Family-Integrated Church Model

Status
Not open for further replies.
Kathleen,

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

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 ----------

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. "

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
 
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?

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.
 
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.
 
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.
:2cents:
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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. ;)
 
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.
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?

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.

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.

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.
 
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.

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.

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.
 
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 supersede 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
 
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?

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?
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top