# The Church-Integrated Family



## refbaptdude (Jan 8, 2011)

Matthew W. Kingsbury writing for the Ordained Servant an OPC online journal takes aim at the family integrated church. 
Read it here
The Church-Integrated Family « Reformed Baptist Fellowship


----------



## Theoretical (Jan 8, 2011)

My elder showed me this article, and I thought it quite helpful.


----------



## Jack K (Jan 8, 2011)

Excellent article. A keeper.


----------



## calgal (Jan 8, 2011)

Thank you Pastor! Useful link.


----------



## Herald (Jan 9, 2011)

I want to ask a question about the FIC's "family of families" mantra. For some FIC families _family of families_, at its core, elevates the nuclear family above the church in matters where the church has authority. I have seen this firsthand and understand the problem it presents to the church. Is there another view of _family of families_ that some in the FIC hold to; a more moderate view? I know an FIC family that is struggling with this concept; having a strong attachment to VF but a love for the local church. Has anyone seen an inconsistency in this area among FIC families?


----------



## LawrenceU (Jan 9, 2011)

Bill, the beating boy that almost everyone uses when attacking the the NCFIC is the phrase 'family of families'. It is true that the phrase appears in EARLY writings, documents, and discussions. Because it was misunderstood by many, and frankly often twisted from its context, it has been dropped. You will not find it in the current materials and it has been absent for longer than it was included. As a matter of fact, if people would take the time to read the current confession they would see that much of the argument against the FIC is based on, well, not much. It can be found here, NCFIC.org - A Biblical Confession for Uniting Church and Family.

I know that this keeps coming up on the PB. I have yet to see it come up and articles decrying the NCFIC deal with the organisation and its tenets as they currently stand. They, to my recollection, all deal with the group when it first began and had not fully worked out its 'being'.

Remember, too, not every church that claims to be 'family integrated' truly is. Every time, and I do mean every, I have run across a group that would fit the stereotypical body described by the various hit pieces they have not really held to the truth of what is trying to be communicated by the NCFIC. They have always been a group of reactionary ne'er do wells. This occurs in every type of church known to man. This is in much the same way that there are some that call themselves Reformed Baptists who are not at all. The same goes for Presbyterians, Methodists, Policemen, Baby sitters, and every other group in the world. The concept of a family integrated church has become the whipping boy de jour in some circles. I have my ideas why that is so, but now is not the time to go into all of that.


----------



## Herald (Jan 9, 2011)

Lawrence, I won't dispute your statement about the phrase "family of families" being removed from most NCFIC documents. In fact I think the first article on Steve's link says exactly that. My question has to do with what I have personally experienced. I know those who use that phrase and understand what they mean by it. For them it used to be a reason to separate from organized churches. They viewed the family, really the father, as the determinate of how worship should be done. I'm not saying everyone who is FIC falls into this mold, but some do. You and I have talked about this. I am amenable to some aspects of the FIC. I believe fathers should take an active lead in the shepherding of their families. I am not a big believer in organized youth groups lead by youth pastors. It would have to be a special youth church and youth pastor to change my mind on that. Age segregated Sunday Schools often fail, not because authority is ceded away from the family, but because the average Sunday school teacher is not qualified to teach. I prefer to have families together in worship with a nursery available for those small children who need it. But what I am sharing are preferences. I'm not prepared to fall on my sword over them. 

There is also the difference between what constitutes FIC and devotees of Vision Forum (VF). While FIC may be the theological conviction, VF is its methodological one. VF adherents can run the gamut from being mildly influenced to marching lock step. It's those families that are more militant in these areas that cause fear in non-FIC churches. This type of fear is generally founded and misplaced. There is an FIC/VF family in our church and, while we've had some vigorous discussions, our church's theological and methodological positions have been well stated and defended. So, no, I don't fear the FIC/VF. I'm simply curious as to where those who call themselves by these descriptors gravitate towards; the mild influence or the extreme.


----------



## LawrenceU (Jan 9, 2011)

I guess the factor that I would like people to see is that it is vast minority of people involved with the family integrated churches that are the type who promote the unbiblical view of fathers you reference above. Actually, I have seen them disciplined in family integrated churches for having that stance. The great majority of family integrated churches hold either the 1689 LBC or the WCF as their confessions, they do not elevate the family and/or the father un-biblically, and hold a high view of the church and its leadership. 

Vision Forum is not the methodological conviction of the family integrated church. Vision Forum is a business and as such sells products. If you polled family integrated churches you would find a wide variety of opinions on Doug Phillips. He and his business are not the de facto representation of family integrated churches by any means. 

I know this is a hot button issue for many folks. Unfortunately the ideology in many circles is labeled by the extreme elements, and sometimes those are not even actual elements. I don't think that any denomination, family, culture, church, movement can be accurately analysed when the analysis focusses on extremes. As I said before there are plenty of folks that call themselves Reformed Baptists who are neither Reformed nor Baptists. It would be unjust to say that they represent the entire group.


----------



## Ne Oublie (Jan 11, 2011)

I agree with Josh. Horrible article.

Scott Brown compiled a book of what Calvin's thoughts were on the family called, Family Reformation. In this book he points out many areas where Calvin himself puts great biblical balance on these issues. Of course, Scott Brown being the Director of NCFIC, compiled these quotations to follow his agenda, but that does not mean they have any less validity. He did a great job putting these together.

It would be great if someone would write a refute to this article to quickly put it to rest.


----------



## Jack K (Jan 11, 2011)

Can you explain further why you thought the article was so horrible? Because I saw some necessary teaching in it. Perhaps that's because I see a lot of "what works for my family" attitudes that are really just an extension of American individualism. People end up judging the church by whether or not it "works" for their family, rather than submitting in the Lord, as a family, to fellow believers. Then they justify their arrogance and independence by saying it's a Christian principle that families come first and dads are the ultimate authority. It seems to me that a lot of families would be helped by practicing some submission. To good elders, of course.


----------



## Wannabee (Jan 11, 2011)

That's part of the problem Jack. It's a straw man argument focused on something that exists within some churches that call themselves integrated, but is not inherent to the perspective. In doing so his brush is too broad and ends up missing his point on many levels. I admit, I didn't read it all. I saw enough that I've seen before to avoid wasting my time.


Blessings,
Pastor of a church that pursues family integration,


----------



## Ne Oublie (Jan 11, 2011)

Jack K said:


> Can you explain further why you thought the article was so horrible? Because I saw some necessary teaching in it. Perhaps that's because I see a lot of "what works for my family" attitudes that are really just an extension of American individualism. People end up judging the church by whether or not it "works" for their family, rather than submitting in the Lord, as a family, to fellow believers. Then they justify their arrogance and independence by saying it's a Christian principle that families come first and dads are the ultimate authority. It seems to me that a lot of families would be helped by practicing some submission. To good elders, of course.


 
Jack, the reason I thought it was horrible is the talking down of marriage and of children in the context of the church. Just as some make too much of these things, as you state, in the context of authority of the church, I believe he goes too far in making them as though they mean nothing at all.

How do we learn these things like submission? The Word says that we should love our wives as Christ loved the church. That we honor our mother and father. That wives respect and submit themselves to their husbands(submitting himself). If this were not important in the context of the church, what is? Families are not the church, but the church is made up of families, always has been, always will be. And yes, there are exceptions, but exceptions they are.

The writer acts as if these great graces and benefits have no benefit in the life to come, then therefore, their benefit in this life, in context of the church, are meaningless. The church has authority over the family, so the family means nothing, seems to be his argument.


----------



## PointyHaired Calvinist (Jan 11, 2011)

Every movement - good and not - has its crazies. Our family is strongly convinced of the Family-Integrated model, but not at the expense of the body of Christ. None of us are "patriarchs" who will set up our own home church; in fact, we believe in submitting to the elders. However, we strongly oppose *age-segregation*, which is a concern of many in the FIC movement and which the OPC article doesn't touch on. He ignores the concerns of many in this movement and picks out the extremists to pick on.


----------



## Jack K (Jan 11, 2011)

Wannabee said:


> That's part of the problem Jack. It's a straw man argument focused on something that exists within some churches that call themselves integrated, but is not inherent to the perspective. In doing so his brush is too broad and ends up missing his point on many levels. I admit, I didn't read it all. I saw enough that I've seen before to avoid wasting my time.





Ne Oublie said:


> Jack, the reason I thought it was horrible is the talking down of marriage and of children in the context of the church. Just as some make too much of these things, as you state, in the context of authority of the church, I believe he goes too far in making them as though they mean nothing at all.
> 
> How do we learn these things like submission? The Word says that we should love our wives as Christ loved the church. That we honor our mother and father. That wives respect and submit themselves to their husbands(submitting himself). If this were not important in the context of the church, what is? Families are not the church, but the church is made up of families, always has been, always will be. And yes, there are exceptions, but exceptions they are.
> 
> The writer acts as if these great graces and benefits have no benefit in the life to come, then therefore, their benefit in this life, in context of the church, are meaningless. The church has authority over the family, so the family means nothing, seems to be his argument.



Both reasonable points, and I think I can agree with them. I came at the article from a different perspective, with concern for a different set of problems. Mine are still valid concerns, I think, as are yours.


----------

