# Dialogue with family integrated church proponent Mr. Wolfe



## Shawn Mathis

Mr. Wolfe of Wolfe Ministries has graciously consented to continue our public dialogue about what exactly some family integrated churches believe with the goal of seeking as much unity as possible. (Please read this to understand where I am coming from; it will help reduce questions).

Below is my question and then his answers afterward. We plan a back-and-forth to continue in this fruitful vein. Naturally this is an open forum at puritanboard but my hope is to focus on specific questions then responses between myself and Mr. Wolfe as representative of two informed men on this issue. I do _not _presume that Mr. Wolfe speaks for all FICs. 

*Mr. Mathis*: "Here are my questions to help me understand your reasoning:
1. It is odd that you harp on "sufficiency of Scripture" yet allow for nurseries. How does that fit?
2. Where in the bible is it allowable to let "elder" at "times" "preside" over the "teaching of youth"?
3. "Systematic approaching the teaching of youth takes the hearts of children from their fathers"--based upon what facts?
a) What is "systematic...teaching"? Perhaps once a week of eldership instruction about church ordinances for three months?
4. All the bad things you describe, unqualified instructors, downplaying the pulpit, isolation of children from body, bad influence and subculture are all equally symptomatic of bad family life as well: father is unlearned, mother belittles the pastor, family full of loners, family full of bad influence. This significant fact means that age-segregation can and has been *badly* used depending on the context of the health of the family, church and culture overall. Do you not agree?"

*Mr. Wolfe's* answers:
"1. I include an area where mothers can nurse infants and remove crying children. I see this as good and necessary consequence of corporate worship. 
2. The Bible clearly teaches that an elder is able to teach. My reference to elders teaching the youth is in contrast to youth ministers, who are not elders, holding a position of authority and teaching in the Church. The term at times mean that it would also be improper for an elder to begin a programmatic system for teaching youth apart from their fathers. 
3. This assertion is based on years on ministry experience, discussions with colleagues, and my own personal testimony. I have seen what it looks like when parents have the hearts of their children, and when they do not. I have also seen that this seems to be directly proportionate to the amount of time and effort fathers spend on discipling their children in the Word. Ken Ham's book, "Already Gone" touches on this. 
4. To create a systematic program involves a mission statement, volunteers following that mission, and a gathering of youth at regular intervals in order for that program to complete their mission. Take this quote by Mike Yaconelli, "If we take the yearnings of young people seriously, then we can admit to ourselves that youth aren't interested in our answers (often given in response to questions they're not asking). They're not looking for safe activities. What they're seeking is the companionship of adults who embody a different way of being." THIS is what I am talking about. Successful youth ministers win the hearts of the youth that they teach. This is the only way a youth minister can influence the youth. 

"Youth ministry used to be about forming relationships with teens so that they would come to your programs. Today, programs are not the end goal. Instead, programs serve as open doors for building relationships." - Hank Hilliard

4. It is a mistake to make a case for well-done unbiblical ecclesiology. That is the equivalent to a well rolled doob. It may be well rolled, but it doesn't honor God. I am not comfortable trying to improve on God's plan for raising youth in the faith. Why in the world does the church insist on this model??? It is unbiblical and it's failing to turn out disciples. It's FIC counerparts are turning out a vastly greater percentage of well saved people. It's madness."


----------



## Herald

Shawn, a Q&A is an excellent approach. To keep things honest is Mr. Wolfe going to be posing questions to you as well?


----------



## Shawn Mathis

Mr. Wolfe,

I want to publicly thank you for continuing this dialogue. I have met a number of defenders who were willing to make vague denunciations of my writings but only one who made any significant effort to talk. Now I can add you to that list of charitable brothers.




Shawn Mathis said:


> "1. I include an area where mothers can nurse infants and remove crying children. I see this as good and necessary consequence of corporate worship.


I am glad to hear that. Mr. Brown, however, seems to be against that. If I am wrong please point me to the correction. This is a significant point because it severely limits the rhetoric from the likes of Mr. Konvalin's post which asserts "Sufficiency of Scripture!" "If you deny our age-integration theory you are not following the sufficiency of Scripture!" It means the issue is more _nuanced _than typical rhetoric would imply.



Shawn Mathis said:


> 2. The Bible clearly teaches that an elder is able to teach. My reference to elders teaching the youth is in contrast to youth ministers, who are not elders, holding a position of authority and teaching in the Church. The term at times mean that it would also be improper for an elder to begin a programmatic system for teaching youth apart from their fathers.


*I agree* that "youth ministers" do not have biblical warrant. 
Please clarify your last sentence: "The term at times..." Do you mean "youth ministries?"




Shawn Mathis said:


> 3. This assertion is based on years on ministry experience, discussions with colleagues, and my own personal testimony. I have seen what it looks like when parents have the hearts of their children, and when they do not. I have also seen that this seems to be directly proportionate to the amount of time and effort fathers spend on discipling their children in the Word. Ken Ham's book, "Already Gone" touches on this.


*I do agree* that there appears to be a correlation between modern youth ministries (from the worst versions to the best version _in the context of non-Reformed churches_) but no causal evidence has been brought forth. I cannot argue against your personal experience. And will not. I will note that it is not sufficient to merely point to statistics. It could simply be that these churches are weak with weak families. Likewise, the FIC brought as evidence could mostly be explained as energetic families finally getting involved. The facts have to be interpreted with a priori premises, which themselves must be explicit and not hidden.



Shawn Mathis said:


> 4. To create a systematic program involves a mission statement, volunteers following that mission, and a gathering of youth at regular intervals in order for that program to complete their mission. Take this quote by Mike Yaconelli, "If we take the yearnings of young people seriously, then we can admit to ourselves that youth aren't interested in our answers (often given in response to questions they're not asking). They're not looking for safe activities. What they're seeking is the companionship of adults who embody a different way of being." THIS is what I am talking about. Successful youth ministers win the hearts of the youth that they teach. This is the only way a youth minister can influence the youth."Youth ministry used to be about forming relationships with teens so that they would come to your programs. Today, programs are not the end goal. Instead, programs serve as open doors for building relationships." - Hank Hilliard



I asked: "a) What is "systematic...teaching"? Perhaps once a week of eldership instruction about church ordinances for three months?"
You respond with five elements of a "systematic [youth] program": mission statement, volunteers, gathering, regular intervals, completions of mission.
Question:
a) If any one element is removed from your definition, does the "systematic program" cease being such? In other words, if my church had no mission statement but had all the other elements (save, obviously, the last) would it be forbidden?
b) Related to answer 3 above: Are there times that an elder may _non_-programmatically teach youth apart from their fathers? If so, what parameters are allowed? And upon what biblical principles? 




Shawn Mathis said:


> 4. It is a mistake to make a case for well-done unbiblical ecclesiology. That is the equivalent to a well rolled doob. It may be well rolled, but it doesn't honor God. I am not comfortable trying to improve on God's plan for raising youth in the faith. Why in the world does the church insist on this model??? It is unbiblical and it's failing to turn out disciples. It's FIC counerparts are turning out a vastly greater percentage of well saved people. It's madness."


I will respond to this in a separate post.

thanks,


----------



## nasa30

Shawn Mathis said:


> I do not presume that Mr. Wolfe speaks for all FICs.


Maybe a little about who Pastor Wolfe is would be helpful to set the record straight on this point.


----------



## Shawn Mathis

Judson, If you know something about him and his connections please inform me. As it is, I know there is diversity among them. I have only studied the big daddy of them all, the National Center for Family Integrated Churches.


----------



## FredWoilfe

> a) If any one element is removed from your definition, does the "systematic program" cease being such? In other words, if my church had no mission statement but had all the other elements (save, obviously, the last) would it be forbidden?
> b) Related to answer 3 above: Are there times that an elder may non-programmatically teach youth apart from their fathers? If so, what parameters are allowed? And upon what biblical principles?



a. My effort in pointing out these elements in a programmatic ministry was not to provide a definitive litmus for identification. When I look at modern youth ministry, these elements are some of my observations. Would you not agree that these elements are common in modern youth ministry? If so, would you also agree that modern youth ministries create mini churches who's structures are unbiblical?

b. This subject is more easily understood in the framework of jurisdiction. And to clarify, I think it is always appropriate to have fathers present and involved in the teaching of their children by the elders. In matters of church ordinances, it is appropriate for the children to be subject to the teaching of the elders of the church. When the father places the child under the teaching of an elder for a specific purpose and for a specific amount of time, no jurisdictional lines have been crossed. The father is still involved and the elder fulfills his function as a teacher and minister of the ordinances. The Biblical basis for this is one of the common objections for FIC. Take for example Paul at the feet of Gamaliel, or Jesus in the temple. These were examples from scripture where these times take place, but we must admit that they are in a different universe than the system put in place with regard to modern youth ministry. 

In conversations such as this, I am faced with the difficult challenge of proving a negative. How can I prove that the scripture is devoid of programmatic age-segregated youth ministry? If this point is conceeded, then we are in a discussion of pragmatism, which leads to a never-ending dialogue of our own opinions. As I have stated in the past this is my thought process considering the Biblical argument. 

*1. *God his given a sufficient and authoritative source prescribing how He should be worshiped.
*2. *That source is the Holy Scriptures, and the scriptures alone. (2 Pet. 1:3-4; 1 Tim 3:15; 2 Tim. 3:16-17)
*3.* If man worships God in a manner prescribed by scripture, he forms that worship in the image of God.
*4.* If man worships God in a manner outside of scripture it is of his own invention.
*5.* If man worships according to his own invention, he forms that worship in the image of man. (Matthew 15:3,8,9; 2 Kings 16:10-18)
*6.* worshipping God in the image of man is unacceptable to Christians .
*7.* The scripture specifically prescribes men leading their families, and for wives and children to be subject to them in everything, including worship ((Eph 5:21-33; Col 3:18-19; Tit 2:3-5; 1 Pet 3:1-7, 1 Cor 11:7-9).
*8.* The scripture specifically prescribes men to teach the scriptures in such a way that their children and grandchildren will fear the Lord. (Deut. 6:2; Lk.1:50).
*9.* The scriptures specifically prescribe when and how men should teach their children the scriptures, including in multi generational sacred gatherings,(so as to fulfill #8)(Deut. 16:9-14; Josh. 8:34-35; Ezra 10:1; 2 Chr.20:13; Nehemiah 12:43; Joel 2:15-16; Luke 12:42-47; Col 4:14; Acts 20:7; Eph. 6:1-4).
*10.* The scriptures do not at any time describe, nor prescribe programmatic age segregated worship gatherings.
*11.* Therefore, multi-generational gatherings are the intention of God in our worship, and age-segregated worship gatherings are formed in the image of man and are unacceptable to Christians.


----------



## Shawn Mathis

Mr. Wolfe,

Let us back up a bit. 

It ought to be known that I am a conservative, old-school Presbyterian adhering to the Westminster Confession of Faith. As such, I take the historical practices and writings of my church as expressing (in general) their understanding of jurisdictions, parental authority and Christian nurture.

Where are you coming from?

Now for the questions:

1) I am not asking you to defend a "negative" but to elucidate a positive:I specifically wrote "Are there times that an elder may non-programmatically teach youth apart from their fathers?" Part of your answer, "When the father places the child under the teaching of an elder for a specific purpose and for a specific amount of time, no jurisdictional lines have been crossed." I think that is a "yes".

a) "If so, what parameters are allowed? And upon what biblical principles?" which is not asking you to prove a negative (as you put it). I think your definition of a "youth ministry" answers that question. 

b) "I think it is always appropriate to have fathers present and involved in the teaching of their children by the elders." The word "appropriate" in common parlance is not the same as _commanded_. Are you saying that parents _may _sit in the class and be involved (indeed have the right) but do _not have to_? Then I *agree*.

c) Part of your answer states, "In matters of church ordinances, it is appropriate for the children to be subject to the teaching of the elders of the church." If by this you mean the public means of grace then we are *in agreement*. 

d) "The father is still involved and the elder fulfills his function as a teacher and minister of the ordinances." *I agree*. I sometimes think this is a big problem that FICs are trying to deal with. And it must be clear that whatever role non-parents have, parents must _always be involved_, meaning being minimally informed. 

2) I am not interested in defending "modern youth ministry". What I am interested in is defending the _responsible_ use of _non-parental authorities_ (not limited to church officers either) in both formal and non-formal settings (Titus 2:3). But my position is not immediately before us now but can be discussed further on.

3) Your last point, the biblical argument, is confusing.
a) The debate is _not _about public worship, which you mention multiple times in your syllogism. The regulative principle of worship is adhered to by conservative, confessional Reformed folk (Presbyterian, Baptists and Congregationalists). Unfortunately, Mr. Brown's book creates the same confusion. As does the NCFIC confession, etc. If you are debating a typical Evangelical, then bringing up the RPW against children's worship is a good plan. Otherwise, the debate lies elsewhere.
b) The debate is about events, teachers, and gatherings _outside_ of public worship.

With this final clarification, please proceed.

thank you,


----------



## nasa30

Shawn Mathis said:


> Judson, If you know something about him and his connections please inform me. As it is, I know there is diversity among them. I have only studied the big daddy of them all, the National Center for Family Integrated Churches.


 No, I don't know anything about Mr. Wolfe or his connections.

You stated that you are doing this post so you can know



> about what exactly family integrated churches believe



But you also said


> I do _not _presume that Mr. Wolfe speaks for all FICs.



How can you do both? Know exactly what FIC believe yet know that Mr. Wolfe does not speak for all FIC's. 

This thread is really just the understanding that Mr. Wolfe has of what FIC is.


----------



## Shawn Mathis

Judson,

You are both correct and incorrect. 

To the extent that people follow what Mr. Wolfe writes on the subject (and people do follow his ministry) and to the extent that he endorses their work (the movie for instance), to that extent this interchange is helpful. Plus, the logic, in my experience, (see other postings this year on this topic), is quite similar anyway.

But, go ahead and ask what, if any relationship he has with Mr. Brown and the NCFIC. 

thanks,

PS. If you can get a more popular representative to have a public talk with me, I'm open.


----------



## nasa30

How would you quantify that people follow his ministry and how does that relate to your point that you know he does not speak for all of FIC. Still seems double speak to me.



Shawn Mathis said:


> PS. If you can get a more popular representative to have a public talk with me, I'm open.



Not interested in that either really. Being anti-FIC seems to be a hobby horse of yours. Not speaking against your character, just the fact that almost every single post of yours here on the PB is about FIC. You also seem to comment on every pro-fic blog that I looked at with the same comments. 

I just wanted to comment that this really is the opinion of Pastor Wolfe and will not lead to the conclusion of


> about what exactly family integrated churches believe


----------



## Shawn Mathis

---------- Post added at 05:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:25 PM ----------

Dear Judson,

Your point that this interchange cannot speak for all FICs is a given. But since what I wrote was not precise enough I will explicate the implied adjective _some_.

This interchange cannot by definition speak for all FIC. And if I had a talk with Mr. Brown, that would still be the case. But I do not think you would consider that reason enough not to have a public dialogue. 

Your comment ("seems to be a hobby horse of yours." etc.) I take as a question (an not an ad homimen) but I am not sure what exactly it is? Perhaps you are wondering why a minister who has encountered this odd movement in his own backyard, discovered some divisive language and beliefs, investigated further the issue to protect his flock, helps them, then others ask him about it, and soon he finds out he is in a unique position to help others understand the pluses and minuses of this movement. (I never said I was "anit-FIC"). One way that is accomplished by someone with no big budget or big name is to go out and pass the word. Besides, everywhere I have been I have been open to correction for any factual errors. None have been forthcoming.

Lastly, if you have watched and investigated the issue, and I hope you have, then the average reader will discover similar arguments and rhetoric among many of the writers and comments. In which case, this will have been quite productive.

take care,


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Judson,

Pastor Mathis has done extensive study in other areas also. This isn't necessarily a hobby horse. In fact I have read him in a light where he raises a lot of the same concerns that the NCFIC raises and he readily acknowledges the shortcomings they see and some of the things that remedy them. 

Pastor Wolfe is an advocate for this movement and he does seem to have quite a work based upon this subject. There are some concerns raised about this movement. As you know, there have been some strong criticisms from some Pastors and long time members of this discussion forum directed at this group. Pastor Mathis has written many other blogs also. I specifically posted some of his directed blogs on this topic here and he was kind enough to start exchanging and sharing what he has learned with us on this topic. And he has done quite a bit of research on this topic as a Pastor. It is something that many Pastors are having to work their way through as Pastors. 

As it took years for the Federal Vision to come to some light with its various directions, I believe Pastor Mathis has tried his best to understand this issue as it relates to his ministry as a responsible Shepherd. He is effectively trying to look at the major proponents and spokesmen of this movement. It appears that Pastor Wolfe is one of them. This movement might not be as dangerous or varied as the Federal Vision but some of it does seem to be a little off kilter in my estimation. After all these people are coming together under a banner that would be friendly to all sorts of theologies and soteriological distinctions which is a valid critique also. And I think you would acknowledge the danger in that. Just because someone is on a list, it seems it might give some credence to a visit by a family that doesn't understand or might be dupped into a Church with poor teaching. I imagine maybe that there are some who might hold to the Federal Vision that could possibly even list themselves with the FIC movement without fear of being distinguished as a Church that holds to Federal Vision. After all the important thing is that they are FIC. 

Anyways, I don't consider this to be a hobby horse of Pastor Mathis nor has he been anti-FIC. He has definitely pointed out some of the inconsistencies and historical facts that refute a few of their claims. And I would think that they would be more than willing to want to be on the side of historical evidence and truth. Wouldn't you Judson? After all I think we can both see that Pastor Mathis is humble and willing to do this very thing also.


----------



## nasa30

I am not planning on hijacking this thread so this will most likely be my last post in it. 

I posted because of the statement 


> about what exactly family integrated churches believe


because that was an untrue statement of what this thread could accomplish. That statement was changed yesterday to include the word "Some" which is fine with me. 

I am not sure how you could not see 49 out of 51 post on PB about FIC as saddling up the old hobby horse. It was a statement/note and not ad homimen or a question. Making the same comments on blogs that mention FIC and that the only two reviews you gave on Amazon were on a Weed in the church and Divided, and your commenting on other positive reviewers just helped put things in perspective for me.

Amazon.com: Profile for Shawn C. Mathis



> Anyways, I don't consider this to be a hobby horse of Pastor Mathis nor has he been anti-FIC



I just picked up that feeling from some comments made about the leadership if the NCFIC like the one below



> Shawn Mathis:
> August 5, 2011 at 7:34 pm
> “Never ascribe to malice that which can adequately be explained by incompetence”
> napoleon bonaparte





> The movie pulled of a similar sloppy usage of language: it called Mr. Phillips an “historian”! And another guy was a “theologian”!



are sunday schools and youth groups not biblical?


----------



## Hebrew Student

nasa30,

I was a part of that thread on Karen Campbell's website, and so I have to protest your misuse of that quotation of Shawn. If you look at what Shawn said in context, you will find that we were discussing the misuse of quotations from women like Phillis Shlafly, where they were interviewed and used for films without their knowledge. Karen Campbell specifically called up these women, and asked them about it, and they said they had no knowledge that their quotations were being used in the way they were.

What I said is that I thought the whole issue was one of incompetence, since many of these folks jump to irrational conclusions. Several others wanted to call it a violation of the ninth commandment. The point is that Shawn and I were actually writing in defense of these folks character, saying that we didn't think they intended any malice, and it was in that context that Shawn gave that quotation from Napoleon Bonaparte.

Also, as far as the quotation of Shawn where Shawn said, "The movie pulled of a similar sloppy usage of language: it called Mr. Phillips an “historian”! And another guy was a “theologian”!" Do you deny that Mr. Phillips is a trained lawyer, and not a historian? Also, is it not true that some of the people interviewed in the film are likewise not trained in theology, but some other field? There is nothing wrong with pointing out that a person does not have the background to do what they are doing, because they don't have the ability to examine the argumentation fairly. Do you not remember Dave Hunt trying to do a book on Calvinism, when he didn't even have reading knowledge of Greek or Hebrew? I am sure that you would most definitely say that Mr. Hunt was wrong for doing that!

The difference is that Shawn *is* a historian. He has told me some of the people he has studied under, and they are people who we would all recognize as responsible church historians who teach or have taught at major reformed seminaries. I am not saying that everyone in the movie was incompetent. However, Shawn is exactly right that some people who are not trained in certain areas were lifted to the position of it being their profession, when they have no training in the area whatsoever.

God Bless,
Adam


----------



## nasa30

Hebrew Student said:


> I was a part of that thread on Karen Campbell's website, and so I have to protest your misuse of that quotation of Shawn. If you look at what Shawn said in context



Which is why I posted the link to the site as well. It was not a "Shawn said on a website somewhere". The link was there for follow up if anyone was so inclined.


----------



## Herald

This is getting downright silly. The FIC is a growing phenomena in the church. It stands for many good things but it's not without controversy. For the hyberbole cast from both sides a thoughtful Q&A is beneficial. Lets leave it at that. If the thread topic doesn't interest you then move on. 

sent from my most excellent Motorola Atrix.


----------



## calgal

Always have the fathers involved? Do the FIC's realize they in effect are totally excluding interested "heathens" since their pagan or atheist daddies are supposed to teach them. Which in my case would mean I would NOT have been saved, baptized and married to a Christian. Then there are the abusive daddies and husbands who DO exist in Reformed churches (even FIC's). Pastor Mathis, I wonder if FIC's really consider us first generation Christians (the former Jews, Muslims, Catholic, atheist/agnostic raised, Hindus, Mormons, pagans etc) to be saved or if we are unworthy.


----------



## Shawn Mathis

calgal said:


> Always have the fathers involved? Do the FIC's realize they in effect are totally excluding interested "heathens" since their pagan or atheist daddies are supposed to teach them. Which in my case would mean I would NOT have been saved, baptized and married to a Christian. Then there are the abusive daddies and husbands who DO exist in Reformed churches (even FIC's). Pastor Mathis, I wonder if FIC's really consider us first generation Christians (the former Jews, Muslims, Catholic, atheist/agnostic raised, Hindus, Mormons, pagans etc) to be saved or if we are unworthy.



Dear Gail,

I certainly understand how much rhetoric of the movement gives this impression. Earlier on before they radically modified their online confession, there seemed to be little talk about these questions. Now, as I recall, they allow for "exceptions" and, i think, this is one of them. But the question of how and why of exceptions has not been answered (see here).

I am hoping Mr. Wolfe can help answer that.


----------



## calgal

Shawn Mathis said:


> calgal said:
> 
> 
> 
> Always have the fathers involved? Do the FIC's realize they in effect are totally excluding interested "heathens" since their pagan or atheist daddies are supposed to teach them. Which in my case would mean I would NOT have been saved, baptized and married to a Christian. Then there are the abusive daddies and husbands who DO exist in Reformed churches (even FIC's). Pastor Mathis, I wonder if FIC's really consider us first generation Christians (the former Jews, Muslims, Catholic, atheist/agnostic raised, Hindus, Mormons, pagans etc) to be saved or if we are unworthy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear Gail,
> 
> I certainly understand how much rhetoric of the movement gives this impression. Earlier on before they radically modified their online confession, there seemed to be little talk about these questions. Now, as I recall, they allow for "exceptions" and, i think, this is one of them. But the question of how and why of exceptions has not been answered (see here).
> 
> I am hoping Mr. Wolfe can help answer that.
Click to expand...


Pastor Mathis:

Thank you. The things that bother me are the above and the resemblance to mormon teachings. One rather interesting teaching is that covenant children to the LDS were "more valiant in the "pre-existence" than those born to gentiles. I am not saying FIC's are heretics but there are some interesting and disturbing parallels that are hard to miss. And hopefully as the movement matures, the garbage will be thrown away.


----------



## FredWoilfe

*Well, Well*

I cannot seem to keep up. I also cannot commit to commenting but every couple days in regard to this issue. 

I would like to clear up a few questions that have been raised: 

I do not speak for all FIC's, nor does anyone else. The cry of this movement is the Sufficiency of Scripture, and that is what they should encourage, as should all local Churches. I am a Pastor, but I am in between ministries at the moment, and I am focusing on the discipleship of my family and serving at the church I now attend. That being said, I attend the Church where Scott Brown serves as an elder, and I moved to this area for that very purpose. I believe that FIC is a good and more perfect expression of the Church, and it is my heartcry to speak about it. As such I have continued my internet presence as an itinerant speaker and teacher, with an emphasis on family discipleship. 



> Always have the fathers involved? Do the FIC's realize they in effect are totally excluding interested "heathens" since their pagan or atheist daddies are supposed to teach them. Which in my case would mean I would NOT have been saved, baptized and married to a Christian. Then there are the abusive daddies and husbands who DO exist in Reformed churches (even FIC's). Pastor Mathis, I wonder if FIC's really consider us first generation Christians (the former Jews, Muslims, Catholic, atheist/agnostic raised, Hindus, Mormons, pagans etc) to be saved or if we are unworthy.



Do we not believe God is sovereign over salvation? Do you actually believe that the salvation of youth are riding on the backs of the youth pastors? If that is the contention, there is much more to talk about than FIC, but a fundamental problem with soteriology. If the scriptures tell us, "Train up a child in the way he should go, even when he is old he will not depart from it...", then we have no better place to go than to the scriptures alone to formulate our framework. Practically speaking, a child with unbelieving parents or the like should have fathers within the church who will bring those children into their homes, and show them how life is supposed to look. At the same time, the elders of the church should be working with those unbelieving parents, sharing the gospel and weeping in prayer over them. This is the opposing approach to programmatic age-segregated ministry, where the influence of the foolish hearts of all manner of children become the overriding theme of gatherings. 

As far as answering the question of exactly how much time a youth spends in age segregated situation, I do not intend to become legalistic by trying to set fraction of time or other such nonsense. It comes down to having the hearts of your children. If you spend a lot of time with your kids, you know if you have their hearts or not. If you don't know what that means, then I will try to be a little more specific. When I tell my family, "Time for family worship!" at night, my kids cheer. There have been times where one of them has given me the, "Awwwww man..." response, and I know their heart is slipping. When I ask if anyone wants to go to the store on an errand and my kids drop what they are doing and fight over who gets to go, then I know I have their hearts. They desire my time and my attention, and as such, I have a much easier time sharing the gospel with them, and talking about their struggles with sin. If the state of your child's heart is not a concern, or something that has not crossed your mind, then I see why spending time with a youth group would not be a big deal. One example from scripture is Rehoboam. David did not have his son's heart, and he listened to the counsel of his foolish peers rather than the ancient ways. You all know how that turned out. This was a failure of David as a father. Another famous example is Jonathan Edwards. He was a brilliant, prayerful and Godly man. On the other hand, he was a neglectful father and husband. This spawned in one generation Arron Burr, who mortally wounded Alexander Hamilton. There are many examples on the other hand of men who spent time nurturing their children, and did not pass that responsibility off to others, and have experience multi-generational faithfulness. 

If there are any further questions regarding specifics, I would ask that they be re-posted so I don't have to sift through all of the posts that have been added. Thanks!


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

*******_*Moderator Note*_*******


I think I will propose that maybe we should limit discussion to mostly between the main participants of this dialogue. If you have a question lets try to keep them to a minimum for the benefit of Pastor's Wolfe and Mathis so they can stay caught up with each other. It might be better if Reverend Mathis and Pastor Wolfe have the main dialogue. I hope that is okay. It is only fair to Pastor Wolfe in my estimation. If someone has a question they want to ask go ahead and ask it but try to keep it in direct relation to one of the Pastors so we don't rabbit trail between each other. I will try to think of a way to keep it under control so that Pastor Wolfe and Pastor Mathis can interact the best possible way they can. I may not be perfect at this. And I admit this is going to take a bit of work on my part so please bare with me. I really believe this can be beneficial and enlightening concerning a very important subject. I have noted in other places one of the problems I have seen in the last few decades has been a stealing of the affections of our children away from their God given authority. That is their parents. This discussion is very important to that issue. Our Children need for us to have this discussion without ad hominem and with a lot of concern and accuracy. I really appreciate the work that the guys are trying to do on this subject. 

If you have any concerns or want to communicate with either Pastor Wolfe or Pastor Mathis I am sure they will also be more than accommodating outside of this forum. 

Thank you guys. I know we all love the truth and hope to grow closer to it. 

The Law of the Lord is perfect converting the soul. The Testimony of the Lord sure making wise the simple. May we be humble, loving, and growing ever closer to Him by His appointed means.


----------



## Shawn Mathis

Mister Wolfe,

Yes, please follow the moderator's advise. I wrote my response (post #7). I will reprint the more pertinent section below to help continue our discussion:



Shawn Mathis said:


> 2) I am not interested in defending "modern youth ministry". What I am interested in is defending the responsible use of non-parental authorities (not limited to church officers either) in both formal and non-formal settings (Titus 2:3). But my position is not immediately before us now but can be discussed further on.
> 
> 3) Your last point, the biblical argument, is confusing.
> a) The debate is _not _about public worship, which you mention multiple times in your syllogism. The regulative principle of worship is adhered to by conservative, confessional Reformed folk (Presbyterian, Baptists and Congregationalists). Unfortunately, Mr. Brown's book creates the same confusion. As does the NCFIC confession, etc. If you are debating a typical Evangelical, then bringing up the RPW against children's worship is a good plan. Otherwise, the debate lies elsewhere.
> b) The debate is about events, teachers, and gatherings outside of public worship.
> 
> With this final clarification, please proceed.
> 
> thank you,


----------



## Herald

FredWoilfe said:


> Practically speaking, a child with unbelieving parents or the like should have fathers within the church who will bring those children into their homes, and show them how life is supposed to look. At the same time, the elders of the church should be working with those unbelieving parents, sharing the gospel and weeping in prayer over them.



Fred, I'm a bit confused by your response. If a child has unbelieving parents then it is unlikely that they are going to be reached outside the church unless there is some sort of gospel outreach. If they are reached by some type of gospel outreach wouldn't using "fathers within the church" be usurping parental authority (unless, of course, the father yielded his authority)? Of course, you may be assuming that these are unbelieving families who are visiting the church, but I'm not sure based on your response.



FredWoilfe said:


> If the state of your child's heart is not a concern, or something that has not crossed your mind, then I see why spending time with a youth group would not be a big deal.



I am not an advocate of organized youth groups led by youth pastors. That said, I think it's presumptuous to assume that a father who allows his children to attend a youth group is doing so because either is not concerned about the heart of his children, or is ignorant of the facts. There are many fathers who view youth groups as a virtue; they are convinced that youth groups will benefit their children spiritually. You and I may disagree with them, but we should be careful not to impugn their motives.


----------



## FredWoilfe

> 2) I am not interested in defending "modern youth ministry". What I am interested in is defending the responsible use of non-parental authorities (not limited to church officers either) in both formal and non-formal settings (Titus 2:3). But my position is not immediately before us now but can be discussed further on.
> 
> 3) Your last point, the biblical argument, is confusing.
> a) The debate is not about public worship, which you mention multiple times in your syllogism. The regulative principle of worship is adhered to by conservative, confessional Reformed folk (Presbyterian, Baptists and Congregationalists). Unfortunately, Mr. Brown's book creates the same confusion. As does the NCFIC confession, etc. If you are debating a typical Evangelical, then bringing up the RPW against children's worship is a good plan. Otherwise, the debate lies elsewhere.
> b) The debate is about events, teachers, and gatherings outside of public worship.
> 
> With this final clarification, please proceed.



2. Older women are to teach younger women how to love their husbands and children. This is a fine example of age-integrated ministry. My wife may spend time canning tomatoes with an elder's wife, or other Godly experienced woman, and discuss the issues of life. This is a very profitable form of discipleship. 

3a. If we are in agreement with the RPW, then there will be no problem finding agreement that children's church, Age-segregated Sunday School, and Sunday night youth Worship gatherings are unacceptable. FIC does speak to the larger evangelical world, and therefore finds profit in the RPW. The driving issue behind the RPW and all that we are discussing is the Sufficiency of Scripture. It is this sentiment which drives us to also question programmatic age-segregated youth ministry. If an exegetical argument could be formed for this practice, I would immediately relent. 

b. If the debate is centered on events, teachings and gatherings outside of public worship, then I would like you to narrow this to kind of events teachings and gatherings you have in mind. I could speculate, but I think it would profit the discussion to define our terms.


----------



## "William The Baptist"

Herald said:


> I am not an advocate of organized youth groups led by youth pastors. That said, I think it's presumptuous to assume that a father who allows his children to attend a youth group is doing so because either is not concerned about the heart of his children, or is ignorant of the facts. There are many fathers who view youth groups as a virtue; they are convinced that youth groups will benefit their children spiritually. You and I may disagree with them, but we should be careful not to impugn their motives.



Presumptuous, perhaps, but not unrealistic. My father saw youth group as a "virtue" as you put it, and I will tell you what it wrought: fragmentation of my family, discord, disunity, worldliness, etc etc etc. Of course, since I was raised in a whole family, same mom and dad, seven siblings... churched my whole life, it was not as detrimental as it was to many I knew/know. It is a flawed design to let companions of fools _thrive_. I learned most sinful and worldly things from youth pastors sermons (of course, he was speaking to those "struggling with sin" that only shocked my innocence) and the kids of the youth groups. I would advocate that _many_ parents do not actually understand the dangers of youth group models. My heart was so distanced from my father due to this... and it is only from recent years toils, prayers, and tears, do I strive to build on my relationship with him (most of my siblings could care less and their heart is STILL far from him even though we are older and supposedly wiser).

Thus, ignorance. I would honestly say, that while I gleaned some good from my seven years in youth groups (various ones too... we visited a few churches), I do not think that I would attribute much benefit spiritually during those years from it.


----------



## Shawn Mathis

Mr. Wolfe, To continue our discussion (just search out my posts for now):



FredWoilfe said:


> 2. Older women are to teach younger women how to love their husbands and children. This is a fine example of age-integrated ministry. My wife may spend time canning tomatoes with an elder's wife, or other Godly experienced woman, and discuss the issues of life. This is a very profitable form of discipleship.



A. Do you think such is profitable for an older women to teach a few younger women for an hour a week for a few months? If so, why? If so, why not a whole year? If not, why not?



FredWoilfe said:


> 3a. If we are in agreement with the RPW, then there will be no problem finding agreement that children's church, Age-segregated Sunday School, and Sunday night youth Worship gatherings are unacceptable. FIC does speak to the larger evangelical world, and therefore finds profit in the RPW. The driving issue behind the RPW and all that we are discussing is the Sufficiency of Scripture. It is this sentiment which drives us to also question programmatic age-segregated youth ministry. If an exegetical argument could be formed for this practice, I would immediately relent.
> 
> b. If the debate is centered on events, teachings and gatherings outside of public worship, then I would like you to narrow this to kind of events teachings and gatherings you have in mind. I could speculate, but I think it would profit the discussion to define our terms.



A. The RPW does _not_ speak to the question of Sunday schools if such SS do not replace public worship (as they do in some churches). As for children's and youth worship services, *we are in agreement*. Sunday school is not worship and exists in the same category as catechizing outside of public worship (By the way, many Protestant catechizing classes, like the some Puritans, were age-segregated, see here.)

B. I have no narrow interest outside of public worship. Pick any. But the position of the head of the NCFIC, in his book, A Weed in the Church and in a recent blog posting, as well as the vague language of the NCFIC confession, seems to limit any discipleship and/or fellowship meeting outside of worship to age _and _family-integrated. Is that your position? If so, why?

thank you,


----------



## MW

John Calvin, Commentary on Jeremiah, 4:312:



> Paul, even by one sentence, has settled this controversy; for when he exhorts children to obey their parents, he modifies his exhortation by saying, "In the Lord." (Eph. 6:1.) We then see that Paul commands children to obey their parents, not in everything, or without limitation, but so that God, who is the Sovereign and the only Father of all, may still retain his authority, and that earthly parents may not claim for themselves so much authority as to ascend the throne of God, as though they were lawgivers to souls.


----------



## Herald

&quot;William The Baptist&quot;;887665 said:


> Presumptuous, perhaps, but not unrealistic. My father saw youth group as a "virtue" as you put it, and I will tell you what it wrought: fragmentation of my family, discord, disunity, worldliness, etc etc etc.



Leah, I do not support youth groups. I have seen many of the same things you mention. My response to Fred Wolfe was regarding the intention/motivation of the parents who send their kids to youth groups. Not all of them believe they do not have the heart of their children, or are doing so out of ignorance. There is intense pressure in many churches for parents to have their children participate in youth groups. In fact, the church planted our current church did everything but initiate church discipline on parents who would not send their children to age segregated Sunday schools. Most of the parents acquiesced to these pressures, believing they were doing the right thing.


----------



## "William The Baptist"

Herald said:


> Leah, I do not support youth groups. I have seen many of the same things you mention. My response to Fred Wolfe was regarding the intention/motivation of the parents who send their kids to youth groups. Not all of them believe they do not have the heart of their children, or are doing so out of ignorance.



I understood that you didn't support them. I'm sorry I didn't make myself clear enough then. My father did seem to think it was a "virtue", again, as you put it and _thought he had our hearts_; he didn't and we were pulled away. My father is a godly man whom I love with all my heart, but that is DESPITE youth group and only because the Lord has done so much sanctification work in me understanding my role as a daughter biblically. Yes, I loved him when I was youth group, but my heart was not toward my father in a practical/tangible sense. I have plenty of examples from my life, that which I have seen in peers, and if you wish I can share them... not to say you base _everything_ off experience (I really don't think anyone ought to do this) but just to shed light on youth groups from a very recent perspective (I'm only 20). That is my point, I really think it is due to ignorance _many_ parents allow their kids in youth groups. I mean ignorance in a sense that they do not understand the ramifications of such an activity/model.

Another thought: good intentions are not good enough. Due to ignorance many might have good intentions... but it doesn't justify the motivation.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Leah, 

I am sorry your experience was so bad. But we have a great group of kids that like to get together and study word under the Authority of our Elders and Leadership. Parents also participate. Recently we have gone through Francis Schaeffer's 'How Then Shall We Live' series. We are right now doing something called the TMS, the Topical Memory System. It is designed by the Navigators. The kids are studying two scriptures a week and memorizing them. But one thing is for sure. The teacher is not to take the place or the affections of the Parents. In fact when issues arise one of my questions to the young men and women are, What does your Dad (or Parents) think? And I lead them to seek their counsel and wisdom and point out how their parents love them more than anyone else and then tell them something I see in their Parents life that reflects how they are shining examples of God's grace. Every parent has something good in them to see for the most part. That way the child's affections and admiration for their parents grow because they see how I admire them also. I see no problem with an organized group of teens and adults getting together and focusing on things the kids need to learn or do as a group. Doing things together does have the one another affect the scriptures so emphasize. The "One Anothers' in the Bible are really important. We can't do that unless we are with one another. And sometimes that just takes some planning. Even Parents need to plan their time together or it gets neglected. So it isn't a bad thing to have an organized time to get together as a group of friends for edification, encouragement, exhortation, and doing good works.


----------



## JoannaV

A church with good teaching is likely to have parents who are able to discern the validity and worth of any age-segregated activities offered. A church with not-so-good teaching is likely to have parents who are not so equipped to make those decisions. This is really the root of all such problems.


----------



## calgal

Martin, Pastor Mathis and Mr Wolfe:

I do understand your concerns in relation to a family who is Christian. But then there are cases like myself and my cousin Bryan who are it in our extended families and our fathers did NOT care much for our decision to follow Jesus. There are an awful lot of little Bryans and Gail's who have had their affections swayed to Christ and away from their God Given parents, families and familial religions. We happen to love our God Given parents and will listen to them to a point (on worldly things) and do not need another daddy but would like a mentor or three to help guide us through life in Christendom. Is that or is that not possible within the framework of an FIC? Furthermore, nowhere did I say anything about the youth pastor's existence or absence. I will re-phrase the question with some edits that might help: 

"Always have the fathers involved? Do the FIC's realize they in effect are totally excluding interested "heathens" since their pagan or atheist daddies are supposed to teach them. Which in my case would mean I would NOT have been saved, baptized and married to a Christian. My daddy would have preferred a nice atheist. I wonder if FIC's really consider us first generation Christians (the former Jews, Muslims, Catholic, atheist/agnostic raised, Hindus, Mormons, pagans etc) to be saved or if we are unworthy." 

I await your answers with interest


----------



## Rufus

calgal said:


> "Always have the fathers involved? Do the FIC's realize they in effect are totally excluding interested "heathens" since their pagan or atheist daddies are supposed to teach them. Which in my case would mean I would NOT have been saved, baptized and married to a Christian. My daddy would have preferred a nice atheist. I wonder if FIC's really consider us first generation Christians (the former Jews, Muslims, Catholic, atheist/agnostic raised, Hindus, Mormons, pagans etc) to be saved or if we are unworthy."



What about spiritual mentors in the church that teach you and take you under their spiritual care?


----------



## Grimmson

calgal said:


> would like a mentor or three to help guide us through life in Christendom. Is that or is that not possible within the framework of an FIC? Furthermore, nowhere did I say anything about the youth pastor's existence or absence. I will re-phrase the question with some edits that might help:
> 
> "Always have the fathers involved? Do the FIC's realize they in effect are totally excluding interested "heathens" since their pagan or atheist daddies are supposed to teach them. Which in my case would mean I would NOT have been saved, baptized and married to a Christian. My daddy would have preferred a nice atheist. I wonder if FIC's really consider us first generation Christians (the former Jews, Muslims, Catholic, atheist/agnostic raised, Hindus, Mormons, pagans etc) to be saved or if we are unworthy."
> 
> I await your answers with interest


Gail, those are excellent questions and would like you to forward me Woilfe’s answer, assuming you are alright with it and have Woilfe’s permission to do so. That of course is assuming he doesn’t post his response on here. I am in agreement with Martin that we should try to keep this thread open as a dialogue between Woilfe and Mathis (see post number 21 in this thread).


----------



## Shawn Mathis

Greetings Mr. Wolfe,

Knowing how we are all busy and you were not expecting so many responses on this thread, all I would ask of you in continuance of our agreed-upon discussion is to explain if you agree with Mr. Brown and the NCFIC and why or why not. 

For the sake of the audience, here is their position:

1. NCFIC, article IX: "We affirm that there is no scriptural pattern for comprehensive age segregated discipleship, and that age segregated practices are based on unbiblical, evolutionary and secular thinking which have invaded the church."

Note: this does not specify public worship or not. It is broad-sweeping. See next point.

2. Mr. Brown's book A Weed in the Church (Mr. Brown is president of the NCFIC): 
a) Mr. Brown's answer: ""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." (p.231)
b) What the exception does _not _look like: "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." (p.225) 
c) "Yet this structure [Sunday school] cannot be found anywhere in the Bible. It is not commanded in Scripture.” The Sufficiency of Scripture at Work in the Family Integrated Church, Scott Brown, NCFIC online, Jan. 2011

If I am mistaken, since you are attending Mr. Brown's church, perhaps he can shed light on what he wrote.

thank you,


----------



## Shawn Mathis

Dear reader,

It is regrettable that this potentially useful discussion with Mr. Wolfe has fizzled out. 

But all is not lost. It is clear that some of the FIC are closer to traditional Reformed thought than what would appear at first blush. For instance, some embrace the Regulative Principle of worship and thus reject children's worship services. Their insistence upon parental involvement and responsibility is likewise in line with traditional Reformed thought. 

However, the oddity is the insistence that Sunday school, for instance, cannot be acceptable to a biblically faithful church. One may believe that such institutions have been abused (I do) and maybe some churches should reconsider even enacting SS (that is their freedom) but it is a whole different matter to declare "We affirm that there is no scriptural pattern for comprehensive age segregated discipleship, and that age segregated practices are based on unbiblical, evolutionary and secular thinking which have invaded the church." (see above). 

One does not need to find positive warrant for Sunday school anymore than for babysitting. The whole question is wrong-headed (for specifics see my review of Mr. Brown's short ad hoc defense here). 

My articles are known by Mr. Brown and perhaps others. I am still open to public dialogue but still plan to write more about the topic as long as confusion and rhetoric trump constructive dialogue. I do not have thousands to create a one-sided movie or hundreds to publish a book. But I do have the power of the pen and open-minded readers. And, more importantly, the grace and freedom of Christ.

For those late to the discussion here are some articles about the movement. 

For peace and unity of the church,


----------



## JML

Shawn Mathis said:


> "We affirm that there is no scriptural pattern for comprehensive age segregated discipleship, and that age segregated practices are based on unbiblical, evolutionary and secular thinking which have invaded the church."



I'm confused, what is so wrong with that statement? I admit I haven't read all of the posts in this thread but you would have to admit that there is 0 Biblical precedent for age segregated practice in the church. I'm not sure I understand why people get so upset when someone makes a statement like the one above. Even if they are wrong (which I don't think that they are), you would have to admit that they are erring on the side of caution which seems to me to be commendable.


----------



## Shawn Mathis

Mr. Lanier, I have written much on this topic and wish not to do so again. For those late to the discussion here are some articles about the movement. You only need to read the first article of the link to get the gist.

_The long and short? It is demonstrably wrong._

thank you,


----------



## JML

Shawn Mathis said:


> Mr. Lanier, I have written much on this topic and wish not to do so again.




OK. That's fine. I read your article but I thought you wanted a dialogue.




Shawn Mathis said:


> It is regrettable that this potentially useful discussion has fizzled out.


----------



## Shawn Mathis

Mr. Lanier, A dialogue can certainly commence after reading the article. Part of dialogue is patience and research. Please consider this research on your part.

thanks,


----------



## Shawn Mathis

Mr. Lanier, 

Now that you read the article, does it change the perspective of what that quote claims (article 19)?


----------



## JML

I see what you are saying in your article and you have some valid points against this particular movement. In fact there are some disagreements that I have with the movement as well. However, Scripturally, we do not see the families separated as an example. Yes, I saw the examples that you used in your article. However, in your examples the whole family was not present and separated. In other words, in your examples 4 members of the family were not present at church and separated out. Only a portion of the family was present and those who were present were in the same location. If I and one of my children was sick and at home and my wife and my other child went to church without us, that is not segregated worship (sorry, probably a bad example). Segregated worship has the connotation that all are worshipping in the same location but in different groups. I am rambling now but hopefully got my point across that I don't agree with everything in this movement but I don't believe there is any Biblical precedent for separating families in worship.

---------- Post added at 09:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:15 PM ----------

As a clarification, I do not consider myself as an adherent to this movement, just someone who thinks the Biblical example is having families together in worship.


----------



## Shawn Mathis

Mr. Lanier,

For the record, I do not defend family-segregated worship services (although the NE Puritans did separate the men and women and youth). My counter-examples simple point out that the assertion from the NCFIC confession is inaccurate toward the biblical and historical data. 

The real debate between them and classical Reformed nurture is outside of public worship: sunday school, etc.

thanks for looking into this issue.

take care,


----------



## JML

Shawn Mathis said:


> The real debate between them and classical Reformed nurture is outside of public worship: sunday school, etc.



This is possibly where the difference lies. I don't consider Sunday School outside of public worship. To me, it is on the Lord's Day, at the location of the gathering of the Lord's people. I think the same rules apply to it as do a regular worship service. Therefore it should not be segregated. This is why I am also not a proponent of "Sunday School." I think it provides a way around the RPW for some.


----------



## Shawn Mathis

Mr. Lanier,

I hope you are aware of how odd a position that is from an historical approach from the Reformers. Here is a summary of their practices (which included Sunday catechizing). No confession that I know of holds this position.

As for the NCFIC, I've not heard or read that they hold such a position.


----------



## Jack K

John Lanier said:


> I don't consider Sunday School outside of public worship. To me, it is on the Lord's Day, at the location of the gathering of the Lord's people. I think the same rules apply to it as do a regular worship service.



That is indeed an interesting position. Would you contend that any activities held on Sunday in conjunction with the worship service are therefore part of the service? For example, would you consider a prayer meeting in the pastor's study, held before the stated service gets started, to actually be part of the service? If there's lunch after the service should it follow RPW rules? Or would such a lunch be disallowed, so that God's people may only eat full meals together at other times and places? Does the fact that "Sunday School" is about teaching make the rules for it different?

It sounds to me like your explanation needs further clarification, but I am interested in learning what you mean to say here.


----------



## JML

Jack K said:


> Would you contend that any activities held on Sunday in conjunction with the worship service are therefore part of the service? For example, would you consider a prayer meeting in the pastor's study, held before the stated service gets started, to actually be part of the service?



No. It is not a stated gathering of the church together.



Jack K said:


> If there's lunch after the service should it follow RPW rules? Or would such a lunch be disallowed, so that God's people may only eat full meals together at other times and places?



No. It is a lunch not a worship service so it does not have to follow the Regulative Principle of Worship. The purpose of such a lunch would be fellowship not worship and instruction.



Jack K said:


> Does the fact that "Sunday School" is about teaching make the rules for it different?



Really it all comes down to this: My belief is that only men who are ordained to the office of an elder should instruct the gathered people of God in stated church meetings (obviously there is the possibility for circumstances that could affect this such as men in training, etc., but it should be the guideline). That is what they have been called and set apart for. Therefore, in my view if you were to have a "Sunday School," its teachers would have to be ordained ministers. However, we don't see in the Scriptures the segregation of groups of people in the church to instruct them separately when they came together on the Lord's Day. So, now you have that it must be taught by an elder and it must be everyone together. As a result, what you have is no different from a regular worship service except possibly the exclusion of singing. You could also say the sacraments but even the sacraments are not practiced in every worship service. Hopefully, my logic makes sense, even if you disagree with it. The only other thing that would have to be defined is worship. In my opinion, if the church is gathered together on the Lord's Day in the same location and instruction is taking place, then it is worship.


----------



## Jack K

John Lanier said:


> Really it all comes down to this: My belief is that only men who are ordained to the office of an elder should instruct the gathered people of God in stated church meetings (obviously there is the possibility for circumstances that could affect this such as men in training, etc., but it should be the guideline). That is what they have been called and set apart for. Therefore, in my view if you were to have a "Sunday School," its teachers would have to be ordained ministers. However, we don't see in the Scriptures the segregation of groups of people in the church to instruct them separately when they came together on the Lord's Day. So, now you have that it must be taught by an elder and it must be everyone together. As a result, what you have is no different from a regular worship service except possibly the exclusion of singing. You could also say the sacraments but even the sacraments are not practiced in every worship service. Hopefully, my logic makes sense, even if you disagree with it. The only other thing that would have to be defined is worship. In my opinion, if the church is gathered together on the Lord's Day in the same location and instruction is taking place, then it is worship.



Adding the qualification that it only applies when instruction is taking place helps.

So that we don't get sidetracked let's assume all instruction is elder-led. Would you then say that two or more elders may _never_ divide up the group and teach different lessons to different folks based on maturity level or whatever? Or are you just saying this may not happen on Sundays? The trouble I'm having with your position is that it would seem you either must say that (1) the RPW is in effect any time any elder starts to teach at any time or anywhere or (2) the principle that "whatever is not commanded is forbidden" applies beyond the worship service to include matters like whether or not a church may choose to have lunch, prayer, instructional classes, etc. among its Sunday activities.

It just feels to me like perhaps you are reacting against some bad Sunday School models (and I agree there are many of those, for sure) and using RPW to justify your position when perhaps it shouldn't actually apply. Could you make your argument more strongly some other way?


----------



## fredtgreco

John Lanier said:


> Really it all comes down to this: My belief is that only men who are ordained to the office of an elder should instruct the gathered people of God in stated church meetings (obviously there is the possibility for circumstances that could affect this such as men in training, etc., but it should be the guideline). That is what they have been called and set apart for. Therefore, in my view if you were to have a "Sunday School," its teachers would have to be ordained ministers. However, we don't see in the Scriptures the segregation of groups of people in the church to instruct them separately when they came together on the Lord's Day. So, now you have that it must be taught by an elder and it must be everyone together. As a result, what you have is no different from a regular worship service except possibly the exclusion of singing. You could also say the sacraments but even the sacraments are not practiced in every worship service. Hopefully, my logic makes sense, even if you disagree with it. The only other thing that would have to be defined is worship. In my opinion, if the church is gathered together on the Lord's Day in the same location and instruction is taking place, then it is worship.


First off, preaching is a completely different thing than teaching. There are similarities, but there are important differences. Secondly, there must (Biblically speaking) be opportunities for unordained men to be able to teach, othjerwise there would be no way of determining whether they are "apt to teach" and hence qualified for the office of elder.


----------



## JML

fredtgreco said:


> Secondly, there must (Biblically speaking) be opportunities for unordained men to be able to teach, othjerwise there would be no way of determining whether they are "apt to teach" and hence qualified for the office of elder.



I agree. That is why I stated this in my post:




John Lanier said:


> My belief is that only men who are ordained to the office of an elder should instruct the gathered people of God in stated church meetings (obviously there is the possibility for circumstances that could affect this *such as men in training*, etc., but it should be the guideline)


----------



## JML

Jack K said:


> Could you make your argument more strongly some other way?



Here it is, short and sweet 

1. There is no Scriptural example of the Sunday School model in the Bible or separating people when they came together for corporate worship. If I am wrong, someone please correct me and show me the Scripture.
2. Therefore, the burden does not lie with me to prove why I don't support it. The burden lies with those who want to do it to prove Biblically why they have the right to do so.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

John Lanier said:


> Jack K said:
> 
> 
> 
> Could you make your argument more strongly some other way?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here it is, short and sweet
> 
> 1. There is no Scriptural example of the Sunday School model in the Bible or separating people when they came together for corporate worship. If I am wrong, someone please correct me and show me the Scripture.
> 2. Therefore, the burden does not lie with me to prove why I don't support it. The burden lies with those who want to do it to prove Biblically why they have the right to do so.
Click to expand...

The Law required that only men come to the three major feasts. The Temple had a court for women and children that was separate from the men.

I'm bringing this up not because I believe in segregated worship but because I find "chapter and verse" theology to be a facile approach to the Scriptures. If we're looking for examples of how corporate worship is performed we wouldn't necessarily recommend a hot room where a young man is sitting in a window where he might fall and break his neck. Much of what we discern from the Scriptures is GNC and much of how we govern certain circumstances is from the light of nature.


----------



## Jack K

John Lanier said:


> Jack K said:
> 
> 
> 
> Could you make your argument more strongly some other way?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here it is, short and sweet
> 
> 1. There is no Scriptural example of the Sunday School model in the Bible or separating people when they came together for corporate worship. If I am wrong, someone please correct me and show me the Scripture.
> 2. Therefore, the burden does not lie with me to prove why I don't support it. The burden lies with those who want to do it to prove Biblically why they have the right to do so.
Click to expand...


Aside from what Rich points out regarding a biblical model for separating people... here's what keeps puzzling me:

Your argument depends on the principle that if it's not commanded it's forbidden. In order to make use of that approach, you contend that teaching sessions held on the same day as a worship service are actually an extension of the service and subject to RPW treatment. Your definition of what constitutes worship is heavy on the idea of instruction taking place.

But here's the problem: The regulative principle is a doctrine that depends on several other doctrines, including the idea that there is some measure of continuity between Old Testament temple worship (where the what's-not-commanded-is-forbidden principle is most strongly articulated) and the church's worship today. However, if we define our worship today largely in terms of instruction, we are following the much less regulated synagogue pattern. Then the basis for holding to the RPW in the first place evaporates.

It's important to maintain some distinction between the worship service (which rightly emphasizes the preaching of the Word) and Christian instruction. They have related characteristics but they're not the same, and thinking of them as the same leads to difficulties.

Do you see? If we insist that instructional classes are part of the worship service, we just give those who oppose the regulative principle altogether more reason to say that our support for it is nonsense. The RPW only holds together when we are careful not to extend the principle into other aspects of church life. This is why I'm suggesting you use arguments that don't invoke the RPW. To use it when you're talking about instructional classes only undermines the RPW itself.

I believe the biblical case for not segregating our worship services is very strong. I also believe that if a church chooses to have additional instructional classes you can make some good biblical arguments for not segregating those, or at least for keeping parents involved with their kids' learning. But when we start to lay down "it's forbidden because you can't prove Bible people did it" sorts of rules, we must be very careful to apply them only where appropriate lest they become disregarded everywhere.


----------



## Shawn Mathis

Now that the dialogue with Mr. Wolfe has fizzled out, I am back to the old standby: one sided conversations. 

I have an analysis of Mr. Baucham's unedited interview in the movie Divided here.


----------



## nasa30

Shawn Mathis said:


> Now that the dialogue with Mr. Wolfe has fizzled out, I am back to the old standby: one sided conversations.



What about Pastor Kevin Swanson? According to Google Maps, It looks like he is only about 30 miles from you and is very outspoken on the subject. In fact, wouldn't you both be in the same presbytery?
He has a daily radio show and blog here.

His email is [email protected]


----------



## Shawn Mathis

Dear Judson,

You state that Mr. Swanson is "very outspoken on the subject." What exactly is his position? 

thank you,


----------



## LawrenceU

Brother Shawn, rather than asking Judson or anyone else what is Kevin's position, why not just ask him. He is a minister within your own denomination, and as Judson pointed out right down the road from you.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

same denomination? I don't think so...
I think there's a "name-mix-up" here.


Researching... OK, I'm wrong. Appears to be same as OP pastor. http://reformationchurch.com/
Radical family-integration? Not sure... statement: http://www.reformationchurch.com/download/Church-family-statement.pdf


----------



## Shawn Mathis

Mr. Underwood, et.al.

As Mr. Swanson's a fellow-presbyter I would like to know what people think they are hearing him say per the Fifth Commandment (as equals supporting each other).

Besides, I have talked with him. But I would like to know Judson's view first.


----------



## LawrenceU

Contra_Mundum said:


> Radical family-integration? Not sure... statement: http://www.reformationchurch.com/dow...-statement.pdf



That is the position of almost every family integrated congregation that I know.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

I guess, the question is whether that stand is the same as the position with which Rev.Mathis was originally dialoging. My impression is that there are some appreciable differences.

But anyway, Rev.Mathis asked for someone to put forth the substance of said connection (so as to limit assumptions on any side), and it seems like a reasonable request.


----------



## nasa30

Dear Shawn,

I pointed to Brother Swanson as someone that might have a dialogue with you on this subject but I am not in the habit of speaking for others when they can be asked themselves. I said that he was very outspoken and the information is out there. 

You asked me


> What exactly is his position?


 He is available to be asked so that is best evidence.

Pastor Swanson was in the movie Divided that you write a lot about and has made remarks and comments on the subject. One 3 minute Example from Divided here 

To get his perspective on the film, you could listen to some of his broadcasts like this one -Kevin Swanson Addresses Tim Challies' Response to Divided

Or you could ask him why he is ok with being associated with NCFIC since he speaks at conferences that they put on and speaks at some Vision Forum conferences.

He also seems to fall into your description of Radical Homeschoolers and that conversation could be interesting as well.


----------



## Shawn Mathis

Dear Judson,



nasa30 said:


> I pointed to Brother Swanson as someone that might have a dialogue with you on this subject but I am not in the habit of speaking for others when they can be asked themselves.



Please re-read what I wrote. I never asked you to speak for Mr. Swanson. I asked you what you have heard since you've obviously knew something. That is a reasonable request as pastor Buchanan pointed out. And it occurs often at the puritanboard. 



nasa30 said:


> Or you could ask him why he is ok with being associated with NCFIC since he speaks at conferences that they put on and speaks at some Vision Forum conferences. He also seems to fall into your description of Radical Homeschoolers and that conversation could be interesting as well.



Mr. Judson. I think that is an excellent idea to have a public discussion with him. I will contact him and his session to see if he is able and willing. If others are interested please chime in.


----------



## nasa30

Shawn Mathis said:


> Please re-read what I wrote. I never asked you to speak for Mr. Swanson. I asked you what you have heard since you've obviously knew something. That is a reasonable request as pastor Buchanan pointed out. And it occurs often at the puritanboard.



Your question to me was 


> What *exactly* is his position?


 That is a question better left to the person since he can be asked. No one can know his *exact* position but himself.

Thanks for the tip on how the PB works.



Contra_Mundum said:


> Rev.Mathis asked for someone to put forth the substance of said connection



I believe my last post put forth that requested connection.


----------



## Shawn Mathis

Judson, what dialogue format did you have in mind? Pre-set questions, free-form, etc?


----------



## nasa30

Shawn Mathis said:


> Judson, what dialogue format did you have in mind? Pre-set questions, free-form, etc?



No, you have me wrong. I am not looking or requesting for you to do anything. There are opinions and arguments from both sides all over the internet on this subject already so I don't think another outlet is needed honestly. I am content with the ongoing conversations that are going in on blogs now. 

You made the statement


> I am back to the old standby: one sided conversations.


I was merely making a suggestion to you based on that comment. I have Pastor Swansons podcasts sent to my ipod and enjoy them and he was in the movie Divided so I thought of him when you made your comment.


----------



## Shawn Mathis

nasa30 said:


> No, you have me wrong. I am not looking or requesting for you to do anything.



Well, the sentence you quoted of mine had the public dialogue with Mr. Wolfe as the context. 

Is anyone interested in a one-on-one or are they satisfied with one-sided blog postings on either side?


----------



## nasa30

Shawn Mathis said:


> nasa30 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you have me wrong. I am not looking or requesting for you to do anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the sentence you quoted of mine had the public dialogue with Mr. Wolfe as the context.
Click to expand...

Yes, you are wanting a public dialogue and I made a suggestion. That's all. I am not looking/requesting you to do anything. It was just a suggestion for you.


----------



## Hebrew Student

nasa30,

I think what Shawn is trying to say is that so many of the heads of the NCFIC are not willing to engage in public dialogue with those _who know and disagree with their position_. The only time I have ever seen them willing to engage is with those who don't know what they are talking about, and are clearly misrepresenting what they believe [the one notable exception, of course, being this thread].

The fact of the matter is, I would like to have dialogue with some of these people on their hermeneutics. I have written about the relevance of speech act theory to the problems that they are bringing up, and would be very interested in seeing what their response to these things would be. However, I constantly see men like Scott Brown or Kevin Swanson going after those who have never heard of the movement, or who do not understand the argumentation of the leaders in the movement. Also, especially with this _Divided_ movie, as well as recent articles in The Washington Post and USA Today, it almost makes it sound as though this is a marketing gimmick with little or no concern for the truth when you are unwilling to even engage your strongest critics in public dialogue.

The value of a public dialogue with the leaders of this movement where there is cross examination is readily apparent. As the book of Proverbs says:

Proverbs 18:17 The first to plead his case seems right, Until another comes and examines him. 

That is why I was so pleased with this public dialogue with pastor Wolfe. It is one notable exception to what I stated above. I would think that, if people really do have the conviction that sunday schools and youth groups are Biblically wrong, they should have the courage of their convictions to take on their strongest opponents, and not hide behind the marketing gimmicks of movies, conferences, and articles in major newspapers.

I am not normally this forceful. However, I am very tired of seeing the leaders in the NCFIC play these games. I am not asking for these leaders to stop their marketing, or even to stop promoting their position. I am simply asking for them to dialogue with someone who is competent in this area like Pastor Mathis, and show that their position can be defended in academic discourse.

God Bless,
Adam


----------



## Shawn Mathis

It was a good suggestion.


----------



## nasa30

Hebrew Student said:


> I think what Shawn is trying to say is that so many of the heads of the NCFIC are not willing to engage in public dialogue with those who know and disagree with their position.





Hebrew Student said:


> However, I am very tired of seeing the leaders in the NCFIC play these games. I am not asking for these leaders to stop their marketing, or even to stop promoting their position. I am simply asking for them to dialogue with someone who is competent in this area like Pastor Mathis, and show that their position can be defended in academic discourse.



I don't see that they are hiding or playing games. When "big name" folks like Tim Challies writes in his blog about it, they respond to it. Both NCFIC and Kevin Swanson did. Dr Voddie Baucham and Dr. Köstenberger had a dialog about it. Sam Waldron has written and they have responded. They are not having face to face dialogues either but the are definitely responding to each other. Other folks have objections but no one has the time to respond to everyone who raises an objection. Any one of us could set up a blog and praise or criticize anything. It seems like they are responding en masse to common objections. Like I said, no one has the time to respond to every Tom, Dick, or Harry that makes a point but they responding to the "big guys" that make comments.


----------



## Hebrew Student

Nasa30,

I am really surprised to hear you say this. The responses from Baucham, Swanson et al to Challies, Waldron, and Kostenberger all complained that they were being misrepresented. This are high profile names, but, apparently, not people who accurately articulated what the NCFIC believes.

What I am talking about is someone like Shawn who is not going to use the whole "they don't believe in regenerate church membership argument" or some other argument that might be close, but does not exactly represent what the NCFIC is saying. It is real easy to pick on high profile names that misrepresent your view. It creates good publicity. It is quite another to pick on someone who knows and understands your perspective, and thus, has a foundation for criticizing key aspects of it, such as your hermeneutics.

God Bless,
Adam


----------



## Shawn Mathis

Update: I contacted Mr. Swanson and his elder last week. I have heard nothing yet but will be seeing them early next week.


----------



## "William The Baptist"

Hebrew Student said:


> It is real easy to pick on high profile names that misrepresent your view. It creates good publicity.



Just a thought, but as for creating good publicity... there comes a time when you must respond to "big name" people when they are misrepresenting you as opposed to every tom, dick, and harry on the internet (not saying Mr. Mathis is that-for that is different, just making a point)... if you have a ministry, conviction, a family, a church, and so many other things you are invested in, constantly answering every opposition is not only tiring, but it isn't beneficial, nor fruitful.


----------



## Hebrew Student

William The Baptist,



> Just a thought, but as for creating good publicity... there comes a time when you must respond to "big name" people when they are misrepresenting you as opposed to every tom, dick, and harry on the internet (not saying Mr. Mathis is that-for that is different, just making a point)... if you have a ministry, conviction, a family, a church, and so many other things you are invested in, constantly answering every opposition is not only tiring, but it isn't beneficial, nor fruitful.



I would say that would only be relevant if I said that they *could not* respond to the big name people, or if I said the must respond to every tom, dick, and harry on the internet. That is a false dilemma. I am not saying that they *can't* respond to the big name people; nor am I saying that they have to respond to every tom, dick, and harry on the internet. What I am saying is that they should also be responding to the *strongest* the other side has to offer. If the big names can only offer misrepresentation, and that is all you respond to, and other people who are not big names, but who know your position such as pastor Mathis get ignored, yes, it is playing games. The reason is that the strongest opposition to your position never gets addressed.

The goal in any discussion should always be truth, and, while responding to big names who misrepresent you is important, so also is dialoguing with the strongest of your opposition, so you can get to the truth of the matter. Again, when the strongest the other side has to offer gets ignored, one begins to wonder if these people are really interested in truth, or just in a marketing gimmick.

God Bless,
Adam


----------



## Hebrew Student

Also, as Shawn pointed out to me, Scott Brown and Kevin Swanson both know of Pastor Mathis' work in this area. Hence, it is not a matter of Shawn being some no name they have never heard of.

God Bless,
Adam


----------



## Shawn Mathis

I spoke with Mr. Swanson. Although he is busy, he is looking into writing a short explanation of his view. His reasoning is different than what is commonly propagated.


----------



## Shawn Mathis

Ladies and Gentlemen,

The last I heard, Mr. Swanson published his paper at his website, here.


----------



## Shawn Mathis

Well, I have a request for a friendly public chat with an FIC pastor. He'll be putting up a new thread shortly and I'll link there. It promises to be open and fruitful.

for peace and unity in Christ's church,

shawn


----------



## southkogs

I've gone ahead and started that thread here: http://www.puritanboard.com/f117/fic-elder-talks-reformed-pastor-70997/#post908860


----------

