# Family-Integrated Church Model



## Jared

I have been reading through Voddie Baucham's book, "Family-Driven Faith". I'm almost half-way through it. My pastor is moving our church in this direction, but I'm still not clear on everything it entails. I know that most family-integrated churches don't have youth group or children's church or other age-specific ministries like that. I'm not completely sold on the idea to be honest.

Is this common in reformed circles? It seems like this was the model that the Puritans followed. Does anyone here attend an intentionally family-integrated church?


----------



## Idelette

I would say that traditionally the church at large was always family-integrated until the last 100 years or so. Puritanical churches as well as the majority of reformed churches were family integrated. I'm open to correction, but I do believe that is the case. Typically, it began in evangelical movements to have youth groups, and sunday school classes for children, nurseries and even children's church etc. My denomination believes in having the entire family partake in worship, including the children. That's one of the things that drew me to this denomination, because I don't believe it's Biblical to separate the children nor create groups. And the church suffers as a whole when there are intentional divisions within a Body. We were meant to worship, fellowship, and serve as one body. And I think we deny our children a great blessing when they are not sitting under the preaching of the Word which is the means of grace to us. I could give you more info if you'd like, but those are the primary reasons that I agree with family-integrated worship.


----------



## Kevin

I have a friend that pastors a Reformed Baptist church of that ilk. I have visited & I have a few problems with it.

It is very difficelt for unbelievers to understand or navigate. In our culture provision is always made for small children at public meetings that welcome families. The message that you send to the unchurched is "please do not return, until you have learned the rules & expectations of our subculture". It seems to me that we are making it too dificult for people to come to church.

As Tim Keller has said, If we don't prepare to welcome the lost before they come, we won't know what to do with them when they do (come).


----------



## Curt

I have some of the same reservations as Kevin. There is a lot of baggage with the family-integrated model. I certainly agree that children should be with their families during worship if at all necessary. The family-integrated folks commonly take this to great extremes, however, going to the other end of the scale, making families who "aren't there, yet," feel left out.


----------



## LawrenceU

I serve as pastor in a family integrated congregation. This has become a whipping boy issue in some circles. It needn't be. There are a wide variety of family integrated models out there.


----------



## Curt

LawrenceU said:


> I serve as pastor in a family integrated congregation. This has become a whipping boy issue in some circles. It needn't be. There are a wide variety of family integrated models out there.


 
Lawrence, I agree that there a lot of different models. Thoughtful pastors can lead family-integrated congregations in a reasonable fashion. People who just buy into package deals are not necessarily thoughtful.


----------



## puritanpilgrim

I have attended Grace Family Baptist in Spring, since January. Voddie is an elder. It's not a crazy as it sounds, and children learn how to act in church. As for unbelievers, I think we should remember that Jesus had children around him when he preached. This was quite normal for the vast majority of church history. And unbelievers still came into those churches. It could theoretically go both ways. An unbeliever could walk into a FIC church, their kids could go nuts and they may say, "I'm going to the FBC down the street with a nursery." Or they might notice that or kids aren't acting that way. Which might lead them to question why. But, in reality, the main purpose of a church meeting on Sunday is not to make lost people feel comfortable, it is to woship God through song, prayer and word. If we aren't careful we will end up making the same basic aruguments that seeker sensitive churches make. Really, they might not feel welcome, because there is not a rock band. They might not feel welcome when they are told not to partake in the Lord's supper if they are not believers. There is a whole host of reasons an unbeliever might not feel welcome at church. I have a 4yo, 3yo, 20mo, and a 4mo. And we make it though the service by God's grace.


----------



## Ne Oublie

Kevin said:


> I have a friend that pastors a Reformed Baptist church of that ilk. I have visited & I have a few problems with it.
> 
> It is very difficelt for unbelievers to understand or navigate. In our culture provision is always made for small children at public meetings that welcome families. The message that you send to the unchurched is "please do not return, until you have learned the rules & expectations of our subculture". It seems to me that we are making it too dificult for people to come to church.
> 
> As Tim Keller has said, If we don't prepare to welcome the lost before they come, we won't know what to do with them when they do (come).


 

.. a visitor comes in with his child and sees that all the children are with their families, so this man says "wow, this is really hard to understand, where do I send my child, I am use to having a place for them to go".. so, because he is used to the "culture"(Socialism, anti-God is our culture) then therefore the church should be like the culture to accommodate as opposed to having the church teach the visitor that it is God and not culture that rules and orders worship? 

And to the "feeling left out" part below. Is it better that our children not only feel left out but be left out so that visitors are not?
Children desire be with their parents when the parents desire to be with their children, it is the culture that has said that its better for the children to be entertained. It is far more practical to just get up and take your child out of the service area if need be, than to leave your child out of all of it. 

To remove the programs, teen clubs, and children church from the church seems absurd to some who see a need for a babysitter to entertain their children so the they can be attentive and listen without interruption. But what about an alternative which would be to train their children to be attentive themselves and learn from the Body and the Word preached what and how they should be in their manner and conduct toward others which would include learning how to serve visitors. 

And most family-integrated churches have accommodations, like training rooms for smaller children and nursing rooms which have the service going through speakers. These are to accommodate the "needs" of the body.


Visitors are not really "there yet" in many ways, and the same as with all the believers which is why we are all there. LOL.
Should we see family-integration as wrong because of some of the sinful attitudes of the people in these family-integrated churches?


----------



## Jared

Thanks for the input all. I'm not dead-set against it, there are just questions that I have. For instance, where do you incorporate age-appropriate ministries? and how do you involve parents in those age-appropriate ministries?

I do feel like your church becomes more insular when you start moving in that direction. I'm sure that there are churches that are able to move beyond this. I've heard that Voddie Baucham's church is fairly large. So, I'm not trying to paint with broad strokes here, just saying what I've seen so far.


----------



## Kevin

Robert, The case that I was refering to is "dead set" against any accomodation. I am glad to hear that not all FIC are as ridgidly legalistic about this. The ones that I know well are this strict however.

My concern is not that the lost will feel happy with every aspect of a christian worship service, of course they will not. However I am very concerned that we make our offense be the gospel, and NOT our subculture.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

You might want to consider this also. 

Reformed Baptist Blog: FICM Response to Reformed Baptist Critics


----------



## Willem van Oranje

Jared104 said:


> I have been reading through Voddie Baucham's book, "Family-Driven Faith". I'm almost half-way through it. My pastor is moving our church in this direction, but I'm still not clear on everything it entails. I know that most family-integrated churches don't have youth group or children's church or other age-specific ministries like that. I'm not completely sold on the idea to be honest.
> 
> Is this common in reformed circles? It seems like this was the model that the Puritans followed. Does anyone here attend an intentionally family-integrated church?


 
Yes, we are encouraged to have the entire family, including "nursing infants" Psalm 8:2 in the service of God's public worship, at Bible studies, Family Worship, etc. Often times, having separate age-oriented studies and groups is counter-productive to bringing the family together in the faith of Christ.

---------- Post added at 08:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:20 PM ----------




Jared104 said:


> Thanks for the input all. I'm not dead-set against it, there are just questions that I have. For instance, where do you incorporate age-appropriate ministries? and how do you involve parents in those age-appropriate ministries?
> 
> I do feel like your church becomes more insular when you start moving in that direction. I'm sure that there are churches that are able to move beyond this. I've heard that Voddie Baucham's church is fairly large. So, I'm not trying to paint with broad strokes here, just saying what I've seen so far.


 
Primarily, the responsibility of ministering in "age appropriate" ways rests on the parents themselves ministering to their children.


----------



## LawrenceU

PuritanCovenanter said:


> You might want to consider this also.
> 
> Reformed Baptist Blog: FICM Response to Reformed Baptist Critics


 
Just to be balanced you might want to read the NCFIC responses the articles on the Reformed Baptist Blog. They can be found by scrolling down this page: Welcome to NCFIC.org - Promoting Biblical Harmony Between Churches and Families


----------



## Wannabee

Jared104 said:


> Thanks for the input all. I'm not dead-set against it, there are just questions that I have. For instance, where do you incorporate age-appropriate ministries? and how do you involve parents in those age-appropriate ministries?


 
Can you define "age appropriate"? Where does this derive from? Certainly not Scripture. Deuteronomy 6 entails a commandment to teach children the law of God from a young age, all day, day in and day out, so they will know it thoroughly. And where can a child learn more appropriately how to attend himself to worship than in the presence of mature worshipers? Ephesians 6:4 makes it clear that to fail to raise your child in the admonition of the Lord is to provoke them to wrath. The ultimate responsibility is given to the parents. If they're going to delegate that responsibility they better know exactly what their children are receiving, from whom and be ready to reinforce the teaching they're receiving. But most parents simply plunk their kids in the room they're assigned and scurry off to their own classes or worship. That might not be the case on this board, but it is the overwhelming norm in contemporary evangelical churches in the U.S.

I think that much of the problem that is faced in among those who have made the family the golden calf of Christianity. When the family is set forth as the most important unit in society then all else is subservient to the family, including the church. This gets things backwards and makes the bride of Christ into a slave of families. While this is common in age-integrated churches, and even propagated arrogantly, it is also very present in contemporary churches where you might not recognize it so readily. Often someone will claim that they must go to a relative's birthday party or some other event during a worship service, as though this were a better testimony. The idea that blood is thicker than water is applied to the church in a sinful manner that actually ends up taking away from their testimony rather than helping it. There is tension in understanding this rightly and every church would do well to wrestle with it and make sure they embrace solid biblical reasoning in establishing their philosophy of ministry.

When Sunday School started it was an evangelistic effort. One of the fears brought forth was that parents would begin to relegate their responsibility to raise their own children in the admonition of the Lord. Thomas Murphy addresses this in _Pastoral Theology_, though he was in favor of the Sabbath School (can't remember page, but in Sabbath School chapter). However, his attention to it, if I remember correctly, was based on keeping the effort evangelical or as a ministry to those youth without church attending parents. Spurgeon addresses this concern as well in _A Good Start_, if I remember correctly (may have been a sermon instead). However, the greatest impetus came with the advent of age segregated classrooms, based on Dewey's system of child development. Interestingly, his system was based on an evolutionary concept that caters to the lowest common denominator within each segment. This worked in concert with the youth movement, which further separated youth from their parents and provided a fertile atmosphere for free thinking and rebellion against all authority, including parents. What became cultural norms infiltrated the church to the point that hardly anyone knows any better and very few can provide a good biblical reason why they have age segregated classes. 

All of us should feel comfortable asking our pastors for their philosophy of ministry as it pertains to children and youth. From my experience most will not be able to articulate it very well at all. Of those that can, most won't be able to from a biblical perspective. If they are able to articulate it, it will likely be a philosophical perspective with a great deal of psychological influence.

Some churches are able to do youth programs well, but most are dismal. We consider "age appropriate" classes to be distracting and a sure way to help many parents abdicate their God given roles. Simply from a pragmatic perspective, it requires much more manpower and is much more expensive as well. However, to help promote the ability of young parents to attend to the sermon, we do have a nursery. Also, we offer catechism classes during worship if parents prefer their children receive this teaching. However, it is not determined by age, but rather knowledge. Not that it's happened yet, but if a child learns the material then they are moved to worship. This is by no means compulsory, but simply offered as an option.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

PuritanCovenanter said:


> You might want to consider this also.
> 
> Reformed Baptist Blog: FICM Response to Reformed Baptist Critics





LawrenceU said:


> Just to be balanced you might want to read the NCFIC responses the articles on the Reformed Baptist Blog. They can be found by scrolling down this page: Welcome to NCFIC.org - Promoting Biblical Harmony Between Churches and Families



Just so you Know Pastor, the sight you referred us to is linked to in every manner I believe. 

I think we have discussed this a lot here. Even your reference. The links go directly to the sight. I am not sure there has been anything hid here. There seems to be some problems. *Some*.... is the word that should be expressed here. 

Proof for what I am saying is here.

http://www.puritanboard.com/f103/family-families-statement-ncfic-55546/



And here. 

http://www.puritanboard.com/f117/singles-within-family-families-54470/


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Wannabee said:


> Can you define "age appropriate"? Where does this derive from? Certainly not Scripture. Deuteronomy 6 entails a commandment to teach children the law of God from a young age, all day, day in and day out, so they will know it thoroughly. And where can a child learn more appropriately how to attend himself to worship than in the presence of mature worshipers? Ephesians 6:4 makes it clear that to fail to raise your child in the admonition of the Lord is to provoke them to wrath. The ultimate responsibility is given to the parents. If they're going to delegate that responsibility they better know exactly what their children are receiving, from whom and be ready to reinforce the teaching they're receiving. But most parents simply plunk their kids in the room they're assigned and scurry off to their own classes or worship. That might not be the case on this board, but it is the overwhelming norm in contemporary evangelical churches in the U.S.




Age appropriate? That is left to the parent. I taught my kids about sex way before most people have ever done that. I know parents who wait till the kids find out they have thingies. I did that way before that. I also did that concerning Santa Clause and other imaginary idols. You can ask my kids. Your inquistition deals with how much a child can handle. Not whether or not something can be defined. Can you define when you were able to teach such and such on an understandable level? Your parents were left with that discernment. All of my sons have learned at different times and levels. As a Pastor you should understand this. My boys will testify I taught them the truth and at appropriate times. But that is dependent upon how much information a child can take in and handle. That is given to the parent to distinguish. Age appropriate is something many adults can't even learn nor understand in their old age. So do you really wanna go with the age appropriate argument? 

My kids never thought Santa nor the Easter bunny were true. I even taught them about how a Mommy and Daddy come together from a very young age. My boys are well rounded. 


Wannabee said:


> I think that much of the problem that is faced in among those who have made the family the golden calf of Christianity. When the family is set forth as the most important unit in society then all else is subservient to the family, including the church. This gets things backwards and makes the bride of Christ into a slave of families. While this is common in age-integrated churches, and even propagated arrogantly, it is also very present in contemporary churches where you might not recognize it so readily. Often someone will claim that they must go to a relative's birthday party or some other event during a worship service, as though this were a better testimony. The idea that blood is thicker than water is applied to the church in a sinful manner that actually ends up taking away from their testimony rather than helping it. There is tension in understanding this rightly and every church would do well to wrestle with it and make sure they embrace solid biblical reasoning in establishing their philosophy of ministry.



I have seen everyone who has idols. You are being overly general here in my opinion. The Family is the first institution God made on Earth. It is the beginning of the Church. It is the beginning of all things civil and Covenanted and you are minimalistic here in my honest opinion. Yes, some have made the family idolatrous just as some have made the Church idolatrous. I know people who have made biblical counseling idolatrous. Come on Pastor. I know I am am being harsh. I don't mean to be disrespectful but you have become too general here. 


After you address this I will go farther into the Sunday school and the public education thing where this will ultimately lead by your assertions. We have been there before.


----------



## Wannabee

For years we brought our sons with us to both SS and the main worship. Often we were frowned upon. But we also had many parents ask us why our sons were so able to sit through worship without being distracted and so easy to talk to. There is much involved here, but this was part of the equation.
Interestingly, we took a lot of heat from some churches that thought we were wrong for not putting our sons in with the youth group. But we had wonderful times of worship as a family. Usually we would discuss the sermon at lunch. As a result my family would often get a second sermon as I would passionately expound on the lesson we learned that day. It was a wonderful opportunity that would have been impossible if they had not been with us during services.
Oh yea, they missed out on a lot of really fun field trips too. We've been accused of depriving them of being able to enjoy childhood.

---------- Post added at 09:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:20 PM ----------

Wow Randy. Your response seems simply argumentative. I used general language on purpose to offer balance to the discussion. Anyone who knows me well at all knows I place high value on the family. But I also see it raised above the church with many, which is sin, regardless of the fact that we all have idols from time to time.

And, you are right, age appropriate should be left to the parents. You made the right conclusion.

I didn't bring up public education other than point out the origin of age segregation, which is well documented.


----------



## Herald

As was said earlier in this thread, family integrated churches come in different stripes and flavors. There are some FIC's that place the family above the authority of the local church. They do this by considering the family to be the local church even though they may attend corporate worship. These churches have a deficient view of the purpose and authority of the local church. There are other FIC friendly congregations that see distinct roles for the church and the family. The parents, under the headship of the father, are responsible for raising their children and teaching them at home. The church exists as the God-ordained institution for the ministries of grace; which includes the preaching/teaching of the Word, administration of the sacraments/ordinances, pastoral oversight, and restorative discipline. These things are not the function of the family within the corporate body of believers. It takes wisdom and a knowledge of the scriptures to identify when a church is operating properly in this area or whether it is strayed from the truth.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

BTW, Pastor Johnson.. I really didn't mean to be disrespectful. I am kind of tired of saying this model fits all scenarios, and that we all must concede. That has happened. My Church has kids who stay in the service and those who don't. I think that is wise. A Parent should decide based upon the maturity of a child.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Herald said:


> As was said earlier in this thread, family integrated churches come in different stripes and flavors. There are some FIC's that place the family above the authority of the local church. They do this by considering the family to be the local church even though they may attend corporate worship. These churches have a deficient view of the purpose and authority of the local church. There are other FIC friendly congregations that see distinct roles for the church and the family. The parents, under the headship of the father, are responsible for raising their children and teaching them at home. The church exists as the God-ordained institution for the ministries of grace; which includes the preaching/teaching of the Word, administration of the sacraments/ordinances, pastoral oversight, and restorative discipline. These things are not the function of the family within the corporate body of believers. It takes wisdom and a knowledge of the scriptures to identify when a church is operating properly in this area or whether it is strayed from the truth.


 
Wow, that is very good. Thanks Elder Bill Brown.


----------



## Wannabee

Randy, you'll see in the first statement of my last paragraph in that post that I admit that segregation can be done well. But I have only seen it done well in one church that used the age segregated idea. If the parents are not being equipped to train up their own children as part of the teaching then the church is failing and enabling irresponsible parenting. This is the most common model, though I cannot speak for reformed churches in general. Just visiting local evangelical churches bears this out.


----------



## LawrenceU

Randy, I wasn't implying that you posted an unbalanced site. I do know from experience that often people do not go to cited sites in an article. I wanted to offer primary source. That is all.

We also need to face something: this is a hot button issue right now. The model of ministry that is at the root of family integrated churches has been around since the beginning. It has become a hot button because, as is the case with any model, there are those who take the issue to unbiblical extremes. These extremists, because they are highly visible because of their extremity, are all too often taken to be the norm when they are not. I am hoping that cooler heads prevail in this protracted debate. There is a great deal to be gained from viewing how discipleship models have changed over the course of time, the influences that have brought about those changes, and the results of those changes.

At the bottom line of any sound church is the discipleship of its members. The Scriptures are clear that in a Christian home that responsibility ultimately lies squarely on the shoulders of the father. What a sound family integrated church does is assist the father in that practice on a very intimate level. I know that people can become solid disciples in an age segregated church, but all too often it is in spite of the system that the father has any input at all. I have less problems with a church that has Sunday Schools for the members of Christian families that also has entire families in worship services, has elders who assist fathers in catechising their families, and follows up on the catechisation. (From what I have seen, read, and heard that would be the rare church in deed.) When a church makes the decision that the children of a family are not allowed in the corporate worship service something is terribly wrong. Sadly, this is becoming more frequent.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

LawrenceU said:


> Randy, I wasn't implying that you posted an unbalanced site. I do know from experience that often people do not go to cited sites in an article. I wanted to offer primary source. That is all.
> 
> We also need to face something: this is a hot button issue right now. The model of ministry that is at the root of family integrated churches has been around since the beginning. It has become a hot button because, as is the case with any model, there are those who take the issue to unbiblical extremes. These extremists, because they are highly visible because of their extremity, are all too often taken to be the norm when they are not. I am hoping that cooler heads prevail in this protracted debate. There is a great deal to be gained from viewing how discipleship models have changed over the course of time, the influences that have brought about those changes, and the results of those changes.
> 
> At the bottom line of any sound church is the discipleship of its members. The Scriptures are clear that in a Christian home that responsibility ultimately lies squarely on the shoulders of the father. What a sound family integrated church does is assist the father in that practice on a very intimate level. I know that people can become solid disciples in an age segregated church, but all too often it is in spite of the system that the father has any input at all. I have less problems with a church that has Sunday Schools for the members of Christian families that also has entire families in worship services, has elders who assist fathers in catechising their families, and follows up on the catechisation. (From what I have seen, read, and heard that would be the rare church in deed.) When a church makes the decision that the children of a family are not allowed in the corporate worship service something is terribly wrong. Sadly, this is becoming more frequent.


 

Thanks Pastor Underwood for your word. I just haven't experienced that in the PCA, Reformed Baptist, nor Fundamentalist Churches I have been a part of. Sometimes I have experienced the opposite because the teaching coming outside of the home is backed up by outside sources. In other words, "It isn't because my Dad told me this is what the Bible means." Does that make sense? 

Just as I posted before.... we can make anything idolatrous. God calls his own. I was saved by reading a Bible in a historical context of understanding Cecil B. Demille's Ten commandments. I AM was the dude in the bush. Something our children now days do not understand nor have heard. John 8:58


----------



## fredtgreco

Herald said:


> As was said earlier in this thread, family integrated churches come in different stripes and flavors. There are some FIC's that place the family above the authority of the local church. They do this by considering the family to be the local church even though they may attend corporate worship. These churches have a deficient view of the purpose and authority of the local church. There are other FIC friendly congregations that see distinct roles for the church and the family. The parents, under the headship of the father, are responsible for raising their children and teaching them at home. The church exists as the God-ordained institution for the ministries of grace; which includes the preaching/teaching of the Word, administration of the sacraments/ordinances, pastoral oversight, and restorative discipline. These things are not the function of the family within the corporate body of believers. It takes wisdom and a knowledge of the scriptures to identify when a church is operating properly in this area or whether it is strayed from the truth.


 
Well said, Bill. I have seen this at its worst where the father attempts to interpose himself between his children and the sacraments, literally taking the bread and cup from the elders for all his family and distributing them as if he were some kind of mini-priest.




LawrenceU said:


> Randy, I wasn't implying that you posted an unbalanced site. I do know from experience that often people do not go to cited sites in an article. I wanted to offer primary source. That is all.
> 
> We also need to face something: this is a hot button issue right now. The model of ministry that is at the root of family integrated churches has been around since the beginning. It has become a hot button because, as is the case with any model, there are those who take the issue to unbiblical extremes. These extremists, because they are highly visible because of their extremity, are all too often taken to be the norm when they are not. I am hoping that cooler heads prevail in this protracted debate. There is a great deal to be gained from viewing how discipleship models have changed over the course of time, the influences that have brought about those changes, and the results of those changes.
> 
> At the bottom line of any sound church is the discipleship of its members. The Scriptures are clear that in a Christian home that responsibility ultimately lies squarely on the shoulders of the father. What a sound family integrated church does is assist the father in that practice on a very intimate level. I know that people can become solid disciples in an age segregated church, but all too often it is in spite of the system that the father has any input at all. I have less problems with a church that has Sunday Schools for the members of Christian families that also has entire families in worship services, has elders who assist fathers in catechising their families, and follows up on the catechisation. (From what I have seen, read, and heard that would be the rare church in deed.) When a church makes the decision that the children of a family are not allowed in the corporate worship service something is terribly wrong. Sadly, this is becoming more frequent.



Well, said, Lawrence. We ought to denounce unbiblical extremes, but not let them frighten us from biblical duties.


----------



## puritanpilgrim

Can I have some examples of extremes that certain FIC churches are taking things to? I keep hearing about this thrown around, but I'm hearing specific examples. Also, this should not be criticized so quickly on a reformed board. As far as I know, the reformers were family integrated. As far as I can tell, Holy gathering in Old and New Testament were FIC. This is a reformed board. Does the regulative principle have no bearing at all on this issue? This is about a worship service. How were the worship services conducted in the NT? Fish don't know they are wet. We need to consider how many cultural assumptions we are carrying in. Age segregation in classes goes back to the early twentieth century. Most of us have always done things in an age segregated way, so the idea of doing it differently seems very odd. But we should be sure our discent is based upon scripture. What are the scriptures against family integration in worship? What are the scriptures supporting youth groups, age segregated sunday school, and children's church/nursery?


----------



## Herald

Aaron,

My objection to some extreme FIC views has little to do with the worship service. My church does not have age segregated Sunday school or children's church. Families are together for both functions. I become concerned when the family usurps the role of the church. You ask for examples? I believe they have been given. Don't allow the discussion to get stuck on peripheral details such as whether a church should have a youth group or not. Be more concerned that there is not a blurring of the line of distinction between the function of the church and the family unit. If that distinction remains then a church can decide for itself whether or not to have age integration in the worship service or have/not have a youth group.


----------



## Parker234

My wife and I attended a FIC church for three years. The first year was painfully difficult, because we had a two year old and a newborn infant. A few months ago, we decided to stop attending. Even though several of the families with small children had managed to get their children to sit still for a 3 Hr+ service (they had to have "practice church" during the week, with spankings if they left their chairs), my wife and I struggled tremendously, and eventually left the church for a PCA church with a nursery after we found out that our third child would be here soon. The FIC model is very difficult to follow with a newborn, a two year old and a four year old. Ultimately, my wife was bending under the weight of the stress and dreaded going to church each week. That's no way to worship, even if you love the community you're in.

My respect to those who do it.

As to the insulation mentioned, my experience with this church was that the teaching was rock-solid exposition, but the church had zero outreach, though it did give to missions. Anybody who came to our services would be immediately frustrated at finding out that their kids would have to sit and scream through a very long service. When I spoke to the elders about how helpful a nursery would be for us, they stated that they were very committed to the FIC model. They ultimately felt it better to see my family and I leave than to give up that model, which I was never committed to in the first place.

What I did learn by attending there, however, was the importance of raising my own children in the Lord and not leaving it to a sunday school teacher. I was thankful for my experience there, but it was frustrating for me to know that the elders saw our family's struggle and to consider the model more important than looking out for sheep who were set to leave the fold over this issue.


----------



## LawrenceU

Adam, I'm sorry to hear that your experience went the way that it did and that you experienced what you did with your elders. A three hour service is a bit long, in my opinion, if that is a weekly occurence. Our congregation is family integrated. We do provide an area for parents to take their children if they need to be quieted, fed, disciplined, etc. 

BTW, I used to get over to McPherson every now and then when I lived in Kansas; nice town.


----------



## Grimmson

Wannabee said:


> Can you define "age appropriate"? Where does this derive from?



It is educational term, and a category that is actually wise to keep in mind. You wouldn’t teach a two year old the same way as a 12 year old, or even 17 year old. It considers the mental growth and ability of the child in question to meet obtainable, and realistic objectives for educational growth. It derived from educational research and psychology in the last 100 years of children education and can be quite productive if used wisely. It is not anti-biblical, and can/should be considered in a child’s Christian education; particularly with the application of how the Christian language and the Law are used. And yes we have our own language in the sense of how we use terms. 

And in regards to Christian education, it should be a joint effort between the parent and the church in equal harmony. It is not just the parents’ responsibility alone to educate children. The church does have a role to play in the training up of fathers and assisting parents by providing solid theological education to children with consideration to the child’s age and background as they are brought near to Christ. However this is not to negate the parents responsibility, but to cooperative effort to lead one in the tradition of the church with the scriptures as the foundation. We do not want parents to teach contrary to what the church teaches in relation to scripture. And it can happen if we start to raise parents educational role higher then that of the church. In some cases parents do not know at times what their talking about on certain issues and have not thought about it critically. 

I have seen some good home schooling in the secular sense and I seen more often poor home-schooling in the secular sense. If parents cannot always be trusted to properly teach standardized objective subjects like math, should we always trust them in the teaching of their children the Bible and theology. Proverbs 32 comes to mind, “God helps those who help themselves.” Some parents actually believe that statement comes from scripture and we know here in this board that such a statement is not in scripture. 



PuritanCovenanter said:


> Age appropriate? That is left to the parent.



Parents do not always know what their child is capable of. Particularly with the first born. Their not always wise, particularly fathers, in what appropriate for the child’s education, but that why God gave parents grandparents, and I would also include wise gray-haired elders of the church, so that the parents could be guided along with what best for their children.

Family Integration can be positive experience for a family, but I have seen what I consider things of a negative nature. One example is during communion, where the heads of the family went up and grabbed individuals glasses and plates for their family individually take communion together, instead of the entire church taking it at once. I don’t think the heads of families are personally qualified to pass out the elements and must be instituted and guided by the Pastor/Elder for the entire church to take the right together. What would prevents such families to not take communion at home? In a sense it turns the family into a small little church with the father as pastor. It can neglect single men, whereby they are forced to pray and partake of communion alone. I don’t think anyone should take communion alone. Now these people that I saw doing this, were nice people. The problem is that the families take priority over everyone else in the church. 

I knew one family that visited with me was uncomfortable with the church because all the women dressed as if they were from “Little House of the Prairie” (my friend’s wife’s words, that was visiting with me, not mine)and there was little attempt to get ease the feeling of uneasiness of the family through visitation. Neither I nor my friend was personally visited at my home. Between the dress, the application of the sacraments, and the children citing catechism questions and bible verses (which I liked the children involvement in the service), without any instruction why any of this was going on, could create a cultic feeling. Now they were not a cult, but they could still create that feeling and scare off people that could hear the gospel. Now there are ways that I think this can be remedied, through visitation of visitors to explain why they do what they do, that they don’t bind a type of dress on their women folk, that you don’t have to home-school your child to attend or be active there, and creating something in place were single people are not neglected and actually used in the church, instead of ignored or scared off.


----------



## Montanablue

Herald said:


> Aaron,
> 
> My objection to some extreme FIC views has little to do with the worship service. My church does not have age segregated Sunday school or children's church. Families are together for both functions. I become concerned when the family usurps the role of the church. You ask for examples? I believe they have been given. Don't allow the discussion to get stuck on peripheral details such as whether a church should have a youth group or not. Be more concerned that there is not a blurring of the line of distinction between the function of the church and the family unit. If that distinction remains then a church can decide for itself whether or not to have age integration in the worship service or have/not have a youth group.



I grew up in a church that was FIC and it slowly moved towards this model of the father being a "mini-priest." (My family left for that reason among others)

Another problem I've seen is the way the church treats singles, particularly younger singles. (elderly widows and widowers are generally exempt from poor treatment since they've been part of a family). This is certainly a peripheral issue, but it can be disheartening for a single to feel the pressure to marry "because that's what a committed Christian does" or to be in some manner blamed for their single status. Even if the church doesn't go out of its way to belittle you, there's really just no place for a "one person family" in many FICs. I know this isn't the case in all FICs, but it was rampant in the one we attended when I was a child and I've seen it in ones I've visited more recently as well. I've been very grateful to attend a church where I'm not looked down upon because I'm still unmarried.


----------



## Herald

Kathleen,

There is an old lady in our church named Yenta. Perhaps I should have her call on you?


----------



## Jared

Parker234 said:


> My wife and I attended a FIC church for three years. The first year was painfully difficult, because we had a two year old and a newborn infant. A few months ago, we decided to stop attending. Even though several of the families with small children had managed to get their children to sit still for a 3 Hr+ service (they had to have "practice church" during the week, with spankings if they left their chairs), my wife and I struggled tremendously, and eventually left the church for a PCA church with a nursery after we found out that our third child would be here soon. The FIC model is very difficult to follow with a newborn, a two year old and a four year old. Ultimately, my wife was bending under the weight of the stress and dreaded going to church each week. That's no way to worship, even if you love the community you're in.
> 
> My respect to those who do it.
> 
> As to the insulation mentioned, my experience with this church was that the teaching was rock-solid exposition, but the church had zero outreach, though it did give to missions. Anybody who came to our services would be immediately frustrated at finding out that their kids would have to sit and scream through a very long service. When I spoke to the elders about how helpful a nursery would be for us, they stated that they were very committed to the FIC model. They ultimately felt it better to see my family and I leave than to give up that model, which I was never committed to in the first place.
> 
> What I did learn by attending there, however, was the importance of raising my own children in the Lord and not leaving it to a sunday school teacher. I was thankful for my experience there, but it was frustrating for me to know that the elders saw our family's struggle and to consider the model more important than looking out for sheep who were set to leave the fold over this issue.



Thankfully, our services are shorter than that. Ours usually runs about an hour. Sometimes I wish it went longer, but it is good when you have the kids in the service to keep the services a little bit shorter, I think. My wife and I have an almost 2-year old and he can be a handful at times. We do have a cry room, but there's no one in there full time, just parents that want to take their children back there, and usually no one's back there, because our pastor encourages us to keep our children out to be there for the meeting to see and hear what's going on.


----------



## Willem van Oranje

Montanablue said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> Aaron,
> 
> My objection to some extreme FIC views has little to do with the worship service. My church does not have age segregated Sunday school or children's church. Families are together for both functions. I become concerned when the family usurps the role of the church. You ask for examples? I believe they have been given. Don't allow the discussion to get stuck on peripheral details such as whether a church should have a youth group or not. Be more concerned that there is not a blurring of the line of distinction between the function of the church and the family unit. If that distinction remains then a church can decide for itself whether or not to have age integration in the worship service or have/not have a youth group.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I grew up in a church that was FIC and it slowly moved towards this model of the father being a "mini-priest." (My family left for that reason among others)
> 
> Another problem I've seen is the way the church treats singles, particularly younger singles. (elderly widows and widowers are generally exempt from poor treatment since they've been part of a family). This is certainly a peripheral issue, but it can be disheartening for a single to feel the pressure to marry "because that's what a committed Christian does" or to be in some manner blamed for their single status. Even if the church doesn't go out of its way to belittle you, there's really just no place for a "one person family" in many FICs. I know this isn't the case in all FICs, but it was rampant in the one we attended when I was a child and I've seen it in ones I've visited more recently as well. I've been very grateful to attend a church where I'm not looked down upon because I'm still unmarried.
Click to expand...

 
A man _is_ a prophet, priest, and king of his family, after God's own image.

---------- Post added at 06:26 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:16 AM ----------




Grimmson said:


> Wannabee said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you define "age appropriate"? Where does this derive from?
> 
> 
> 
> "It is educational term, and a category that is actually wise to keep in mind. You wouldn’t teach a two year old the same way as a 12 year old, or even 17 year old. It considers the mental growth and ability of the child in question to meet obtainable, and realistic objectives for educational growth. It derived from educational research and psychology in the last 100 years of children education and can be quite productive if used wisely. It is not anti-biblical, and can/should be considered in a child’s Christian education; particularly with the application of how the Christian language and the Law are used. And yes we have our own language in the sense of how we use terms.
> 
> And in regards to Christian education, it should be a joint effort between the parent and the church in equal harmony. It is not just the parents’ responsibility alone to educate children. The church does have a role to play in the training up of fathers and assisting parents by providing solid theological education to children with consideration to the child’s age and background as they are brought near to Christ. However this is not to negate the parents responsibility, but to cooperative effort to lead one in the tradition of the church with the scriptures as the foundation. We do not want parents to teach contrary to what the church teaches in relation to scripture. And it can happen if we start to raise parents educational role higher then that of the church. In some cases parents do not know at times what their talking about on certain issues and have not thought about it critically.
> 
> I have seen some good home schooling in the secular sense and I seen more often poor home-schooling in the secular sense. If parents cannot always be trusted to properly teach standardized objective subjects like math, should we always trust them in the teaching of their children the Bible and theology. Proverbs 32 comes to mind, “God helps those who help themselves.” Some parents actually believe that statement comes from scripture and we know here in this board that such a statement is not in scripture. "
> 
> 
> 
> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Age appropriate? That is left to the parent.
> 
> 
> 
> Parents do not always know what their child is capable of. Particularly with the first born. Their not always wise, particularly fathers, in what appropriate for the child’s education, but that why God gave parents grandparents, and I would also include wise gray-haired elders of the church, so that the parents could be guided along with what best for their children.
> 
> Family Integration can be positive experience for a family, but I have seen what I consider things of a negative nature. One example is during communion, where the heads of the family went up and grabbed individuals glasses and plates for their family individually take communion together, instead of the entire church taking it at once. I don’t think the heads of families are personally qualified to pass out the elements and must be instituted and guided by the Pastor/Elder for the entire church to take the right together. What would prevents such families to not take communion at home? In a sense it turns the family into a small little church with the father as pastor. It can neglect single men, whereby they are forced to pray and partake of communion alone. I don’t think anyone should take communion alone. Now these people that I saw doing this, were nice people. The problem is that the families take priority over everyone else in the church.
> 
> I knew one family that visited with me was uncomfortable with the church because all the women dressed as if they were from “Little House of the Prairie” (my friend’s wife’s words, that was visiting with me, not mine)and there was little attempt to get ease the feeling of uneasiness of the family through visitation. Neither I nor my friend was personally visited at my home. Between the dress, the application of the sacraments, and the children citing catechism questions and bible verses (which I liked the children involvement in the service), without any instruction why any of this was going on, could create a cultic feeling. Now they were not a cult, but they could still create that feeling and scare off people that could hear the gospel. Now there are ways that I think this can be remedied, through visitation of visitors to explain why they do what they do, that they don’t bind a type of dress on their women folk, that you don’t have to home-school your child to attend or be active there, and creating something in place were single people are not neglected and actually used in the church, instead of ignored or scared off.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Learning how to sit still in a pew and not make noise, to listen to the pastor while he is preaching, and to sing the Lord's praises, is appropriate for any age. I want my children to drink in godliness from the time they are nursing infants, to be accustomed to the rhythm and practice of attending the public worship of God. There is a place for Sunday School, and it is not during the worship of God's covenant people as an alternative. How are they going to learn to sit and listen to preaching, to get used to seeing the bread and wine of communion being distributed, to sing psalms and hymns to God, to hear and learn to recite the creed and the Lord's prayer, if they are not in the worship service? Psalm 8:2
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Montanablue

Herald said:


> Kathleen,
> 
> There is an old lady in our church named Yenta. Perhaps I should have her call on you?



My fiance might have an issue with that


----------



## Grimmson

Riley,Will you please clarify what exactly you mean when you say that a man is a priest of his family? Am personally slightly concerned there from a theological perspective. And what role do you see the church in relation to the man and his family exactly? Do you think the church’s only influence should be in the preaching and that it?



Willem van Oranje said:


> Learning how to sit still in a pew and not make noise, to listen to the pastor while he is preaching, and to sing the Lord's praises, is appropriate for any age. I want my children to drink in godliness from the time they are nursing infants, to be accustomed to the rhythm and practice of attending the public worship of God. There is a place for Sunday School, and it is not during the worship of God's covenant people as an alternative. How are they going to learn to sit and listen to preaching, to get used to seeing the bread and wine of communion being distributed, to sing psalms and hymns to God, to hear and learn to recite the creed and the Lord's prayer, if they are not in the worship service? Psalm 8:2



Are you really expecting a one or two year old to listen and understand the sermon? Or even sing the praises of God with their mouth verbally with the rest of the church? Not if were being honest about a child’s natural intellectual development, which is the point of the term age appropriate. That takes time, maturity, and discipline. In the mean time giving them things like gram crackers or coloring books to keep them quite and occupied briefly during the service isn’t bad. I am not a fan of children’s church, for various reasons, but realistically we should consider under practical terms what a child can and cannot understand in the pew. There is only so much they can absorb and understand at such a little age. And they can absorb a ton, but understanding is a different issue. A child’s understanding is proportional to their attention span; which to expand requires engagement for the child. Listening to a sermon for an hour to 45 minutes is very hard for a young child; particularly if they do not understand what is going on in the sermon and is being said. If you want a young child to understand the sermon, realistically you need to be the one to explain it and on their terms and categories of understanding. Not to have them figure it out by themselves. If they cannot grasp the categories then they need more time and you need to be patient with him. Also they can learn the creeds, and the Lord’s prayer at home through memorization, even though they may not understand it. They do not need to go to a service week after week to hear it to absorb it and will probably absorb it better if it is regularly taught by a parent anyway; which is typically the case with small children. Getting them use to the bread and wine should not even be an issue, since their not going to partake of it until the church recognizes the developed maturity of the child in the gospel; which should not be a rush to begin with within most of our traditions unless your paedocommunionist; in which case I am in agreement with John Calvin’s response to the notion. Also within my own educational experience, parents can be pushy and lead children to a place that they are not ready for; which is why I think Elders of a church or some other governing body must decide if a particular child ready is ready for communion, since it is a guarded sacrament of the church, not of the localized family. 

Lastly am a bit confused with your use of Psalm 8:2, because it deals with the clear undeniable nature, against the speechless enemies of God, of the glory of God as spoken through the infant compared to the stars of heaven; which some will scoff at. It does not deal with the issue at hand with an infant’s involvement within a church service. It does not address a child’s level of understanding within a worship service. It does not even address the need of a parent to teach the child, which is scriptural; just not this passage.


----------



## jwithnell

Integration between the church _and_ family life is critical here. The instructions we see in the OT to teach your children as you rise up, and along the way etc., can only truly be done by a family on a day-in-day-out basis. On the other side, you see division between peoples in the temple courts and in the participation in the Lord's supper -- "ability to discern" suggests, at least in part, age.

At our church, it's largely left to the parents with a nursery that has the service via audio and an understanding that children should be involved in the main service as much as possible. Typically, infants are in the service, when they hit a really active age, they may go downstairs for a while and are returned to worship after they've matured a bit -- a different age for many kids, especially the two special needs kids in our congregation. (I recall fondly doing nursery duty one Sunday hearing a tiny girl piping up with "I am!" imitating the pastor's Biblical quote coming in through the speakers.)

In other settings, "age appropriate" becomes even more of an issue. We've been working our way through Berkhof's Systematic Theology in our evening study -- this is an absolute lifeline for those of us who want to have a strong Biblical and theological basis, but is entirely outside of the ability of anyone under about 15. At the same time, it equips me as a parent to answer the surprisingly complex questions of my children, who may not know all the big terms, but certainly have God's law written upon their hearts and want to know about it!

Lastly, I can sympathize with singles in any church, but especially in one where they are made to feel outside the norm. God has a place for people in all walks of life, and that's what "integration" within a church truly should be.


----------



## Ne Oublie

Grimmson said:


> Are you really expecting a one or two year old to listen and understand the sermon? Or even sing the praises of God with their mouth verbally with the rest of the church? Not if were being honest about a child’s natural intellectual development, which is the point of the term age appropriate. That takes time, maturity, and discipline. In the mean time giving them things like gram crackers or coloring books to keep them quite and occupied briefly during the service isn’t bad. I am not a fan of children’s church, for various reasons, but realistically we should consider under practical terms what a child can and cannot understand in the pew. There is only so much they can absorb and understand at such a little age. And they can absorb a ton, but understanding is a different issue. A child’s understanding is proportional to their attention span; which to expand requires engagement for the child. Listening to a sermon for an hour to 45 minutes is very hard for a young child; particularly if they do not understand what is going on in the sermon and is being said. If you want a young child to understand the sermon, realistically you need to be the one to explain it and on their terms and categories of understanding. Not to have them figure it out by themselves. If they cannot grasp the categories then they need more time and you need to be patient with him. Also they can learn the creeds, and the Lord’s prayer at home through memorization, even though they may not understand it. They do not need to go to a service week after week to hear it to absorb it and will probably absorb it better if it is regularly taught by a parent anyway; which is typically the case with small children. Getting them use to the bread and wine should not even be an issue, since their not going to partake of it until the church recognizes the developed maturity of the child in the gospel; which should not be a rush to begin with within most of our traditions unless your paedocommunionist; in which case I am in agreement with John Calvin’s response to the notion. Also within my own educational experience, parents can be pushy and lead children to a place that they are not ready for; which is why I think Elders of a church or some other governing body must decide if a particular child ready is ready for communion, since it is a guarded sacrament of the church, not of the localized family.



I am not sure if this is is just for Riley or not, I am sure he will answer sufficiently, but thought I would say a couple things.

What is said above regarding understanding and "absorbing" can be said about anyone regardless of age.

I think the point is for the child to learn how to listen, and one of those ways is training him to be attentive even if he does not understand. It is not the point to make sure he understands every word, but that should and only comes by God's grace, and this is the way it is no matter what level of understanding you have nor what age.

We should consider what it is we should expect from the child. Should we expect them to re-iterate the sermon? should we expect them to be humiliated by the words? should we expect them to follow every word? No, that is not even expected of us. They should be expected to do what they can do, which is as simple as learning how to sit still, without complaining, to honor their parents, that to listen is their goal that they have to train to succeed at. These are the first fruits of learning in and of itself. They must learn to pay attention. When and what they learn, as each child is different, may be where we need to adjust what we expect.

If the child is being prepared and being trained, such as in family worship, little by little the child will know what to expect in the worship service itself. I find that as a parent that it is my issue is more than my children when it comes to the patience and training they need in this life and that I either expect to much from them or give them too little training. Training them in the way that they SHOULD go.

This takes time and effort, but they will see that it is very important to you and want to please and honor you. This all with prayerful dependence on God to do the real work in their minds and hearts.


----------



## LawrenceU

I can speak from experience relating to very young children listening to sermons. They comprehend much more than most adults, sometimes even their own parents, think they are able. We have seen this happen repeatedly over the years, in almost every family. One case in point is a fairly new family to our church. They were not looking for a family integrated church. They had been attending a fairly 'hip' church when it comes to children's 'ministries'. They have an almost five year old, a just turned three year old, and an infant. They very quickly adapted to sitting in the entire service. The father of these little ones is astounded at what his children are learning from the entire worship service, not just the sermon. Are they comprehending as much as an adult? No. But, they are learning much more than they would in the normal 'age appropriate' environment. And the material that goes over their heads, well, it used to be common knowledge that when a child hears material beyond his level he retains the 'syntax' of that material and as he matures it comes into play. This is one reason that those one room school houses of yore turned out so many highly educated people; even though they only went through the eighth grade.


----------



## Idelette

Sometimes I think we underestimate God's grace in the lives of children. We have to remember that none of us can discern spiritual things unless we are born from above. Children are more than capable enough to believe and understand spiritual things, if it be the Lord's will. I've taken care of children off and on for years, and I can tell you that children from the youngest of ages can discern spiritual things. It's not for us to decide what they are capable or incapable of understanding, that's besides the point, for us it's simply to obey God and His commandments and trust the promises which He made to His covenant people.


----------



## George Bailey

I've been at a FIC for 7+ years, and have gone through significant turmoil. If one's not too familiar with the "movement", I'd have the following points:
1. The term "Family Integrated Church" means more than just the term at face value, and the movement has a culture above and beyond just children participating in the Sunday service with their parents.
2. The churches that would identify themselves as "FIC" churches aren't all the same, and don't have the same culture. (i.e. based on what I've seen from Pastor Underwood over the years on PB, I wouldn't ascribe to him any of the negative opinions that i have on the culture of the movement in general...he's a peach!)
3. As Kathleen has experienced, some of the movement so minimalizes and marginalizes, those who don't fit into a very specific family model and into the "subculture". 

Be careful when analyzing "FIC" with respect to how the Sunday service is conducted, vs. seeing the bigger "FIC" culture.

One of the major proponents of the movement's vision statement is "Preserving our covenant with God through Biblical Patriarchy and multi-generational faithfulness". If that "vision" statement doesn't give you trouble, then...

BC


----------



## Herald

Folks, all these anecdotal stories are fine, but let's make sure we understand the role and authority of the church and the role and authority of the family. Much of what I've been reading in this thread falls under the heading of preference, not biblical mandate. If you find yourself in a FIC, and you cannot bring yourself to agree with the FIC model (no matter how much prayer and deliberation you give the issue), then you need to find another place to worship. If you are convinced of the FIC position, and you are in a church that is not disposed to FIC, the same goes for you; if you cannot bear up underneath it, you may have to leave. However, it seems that there should be more latitude for the person who is pro-FIC in a non-FIC church. The person who is pro-FIC can maintain their conviction even though their church is geared otherwise. You can keep your children with you in worship and elect not to participate in organized youth events. That's always your choice. If you feel ostracized or uncomfortable then you can either persevere in spite of it or find an FIC church.

The non-preference area is one of authority. Fathers are not able to lawfully administer the sacraments/ordinances in their homes separate from the church. They are not able to administer church discipline. Operating as the family's sole priest, they become more of an oligarchy than a minister of grace. They divorce themselves from the collective wisdom of duly appointed men (pastors/elders). I am not saying this is representative of all FIC families. I am sympathetic to much of the FIC viewpoint. I am simply adding a caution that families are not to usurp the God-ordained role of the church. Please keep that in mind. The rest of it falls under preference and conviction.


----------



## LawrenceU

Well said, Bill. We must remember the Spheres. Blurring those lines has led to a great deal of mess in the Western Church. Of course, then we get to the definitions of those lines.


----------



## Willem van Oranje

Grimmson said:


> Riley,Will you please clarify what exactly you mean when you say that a man is a priest of his family? Am personally slightly concerned there from a theological perspective. And what role do you see the church in relation to the man and his family exactly? Do you think the church’s only influence should be in the preaching and that it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Certainly not that. A man is a priest of his family in the sense that he intercedes for his wife and children in prayer, leads them in and teaches them to pray, disciples them in their walk with God, and has a duty to ensure that they will become members in the true church of Jesus Christ, which is his covenant people. The role of the church is not the same. They are not conflicting roles. They are symbiotic.
> 
> 
> Willem van Oranje said:
> 
> 
> 
> Learning how to sit still in a pew and not make noise, to listen to the pastor while he is preaching, and to sing the Lord's praises, is appropriate for any age. I want my children to drink in godliness from the time they are nursing infants, to be accustomed to the rhythm and practice of attending the public worship of God. There is a place for Sunday School, and it is not during the worship of God's covenant people as an alternative. How are they going to learn to sit and listen to preaching, to get used to seeing the bread and wine of communion being distributed, to sing psalms and hymns to God, to hear and learn to recite the creed and the Lord's prayer, if they are not in the worship service? Psalm 8:2
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you really expecting a one or two year old to listen and understand the sermon? Or even sing the praises of God with their mouth verbally with the rest of the church?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go back and read what I wrote, please. I said they would learn to sit still and take part. The understanding may be infantile at that point, but it is the patterns of godliness that I want them to learn to get used at that age. If they can sit still and listen, recite the Lord's prayer (as my 2-year old does in worship), and sing even largely without understanding, this discipline will later allow him or her to learn and be a means to their later believing. Plus, I tend to think that children grasp much more than I think, at a younger age, than we think. I remember learning lots of things from sermons when I was five years old, and I couldn't figure out why adults acted so surprised that I had learned those things.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lastly am a bit confused with your use of Psalm 8:2, because it deals with the clear undeniable nature, against the speechless enemies of God, of the glory of God as spoken through the infant compared to the stars of heaven; which some will scoff at. It does not deal with the issue at hand with an infant’s involvement within a church service. It does not address a child’s level of understanding within a worship service. It does not even address the need of a parent to teach the child, which is scriptural; just not this passage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This passage is clearly given and intended to be used in the corporate worship of God's people. "A Psalm of David. Upon Gittith." On the surface I believe it is describing the infants who were praising God among his covenant people as the Psalm is being sung in public worship, and then pointing out that this strength for which they are praising him is manifest in their weakness, in their childness. It starts with what was commonly taking place on the surface and makes a deeper theological point. That is how I understand it.
Click to expand...


----------



## sdesocio

Whatever your church practiced, I think you might be going a bit to far to ref Psalm 8:2 as a reason why infants should be in worship.


----------



## Willem van Oranje

sdesocio said:


> Whatever your church practiced, I think you might be going a bit to far to ref Psalm 8:2 as a reason why infants should be in worship.


 
Isn't that the picture, though? Infants in Psalm 8:2 are described as being a part of the corporate worship of Israel, as I read it in context.

By the way, Jesus confirms this, at least in principle, when he applies this verse to himself, as he was in the temple--meanwhile young children were praising him in the temple.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Willem van Oranje said:


> sdesocio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever your church practiced, I think you might be going a bit to far to ref Psalm 8:2 as a reason why infants should be in worship.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't that the picture, though? Infants in Psalm 8:2 are described as being a part of the corporate worship of Israel, as I read it in context.
> 
> By the way, Jesus confirms this, at least in principle, when he applies this verse to himself, as he was in the temple--meanwhile young children were praising him in the temple.
Click to expand...


For one thing, if children were praising Jesus with their mouths in the temple they would have been cognizant. Second, I do not believe Psalm 8:2 is describing a specific for the Regulative Principle of Worship and a cooperate worship service as prescribed. Third, just to make a point concerning inferences, do you want to go so far as including paedocommunion in the worship as others might by inference. You seem to be drawing inferences that I believe are going way past reformation interpretations on Psalm 8? 

Just because Worship and an activity is mentioned together in the Psalms does not necessarily mean that the Regulative Principle in Corporate worship is being addressed. For instance, Psalm 149 and 150 discuss dancing in worship. Psalm 149 mentions worship with an article of war (a literal sword) is to be held in our hands for executing Judgment. 

I believe you are going farther than Psalm 8 infers. 

Just think about brother. I personally think you have gone too far.


----------



## Willem van Oranje

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Willem van Oranje said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sdesocio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever your church practiced, I think you might be going a bit to far to ref Psalm 8:2 as a reason why infants should be in worship.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't that the picture, though? Infants in Psalm 8:2 are described as being a part of the corporate worship of Israel, as I read it in context.
> 
> By the way, Jesus confirms this, at least in principle, when he applies this verse to himself, as he was in the temple--meanwhile young children were praising him in the temple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For one thing, if children were praising Jesus with their mouths in the temple they would have been cognizant. Second, I do not believe Psalm 8:2 is describing a specific for the Regulative Principle of Worship and a cooperate worship service as prescribed. Third, just to make a point concerning inferences, do you want to go so far as including paedocommunion in the worship as others might by inference. You seem to be drawing inferences that I believe are going way past reformation interpretations on Psalm 8?
> 
> Just because Worship and an activity is mentioned together in the Psalms does not necessarily mean that the Regulative Principle in Corporate worship is being addressed. For instance, Psalm 149 and 150 discuss dancing in worship. Psalm 149 mentions worship with an article of war (a literal sword) is to be held in our hands for executing Judgment.
> 
> I believe you are going farther than Psalm 8 infers.
> 
> Just think about brother. I personally think you have gone too far.
Click to expand...

 
I just think you are going much, much farther than I did. I wasn't talking about the regulative principle, or the Reformation. I was just pointing out that David describes babies taking part in corporate worship. Now, how this applies is another matter, but surely it would have something to say to us. 

And BTW, the Reformation was not the fulfillment of exegetical perfection. We should build on their shoulders, and hopefully, know more than they did. Notice I did not say contradicting, undermining, or changing, but building upon them.


----------



## Robert Truelove

I thought it profitable a few years ago to develop terms to help visitors understand where we are coming from on this issue.

1. Patriarchal Family Integration - This form of family integration is based primarily, either doctrinally or by emphasis, on the doctrine of the family. In Patriarchal Family Integration, the family, and especially dads, are seen to have such authority over their children (and wives) as to practically supercede the authority of the elders in the church. Under this understanding, it is commonly considered an usurpation of the family for anyone else in the church (even elders) to teach the children outside of the presence of the parents.

2. Ecclesiastical Family Integration - This form of family integration is the historic practice of the church and is based upon the doctrine of the church. The church as one body should operate in a "family integrated" manner so as to maintain the unity and edification of the body. This opposed to segregating the life of the church into various demographics wherein each group identifies in particular (thus fracturing the body). This view comprehends that children should be raised in the worship service (not children's church or nursery) not because of the authority of the family (or dads), but because it is inconsistent with the doctrine of the church and her calling to send children out of the worship service.

Under Ecclesiastical Family Integration, things like children's Sunday school or special youth study programs are not completely out of the question, but will be handled in a deliberate fashion so as to maintain the unity of the church and not foster or promote the cultivation of subcultures and programatically induced schisms within the church.

I subscribe to "Ecclesiastical Family Integration". 

Patriarchal Family Integration leads to "excesses" because it is based upon a fundamentally flawed premise. The flawed premise that the authority of the family (and dads) is seen as as such as it usurps the authority of the church. I believe this sort of family integration is a reaction against the other extreme which is the norm in our churches today. The other extreme is where the church does usurp the authority of the family. Families who are endeavoring to raise their children for Christ, bring them to church and have to struggle against unqualified Sunday School teachers, the promotion of the teen sub-culture (which is thoroughly unbiblical) in youth groups and so on. They feel as if the church is actually undermining their diligence to raise their children for Christ and in many cases that is exactly what is happening.

It is my hope that the extremes of the "family integrated" movement will move away from a reactionary position and into a biblical one.

You can read our statement on family integration here...

http://www.christreformedchurch.org/family-integrated.php


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Joshua said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> For one thing, if children were praising Jesus with their mouths in the temple they would have been cognizant.
> 
> 
> 
> This isn't really pertaining to Psalm 8, but when does one have the ability to determine if a child is "cognizant" or not?
Click to expand...

 
Well, for one thing Josh it says, "Out of the mouths of babes." So a babe here is evidently able to speak, wouldn't you think?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Josh, I know sucklings that went into 4 years old. I have actually heard stories beyond that. It is a modern concept that kids quit being sucklings as early as they quit nursing nowadays, as I understand it. Sucklings back then would be kids who could communicate verbally with words also as I understand it.


----------



## Herald

Joshua said:


> But the text doesn't say "sucklings who are four years old and can speak intelligibly as we understand it." Again, I'm not even trying to speak to Psalm 8; rather, I'm asking how it is that we're able to determine when an infant or child is "cognizant" for the singing of praise, etc.


 
Umm...when they're able to sing?


----------



## Willem van Oranje

Joshua said:


> But the text doesn't say "sucklings who are four years old and can speak intelligibly as we understand it." Again, I'm not even trying to speak to Psalm 8; rather, I'm asking how it is that we're able to determine when an infant or child is "cognizant" for the singing of praise, etc.



A child does not have to be entirely cognizant in the adult sense in order to sing praise to God, if God has regenerated that child (according to his secret and sovereign Spirit, who blows where he will.) We may not understand the words of the infant, and it may sound like babbling and mumbling, but in fact, the infant is just trying to sing along with the congregation, so the content of the words are the same as the content of what we are singing. Is the baby cognizant of what the words mean? No, not in a specific sense. This does not mean he or she is not praising God with grace in the heart. 

The picture I see in Psalm 8 is simply one of the covenant people of God worshipping, including little babies who are present, who may appear to be just making noises more or less in sync with the rest of the congregation. Their praise is genuine, even if it is not intelligible apart from rest of the congregation's singing. This picture of covenant worship shows that God's presence among his people, manifest by their praising of him, from the youngest to the oldest, is stronger than any sword or spear that the enemy might wield against them. God's mere presence, manifest by the praise of his people, stops them in their tracks and destroyes all their evil intentions.


----------



## Rev. Todd Ruddell

I think the point being made is that babes and sucklings participate at the level they are capable of participating. When our "babes and sucklings", present in the worship service, are silent during the reading, preaching, and prayer, but then become quite vocal when the entire congregation stands to sing, they are participating at the level that suits their years and ability. I cannot say what they understand, but I believe that they consider themselves as a part of the worshipping congregation, and they are doing what everyone else is doing, in a way consistent with their years and ability. They may not know what worship is, but here they are, gathered with God's people, doing what they can do *with* God's people. The same is true when they sit more or less silently during other times in the service. They have joined in, at their level, with the Covenant Community, gathered for corporate worship.

Finally, to the point of the original post, I am not an adherent of the patriarchal-style of understanding ecclesiology. I believe the bible teaches that the Church herself is a Covenant Community, not a family of families. This is not to undermine parental authority, but to give it its Biblical bounds, and the right and Biblical interests to Church authority as well. We do not come to Church as separated families, and nothing we do on the Lord's Day promotes the separation of families as families. We worship together, eat together, fellowship together, etc. I concur with Pastor Truelove's comments above that there have been abuses in the Family Integrated model where the authority of the father has been elevated to unbiblical heights. And we all know of the horror stories where parents are pressured into giving up their children to sub-standard venues even in the Church. At CCRPC we worship together, spend time all day on the Lord's Day together, and the only time where the children are separated from the parents is after services, when I take those who have been working on memory work (both adults and children) and hear their recital/memory progress week by week (where some of the parents do sit in). We do not segregate into age groups, for we see nothing in Scripture recommending this model either.


----------

