. So like I said, there are good things in FIC, and not EVERYTHING should be discounted because they are addressing a problem. They just go too far in their answer to the problem and have not conformed their answer to God's answer. 

Like I said, there is much we can learn from FIC, especially if we are coming out of baptistic (non-reformed) circles or the like. Places where youth ministry is so far emphasized, children are called to either not be in public worship and just go to youth ministry or that even the youth ministry is their youth worship/church. But we need to be mindful that they also go too far in many respects.


----------



## John Carpenter

Romans922 said:


> Scripture is clear (Neh. 8, Deut. 29, Matthew 19, etc.) that children are to be in worship with their families.



No, scripture is NOT at all clear about that. Nehemiah 8 and Matthew 19 are historical records, narrative not imperative. I think a good case can be made that the Apostolic church had the Lord's Supper every week. I believe the narratives show that. But there is not one imperative telling us to do so and so we don't have to follow that. Further, Nehemiah 8 is a unique historical event, the gathering of all Israel after their return from exile. It really doesn't tell us how to do church. Matthew 19 -- I'm assuming you're referring to the Lord Jesus' statement to "let the children come to Me" -- likewise has no clear bearing on how we do church. Indeed, a proponent of age segregated meetings, children's church and the like, could just as well argue from the same text that we are bend over backward to make the children feel comfortable, speak to them on their level, and thus use it as a rationale for insisting on a children's church. Deuteronomy 29 is egregiously misapplied as it only tells parents to instruct their children in the faith at every spontaneous opportunity. It has no application to the gathering of the church, except that parents ought to lead their children in faithful church attendance.

Besides, you simply haven't dealt fully with Titus 2. There, Paul specifically tells Titus to approach age and sex segregated groups in different ways. Never once does he speak of keeping families together or approaching members of the church in and through their families. The older women are specifically told to instruct the younger women, not just the fathers or their mothers instruct them but other, likely unrelated older women. When one of the few texts that specifically addresses the exact issue that the FIC purports to be concerned with -- what to do in the church, how to approach various groups -- and the inspired Apostles answer is nothing like the answer the FIC proffers, then we can conclude the FIC is wrong.

Also, as in point #6 above, I simply don't acknowledge that what they are addressing is a problem.


----------



## Jack K

Romans922 said:


> John,
> 
> Titus shows what Titus was to teach the Church. Those roles of men and women in the congregation. But like I said I am not a proponent of FIC. So I agree that older women (not just those in the family) are to teach the younger. Yet, as I said, based in what FIC is countering, we can learn or be reminded of many things.
> 
> One of those things is the need for children to be in public worship. And the abstaining from anything that resembles a "children's church". In baptist circles especially, but as we know from a recent discussion on the PB, Presbyterians as well take children out of worship and put them in the nursery or what have you. Yet Scripture is clear (Neh. 8, Deut. 29, Matthew 19, etc.) that children are to be in worship with their families. So like I said, there are good things in FIC, and not EVERYTHING should be discounted because they are addressing a problem. They just go too far in their answer to the problem and have not conformed their answer to God's answer.
> 
> Like I said, there is much we can learn from FIC, especially if we are coming out of baptistic (non-reformed) circles or the like. Places where youth ministry is so far emphasized, children are called to either not be in public worship and just go to youth ministry or that even the youth ministry is their youth worship/church. But we need to be mindful that they also go too far in many respects.



And I'll add my agreement to all that. The FIC movement has rightly noticed some real problems. They're making some good points. Kids ought to be in worship with the whole church. Dads should be leading their families spiritually (which should include worshipping together at church). And some ministry programs for kids are doing more harm than good. All that is true enough.

But I don't think they've spoken to those problems very effectively. Because they take things too far, churches that need to listen to them instead label them as crazies and tune them out.

In my church, I've been an outspoken advocate for kids being in the worship service and for parents leading their families spiritually. At times, people have tuned me out. They figure I'm one of those extremists who believes Sunday school classes are of the devil. So why listen to me? I'm one of the crazies. But I'm _not_ one of those. I _teach_ kids' Sunday school. Sadly, though, I get lumped in with the extremists because they're loud and noticed. If they were less radical and more biblical, they might better help bring about some needed changes.


----------



## Romans922

John Carpenter said:


> Romans922 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Scripture is clear (Neh. 8, Deut. 29, Matthew 19, etc.) that children are to be in worship with their families.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, scripture is NOT at all clear about that. Nehemiah 8 and Matthew 19 are historical records, narrative not imperative. I think a good case can be made that the Apostolic church had the Lord's Supper every week. I believe the narratives show that. But there is not one imperative telling us to do so and so we don't have to follow that. Further, Nehemiah 8 is a unique historical event, the gathering of all Israel after their return from exile. It really doesn't tell us how to do church. Matthew 19 -- I'm assuming you're referring to the Lord Jesus' statement to "let the children come to Me" -- likewise has no clear bearing on how we do church. Indeed, a proponent of age segregated meetings, children's church and the like, could just as well argue from the same text that we are bend over backward to make the children feel comfortable, speak to them on their level, and thus use it as a rationale for insisting on a children's church. Deuteronomy 29 is egregiously misapplied as it only tells parents to instruct their children in the faith at every spontaneous opportunity. It has no application to the gathering of the church, except that parents ought to lead their children in faithful church attendance.
> 
> Besides, you simply haven't dealt fully with Titus 2. There, Paul specifically tells Titus to approach age and sex segregated groups in different ways. Never once does he speak of keeping families together or approaching members of the church in and through their families. The older women are specifically told to instruct the younger women, not just the fathers or their mothers instruct them but other, likely unrelated older women. When one of the few texts that specifically addresses the exact issue that the FIC purports to be concerned with -- what to do in the church, how to approach various groups -- and the inspired Apostles answer is nothing like the answer the FIC proffers, then we can conclude the FIC is wrong.
> 
> Also, as in point #6 above, I simply don't acknowledge that what they are addressing is a problem.
Click to expand...


John, 

It seems you are arguing for the sake of arguing. I'm not really disagreeing with you, just saying there are positives about FIC.


----------



## PaulMc

Fly Caster said:


> Point #6 misses wide the mark. There is a problem and it is prevelant. And yes, I know of more than one church where children are not welcome in the worship service. I used to be an usher at one where we were instructed to go as far as escorting out of the building those who refused to comply.



I am sad to say that I know of a church where this is the case, where any child under the age of around 10 or 11 cannot be in the worship service, but must be in Children's church. Any family with young children would never be able to be together during the service. This grieves me.
It makes it worse that the place in question is one of the biggest and most prominent reformed churches in England.


----------



## John Carpenter

Hi Paul,

First, one church does not a trend make. 
Second, one cannot establish from scripture that having a children's church is wrong. So there is no need to be grieved by it.
Third, one can establish from scripture that divisiveness is wrong (e.g. Titus 3:9f) and can show that the FICM can be divisive over this issue. 
Therefore, it is the FICM that is doing what is grievous.


----------



## Romans922

John, 



John Carpenter said:


> Second, one cannot establish from scripture that having a children's church is wrong. So there is no need to be grieved by it.



God says, "You shall not worship the LORD your God in that way, for every abominable thing that the LORD hates they have done for their gods, for they even burn their sons and their daughters in the fire to their gods. Everything that I command you, you shall be careful to do. You shall not add to it or take from it."

Where in Scripture do we see "Children's Church" commanded or deduced from Scripture?


----------



## PaulMc

John Carpenter said:


> Hi Paul,
> 
> First, one church does not a trend make.
> Second, one cannot establish from scripture that having a children's church is wrong. So there is no need to be grieved by it.
> Third, one can establish from scripture that divisiveness is wrong (e.g. Titus 3:9f) and can show that the FICM can be divisive over this issue.
> Therefore, it is the FICM that is doing what is grievous.



Hi John,
I didn't write that in support of the FICM in any way.
To your second point, while I don't think that having a children's church is right, I am sad that it is _mandatory_, somewhere your family _must_ be broken up if you have any children under a certain age. I wouldn't have so much of a problem if it was optional.


----------



## DeniseM

> Then Joshua built an altar unto the Lord God of Israel in mount Ebal, As Moses the servant of the Lord commanded the children of Israel, as it is written in the book of the law of Moses, an altar of whole stones, over which no man hath lift up any iron: and they offered thereon burnt offerings unto the Lord, and sacrificed peace offerings. And he wrote there upon the stones a copy of the law of Moses, which he wrote in the presence of the children of Israel. And all Israel, and their elders, and officers, and their judges, stood on this side the ark and on that side before the priests the Levites, which bare the ark of the covenant of the Lord, as well the stranger, as he that was born among them; half of them over against mount Gerizim, and half of them over against mount Ebal; as Moses the servant of the Lord had commanded before, that they should bless the people of Israel. And afterward he read all the words of the law, the blessings and cursings, according to all that is written in the book of the law. There was not a word of all that Moses commanded, which Joshua read not before all the congregation of Israel, with the women, and the little ones, and the strangers that were conversant among them. Joshua 8:30-35



Joshua addressed the men, women and children at the same time, in the same worship setting. I*'m not saying that the Family Integrated Churches are correct in all of their teachings*, but where is the justification for separating the children from their parents in worship? Teaching is one thing and corporate worship is another. Corporate worship does include teaching, but it also involves much more. When the ladies of the church have edifying conversations after the service or join together for a bible study, we often teach one another, but this doesn't excuse us of our duty to come together as a congregation, the body of Christ, in which all the members are one body joined together in Christ. Christ appears to have also taught the women, men and children together, when he preached. -Matthew 15:38 

Just wondering where the justification for forming a children's church in the first place would come from? During corporate worship, the Pastor is already leading the congregation in worship, so who would be leading the children in the separate children's church? Do we not need an ordained Pastor to lead our children in corporate worship? If not, do you think that this could lead to the mind set of treating our children as second rate Christians? 

Not trying to challenge you here, just really seeking to learn the proper biblical teaching on these subjects. Any thoughts?


----------



## Tim

John Carpenter said:


> Second, one cannot establish from scripture that having a children's church is wrong.





John Carpenter said:


> Scripture does not tell us that all meetings need to be "integrated".





John Carpenter said:


> Hence, that what the FIC insists on -- "family integration" -- is omitted completely in Titus 2 proves that the FIC’s emphasis is not a Biblical one.



Dr. Carpenter, I find the sort of reasoning you are using to be way too "quick". It sounds like you require an explicit proof text for each position, rather than arriving at a conclusion based on the consequence of biblical principles, and if you don't find anything explicit, you proclaim that "scripture is silent", citing this is sufficient evidence that a particular position should be rejected.

You also seem to be making sweeping statements and conclusions based on a single Biblical passage:



John Carpenter said:


> Third, one can establish from scripture that divisiveness is wrong (e.g. Titus 3:9f) and can show that the FICM can be divisive over this issue. Therefore, it is the FICM that is doing what is grievous.



I suggest that you take this a bit slower. There are a number of points in this topic that have a valid place in discussion. Please do not dismiss them all so quickly, or else there will be nothing left to discuss in this thread! And it's a good issue to discuss, so thanks for bringing up the topic.


----------



## Curt

John Carpenter said:


> Second, one cannot establish from scripture that having a children's church is wrong.



I've tried to stay away from these discussion, because I don't want to seem self-serving. In Chapter 10 of our (my wife Sandra and myself) forthcoming book, Children in Church: Nurturing Hearts of Worship, I write,




> Allow me to suggest that since Scripture does not mandate children always be present in corporate worship services, we may not make it compulsory, either. Nor may we—or should we—prohibit the attendance of the young, simply on the basis of their tender age. Scriptural narrative indicates that the children were often present in the ceremonies and worship services of Israel and the New Testament church. And this does not mean that there was never a mother over behind a bush or a father outside the synagogue comforting, encouraging, or disciplining a child.
> 
> What is clear is that God’s Word says, “faith comes by hearing.” . Faith also comes by seeing the godly example of other believers. What better way for children to hear about the Savior and learn about worship than to be a part of the assembling together of the saints? And what better teachers and models are there than the ones God gave them, their parents?


----------



## a mere housewife

DeniseM said:


> Then Joshua built an altar unto the Lord God of Israel in mount Ebal, As Moses the servant of the Lord commanded the children of Israel, as it is written in the book of the law of Moses, an altar of whole stones, over which no man hath lift up any iron: and they offered thereon burnt offerings unto the Lord, and sacrificed peace offerings. And he wrote there upon the stones a copy of the law of Moses, which he wrote in the presence of the children of Israel. And all Israel, and their elders, and officers, and their judges, stood on this side the ark and on that side before the priests the Levites, which bare the ark of the covenant of the Lord, as well the stranger, as he that was born among them; half of them over against mount Gerizim, and half of them over against mount Ebal; as Moses the servant of the Lord had commanded before, that they should bless the people of Israel. And afterward he read all the words of the law, the blessings and cursings, according to all that is written in the book of the law. There was not a word of all that Moses commanded, which Joshua read not before all the congregation of Israel, with the women, and the little ones, and the strangers that were conversant among them. Joshua 8:30-35
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Joshua addressed the men, women and children at the same time, in the same worship setting. I*'m not saying that the Family Integrated Churches are correct in all of their teachings*, but where is the justification for separating the children from their parents in worship? Teaching is one thing and corporate worship is another. Corporate worship does include teaching, but it also involves much more. When the ladies of the church have edifying conversations after the service or join together for a bible study, we often teach one another, but this doesn't excuse us of our duty to come together as a congregation, the body of Christ, in which all the members are one body joined together in Christ. Christ appears to have also taught the women, men and children together, when he preached. -Matthew 15:38
> 
> Just wondering where the justification for forming a children's church in the first place would come from? During corporate worship, the Pastor is already leading the congregation in worship, so who would be leading the children in the separate children's church? Do we not need an ordained Pastor to lead our children in corporate worship? If not, do you think that this could lead to the mind set of treating our children as second rate Christians?
> 
> Not trying to challenge you here, just really seeking to learn the proper biblical teaching on these subjects. Any thoughts?
Click to expand...


Dear Denise (it's always so nice to see you and interact with you anywhere  -- my own small thoughts would be that 'children's church' is not the best name or concept for a time of training small children who are as yet (for whatever reason) unable to sit through a service for worship. I like what Rev. Greco and Rev. Strange cite here as 'worship training' at posts #50 and 51. http://www.puritanboard.com/f103/no-kids-allowed-movement-73219/

Is there warrant for small children being kept out of services? Yes, I believe so: as much warrant as there is for small children being in services, in that we have OT example (Hannah). Just as illness or some other impediment might keep a member away, a child's incapacity (or a mother with her hands full learning how to take care of a new child) can keep them away. It's not a permanent state or some sort of acknowledgement that the child or mother are not part of the body. Taking advantage of that time to train children to sit in worship with Bible stories, etc., does not equate, I don't believe, to having another separate worship service (which would have to be elder led) any more than a woman's Bible study is a separate worship service that must be elder led.

Those are my own thoughts about it, for whatever they are worth. I love to see children in worship (especially yours  -- and you and Ben do such an exemplary job with training your kids in so many ways). I think we should do everything we can to accommodate the children being in the public worship. I also love to see churches welcome the unchurched from the communities around them and accommodate as much as possible to helping them learn to be a part of Christ's body.


----------



## J. Dean

Perhaps the question should be asked: Exactly what happens in the Non-FIC assemblies?

If it's something in line with the church, and if it's done at a separate time from corporate worship (A local church does these meetings after its corporate service), then it can be edifying.

However, if these groups are undermining the congregation (such as, for example, teaching questionable material or having an essentially "Christian rock concert" in a church that holds to traditional worship), then there's a serious problem.

Personally, I don't have a problem with the outside groups PROVIDED they 1.) reinforce the doctrinal core of the corporate church and 2.) occur some time other than the corporate worship service.


----------



## John Carpenter

Hi Andrew,

You could perhaps deduce age segregated meetings from Titus 2. The younger men are dealt with differently than the older; the younger women are dealt with by the older women. Never in this important passage on ministry in the church is the family mentioned as being dealt with as a whole nor are we told to keep it together.

But, one could ask the same of the FIC: where in scripture do we see "family integration" commanded or deduced from Scripture? Certainly not in the text you quoted (but did not cite) as it is a fine passage for the Regulative Principle but since there isn't any passage commanding family integration, any condemnation of "children's church" you might want to deduce from it applies equally well to insisting on family integration.


----------



## DeniseM

Dear, Heidi, yes I completely agree with what you said about women's bible studies not needing to be a part of worship at all or needing to be elder led. If fact, that was my point.  I think I didn't make clear though what I meant about the children's church. If I'm correct in what the FIC is taking a stand against, it _is_ actually the church trying to limit children to a separate worship service of their own, apart from their parents. I know first hand that there are a number of churches that do this. I grew up in one and my brother and his wife currently addend a church that practices 'children's church'. I agree that it is a bad name and a bad practice, but that's what they call it. So, I hope that explains why I raised the questions that I did. I wasn't questioning a parents right to take a child out for correction or training; I was questioning whether there was justification from scripture for a church to exclude children from worshipping with the rest of the congregation. The instance of the family from our church kicked out of a church that they were visiting, while on vacation, for refusing to put their children in the children's services immediately came to mind.

Thank you for your reply. It is always good to her from you and I value your opinion a great deal. What you said about our children in church is very kind and I know that they(and we) always look forward to seeing you and Ruben in church also.


----------



## John Carpenter

PaulMc said:


> John Carpenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> while I don't think that having a children's church is right, I am sad that it is _mandatory_, . . . . I wouldn't have so much of a problem if it was optional.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with you on that. I'm not a big fan of children's church. I'd prefer to do without it but for the reasons articulated by John Piper, not by the FICM.
Click to expand...


----------



## John Carpenter

[/QUOTE]Dr. Carpenter, I find the sort of reasoning you are using to be way too "quick". It sounds like you require an explicit proof text for each position, rather than arriving at a conclusion based on the consequence of biblical principles, and if you don't find anything explicit, you proclaim that "scripture is silent", citing this is sufficient evidence that a particular position should be rejected.

You also seem to be making sweeping statements and conclusions based on a single Biblical passage:[/QUOTE]



John Carpenter said:


> Third, one can establish from scripture that divisiveness is wrong (e.g. Titus 3:9f) and can show that the FICM can be divisive over this issue. Therefore, it is the FICM that is doing what is grievous.




I'd have to plead "guilty" to that. But I believe it's a consequence of my belief in the perspicuity of scripture. I believe scripture is clear in everything God wants to communicate in it. I don't believe that He has left us up to the creative inferences of theologians to divine what they say can be teased out of some unrelated passages. For example, when someone says that having women pastors is ok or that homosexual practices are not sinful, I can be very "quick" and insisting that that is not so. Or, to use a positive example: I believe in singing Psalms as part of our worship service because scripture explicitly tells us to do so (Col. 3:16). God did not inspire the passages on these topics and then expect us to ascertain that they really mean the opposite. It means what it says, says what it means, and when it doesn't address a particular issue, then we need to tread carefully.

On this topic, the FICM puts forth an assertion: Family Integration in worship services is God's command and breaking church meetings up into age differentiated groups is a corrupting influence of modernity. Of course, I want to see the passage that says this. But there is no such passage. In fact, it appears that Titus 2 either allows for or even specifically calls for the opposite: namely, dealing with age (and sex) differentiated groups in different ways. 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. So, while I might agree that I'm "quick", I still believe that I'm right.


----------



## a mere housewife

DeniseM said:


> Dear, Heidi, yes I completely agree with what you said about women's bible studies not needing to be a part of worship at all or needing to be elder led. If fact, that was my point.  I think I didn't make clear though what I meant about the children's church. If I'm correct in what the FIC is taking a stand against, it _is_ actually the church trying to limit children to a separate worship service of their own, apart from their parents. I know first hand that there are a number of churches that do this. I grew up in one and my brother and his wife currently addend a church that practices 'children's church'. I agree that it is a bad name and a bad practice, but that's what they call it. So, I hope that explains why I raised the questions that I did. I wasn't questioning a parents right to take a child out for correction or training; I was questioning whether there was justification from scripture for a church to exclude children from worshipping with the rest of the congregation. The instance of the family from our church kicked out of a church that they were visiting, while on vacation, for refusing to put their children in the children's services immediately came to mind.
> 
> Thank you for your reply. It is always good to her from you and I value your opinion a great deal. What you said about our children in church is very kind and I know that they(and we) always look forward to seeing you and Ruben in church also.



Denise, I think we are mostly agreed then -- for I too disagree with making children go to a separate 'church' of their own (and certainly there is a problem with that, if not so common in reformed circles -- very common in others). And I also value your opinion a great deal  What I said about your children in church is just honest!


----------



## Jack K

Curt said:


> John Carpenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Second, one cannot establish from scripture that having a children's church is wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've tried to stay away from these discussion, because I don't want to seem self-serving. In Chapter 10 of our (my wife Sandra and myself) forthcoming book, Children in Church: Nurturing Hearts of Worship, I write,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Allow me to suggest that since Scripture does not mandate children always be present in corporate worship services, we may not make it compulsory, either. Nor may we—or should we—prohibit the attendance of the young, simply on the basis of their tender age. Scriptural narrative indicates that the children were often present in the ceremonies and worship services of Israel and the New Testament church. And this does not mean that there was never a mother over behind a bush or a father outside the synagogue comforting, encouraging, or disciplining a child.
> 
> What is clear is that God’s Word says, “faith comes by hearing.” . Faith also comes by seeing the godly example of other believers. What better way for children to hear about the Savior and learn about worship than to be a part of the assembling together of the saints? And what better teachers and models are there than the ones God gave them, their parents?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Curt's comment hits the main point. If we're appealing to direct instructions in Scripture about what to do with kids during worship services, we're going to end up overstating our points because there isn't anything all that direct. If you want to argue against "children's church" during the service (and I do), there are better ways to do it.

1. As Curt pointed out, faith comes through hearing. The Spirit works growth in Christ through the Word, and importantly through the preached Word delivered by a minister called to that task. Plus, even if kids don't take the Lord's Supper they ought to be seeing it in action and begining to know the Word in that form as well. If we remove our children from the Word in these forms in the name of Christian instruction, we're making a mistake. We're failing to understand how the Spirit actually instructs.

2. The church's worship service is a celebration of the church coming together as one. It's where all of us, different as we are, join for an hour or two each week to worship our God together. If we believe children are a part of our righty diverse church, then they ought to be part of our whole-church worship service. We have plenty of time when we aren't in a worship service to go our separate ways and do age-specific things.

3. What does it say about a dad's spiritual leadership if he instructs his kids at home, leads in family worship, talks about Christ as they walk along, etc... and then, when the worship highlight of the week comes along he sends his kids off to do their separate thing while he worships without them? That just doesn't fit spiritual leadership. It doesn't fit parenthood.

Scripture makes strong statements about all these things: Strong statements about the value of God's Word. Strong statements about the oneness of the body. Strong statements about a parent's spiritual leadership. We don't need to be looking for some other kind of statement and arguing over the regulative principle. These other three principles will do just fine.

They are why I advocate for kids in the service, with their parents, as a general rule.


----------



## 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

John Carpenter said:


> 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.



John Carpenter said:


> 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....



John Carpenter said:


> 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

John Carpenter said:


> 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

John Carpenter said:


> 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

John Carpenter said:


> 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

John Carpenter said:


> 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.



John Carpenter said:


> 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.



John Carpenter said:


> 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

John Carpenter said:


> 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..



John Carpenter said:


> "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.



John Carpenter said:


> 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.



John Carpenter said:


> 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.



John Carpenter said:


> 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

John Carpenter said:


> 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

John Carpenter said:


> 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.



John Carpenter said:


> 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.



John Carpenter said:


> 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.



John Carpenter said:


> 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.



John Carpenter said:


> 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

John Carpenter said:


> 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.


----------

