# FIC Elder talks with Reformed Pastor



## southkogs

Thanks Pastor Mathis for this dialogue. For me more than anyone else, I'm convinced it will be a blessing.

Hi all, my name is Erik I had run across another thread where Pastor Mathis was talking with Mr. Wolfe. I saw it had fizzled out, and after reading several of Pastor Mathis' articles was intrigued by the conversation. I decided to ask if we could pick it back up.

I've posted a brief introduction here:http://www.puritanboard.com/f20/howdy-yall-70994/

And I've posted an overview of my own church here: http://www.puritanboard.com/f117/fic-tennessee-ha-even-rhymes-70995/#post908856

By looking at those two things you can get a snapshot of the premise I start from. Along with that, I'll also say that I can really only answer questions from the basis of myself and my church. I have experience with Voddie Baucham and Scott Brown (as in met and had conversations with), and am familiar with guys like Doug Phillips, Doug Wilson and Kevin Swanson (to name a few). I can't speak for them as a whole.

Also, through some preliminary contact with Pastor Mathis, I am confident that this can be a fun dialogue even in disagreement. Things can get spirited certainly, but I'll probably back away from arguing too much.

So - to kick this off:

Pastor Mathis, you are critical of the FIC movement (though gracious). If there is one criticism that stands out as a primary for you, what might that big (or perhaps first) one be?


----------



## Shawn Mathis

In 2009 I was asked to review some tapes from a homeschooling leadership conference. Many of the speakers were FIC leaders. I sat down and talked with an Elder that attended and explained my concerns. Besides the obvious helpful reminders of fatherhood, etc., there was little to no Gospel message. The audience included the wide spectrum of homeschooling. The Elder responded that he overheard some Adventists ask each other the meaning of a new word, 'Reformed.'

If that is the extent of the Gospel message presented to a dying Evangelical culture, then the FIC is in trouble. The Pew and Barna numbers (as well as Reformed pastors' and laymen's experience) show an abysmal church and homeschoolers and FICs are no exception. If the Gospel has been clearly present more recently, good. But the confession does not have the Gospel as an explicit solution. If it did, Adventists could not sign it along side Calvinists. Calling it a revival (like Mr. Phillips and others do) changes nothing.

Are youth-oriented, programmatic “ministries” a problem? Yes. Do fathers need to take their duties seriously? Yes. And this movement is a needful reminder of these facts. But there is a greater problem that is harming youth and families alike: a soil of widespread ignorance of the Gospel. The basic truths of Christianity are needed in the churches.

[My research has focused on the organization and leadership of the NCFIC. So what I write may or may not be accurate for the rest of the FIC movement. However, those churches that signed the NCFIC confession will necessarily be partially and implicitly critiqued by my work.]


----------



## southkogs

Shawn Mathis said:


> But the confession does not have the Gospel as an explicit solution.


 - I'm assuming that you mean the NCFIC Confession, correct? If so, I would say that our church (and I) have never taken this confession to be a complete confession of faith (like the Westminster or LBC). Rather it's an explanation of the relationship of the family and the church. I believe that would be consistent with NCFIC's view of it as well. On their site they say the confession "explains [NCFIC's] understanding of the necessity of harmony between the separate jurisdictions of church and family."

While perhaps shortsighted in doing so, I think the confession presumes the Gospel. The reason that I say that is because my experience with the NCFIC and several of the more prominent voices from the FIC movement has always been Gospel focused. Why presume the Gospel? Because the focus of NCFIC's mission is methodology within the church, rather than evangelism of the lost.

Your point of the paramount position of the Gospel is well taken, and I have to say that I believe I'm in full agreement with you. In fact, there is a particular danger within family integrated churches to focus so much on "family" that crude legalism casts a shadow over the light of the Gospel, the foundations of good theology and a Biblical model for worship.

At least in the case of our own church, the Pew and Barna research (and I would add some of the work Ken Hamm has recently produced) that you mention are a driver in why we've chosen the methodology we have. The modern iteration of the church as we know it is a disastrous mess on the overall, and we have tried to step back from it and re-examine the Biblical mandates for worship, discipleship, fellowship, benevolence and evangelism.

As to Doug Phillips calling it a revival: I've heard Doug say that, and I've also heard him say that God is the one who brings revival - not men. I don't know Doug, and have never personally talked with him. I have heard Kevin Swanson do an excellent job suggesting that the tenor in America right now is (in at least his estimation) similar to what the colonies were like in the late 1600's. What followed that was the Great Awakening, and he offered the hope that perhaps God is doing something that will be VERY significant. We can all hope, pray and watch, right?

If you could be assured of a FIC that had a good grasp on the Gospel (and preached it consistently), taught sound doctrine (reformed even!) and had a firm confessional footing (London Baptist Confession, Westminster Confession, etc.) - would the methodology itself be problematic for you?


----------



## Shawn Mathis

Erik,

You state: "the focus of the NCFIC's mission is methodology within the church, rather than evangelism of the lost."

That is exactly the problem. The church herself needs to hear the Gospel. Note the introduction to the NCFIC confession (printed almost in full for the sake of other readers):

"Therefore, the biblical order and unity of the family are crucial to the stability and health of the Church of Jesus Christ. In light of this, we recognize that the family—and especially fathers—are the focus of a fierce and unrelenting attack by the world, the flesh, and the Devil. This has escalated to the point that Christians must rise up in defense of the church and family in uncompromising biblical defense.

Rather than helping in this battle, church leadership has sometimes unwittingly contributed to the problem...Lack of understanding and even unfaithfulness to God’s Word in our pulpits have contributed to the decline of biblical Christianity and the dissolution of the family in our churches. The minimizing of scriptural authority in the church leads to unbiblical practices. This in turn leads to the perversion of the biblical roles of men and women, the destruction of our children, and the collapse of our society. Traditions, which have originated in the minds of devils and fallen men, are counterfeits to God’s authority. False doctrines derived from Darwinism, Marxism, Feminism, Secular Humanism, Psychology, and countless other unbiblical sources, have emerged from a society that has discarded Divine Revelation and have contaminated or replaced God’s standards in many professing churches of the Lord Jesus Christ. One of the bitter fruits of this is the fragmentation of the family.

We believe that the only resolution to this problem is repentance and reformation. We must confess our failures, reject the traditions of men, and wholeheartedly return to God’s revelation for the establishment and nurture of the family in loving obedience to the Lord Jesus Christ, the Head of the Church. Our fervent prayer is that our God will raise up Spirit-filled, Christ-centered, family-integrated assemblies from the ashes of our man-centered, family fragmenting churches."

Note:

1. It rightly explains the importance of the family as a unit within the church. The church needs (on one level) strong families. 
2. It rightly is concerned with the relationship between the church and family.
3. It rightly points to false practices and doctrines in the church that have adversely affected the family.
4. It wrongly omits the families and parents fault in propagating and/or encouraging said deficiencies.
5. It wrongly omits the lack of the Gospel as being the root problem in many churches (the point of the Barna numbers I referenced) [this does _not _mean other problems are not a concern, such as those highlighted by the movement].
6. It rightly asserts that the "only resolution to this problem is repentance and reformation."
7. It wrongly omits the Reformed Gospel as central to that reformation. 
8. This gross omission is further amplified by the last sentence: "raise up Spirit-filled, Christ-centered, family-integrated assemblies..." [This description _can _be descriptive of the Reformed Gospel but only to the initiated].

The last point leads to a question I will pose (before I forget!) but do not expect an answer just yet: _do you have the same prayer as in #8? Or can my church (with responsibly used age-segregated Sunday school) be part of said reformation?_

This issue is not an aside but germane: if the problem is misdiagnosed then the solution will be. The problem is the wrong Message in the church not fundamentally a wrong method.

I will respond more fully to the rest of your observations and question. I do get long-winded but this whole movement include many other issues than mere methodology.


----------



## Shawn Mathis

southkogs said:


> Your point of the paramount position of the Gospel is well taken,



Erik,

I am glad. However, I think the point is not well taken by many others. And I think that may be the difference between myself (and a host of others) and the NCFIC: Evangelicals need to hear the Gospel first. I think a mixed audience of Evangelicals should not be told they are part of some movement of God since they have no Reformed Gospel. Consider:

Mr. Phillips: “You men are here and you represent what I believe is one of the most important things happening in the world today...We are living at one of the most remarkable internal reformations of the last 200 years.” [4.30", 27" A Vision for the Family, 2009 Summit]

Mr. Swanson: “This is my vision for where we are headed by the year 2050…I’d say we are half-way into this modern reformation where God has renewed the hearts of fathers and turned them back to the sons. This is a mighty reformation. It is happening. I travel the nation; I testify to you it is happening. Unlike anything I’ve seen in the 1960s, 70s, 80s. God is doing something. God’s Spirit is working...There is hope for the salvation of Western Civilization and the Christian Faith because of home education." [35", 51" Closing statements, 2009 Summit]

If you are comfortable with this hyped optimism about homeschooling/FIC then we certainly are not on the same page about the importance of the Gospel. In those lectures to over 400 men (yes, even Adventists) the Reformed Gospel was not central. It was all about fixing families with a method (supposed commanded by God?) before fixing their message.

My Presbyterian ancestors would roll in the grave hearing that. Proof? During the Second Great Awakening the General Assembly of 1809 asserted: 

“In those parts of the church, without exception, in which vital religion has flourished, in the course of the last year, the fundamental doctrines of the gospel; viz. the total depravity of human nature, the divinity and atonement of Jesus Christ, justification by his imputed righteousness, the sovereignty and freeness of divine grace, and the special influences of the Holy Spirit in the regeneration and sanctification of sinners have been decidedly received and honoured.”

I strongly believe your Reformed Baptist fathers would agree.

And when given a chance to articulate the number one problem with current Evangelical pastors Dr. Baucham stated:

"But what is the root of the [youth] problem? What is the root of the problem? I want to look at it from the angle of a pastor: 1. Pastoral laxity—number one root cause of this problem.” [6.30", The Battle for Faith and Family, 2009 Summit. 

I couldn't disagree more. I see the problem differently (little Gospel, too much legalism and antinomianism) and so see the solution differently for the average Evangelical family with youth problems. 



southkogs said:


> As to Doug Phillips calling it a revival: I've heard Doug say that, and I've also heard him say that God is the one who brings revival - not men. I don't know Doug, and have never personally talked with him. I have heard Kevin Swanson do an excellent job suggesting that the tenor in America right now is (in at least his estimation) similar to what the colonies were like in the late 1600's. What followed that was the Great Awakening, and he offered the hope that perhaps God is doing something that will be VERY significant. We can all hope, pray and watch, right?



I hope and pray for a Revival and Reformation as powerful or more than the First. And that will start with changing the belief of hundreds of thousands of Evangelicals. 

The fact that Mr. Phillips publicly stated that God brings revivals means nothing _because I believed that before I was Reformed_. Please, just step back: you hear Reformed because you already know they are. But if you are not Reformed and you hear this it sounds different. When the Reformed Gospel is articulated clearly, people will be offended as a rule. 

As for Mr. Swanson liking this time-period to the late 1600s (more like 1700s since the First Awakening was 1739 as I recall), I am quite flabbergasted. At that time, anyway, the Reformed faith was dominate in the Colonies. Not always vibrant to be sure but doctrinally sound overall in spite of their imperfections. Nothing like today's church. 

Even granting this weak analogy, offering hope to an audience full of non-Reformed people without calling for repentance from a false Gospel first is ineffectual at best (if such was his audience as it was at the 2009 Summit). 




southkogs said:


> At least in the case of our own church, the Pew and Barna research (and I would add some of the work Ken Hamm has recently produced) that you mention are a driver in why we've chosen the methodology we have. The modern iteration of the church as we know it is a disastrous mess on the overall, and we have tried to step back from it and re-examine the Biblical mandates for worship, discipleship, fellowship, benevolence and evangelism.



The Pew and Barna studies I referenced were not about youth problems but the gross ignorance about Biblical truth among Evangelicals and homeschoolers alike. Perhaps you are suggesting that the FIC method offers a better chance at doctrinal fidelity? That has not been my experience. And we can discuss that later.

I will give part 3 in the next answer to keep issues separate. 

thank you for your patience,


----------



## Shawn Mathis

Erik,

Thank you for your patience as I get to your next formal question:



southkogs said:


> If you could be assured of a FIC that had a good grasp on the Gospel (and preached it consistently), taught sound doctrine (reformed even!) and had a firm confessional footing (London Baptist Confession, Westminster Confession, etc.) - would the methodology itself be problematic for you?



The short answer is: no. Not if the method is used in the context of Christian liberty and not assumed as a command of God. 

The long answer is: maybe. In the abstract it is allowable; in the concrete it depends on the churches and families involved. 

That is the nature of Christian liberty. That and the importance of families to learn from the ordain leadership of the church. God has not made the family an island unto itself (I think you would agree; I know Mr. Phillips does too). And that fact (e.g., 1 Cor. 12, etc.) coupled with Titus 2:3ff. means _it is OK for someone else to teach our children_. Even Mr. Brown agrees with me (almost, here).

Delegation does not mean abdication. Some of the FIC leaders allow for delegation. Unfortunately, my research does not have them saying: "stop abusing Sunday school as an excuse not to catechize your child." Rather they are saying: "stop using Sunday school for reason x"---which reasons I have demonstrably shown to be wrong, misguided or just irrelevant (see here). 

I hope that is clear,


----------



## southkogs

Pastor Mathis - I hope you and yours are having a great week, and look forward to a wonderful Thanksgiving Holiday:



Shawn Mathis said:


> ...I do get long-winded...



It's a shared affliction. Though, you've definitely raised the bar for me … three posts!?! 



Shawn Mathis said:


> … but this whole movement includes many other issues than mere methodology.



I agree, and appreciate your desire to guard a correct view of the Gospel, doctrine and church order. Through this discussion, I may boil a particular point down a little for clarity on my part; hence the focus on methodology in my last post.



Shawn Mathis said:


> ...do you have the same prayer as in #8? Or can my church (with responsibly used age-segregated Sunday school) be part of said reformation?



I'm going to start with this particular question because I think it helps set a tone. You ask the question as an either/or question, but I don't find it limited to either/or. I do pray for Spirit-filled, Christ-centered, family-integrated assemblies. I would like to see more of them. AND - I believe that Providence OPC could indeed be an agent of reformation (even with age-segregated Sunday School) should God deem them so. Perhaps, God in His Sovereignty would grant your church to be the "tip of the spear" in reformation and revival. I would have indeed grown too big for my britches if I believed it not possible, and I pray the FIC movement as a whole does not fall into that trap of pride and prejudice.



Shawn Mathis said:


> You state: "the focus of the NCFIC's mission is methodology within the church, rather than evangelism of the lost.
> 
> That is exactly the problem. The church herself needs to hear the Gospel.



Forgive my lack of clarity - the point I was trying to make is that the NCFIC is not a church or a denomination with governing powers of any sort over churches. While they have been trying to assemble a database of FIC churches, they have not at this time done much more than achieve a bulletin board of sorts. The organization speaks to the methods churches employ in ministering the Gospel - they "talk shop" with churches, if you will. When you look at the individual church websites for the main voices in the FIC movement - GFBC, Spring TX / Hope Baptist, Wake Forrest NC / Boerne Christian Assembly, Waring TX / Reformation OPC, Castle Rock CO - the driving focus shifts definitively to the Gospel. I don't deny that there is a family emphasis, but the Gospel is certainly center stage.

As a note concerning the NCFIC as an organization - My church has never signed a confession with the NCFIC. If there ever was an opportunity for that, I'm not aware of it. We did, when we registered on the website, check a box stating that we were in significant agreement with the confession, but as the NCFIC has no jurisdiction of any sort over my particular church it's really a question of our honesty more than anything else. You referenced a confession signed by churches in your post, but we've never been required (or even given the opportunity) to sign any confession. No decoder ring either 



Shawn Mathis said:


> As for Mr. Swanson liking this time-period to the late 1600s (more like 1700s since the First Awakening was 1739 as I recall),



You are correct about 1739(ish), but Mr. Swanson was talking about the late 1600's. His point was not conclusive as I recall, but suggestive that God used the frustrations with society at that time to set the stage for the early 1700's and ultimately the Great Awakening. I can go dig that up and listen to it again … it's been a while.



Shawn Mathis said:


> …offering hope to an audience full of non-Reformed people without calling for repentance from a false Gospel first is ineffectual at best (if such was his audience as it was at the 2009 Summit).



It wasn't at the 2009 Summit (I'm actually not familiar with that summit). I'm referring to a session at Gary DeMar's "Great Reversal" in 2009 in Georgia. It was held at DeMar's church and the bulk of the attendees certainly seemed to be Reformed (and the speakers seemed to assume so as well). I actually recall Swanson, Baucham, DeMar, Titus and Steve Camp being the main ones who spoke to the Gospel and repentance (though not from a false gospel) more than the others - but I don't have a quote readily available.

More to come …


----------



## southkogs

Shawn Mathis said:


> I see the problem differently (little Gospel, too much legalism and antinomianism) and so see the solution differently for the average Evangelical family with youth problems.



"… we officially oppose the doctrine of the family being preeminent over the doctrine of Christ …" [Doug Phillips/ Answering Critics of the Family Integrated Church Movement, Love the Church, 2011]

I think a unilateral statement that the FIC movement has no focus on the Gospel (or even the Reformed Gospel) is incorrect. I can agree that some of the main voices get hyped from time to time, and that perhaps a couple can be overly dogmatic to my taste (I'll let them defend that on their own). However, my experience with the NCFIC conferences (and I typically listen to the recorded messages rather than attend) leave me convinced that the Gospel is a focus. My church recognized early on that there is a danger of losing focus of the Gospel in favor of being "family integrated" (which I think typically manifests as legalism within FIC churches) and have made a point within our teaching, preaching and practice to keep the Gospel in focus in all we do.

"… we oppose … groups of Christians gathered together that claim to be constituted local churches but which lack a church government composed of elders and deacons … " [Doug Phillips/ Answering Critics of the Family Integrated Church Movement, Love the Church, 2011]

We (my church) also recognized that with homeschool families, there is an undertow of individualism that can lead to a complete separation from the church. I'm not sure if I can describe it well, but perhaps by saying that sometimes families decide to just break off and "house church" among themselves (which I think can lead to the antinomianism you mentioned) you'll see what I mean. In order to combat that we (our church) have maintained two things - 1.) a structure for ordination of elders to lead the church, and 2.) a confessional stance to act as a theological foundation. We do recognize that there are plenty of other FIC churches out there who have not built themselves on such a platform, and there are some problem "rogues" out there.



Shawn Mathis said:


> Please, just step back: you hear Reformed because you already know they are. But if you are not Reformed and you hear this it sounds different. When the Reformed Gospel is articulated clearly, people will be offended as a rule.



Perhaps I do hear reformed partially because of my predisposition, but I'm not convinced that this is the case in totality. That statement presupposes that I don't think critically about what I hear from within the FIC movement. I'm just too skeptical (due to some past circumstances) to take it all at face value. I don't buy hype. And I certainly don't accept it without weighing concepts against Scripture. That's the reason our church has opted to base our teaching/preaching specifically on exposition of books of the Bible teaching what is said in the Word, rather than taking ideas and trying to find Bible verses to support it.

Believe me - people are offended. We struggle to be as kind as possible. We work hard to be charitable. But to your statement - people are offended.

I'll post on age-integration in just a moment, but I want to touch on teaching children from a statement you made:



Shawn Mathis said:


> And that fact (e.g., 1 Cor. 12, etc.) coupled with Titus 2:3ff. means it is OK for someone else to teach our children. Even Mr. Brown agrees with me (almost, here).



Sure, it's is okay for someone else to teach children - but let's keep that in context: The typical requirements for a Sunday School teacher in America today are a pulse and a clear background check. The average (dare I say, "overwhelming majority of?") Sunday School programs are kept alive merely because the church believes it should have one, and has little or no structure or Biblical standard. At some point the Pastor might review the curriculum (which is typically some "Jesus loves me" cookie cutter template). There is typically a "director," but they are usually not an elder or ordained in any sense and the teachers in the classrooms are really just looking to see that the kids "enjoyed it" rather than were effectively moved toward sanctification (if they even know them well enough to speak to justification). In that context the conversation is almost silly.

I'll take your term "responsibly used age-segregated Sunday School" to define a program that identifies and employs pastoral/elder teaching to young people in concert with parental responsibility to disciple children. If the children are broken up by age group to employ that, and parents are encouraged to participate and involve themselves AND there is a mutual respect between church and family - I'd almost tell you that's more family integrated than one might think. Most FIC leaders would jump for joy at that kind of thing. And in that context, you're correct - it is okay for someone else to teach our children.

You are also correct: some churches in the FIC movement take things too far, and say a church elder can't (in any case) teach to anyone but the fathers. There's no way to back that up from Scripture, and it's wrong. However, discipleship of children does not necessarily require Sunday School. To date, my church has not found a benefit to adding a Sunday School program. Our concentration on families having regular family worship, and our "hospitality" approach of spending significant time "kneecap to kneecap" allows for some very focused and fruitful discipleship of adults and children alike.



Shawn Mathis said:


> Perhaps you are suggesting that the FIC method offers a better chance at doctrinal fidelity? That has not been my experience. And we can discuss that later.



Teaching doctrinal fidelity across the plain of the entire congregation? The FIC method is not necessarily better for that. The driving factor there is the doctrinal integrity of the church in question. And I would submit we might both agree that more often than not, churches are not holding to sound doctrine (regardless of being FIC or not).

Let me try to address children next ...


----------



## southkogs

_“The family is the Seminary of the Church.” – Thomas Manton_

Thomas Manton saw the family as a foundation of the church at least in some senses in the 1600's.

_“You are not likely to see any general reformation until you see family reformation.” –Richard Baxter_

I don't know what Richard Baxter saw in the late 1600's that put this thought into his head, but perhaps the same may hold true today?

_“Every Christian family ought to be as it were a little church, consecrated to Christ, and wholly influenced and governed by his rules. And family education and order are some of the chief means of grace.” – Johnathan Edwards_

Jonathan Edwards seems to suggest a similar focus later in the early 1700's.

_“Masters of families, who preside in the other affairs of the house, must go before their households in the things of God. They must be as prophets, priests, and kings in their own families; and as such they must keep up family-doctrine, family-worship, and family-discipline: then is there a church in the house, and this is the family religion I am persuading you to. You must read the scriptures to your families, in a solemn manner, requiring their attendance on your reading, and their attention to it: and inquiring sometimes whether they understand what you read.” – Matthew Henry_

Matthew Henry appears to suggest that there is at least some value in a focus on the organization and health of family religion.

_“First, let us begin by emphatically declaring it is parents (fathers in particular) and not the church who are given the primary responsibility for calling the next generation to hope in God. The church serves a supplementary role, reinforcing the biblical nurture that is occurring in the home. It is not the job of “professionals” at the church to rear the children of believers in the faith.” – Charles Spurgeon_

And Spurgeon seems to even draw some lines as to who carries the bulk load of responsibility in teaching children.

Research by Ken Ham and Britt Beemer for the book "Already Gone" showed that Sunday School may even be counter productive to solid doctrinal footing. Children who have been brought up going to Sunday School are more likely to leave the church, believe the Bible is less true, defend the legality of abortion and same sex marriage, and to defend pre-marital sex. We have to face it - Sunday School (at large, not necessarily specific instances of it) is a gross failure.

Admittedly, the Gospel is the critical element. And I have endeavored to agree on that, and to explain that we (at least my church, and I believe a good many others who identify with the NCFIC) have a healthy and solid focus on the Gospel. But a Gospel focus has to include at least a measure of right living along side of right believing. And if the stats found by Ham and Beemer are true - Sunday School is not even neutral. It's counter productive to the cause of Christ.

Spurgeon, in the above quote, clearly indicates that the church is a secondary force in the spiritual education of children. Does that demand that Sunday School be completely tossed overboard? Not at all. But does it lend a little bit of credence to the FIC position that a focus on the family unit, family roles and spiritual education within the home are significant factors in Christian discipleship? I would suggest it at least elevates us past the the classification of "idolatrous nuts."

The fear of the LORD is the beginning of Wisdom (Prov. 1:7), and that is a great verification that when God regenerates a person the capacity to have real wisdom awakens along side. But Duet. 6, Proverbs 22:6, and Ephesians 6:4 also show us that HOW (methodology) a child gains that wisdom is given (at least partially) in scripture. Manton, Baxter, Edwards, Henry and Spurgeon all seem to suggest there is an appropriate focus on family and it's relationship to the church.

There is no Biblical prescription for Sunday School. There is no prohibition against it either, I understand. But there is a clear prescription that fathers head up discipleship of their children (Eph. 6:4). And if Ham and Beemer's data is even mostly accurate, Sunday School as it's popularly known needs to be abandoned. It needs to be dismantled and examined closely to see where it's off track. Parents need to be instructed to disciple their children (consider what happened to Eli in 1 Sam. 2), and the church needs to humbly support that in a way that reinforces the parents primary role to train up their child in the nurture and admonition of the LORD.

To say that the FIC focus on family order, family discipleship and a proper relationship is out of balance with the Gospel, historic church doctrine or healthy discipleship is just plain wrong. Family focus within the church has a historic context, it has a Biblical foundation and it has an expressed purpose - and it can work within a right focus on the Gospel.

Pastor Mathis - I wish you and yours a wonderful Thanksgiving Holiday.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

southkogs said:


> And if Ham and Beemer's data is even mostly accurate, Sunday School as it's popularly known needs to be abandoned. It needs to be dismantled and examined closely to see where it's off track. Parents need to be instructed to disciple their children (consider what happened to Eli in 1 Sam. 2), and the church needs to humbly support that in a way that reinforces the parents primary role to train up their child in the nurture and admonition of the LORD.



This is ridiculous in my opinion. Sunday School or Sabbath School is not to be blamed or abandoned. That is just hogwash. I could take data from all kinds of Churches and pin point problems and failures and make the same off handed remark that these Churches need to be dismantled and examined closely to see where they are off track. Especially, if I took data from various liberal Churches who don't even believe the Scriptures. 

Most of the examples that a recent movie brought out were so slanted and strange that I didn't recognize them. The Church's function concerning discipline and accountability were so lacking that it wasn't even recognizable. Instead of dismantling the function of the Church it just needs to repent and start being and doing what it is supposed to be and do. Programs and Bible Studies can facilitate it. Programs that have accountability and shepherding are not things to trash but things to bring about. Another problem I am seeing is that some of these FIC guys are not working within a full context themselves. Some fathers are just absent and some Abigail's have foolish husbands. Some men have Gomer's for wives. But they are part of the Church and they have to operate in a situation that God has placed them in. There is a balance and the Church is to take the responsiblity of teaching in homes and at Church to call these lost souls like Richard Baxter did. 

The fact is, that we are to teach our children. I agree with that. We are to make sure they are being taught correctly. That is the father's responsibility as much as it is the Teachers, Elders, Pastors. Everyone depends on the Church as a mother to them. If the Church is doing its job, holding things accountable, if it is guarding its doctrine, having its conversation aright, then it will save. 

(1Ti 4:16) Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.

Truth sets free. God's Spirit is where true Liberty comes from. Yes, he uses means. He always uses his word. Teaching is a ministry of the Church. I believe you are taking Manton and Baxter out of context also. Let's evaluate Baxter who you quoted above. He was fruitful, but there is something you are leaving out. He personally went and Catechized his Parish. He operated in the office he was called to and took the authority he was given and performed in that capacity. He did it outside of the Worship Service and in their personal homes. The Church is to function as the teacher. It is also the guardian of truth. It has an office that isn't necessarily given to all men. Yes, men are responsible for their families but fathers are also responsible to the Eldership. And that is something that is very lacking in our generation. We can discuss this more later if you want. 

I agree with Calvin here cand believe it relates concerning my comment on submission to Eldership. 



> As Calvin noted, *"If they are her children, they must then have been conceived in her womb and nourished by her, first "with milk, and next with solid food,"...**"for the Spirit does not teach any but those who submit to the ministry of the Church."*



Sunday School has been beneficial when it is used as a tool of shepherding and accountability. The Law of the Lord converts the soul. The testimony of the Lord makes wise the simple. His word does not return to Him void. 

If it is reformation we are seeking for along with Revival then one must look to the Lord to send out Laborers. The fields are white for harvest. We can pray for men to be placed in His work. Luther and Calvin both were great men. They were Reformers. Others operated under the fruit of their ministry. But I can also attest that it was the Word of God being recognized for what it was. And that only comes from God no matter who the Parents are or what method they use. God is pleased to visit our Children and call them thankfully. May we guide them and nurture them in the fear and admonition of the Lord. One plants, one waters, but the Lord gives the increase. May he increase by adding our children and hearing our prayers. 

BTW, are you familiar with Dawson Trotman's testimony? Two old Sunday School Teachers have the most awesome inheritance in Heaven because of God's work through them. It has born much more fruit around the world than you or I could probably imagine. You are poo pooing God's work. I would be very full of care in doing so. 

May you have a wonderful Thanksgiving time Pastor Erik. 


http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/puritancovenanter/importance-church-sovereign-grace-715/


----------



## Shawn Mathis

I am sorry folks. I installed IE 9 but it has different security setup than the old Chrome. I can't seem to post.

---------- Post added at 10:02 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:00 PM ----------

I had to put this domain in the trusted zone (wow, IE 9 really micormanages). I'll try the facebook publish now. Testing...

---------- Post added at 10:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:02 PM ----------

OK Eric,

Third time is a charm (did I really write that?).

1. My comments were not directed at what your church does or does not believe. As I explicitly wrote, they are about the NCFIC. But those churches that signed their confession (which I know is non-committal to the NCFIC per se) must deal with the "collateral damage" by virtue of their public association with such leadership and their public statements. Having an "exception" to the confession tells the average Christian nothing without a list. The confession just gives the NCFIC 'street cred' with a large list to show off and gives the local churches publicity. 

But let us move to the question of method as you wish:

2. I am glad that non-family-integrated churches can be part of a revival. However I still have two questions that I think you can answer when you address children:

a. Why do you pray for the family-integrated along side Reformed? Is such an approach commanded by God? Is your understanding of family-integrated different than the NCFIC leadership?

b. When you state that God can use non-family-integrated churches are you saying that God can use sinful methods? Or inferior methods? (see point a).

thanks,

[wow: IE 9 does not even have native spell checking...]


----------



## southkogs

PuritanCovenanter said:


> May you have a wonderful Thanksgiving time Pastor Erik.


Thanks brother, I hope you had a great holiday as well.



PuritanCovenanter said:


> This is ridiculous in my opinion. Sunday School or Sabbath School is not to be blamed or abandoned ... I could take data from all kinds of Churches and pin point problems and failures and make the same off handed remark ... Especially, if I took data from various liberal Churches who don't even believe the Scriptures.


It's not quite as mad as one would think if you note that my position is on Sunday School (or even more broadly "youth ministry") as it's "popularly known" (or whatever you might phrase to be most common). Your church may well use a type of Sunday School that does an outstanding job of discipling young people and enforcing the parent-child mandates of Scripture. But the church at large does not. The data is telling us that these types of ministries are NOT helping in discipleship on the overall. Even Willow Creek had to acknowledge their ministry style was completely ineffective years ago - they've had to take it apart and re-examine it. I don't really agree with their starting point, or their conclusion but they did have to take a very big step back a few years ago.



PuritanCovenanter said:


> Most of the examples that a recent movie brought out were so slanted and strange that I didn't recognize them.


Unfortunately, I did (even to some personal experience). And, I find them more common than I would like. I was in youth ministry for quite a while and (in the ultimate appearance of being "two-faced") currently serve on a local board of a national youth evangelism organization - many of the things mentioned in the movie (if I'm thinking of the same one you are) are alive and well. One may suggest that makes me a little too "over sensitive." Perhaps, but I try hard to be more objective than that.



PuritanCovenanter said:


> BTW, are you familiar with Dawson Trotman's testimony? ... You are poo pooing God's work. I would be very full of care in doing so.


I'm not familiar with him, but I did a quick web search. Defending that I'm not "poo-pooing God's Work" is difficult to do in an anonymous web forum without some personal interaction. I guess the best I can do is try to iterate that there are people out there who I have significant differences with regarding theology - but I trust that these men are being used of God. I don't get to step into that work of the Holy Spirit and declare it null and void (part of the reason I still serve on the board mentioned above). God will be the final arbitrator of that, and I have to be satisfied with His perfect judgment.

I hope that helps a little.


----------



## Herald

Erik,

If I may interject without derailing the thread too much; you seem like you recognize the centrality of the Cross in whatever the Church does. In my dealings with families who are friendly towards the NCFIC I have observed an obsession with family integration and less about the Cross. I'm not suggesting the Cross is absent; it's just that is not primary focus. While I share Shawn's concern that the lack of Gospel emphasis is a weakness of the NCFIC, I also share your concern about theology as a possibly distraction from the Cross. Idolatry is a charge that most Reformed Christians bristle against. After all, we're Reformed! But when theology itself becomes our focal point it's possible for the Gospel to take second place. That is when idolatry creeps in; unawares, but creeps in nonetheless. All of us need to beware of this trap.


----------



## southkogs

Shawn Mathis said:


> Third time is a charm (did I really write that?).


The worst is when I do that during a sermon ...



Shawn Mathis said:


> wow: IE 9 does not even have native spell checking...


Uh,oh ... the FIC guy is a "Mac snob" too  Probably best left to another thread ...



Shawn Mathis said:


> My comments were not directed at what your church does or does not believe. As I explicitly wrote, they are about the NCFIC ...


I understand/stood that. And, I'm trying to be careful to trust your intentions and not over react. I started this whole thing, right? At the same time, distinctions can be helpful. For instance, Al Mohler is typically a trusted voice among Reformed believers, but he's Southern Baptist and the SBC as a whole isn't all that Reformed.



Shawn Mathis said:


> But those churches that signed their confession (which I know is non-committal to the NCFIC per se) must deal with the "collateral damage" by virtue of their public association with such leadership and their public statements.


Agreed. It would much easier for me and for my church to simply try to distance ourselves from the movement as a whole. At a bare minimum though, we are in substantial agreement with them and so we identify with the movement as a whole.



Shawn Mathis said:


> When you state that God can use non-family-integrated churches are you saying that God can use sinful methods?


Let me start with this first. I think the question is a little too broad to answer exactly. Are some youth group/Sunday school programs non-FIC and sinful? Absolutely. I think you and I could agree that some of the programs are just complete derelicts. Can God use them? In spite of their sinfulness, sure. He used Pharaoh, didn't he? He used Judas, didn't he? Does God actively employ sin for His purpose? No. Can He redeem what is sinful? Yes. A church that fits in this category is one I would pray for God to reform.

Are there other youth/Sunday school that are non-FIC and are not sinful? I think there probably are. Nothing comes to mind that I've been a part of, but I think that must exist. God reaches in a preserves and protects. The Church is not so far off the rails that my church and a handful of little FIC fellowships around the world are the last hope of survival. Even coming into the Reformation, Martin Luther was not alone. Though he seemed to be a singular voice for the reform of the church, there were others who understood the doctrines of Grace before he laid the first blow on the door at Wittenburg.



Shawn Mathis said:


> … Or inferior methods? … Why do you pray for the family-integrated along side Reformed? Is such an approach commanded by God? Is your understanding of family-integrated different than the NCFIC leadership?


I don't think that my understanding is different from the NCFIC. However, Scott Brown has made some statements even recently that may present a divergence here from the NCFIC stand on some points (I've not discussed it with Scott directly).

I know that the NCFIC would agree - we pray for the Church because it's the Bride of Christ. At large, He loves Her and He's the One who's going to perfect Her. I (a Baptist) can pray for your church (Presbyterian) even with some significant (though secondary) differences between us. I don't have to abandon our relationship as brothers in Christ over the differences we have denominationally (there are Baptist and Presbyterian churches that have issues where we do divide, but I think you see my greater point). Maybe Mark 9:38-41 sheds a little light on this point?

That leaves the question of if it's inferior. Assuming the youth/Sunday school program we're talking about here is a "healthy" one (whatever definition we might agree upon), the question falls into the same category that paedo-baptism and credo-baptism would (to my mind). As a Baptist, I'm obviously going to lean toward credo-baptism. I've spent time in the PCA, and I think I have a good grasp on paedo-baptism. But I'm bound by my convictions from Scripture that credo-baptism is my landing spot. I'm confident that your convictions on the matter are as strong, if not stronger than mine. Is paedo-baptism inferior to credo-baptism? Well, I think so. My guess is that you think the exact opposite. I can still pray for my non-FIC brothers and sisters just like I can still pray for my paedo-baptist brothers and sisters and for God's blessing on their ministry (even while holding firm convictions).

By the way, the "needle tilt" on the paedo/credo debate is a rather slight lean for me. My convictions are solid, but gap between the two views (in my mind anyway) is not so vast. Between a FIC no-program approach, and a non-FIC "healthy" (again, not yet defined) approach - my differences with it might be equally as slight.

Does that help?

---------- Post added at 08:32 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:30 AM ----------




Herald said:


> Erik,
> 
> If I may interject without derailing the thread too much; you seem like you recognize the centrality of the Cross in whatever the Church does. In my dealings with families who are friendly towards the NCFIC I have observed an obsession with family integration and less about the Cross. I'm not suggesting the Cross is absent; it's just that is not primary focus. While I share Shawn's concern that the lack of Gospel emphasis is a weakness of the NCFIC, I also share your concern about theology as a possibly distraction from the Cross. Idolatry is a charge that most Reformed Christians bristle against. After all, we're Reformed! But when theology itself becomes our focal point it's possible for the Gospel to take second place. That is when idolatry creeps in; unawares, but creeps in nonetheless. All of us need to beware of this trap.



Thank you.


----------



## Shawn Mathis

Erik,

One last question(s) before you address the question of children:

You wrote: "I'll take your term "responsibly used age-segregated Sunday School" to define a program that identifies and employs pastoral/elder teaching to young people in concert with parental responsibility to disciple children. If the children are broken up by age group to employ that, and parents are encouraged to participate and involve themselves AND there is a mutual respect between church and family - I'd almost tell you that's more family integrated than one might think. Most FIC leaders would jump for joy at that kind of thing. And in that context, you're correct - it is okay for someone else to teach our children."

I am glad you wrote this. I am not sure if the NCFIC could write it from the quotes I've read. You also stated:

"There is no Biblical prescription for Sunday School. There is no prohibition against it either, I understand. But there is a clear prescription that fathers head up discipleship of their children (Eph. 6:4)."

Again. I rejoice that you agree with me. If only the leadership of the NCFIC were so clear. In fact, Mr. Brown (as you probably know) has denied this (read here).

So, do other like-minded pastors of other FIC churches agree with you on the above points? 

thanks,


----------



## southkogs

Shawn Mathis said:


> …before you address the question of children…


Shall we share a bit of a laugh? You are a far more polished and accomplished writer than I am. When I read this line I had to laugh at myself … post #10 was where I was thinking I had "addressed the question of children." I like what I wrote … but, it's not really clear that I was addressing the question of children. You may all chuckle amongst yourselves whilst I regroup… 



Shawn Mathis said:


> You wrote: … And in that context, you're correct - it is okay for someone else to teach our children." …I am not sure if the NCFIC could write it from the quotes I've read.


I'm somewhat (though not completely) confident that the NCFIC would agree with my stance. The terminology is a bit muddy, and that certainly isn't helping any of us. In your article you even ask for the definition of "systematic, age-segregated youth ministry," and I don't know if you've gotten one (I don't recall reading one anyway). Let's try this for a rude attempt:

"Systematic" is probably a sloppy word to use mainly because nearly everything that one does in an organized sense (programs, meetings, etc.) has some level of "system" to it. I think in this case that "systematic" is used to describe age-segregation that is built foundationally on the child development philosophies that grade-based government schools employ. I would hope that we can agree that this particular type of segregation has some (rather significant) roots in Marxism and humanistic evolution. I would further submit that the early foundational proponents of this type of school system saw the school/teachers as the primary and more "legitimate" source of wisdom and knowledge. Primary over and more "legitimate" than whom? Parents (God is not even considered); who for centuries had both legitimacy and primacy in the education of their children. Indeed, many modern educators have taken this philosophy and (perhaps with good intentions) galvanized it into a belief that no parent can possibly educate like the professionals in the schools (most of whom are completely anti-Christ in their considerations). Why then, considering the origins, philosophies and attitudes of such a system (one that is clearly against the Gospel), would the Church embrace and promote it as the "system" of choice for discipleship of Christian children? Especially when most churches who do employ such as system typically can't properly retain, train, verify and monitor enough qualified teachers (and there are at least some Biblical descriptions and warnings about teachers) for so many divisions of the congregation.

A Sunday school divided up by maturity, subject matter, gender topics or similar types of divisions, that is easy to place good Biblically qualified teachers over, and respects the parents role as primary in the discipleship of children is one that FIC churches could probably accept under Christian liberty. Most FIC churches have some type of divisions like this. My church, for example, has regular men's meetings for any male over 12 (among some other things). We don't have those meetings every Sunday (or every week), but we do have them regularly within a month.




Shawn Mathis said:


> You also stated:"There is no Biblical prescription for Sunday School. There is no prohibition against it either, I understand. But there is a clear prescription that fathers head up discipleship of their children (Eph. 6:4)."
> 
> Again. I rejoice that you agree with me. If only the leadership of the NCFIC were so clear. In fact, Mr. Brown (as you probably know) has denied this (read here).


I'm not sure I quite agree that Scott Brown has "denied" that there is no prohibition of Sunday school (sorry for the double negative there). I've read your article and the one you link to a couple of times, and I'm not quite seeing a carte blanche denial. I do see him utilizing the term "systematic age-segregated," and denied there is no prohibition against that. Perhaps I'm missing the specific statement you're referring to or I'm reading too much into what Scott did say. But I do agree with Scott that there is a difference between tools (computers, sound systems, etc.) and methods. While I say that there are constructs of Sunday school that really are matters of liberty, those constructs need to consider methodology at least to some degree.

If we take the over-exploited story of Uzzah and the Ark (2 Sam 6) and look at one of the concepts, we find that Uzzah's good intentions (to guard the sanctity of the Ark) were in the context of bad methodology. God did prescribe a manner for transporting the Ark. That prescription was not being observed. There is (not that I know of anyway) no prohibition against the Ark traveling on an ox cart (in fact, it had done just that coming back from the Philistines, though at the hand of pagans), but there is a prescription that is to be born on specific poles by certain people. There is a positive prescription of method here. Likewise, the positive prescription for the discipleship of children is given to the parents (specifically fathers). There is an authority that's granted there that the church must observe and uphold. That doesn't prevent the church from discipling children (I do all the time), but it does require a respect for the parents role which is spelled out very clearly (and most churches don't do this).

I haven't talked with Scott Brown personally, so I might be divergent from the NCFIC on what I've just said. But I'm pretty confident that they would be in agreement with what I've just said (however unclear it might be).



Shawn Mathis said:


> So, do other like-minded pastors of other FIC churches agree with you on the above points?


I don't really know. There are about three other FIC churches that I have regular contact with, and I know one of them would be certainly in agreement. The other two I think would be, but I've not discussed it directly with them. Trying not to sound self-righteous about it - the truth is what other churches/pastors agree with is a consideration, but we have to be bound by our convictions through Scripture.

I think that covers most of what I had in my head regarding children too


----------



## Shawn Mathis

southkogs said:


> I'm not sure I quite agree that Scott Brown has "denied" that there is no prohibition of Sunday school (sorry for the double negative there). I've read your article and the one you link to a couple of times, and I'm not quite seeing a carte blanche denial.



Erik, For clarification: my comment about Mr. Brown is that he denies the position that asserts a prohibition must be found against SS. And on the flip side, a prescription must be found. For example:

"The Bible is clear about this matter, and it gives the full range of that teaching including who, where, why, what, and when....When you split youth up according to age, you are doing something that is contrary to the explicit, revealed commands and patterns of Scripture...to claim that we can set aside these scriptural methods and employ our own methods because we do things and use means not mandated in Scripture in other areas of church life is a generic fallacy." (also see his book).

On the other hand, you seem, in this sentence, which I may have read into, to deny his approach: "There is no Biblical prescription for Sunday School. There is no prohibition against it either." 

I hope that is clearer.


----------



## southkogs

I see - and perhaps Scott and I have a disagreement there. That would be something to clarify with him. But let's also flesh both statements out a little bit -

No one can point chapter and verse to a directive to have a Sunday school based on how old children are. Likewise, no one can point chapter and verse to an explicit didactic command not to have a Sunday school based on how old children are. So, under Christian liberty (as I understand the concept) can a church have a Sunday school? I don't see why not. However, that Sunday school cannot damage any of the chapter and verse commands of Scripture. For example:

Scott suggests (perhaps this is what he means) that there is a Biblical prescription not to split the assembly up by age.

Matthew 19 - "Let the little children come to me and do not hinder them..." & Hebrew 10 - "...not neglecting to meet together..." - children (especially those who've made a profession of faith) need to be with the assembly on the LORD's day. That doesn't prohibit Sunday school, and many people reading this will think "those two things are not even connected." But there are many churches who employ "children's church" and other such things to pull children out of the Sunday service. Professing children (at least) and covenant children (again, if I understand the concept correctly) should be actively with the assembly on Sunday.

When he says that "set aside Scriptural methods and employ our own" perhaps this idea of delegation (which is no problem in a limited amount) of duties out of the hands of the parent (specifically fathers) is what he had in mind.

Eph. 6:1-4 - "Fathers ... bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the LORD." & Deu. 6:7 "... teach them diligently to your children ..." - anything that damages this commandment to parents to be the ones teach their children diligently, probably needs to be scrutinized at the very least - but I think this might be a point where Scott Brown would say completely done away with. And it's not a crazy concept. Consider - The Bible doesn't prohibit drinking alcohol, but it clearly prohibits drunkenness. Under Christian liberty we can drink alcohol, but we have a responsibility not to be a stumbling block (Rom. 14:13) to someone who struggles with drunkenness. Why then is the church not more careful in not being a stumbling block to parents who like to abdicate their responsibility to disciple children? Some churches are I admit, but on the whole (and I mean a majority) they're not. That's what the data I've mentioned is telling us.

So, I see how the two statements seem in conflict (and perhaps they actually are). However, there is a perspective from his statements that ought to be considered carefully.

Does that help?


----------



## nasa30

Shawn Mathis said:


> southkogs said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure I quite agree that Scott Brown has "denied" that there is no prohibition of Sunday school (sorry for the double negative there). I've read your article and the one you link to a couple of times, and I'm not quite seeing a carte blanche denial.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Erik, For clarification: my comment about Mr. Brown is that he denies the position that asserts a prohibition must be found against SS. And on the flip side, a prescription must be found. For example:
> 
> *"The Bible is clear about this matter, and it gives the full range of that teaching including who, where, why, what, and when....When you split youth up according to age, you are doing something that is contrary to the explicit, revealed commands and patterns of Scripture...to claim that we can set aside these scriptural methods and employ our own methods because we do things and use means not mandated in Scripture in other areas of church life is a generic fallacy." (also see his book).*
> 
> On the other hand, you seem, in this sentence, which I may have read into, to deny his approach: "There is no Biblical prescription for Sunday School. There is no prohibition against it either."
> 
> I hope that is clearer.
Click to expand...

Could you post the original passage from the book unedited?


----------



## Shawn Mathis

Hello Judson,

The full quote is from his blog post: "Second, our subject is that which is plainly and irrefutably taught in Scripture regarding how youth are to be educated. The Bible is clear about this matter, and it gives the full range of that teaching including who, where, why, what, and when. It is the Bible that tells us what is central. When you split youth up according to age, you are doing something that is contrary to the explicit, revealed commands and patterns of Scripture. The film _Divided_ is focused on the responsibility of the church and the family to understand and follow the biblically-mandated methods of discipleship. To claim that we can set aside these scriptural methods and employ our own methods because we do things and use means not mandated in Scripture in other areas of church life is a generic fallacy."

I mentioned the book as "also". The book quote involves a little more. A summary can be read here. I could quote it in full later, but the assumption with the dialogue between myself and Erik is that he read my major essays on the matter. To avoid unnecessary duplication, I would encourage anyone who wants to know my understanding and concern about the NCFIC to read my essays here: each of them are shorter than 2 pages.

thanks,


----------



## nasa30

Shawn Mathis said:


> Hello Judson,
> 
> The full quote is from his blog post: "Second, our subject is that which is plainly and irrefutably taught in Scripture regarding how youth are to be educated. The Bible is clear about this matter, and it gives the full range of that teaching including who, where, why, what, and when.* It is the Bible that tells us what is central.* When you split youth up according to age, you are doing something that is contrary to the explicit, revealed commands and patterns of Scripture. *The film Divided is focused on the responsibility of the church and the family to understand and follow the biblically-mandated methods of discipleship.* To claim that we can set aside these scriptural methods and employ our own methods because we do things and use means not mandated in Scripture in other areas of church life is a generic fallacy."
> 
> thanks,


Hi Pastor Mathis.

Just curious why you edited out the two sections in bold above in your quote of what Pastor Brown said? It was not like it was super lengthy or unrelated to what he was saying in the quote.

Especially the first one.



> *It is the Bible that tells us what is central*


----------



## Shawn Mathis

Judson,

When I write, I write with length restrictions. Publishers want only so many words (as do many readers!). As for the the last quote "It is the Bible that tells us what is central" --it is only repeating what he says several times in so many words (which I do quote elsewhere). It is not a point of dispute and thus not central to the debate. The real debate is given this premise what does the bible actually say on the matter.


----------



## nasa30

Shawn Mathis said:


> Judson,
> 
> When I write, I write with length restrictions. Publishers want only so many words (as do many readers!). As for the the last quote "It is the Bible that tells us what is central" --it is only repeating what he says several times in so many words (which I do quote elsewhere). It is not a point of dispute and thus not central to the debate. The real debate is given this premise what does the bible actually say on the matter.



Ten words (first portion removed) did not seem to be too long to be concerned with length restrictions, but thank you for the answer anyway. I think it did the quote an injustice to remove it but it might just be me. It was just confusing/concerning to me about what was being edited out considering the purpose of this discussion was to be informative to see what two people think about FIC, you and Pastor Erik.
I am not a fan of editing quotes from folks in discussions like this because it does not add strength to the argument to me but rather leads to a question, "What was removed from this passage that this person was using to make a point?" So I wanted to ask what and why.


----------



## Shawn Mathis

Erik,
Your comment about children being part of public worship is not in dispute. You mentioned you read a number of my articles so I think you are already aware of this.

Mr. Brown is saying more than this (as my articles point out). His book even mentions that meetings in general and instruction in general (he never, as I recall, specifies but uses broad sweeping language) should avoid age-segregation. He does not seem to narrow it to public worship. 

If you have not read his book I would encourage you to. This is a significant issue. If he is offering a different rational than what pastors agree with then this should be known publicly and the NCFIC should clarify their confession accordingly. 

As I understand your position, I agree:

"I'll take your term "responsibly used age-segregated Sunday School" to define a program that identifies and employs pastoral/elder teaching to young people in concert with parental responsibility to disciple children. If the children are broken up by age group to employ that, and parents are encouraged to participate and involve themselves AND there is a mutual respect between church and family - I'd almost tell you that's more family integrated than one might think. Most FIC leaders would jump for joy at that kind of thing. And in that context, you're correct - it is okay for someone else to teach our children."

And yet others who agree with you do not agree with me. I must be missing something between this statement and the many statement from Mr. Brown, et. al.

thanks,


----------



## southkogs

Pastor Mathis:

I haven't read Scott's book - I'll make it a point to do that quickly.

Your agreement on many issues is what intrigued me to start the conversation. You seemed in agreement on so much, yet critical at the same time (again, in a gracious manner). Without having read Scott's book, I'm curious if lack of clarity from the FIC perspective hasn't gotten in the way (or stated, I wonder if Scott just wasn't clear). I don't know if you recall the broo-ha-ha between Voddie Baucham and Sam Waldron a couple of years ago regarding the phrase "the Church is a Family of Familes." Waldron (rightly) climbed all over the FIC movement for that statement, and Dr. Baucham had to address it (Family of Families being a relational term, not a statement on ecclesiology). I have found some times that FIC voices can get a little ahead of themselves. That's actually part of the experiment in this conversation from my part - to see how often I have to "back paddle" from saying something dopey  The centrality and authority of Scripture is the critical feature. In some senses I see the FIC movement as calling that issue on the table, in some other senses I see the FIC movement more putting on the brakes - deconstructing a little back to what is clearly outlined in Scripture - and then opening back up to methodology that falls under "Christian Liberty." All things are permissible, but not profitable - if that makes sense.

Out of curiosity, have you had any direct conversations with Voddie Baucham, Scott Brown, Doug Phillips or Kevin Swanson?

Maybe we can discuss "responsibly used age-segregated Sunday School" and see what falls out in a more technical discussion?

Along those lines, would you comment on "youth ministry?" To the extent of what we see as youth ministry commonly in the United States, I think from your articles you'd agree that on the overall it's full of pretty big problems.

All the Best,


----------



## Shawn Mathis

southkogs said:


> I'll make it a point to do that quickly.


 Dont' know about "quickly"...


----------



## southkogs

Shawn Mathis said:


> southkogs said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll make it a point to do that quickly.
> 
> 
> 
> Dont' know about "quickly"...
Click to expand...


Touché ... relatively quickly


----------



## Shawn Mathis

southkogs said:


> Out of curiosity, have you had any direct conversations with Voddie Baucham, Scott Brown, Doug Phillips or Kevin Swanson?



About three years ago I heard that a sister church in my Presbytery signed an extra-confessional confession (the NCFIC confession). I asked the pastor and elder about the confession. I was encouraged to sign the document since it was in line with my concerns about the family and the youth in particular. 

My impressions was that it was against Sunday school. So I emailed the NCFIC. Asking the group if my church could join, the liaison, Thompson, replied that we could join if we were working on dismantling our age-segregated Sunday schools (email, Oct. 7, 2006). Apparently, youth groups are acceptable if parents immediately oversee and learn with the youth (email, March, 2007). 

I presented this info to my sister church (the pastor and elder). They were not persuaded. The elder said that there was an exception clause to the confession [which reads: "Are you in substantial agreement with the NCFIC Confession?"]. I should go ahead and sign it. So I tried to contact Mr. Brown. My email was forwarded beyond Mr. Thompson. Mr. Brown requested a phone call. At the time I had a new cell-phone and was unfamiliar with it. So when he called I hung up on him! I emailed him again to set up another talk. It never came to fruition. 

During this time I emailed, called and talked face-to-face with Mr. Swanson, the pastor of the aforementioned sister church. We meet three more times with two other pastors to clarify exactly what Mr. Swanson believed about FICs and homeschooling as well. Unfortunately, any such clarification has not been made public beyond my own writings.

As for Mr. Bauchan, I have not tried to contact him directly. Of interest is the fact that other defenders of the FIC familiar with some of my work think such men should not spend time interacting with what I write since I am not a big name (I think that was in the previous thread with Mr. Wolfe). 

For the record, Mr. Brown knows about my first essay at Wes White's site because one of his parishioners (Mr. Glick, here) told him.

Why this long-winded answer? Because I have been falsely accused of not making any effort in this area. Note well: I have initiated all these contacts and most of the follow-ups (except when Mr. Brown willing tried to call me).


----------



## southkogs

Shawn Mathis said:


> Why this long-winded answer? Because I have been falsely accused of not making any effort in this area. Note well: I have initiated all these contacts and most of the follow-ups (except when Mr. Brown willing tried to call me).



Forgive me - I completely forgot about reading of your contact with Kevin Swanson (though I was pretty sure of that contact, knowing you and he were in the same denomination). And I hope I didn't sound accusatory in asking the question. I was more curious as to how much clarification you've gained from each of (or any of) these people - and truly, more for your own benefit than even for this discussion. I've found in many discussions "definition of terms" can be a major hurdle to get over in reaching an understanding.

If you've not seen it, Dr. Baucham's church does regular campus visits. I attended one two years ago (my wife and I happened to be in the area) . Because of the intention of interacting with people who are curious about FIC, access to their elders is planned and generous (at least by my experience). I think it would be worth the time for you to make one of those visits, and I would suggest that Dr. Baucham would be very open to speaking with you directly if you contact him ahead of the trip.

And ... I got "A Weed in the Church" over the weekend and have started my homework assignment


----------



## Shawn Mathis

Erik,

You did not sound accusatory at all. 

I am on vacation until Christmas so my response will be sloooower. I'm glad you got the book. That would be a good place to start, I think.

As for talking with yet another FIC proponent, I'll pass on initiating that but will respond if they tap me on the shoulder.


----------



## southkogs

Pastor Mathis:

Early impressions of the book (I'm most of the way through it) include some places where I think Scott Brown addresses a few of the very topics we've been discussing:


_"… we are not blaming every problem in evangelicalism on modern youth ministry or age-segregation itself … What we are saying is that modern youth ministry can negatively influence the lives of youth in the church and family and subvert biblical discipleship." - ["A Weed in the Church" - Scott Brown, pg. 61]_​

In the section of the book that I pulled that quote from, Scott Brown starts establishing some "qualifications" to the rest of the book. Earlier in the thread someone called the FIC approach a presumed "silver bullet." And I think this statement at least sets the ground work that what FIC churches have addressed is a major issue in the church, but not THE major issue in the church.



Shawn Mathis said:


> You wrote: "I'll take your term "responsibly used age-segregated Sunday School" to define a program that identifies and employs pastoral/elder teaching to young people in concert with parental responsibility to disciple children. If the children are broken up by age group to employ that, and parents are encouraged to participate and involve themselves AND there is a mutual respect between church and family - I'd almost tell you that's more family integrated than one might think. Most FIC leaders would jump for joy at that kind of thing. And in that context, you're correct - it is okay for someone else to teach our children."
> 
> I am glad you wrote this. I am not sure if the NCFIC could write it from the quotes I've read.



_"A fifth qualification is that our rejection of systematic, age-segregated youth ministry is not a rejection of youth discipleship itself." - ["A Weed in the Church" - Scott Brown, pg. 62]_​

Perhaps this statement (again from the "qualifications" of the book) helps clarify why I think the NCFIC would agree with my statement quoted above. This adds to it as well:


_"… it is not our position that the whole family must always be together for celebration, instruction or discipleship … " - ["A Weed in the Church" - Scott Brown, pg. 63]_​

Especially considering our earlier conversation about church leaders (or someone other than the father) teaching children, I think these statements make it clear that there are some forms of youth discipleship that are acceptable and they do not necessarily require that the father is the one instructing his children.


You used the statement "delegation is not abdication," and I think that Mr. Brown would agree with you:


_"… this does not mean that a father cannot employ others in a limited fashion to help him carry out his discipleship responsibilities." - ["A Weed in the Church" - Scott Brown, pg. 65]_​

And finally - to reinforce the idea that there are some forms of a "Sunday School" or other youth ministry that might be acceptable to the NCFIC or the FIC movement, one more quote:


_"… while we believe that systematic, age-segregated youth ministry in the church is unbiblical, we want to be clear that we are not taking the worst forms of worldly youth ministry and superimposing them on all forms of youth ministry." - ["A Weed in the Church" - Scott Brown, pg. 62]_​

Much of the discussion revolves around the term "systematic, age-segregated youth ministry." In all honesty, I don't think Mr. Brown did a good job establishing a working definition of the term in his book. I can impose a definition on the term due to familiarity with the movement as a whole, but a reader approaching the book without a frame of reference is likely to wonder exactly what the term means.

Let me try a post to start a discussion to define that term a little bit ...


----------



## southkogs

"Systematic, Age-Segregated Youth Ministry" - - Again, this is my imposition of a definition. But, I think it will make for a good place to start.

I think we agree on congregational worship, so we'll assume that we're talking within the realm of Sunday School or Weekly Youth Programs.

The common expression of age/grade segregation (see post #18) utilized in public schools is something that doesn't make sense to good education. The Bible recognizes terms that are a little more broad (young men, older women, little ones, nursing babes, etc.). Those more broad terms better fit how the church should segregate at appropriate times. Splitting hairs? Perhaps, but likely not when you consider how much better children learn when they are engaged with more mature (healthy use of the word) content. The intergenerational influence of a Titus 2 "older woman" teaching younger women is a wonderful example of good segregation. One can even see an older woman being able to explain being a godly wife to an 8 year old and a 22 year old in the same setting (obviously, there would be some things left out that the 8 year old shouldn't hear - but it's not crazy to include some things that would benefit the 22 year old, and the 8 year old would just "miss the point").

Additionally, the regularly dissecting of the congregation is not healthy to the "community" of saints in a local church. By this, I think that Mr. Brown's definition would suggest that segregation from time to time, in limited application is no problem. In other words, there might be a reason to have younger boys in a "class" of some sort for several weeks to learn a specific principle. However, that interaction of generations (again a Titus 2 type of application) has Biblical prescription and exceptional value. It should be more normative within the church.

The other factor in the definition is that it actively and intentionally supports the parent/child dynamic of discipleship. Can that be achieved in a Sunday School setting? Certainly it can. Is it typically achieved? No. More often than not, churches adopt a "leave discipleship to the professionals" attitude. And even the teachers override a parent's position in discipleship. An example might help out here: I have a family in my church who do not hold to the Calvinistic view of unconditional election. They understand that we will be teaching that doctrinal stance, and won't pull back simply because they've made their position known (and they are very gracious within that). Additionally, the father actually defends his position biblically (not convincingly to me, but none the less from a scriptural frame rather than an opinion of his own). His children hear me teach unconditional election regularly, but it's wrong for me to press his children to disagree with their father. I can openly teach the doctrine to the group because the father has voluntarily placed his children into that group knowing the doctrinal stance ... but I can't pit the children against their father's authority. Does that make sense?

Finally, biblically qualified teachers are a must. I said this elsewhere, but I reiterate. Many (if not most) Sunday School and youth ministry classes are taught by people who do not fit biblical qualifications to teach in the church. That is not the same thing as discipling, I understand. And, I will even go as far as to say that not every Sunday School teacher needs to be an elder/pastor (though I'll reserve the right to change that statement later). But, the church (at large) must do a better job at vetting out those who teach the congregation.

That doesn't define a "responsible age-segregated" Sunday school program as we discussed earlier in the thread, but does it help define the systematic, age-segregated term?

Pastor Mathis, I hope you have a wonderful and restful vacation. To you, your family and any of those reading the thread: I wish you all a blessed Christmas holiday, and a joyous New Year.


----------



## Shawn Mathis

Erik,

A few things of note re: Weed in Church

1. There is a definition (on page 47) of the "modern youth ministry" that either indicts all non-family integrated youth ministries or only the bad ones. Here is the relevant clause: "that usurp parents’ authority over their children.”

2. I never denied he admits there are times and occasions for the family to be separated (p.61, 231), yet never explains when and why such a time should be an “exception" (note the language). In contrast, he actually argues that even if fathers were properly instructing their children and youth groups were Bible-centered with only one-hour a week meetings, it would still be wrong (p.57, 218, 222, 225). What is given in one hand is taken by the other.


----------



## southkogs

I didn't expect a reply so quickly! Caught me off guard 



Shawn Mathis said:


> There is a definition (on page 47) of the "modern youth ministry" that either indicts all non-family integrated youth ministries or only the bad ones. Here is the relevant clause: "that usurp parents’ authority over their children.”



This is the section that I was referring to when I said that I didn't think Mr. Brown did a good job. Perhaps that means that I disagree with him to some degree, but I believe I'm able to read a little into his definition.

We never defined what a "responsible age-segregated" youth ministry looked like, and for that reason I think it's difficult to contrast it against the "systematic, age-segregated" youth ministry.



Shawn Mathis said:


> I never denied he admits there are times and occasions for the family to be separated (p.61, 231), yet never explains when and why such a time should be an “exception" (note the language).



As a suggestion (again, my own "reading into it"): *When* should it be an exception? I think that is at the church's discretion based on apparent needs for a particular group. _*Why*_ should it be an exception? As he suggests on pg. 63ff children typically don't learn differently than adults, so why split the congregation up for biblical instruction? An instant reaction is to say "that statement is preposterous, it's obvious that children learn differently than adults." But truly what we know about children is that they actually have a better ability than adults to gather in new information. A child can memorize catechism much easier than an adult can. Maturity doesn't speak so much to gathering information. Maturity speaks to processing information, and there may be times to separate out for that reason. However, that's more the exception than the rule, wouldn't you agree? Can't a child work through most (I understand not all) biblical concepts much like an adult would?



Shawn Mathis said:


> In contrast, he actually argues that even if fathers were properly instructing their children and youth groups were Bible-centered with only one-hour a week meetings, it would still be wrong (p.57, 218, 222, 225). What is given in one hand is taken by the other.



If I'm reading these sections properly, I would suggest that he's referring to the consistent "systematic" programs as opposed to the occasional segregated (again consider the biblical terms "younger women, little ones, old men, etc.") situations that he referenced around pg. 63.

*"While this reform movement is accomplishing many good things ... many of its proponents continue to embrace age-segregated youth ministry - a concept that is in itself alien to Scripture." pg. 59​*Perhaps I'm wrong, but I think it's reasonable to assume that Mr. Brown is referring to the definition that he normally identifies as "systematic" age-segregation here. If so, then that wouldn't be a negation of his original qualification.


*"There are four issues to consider in regard to this argument." - pg. 220*​

This is the section your next reference comes from: The argument regarding a solid Bible-based youth ministry. Again, I don't think the argument negates his original qualification. He suggests considering 4 things against the idea that a particular systematic, age-segregated youth group is "healthy:"


1. it's an assumption that large group settings are the best method to minister to youth
2. age-segregated isolation of youth is not seen in Scripture
3. youth ministries are often established as an admission (or because) that fathers are being allowed by the church to be negligent in their duties - note his argument from Scripture that not confronting a brother is likened to hating him.
4. if the ministry is "healthy" what additional benefit is there to the congregation to split up?​

Those suggestions are not a defined denial of his original qualification. That would be more an implication from the reader's perspective, correct?

_*"We reject the pattern of age segregation in the church because God's Word does not give us precept, principle, or pattern for youth groups or age-segregated discipleship, as defined in this book." pg. 224​*_
I think my page numbers are slightly different from yours making it a little tough to be certain of the last reference you have (pg. 225), but I'm rather certain this section is one you're referring to. Doesn't his qualification at the end of the sentence ("as defined in this book") seem to uphold his original qualification that there are appropriate times and occasions to segregate (in a qualified context)?

I'm open to the idea that Mr. Brown isn't being consistent, but I'm not convinced of it.


----------



## Shawn Mathis

Erik,

Then the question is: if the definition on page 47 is not the idea behind phrases like "age-segregation," "youth ministries," "gathering youth" and other like phrases, then what is he exactly against?

1. If against bad youth ministries, who is not against such? If against "usurpation" who is not against such? The real question then becomes _what is usurpation_? Mr. Brown seems to clearly answer it in question 7: Why is age-segregation and Sunday school in the church so bad for children? (bottom pg. 225)

1.a. Note how the question is loaded with another answer to another question: Is age-seg. and SS bad for children. Yes. So, why is it so bad...

1.b. He says in this section that even as little as 1 hour a week is not being "faithful to the directives of the Word of God." 

1.c. This clearly is not "systematic age-segregation" but 1 hour a week age-segregation! (It is of great note that Sunday school is not explicitly mentioned in the beginning when he sets up his definitions).

SO: My question to you is: do you agree with him?


----------



## southkogs

Shawn Mathis said:


> Then the question is: if the definition on page 47 is not the idea behind phrases like "age-segregation," "youth ministries," "gathering youth" and other like phrases, then what is he exactly against?



Mr. Brown is arguing against systematic, age-segregated discipleship models. The problem (or what I see as a problem) is that the term is not quite as clear as I believe his intent would be. As an example: an ongoing regular (weekly) program that divides children by age/grade (like the school system structure) and divides parents and children (children's classes and parents classes) would typically fall in the category of systematic, age-segregated. A class series that is designed for instruction of young boys (so, it's age segregated but probably more broadly so than the age/grade structure), that is regular (weekly/monthly/etc.) but not ongoing (has a definite term - 3 months/5 weeks/etc.) and is intentionally responsible to the parents (perhaps father and son sit in this class together, or perhaps the church leadership defines the goal of the class instruction so the parents know what their child will be taught) would probably be accepted by an FIC position.



Shawn Mathis said:


> If against bad youth ministries, who is not against such?



That's a little touchy isn't it? You and I would probably agree that "bad" youth ministry is one that sacrifices the gospel in order to be more broad in it's appeal. Others would see that "shrouding of the message of salvation" as effective and good. You and I would probably agree that youth ministry that assumes a young person can't handle hefty theological concepts is "bad." Others would say that kids can't handle that kind of depth, or that they "tune out" way too quickly and it doesn't draw them to engage Christ in a personal way. We're all against "bad" youth ministry … but the whole argument circles around what is bad.



Shawn Mathis said:


> If against "usurpation" who is not against such?



I have every confidence that you and your church have a true respect for parental authority. My family attended a PCA church here in TN that did a pretty good job of that as well - I don't believe that respect for the authority of parents is the exclusive ground of the FIC movement. However, there are MANY churches who approach discipleship in general (not just youth) from a "let the professionals handle this" position. And that can (and often does) usurp parent's authority quickly.



Shawn Mathis said:


> The real question then becomes what is usurpation?



Indeed: If a Sunday School teacher is instructing children without the parents, and hasn't been properly vetted out by church leadership - is that usurpation? If a Sunday School teacher engages a child on a primary doctrinal issue (say, penal substitution) and overrides a parent's instruction to that child - and NEVER engage the parents on the issue - is that usurpation? If a Sunday School teacher engages a child on a minor doctrinal debate (say, mode of baptism) and overrides a parent's instruction (regardless of contact with the parent) - is that usurpation? If the church isn't intentional to inform the parents of the plan and issues they will teach in Sunday School, and the church is comfortable operating with that kind of "blindness" - is that usurpation? It's not correct to blanket the entire church as regularly practicing this kind of "discipleship," however any of these situations is commonplace in many churches. And I think more often than not, a situation of this nature winds up usurping the parent's place as the primary agent of discipleship to their children.

From an FIC perspective, concentrating on discipling fathers and holding them accountable to disciple their families is a better and more biblically defined focus.



Shawn Mathis said:


> Note how the question is loaded with another answer to another question: Is age-seg. and SS bad for children. Yes. So, why is it so bad...
> 
> 1.b. He says in this section that even as little as 1 hour a week is not being "faithful to the directives of the Word of God.



Again, keep that defined distinction of "systematic" age-segregated Sunday School. Perhaps, a church has a Sunday School program that is 1 hour per week of instruction. It age-segregates and gender segregates the congregation to drill into specifics of training (for younger boys, perhaps the focus is on honoring parents according to the command of scripture and for older girls, perhaps it's instruction on being a "completer" to a husband according to biblical principles, etc., etc.), and the structure, doctrine and texts are presented to the parents before the program engages. Additionally, the instructors all fit biblical qualifications to teach, and have been established by the church leadership - and parents are encouraged to participate in the Sunday School program.

One might argue that is a systematic age-segregated program that might not be so bad. And, I'm sure that there are some churches that do Sunday School this way, but quite frankly you would be hard pressed to convince me that even 25% of Sunday School programs meet that kind of structure. Especially, if a church is running this Sunday School program all year every year, it would be overbearing (though possible) to keep qualified instructors and keep published curriculum ahead of the program perpetually.

More often, Sunday School is taught by church members who volunteered and were available (and probably passed a background check against the sex-offender registry). The children are split up by age/grade and the adults are split by gender and/or marital status. The programs move from a purchased curriculum, to a topical specific (along side a sermon series) and eventually to what lessons the Sunday School teacher finds online (on file, or generates on their own). Parents have no real idea what little Johnny learned in Sunday School until they ask him after church, and if their little Johnny is much like mine - the answer is a little vague. Worse yet, the church leadership is not aware of what Mrs. Knowsabunch is teaching her 6th grade kids until a parent hears from little Johnny and consequently blew their stack at the pastor. That is not healthy discipleship at all (regardless of intentions), and I think it's fair to say an hour of that per week is not being faithful to the directives of the Word of God. - - and, it is not uncommon.



Shawn Mathis said:


> 1.c. This clearly is not "systematic age-segregation" but 1 hour a week age-segregation! (It is of great note that Sunday school is not explicitly mentioned in the beginning when he sets up his definitions).



Not so clearly: Sytematic age-segregation can come in 1 hour doses. And, one hour per week of something unhealthy is not good (we could quickly establish a list of things we wouldn't allow our children to do for one hour per week). Sunday School (as a broad term) does not necessarily have to follow a systematic age-segregated structure, nor does it necessarily need to be constant (all year long). My church does segregate sometimes, even based on age. But it's in short doses (2 hours once a month for 7 months, as a recent example), has defined material that is available to all of the church (we actually purchased a book for each family that we intended to teach to young men over 12 in this series) and intentionally involves the parents and informs them of what we're doing (as a rule, most of the boys were there with their dads - occasionally a dad couldn't make it and sent his sons with another family). Perhaps that would be one hour per week for a while, but I suggest that Mr. Brown wouldn't be uncomfortable with that structure.



Shawn Mathis said:


> SO: My question to you is: do you agree with him?



Yes, I agree with him.


----------



## Shawn Mathis

Erik,

I've been more busy catching up after vacation then I realized.

I have simply quoted Mr. Brown. You have thrown in all the qualifications. Your qualifications are more helpful than answers given by Mr. Brown. Add the prima facia reading of Mr. Brown with the blog post (linked above) where he further digs his hermeneutical hole and my case stands. 

Until he unequivocally denies a "regulative principle of education" (or whatever term you wish), I will take this as his position.

But I've only used him as a foil to better understand your position. I'll take some time now to digest what you wrote and interact more with your writings. 

thank you for your patience


----------



## southkogs

Shawn Mathis said:


> But I've only used him as a foil to better understand your position. I'll take some time now to digest what you wrote and interact more with your writings.



Ouch. That sounds foreboding  - - Out of curiosity, have you read (or are you familiar with) Dr. Baucham's latest book, "Family Shepherds?" I'd be interested in your opinion on that book as well.



Shawn Mathis said:


> thank you for your patience



No patience required. I hope you had a good vacation and enjoyed your holidays.


----------



## Shawn Mathis

Hello Erik,

I greatly apologize for the late answers. Let me go back to the last response by you in late December:

1. I asked if you agree with Mr. Brown that "little as one hour a week" of "age-segregation and Sunday school in the church [is] so bad for children?" (bottom pg. 225). 

You answered "yes"--after several lines of detailed explanation. Such explanation I cannot find readily or clearly in his book. So if you could kindly back up your explanation with clear evidence in his book then we may be getting somewhere. Otherwise, I will have to simply believe that your "yes" is not founded upon the book but your own interpretation (or some secret, private knowledge of what Mr. Brown believes 

2. Here is a quote from you:



southkogs said:


> Again, keep that defined distinction of "systematic" age-segregated Sunday School. Perhaps, a church has a Sunday School program that is 1 hour per week of instruction. It age-segregates and gender segregates the congregation to drill into specifics of training (for younger boys, perhaps the focus is on honoring parents according to the command of scripture and for older girls, perhaps it's instruction on being a "completer" to a husband according to biblical principles, etc., etc.), and the structure, doctrine and texts are presented to the parents before the program engages. Additionally, the instructors all fit biblical qualifications to teach, and have been established by the church leadership - and parents are encouraged to participate in the Sunday School program.
> One might argue that is a systematic age-segregated program that might not be so bad.



My response: see above. 

Or better yet: publicly call upon Mr. Brown to officially make just such qualifications. Then and only then will this whole brouhaha be settled.

Some things to think about,

in Christ, 

shawn


----------



## southkogs

Shawn Mathis said:


> I greatly apologize for the late answers.



No apologies needed Pastor Mathis. You can see from my own delay that I understand being busy. I hope all is well with you and yours.



Shawn Mathis said:


> You answered "yes"--after several lines of detailed explanation. Such explanation I cannot find readily or clearly in his book. So if you could kindly back up your explanation with clear evidence in his book then we may be getting somewhere. Otherwise, I will have to simply believe that your "yes" is not founded upon the book but your own interpretation



Probably more the latter, and I would admit that I'm probably reading into things in the book based on what I've heard in recordings, at conferences and in conversations with the NCFIC and others. For example, in the statement you mention:


Shawn Mathis said:


> 2. Here is a quote from you:
> 
> 
> 
> southkogs said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, keep that defined distinction of "systematic" age-segregated Sunday School. Perhaps, a church has a Sunday School program that is 1 hour per week of instruction. It age-segregates and gender segregates the congregation to drill into specifics of training (for younger boys, perhaps the focus is on honoring parents according to the command of scripture and for older girls, perhaps it's instruction on being a "completer" to a husband according to biblical principles, etc., etc.), and the structure, doctrine and texts are presented to the parents before the program engages. Additionally, the instructors all fit biblical qualifications to teach, and have been established by the church leadership - and parents are encouraged to participate in the Sunday School program.
> One might argue that is a systematic age-segregated program that might not be so bad.
Click to expand...


I think Mr. Brown admits this very idea in this way:

_*"A third qualification is that we realize that there is a reform movement spreading throughout traditional youth ministries ... while this reform movement is accomplishing many good things ... many of it's proponents continue to embrace age-segregated youth ministry ..." *_(pgs. 58-59 - shortened for brevity)​

That statement seems to admit that the content change that is happening in some ministries is a good thing, but the age-segregation is not. So, couple that to this concept:

_*"... We recognize there are different methods of youth ministry ... we are not lumping them all together ... " *_(pgs. 62-63 - shortened for brevity)​

Mr. Brown says shortly after this that the problem isn't necessarily the content. The problem is the age segregation. So, the train so far is there are some good things happening, but they are still occurring in the context of an unscriptural model (age-segregation). The conversation (by the second concept) is in general, and not lumping EVERYTHING in to one pile, leaving room for non-FIC ministries to be doing a good job. Add this concept as well:

_*"...it is not our position that the whole family must always be together ... For example, for gatherings inside the church, we do not believe that it would be wrong for elders in the church, with the blessings of the fathers, to teach matters of theology to young men in the church ..." *_(pg. 63 - shortened for brevity)​

That gets the progression pretty close to my statement: age & gender segregated (but not by age/grade like the schools use), regular (1 hour per week, for example), parents sanctioning the instruction, biblically qualified instructors. Strung together, those concepts support the potential for even a Sunday School program that would be favorable to Mr. Brown.

Again, I was definitely answering more from my personal opinions. So, I'm making some assumptions in those connections. However, I think Mr. Brown would agree with them.



Shawn Mathis said:


> (or some secret, private knowledge of what Mr. Brown believes


Would my world not be so very much easier if God granted me the spiritual gift of clairvoyance ... alas, I'm stuck with doing it the hard way


----------



## Shawn Mathis

Erik,

Thank you: my family is well.

Using Mr. Brown's book as a foil, I think, is proving fruitful for digging into specifics. You acknowledge: "Again, I was definitely answering more from my personal opinions. So, I'm making some assumptions in those connections. However, I think Mr. Brown would agree with them." The data below will (at least) demonstrate such inconsistent (if not clear) language in the book that such assumptions are unwarranted.

As a reminder to readers, I think you do acknowledge this in an earlier post, the word "systematic" is never defined in the book (nor, frankly is "age-segregation").

First, your initial quote acknowledging Mr. Brown's caveats is good (e.g. "change that is happening in some ministries is a good thing, but the age-segregation is not."). But that is not the full story or quote:

"What About God-Centered Youth Ministries"
"A third qualification is that we realize that there is a reform movement spreading throughout traditional youth ministries ... while this reform movement is accomplishing many good things... many of it's proponents continue to embrace age-segregated youth ministry--*a concept that is in itself alien to Scripture. It creates a very different kind of community--one that we never see in Scripture and that contradicts the pattern of intergenerational participation that we do see in Scripture.*" (p.56, 57). 

Note how it is _not _the youth ministry _per se _that he critiques (he gave a two paragraph description of the many good things in a "God-centered youth ministry" [his words]) but that it still uses _age-segregation_. Note that immediately following the full quote above he launches into the importance of method in instruction of youth (age-segregation is a method). Note his emphasis on "we never see in Scripture" and "contradicts the [supposed] pattern" [the Regulative Principle of Education I noted above]. Note what he does _not _say: these God-centered youth ministries still usurp parental authority (see his definition of "modern youth ministry", p.47). Presumably they do not. No. It is age-segregation _as _age-segregation that he opposes. At least as he writes in various sections of the book:

1. The beginning of the book states as much. The definition itself of "modern youth ministry" or "systematic, age-segregated youth ministry," to whit: "methods of youth discipleship that are absent from or contrary to the Word of God...that promote systematic, age-segregated worship, instruction, and fellowship...that separate youth from the rest of the church..."

2. The middle of the book states as much. "If we only had the Bible as our guide, would children be separated from their parents during the meetings of the church?...Did the apostles ever organize a Sunday school, a youth rally, or any kind of age-segregated gatherings? Are there any commands or examples to follow in Scripture for age segregation? Of course the answer to all of these questions is no." (p.167). His (poorly researched) history section (chapter 6) is premised on a generalized idea of age-segregation that is to be eschewed since "modern youth ministries" by definition are different in particulars from, say, Plato (note the caveat on p. 107, Parachurch Youth Organizations that were "stepping-stones" to modern youth ministries).

3. The end of the book states as much. "Systematic, age-segregated youth ministry certainly has become a vigorous and attractive plant..._youth ministry is only a single variety of this age-segregation weed_" (emphasis mine, p.241)

Now, I know about the the two caveats in the book because I incorporated them in my reviews: 

"It is true: churches should stop abusing age- and family-segregated meetings like a drunkard abuses wine. And many families feel godly using the multitude of programs to bypass their own responsibilities. But the author simply throws all such meetings into the waste basket of evolution—almost. He admits there are times and occasions for the family to be separated (p.61, 231), yet never explains when and why such a time should be an “exception.” In contrast, he actually argues that even if fathers were properly instructing their children and youth groups were Bible-centered with only one-hour a week meetings, it would still be wrong (p.57, 218, 222, 225). What is given in one hand is taken by the other."

For the sake of the readers (FIC posts have been heavy hits for seven months straight):

p.57: see above in the first quote

p.218: [Question 3]* "What if our youth group is Bible-based? Our church youth group is not about silliness and entertainment, but serious Bible study. Is that not the kind of youth group we want as an alternative to the modern, dumbed-down version of youth ministry?" *"First, it promotes a false assumption that a group setting is the best means for ministering youth" (of worthy note is the pragmatic nature of this answer). "Second, by offering an age-segregated ministry that isolates youth into a subgroup, we are doing something that is not seen in Scripture" (note the Regulative Principle of Education). "Third, the establishment of children and youth ministries is often an admission that fathers are being allowed to walk in disobedience..."

p.222: [Question 5] *"Why can we not have it both ways: age-specific ministry in the church and fathers teaching and leading their homes?"* "The question we should be asking is the following: 'Why would we want it both ways when Scripture only presents on way?' Are we longing for something that God did not give? Scripture only presents elders as the primary leaders and teachers of age-integrated discipleship in the church and fathers [at home]..." "We reject the pattern of age-segregation in the church because God's Word does not give us a precept, principle, or pattern for youth groups or age-segregated discipleship, as defined in this book." (This is strange because he never differentiated "youth groups" from "age-segregated discipleship" as he does here with the word "or"--nor does he define the later term). Of more significance is the phrasing of the question and his resounding _no_. 

p.225: [Question 7] "*Why is age-segregated youth ministry and Sunday school in the church so bad for children?" "*There are a number of important reasons why as little as one hour per week is problematic for those Christians who want to be faithful to the directives of the Word of God. First it communicates the wrong message...Second, it easily becomes an excuse for disobedient parents...Third, it open the door negative influence [from peers]...There are many ways that the age-segregated youth ministries undermine the father's role. The relative number of the hours spent in a class is not the issue. The real issue is what we are teaching our children when we segregate them.... *Regardless of the time spent or the content delivered, the very practice of systematic age segregation undermines biblical teaching on a number of fronts*" (emphasis mine). And he proceed through six reasons. 

Now, it could be given all the above, Mr. Brown will still allow for your version of age-segregation. But that is _not c_lear from the book itself. What is clear is that Mr. Brown is unclear. After all of the above, he answers another question with an answer that is opposite of the above:

p.231 [Question 9] "*Is it ever right to gather youth together?" "*While rejecting systematic, age-segregation in the patterns and practices of Christianity (worship, celebration, discipleship, and other practices), we are not suggesting that every function outside of regular worship must always include whole families. We recognize that there are times when it may be appropriate for various ages of people to meet for specific purposes. However, this is not to be the normative pattern of biblical youth discipleship, but rather an exception."

Quite mind-blowing if you ask me. He wrote a whole book to say bad youth groups are bad and age segregation is fine if it is an exception only. So, is 35% of the week for age-segregation an allowable exception (certainly not the norm statistically)? Or as I wrote in a rebuttal elsewhere: 

"*Now to sum up*, why is "systematic age-segregation" rejected? Because all the commands and examples of the bible are age-integrated. But why does a Christian need to find explicit commands and examples of discipleship before using a method of discipleship? I do not know what their answer is. Somehow _discipleship _(however defined) has a separate moral interpretive tool than other moral fields of everyday life.

But the matter does not end there. Mr. Brown allows for age-segregation!

'There are times when it may be appropriate for various ages of people to meet for specific purposes' (_A Weed in the Church_, p.231, cp.61).

_Then what is the whole debate about?_ Why is this exception not placed at the beginning of the argument? Where is it in the NCFIC confession?

Has the entire decade long debate been over _how much_ age-segregation is allowed? If so, how much does Mr. Brown think is allowable?

Very little it seems. "However, this is not to be the normative pattern of biblical youth discipleship, but rather an exception." A glimpse of _how much_ is offered on page 225 where he contends that as "little as one hour a week" of age-segregation is "problematic" for those wishing biblical felicity.

In other words, 1/168 of a week is still too radical to contemplate. That is .006% of a child's week! What Mr. Brown gives in one hand is virtually taken away by the other."

Hopefully, the fuller quotes will help the reader better understand. And hopefully it will better explain what I am critiquing.


----------



## Shawn Mathis

Erik,

Let me Let me set Mr. Brown aside for now to try to better understand your position: 

You wrote in an earlier post: 

"No one can point chapter and verse to a directive to have a Sunday school based on how old children are. Likewise, no one can point chapter and verse to an explicit didactic command not to have a Sunday school based on how old children are. So, under Christian liberty (as I understand the concept) can a church have a Sunday school? I don't see why not. However, that Sunday school cannot damage any of the chapter and verse commands of Scripture."

I agree with this paragraph. You agree with this paragraph. So, where does that leave us?

thanks,


----------



## southkogs

Shawn Mathis said:


> Erik,
> 
> Let me Let me set Mr. Brown aside for now to try to better understand your position:
> 
> You wrote in an earlier post:
> 
> "No one can point chapter and verse to a directive to have a Sunday school based on how old children are. Likewise, no one can point chapter and verse to an explicit didactic command not to have a Sunday school based on how old children are. So, under Christian liberty (as I understand the concept) can a church have a Sunday school? I don't see why not. However, that Sunday school cannot damage any of the chapter and verse commands of Scripture."
> 
> I agree with this paragraph. You agree with this paragraph. So, where does that leave us?
> 
> thanks,



As an aside - I'm not positive that I'm in disagreement with your post from yesterday. I've been processing it, and am checking for my own inconsistencies. Part of the attraction to this conversation is your academic/apologetic skill (evident in your writing), and I can only assume that by engaging you my own ability to present a good argument will grow (even if I get systematically clobbered in the process). It was a good post, and thanks for being so thought provoking through this whole thread. I probably owe you some tuition ... 

Actually, I was considering responding to your earlier post with a question that will perhaps take us in a similar direction to your question here. Suppose that through your critique of Scott Brown, I were to decide that his position on age-segregated worship/christian education is poorly defined and questionable (essentially concede your arguments). What would be the proper course of action for me as a leader in my church?


----------



## Shawn Mathis

Dear Erik,

I praise God for not only your honesty about this issue but the humility to express it publicly. 

As for your question, for now let me say that God has blessed your church with a humble leader that will certainly help them grow in Christ,

your brother in Christ,


----------



## Shawn Mathis

southkogs said:


> Suppose that through your critique of Scott Brown, I were to decide that his position on age-segregated worship/christian education is poorly defined and questionable (essentially concede your arguments). What would be the proper course of action for me as a leader in my church?



Erik,

First of all, any good answer depends much on the local situation. So my answers will be provisional at best. It also depends upon how much the language, confession and leadership of this movement have been given prominence or emphasis at your church.

Now, to your question (answered in the first person): the first course would be to determine exactly what I believe about youth discipleship/education and how that matches with 1) the rest of the leadership and the 2) church families...both the principles and practices. 

Of course, the paragraph quoted just above your post is a good start. 

So, that means spending time, prayer (and maybe fasting) with the rest of the leadership to determine what you believe collectively and where you will publicly stand as leaders in the church. This may involve some compromise (in a good biblical sense . This could take several months. Some things to talk over:

1. If the president of the NCFIC (and by default the president of the NCFIC Confession) has "poorly defined and questionable" assertions that he carried with him into the creation of said confession should the church still be "signed on" to said confession? What does the bible say about signing confessions and public identification with such views. Or another way of looking at it: are you comfortable being so identified with this group and confession that the views brought up will not bother you? 

2. Do the other leaders have any reservations about being identified with these views? I think Adams' emphasis on Romans 14:23 and decision making is germane: "23 But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because he does not eat from faith; for whatever is not from faith is sin." If any doubts, they ought not move forward.

3. What is the educational relationship between the church and members both organizationally and organically? Does the church have an explicit command to teach the members the entire Word of God not only in preaching (of course) but outside of formal worship? Does the bible allow non-church leaders the role of instruction to church members (perhaps Titus 2 women, etc.).

4. Where spiritually and educationally are the members of the church? Do they know why you do or do not have age-segregation? Do they need more instruction and help--some, most, all? I know of FICs that so stress parental teaching that they let them run Bible studies when they barely know the catechism and confessions. Do members want to learn from the church and from each other? Are they so enamored with age-segregated, niche-market thinking that they need better teaching on the subject (or the flip-side: so enamored with non-age-segregation that they fear other adults teaching their children).

Then you need a detailed plan to bring your congregation and/or leadership one direction or another. It could take much time and many small steps. I would strongly encourage love and longsuffering as a pastor. When this issue came up in my backyard many Christians contacted me eager or angry about this movement, they wanted something down _now _to correct the errors. I cautioned patience. I also would incorporate relevant material on the subject in Sunday school or sermons or writings at various times instead of having one long series on the topic. So when I hit Deut. 6:7 in the evening, I talked about it some in the sermon.

Lastly, the (worst) case scenario would be a public retraction.

I hope this sketch gives you some ideas of where I would go.


----------



## southkogs

Shawn Mathis said:


> Dear Erik,
> 
> I praise God for not only your honesty about this issue but the humility to express it publicly.
> 
> As for your question, for now let me say that God has blessed your church with a humble leader that will certainly help them grow in Christ,
> 
> your brother in Christ,



Thank you for that kindness. It's very encouraging.


----------



## southkogs

Considering the course of action you outline above:

If we set some parameters about a given church:

There is a strong commitment to the gospel
The church leadership is in agreement
The church has healthy/good worship & preaching
The church leadership holds to a confessional stance (Westminster/LBC/etc.)
While not having youth group, Sunday school or similar programs, the church does have scheduled (though perhaps not regular) gatherings for instruction/teaching (including others in the congregation doing the teaching)
The church leadership has confident assessments of individual households and how/how well they are discipling their families (including use of catechism) - and real honest discipling is happening or being addressed

And if we set aside the NCFIC for just a moment - the church in question has come to it's conclusions without encountering the NCFIC (therefore, it probably doesn't identify as an FIC but practically is one)...

And we eliminate the extremes that are present in some FIC churches (pure separatism, parents only teaching their children, etc.)...

<You can see I'm trying to eliminate some variables, and assume a reasonably healthy church.>

If this particular church doesn't employ age-segregated programs (not because of a Biblical prohibition), are there any dangers inherent to the lack of those programs? Is it problematic for the life of the church and the life of the believers?


----------



## Shawn Mathis

southkogs said:


> If this particular church doesn't employ age-segregated programs (not because of a Biblical prohibition), are there any dangers inherent to the lack of those programs? Is it problematic for the life of the church and the life of the believers?



I think any danger in the use (or none use) of viable options within Christian freedom depends on the sinful inclination of the people involved as well as the circumstances (less so though). 

You mention: "While not having youth group, Sunday school or similar programs, the church does have scheduled (though perhaps not regular) gatherings for instruction/teaching (including others in the congregation doing the teaching)" 

Then the only difference is that other churches may feel the need for _regularly _scheduled gatherings for instruction/teaching. 

As a Presbyterian I believe that the church has an obligation to instruct not only heads of families but children as well. Catechism instruction is not only the parents' duty but the churches' duty. 

I believe that we live in an age of great biblical ignorance even in the churches. So regular instruction is important from my standpoint. Does that mean the Dutch Reformed church down the street that shuts down Sunday school for the summer is wrong? Maybe. Or maybe their people don't need that much instruction. 

I'll take another post to answer the specific question of age-segregation.


----------



## Shawn Mathis

southkogs said:


> If this particular church doesn't employ age-segregated programs (not because of a Biblical prohibition), are there any dangers inherent to the lack of those programs? Is it problematic for the life of the church and the life of the believers?



Erik,

Because of the host of assumptions behind this question, I beg your indulgence while I take space to expand upon the question and the answer in a hopefully systematic manner:

I. Background Considerations
A. Definitions​1. Age distinctions: simple division of humans by age, whether by large or narrow age-segments​ a) Even Mr. Brown acknowledges some age differentiation (p.108)​b) More importantly, the Bible acknowledges age divisions (elder, younger, child, little child, etc., even specific ages for the priesthood or soldiers)​ c) The light of nature testifies to this.​2. Age segregation: The act of using age distinctions, whether in life or worship​a) This definition does not mean actual physical separation but includes conceptual usage.
b) Even Mr. Brown (save for worship) acknowledges a time for this
c) The light of nature testifies to the need of this at various times and places
d) The Bible assumes this in places such as Titus 2:3ff.
e) Example: Apostle wrote to children directly (Eph. 5)​3. Physical age-segregation: the act of using age distinctions to physically separate people​a) This is more in line with what Mr. Brown writes about.
b) Again, the light of nature testifies to this necessity, e.g., young adults need separation from children when taught about sex ed. 
c) The Bible does broadly write about this: census (Num. 1:3), priesthood (Num. 8:24ff)​4. Systematic, physical age-segregation: an thought-out organized segregation as opposed to ad hoc segregation​a) This is _not _the same as _regular_, systematic, physical age-segregation.
b) It has more reason to chose the ages it picks beyond whatever may work at the time
c) For example: a small church will pick age-groups (1-4, 5-8, 9-12) based on the available children and teachers and not because it believes in this division as "natural" or "required"
d) ad hoc example: all you younger kids over her for dodge ball.
e) Bible speaks of this in the priesthood and war census.​5. Regular, systematic, physical age-segregation: need I write more?​a) Yes, for regular could mean year-round, seasonal, etc.​6. Principled, regular, systematic, physical age-segregation​a) This means that some sort of age-segregation is a moral necessity for whatever the reason
b) This is the position of many secular authorities who tell us, e.g. 12-year olds _must _be with 12 year olds.​7. Family segregation: separating family members from each other for whatever the reason​a) NT temple designed this way (Court of the men, court of the women/children)
b) NT Jewish schools
c) Acts 16:13: Apostles teaching women; Titus 2:3; etc.
d) Christ separated the Disciples from their families for three years.​8. Similar distinctions for family segregation as above.​B. General Considerations​1. By "program" I take it to mean regular, systematic, physical separation (not principled)
2. The question should be further refined to better understand my position:​a) Age-segregation is not air-tight: there is nothing magical about 12 year olds as 12 year olds being in their own classrooms. Nor, by extension, 11-13 year olds together (I take this as a common assumption between us).
b) Also: age-segregation is not air-tight insofar as those who excel can advance beyond their "age-group" or those who are slow stay behind (this obviously fits more with a school model).​4. Also: the question should be further refined given parental decisions:​a) Some parents may prefer to have their child in another age-group.​5. I am assuming a distinction between young adults (teen-agers) and those younger (children). The answer will be somewhat different for each.​II. Answer:
A. The question is (I think) "are there inherent dangers" in not enacting regular, systematic, physical separation by age (and maybe of the family itself).​*1. There are possible dangers on two-fronts:*​*a) Stifled spiritual growth because of little interaction with other adults.
b) Stifled spiritual growth because instruction not geared toward their learning level.*​B. Other Considerations:​1. Regular is the key here: I never defined it as year-around.
2. Such concerns can happen (and obviously does) with the enacting of said programs.
3. Answers are not set in stone because it is a question of Christian liberty which has similar dangers for all sorts of moral activities that are allowed.​C. Biblical Rationale: (_forthcoming!_)​


----------



## Shawn Mathis

Erik,

Rationale (from my Uniting Church and Family article):

"The unity of church and family begins with the Gospel. But it does not end there. It is a unity of a family, where those who do the will of God are brother, sister and mother (Mk. 3:25). Biological ties may be severed by the Gospel (Mat. 10:34), yet those spiritually united to Christ will still have the Church as “the house of God, which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15).This should not be a pie-in-the-sky idea but a truth with practical consequences. For instance, in 1 Timothy 5:1, Paul commands Timothy not to rebuke the older men and women of the Church but to come alongside and entreat or exhort (parakalei) them as members of the family–even the younger among them.

"Likewise, in Titus 2:3-4 Paul commends the older women to be “teachers of good things” and to train and admonish the young women of the Church—whether married or not. If this is true for women, it is true for men (cp. Paul’s mentoring of Timothy). And if this is true for ad hoc situations, then it is true for more structured situations (cp. LCQ 99).

"The children of the Church, by virtue of their baptism, must be instructed by the Church (Mat. 28:20). The content is the entire Word of God. The goal is for God’s glory and the salvation of their souls. And the method–whatever details may be employed—must include someone mature because instruction is not only taught but caught.

"Naturally, this does not mean supplanting parental responsibility but supplementing their work and exercising the Church’s own responsibility toward her covenant members.

"Ideally, parents would feel comfortable with a trusted, godly brother or sister instructing their child. In practice, the older men may meet at a restaurant to talk about life while the younger men listen and learn. Those mothers strong in English could instruct a group of children in the fine points of grammar. Such variations are neigh endless.

"The members of the family of God must never lose sight of how much they can influence the covenant child by their example alone: do they show love to each other? are they ready to restore the weak? are they quick to acknowledge sin? The covenant child should know that whatever adult he is in contact with has the same expectations as his parents."


----------



## southkogs

Pastor Mathis:

Now I can thank you for your patience with me. I've had a rather busy week as it turns out.

I'd like to check my understanding of one of your definitions:



Shawn Mathis said:


> 6. Principled, regular, systematic, physical age-segregation​a) This means that some sort of age-segregation is a moral necessity for whatever the reason
> b) This is the position of many secular authorities who tell us, e.g. 12-year olds _must _be with 12 year olds.​


If I am reading correctly, it is by this definition we could describe a public school system structure. Is that correct?

This quote ...



Shawn Mathis said:


> a) Age-segregation is not air-tight: there is nothing magical about 12 year olds as 12 year olds being in their own classrooms. Nor, by extension, 11-13 year olds together (I take this as a common assumption between us).​



... led me to the question above.

Also, a couple of follow-up questions:
Accepting your definitions and assuming there is no age-segregated "regular, systematic, physical separation by age (and maybe of the family itself)" in a given church:
1.) Does it necessarily follow that the stifled spiritual growth (both types you wrote of) follow at some level? (I realize it may not be widespread or complete through the body)
2.) Is there existing data to support that spiritual growth is stifled within churches following the FIC model?

Your considerations listed in II B may be answer the first question, and I can accept that. I suppose I'm wondering if you consider it more likely to happen under an FIC model, and if that is validated through gathered data? (I'm unaware of any studies on FIC churches.)


----------



## Shawn Mathis

Erik, Take your time.

Before we proceed, I'd like to observe that the direction of the conversation has changed. Once you admitted that Sunday school falls under the rubric of Christian liberty, you are no longer actually debating my original position. My whole stance has been against the wrong-headed rationale of Mr. Brown and company (as summarized above).

Your original quote: "No one can point chapter and verse to a directive to have a Sunday school based on how old children are. Likewise, no one can point chapter and verse to an explicit didactic command not to have a Sunday school based on how old children are. So, under Christian liberty (as I understand the concept) can a church have a Sunday school? I don't see why not. However, that Sunday school cannot damage any of the chapter and verse commands of Scripture."

I'll next take your questions in order.


----------



## Shawn Mathis

southkogs said:


> Originally Posted by Shawn Mathis 6. Principled, regular, systematic, physical age-segregationa) This means that some sort of age-segregation is a moral necessity for whatever the reason
> b) This is the position of many secular authorities who tell us, e.g. 12-year olds must be with 12 year olds. If I am reading correctly, it is by this definition we could describe a public school system structure. Is that correct?



Erik,

The answer is _maybe_. It may or may not refer to the public school system. There is a difference between _why _something is done and _how _it is done. Sometimes people (like unbelievers) enact the same activities as Christians but for different reasons. Similarly, merely having a public school system is not to have _principled age-segregation _(for short) _per se _if by public school system you simply mean a complex age-segregated approach to education. 

Here's an example: Calvin's Geneva had public schools. No. They were not godless collections of the worst of society (as the connotation is today). But they took children in as young as seven. Sent them through classes for around 7 hours a day for the week and cycled them through one-year programs. Sound familiar? But who would argue that Calvin and Geneva believed in _principled_ age-segregation. I think rather (like the actual development of age-segregated high schools in the early 1800s) it was enacted upon the observation that children in roughly the same age group have roughly the same intellect (ever notice that abstract thought (Algebra) begins around age 12?) _coupled _with the practical considerations of smaller classrooms and _coupled _with the simple fact that any meaningful society cannot have a one-to-one student-teacher ratio. [Other larger schools were similarly organized in France and Germany]

By principle age-segregation I mean some evolutionary idea that straight-jackets the unique development of children. That's the best I can come up with. But I am not arguing that a complex age-segregated approach to education is _inherently _wrong as a _practice_. Clearly Geneva enacted it and it is neither forbidden nor commanded in the Bible. Its usefulness is dependent upon the greater cultural and church milieu. It is the general health and exceptions of all those surrounding the children that makes a great difference in methods. Who would not want their child to be raised with the Reformers?


----------



## Shawn Mathis

southkogs said:


> Accepting your definitions and assuming there is no age-segregated "regular, systematic, physical separation by age (and maybe of the family itself)" in a given church:
> 1.) Does it necessarily follow that the stifled spiritual growth (both types you wrote of) follow at some level? (I realize it may not be widespread or complete through the body)
> 2.) Is there existing data to support that spiritual growth is stifled within churches following the FIC model?



Erik,

One thing I did not specify is that by the word _church _I mean especially the church organic but not excluding the church organized. Sunday school is under the oversight of the session (organization) but typically enacted by laymembers (organism). 

1. It does not necessary follow anymore than having said structure leads to stifled growth or immaturity (see Calvin's Geneva). 
2. The only data I have is either limited (one church) or second-hand eye-witnesses. 

But with the emphasis in some circles upon the family, it may lead to an anemic use of the church leadership. In the old day, pastors taught much more than today and longer too and from house to house many times. Many families, I think, back then knew the pastor was more trained and generally more godly and accepted his teaching leadership. Today, the temptation with computer programs and the internet and lots of theology books is to think they need the pastor less--that is not only my observation but many pastors.

my two cents though',


----------



## southkogs

Pastor Mathis,

Thank you for your patience. Short version: I've been busy on a few different fronts. Most of it has been a good kind of busy but has kept my responses slow.



Shawn Mathis said:


> …I'd like to observe that the direction of the conversation has changed. Once you admitted that Sunday school falls under the rubric of Christian liberty, you are no longer actually debating my original position. My whole stance has been against the wrong-headed rationale of Mr. Brown and company (as summarized above).



Actually, while perhaps seeming off track, the questions I asked were in relation to this same topic.



Shawn Mathis said:


> Your original quote: "No one can point chapter and verse to a directive to have a Sunday school based on how old children are. Likewise, no one can point chapter and verse to an explicit didactic command not to have a Sunday school based on how old children are. So, under Christian liberty (as I understand the concept) can a church have a Sunday school? I don't see why not. However, that Sunday school cannot damage any of the chapter and verse commands of Scripture."



I still hold this position, and don't think I've betrayed it anywhere.



Shawn Mathis said:


> …with the emphasis in some circles upon the family, it may lead to an anemic use of the church leadership. In the old day, pastors taught much more than today and longer too and from house to house many times. Many families, I think, back then knew the pastor was more trained and generally more godly and accepted his teaching leadership. Today, the temptation with computer programs and the internet and lots of theology books is to think they need the pastor less--that is not only my observation but many pastors.



Just so I don't skip over it - I agree with you on this for the most part. Some in the FIC circles do overemphasize the family. To a dangerous degree, there are many families who have resorted to a "we'll handle this ourselves" position and are almost on guard even against their local assembly (in a somewhat hostile stance). There is another approach that is blossoming some in our area that emphasizes home fellowship and a forum type of teaching time (no formal sermon or preacher). We've encountered that and had to openly address the issue within our own assembly. And honestly, I would say the problem you outline is hardly unique to the FIC. Pastoral ministry over the last two decades has struggled against those who have decided to go completely "Lone Ranger" and those who've just completely given discipleship over to the "pros" and couldn't tell you the first thing about the Bible they claim to believe in. 



Shawn Mathis said:


> 1. It does not necessary follow anymore than having said structure leads to stifled growth or immaturity (see Calvin's Geneva).
> 2. The only data I have is either limited (one church) or second-hand eye-witnesses.



Considering the answers, I understand that the root of your contention is Scott Brown's inconsistency (or perhaps even error) regarding age-segregated ministry (generally Sunday School and Youth Ministry) being against scripture. But otherwise - if we remove the Scott Brown element of the discussion again for a moment - there is not necessarily a problem with an FIC assembly that wouldn't probably exist for any other type of ministry model. That may be over simplifying it to a degree (I realize there's plenty of nuance, as I've employed much myself), but that's the contest at it's base.

So even if we assume that Scott Brown is wrong in his assessment that age-segregated ministry is against scripture, if we consider the research of Ken Ham and Brit Beemer that Sunday School (at large - or what I've been calling the "common expression of…") is counter productive to longevity in the faith - doesn't 1 Cor. 10:23 come in to play at some level? Is it not wise for the church (at large) to step back from something that they have the liberty to do (but is not profitable to do) and re-assess and reform?

I believe that you would suggest that the failure of Sunday School is it's lack of the gospel. And, honestly (can't defend it from his book but …) I think Scott Brown would agree with that, but I think he would also add that there is a fault in the structure (the age segregation). I think Ken Ham would agree with your suggestion as well, but I think he would also add that there is a fault in a rejection of a young earth Genesis creation account. I don't believe that the addition of either of those two positions negates your position. I also don't think any of it undermines the core of an FIC structure - or the purpose behind one.

Unless I'm really missing something, we come right back around to if Mr. Brown's statement about age-segregated ministry being against scripture is correct.

So if an FIC has decided to structure itself as family integrated not because of Scott Brown's position, but rather because of how counter productive Sunday School and Youth Ministry seem to be (at large), is it still problematic?


----------



## Shawn Mathis

Erik,

The answer to your question is _yes _and _no _(my wife hates it when I say that!). Here's why: you state: 

"So if an FIC has decided to structure itself as family integrated not because of Scott Brown's position, but rather because of how counter productive Sunday School and Youth Ministry seem to be (at large), is it still problematic?" 

Given the explicit assumption that, "at large," [age-segregated] Sunday school and the like are "counter-productive" and given the unspoken assumption that FIC is the antidote, then the answer is _yes._

But I deny both the explicit assumption and implicit assumption. The evidence for the former is limited to the anecdotal information (personal experience) and severely limited factual data (Ham).

1. Anecdotal information has two problems:a) The obvious: anecdotal. I have counter-anecdotal information. 
b) The less obvious: interpretation of said information​(i) Is age-segregation the cause or effect of something deeper? Is it coincidental or integral to the problem?Pointing out the decline of the family and the West as occurring in parallel with the rise of age-segregated instruction is not the same as proving causation (as I'm sure you are aware).​
2. Limited factual data (Ken Ham and Brit Beemer)a) Limited: This is the only data I know of on the topic other than an older SBC number suggesting 80% loss rate.
b) Used: How does Ham and Beemer use this data? Do they say "get rid of age-segregated ministries _en toto_"? 
c) Interpretation: same issue as above, 1.b)(i)
d) Data itself: how exactly was the data derived? What were the parameters? I ask this (to some) insulting question because I know from personal experience how people read (or do not read) the actual study itself.​(i) Case in point: the three main homeschooling studies do not prove the academic superiority of this movement as even Mr. Ray (of NHERI) admits (more here).
(ii) Yet many homeschooling leaders keep pushing the studies as proof.​
I believe there will be no definitive study proving the issue either way. So, the real question is one of interpretation. This requires thinking in different terms of the data, more biblical terms, I believe.

Consider, the (supposed) superior results of FICs: Is it because of the method OR (minimally) because now the families are taking their responsibility more seriously? Excited parents can do wonderful things in the short term. A similar thing happens in homeschooling: by year 6 most original homeschoolers stop homechooling (Peabody study, 2007).

On the flip-side, it is historically demonstrative that many families, churches and communities enacted family-separated and even age-segregated educational methods with positive results (what Reformed person thinks Geneva and New England were bastions of evolutionary thought, using counter-productive tools?). The historical data are broader and more long-standing than the currently available data above.

If the method of instruction is within the realm of Christian liberty, then this means (to me at least) that a variety of methods are allowable_--why? because God did not tell us any one method is _the _method. _Some are more useful than others depending on the circumstances and the persons involved. It is the latter case that seems most significant to me. 

The Bible places a premium on Christian character not Christian method. The only methods given in the word are (for lack of a better word) macro-methods: the major foundations (Christ, Bible), walls (responsible agents (family, church, community)). The layout of the rooms is not as significant or detailed in the Bible for a reason. 

I'll stop for now. Next will be a positive presentation of the need for some (broadly) age-specific, regular, systematic instruction.


----------



## Shawn Mathis

Now, for the positive proof for the need of some age-specific, regular, systematic instruction, both age-segregation and non-domestic instruction by other adults both at church and out-side of Church

I. Background ConsiderationsA. See posting #49 above for necessary caveats and evidence for the allowance of _systematic, physical age-segregation_.
B. _Allowance_ for _Regular_, systematic, physical age-segregation​1. Light of nature (in general):​a) Regularity is observed in the seasons, animals and plants of this creation.
b) Regularity is observed in the lives of humans, daily and weekly cycles of work and rest
c) Such regularity is based upon the Providence of God who is orderly and consistent
[d) If one were to teach a topic to a certain intellectual level, it is better to teach it in a quite environment (hence "separation")]​2. Light of nature (via WCF 1:6):​a) "there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed."
b) Reasoning by _a fortiori _(from the greater to the lesser): if the light of nature (I.B.1.) is sufficient to order "some circumstances" of the public worship of God (which is strictly regulated by the Bible), how much more can those areas of life outside of the strictly regulated public worship of God be regulated by the light of nature?
c) "Government of the church:" Here we have debates between Baptist and Presbyterian government. Historically, however, neither side argued that all details of this government must have the same level of detail and restriction as required by the public worship of God (which can look very similar in both types of churches).
d) Reasoning by _a fortiori_: if God allows flexibility in the government of church (outside the question of which type), how much more does he allow in the realm of education which is not confessionally nor Biblically closely-regulated the way church government is.​3. Light of nature (via WCF 20:4)​a) "And, for their publishing of such opinions, or maintaining of such practices, as are contrary to the light of nature, or to the known principles of Christianity (whether concerning faith, worship, or conversation), or to the power of godliness; or, such erroneous opinions or practices, as either in their own nature, or in the manner of publishing or maintaining them, are destructive to the external peace and order which Christ hath established in the church, they may lawfully be called to account, and proceeded against, by the censures of the church."
b) The seriousness with which the WCF takes the "light of nature" is demonstrated in this section with respect to moral activities (not merely God's existence).
c) Thus, the argument below will include the light of nature both as to common observations by many, if not all, humankind and...
d) specifically how the Church historically understood that light of nature and enacted Christian education ("Christian prudence").​C. *Clarification*​1. _Age-specific _means any and all distinctions in age. If adults are separated from children, then this is age-specific.
2. _Regular_ does not mean every day, or even every week (although it could) but certainly means some consistency as required by the need of instruction for individuals, families and churches as a whole.​a) By the same token, _regular_ with respect to teaching on most topics does _not_ mean _rarely_.​3. _Church_: specifically not public worship but times of instruction whether on Sunday or not.
4. This is *not *a defense of the niche-market oriented youth culture of today or _principled_ age- and family-segregated methods in either the church or anywhere else.
​to be continued!


----------



## Shawn Mathis

II. *Proof*A.Clarification1. The question is not merely age-segregation's usefulness but the moral allowance of instruction of children by other authorities than parents
2. The question is can such a method be used by the church (as an organization and/or organism) and by other institutions
3. _Even though comprehension and godliness are the goal of education, a mixing of ages may arise during the course of instruction:_​a) Typically in new situations when the achievements of children are unknown age-segregation is a good start
b) As knowledge of the strengths and weaknesses of child are known then different advancements can commence 
c) However, as moral character is important, parents and teachers should not be quick to advance a student because students should learn humility by being with those "slower" than them​4. In short, I am not beholden to age-segregation, especially single-age segments (12 yr olds with 12 yr olds, etc.)​B. Light of Nature​1. Common effort of mankind​a) Children and adults typically separated during formal education taught by an adult (see Egypt, Sumarians, etc.)
b) Jews had schools during the time of Christ 
c) Jewish schools actually divided by age (but likely oriented toward proficiency): House of Reading (6 till age 10); House of Learning (till age 13).
d) Jewish divisions of life by age (Eidersheim).
d) “From the two traditions mentioned [Babylonian and Palestinian], which are confirmed by many other sources, we are entitled to state that in the first century not only a basic knowledge of Jewish culture was widespread, but also that schools existed in all towns and even in the smaller settlements." S. Safrai, M. Stern, ed., _The Jewish People in the First Century_, vol. 2 of _Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum _ (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1976), 948.
e) The Herodian temple was divided the Jewish family: the court of the men and the court of the women (and children) _during the time of Christ. _This was never challenged by Christ or the Apostles.​2. Common sense​a) It is observable that a wide-enough age-difference hampers the number, degree and type of topics to be taught​(1) Five-year olds will not learn almost all the topics a 13-year old can learn
(2) The same is true for Christian topics, although the type may be the same (who is God), the degree and amount (number) given is greatly different.​b) It is observable that medium age-difference can hamper the number, degree and type of topics to be taught​(1) Five-year olds will not learn many topics a ten-year old will​c) It is observable that small age-difference may hamper the number, degree and type of topics to be taught​(1) Ten year olds may not learn about sex ed as a 12 or 13 year old will
(2) Ten year olds may not learn algebra as well as 13 year olds (NOTE: historically, this was the age that many taught more abstract thoughts)
(3) This is part of the reason that the old Trivium method was used on younger children before access to the quadrivium (math, music, etc.)​d) It is observable that if a teacher were to instruct a set group of children on a topic different than another set of children the teaching should be physically separated between the two groups when occurring simultaneously, eg. separate rooms or parts of the room
e) It is observable that there is great advantage in dividing classes into smaller units (contra family-integrated education which could have large units of people, all the families of one church) if the goal is comprehension at different levels (cp. Neh. 8)
f) Similarly, if small-group instruction is desirable, then separate classes are desirable (contra family-integrated education in some cases, such as a 70 member class)
g) It is observable that children and adults learn certain topics better from better communicators and/or those more knowledgeable​(1) Parents are not all good communicators or knowledgeable on many topics
(2) Hence (in homeschooling, for instance) they employ non-domestic teachers, eg. books.
(3) If dead books can teach children why not living humans (teachers)? a fortiori.​h) *Biological difference* imply different learning ability: at least between suckling, toddler, young child (2 Chron. 20:13), puberty, full (biological) adulthood, old age (see II.D.)​(1) Puberty means stronger boys (thus different instruction)
(2) Suckling has the minimal instruction as dictated by their limited physical (biological) abilities
(3) Toddlers have short attention spans (they cannot learn in long periods like adults or young adults)
(4) Biological considerations coupled with practical imply some sort of age-segregation, even of necessity (depending on circumstances, etc., II.D.1.c) )​3. *Practical *(common sense again)​a) Allowance must be made for variation (advancement for instance); age-segregation should not be rigid. 
b) The purpose of this method is practical not principled because _comprehension is the goal _not age-segregation.
c) But age-segregation is a functionally useful tool for larger groups of children
d) This may be so with smaller groups
e) The problem of distractions when everyone is placed into one large room is real​(1) Biographies and eye-witness accounts of the "one-room schoolhouse" abound with such detail​C. Christian Prudence (cp. I.B.2.) see my _Very Short History of Christian Education_​1. Early church families mixed homeschooling, tutoring and outside family instruction or endorsed such as demonstrated in the lives of some of the well-known saints, Basil, Gregory of Nazianzon, Chrysostom, Tertullian (cp. see soon-to-be published work, _A Short History of Christian Education_)
2. Church councils endorsed the erection of schools or tutoring by local Bishops, e.g.:​a) Council of Constantinople (381AD)
b) Council of Vaison (529 AD)​c) Sixth General Council of Constantinople (680 AD)
d) Council of Savonnieres (859 AD)​3. The Reformation was an intensive educational movement​a) All the major Reformers endorsed, created or maintained schools, even by age (cp. Geneva) (see here too)
b) All the major Reformers practiced catechizing, including Sunday classes, sometimes by age (Geneva, Scotland, New England)
c) Major Protestant denominations built schooling into their church laws (Dutch, Scottish, French, Polish, etc.) 
d) Cities and principalities and countries (like Scotland) passed laws for the erection of schools
e) Some laws for example​(1) "In 1675 the...council of Rutherglen [Scotland], considering the great carelessness and neglect of duty of
divers parents by not keeping their children at school, so that they might become fit and useful instruments both for kirk and kingdom, [made a] statute that all the inhabitants of the burgh from henceforth shall send their children between six and twelve years or age to the common school..." p. 310​3. Lessons from history​a) At times the Church believed that non-domestic oriented education was a necessity
b) At the least they saw the great usefulness of such an approach, especially for the future of the trained ministry
c) Part of the background (not detailed above but in my research) is the concern that the parents are not doing their job
d) However, the churches and Reformers believed the church had a duty to instruct the covenant children (at least religiously)​​to be Continued​


----------



## Shawn Mathis

D. *Word of God*​1. General rules of the Word (cp. I.B.2.)​a) Order: 1 Cor. 14:40: a general principle applied to a specific case: "Let all things be done decently and in order."​(1) Organization and systematization are forms of orderliness
(2) Age-segregation is one tool of many that can be used in varying degrees of usefulness​b) Regularity of instruction: Deut. 31:9-14:​(1) Every seven years all the families are called together so that the children "who have not know it" may better learn the law
(2) If there is greater grace and knowledge in the NT (as prophesied in Is. 11:9)
(3) Then it must come through greater dispersion of that knowledge and greater regularity
(4) more than once every seven years--yeah weekly if not daily! (Acts 2:42, 46; 5:42)
(5) That knowledge is not only from parents but especially from the church (Mal. 4:5, 6, etc.)
(6) Thus Neh. 8 does not have to be an irregular activity but increased in regularity in fulfillment of Is. 11:9: "For the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD As the waters cover the sea."​c) Usefulness: 1 Corinthians 10:23 "All things are lawful for me, but not all things are helpful; all things are lawful for me, but not all things edify."​(1) Helpful/profitable/advantageous and edify (to build up a structure)
(2) The history of Christian education (esp. the Reformation) shows the power of traditional schooling, even to the judicious use of age-segregation​d) Charity: Deuteronomy 22:1 "You shall not see your brother's ox or his sheep going astray, and hide yourself from them; you shall certainly bring them back to your brother."​(1) It is an act of love to instruct the children of families in need of such​e) Delegation: parents are implicitly allowed to delegate as seen by...​(1) In general: Proverbs 31 woman: she had maidservants (v.15) presumably acting as agents to buy, sell and work around the house (cp. 1 Sam. 25:42, Abigail's maidservants)
(2) In general: Abraham has a responsibility to be involved in the choice of his children's spouse; yet he delegated that to his head servant (Gen. 24:2).
(3) Life of Christ: Luke 2:46-52 wherein Christ, as still under his parents authority (Lk. 2:51), was separated from his parents for three days while being instructed by the local authorities (see Morris commentary, here)
(4) Abraham was commanded to instruct his children _and _his household, Gen. 18:19: "For I have known him, in order that he may command his children and his household after him, that they keep the way of the LORD, to do righteousness and justice, that the LORD may bring to Abraham what He has spoken to him."​(a) His household was numerous and wide-spread in distance and age and ability
(b) His household included non-biological descendants who were servant and fighters (Gen. 17:12, Gen. 14:14, 318 soldiers) whom had to be circumcised
(c) Such a large house-hold was more than any one father or wife could instruct on their own
(d) Therefore, Abraham was either supernaturally given speed, endurance and like qualities to instruct this massive household OR (minimally) he was expected to delegate said authority​(5) Nursing: This activity was delegated to others (Naomi, Ruth 4:16, Ex. 2:7 suggests the Hebrew women would nurse other children)​(a) Nursing in the ancient near east could include assistance in raising the child as in the case of Mephibosheth and a nurse he still had at the age of five (2 Sam. 4:4)
(b) That nursing likely included some work of a nanny (beyond the age of weaning) is implied in the honor paid to Rebekah's nursemaid​(i) in late life, the nursemaid was still part of the household (Gen. 24:59)
(ii) in death, the nursemaid was honored (Gen. 35:8), where she was buried at the "oak of weeping" ('allon bakut)
(iii) such honor and attachment only makes sense if Rebekah had a relationship beyond weaning​(c) If nursing (a very intimiate and important time in life as well as that which seems to be obvious the domain of the mother) can be delegated, certainly less intimate and obvious responsibilites may be delegated (eg. instruction)
(d) Nursing is part of the broader responsibility of nurturing by the parents. Instruction is part of this responsibility as well. So if nursing can be delegated without violation of the responsibility of nurture, so can instruction
(e) Nursing (in the narrow sense of the word) is an _age-specific activity_
(f) Nursing (in the broader sense of nanny or governess) is an _age-specific activity_
(g) Therefore, by like reasoning, age-specific activities can be used, even necessarily, for:​(1) Necessity (see immediately below) can arise by virtue of the business of the wife of a household that is as large as Abraham (see above)
(2) Such necessity can be seen in the Proverbs 31 woman who runs the household and buys land like a business owner, while being in charge of maidservants
(3) The toll on her time is indicated by rising earlier than the servants (v.15)
*(4)* Such necessity coupled with the common observation of better instruction (in some circumstances and topics, II.B.2) necessitates, at least, _some _broad age-difference segregation​(5) Necessity of circumstances: distance or time forces delegation (see above)
(6) Necessity of limited ability: no family is an island: need of food, clothing, shelter, etc. by other families with said abilities (cp. Pro. 31:14, 16).
(7) Such necessity may require some method of division of labor
(8) Such division of labor may include age-specific (II.B.2)
(9) *Thus, necessity may include age-specific solutions*​2. Light of nature as exercised by unbelievers in the Bible​a) Systematization of music and metal-usage, Gen. 4:21, 22 (common grace)
b) Also King Ahab used "governors" to help raise his 70 children (and grand-children) 2 Kings 10:1-6
c) Even the unbelievers without the Word recognize the need for organization and regularity of instruction (both of entire businesses and children)​3. Light of nature as exercised by believers in the Bible​a) Abraham [II.D.c)(3)] where the specifics of how to instruct the household are left to his discretion
b) King Jehoiada began his rule at age seven, clearly under the oversight and instruction (torah) of the priest (2 Kings 12:1-3) even while his mother still lived​(1) Given no explicit command to set a priest over a young boy who could still learn from the mother
(2) It is likely, again, allowable (and as a ruler, _necessary_) to have the best teacher for the boy​c) Similarly, Hannah sent her son to a fostor home after a specific age (weaning) (1 Sam. 1:21) 
d) Jehoshaphat enacted the command of God (Lev. 10:11) by sending out the Levites along side other instructors of the King (2 Chron. 17:7-10) with good effect:​(1) "And the fear of the LORD fell on all the kingdoms of the lands that _were _around Judah, so that they did not make war against Jehoshaphat."
(2) Yet Lev. 10:11 states the Levites are to teach; no mention is made of teachers from the King (v.7); likely sent other teachers by the light of nature and the general rules of the Word.​4. Lessons from God's activities (our Divine Exemplar)​a) God taught according to need, even by lack of experience (typically seen in biological differences and age): Judges 3:1: "These are the nations the LORD left to test all those Israelites who had not experienced any of the wars in Canaan."
b) God differentiated immediately by age for the priesthood (even changing the ages) and war (see below)
c) God *regularly *taught the people of God via the sacrifices and the holy days (cyclical)​5. *Specific passages differentiating by age:*​a) Isaiah 28:9-13: commonly understood as the language of a young child learning via repetition; an insult given to the Jewish church (what adult would learn this way in all things?)
b) Eldest son given a double portion (implies greater responsibility at the least) Deut. 21:17; such unique responsibility implies instruction that may be unique (as the future, potential owner of the household)
c) Many passages that indicate age-differentiation (note: a common application of the Fifth Commandment is the duties owed to others by _age_, station and ability, LCQ 124)​(1) sucklings, little ones, young ones, men, elder
(2) John 8:57: Age used as a generic division: Christ is not yet 50 (old)
(3) Lev. 27:1-8: different valuations according to age and sex: 5 and under; 5-20; 20-60; 60+​(a) Presumably according to usefulness in the kingdom, with the prime of life given a greater price (20-60)
(b) If allowable to divided _arbitrarily _(are all 20 year olds equal in everything?), then allowable _reasonably _to divide by age in education​(4) Num. 8:24-26: Arbitrary age of 50 set for retirement of priests (nothing inherent in that age)​(a) Same reasoning as above​(5) The arbitrariness and assumed uniformity is highlighted in the change of age for the priesthood (Num. 8:24, 25 yrs old; 2 Chron. 31:17, 20 yrs old; Ezra 3:8, 20 yrs old)​(a) NOTE: God's allowance for age-differentiation, even to moving the age in the service of God in the temple allows it outside the temple (I.B.2. by a fortiori)​(6) Age 20 and older counted for war (Num. 1:3, etc.)​(a) Arbitrary (unless people believe 18 yr olds are morally prohibited by this verse!)
(b) Thus in an important issue of life and death age is used as a standard of division (either from size of population, assumed training and size, etc.)
(c) Thus some form of age distinction can be used in education ​(7) 1 Timothy 5:9 "Do not let a widow under sixty years old be taken into the number, _and not unless _she has been the wife of one man"​(a) NOTE: An arbitrary age is used to set moral limits (probably representing an age _typically _old enough not to be able to work)​c) *Inter-dependence of age, moral responsibility and instruction taken for granted*:​(1) Deut. 1:39: "Moreover your little ones and your children, who you say will be victims, who today have no knowledge of good and evil, they shall go in there; to them I will give it, and they shall possess it." (cp. Jer. 4:22)
(2) Little ones (tap): "typically from age 0-20, with stress on younger ages" (as seen in the war census, Num. 14:29ff.), Theological Wordbook of the OT
(3) Age and knowledge coupled together; thus, instruction should take into consideration age​d) John 9:21: "He is of age; ask him" Implies an acceptable age of public accountability common to the Jewish culture (13 years and one day for bar mitvah and ownership of the covenant).​e) Job 32:7: "I said, 'Age should speak, And multitude of years should teach wisdom.'​(1) This common sense truth coupled with practical concerns (II.B.2.) includes age-segregation​f) Titus 2:4ff. Age-segregation of older teaching younger and a distinct class of younger:​(1) Older women are to teach "younger women"
(2) "younger women" is _neos _not "married women"
(3) By exclusion: Paul does not write "little children" (paidion) or "baby" (brefos)
(4) By exclusion: Paul's topic is more oriented toward young women
(5) Thus a certain age is described and assumed: older than little children but younger than older women
(6) This instruction is not specified as ad hoc or systematic: both are allowable and one may be preferable according to circumstances
(7) This instruction is not limited to women but includes men by moral equivalence (LCQ99, see below)
(8) *Thus some age-segregation is required (coupled with practical considerations noted above)*​g) Nehemiah 8:1ff.suggests some age-differentiation (as even admitted by Mr. Brown)​(1) "all who could hear with understanding" being the goal (II.A.3) it follows that age-segregation occurred at least at the broadest level since little children could hardly understand much of the words or concepts (nor expected to like adults)
(2) Likely the sucklings were home with the servants
(3) From whence this division? It is not commanded; but follows the light of nature (II.B)
(4) *If allowable and useful in OT, how much more in greatly illuminated NT? [cf. II.D.1.b)(6)]*​h) 1 Timothy 5:2: "Do not rebuke an older man, but exhort _him _as a father, younger men as brothers, 2 older women as mothers, younger as sisters, with all purity.​(1) Clear age-differentiation conceptually
(2) Clear age-differentiation in practice: admonish older men differently than younger men
(3) Implies age-differentiation in practice, LCQ99.6​(a) 3 "That under one sin or duty, all of the same kind are forbidden or commanded;
together with all the causes, means, occasions, and appearances thereof, and
provocations thereunto."
(b) Rebuke and exhorting are species of the genus Education/Instruction
(c) *Therefore, if exhorting is commanded according to age, then instruction can be according to age.*
(d) Exhorting is a generic term with the implication of some sort of instruction in this verse (one does not change someone's mind without some instruction)
(e) Exhortation can be either public or private according to one's station in life and the sin or concern; thus if exhortation is needed privately, then instruction can occur privately--_physically separated from others (cp. Titus 2:4ff.)_
(f) Exhortation can include multiple people (youn men, plural), even to private exhortation depending on the topic or practical considerations (see above)​(4) Although a young pastor is commanded as such so too are all Christians (Heb. 10:25, Titus 2:4ff., above)​*E. Some non-parental, regular, age-segregation is not only allowable but when properly understood commanded (Titus 2:4 and 1 Tim. 5:2)

*​Thank you for your patience. This is my first crack at this, so I await any constructive feedback.
PS. As a reminder to readers: my first stance is Christian liberty concerning this question. I am attempting to answer a more specific question (see above).


----------



## southkogs

Pastor Mathis:

This will take me a few posts, I'm sure. And forgive the amount of time it's taken me to massage my response into something that makes some sense … or is at least ordered:

I'm not sure exactly how to understand your position that Sunday School and youth ministry "at large" are not counter productive. I want to clarify that I'm speaking in terms of the common scene of Sunday School and Youth Ministry that is employed in many (if not a majority) of evangelical churches in the United States. I say that because to say they are not counter productive, suggests that "at large" these models are either neutral (which I would suggest is not desirable) or productive. To say that the the bulk of these ministries are productive is odd to me especially considering your point about not defending niche-market youth ministry and principled age-segregation (I. C. 4.) - which (I think) is the term you use for the very ministries I have been identifying.

I can accept that the data from Ham and Beemer may be flawed to some degree, but I can't quite accept a total dismissal of it. Especially when one considers Barna's research, Willow Creek's statement on the effectiveness of their model of ministry (which has been so overwhelmingly employed across evangelicalism), the data that the SBC published, and Ham and Beemer's book together - there's at least smoke, even if one doesn't concede there's fire. Ham and Beemer don't call for the abolition of Sunday School or youth ministries, but they do call for radical reform. The data may not be perfect … but across the scope, it is at least pretty consistent.

Moreover, when we take data that is consistent over different reviews and then add anecdote; the suggestive begins to lean toward obvious. Sure, you can counter anecdotal evidence. But, it is difficult for me to deny my own observations. The norm of churches I encounter are programs that are very similar - and typically structured much the same way. I can accept that particular churches here and there have successful (and by that I mean faithful / biblical) age-segregated programs, but I struggle to accept that the evangelical church at large is successful in it's efforts. Again, this is not conclusive in and of itself, but it is very reflective of the data that is being published.

The data (maybe not clean and perfect) and anecdote together may not be completely conclusive, but they are at least compelling.



Shawn Mathis said:


> Consider, the (supposed) superior results of FICs: Is it because of the method OR (minimally) because now the families are taking their responsibility more seriously? Excited parents can do wonderful things in the short term. A similar thing happens in homeschooling: by year 6 most original homeschoolers stop homechooling (Peabody study, 2007).


This may be a failure of mine in this discussion. I would tell you that the methodology employed by FICs (at least the ones that I'm familiar with) is intentional to support/encourage/exhort parents to take their responsibility more seriously. So, the method is a tool to help put that responsibility on the "front burner," so to speak. "Superior results" are not an indicator of a parent being faithful to their Biblical responsibility, in much the same manner that the number of conversions isn't a good indicator to the faithfulness of a Gospel preacher.

My particular church had a family that was rearing their children in such a way that the kids were polite, well behaved and could quote memory verses left and right. To the eye - they were "superior results." That family had to face the music at one point though, that at least one of those kids had not as of yet really been grasped by the Gospel. It was a wakeup call to the parents to be diligent in feeding them the Word of God, preaching Christ day in and day (as you walk along the way) and praying for them. The methods in an FIC isn't about a parent getting amped from the outward results of inserting Tab "A" into Slot "B" and getting a well behaved kid. It's about parents being faithful to what scripture calls them to do.



Shawn Mathis said:


> The Bible places a premium on Christian character not Christian method. The only methods given in the word are (for lack of a better word) macro-methods: the major foundations (Christ, Bible), walls (responsible agents (family, church, community)). The layout of the rooms is not as significant or detailed in the Bible for a reason.


… but the Bible isn't ignorant of methods either. God prescribed precisely how the Ark would be transported, as a quick example. Additionally, the Bible does also suggest radical responses: "if your eye offends you, then pluck it out." Christian liberty allows you to drink alcohol, but if one is struggling with drunkeness … it's best to cast alcohol aside. Christian liberty may indeed allow for some methods. However, as those methods begin causing problems - it may be best to set them aside (at least for a time).

That, of course brings us back to the question of if there's a problem in the first place. A question upon which you and I seem to disagree.

It will take me some time to offer a response to your outline (I won't call it a refutation, there is much in there that I think we agree upon). With work and home it may be a bit slow going, so please forgive the time it takes me.


----------



## Shawn Mathis

Erik,

I think there is confusion on my part.

I took your original question about Sunday schools "at large" to mean the specific instrument of age-segregation. I did not take it to mean the "common scene" as you just described. I take the "common scene" to mean all non-Reformed church and family cultures (legalism, antinomianism, fun-oriented, etc.)--I reject all these and only defend a responsible use of age-segregation. And even then mostly focus on comprehension. 

So, your question about the typical non-Reformed SS, etc. is now more clear to me. 

My 8-pages above defend a Reformed culture with a responsible use of age-segregation. It does not defend non-Reformed cultures that may employ the same method.

With that said, I'll let you respond. Meanwhile, I'll hope my confusion is gone!


----------



## southkogs

Shawn Mathis said:


> I think there is confusion on my part.
> 
> I took your original question about Sunday schools "at large" to mean the specific instrument of age-segregation. I did not take it to mean the "common scene" as you just described. I take the "common scene" to mean all non-Reformed church and family cultures (legalism, antinomianism, fun-oriented, etc.)--I reject all these and only defend a responsible use of age-segregation. And even then mostly focus on comprehension.


I'll try to be more clear, I'm sure it's not just you. I've understood that your position is based on a defense of what you've termed a "responsible use of age-segregation" through our thread. I might not be clear while I'm agreeing with you regarding "responsible use of age-segregation" and then switching to clubbing away at the "common scene." I'm going to try to adopt those two terms to help even the keel a bit.




Shawn Mathis said:


> Before we proceed, I'd like to observe that the direction of the conversation has changed. Once you admitted that Sunday school falls under the rubric of Christian liberty, you are no longer actually debating my original position. My whole stance has been against the wrong-headed rationale of Mr. Brown and company (as summarized above).


Let me come back to Scott Brown for just a moment, as I think I owe it to you to clean that portion of the conversation up.

My experience with Scott Brown has given me a confidence in him, and a general agreement with him and the mission of NCFIC. That does not mean there are not points of disagreement at all, but they are limited. At the same time, the reasons that I or my church are family-integrated do not revolve solely around the NCFIC or Scott Brown. In other words, I think Scott Brown is an important and significant voice but that doesn't mean he's not wrong here and there.

I agree with you that there is a lack of clarity in his book. I also agree with you that the employment of age-segregation is a matter of liberty (or more properly stated, there is no biblical prohibition or prescription for age-segregation or age-integration).

I think this perspective:


Shawn Mathis said:


> …I reject all these and only defend a responsible use of age-segregation … My 8-pages above defend a Reformed culture with a responsible use of age-segregation. It does not defend non-Reformed cultures that may employ the same method.


may help understand why I can seem to agree with you out of one side of my mouth, and defend Scott Brown out of the other side. Scott is not speaking to a strictly Reformed culture, even though he is Reformed. I'm Reformed, but the denomination that I'm closest to is a mix of Reformed and non-Reformed. So, typically I'm not speaking to a strictly Reformed culture either. But, even if I drill down to merely the scope of Reformed churches that I'm familiar with … the scene isn't always different. In my area, some Reformed churches are significantly different, but many are no different (on the surface) than these monster non-denominational mega-churches with "lights, camera & action" built in.

I actually trust that your church employs a "responsible age-segregation" not because I have evidence of it. Rather, I trust because my limited experience with you indicates a Pastor who is highly committed to the truth of the Gospel, a biblical world-view and doctrine. I can easily see that you (and by extension your church) are highly specific in how you approach Christian Education.

In the same manner that my experience with you allows me to trust what I cannot see, my experience with Scott Brown (through limited conversations, listening to him speak and his book) allow me to believe that my contention that his position allows for some use of "responsible age-segregation" is valid. There is always the possibility that he and I would disagree. And even as an FIC, I'm fine with that. Honestly, if we became and FIC because of an organization and not because of biblical conviction we'd be in bad shape anyway.

So, trying to boil all of that down:
Scott is not completely clear in his book.
There is no biblical prohibition or prescription for either age-segregation or age-integration (essentially putting us in the category of Christian Liberty)
Those two admissions don't invalidate an FIC position (provided that FIC position is not unnecessarily dogmatic)​
More to come … at roughly the speed of molasses in January, but none the less ...


----------



## Shawn Mathis

Erik,

Yes, thank you for making it more clear. And for summarizing thusly:



southkogs said:


> Scott is not completely clear in his book.
> There is no biblical prohibition or prescription for either age-segregation or age-integration (essentially putting us in the category of Christian Liberty)
> Those two admissions don't invalidate an FIC position (provided that FIC position is not unnecessarily dogmatic)



It is the third proposition that we are conversing about. But before answering that, let's try this simpler (?) question:

If you lived in Geneva, Puritan England, 16th century Scotland, etc. (assuming you were not harassed for being a baptist), would you use their educational processes (structured local schools cycled yearly, age-segregated meetings for child catechisms, teachers catechizing children, even while parents are commanded to catechize as well, etc. as I described above), or would you still use the model you described as FIC in the post above (eg. "a reasonably healthy church...that does not employ age-segregated programs"). 

thanks,


----------



## southkogs

Shawn Mathis said:


> If you lived in Geneva, Puritan England, 16th century Scotland, etc. (assuming you were not harassed for being a baptist), would you use their educational processes (structured local schools cycled yearly, age-segregated meetings for child catechisms, teachers catechizing children, even while parents are commanded to catechize as well, etc. as I described above), or would you still use the model you described as FIC in the post above (eg. "a reasonably healthy church...that does not employ age-segregated programs").



The most honest answer that I can give you to this question is that I don't really know.

You said it earlier in the thread - who wouldn't want the reformers teaching their children? I can't really argue with that. And Calvin's geneva school is certainly compelling. So, from that angle (presuming I avoided harassment for my baptistic tendencies) I can see myself utilizing the programs that were available.

There are some varied opinions on those schools though, and ultimately their effectiveness. It seems that there were a couple of schools that were started with reasonably good intentions, but ultimately kind of backfired. I'm not that well studied in them, and have trouble right now sorting out fact from fiction. I'm a decent historian, but don't quite have all of that era figured out yet. Can we consider me "conflicted" there?

Ultimately, if you pushed me into a corner and forced a "yes" or "no" answer out of me ... yes, I probably would have used the schools.

I think though, there is an equal allowance for a significant difference between the approach of the Reformers, Puritans, 16th Century Scotts, etc. to Christian education and what we see today. It just doesn't seem to be a like-for-like comparison to me.

To quote myself for a moment:


southkogs said:


> I'll take your term "responsibly used age-segregated Sunday School" to define a program that identifies and employs pastoral/elder teaching to young people in concert with parental responsibility to disciple children. If the children are broken up by age group to employ that, and parents are encouraged to participate and involve themselves AND there is a mutual respect between church and family - I'd almost tell you that's more family integrated than one might think. Most FIC leaders would jump for joy at that kind of thing. And in that context, you're correct - it is okay for someone else to teach our children.


Perhaps I diverge with the NCFIC on this idea - but if certain Biblical criteria are met then some age-segregated programs are probably okay. But that is not normal in the Church today. Even when I limit the scope of what I am referring to as "the Church" to Reformed cultures (excluding the "common scene"), at least in my area I don't see many examples of the "responsible use of age-segregation." Honestly, I don't know of a single church within 30 miles of me that would fit that category.


----------



## Shawn Mathis

southkogs said:


> I think though, there is an equal allowance for a significant difference between the approach of the Reformers, Puritans, 16th Century Scotts, etc. to Christian education and what we see today. It just doesn't seem to be a like-for-like comparison to me.



Erik, You are correct at the lack of direct comparison for at least two reasons: maturity and unity.

The older church culture of our fore-fathers was, in general, more mature. At least from my readings. And I have about 120 books, articles and biographies I've been through just on the topic of Christian education. 

They were also more unified. That is why they could pull off so many schools in such a short period of time. (That and the mandatory laws in many places.) 

Even so, I think it is a very helpful thought-experiment for those tempted to follow the unregulated rhetoric from some FICers.

thank you for your honest answer.

I'll follow up shortly--I'm off to see the Cameron movie, Monumental.


----------



## southkogs

Shawn Mathis said:


> ...I'll follow up shortly--I'm off to see the Cameron movie, Monumental.



I saw it last night too. I'd enjoy your perspective on it - if we don't derail the thread too much.


----------



## southkogs

Shawn Mathis said:


> You are correct at the lack of direct comparison for at least two reasons: maturity and unity.


That is probably an excellent summary of much of the problem. If we take my admission in the last post (that I would probably have used schools like the Geneva), and hitch it up with the state of the church (common scene), would a consideration that the FIC movement is "putting the brakes on" the forward momentum in an effort to deconstruct the common scene and seek out a truly Reformed culture be entirely unreasonable?

While not presented from the NCFIC in those terms, my church would more likely recognize that concept as a basis for it's design.

*Some responses to your outline:*

Background Considerations: C.1.


Shawn Mathis said:


> 1. _Age-specific _means any and all distinctions in age. If adults are separated from children, then this is age-specific.


If we adopt your term "age-specific" as defined here to drive our definition of "age-segregated" (for example, "age-specific" ministry is the same as "age-segregated" ministry), then I think we've left Scott Brown's concept of "age-segregated."

I don't think there is a denial of "age-specific" needs (in terms of communicating the truths of Scripture) from an FIC perspective. However, age-segregation is something different. To segregate is to intentionally separate or split apart. Teaching can be age specific without being age-segregated. Age-segregation, in my opinion, is something there is less of a call for than age-specificity. When you consider my position on who is doing most of the teaching (comment below regarding III.C.2), then segregation has an element of danger when the less wise are subjected to poor instruction. Age-specific instruction in an age-integrated setting will allow guardians to better care for the instruction of their children.

As you mention from a practical standpoint, a parent may have a grasp on a topic but lack the ability to instruct the topic. They delegate (not abdicate) the instruction to a teacher, but the teacher makes a mess of the topic (we'll assume the parent's grasp was correct). In an age-segregated setting, there is a chance that the child will be instructed falsely. In an age specific setting, but not segregated there is less of a chance.

I'm not arguing against your point of the allowance of age-specific education, nor do I require that parents are ALWAYS with their children during education. But I would point out that age-segregation isn't a requirement of age-specific instruction nor are they interchangeable terms.

I think we agree on that, but I thought I would clarify.

C.2.


Shawn Mathis said:


> 4. This is *not *a defense of the niche-market oriented youth culture of today or _principled_ age- and family-segregated methods in either the church or anywhere else.


I believe that this is the major force at which the FIC position is aimed. The difficulty is when within a Reformed Culture (as we've defined it) the "common scene" seems present. I can believe there are specific instances (individually church by church) where a responsible age-segregated program is in place. But I have a hard time accepting that it is common place even within Reformed cultures. Or at least regionally, I have not been able to identify any.

In the scope of this discussion at least, I think you and I are like minded here as well. (Further punctuated by II.Proof A.4.)

III. Proof A. Clarification:
I have no argument against age-segregated education being allowable. The question of necessity and profitability (consistent anyway) is still hanging. I particularly appreciate your points III.A.3.b. & c. One gripe that I have with most Sunday Schools that I've encountered is the children are advanced through a haphazard program by virtue of age alone. Your attention to both understanding and character of the child is unique in nearly ANY consideration of Christian Education I've encountered in the past several years.

III.A.4. is another point where the guns of the FIC movement are aimed. Many of the educational practices of churches I've encountered (Reformed cultures included) do segregate based on age segments of this nature. Not specifically single year, but more like a public school structure would in an age/grade sense. I think we're in agreement on this particular point - at least in essence.

III.B. Light of Nature / 1. Light of Nature


Shawn Mathis said:


> a) Children and adults typically separated during formal education taught by an adult (see Egypt, Sumarians, etc.)


Is this a completely positive example? Not that it's entirely negative, but consider the schools during the Roman Empire for just a moment. Doesn't Tertullian essentially question the influence of the academy on the Church? Tertullian was battling heresies, but weren't the systemic approaches of the day empowering the heresies (while not necessarily authoring)?

If I'm not mistaken, the Greek and Roman schools were working to move a child from a "family" frame of reference and authority, to a "state" frame of reference and authority. In some senses, didn't the academy of Rome work to establish the state as a deity; in substance denying God? That was mainly a Platonic idea (I think) that the state was really the chief agent in developing a child's intellect, rather than a parent, wasn't it?



Shawn Mathis said:


> e) The Herodian temple was divided the Jewish family: the court of the men and the court of the women (and children) _during the time of Christ. _This was never challenged by Christ or the Apostles.


But there was a distinction later, wasn't there? When Paul wrote Galatians, did he not actually challenge this format of separation? Didn't he unify the church in 3:8? Now, true he didn't go on a crusade against the Temple. But the Temple was only around another 20(or so) years (not that Paul would know that as he was writing).

That's not so much of an argument against your statement; there is no direct challenge that I can point to. And there are considerations of separations of men and women/children even through (at least) the 17th century in worship. But ultimately the Temple was judged and eradicated. While the church is grafted into Israel, don't even the covenantal structures and NT language maintain some distinctions (for example: Mark 7 - Jesus came to feed the children first, the dogs have to wait; Romans 1 - first the Jew, then the gentile)? The Jewish structures of Jesus day were heavily influenced by the culture. The culture was heavily influenced by the Roman occupation and the religious establishment of the Jews (who Jesus railed against). Is it possible that the judgment on Jerusalem (and consequently the Temple) in A.D. 70 was God effecting change on that culture as well?

III.C. Christian Prudence


Shawn Mathis said:


> 2. Church councils endorsed the erection of schools or tutoring by local Bishops


Of note, " … by Bishops." Looking back to another point in my disagreement with the "common scene" and what I see even among "Reformed culture,"


southkogs said:


> …The typical requirements for a Sunday School teacher in America today are a pulse and a clear background check. The average (dare I say, "overwhelming majority of?") Sunday School programs are kept alive merely because the church believes it should have one, and has little or no structure or Biblical standard. At some point the Pastor might review the curriculum (which is typically some "Jesus loves me" cookie cutter template). There is typically a "director," but they are usually not an elder or ordained in any sense and the teachers in the classrooms are really just looking to see that the kids "enjoyed it" rather than were effectively moved toward sanctification (if they even know them well enough to speak to justification).


There should be some qualification for teachers, especially considering James caution that not many should become teachers. Again, even within "Reformed cultures" I've encountered I'm not seeing care given to this point. Still anecdotal, but the only frame of reference that I have.

I'm working on more, and will hopefully be able to pay some attention to this over the weekend.


----------



## Shawn Mathis

Dear Erik,

I have a symposium to prepare for this coming Monday night and cannot give attention to your interaction. I strongly suspect I'll not be able to follow up afterward for a while if there is any feedback to the symposium. In case you do not know:

The Family in Crisis: Three Pastoral Responses
Pastor Swanson, Mathis and Kingsbury will each be speaking, with some interaction and then open to questions from the floor.


----------



## southkogs

Shawn Mathis said:


> Dear Erik,
> 
> I have a symposium to prepare for this coming Monday night and cannot give attention to your interaction. I strongly suspect I'll not be able to follow up afterward for a while if there is any feedback to the symposium. In case you do not know:
> 
> The Family in Crisis: Three Pastoral Responses
> Pastor Swanson, Mathis and Kingsbury will each be speaking, with some interaction and then open to questions from the floor.



I did not know ... but I am definitely interested in hearing how it goes, and recordings if available. I understand the timing. I've got one more post tonight and then we can let it sit until it's convenient for you to get back to it.

And thank you for the link to your review of Monumental.

---------- Post added at 11:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:22 PM ----------

… some more. Again, not so much as disagreements, but points of conversation.

D. Word of God 1.c.)(2) -


Shawn Mathis said:


> The history of Christian education (esp. the Reformation) shows the power of traditional schooling, even to the judicious use of age-segregation


If we are defining Christian education today (either Reformed culture at large or the common scene) as "traditional," then I would probably argue the same point as I made a couple of posts ago. At large, Christian education today (with some exceptions) does not look like what I find Christian eduction during the Reformation to probably look like. If the Reformation era Christian education is "traditional" and the church as a whole needs to return to that (Reformed cultures at large inclusive), then I probably agree with the statement. It's back to that idea of like-for-like comparisons.

D. Word of God 1.d) -


Shawn Mathis said:


> Charity: Deuteronomy 22:1 "You shall not see your brother's ox or his sheep going astray, and hide yourself from them; you shall certainly bring them back to your brother."


In all of the CE programs that I've encountered, classroom instruction in an age/grade pattern is the mode and means. Can this accomplish teaching/discipling young people who's parents have abdicated their responsibility? Providence can break through and care for that, yes. But again, is a classroom necessary? AND, is it the only solution? I have heard several FIC proponents encourage churches to help families graft these "spiritual orphans" in to their own family worship/discipleship; AND also engage the abdicating parents as well in an effort to affect change in them. Information is important (a child needs to be catechized), but isn't discipleship more organic than a classroom? Maybe holistic is a good word?

The remainder of your outline advocates delegation and age-segregation, but I think you and I agree on the terms of your outline. Here's my "blue collar" version:


southkogs said:


> The Bible recognizes terms that are a little more broad (young men, older women, little ones, nursing babes, etc.). Those more broad terms better fit how the church should segregate at appropriate times.



And:


southkogs said:


> A Sunday school divided up by maturity, subject matter, gender topics or similar types of divisions, that is easy to place good Biblically qualified teachers over, and respects the parents role as primary in the discipleship of children is one that FIC churches could probably accept under Christian liberty. Most FIC churches have some type of divisions like this. My church, for example, has regular men's meetings for any male over 12 (among some other things). We don't have those meetings every Sunday (or every week), but we do have them regularly within a month.



Even your conclusion:


Shawn Mathis said:


> E. Some non-parental, regular, age-segregation is not only allowable but when properly understood commanded (Titus 2:4 and 1 Tim. 5:2)


… is fairly comfortable to me from an FIC perspective. We don't have a Sunday morning "Titus 2" class for the ladies per se, but we certainly encourage interaction between families and creating opportunities for the older to teach the younger per Titus 2. For us that instruction (age-segregated at times and age-specific at times) can be formal classroom when needed (not as often) or more shoulder to shoulder as your going through the day (far more common for us).

**** For clarification, when I say "shoulder-to-shoulder as you're going through the day (far more common for us)" I am not suggesting or advocating any sort of communal or "theo-civic" arrangement. Our families are encouraged to get together regularly and help one another along. We also have several groups of families with common interests who wind up at the same events. In other words, we intentionally get together outside of church and we happen to run into each other regularly outside of church. We've seen the communal approach and the "let's make a Christian city" approach, and we reject what we've seen on both. *****

The work you've just presented is in response to the question, "So, if an FIC has decided to structure itself as family integrated not because of Scott Brown's position, but rather because of how counter productive Sunday School and Youth Ministry seem to be (at large), is it still problematic?" And I'd like to try to summarize where we land considering your outline, and my interaction with it.

Your original response (much to the dismay of your wife) was "yes and no."

We clarified:
-That I was addressing the common scene, but knew of no Reformed cultures locally to me (within 50 miles or so) who functioned distinctively in that regard
-That there is such a thing as responsible age-segregated instruction within the scope of Christian liberty
-That I would probably have used the age-segregated teaching systems of the Reformation, Puritan England, etc. (Calvin's Geneva Schools, for example)
-That those particular age-segregated teaching systems are not like-for-like comparisons to existing Christian Education programs (with some exceptions)
-That Scott Brown is not completely clear in his book
(did I miss anything?)

I'm assuming that with all of the clarification, your answer is still "yes and no," but it leans more heavily toward the "yes it is problematic" side. Would that be accurate?


----------



## Shawn Mathis

Somewhat related to FIC dialogue (specifically the NCFIC) since they claim historical precedence for their suspicion of Sunday school:

Flagrant misquote in the movie Divided

Also: written introductions from the Family in Crisis symposium are up here. The hard drive that held the audio crashed. There will be two written summaries of the event that night shortly Lord willing.


----------



## Shawn Mathis

Summary of the unofficial Family Integrated churches symposium here: Local pastors discuss solutions for America's family crisis


----------



## southkogs

Pastor Mathis:

Forgive my delay in posting this.

In a recent off-line discussion you and I had you mentioned a family who was now "less radical about homeschooling." Around the same time (a week or so ago), I received an email of some notes from a recent conference call about FICs and homeschooling was mentioned as a distinctive of FICs vs. the church at large (or in our discussion common scene and reformed cultures). I read a little more in the discussion and was disappointed at some of the conversation, perhaps encountering some of that "radical about homeschooling" you mentioned.

I can only really speak to my own church's position, and can say that we've had direct conversation about the matter with Grace Family Baptist (Voddie Baucham's church) and with Dr. Baucham himself (so I think they'd line up with our position). Additionally, my church has had to wrestle with what to do if a non-homeschooling family wants to be part of the fellowship directly. That forced us to consider the matter in a slightly larger context, and be specific in our stance.

First, home educating does not make one a Christian. It is not listed among the fruit of the Spirit, and can't be considered evidence of salvation.

Second, home education cannot be a condition or requirement for admission to the membership of the local church body. There is nothing in scripture to secure that type of position.

That said - my church does state in our literature that we "strongly encourage home education." It's the best phrase we could come up with to plop our position on the table with people considering us a home church. Here is why we encourage home education:

1. The Bible tells us to train up our children in the way they should go - Prov. 22:6
2. The Bible tells us (specifically fathers) to bring up our children in the nurture and admonition of the LORD - Eph. 6:4
3. The Bible tells us the fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom - Ps. 111:10
4. The Bible tells us that we are to teach the Word of the LORD to our children diligently as we go about our daily business - Duet. 6:7​
In short, we are to provide a Christian education to our children. Public school does not (and really, in my estimation, cannot any longer) do that. Possibly, here and there may be a public school that is able to pull it off, but those are scarce exceptions. There are teachers in the public schools who want, and even try, to accomplish the task. But any more it's rather fool hardy to rely on those good intentions. If nothing else, the curriculum in the classroom of teacher who has the best of intentions is working against them mercilessly, and what small headway is gained will likely be chiseled away over the course of the ensuing years.

Further, the culture in which children are engulfed in 7 hours per day is counter productive to training disciples of Christ. That society will work harder against them over the years than they can be salt and light to it (as a rule; of course God can Providentially do unexpected and fantastic things).

Our printed statement does ignore the idea of Christian Schools. We did that intentionally. Mainly because we believe there are some that probably do a good job of providing a Christian education, we leave the door open on that concept. Unfortunately, most of us have experience of some sort or another with the local Christian schools and have found them unconvincing.

So, we (our local fellowship) will stand with other FICs encouraging home education, but we can't stand on a position that says that home education secures/enhances/displays one's position in Christ or the Church (local or universal). It's about the "why" one educates at home. We just believe that it its the best practical means on the table to provide a truly Christian education to a child.

I personally have a host of other gripes with popular education (even in the colleges and universities) to add to why we home educate, but it's neither here nor there to the FIC portion of things.

I hope that's a little bit of a help from one small corner of the FIC world.


----------



## Shawn Mathis

Dear Erik,

Thank you for the clarification. The relationship between homeschooling and FIC is strong but not necessary. I think another thread would be good to cover the question of homeschooling from a biblical perspective. I'll only say that a few FIC pastors have publicly endorsed homeschooling in stronger terms than you (what I dub radical homeschooling and its significance).


----------



## southkogs

Shawn Mathis said:


> I think another thread would be good to cover the question of homeschooling from a biblical perspective.


That was something of a "commercial break" due to my having run into the more radical element recently (new experience). If we get a little further in this thread, perhaps we can engage another on homeschooling. Though I'm not certain I know exactly what I would contribute there.



Shawn Mathis said:


> I'll only say that a few FIC pastors have publicly endorsed homeschooling in stronger terms than you (what I dub radical homeschooling and its significance).


Like I said ... new experience. I was surprised and a little saddened by it.


----------



## Shawn Mathis

My FIC interview by Mrs. Campbell of thatmom.com, here.


----------



## southkogs

Pastor Mathis:

I listened to the podcast last night, and had been waiting for the audio from the symposium. (Was that made available yet?) I didn't want you to think I'd vanished.

Best Regards,

Erik


----------



## Shawn Mathis

Erik (and readers): the symposium audio was lost. The hard drive crashed and is beyond repair. There are the three opening statements in written form, here. 

I gave a summary of the symposium here.

It was a good start, although the substantiative differences were not directly dealt with. I got the sense (along with others in the audience) from some questions from the audience that some homeschoolers/FICers cannot imagine a church using the same Bible verses as those commonly used in defense of homeschooling/FIC in any other way than the way their leaders seems to use them. We were asked at least twice how my and Rev. Kingsbury's church would implement these verses or how we would treat homeschoolers. (As you know, I homeschool!). This is important because I think the rhetoric from some of the leaders lends to people thinking this way.


----------



## Shawn Mathis

Part 2 of my interview with Mrs. Campbell, here. It is the historical critique of FIC. (Or after talking with Erik, it should be called radical FIC.)

PS. Some people think it is only those with some biased grudge who speak caution about the FIC. Well, Mrs. Campbell attended three FICs in here life. She has the personal experience to speak of what I cannot.


----------



## Shawn Mathis

Part 3 of my interview with Mrs. Campbell, here. 

I see the FIC postings here are still red hot. Don't be shy: questions or observations are welcomed!


----------



## Shawn Mathis

Part 4, the final, is up, here.

More about homeschooling, FIC and Reformed nurture, here: Uniting Church and Family


----------



## Shawn Mathis

For those who prefer audio interviews, here is the entire four-part series 

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4

Otherwise, check out the written series of related articles here.

(For those interested in contacting me, please feel free. For those wishing to debate me or point out my errors, please use the public comment sections and Christian charity.)


----------



## southkogs

Pastor Mathis:

Before we get into the next round (in whatever form that may take), I do want to thank you for a couple of things. First of all, there can be no question that you have challenged me significantly with regards to family integration (as defined by the NCFIC anyway), and given me pause to consider several points. Please don't for a moment think that I've taken that lightly, nor that it hasn't been of immeasurable value to me. I will say that I am as firmly committed even at this point in our interaction as I was at the beginning, but I think you've given me a more critical approach. I'm not certain of what that means long term, but in the immediate sense our conversation has given me pause to caution myself (and my church) in a few areas. Thank you for your candor and the conversation. It has been a blessing to me, and the Lord has certainly worked through it to pack a little more snow on this particular lump of dung.

For our readers - if you've not seen it in the thread, my goal was not to change Pastor Mathis' mind regarding the FIC movement. It was to challenge myself and my own considerations.



Shawn Mathis said:


> …(Or after talking with Erik, it should be called radical FIC.)


Second, thank you for this comment. It would be foolish to deny there is a radical aspect within the FIC movement, and frankly anyone would expect there to be (while not desirable, it's somewhat inevitable). I appreciate not being completely lumped into that segment.

Finally, thank you for keeping this conversational. I am not skilled quite enough to hold my own in a real debate (usually), and a full on argumentative brawl is not a place where I do well either. Frankly, understanding the caliber of person I was entering into the discussion with, I had no real expectation of a "victory" of any kind (in terms of a debate/argument anyway). And honestly, I wasn't so much worried about winning or losing (though, I wasn't all that excited about the prospect of the latter) - I had hoped to be able to come through the entire discussion congenially and perhaps even find some unity through it. I think we've managed congeniality well, and there are some points of unity too.


Also, for our readers - I did have a conversation with Pastor Mathis off line regarding the recent symposium. Since the audio is not going to be available, I'll mention this here as I don't know that I have the time to get involved in another thread. If you have read the opening statements there is a quote in Pastor Swanson's statement that should be particularly troubling. The quote is that we are "saved as families." I contacted Pastor Swanson directly and asked about this statement. As a final landing point in our exchange, he did confirm that we are indeed saved (justified/redeemed) as individuals and not as family groups. I have encouraged him to deal with that statement publicly. To my knowledge, he has not made that correction.

As I know there are groups within the FIC movement who do hold that view (or one that is similar to it), I agree with Pastor Mathis that a statement like that needs to be corrected openly. There is too much at stake considering the Gospel to let a statement that is (intentionally or not) erroneous to stand uncorrected. We have a saying within our church that we need to be "careful to be a church that is family integrated, more than a family integrated church." It's a cheap way to remind us to keep our heads straight and not sacrifice theology for modality. I would encourage any FIC to adopt a similar reminder for themselves.



Lastly (for this post anyway), I think we might be able to review some points of unity in the discussion (Pastor Mathis, correct me if I'm wrong and add points if you feel I've missed any):
1.) The Gospel is the changing agent in the lives of individuals and the church - family integration offers no advantage in justification. Elevating ANYTHING over the Gospel is wrong.
2.) There is no scriptural prohibition (a "thou shalt not") against Sunday School or Youth Ministry
3.) The "common scene" of Sunday School and Youth Ministry has some substantial problems
4.) Age-Segregated Sunday School is Biblically permissible under Christian Liberty
5.) The FIC emphasis on parents taking responsibility for the discipleship of their children is a good message for the church at large
6.) The FIC emphasis for children being a part (present) in the assembly/worship service is a good message for the church at large - not excluding the reality of needing cry rooms, etc.
7.) There is no scriptural prohibition against other adults (outside the family) teaching children, and in fact there are Biblical examples and mandates for this to occur
8.) Some FIC churches overemphasize the family to a dangerous (perhaps even idolatrous) level
9.) There are distinctions to be made between the "common scene" (where both of us would point out problems) and Reformed cultures (where we have some disagreement in methodology)
10.) Maturity and Unity in the church (today) are lacking components making the entire conversation more muddy
11.) When you ask Shawn Mathis a question, you get an outline (see posts #57 - #59) … I thought I was long winded, sheesh! (Just kiddn' Pastor - I was actually impressed looking back through how much work you put into that. Thank you.)​
I'm finishing up listening to the last couple of podcasts. I'll post a couple of thoughts on the first one in just a moment.


----------



## southkogs

I've come up with a question based on not only listening to the podcasts, but also through a meeting with a national evangelistic organization recently (completely unrelated to FIC): how much do you suppose things are different in a regional sense?

For example, is the climate, style and practice of churches (reformed cultures on one hand and the common scene on the other) near you in Colorado considerably different than in Tennessee by me? Here in my area, there is (almost literally) a church on every corner. I live in a city of about 150K people, and we have at least 5 churches with attendance sizes over 3,000 (no kidding - I'm low-balling, here) and one of them has attendance somewhere more like 14,000. That doesn't include the larger and wealthier areas that are regionally close by to me. There are HUGE budgets at work and phenomenal programs that these churches have going on, and when you hear me reference "programs" and things of that nature earlier in the thread - that's what I have in my head. Seriously, these are fantastic budgets utilizing marketing in ways that are similar to the "Madison Avenue" tactics my company would employ (we're in a marketing industry). Would that perhaps skew my perception of the common scene (at least) and even reformed cultures (as some of the churches I am thinking of would fit into that category) comparative to what you're used to seeing in your area?

I'm wondering what affect that has on independent churches (specifically FIC) that establish in the area?

The early stages of the conversation in the podcasts paint with a fairly broad brush. I didn't hear you go off of your main criticisms, but I felt as though Mrs. Campbell was a little less accurate. However, given the experiences she writes about I can understand why. I was surprised by a couple of the comments written on her site (by readers/listeners). I appreciate your honesty and clarification with one of the posts very much.

This question is out of pure curiosity:


Shawn Mathis said:


> ...Well, Mrs. Campbell attended three FICs in here life. She has the personal experience to speak of what I cannot.



Earlier in the conversation we discussed anecdotal information (at the time I mentioned my association with 3 FICs), and this was part of your reply (which I completely understand and agree with):


Shawn Mathis said:


> 1. Anecdotal information has two problems:a) The obvious: anecdotal. I have counter-anecdotal information.
> b) The less obvious: interpretation of said information​



Much of what I heard (though not all) from Mrs. Campbell seemed more anecdotal to me - related to my "broad brush" comment above. I don't want to diminish her personal experiences at all. However, there is counter-anecdotal information and we have the struggle of interpretation of the given information. Would you agree the instances are similar?

Like I said, that's from curiosity - not sure that I'm trying to prove anything by it.


----------



## Shawn Mathis

southkogs said:


> 11.) When you ask Shawn Mathis a question, you get an outline (see posts #57 - #59) … I thought I was long winded, sheesh! (Just kiddn' Pastor - I was actually impressed looking back through how much work you put into that. Thank you.)[/INDENT]



Ha! I thought it was too short! 

I, too, want to thank Erik for his humility (how many leaders publicly admit what he did?), integrity and good questions and observations. He has certainly helped sharpen my understanding of my own stance and the various approaches among the FIC themselves. 

I'll digest your upcoming questions.


----------



## Shawn Mathis

Erik,

At this "stage in the game" anecdotal information can help people reconsider 1) the possible impact of their message, 2) listeners consider potential avenues to further explore...if done aright. Sometimes it can be kind of like a yellow-light. 

As for the Denver metro area, we are highly secular. The statistics show we are up there as a non-church going society in general. We have our mega-churches (I grew up in one). 

I stick with the publicly verifiable facts as I can. I have proven my concerns with extensive quotes from Mr. Brown, his book, the movie and various other sources of info. 

As for your list of agreements, I think that is a good summary. In fact, if such an approach as your are taking now was taken several years ago this (one-sided) public dissection of the NCFIC could have yielded more positive results. It still can if the de facto leadership would change their tact and follow your lead.


----------



## southkogs

Shawn Mathis said:


> At this "stage in the game" anecdotal information can help people reconsider 1) the possible impact of their message, 2) listeners consider potential avenues to further explore...if done aright. Sometimes it can be kind of like a yellow-light.


I've got no disagreement with that. I've actually re-typed four different versions of why I think I came up with that question, but I can't get to it without sounding as though I'm discounting Mrs. Campbell's experiences. I've opted for something simple: I believe her, but found some of her anecdotes rather sensational.



Shawn Mathis said:


> I stick with the publicly verifiable facts as I can. I have proven my concerns with extensive quotes from Mr. Brown, his book, the movie and various other sources of info.


I think you do that well, and you maintained it in the interviews from your end.

In the second podcast Mrs. Campbell makes a statement to the effect that a growing number of state homeschool organization leaders are suggesting that homeschooling should be legal for only Christians (and adds Christians of a certain persuasion). That's a rather shocking and (in my opinion) fantastic statement - is there any substantiation or evidence that you're aware of?

Also, in that same podcast Mrs. Campbell mentions Michael Pearl, Ted Tripp and Gary Ezzo in a manner that seems to suggest that they are a substantial (at least) voice in the FIC movement. Do you consider these people major figures and representative voices for FICs?



Shawn Mathis said:


> As for your list of agreements, I think that is a good summary. In fact, if such an approach as your are taking now was taken several years ago this (one-sided) public dissection of the NCFIC could have yielded more positive results. It still can if the de facto leadership would change their tact and follow your lead.


I am most assuredly not a major voice ( ... who am I kidding? I'm not even a minor one!) in the FIC movement, and I don't presume to speak on anyone's behalf but my own (and perhaps my church). I still consider myself in substantial agreement with the NCFIC, and at the same time have no problem being in disagreement with them and/or the NCFIC confession on some issues (if it turns out that I am). If indeed FICs are committed to the authority and sufficiency of Scripture, and they are truly (and humbly) seeking a healthier church I believe God will ultimately bless the motives and effort. There are non-FIC churches who are seeking the same thing, with the same commitment to the authority and sufficiency of Scripture. The hitch for many (FIC and not) is that what God reveals to us as His intention and will for our church (home, lives, etc., etc.) is often vastly different than what we concocted in our heads. All of us wind up in the same position then: learning to walk humbly with our God.


----------



## Shawn Mathis

Erik,

So, at the end of this thread, even with the uncontested evidence that Mr. Brown (and hence the NCFIC) maintains a substantially questionable hermeneutic, to whit, the "regulative principle of education," you are still not sure if you disagree with him? or just more specifically the vaguely worded NCFIC confession? That's one question (sorta).

Two: when Mr. Brown writes an article (like this one at the Christain Post) where he makes the broad-sweeping and unsubstantiated claim, "The Bible makes it clear that meetings for worship, instruction and discipleship were age integrated" do you find yourself agreeing or wondering what he is getting at?

Three: "Should children be in the meeting of the church, alongside their parents? If you only had the Bible, what would you conclude about what to do about childcare? Is there any evidence of childcare services to support the worship and instruction of God's people? Do the apostles ever allude to a nursery or Sunday school? Are there any commands relating to the subject? Are there any examples to follow in Scripture for this area?" Do you agree with the explicit "desert island" test?

I have studiously avoided the L-word during this whole discussion, but when such evidence is brought to my fellow pastors it is not far from their lips. This is the primary reason I can never endorse Mr. Brown or the NCFIC: adding to God's word to such a degree as he does. I know we are all tempted with such additions but the matter is exasperated by the condemning language that throws conservative Reformed ministers such as myself under the evolutionary bus (article xi)

This plus the average Evangelical audience's weak spiritual state adds more concern. Hence, my emphasis upon understanding the deeper need of these Christians, even homeschoolers: they do not need additions to the Word of God. They need clear presentation of the Law (many are antinomians) and the Gospel. When I see these families, I see my old life bound in the twin terrors of antinomianism and legalism. 

My decision is further reinforced by the sloppy and careless research the organization uses (and his is not the only one). There are gross ommissions in the book (Calvin's Geneva, etc.) and gross commissions (flagrant misquote in Divided and his book). 

The NCFIC has many good things to say about the family. But then so does Ligonier ministries. And Banner of Truth. And they do not have all the additional baggage. 

Obviously, I believe it in your best interest to further distance yourself from the NCFIC. For the sake of late readers, I know your church has not signed the NCFIC confession and that is a good thing.


----------



## southkogs

Shawn Mathis said:


> So, at the end of this thread, even with the uncontested evidence that Mr. Brown (and hence the NCFIC) maintains a substantially questionable hermeneutic, to whit, the "regulative principle of education," you are still not sure if you disagree with him? or just more specifically the vaguely worded NCFIC confession? That's one question (sorta).


I don't personally have a good argument to contest your evaluation of Mr. Brown's book. And, if indeed some of the statements you highlight are Mr. Brown unilaterally stamping ANYTHING age-segregated Biblically wrong, then I would disagree with that. Much in the same way that I would say that I don't agree with everything in the NCFIC confession - I'm in substantial agreement with it, but not complete (which is true of the LBC, too).

At the same time, I am not completely convinced that your argument establishes an airtight case for Mr. Brown to hold such a dogmatic position. And that's why I'm not sure if I disagree with him.



Shawn Mathis said:


> Now, it could be given all the above, Mr. Brown will still allow for your version of age-segregation. But that is _not c_lear from the book itself. What is clear is that Mr. Brown is unclear.


I've admitted that the book didn't impress me that much, and I can agree with you that Mr. Brown isn't completely clear. But that doesn't quite mean that he holds the position quite as you present it. As you say …



Shawn Mathis said:


> What Mr. Brown gives in one hand is virtually taken away by the other."


Or, as best as I can see it … there is an issue of clarity.



Shawn Mathis said:


> I have simply quoted Mr. Brown. You have thrown in all the qualifications. Your qualifications are more helpful than answers given by Mr. Brown. Add the prima facia reading of Mr. Brown with the blog post (linked above) where he further digs his hermeneutical hole and my case stands.


I have stacked on qualifications that I think are in line with the FICM as a whole (based on a more broad range of experience than just Mr. Brown), and you're as you say "simply quoting Mr. Brown." Your argument as presented is one that I cannot overcome based on Mr. Brown's book or any writing of his that I have encountered. I have heard him speak a few times, and I am of the opinion (based on what I've heard from him) that my qualifications would stand with him … but I have no guarantee of that. So, perhaps I do disagree with him. But for the moment, I'm not completely convinced of that.



Shawn Mathis said:


> Or better yet: publicly call upon Mr. Brown to officially make just such qualifications. Then and only then will this whole brouhaha be settled.


I should think that it would be more proper to talk with him privately first. Just as I've opened myself up here to be convinced one direction, I think I should open myself up in a similar fashion with him.




Shawn Mathis said:


> Two: when Mr. Brown writes an article (like this one at the Christain Post) where he makes the broad-sweeping and unsubstantiated claim, "The Bible makes it clear that meetings for worship, instruction and discipleship were age integrated" do you find yourself agreeing or wondering what he is getting at?


I think it is difficult to make that claim as that quote does. In my opinion, the rule (not without exception) was that the entire assembly was gathered for formal worship. I qualify that because worship is bigger than the formal gathering on the LORD's Day, but in terms of the assembly of the Church on a regular basis I think it's very common to see a complete assembly (all ages and genders). When you say "instruction" and "discipleship," I think it's more difficult to make a statement like that stand. There are just too many different applications of those terms that are valid, and in many cases they may be rather segregated. One of our most common mental images of discipleship comes from Jesus and His 12 - age and gender segregated, really. Most FICs have some sort of segregated meeting - Grace Family Baptist (Voddie Baucham's church) encourages FICs to have monthly men's (men & boys 12 or older) gatherings for instruction.

I'll go with your "wondering what he's getting at" there.



Shawn Mathis said:


> Three: "Should children be in the meeting of the church, alongside their parents? If you only had the Bible, what would you conclude about what to do about childcare? Is there any evidence of childcare services to support the worship and instruction of God's people? Do the apostles ever allude to a nursery or Sunday school? Are there any commands relating to the subject? Are there any examples to follow in Scripture for this area?" Do you agree with the explicit "desert island" test?


The "desert island" test is kind of a stupid one, in my opinion (regardless of what side of the debate you're on). The way the question is posed suggests that you wound up on this island void of any presuppositions and frames of reference. If we could truly be on that island with a contextual blank slate, who knows how we would interpret commands to instruct, disciple, teach, encourage, and so forth? God only knows because even our guesses are steeped in presuppositions.

The question is supposed to push us to rely objectively on the Scriptures, breaking through the presuppositions and contexts we have in our noggins. If we could make that objective leap would we completely reject the idea of different age groups or gender groups being instructed apart from each other? Nope. As you've pointed out, there is precedent (perhaps even command) for that to happen in the Bible. However, I think it's a stretch to suggest that using the same Scriptural data the first lever we would objectively reach for is classrooms established based on age segments of two to three years common ages, youth pastors, Sunday School and all of the other programmed gigs we have going on in the church today (common scene and reformed cultures inclusive). The scriptural data may be sufficient to allow for all of that, but it's not necessary that all of those things exist to fulfill the commands and precedents.

For the assembly worship on the LORD's Day, I absolutely think the children should be in there with their parents. If we could be on that island and truly objective with the scripture, I think the nursery (not the "cry room," by the way), children's church and the common scene of Sunday School would not exist. Would the older women teach the younger ones? Of course they would. Would children be catechized? Certainly. Would we recognize nursing infants (a Biblical term) don't learn in the same way as young men (another Biblical term)? Of course. And we would instruct and disciple within that context. But it doesn't necessarily follow that we would generate classrooms and programs designed around age groups like we see in the public school structures - which is VERY familiar territory in many (perhaps most) Sunday schools.

So, "poopoo-ing" the desert island test I wind up agreeing that age-segregated programs are permissible. But in the spirit of the desert island test, we should admit that, while permissible, age-segregated programs are not necessary (in that hard to define systematic classroom sense) to accomplish the commands and precepts of Scripture.



Shawn Mathis said:


> I have studiously avoided the L-word during this whole discussion, but when such evidence is brought to my fellow pastors it is not far from their lips. This is the primary reason I can never endorse Mr. Brown or the NCFIC: adding to God's word to such a degree as he does. I know we are all tempted with such additions but the matter is exasperated by the condemning language that throws conservative Reformed ministers such as myself under the evolutionary bus (article xi)


Again, based on things I've heard said by Mr. Brown and on elements of the FICM outside of the NCFIC (I really want a third acronym right now) I would suggest that comments about the evolutionary influence within age-segregation is limited to the age/grade structures like used in the public school systems. Churches have adopted that structure (common scene at least) for their programs as well, and you yourself even admit you're not in favor of segregating by age blindly (example: 12 year olds with 12 year olds simply because they're 12 years old).

The second half of your statement (about being thrown under the evolutionary bus) rides along with one of your earlier points about churches in the same denomination having the NCFIC confession become a wedge between them: I hadn't considered it exactly from that standpoint before and I haven't quite unwrapped all of that. Locally, our relationship with other churches is rather good and folks from my congregation do things with other churches all the time - not to mention joining in to help out things like the children's home, mission and so on. I've got good relationships with local pastors (non-FIC), and can't think of a conversation I've had ("how do y'all do stuff" conversations) where it didn't wind up being a friendly conversation or anything more than a "huh, well that's interesting." For me it's been more about conviction than about a crusade - which is why being in disagreement doesn't bother me too much.

Like I said, I'm still chewing on that part ...



Shawn Mathis said:


> This plus the average Evangelical audience's weak spiritual state adds more concern. Hence, my emphasis upon understanding the deeper need of these Christians, even homeschoolers: they do not need additions to the Word of God. They need clear presentation of the Law (many are antinomians) and the Gospel. When I see these families, I see my old life bound in the twin terrors of antinomianism and legalism.


It would be a flat out lie to say that either end of the spectrum (antinomianism to legalism) doesn't exist within the FICM. However, to insist that being family-integrated is by nature either antinomian or legalistic is too much for me. I've had experience on both ends myself, and can give you addresses of local congregations stuck in either problem across a wide denominational scope. We have had to counsel families in our own congregation on both ends, and I know that I've had discussions with other FIC leaders with situations similar to my own. It's a problem that is common across the entire evangelical landscape, not just FICs.

Perhaps when we limit the conversation to reformed cultures the dynamics change significantly, but it doesn't completely insulate. When I said "give you addresses for" one of the more antinomian churches I'm thinking of is a PCA. That draws us back to an issue of the Gospel and solid theology, and FICs are capable of that in the same manner as any other church.




Shawn Mathis said:


> My decision is further reinforced by the sloppy and careless research the organization uses (and his is not the only one). There are gross ommissions in the book (Calvin's Geneva, etc.) and gross commissions (flagrant misquote in Divided and his book).


I have to wave the white flag here. I'm not studied enough to counter any of your positions. Certainly, the post regarding the quote in "Divided" is something I have no argument against - or reason to believe that you are not accurate in what you say. I'm also not so pragmatic to say that it doesn't matter what some old dead guy (especially Dabney) said.

However, I got punched around pretty good for using some quotes not long ago too. I was accused of using the quotes out of context as well. My point at the time was not to suggest that any one of the men I was quoting would look at a healthy functioning reformed culture compared to a healthy functioning FIC and place a gold start on the FIC's forehead, leaving the reformed culture wondering, "what in the world happened?!?" My point was that compared to the common scene (and it's influence even within reformed cultures and FICs), there was historically a MUCH greater concern with family roles and discipleship within the home. The ignorance of that in the broad scope of the church today is something I think we can agree on. Perhaps you feel that an FIC approach puts the cart before the horse (the Gospel as a secondary), but I'm fairly confident in the situations that I've encountered the approach works in terms of a response to the Gospel.

All that still doesn't help the quote in "Divided," though.


----------



## Shawn Mathis

Dear reader (and Erik),

I think we have more than exhausted the similarities and differences. One major difference between myself and Erik is our respective understandings of what Mr. Brown and the NCFIC actually believe. 

I believe if more people could evaluate for themselves the more sectarian view of Mr. Brown, et.al., in their own words, the more people will reevaluate their relation to the movement. To that end, here are three articles (the third being the longest). One is a previous post on this thread. The two others are further evidence that Mr. Brown and others believe in what I dub the "regulative principle of education". I think the second article is the most explicit defense offered by Mr. Brown: 

1. A Summary of Mr. Brown's sectarian view
2. Mr. Brown explains the "regulative principle of discipleship"
3. Mr. Baucham employs similar thinking

And a reminder to the readers: my original article about the FIC includes my observation of a "desert island test" hermeneutic ("regulative principle of education"). This article was deemed acceptable by a member of Mr. Brown's church, one-time intern and occasional worker for the NCFIC, Mr. Glick (who also brought the article to Mr. Brown's attention): "So, in answer to your question, overall, the description was accurate and I greatly appreciate all the references. Some have slammed us and not even attempted to prove that it was so. That said, in all respect, I disagree with much of the analysis."

Thus, the burden of proof against my evaluation is upon those who disagree with me. If you still agree with Mr. Brown's position, fine, as long as everyone is clear about what is being said.

For peace and unity in Christ's Body,

shawn


----------



## southkogs

To our readers:

I'm terribly late getting this posted, please forgive me for letting it sit so long.

As Pastor Mathis indicated above, we've run this conversation out far enough and he and I have agreed that we can close this particular discussion. I do admit that I have not been able to give a substantial argument against his evaluation of the NCFIC or Mr. Brown, and will also add that his evaluation has given me much food for thought. At the same time, I hope the points of agreement have shed some light on (at least some) FICs and perhaps challenged some within the FICM to consider WHY they do what they do.

I'd like to finish off with just a few things:

For starters, I'd like to again thank Pastor Mathis for participating in this conversation and being challenging and grace filled throughout. As I said earlier in the thread, the value has been exceptional to me personally. We have accomplished precisely what I had (selfishly) set out to do, and I have been given several new perspectives to consider. It is my hope that our discussion has been an example of charitable debate between brothers in Christ, and an encouragement to be open in conversation with one another. My God be glorified even in our disagreement as we all love our neighbor as ourselves.

Next, I would like to encourage all of us to open ourselves up to challenge from time to time. The presuppositions with which we tend to approach God's Word often blind us to what the Word itself says. Having our positions challenged doesn't necessarily spell defeat for who we are and what we believe, but rather may offer a more mature perspective and solid foundation for our belief. In a multitude of counselors, there is safety.

Finally, I would like to return a focus of this conversation to a point that Pastor Mathis made at the very beginning - the Gospel is the key. ANY approach we may take to ministry, ANY decisions we make regarding how we "do" church and ANY considerations we make in living our lives out with our families must be based in a response to the Gospel. None of this is a path to the Gospel, it is merely an imperfect response to it. For now we indeed see dimly - we know only in part; but then (WOW) face to face! We'll know as we are known! Praise God that He who began the good work in us is faithful to complete it.

I am open to further discussion or comments, but at this point I think it may perhaps be better to do that in another thread. If you have questions for either Pastor Mathis or myself, I would suggest that a PM to one of would be a great starting point.

Erik


----------

