# Singles within the Family of Families?



## ubermadchen (Oct 19, 2009)

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


----------



## Tim (Oct 19, 2009)

This is an excellent question.

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

If I may add a question: 

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


----------



## Montanablue (Oct 19, 2009)

Yes, excellent question. I'm interested in seeing the responses. I grew up in a "Family Integrated Church," so I could recount my experiences, but I'm hoping that they were atypical.


----------



## ubermadchen (Oct 19, 2009)

Tim said:


> This is an excellent question.
> 
> -----Added 10/19/2009 at 09:45:14 EST-----
> 
> ...



Yes, especially in a case like mine where my biological father is unable to be my head and my stepfather, being an unbeliever, is unwilling.


----------



## OPC'n (Oct 19, 2009)

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


----------



## AThornquist (Oct 19, 2009)

What is FIC and Family of Families?


----------



## ubermadchen (Oct 19, 2009)

AThornquist said:


> What is FIC and Family of Families?



FIC = Family Integrated Church. 

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


----------



## jwithnell (Oct 19, 2009)

The scriptures talk about the family and the scriptures talk about the church, so it might make some intuitive sense to put the two together. The only trouble is, the Bible doesn't put them together. You even have Paul saying that it is more practical to be single and ministering to others. 

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

No doubt, there is hope that the gospel is passed on from generation to generations within families, as we see Abraham's family expanded through history. But making artificial distinctions in the name of the church seems dubious to me.


----------



## Edward (Oct 19, 2009)

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


----------



## OPC'n (Oct 19, 2009)

Edward said:


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



What do you mean?


----------



## Edward (Oct 19, 2009)

OPC'n said:


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



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

------------
Answered by private message.


----------



## Scott1 (Oct 20, 2009)

ubermadchen said:


> AThornquist said:
> 
> 
> > What is FIC and Family of Families?
> ...



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

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

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



> Westminster Larger Catechism
> 
> Q. 139. What are the sins forbidden in the seventh commandment?
> A. The sins forbidden in the seventh commandment, besides the neglect of the duties
> ...



There's a couple sides to this:

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

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

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

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

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

Am I answering your question and the aspect you asking about?


----------



## Montanablue (Oct 20, 2009)

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

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


----------



## Tim (Oct 20, 2009)

Montanablue said:


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



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

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

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

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


----------



## ubermadchen (Oct 20, 2009)

Montanablue said:


> Scott - Are you in/speaking of an FIC? The approach/view that you take seems to me to be pretty common in the PCA, but my sense is that most PCA's are not FIC's. Is that correct?
> 
> My interest is more in how most FIC's view singles -especially since I grew up in one that did not really tolerate singlehood.



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

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


----------



## Scott1 (Oct 20, 2009)

ubermadchen said:


> Montanablue said:
> 
> 
> > Scott - Are you in/speaking of an FIC? The approach/view that you take seems to me to be pretty common in the PCA, but my sense is that most PCA's are not FIC's. Is that correct?
> ...



Thanks for the link.

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

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

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


----------



## Montanablue (Oct 20, 2009)

Tim said:


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




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


----------



## TimV (Oct 20, 2009)

> I was recently told that I, being single, am a family of one



Hey, Patricia.

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

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

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


----------



## fredtgreco (Oct 20, 2009)

Scott1 said:


> ubermadchen said:
> 
> 
> > Montanablue said:
> ...



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


----------



## ubermadchen (Oct 20, 2009)

TimV said:


> > I was recently told that I, being single, am a family of one
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I don't live with my parents; I apologize for not making that clear. My father lives on the west coast and my stepfather lives on the east coast. I live in Texas. I assumed I didn't have to live under the same roof to be considered still under a father's (I have no idea who that would be) headship. Thank you for your encouragement, though! Sometimes I wonder if I even have my head on...


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Oct 20, 2009)

OPC'n said:


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



I am not so sure how to take this. 

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

Just bouncing some thought here.


----------



## OPC'n (Oct 20, 2009)

PuritanCovenanter said:


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



I suppose if my father had decided that he had actually wanted us when we were first born and if he had put up a fuss when my mother left him instead of helping her pack up the truck and driving us to our new home, and if he had at least said that he wished I could come live with him when I called and asked him about a year later after leaving him or if he had allowed me to live with him when I was 17yr and actually wanted to live with him,....in short if he had ever acted like he was interested in his children, then I suppose I would agree with you. To be fair, he did pay a small amount of child support without him being made to do so and he came to see us about 5 times maybe. However, I don't think this qualifies him to be my headship over me. If anything else, I would prefer the man who wants to marry me ask my mother for my hand in marriage. So yes, I think he should be left out of the headship thing. I can honor him by being kind and helpful to him when he needs my help. I honor him by calling him on holidays and his birthday.


----------



## Idelette (Oct 20, 2009)

To be quite honest, I'm not completely convinced from Scripture that women should be the heads of their own households. It seems that the pattern in Scripture is that women are under the headship of their fathers until marriage. I think there is a reason that the Church was commanded to care for widows and orphans.... part of it was certainly financial but part of it was also spiritual oversight. Personally, I believe that single women fall into this category as well if they do not have the headship of a father. In that case, I believe it is the responsibility of the church session to take spiritual headship over her. 

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


----------



## Scott1 (Oct 21, 2009)

Good discussion,all.

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

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

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

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

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

Further, if the father was not a Christian, would he still have the parental authority that would, in effect, prevent the disciplines of the Christian life (e.g. Lord's Day worship, tithing, Christian service, etc.?


----------



## nasa30 (Oct 21, 2009)

As an elder in a "Family Intergrated" church, I wanted to repost this. One of our other elders was responding to Sam Waldrons article on FIC but he also describes the thought behind FIC. Please note the Bolded sections for application to this thread and the OP.



> It is unfortunate that you have picked a few questionable examples and statements from the FIC movement to critique. Let me give here a much more broad and balanced description of the basis for age integration within the Church.
> 
> The Scripture defines and details an architecture, a model, a pattern for the people of God. The Bible tells us who we are and what we should be doing. When the glorious Gospel pierces our hearts and we repent, we are converted and placed into the Lord’s precious family. There is a wonderful picture of this process at work in Acts 2:37-47.
> 
> ...



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



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



The point behind the listing is so people can locate churches that follow this structure. It is no different than a list of EP churches so people can find them. It is not that it has been raised to an out-of-proportion importance. "Family Integration" is not a sacred cow but a distinction. One that some want to locate, thus the list.


----------



## ubermadchen (Oct 21, 2009)

I understand that's how your church sees singles in theory, but how does your church takes these principles to practice? Do you see them being treated as full members? The point of the thread isn't "do you think singles should be included in the church," but "how?" How are singles incorporated? I don't think any FIC would be so be so bold as to say publicly, "Go away, singles! Get married and then maybe you could come back!"


----------



## nasa30 (Oct 21, 2009)

We do not have a singles ministry, we have a ministry-period. For example, when we have a mens study the men gather. All of the men. If a man has a son, he brings him, if not or if he is single, he comes and we all study together. It does not matter if they are married, single,college student,whatever. Same goes for the ladies. 
Yes, they are full members and no, we do not start telling them they should get married. 

Because we do not break off into separate Sunday School groups, no one is "singled" out (pun half way intended). No one feels out of the group because we are all the group. We have none of the "Well, you should go to this class or that class because you are not this or that" We all study together.


----------



## Montanablue (Oct 21, 2009)

> I don't think any FIC would be so be so bold as to say publicly, "Go away, singles! Get married and then maybe you could come back!"



Oh you would be unpleasantly suprised


----------



## nasa30 (Oct 21, 2009)

Montanablue said:


> > I don't think any FIC would be so be so bold as to say publicly, "Go away, singles! Get married and then maybe you could come back!"
> 
> 
> 
> Oh you would be unpleasantly suprised



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


----------



## Montanablue (Oct 21, 2009)

For sure. Every group has its extremes.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Oct 21, 2009)

Montanablue said:


> > I don't think any FIC would be so be so bold as to say publicly, "Go away, singles! Get married and then maybe you could come back!"
> 
> 
> 
> Oh you would be unpleasantly suprised



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

OPC,

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

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

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


----------



## ubermadchen (Oct 21, 2009)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Montanablue said:
> 
> 
> > > I don't think any FIC would be so be so bold as to say publicly, "Go away, singles! Get married and then maybe you could come back!"
> ...



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

I am enjoying the discussion thus far on this topic!


----------



## Montanablue (Oct 21, 2009)

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



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


----------



## fredtgreco (Oct 21, 2009)

nasa30 said:


> > It certainly is a movement of its own. When I can go to the website, and the churches in my community include an EP Presbyterian Church (of a denomination of about 5 five churches), a Dispensational Baptist Church, and a Mennonite Church, I'm thinking that "family integration" has been raise to an out-of-proportion importance
> 
> 
> The point behind the listing is so people can locate churches that follow this structure. It is no different than a list of EP churches so people can find them. It is not that it has been raised to an out-of-proportion importance. "Family Integration" is not a sacred cow but a distinction. One that some want to locate, thus the list.


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

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


----------



## Tripel (Oct 21, 2009)

Montanablue said:


> > I have heard pronouncements upon the single minded people that they bore a certain attitude of selfishness. I might agree with that but I am not so sure it is a sinful selfishness.
> 
> 
> 
> There's a lot of truth in this statement - but (you knew the but was coming, lol), some people (and I'm speaking specifically of women here) just simply haven't been proposed to.



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


----------



## Montanablue (Oct 21, 2009)

Tripel said:


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



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


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Oct 21, 2009)

fredtgreco said:


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



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


----------



## nasa30 (Oct 21, 2009)

fredtgreco said:


> nasa30 said:
> 
> 
> > > It certainly is a movement of its own. When I can go to the website, and the churches in my community include an EP Presbyterian Church (of a denomination of about 5 five churches), a Dispensational Baptist Church, and a Mennonite Church, I'm thinking that "family integration" has been raise to an out-of-proportion importance
> ...



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

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

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


----------



## Megan Mozart (Oct 21, 2009)

This thread is great... 

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

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

Thanks to all who are participating.


----------



## fredtgreco (Oct 21, 2009)

nasa30 said:


> fredtgreco said:
> 
> 
> > nasa30 said:
> ...



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


----------



## Pilgrim72 (Oct 21, 2009)

Edward said:


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



This comment sorta concerns me. Only because I'm single and 37. Does this mean that my church is probably uncomfortable with me?
I don't understand...

Some people just don't meet the right people... I've wanted to get married for a long time, I just haven't met the right person.


----------



## nasa30 (Oct 21, 2009)

fredtgreco said:


> nasa30 said:
> 
> 
> > fredtgreco said:
> ...



But I respectfully think you are missing the point. So books on Paedobaptism should include all aspects of worship and not leave any area of worship out? That does not make sense.

I don't understand your point about it being uneven unless you still think that the FIC folks put that distinctive above preaching the scriptures which we do not do.

Yes, if you want to use a microwave, you read a manual about a microwave but that manual will not tell you how to make the whole meal. I would need to read and understand a component and then incorporate that component (if I agree with it) into the whole meal planning.


----------



## ubermadchen (Oct 21, 2009)

Pilgrim72 said:


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



I don't know if it's uncomfortable as in "I judge you!" but more like "I just don't see how we can relate with each other." That's what one younger married woman said to me. Although, I don't see much merit in that statement as all of my friends are married and my closest friends are married and even grandmothers. We have a lot in common, except for the fact that I am not married. There are no single men in my church that are my age and interested in me. I think a major reason why I'm not married is because God has not brought a single man into our church to pursue me. You can't marry someone who is not there...


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Oct 21, 2009)

nasa30 said:


> I don't understand your point about it being uneven unless you still think that the FIC folks put that distinctive above preaching the scriptures which we do not do.



And here is the problem. As I noted in an earlier post. You can't teach on the same level for everyone. I agree that corporate worship is just that. But there should be no problems with segregated groups in the church.


----------



## nasa30 (Oct 21, 2009)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> nasa30 said:
> 
> 
> > I don't understand your point about it being uneven unless you still think that the FIC folks put that distinctive above preaching the scriptures which we do not do.
> ...



Here is the best part. What goes hand in hand with FIC is the fact that parents are teaching doctrine at home. For us, the usual Sunday table at lunch consists going over with our children what we learned today and helping them pick up on what was taught. This is where we break it down for them. You have no idea how profitable that is unless you do it. Kids pick up so much that we do not give them credit for being able to do.

Also, it is great for our kids to see how we should worship and I am not talking about the FIC stuff. I mean that we pray, sing, and worship God for his grace and majesty. It is better for them to see it than to just tell them about it.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Oct 21, 2009)

nasa30 said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> > nasa30 said:
> ...




I do understand. I have raised three boys who are young men now. I included them in worship after they grew old enough to watch and gain profitably from it. I also believe that varies from child to child. I also believe that there are times when they do benefit better from an age appropriate Sunday School class outside of the congregational worship. It helps back up what Mommy and Daddy are saying. It also brings new things to the table that I might have missed.


----------



## JML (Oct 21, 2009)

nasa30 said:


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



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


----------



## nasa30 (Oct 21, 2009)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> nasa30 said:
> 
> 
> > PuritanCovenanter said:
> ...



Just to clarify, my you was a you in general and not pointed to anyone. I am sorry if it did not come across that way.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Oct 21, 2009)

Here are some good blogs on this issue. 

My Introduction to the Family-Integrated Church Movement Reformed Baptist Fellowship

What is the Family-Integrated Church Movement? – Part 1 Reformed Baptist Fellowship

The Family-Integrated Church Movement ? Part 2 Reformed Baptist Fellowship

The Family-Integrated Church Movement ? Part 3 Reformed Baptist Fellowship

The Family-Integrated Church Movement ? Part 4 Reformed Baptist Fellowship

I really appreciated pt. 4 when it compares the Historical Baptist / Puritan's teaching to modern day FICM.


----------



## nasa30 (Oct 21, 2009)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Here are some good blogs on this issue.
> 
> My Introduction to the Family-Integrated Church Movement Reformed Baptist Fellowship
> 
> ...



Seems like we lost the OP topic in a way, FIC and singles.

Please see the other thread with some of the the issues with these articles and the blurring of the lines by the blog.


----------



## cbryant (Oct 21, 2009)

Edward said:


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



Just as reiteration I actually heard (with my own ears) an Elder of a church (which I leave unnamed) that he didn't want to minister to single people (he even said he didn't want to have anything to do with them) only to married people. What is one suppose to think when they hear one of their shepherds say that they don't want to have anything to do with you?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Oct 21, 2009)

nasa30 said:


> Seems like we lost the OP topic in a way, FIC and singles.
> 
> Please see the other thread with some of the the issues with these articles and the blurring of the lines by the blog.



Well, I agree. There might be a blurring of the lines. We just might disagree where the blurring comes from. Maybe from both sides. Maybe from one who wants to make historical revisions. The stones were thrown from one camp, so to speak. It was done to help repair in my estimation. 

I have been a defender of Doug Phillips on this board. I would not allow him to be slandered as he was being slandered years ago. But that doesn't put some of his stances nor the stances and declarations of the FICM out of reach from criticism. Divisive was a term being used in the other thread, I can equate that with the Word Faith movements declarations when they were being criticized. 

As I said...pt 4 of the blog is very good.


----------



## Edward (Oct 21, 2009)

Montanablue said:


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



Set (and enforce) a deadline. Some guys just need a little nudge. The older the guy, the stronger the nudge. (Assuming, of course, that he is a suitable prospect.)


----------



## nasa30 (Oct 22, 2009)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> nasa30 said:
> 
> 
> > Seems like we lost the OP topic in a way, FIC and singles.
> ...



And I agree with you that no one should be out of reach for criticism. My issue in the other thread was that the blurring of the lines from the RBF blog makes it more difficult to sort though what is correct and what is not due to painting with too broad a brush.


----------



## TimV (Oct 22, 2009)

Where can I find one of those churches with all the single women? There aren't any single women around here.

But seriously, it sounds like this is just another movement _du jour_ that will fade away in a few years.


----------



## nasa30 (Nov 17, 2009)

Hey Patricia,

In the other thread, you had said



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


 
I wanted to start with a short description of what I had said earlier and ask you your thoughts on it and what specific questions you had.



> We do not have a singles ministry, we have a ministry-period. For example, when we have a mens study the men gather. All of the men. If a man has a son, he brings him, if not or if he is single, he comes and we all study together. It does not matter if they are married, single,college student,whatever. Same goes for the ladies.
> Yes, they are full members and no, we do not start telling them they should get married.
> 
> Because we do not break off into separate Sunday School groups, no one is "singled" out (pun half way intended). No one feels out of the group because we are all the group. We have none of the "Well, you should go to this class or that class because you are not this or that" We all study together.


----------



## ubermadchen (Nov 17, 2009)

Thanks for addressing this. Sunday schools are just one aspect of how a church functions, though. Do you see singles in your church being encouraged to lead/participate in church activities/services? If a single is in need, such as being sick or injured, do you see the church rallying to help them? One of the shortcomings I've seen of singles being thought of as a "family of one" or as a half-block or non-block/absorbed block in the "family of families" blocks of the church is that singles tend to be passed over in times of help or service. It's as if they are sub-members when they could actually be a great resource for the church.


----------



## nasa30 (Nov 17, 2009)

ubermadchen said:


> Thanks for addressing this. Sunday schools are just one aspect of how a church functions, though. Do you see singles in your church being encouraged to lead/participate in church activities/services? If a single is in need, such as being sick or injured, do you see the church rallying to help them? One of the shortcomings I've seen of singles being thought of as a "family of one" or as a half-block or non-block/absorbed block in the "family of families" blocks of the church is that singles tend to be passed over in times of help or service. It's as if they are sub-members when they could actually be a great resource for the church.


 
I agree with you and that is a big misunderstanding about FIC - That the only issue is where they sit for Sunday School or Childrens Church. We make sure that we integrate everyone.

Yes, we do encourage our singles to take active roles in the service. We have singles playing all of our instruments, running the soundboard for recording of the service, leading social projects, etc. In the near future, one of our singles will be doing some teaching as needed.

We take care of our congregation. Yes, we take care of our sick or injured no matter the marital status. Without going into too much detail, we have also helped the unemployed and marital status was not the criteria.

I know that when I was single, I did feel as you do and I was not in a FIC type church. It is a shame that people put whole groups in the sub-member class. I also was in another branch of sub-member when folks "found out" that we home schooled.


----------



## Timothy William (Nov 17, 2009)

PuritanCovenanter said:


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



I've attended quite a number of churches, and not only have I seen this in practice, I'm not sure I've ever attended a church where this wasn't the practice, to at least some small degree.

Some singles stay single for selfish reasons. Most people who marry have at least some selfishness in their reasons for marrying. It is frequently hinted to singles that they might be unwise to stay single, yet very rarely to those contemplating marriage that they might be unwise to marry (and if it is, it is invariably some version of telling one partner that they are too good for their prospective spouse and really could do better, which creates all kinds of problems of its own.)



nasa30 said:


> We do not have a singles ministry, we have a ministry-period. For example, when we have a mens study the men gather. All of the men. If a man has a son, he brings him, if not or if he is single, he comes and we all study together. It does not matter if they are married, single,college student,whatever. Same goes for the ladies.
> Yes, they are full members and no, we do not start telling them they should get married.
> 
> Because we do not break off into separate Sunday School groups, no one is "singled" out (pun half way intended). No one feels out of the group because we are all the group. We have none of the "Well, you should go to this class or that class because you are not this or that" We all study together.



Questions:

Why do you see it as appropriate to separate people by gender, but not by age or marital status?

Are singles fully included and treated as equals, or are they simply allowed to attend, or somewhere in between?

Does having everything open to those of all ages and both married and single mean that, in practice, most or all events are most suited to those who are married and have children (and have their children with them) and singles are expected to fit in around them?


----------



## shead (Nov 17, 2009)

Judson for a minute there I thought your were one of my fellow elders who happens to work for NASA. Heh.

I'm glad to see so much discussion on this FIC topic, but wow, am I so very saddened to see so many cases brought forth as examples that are just plain bad practice and Biblically ungrounded. Where did the idea come from that not ministering to singles is a hallmark of the FIC churches? Is that a charge from a substantive investigation?

Our church (which is a also a FIC church), like nasa30's, also has many singles, we love them and could not function without them. Like his church, our single men and women attend our men and women's studies, our music leader is single as well. I'm not trying to appeal to a particular case and make that false argument that because we do it, its normative, but I'm really stunned that there would be churches who are not age segregated would NOT minister to singles. That seems to me to be more of a problem with doctrine than the issue of family integration.

And for full disclosure, we have used the term "family of families" on our church's website, we use it in the same sense that Scott Brown has been defending on the NCFIC blog - we have not intended it to be a re-definition of the nature of the church, but we have used it as a description of how our local body relates in its love for one another. Its really like a big family who love one another, serve one another, bear one another's burders, etc. I believe this phrase was most popular in the formative years of the movement and was used to describe just that sort of familial-like community as compared against the very common mega-church where one can become lost and be isolated in the crowd. I admit, I am being persuaded that it may be time to retire that phrase from our church website as it has become somewhat of a stumbling block, for I am fairly sure no one in the FIC movement foresaw our brothers equating the phrase to a definition of the nature of the church.


----------



## calvinich (Nov 17, 2009)

This has been an interesting conversation thus far.

I am not terribly well informed on this matter, though I did just recently read a critique of FIC, and also am familiar with some of its proponents as well. 

As somewhat of an ignoramus on this, I don't want to say too much. But I can see good points within FIC and also within the ideas of its critics. 

I think some of the potential problems with some versions of FIC might have more to do with the problem of imbalance rather than downright "bad ideas" persay.

As for headship, it seems to me to be a fully biblical concept, valid in our area, and no-doubt important! But maybe a wooden, abstract overly rigid conception of it could cause problems. It is genuinely difficult to apply nowdays. Part of it probably has to do with the fact that headship is more out of sync with the mainstream societal values nowadays than it was in other times and other places. Back in the day even most pagan societies had some sort of strong conception of headship or something related to it! 

This certainly doesn't mean we ignore headship, but rather we probably need to think a bit more about how it _works in practice_. We have less intact families nowdays.... That doesn't mean discarding headship, it may even mean we need it all the more! But it probably means carrying it out will be trickier and more nuanced than it was in the past.

Here's something to ponder..I'm a single guy, and I live with my mom (I am capable of living on my own, but I've chosen to live with her). Am I the head of a house? 

Just a few thoughts..



ubermadchen said:


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


----------



## nasa30 (Nov 18, 2009)

Timothy William;718257[quote="nasa30 said:


> We do not have a singles ministry, we have a ministry-period. For example, when we have a mens study the men gather. All of the men. If a man has a son, he brings him, if not or if he is single, he comes and we all study together. It does not matter if they are married, single,college student,whatever. Same goes for the ladies.
> Yes, they are full members and no, we do not start telling them they should get married.
> 
> Because we do not break off into separate Sunday School groups, no one is "singled" out (pun half way intended). No one feels out of the group because we are all the group. We have none of the "Well, you should go to this class or that class because you are not this or that" We all study together.


 


> Why do you see it as appropriate to separate people by gender, but not by age or marital status?


I am very glad that you asked that question because I did leave it out there without a better explanation. The division of men and women is only on our Wednesday night gathering and not on the Lords day.

We do the division on Wed for a more focused teaching to help them where they are. Example- For married men, We expect the men to be leading in family worship at home and to some that is a new concept. We use Wed night to equip the saints and answer their questions on how to do it. For Singles, we expect them to disciple others and be able to defend the faith. We use that time to answer their questions about doctrine and the like. 



> Are singles fully included and treated as equals, or are they simply allowed to attend, or somewhere in between?


 
Yes, singles are fully included. We make no distinctions about marital status. We just get different questions from them because of where they are in life.



> Does having everything open to those of all ages and both married and single mean that, in practice, most or all events are most suited to those who are married and have children (and have their children with them) and singles are expected to fit in around them?


 
We are not a program church. We meet on Sunday and on Wednesday. Sunday is a teaching and worship service were we all sit together and Wed is like I described above. No one is left out and no status is raised above another. We have a fellowship meal the first Sunday of the month and we all eat together. Again, no special treatment on marital status. When we have helped out in the community, it's " we are meeting at such and such time to help put a roof on this person in needs house" Whoever can make it, shows up with hammer in hand.

Also one more point to clarify. If you came and sat with us day in and day out, you would not hear us say, "family integrated". It is what we do, not what we preach. We preach Christ and Him crucified, not family integration. That is just our structure.


----------



## a mere housewife (Nov 18, 2009)

> I am very glad that you asked that question because I did leave it out there without a better explanation. The division of men and women is only on our Wednesday night gathering and not on the Lords day.
> 
> We do the division on Wed for a more focused teaching to help them where they are. Example- For married men, We expect the men to be leading in family worship at home and to some that is a new concept. We use Wed night to equip the saints and answer their questions on how to do it. For Singles, we expect them to disciple others and be able to defend the faith. We use that time to answer their questions about doctrine and the like.



I hope my question won't seem disrespectful, as I don't mean it so: to an onlooker this seems a bit arbitrary, from what I have understood of the other positions involved. Could you explain a little more why it would be biblically justifiable to break up the family unit, for formal instruction in the church, into men and women on any day of the week (whereas if I understand correctly you would not sponsor a singles Bible study even on Thursdays), but not into children and adults etc?


----------



## nasa30 (Nov 18, 2009)

a mere housewife said:


> > I am very glad that you asked that question because I did leave it out there without a better explanation. The division of men and women is only on our Wednesday night gathering and not on the Lords day.
> >
> > We do the division on Wed for a more focused teaching to help them where they are. Example- For married men, We expect the men to be leading in family worship at home and to some that is a new concept. We use Wed night to equip the saints and answer their questions on how to do it. For Singles, we expect them to disciple others and be able to defend the faith. We use that time to answer their questions about doctrine and the like.
> 
> ...


 
No, I don't take it as a bad question at all. We are given different roles in scripture and those differences are usually based on gender not age. Men and women are different and have different duties but no where do we see that this teens should do this and High Schoolers should do this or that. We do see the older women teaching the younger but it is within a gender first.

You never see books on the Titus 2 Man or the Proverbs 31 husband.


----------



## a mere housewife (Nov 18, 2009)

But surely we do have instruction for other biblical 'roles': children are to obey, fathers are not to provoke them: Paul makes a difference between the role of the single and the married in his treatment of those states. I am unable to see the rationale for dividing the family up along gender lines, but along no others, as not being somewhat arbitrary because of that (and I have also always thought the older women are instructed to teach the younger in informal settings, rather than necessarily as an official ministry of the church -- I'm not opposed to ladies' meetings, it's just that when one's view seems to require a sanction for a group meeting instead of the family, I'm not sure that an informal sanction is enough)?

Again, I mean no disrespect: I speak as a housewife, and will not argue my point . Thank you sincerely for your kind response.


----------



## nasa30 (Nov 18, 2009)

a mere housewife said:


> But surely we do have instruction for other biblical 'roles': children are to obey, fathers are not to provoke them: Paul makes a difference between the role of the single and the married in his treatment of those states. I am unable to see the rationale for dividing the family up along gender lines, but along no others, as not being somewhat arbitrary because of that (and I have also always thought the older women are instructed to teach the younger in informal settings, rather than necessarily as an official ministry of the church -- I'm not opposed to ladies' meetings, it's just that when one's view seems to require a sanction for a group meeting instead of the family, I'm not sure that an informal sanction is enough)?
> 
> Again, I mean no disrespect: I speak as a housewife, and will not argue my point . Thank you sincerely for your kind response.


 
No disrespect taken I assure you. 

Yes, we do have/need instruction in the other biblical roles and those really fall under Christian living. That is our day to day and that is taught each Lords day or whenever questions are asked. I see the distinction being that the teaching for single and married is not different. The duties as Christian are the same for either and that goes for gender as well. But gender does have some uniqueness than can be better addressed by meeting together.


----------



## a mere housewife (Nov 18, 2009)

> Yes, we do have/need instruction in the other biblical roles and those really fall under Christian living. That is our day to day and that is taught each Lords day or whenever questions are asked. I see the distinction being that the teaching for single and married is not different.


I'm so sorry, I've tried to keep my hands from plinking themselves down on the keys in keeping with my last post (though, in keeping with my last post, I won't argue that particular point further  but having reread this a few times, I think it would be useful to the discussion to point out that perhaps this statement demonstrates why a single person might feel uncomfortable in the movement. 

Surely the day to day duties of a single woman are not essentially the same as those of the married, minus the small detail of a husband to obey and please in all things? Paul says that the single person is free to please the Lord, whereas the married must care about the things of the world -- how to please their spouse -- if this is a minor irrelevance, not constituting 'some uniqueness' between married and single roles (as you acknowledge there to be between male and female), then Paul's argument preferring his single state would go out the window? I don't mean to imply that single people must then necessarily meet in their own groups on Wed. night etc; but that perhaps the approach stated above may be why single people have expressed that the movement makes them feel expected to conform to the pattern of the married -- and somewhat marginalised? Perhaps it was a misunderstanding on my part, in which case hopefully at least this will serve for clarification?

Thanks for your patience.


----------



## nasa30 (Nov 18, 2009)

a mere housewife said:


> > Yes, we do have/need instruction in the other biblical roles and those really fall under Christian living. That is our day to day and that is taught each Lords day or whenever questions are asked. *I see the distinction being that the teaching for single and married is not different*.
> 
> 
> I'm so sorry, I've tried to keep my hands from plinking themselves down on the keys in keeping with my last post (though, in keeping with my last post, I won't argue that particular point further  but having reread this a few times, I think it would be useful to the discussion to point out that perhaps this statement demonstrates why a single person might feel uncomfortable in the movement.
> ...


 
Trust me, there is so much confusion over this and FIC in general that explanations are needed. 

For the sake of clarity, the bolded section about was in reference to being a Christian day to day and that teaching is not different. We are to be obedient to God and his commands, to spread the gospel, the stand up for the cause of Christ and that is what I am talking about that you reference above.

In previous posts I said:


> Yes, singles are fully included. We make no distinctions about marital status. We just get different questions from them because of where they are in life.


 
Yes, the single folks do have different questions than married and we address those as well. We just do it together as a church body.

I also want to note that this is not just an FIC issue. FIC churches are not above it but we have it wrong in all kinds of churches and leave groups behind, Singles, Seniors, etc. That is one reason why we try so hard to not make something like marital status or age an issue.


----------



## a mere housewife (Nov 18, 2009)

Thanks much for the clarification. 

I still see there being undeniably 'some uniqueness' in the biblical role here as well, but that would revert back to the question of on what basis one decides to divide a family to meet in groups. I do think I understand your position somewhat better now; you've been very gracious, thank you.


----------



## nasa30 (Nov 18, 2009)

a mere housewife said:


> Thanks much for the clarification.
> 
> I still see there being undeniably 'some uniqueness' in the biblical role here as well, but that would revert back to the question of on what basis one decides to divide a family to meet in groups. I do think I understand your position somewhat better now; you've been very gracious, thank you.


 
Thank you for taking the time to find out for yourself and asking questions.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Nov 18, 2009)

I do find separate responsibilities laid out in Titus 2 concerning who should teach whom.



> (Tit 2:1) But speak thou the things which become sound doctrine:
> 
> (Tit 2:2) That the aged men be sober, grave, temperate, sound in faith, in charity, in patience.
> 
> ...



Now you can call this a segregation of duty in my opinion. Maybe even of age as it relates to the older and younger receiving instruction. I see no problem with an older more mature instructing a group of younger people who have a certain set of particular issues in their lifes calling and station, whether it be one of adolescence, single adulthood, or marriage. Each need a different subset of particular topical teaching. 

Pastor Keith Throop has been posting on this subject and giving Scott Brown his room to defend himself by posting links to his recent defenses. 


Welcome to NCFIC.org - Promoting Biblical Harmony Between Churches and Families


> It is a falsehood to say that the National Center for Family Integrated Churches advocates a “family of families” ecclesiology. In fact, our understanding of the nature of the church is consistent with the historic doctrinal statements of the faith including the Second London Baptist Confession of 1689, the Westminster Confession of Faith, the Heidelberg Catechism, and many other orthodox statements on the church. It is the same understanding I received as a young man when I was in seminary. We do not advocate a “family of families” ecclesiology. Rather, our ecclesiology is as rich and clear as the Second London Baptist Confession of 1689 and the Westminster confession.


In the same blog Scott Brown states...


> Let me say that again V-E-R-R-Y S-L-O-W-L-Y... THE TERM FAMILY OF FAMILIES IS NOT A COMMENT ON THE NATURE OF THE CHURCH!”1







Now in response to another blog by Jason Webb, Scott Brown sets the record straight. 
Welcome to NCFIC.org - Promoting Biblical Harmony Between Churches and Families


> Did the Puritans have a "Family of Families" Ecclesiology
> 
> It has been claimed that I wrote that the Puritans had a "family of families ecclesiology." This author cited my article, "My Top Four Favorite Family-Integrated Church Pastors," and used it to back up this assertion. However, if you read the article, you will notice that I never said the Puritans like Bunyan and Edwards had a “family of families” ecclesiology as the author maintains. His statement is unfounded and he wrongfully put those words in my mouth. My point was simply that the Puritans preached to age integrated church gatherings just like we do in family integrated churches today.



I still think Jason's blog has some merit for understanding what is going on in the confused language. Especially in relation to ecclesiology, the confessions, and they way the Puritans / Presbyterian's viewed their responsibilities and training up those who were in the faith. 

THE HISTORICAL CRITIQUE FROM PURITAN ECCLESIOLOGY
The Family-Integrated Church Movement ? Part 4 Reformed Baptist Fellowship 


And evidently it has been confusing as Pastor Throop has stated in his blog.



> Reformed Baptist Blog: FICM Response to Reformed Baptist Critics
> Update 17 November 2009
> 
> Scott Brown has posted yet another article in his series responding to Reformed Baptists objections. It is entitled The Church is a "Family of Families" -- Part 5 and is subtitled "What have we learned from this controversy over 'Family of Families'?" In this article Brown speaks to the way he believes FICM advocates have often been misunderstood and of the way NCFIC will make use of the phrase "family of families" in the future. Although he says that it no longer appears in current NCFIC literature and has been removed from their core document "A Biblical Confession for Uniting Church and Family," he also states that "We have no intention to abandon the use of the phrase or the concept behind it. It is a very important principle that undergirds a biblical understanding of church and family life."
> ...



I would like to make a few comments here concerning this again. 

I see no problem with age segregated teaching... As in let the older teach they younger. Or to put it another way, let the mature teach the less mature. I say that remembering Paul's exhortation to Timothy considering his age, Let no man despise thy youth, at the same time remembering how Paul instructed us to relate to those who were older.

In the 1800's and I imagine much earlier. Schools of divinity and Schools in general were set up for appropriate learning. That obviously led to the Sabbath Schools and instruction for age appropriate and maturity level training. Ever since my kids were little they were involved with attending the worship service with me unless they were babes and couldn't receive cognizant instruction. When they were small enough to attend and not disrupt the order of the worship I brought them to service along with drawing utensils and paper.


----------



## a mere housewife (Nov 18, 2009)

Randy, that's an interesting point -- if I understand correctly -- that if one uses Titus 2 for biblical warrant, specially teaching 'the young' is equally as appropriate as teaching along lines of gender.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Nov 18, 2009)

> Scott Brown notes on his blog.
> The phrase, ‘family of families” was never meant to be a comprehensive ecclesiological statement; it only served to demonstrate that the church is not exclusively composed of individuals, by acknowledging that there is a second biblical authority and jurisdiction in the church when a family comes to church. We wanted to clarify an important matter that church leaders are charged, not only to equip individuals, but also family members. They come to church as fathers and mothers and children and they need help to function biblically in their relationships in their homes.



First off..

The very word Church implies that the Church is composed of individuals. Each individual has an interdependent relationship with the other. The very word Church signifies this. As it cries, "OUR FATHER, who art in heaven." Each relationship is different from one individual to the next. But their is a connectedness. Why state the obvious?

I find charges like this to be way overboard and just plain silly. Especially in the evangelical churches I have been aware of. Every Pastor I have known and heard counsels and teaches to all applicably to their sheep.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Nov 18, 2009)

a mere housewife said:


> Randy, that's an interesting point -- if I understand correctly -- that if one uses Titus 2 for biblical warrant, specially teaching 'the young' is equally as appropriate as teaching along lines of gender.



That has how I always understood it. I refuse to counsel a woman based upon this passage. I will entreat them as sisters and give admonition but I always will refer to an older more mature woman.


----------



## nasa30 (Nov 18, 2009)

> Schools in general were set up for appropriate learning


 
This should be the topic of another thread and would be a 

-----Added 11/18/2009 at 02:30:06 EST-----

Dr Voddie Baucham has a very interesting message on this if you have the time.

This is off topic from the OP but we seemed to have ventured down a well beaten path.

Answering Objections to Uniting Church and Family


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Nov 18, 2009)

Are you familiar with William Symington's work in Scotland. He was used of God in the venture of training poor children. I am not necessarily arguing for Government Schools or the concept of Government run schools.


----------



## Timothy William (Nov 19, 2009)

Judson, thank you for your polite reply. My previous post was overly contentious in tone, and I imputed the problems I've experienced as a single man in conservative churches to the FIC movement, which was unfair of me and done without knowledge. I apologise.

I'm not convinced that it is always wrong to divide into groups based on age or marital status (or by other criteria such as introductory classes or catechism for new believers). I am glad that you strive to treat everyone equally, and I see that you have solid reasons for your beliefs and practices, in particular for necessity of communal worship for the whole church on the Lord's Day. 

Do you think it reasonable or allowable for there to be purely social events for people in different categories, such as singles; groups where single people can meet one another (either to find partners or just to be sociable)?


----------



## nasa30 (Nov 19, 2009)

> Judson, thank you for your polite reply. My previous post was overly contentious in tone, and I imputed the problems I've experienced as a single man in conservative churches to the FIC movement, which was unfair of me and done without knowledge. I apologise.


 
I understand that emotions do run high on this (especially when hurt in the past) so no offense is taken brother. 




> I'm not convinced that it is always wrong to divide into groups based on age or marital status (or by other criteria such as introductory classes or catechism for new believers). I am glad that you strive to treat everyone equally, and I see that you have solid reasons for your beliefs and practices, in particular for necessity of communal worship for the whole church on the Lord's Day.
> 
> Do you think it reasonable or allowable for there to be purely social events for people in different categories, such as singles; groups where single people can meet one another (either to find partners or just to be sociable)?


 
Yes, I believe that purely social events are a different thing all together and we should be free to have fun together. It just would not be considered teaching or worship (which I know you are not saying that it would be).

-----Added 11/19/2009 at 09:37:08 EST-----



PuritanCovenanter said:


> Are you familiar with William Symington's work in Scotland. He was used of God in the venture of training poor children. I am not necessarily arguing for Government Schools or the concept of Government run schools.


 
I am somewhat familiar with his work. I have read some about him in some Covenanter books. I would agree that him teaching the poor in his area to read was a great thing. I also see that he did not set up a school for just children to read but taught adults as well so he used the school to teach those in need and not just an age group.

I would argue that his great work should not set up the standard we should strive for in our families. Just like I think that God used George Muller and his orphanage in a great service but again, we should not try to equate that to be our standard for our families.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Dec 2, 2009)

I believe this thread hits the nail on the head. Just for reference. 
http://www.puritanboard.com/f103/family-families-statement-ncfic-55546/


----------

