# V. Baucham on Kostenberger's New Book



## LawrenceU (Aug 24, 2010)

Voddie Baucham Ministries


This is a very interesting post by Voddie Baucham. He is critiquing Kostenberger's update to God, Marriage, and Family. This book, a standard for sometime, has recently gotten a fair amount of press because Kostenberger addresses the Family Integrated Church movement in this edition. It is not the type of scholarship that we are used to seeing come from Kostenberger, as Voddie points out lovingly. (Frankly, I really wonder if the editorial team at Crossway pressed him to get it out too soon, or wanted him to include the material so they could market it more easily knowing that FIC is a bit of a hot topic at present.)

This blog post is well worth the read.


----------



## nasa30 (Aug 24, 2010)

I am glad that Dr. Baucham wrote this great response. Kostenberger opening with the straw man "family of families" seems to show how much research he did in the hast to add this chapter to the updated copy. Voddie is right when he said


> "This was one of the finest theological minds of our day. If anyone had the ability to go beyond the surface rhetoric to the heart of the matter, this was the man. I expected this section to avoid most of the pitfalls of the previous critics.......Unfortunately, I was wrong. While Dr. Köstenberger was his usual irenic self, his treatment lacked the balance, thorough research, and accuracy we have all come to expect from his work.


----------



## Herald (Aug 24, 2010)

I am not going to excoriate the entire FIC movement. However, I am concerned about the segment of the FIC movement that wants to supplant the God-ordained role of the church (and it's officers). Patriarchal baptism, private administration of the Lord's Supper, emphasis on behavior as a sign of godliness etc. 

My question has always been, how dominant are these patriarchal views in FIC churches?


----------



## nasa30 (Aug 24, 2010)

> My question has always been, how dominant are these patriarchal views in FIC churches?


Honestly, it is going to be along the same lines of anything found in the church today. It will swing from hyper-patriarchal (the family cannot participate in the Lords Supper if dad is not there) to encouraging fathers to take an interest in their home and what goes on there and spend at lease as much time with their kids on the weekend as they do a golf club.



> However, I am concerned about the *segment* of the FIC movement


 Another key word - the segment. The extreme segments do not define the whole as has been done in the past.


----------



## Ne Oublie (Aug 24, 2010)

I think that it is odd that the guys getting all the flack in the FIC movement are the guys that have defended and propose it
well.

I am surprised out how little is said of all the men that have taken it upon themselves to start their own church.
These same men that have been encouraged to do so because the modern church has ruined the family! Now these men
are running little house churches that are built on the foundation of family first, they refuse any accountability and/or authority!
Interesting thing is most of these that I am aware of, claim to be confessional and reformed, yet they end up being more fundamental
brethren Anabaptist. Everything is autonomous. To each his own. So much to they are not able to institute elders, as none of them
will submit to one another.


----------



## puritanpilgrim (Aug 24, 2010)

> I am surprised out how little is said of all the men that have taken it upon themselves to start their own church.
> These same men that have been encouraged to do so because the modern church has ruined the family! Now these men
> are running little house churches that are built on the foundation of family first, they refuse any accountability and/or authority!
> Interesting thing is most of these that I am aware of, claim to be confessional and reformed, yet they end up being more fundamental
> ...



This is a vague and empty sweeping generalization: Extremely hyperbolic. I recommend that you back some of this up with some major names in the movement that are doing this. The topic started with Voodie Baucham and neither he or his church fall into this catagory.


----------



## nasa30 (Aug 24, 2010)

Ne Oublie said:


> I think that it is odd that the guys getting all the flack in the FIC movement are the guys that have defended and propose it
> well.
> 
> I am surprised out how little is said of all the men that have taken it upon themselves to start their own church.
> ...


 
I would also suggest that you search through the blog of the NCFIC (National Center for Family Integrated Churches) to see how they speak out against the same things. Might want do a little research before throwing out a fake grenade like that.

I would point out the "Love the Church" seminar hosted by NCFIC here or this message against "home churching" found on the NCFIC site.


----------



## Herald (Aug 24, 2010)

Judson, in my experience extremes have a way of dominating local assemblies. I've seen it first hand. As a shepherd of a local flock it is something I must be knowledgable about, and confront/refute when necessary.

For the record, I have no problem with moderate FIC convictions. In fact,
I'm sympathetic to some of them. What I oppose are the unbiblical extremes I articulated in my previous post and the smugness that comes from any movement that separates Christians into groups within the church. I'm old enough to have seem the latter more than a few times. The Gothardites have a prevalent attitude that suggests, "We're holier than you." That type of attitude is malignant and needs to be eradicated from our churches.
It is not indicative of all FIC families, or even the majority; but I've seen it up front and in person and it does concern me.


----------



## nasa30 (Aug 24, 2010)

I agree with you Bill in that extremes do have a way of dominating local churches. I think about how many churches are suffering from the "Hollywood" model of the seeker movement putting more emphasis on style than substance.


----------



## Ne Oublie (Aug 24, 2010)

puritanpilgrim said:


> > I am surprised out how little is said of all the men that have taken it upon themselves to start their own church.
> > These same men that have been encouraged to do so because the modern church has ruined the family! Now these men
> > are running little house churches that are built on the foundation of family first, they refuse any accountability and/or authority!
> > Interesting thing is most of these that I am aware of, claim to be confessional and reformed, yet they end up being more fundamental
> ...


 
I apologize that I did not clarify.

I am not speaking of Voddie and/or Scott Brown and of the like. As a matter of fact I do not know any big names to mention. I was speaking generally to the FIC segment that I mentioned. The men that follow the FIC movement but that neither Voddie nor Scott Brown and the like would advocate the way these men have handled what they have taught.

I believe Voddie handled and has handled these objections and falsifications very well. Again, I apologize for not clarifying.


----------



## LawrenceU (Aug 24, 2010)

I find it interesting that people don't point out the fact that there are extremists in all branches of the church; yes, even within the orthodox church. Good leadership sees these people and tries to correct them or remove them and their influence if necessary.

I think that much of the flack about the 'extremists' of the FIC model is more a fact that some oxen are being gored than genuine interest in Biblical practice. I'm not talking about Bill and folks with his convictions, either. His comments shed light. A great deal of what goes on in the blogosphere perpetuates the stereotype that 'those FIC folks are a bunch of reactionary twits who keep their women in the 1800's and brook no quarter for any type of authority'. I know a lot of people in the FIC movement and most of them are as far, far from that. Most of them are confessional Baptists and Presbyterians. I am not alone in that observation either. I have spoken with people who have excoriated the FIC movement both in print and in person. Almost to a man they have not done any significant research on the issue. Those that did only researched aberrant churches/groups. That is sad.


----------



## Herald (Aug 24, 2010)

Lawrence,

I concur. I like the line from the movie Gettysburg:



> Kilrain: Any man who judges by the group is a pee wit. You take men one at a time.



The FIC movement has many positive attributes. Perhaps a better way to look at the positive attributes of the FIC is to embrace what the bible has to say about headship and family. In my humble opinion the death knell for the FIC is, well, the FIC. Movements lose steam. They go out of style. I mentioned Gothardism a few posts back. There was a time when Gothard seminars were all the rage. Many churches were adopting Bill Gothard's model of male headship and female submission. Today Gothardism has lost much of its steam. Yes, it has it's holdouts, but they're far fewer than their hay day in the 1980's. FIC is in vogue right now as a movement. The real success of FIC is actually the authority of the bible in providing direction and instruction for families. So, in other words, it's not the success of FIC, it's the success of scripture. Trust me. The FIC moniker will eventually go out of style along with every other movement that comes upon the scene. It may not vanish completely off the landscape, but it will become marginalized. Those who see worth in FIC should not hang their hat on a movement but on scripture.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Aug 24, 2010)

Maybe Kostenberger gave the FIC model a fair shake, maybe he didn't. 

But call me cynical and jaded, but hearing a "leader" of a "movement" complain about not being understood, or writing off criticisms as being unbalanced or poorly researched is, well, par for the course.


----------



## LawrenceU (Aug 24, 2010)

Bill, I absolutely concur. It is not the movement that is important. It is the truth behind the movement.

Ben, I know that is what it may look like, but the problem is that Kostenberger did not really do any research; not credible research. At least not research that would have given me a passing grade in school.


----------



## puritanpilgrim (Aug 24, 2010)

> But call me cynical and jaded, but hearing a "leader" of a "movement" complain about not being understood, or writing off criticisms as being unbalanced or poorly researched is, well, par for the course.



Unless he is correct.


----------



## Pergamum (Aug 28, 2010)

> Jason Webb, for example, has absolutely nothing to commend him as an expert on the FIC. His introduction to the movement –according to his own testimony—came in three phases: First, through a Vision Forum catalog (by the way, Vision Forum and the FIC are not one-in-the-same), second, through the internet, and finally, “by listening to a theological discussion that occurred at the General Assembly of the Association of the Reformed Baptist Churches of America.” What Webb doesn’t say is that the discussion at that meeting was so embarrassing that ARBCA had to remove it from their website and offer apologies to key FIC leaders (myself included).




This statement and this incident just begs to be explored deeper.


----------



## smhbbag (Aug 28, 2010)

> This statement and this incident just begs to be explored deeper.



And edited. The phrase is "one and the same." 

Common mistake, though. When someone does not know how to give a phrase, the operating rule tends to be to mangle it and then hyphenate it.


----------



## Rev. Todd Ruddell (Aug 28, 2010)

> Kilrain: Any man who judges by the group is a pee wit. You take men one at a time.



Rightly considered, the statement ought to be, "We take doctrines and their subsequent practices one at a time". 

The issue is not the name, "Family Integrated Churches" or who are leaders of the "movement" which, as Bill said, such movements come and go. The issue is whether or not the doctrines and practices advocated by those who identify themselves as "FIC" folks comport with the teaching of the whole counsel of God. There have been posts in the thread already enumerating some of the questioned practices. Everyone is for male headship, well ordered families, and other platitudes. There are however real issues concerning Church and Familial authority, right administration of the Word and Sacraments, how Churches are rightly established according to the Apostolic model, etc. And these are not small doctrines of little concern. There are also other issues of how the Lord builds the Church, what the Apostle Paul means when he emphasizes the centrality of preaching in evangelism, and no small number of other issues as well. At CCRPC we do not have age segregated classes, we promote fathers teaching their children the Bible, we believe the Bible teaches that wives are to submit to their husbands, and even in one sense, believe that we can consider the Church to be a "family of families" although we emphasize that we more properly are a "Covenant Community". I would not call us a part of the FIC movement, however. The doctrinal issues and their subsequent practices have to be death with one by one.


----------



## Pergamum (Aug 28, 2010)

smhbbag said:


> > This statement and this incident just begs to be explored deeper.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
There are two things being addressed, the statement and then whatever incident occurred that led to the statement. How are they one and the same?

---------- Post added at 08:05 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:04 PM ----------

Who called the grammar cops?


----------



## CovenantalBaptist (Aug 28, 2010)

Pergamum said:


> > Jason Webb, for example, has absolutely nothing to commend him as an expert on the FIC. His introduction to the movement –according to his own testimony—came in three phases: First, through a Vision Forum catalog (by the way, Vision Forum and the FIC are not one-in-the-same), second, through the internet, and finally, “by listening to a theological discussion that occurred at the General Assembly of the Association of the Reformed Baptist Churches of America.” What Webb doesn’t say is that the discussion at that meeting was so embarrassing that ARBCA had to remove it from their website and offer apologies to key FIC leaders (myself included).
> 
> 
> 
> This statement and this incident just begs to be explored deeper.



I have permission from Pastor Steve Marquedant, member of the Administrative Council (the AC) of ARBCA, to post his reply to a similar statement on another discussion list. Here it is:



> Brothers, let me attempt to clear up a couple of issues: I did a little research on the Voddie Baucham issue today.
> 
> I was on the ARBCA Administrative Committee and the Membership Committee in 2008, and I am still on both committees. I can assure you that no formal apology went to Mr. Baucham from ARBCA. If the AC had believed an apology was appropriate, it would have been reported to the churches. If a formal apology from ARBCA was considered necessary, the General Assembly would have had to vote on such a measure, and we did not. No apology was offered.
> 
> ...


----------



## LawrenceU (Aug 28, 2010)

CovenantalBaptist said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > > Jason Webb, for example, has absolutely nothing to commend him as an expert on the FIC. His introduction to the movement –according to his own testimony—came in three phases: First, through a Vision Forum catalog (by the way, Vision Forum and the FIC are not one-in-the-same), second, through the internet, and finally, “by listening to a theological discussion that occurred at the General Assembly of the Association of the Reformed Baptist Churches of America.” What Webb doesn’t say is that the discussion at that meeting was so embarrassing that ARBCA had to remove it from their website and offer apologies to key FIC leaders (myself included).
> ...



Thanks for posting that. It is an interesting read. I have heard both Pastor Baucham's view and Pastor Marquedant's view of this incident, and from more than one person on each side. Who knows? The issue still stands that Kostenberger's analysis of the FIC is not accurate and not well researched.


----------

