Dialogue with family integrated church proponent Mr. Wolfe

[JoannaV]

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

 

[calgal]

Martin, Pastor Mathis and Mr Wolfe:

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

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

I await your answers with interest

 

[Rufus]

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

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

 

[Grimmson]

would like a mentor or three to help guide us through life in Christendom. Is that or is that not possible within the framework of an FIC? Furthermore, nowhere did I say anything about the youth pastor's existence or absence. I will re-phrase the question with some edits that might help:

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

I await your answers with interest

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

 

[Shawn Mathis]

Greetings Mr. Wolfe,

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

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

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

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

2. Mr. Brown's book A Weed in the Church (Mr. Brown is president of the NCFIC):
a) Mr. Brown's answer: ""There are times when it may be appropriate for various ages of people to meet for specific purposes. However, this is not to be the normative pattern of biblical youth discipleship, but rather an exception." (p.231)
b) What the exception does not look like: "Why is age-segregated youth ministry and Sunday school in the church so bad for children? There are a number of important reasons why as little as one hour per week is problematic for those Christians who want to be faithful to the directives of the Word of God." (p.225)
c) "Yet this structure [Sunday school] cannot be found anywhere in the Bible. It is not commanded in Scripture.” The Sufficiency of Scripture at Work in the Family Integrated Church, Scott Brown, NCFIC online, Jan. 2011

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

thank you,

 

[Shawn Mathis]

Dear reader,

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

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

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

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

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

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

For peace and unity of the church,

 

[JML]

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

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

 

[Shawn Mathis]

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

The long and short? It is demonstrably wrong.

thank you,

 

[JML]

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

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

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

 

[Shawn Mathis]

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

thanks,

 

[Shawn Mathis]

Mr. Lanier,

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

 

[JML]

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

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

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

 

[Shawn Mathis]

Mr. Lanier,

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

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

thanks for looking into this issue.

take care,

 

[JML]

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

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

 

[Shawn Mathis]

Mr. Lanier,

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

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

 

[Jack K]

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

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

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

 

[JML]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Jack K]

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

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

So that we don't get sidetracked let's assume all instruction is elder-led. Would you then say that two or more elders may never divide up the group and teach different lessons to different folks based on maturity level or whatever? Or are you just saying this may not happen on Sundays? The trouble I'm having with your position is that it would seem you either must say that (1) the RPW is in effect any time any elder starts to teach at any time or anywhere or (2) the principle that "whatever is not commanded is forbidden" applies beyond the worship service to include matters like whether or not a church may choose to have lunch, prayer, instructional classes, etc. among its Sunday activities.

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

 

[fredtgreco]

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

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

 

[JML]

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

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

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

 

[JML]

Could you make your argument more strongly some other way?

Here it is, short and sweet

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

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Could you make your argument more strongly some other way?

Here it is, short and sweet

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

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

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

 

[Jack K]

Could you make your argument more strongly some other way?

Here it is, short and sweet

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Shawn Mathis]

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

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

 

[nasa30]

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

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

His email is [email protected]

 

[Shawn Mathis]

Dear Judson,

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

thank you,

 

[LawrenceU]

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

 

[Contra_Mundum]

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


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

 

[Shawn Mathis]

Mr. Underwood, et.al.

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

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

 

[LawrenceU]

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

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