FIC Elder talks with Reformed Pastor

[Shawn Mathis]

Erik,

I think there is confusion on my part.

I took your original question about Sunday schools "at large" to mean the specific instrument of age-segregation. I did not take it to mean the "common scene" as you just described. I take the "common scene" to mean all non-Reformed church and family cultures (legalism, antinomianism, fun-oriented, etc.)--I reject all these and only defend a responsible use of age-segregation. And even then mostly focus on comprehension.

So, your question about the typical non-Reformed SS, etc. is now more clear to me.

My 8-pages above defend a Reformed culture with a responsible use of age-segregation. It does not defend non-Reformed cultures that may employ the same method.

With that said, I'll let you respond. Meanwhile, I'll hope my confusion is gone!

 

[southkogs]

I think there is confusion on my part.

I took your original question about Sunday schools "at large" to mean the specific instrument of age-segregation. I did not take it to mean the "common scene" as you just described. I take the "common scene" to mean all non-Reformed church and family cultures (legalism, antinomianism, fun-oriented, etc.)--I reject all these and only defend a responsible use of age-segregation. And even then mostly focus on comprehension.

I'll try to be more clear, I'm sure it's not just you. I've understood that your position is based on a defense of what you've termed a "responsible use of age-segregation" through our thread. I might not be clear while I'm agreeing with you regarding "responsible use of age-segregation" and then switching to clubbing away at the "common scene." I'm going to try to adopt those two terms to help even the keel a bit.

Before we proceed, I'd like to observe that the direction of the conversation has changed. Once you admitted that Sunday school falls under the rubric of Christian liberty, you are no longer actually debating my original position. My whole stance has been against the wrong-headed rationale of Mr. Brown and company (as summarized above).

Let me come back to Scott Brown for just a moment, as I think I owe it to you to clean that portion of the conversation up.

My experience with Scott Brown has given me a confidence in him, and a general agreement with him and the mission of NCFIC. That does not mean there are not points of disagreement at all, but they are limited. At the same time, the reasons that I or my church are family-integrated do not revolve solely around the NCFIC or Scott Brown. In other words, I think Scott Brown is an important and significant voice but that doesn't mean he's not wrong here and there.

I agree with you that there is a lack of clarity in his book. I also agree with you that the employment of age-segregation is a matter of liberty (or more properly stated, there is no biblical prohibition or prescription for age-segregation or age-integration).

I think this perspective:

…I reject all these and only defend a responsible use of age-segregation … My 8-pages above defend a Reformed culture with a responsible use of age-segregation. It does not defend non-Reformed cultures that may employ the same method.

may help understand why I can seem to agree with you out of one side of my mouth, and defend Scott Brown out of the other side. Scott is not speaking to a strictly Reformed culture, even though he is Reformed. I'm Reformed, but the denomination that I'm closest to is a mix of Reformed and non-Reformed. So, typically I'm not speaking to a strictly Reformed culture either. But, even if I drill down to merely the scope of Reformed churches that I'm familiar with … the scene isn't always different. In my area, some Reformed churches are significantly different, but many are no different (on the surface) than these monster non-denominational mega-churches with "lights, camera & action" built in.

I actually trust that your church employs a "responsible age-segregation" not because I have evidence of it. Rather, I trust because my limited experience with you indicates a Pastor who is highly committed to the truth of the Gospel, a biblical world-view and doctrine. I can easily see that you (and by extension your church) are highly specific in how you approach Christian Education.

In the same manner that my experience with you allows me to trust what I cannot see, my experience with Scott Brown (through limited conversations, listening to him speak and his book) allow me to believe that my contention that his position allows for some use of "responsible age-segregation" is valid. There is always the possibility that he and I would disagree. And even as an FIC, I'm fine with that. Honestly, if we became and FIC because of an organization and not because of biblical conviction we'd be in bad shape anyway.

So, trying to boil all of that down:

Scott is not completely clear in his book.
There is no biblical prohibition or prescription for either age-segregation or age-integration (essentially putting us in the category of Christian Liberty)
Those two admissions don't invalidate an FIC position (provided that FIC position is not unnecessarily dogmatic)​

More to come … at roughly the speed of molasses in January, but none the less ...

 

[Shawn Mathis]

Erik,

Yes, thank you for making it more clear. And for summarizing thusly:

Scott is not completely clear in his book.
There is no biblical prohibition or prescription for either age-segregation or age-integration (essentially putting us in the category of Christian Liberty)
Those two admissions don't invalidate an FIC position (provided that FIC position is not unnecessarily dogmatic)

It is the third proposition that we are conversing about. But before answering that, let's try this simpler (?) question:

If you lived in Geneva, Puritan England, 16th century Scotland, etc. (assuming you were not harassed for being a baptist), would you use their educational processes (structured local schools cycled yearly, age-segregated meetings for child catechisms, teachers catechizing children, even while parents are commanded to catechize as well, etc. as I described above), or would you still use the model you described as FIC in the post above (eg. "a reasonably healthy church...that does not employ age-segregated programs").

thanks,

 

[southkogs]

If you lived in Geneva, Puritan England, 16th century Scotland, etc. (assuming you were not harassed for being a baptist), would you use their educational processes (structured local schools cycled yearly, age-segregated meetings for child catechisms, teachers catechizing children, even while parents are commanded to catechize as well, etc. as I described above), or would you still use the model you described as FIC in the post above (eg. "a reasonably healthy church...that does not employ age-segregated programs").

The most honest answer that I can give you to this question is that I don't really know.

You said it earlier in the thread - who wouldn't want the reformers teaching their children? I can't really argue with that. And Calvin's geneva school is certainly compelling. So, from that angle (presuming I avoided harassment for my baptistic tendencies) I can see myself utilizing the programs that were available.

There are some varied opinions on those schools though, and ultimately their effectiveness. It seems that there were a couple of schools that were started with reasonably good intentions, but ultimately kind of backfired. I'm not that well studied in them, and have trouble right now sorting out fact from fiction. I'm a decent historian, but don't quite have all of that era figured out yet. Can we consider me "conflicted" there?

Ultimately, if you pushed me into a corner and forced a "yes" or "no" answer out of me ... yes, I probably would have used the schools.

I think though, there is an equal allowance for a significant difference between the approach of the Reformers, Puritans, 16th Century Scotts, etc. to Christian education and what we see today. It just doesn't seem to be a like-for-like comparison to me.

To quote myself for a moment:

I'll take your term "responsibly used age-segregated Sunday School" to define a program that identifies and employs pastoral/elder teaching to young people in concert with parental responsibility to disciple children. If the children are broken up by age group to employ that, and parents are encouraged to participate and involve themselves AND there is a mutual respect between church and family - I'd almost tell you that's more family integrated than one might think. Most FIC leaders would jump for joy at that kind of thing. And in that context, you're correct - it is okay for someone else to teach our children.

Perhaps I diverge with the NCFIC on this idea - but if certain Biblical criteria are met then some age-segregated programs are probably okay. But that is not normal in the Church today. Even when I limit the scope of what I am referring to as "the Church" to Reformed cultures (excluding the "common scene"), at least in my area I don't see many examples of the "responsible use of age-segregation." Honestly, I don't know of a single church within 30 miles of me that would fit that category.

 

[Shawn Mathis]

I think though, there is an equal allowance for a significant difference between the approach of the Reformers, Puritans, 16th Century Scotts, etc. to Christian education and what we see today. It just doesn't seem to be a like-for-like comparison to me.

Erik, You are correct at the lack of direct comparison for at least two reasons: maturity and unity.

The older church culture of our fore-fathers was, in general, more mature. At least from my readings. And I have about 120 books, articles and biographies I've been through just on the topic of Christian education.

They were also more unified. That is why they could pull off so many schools in such a short period of time. (That and the mandatory laws in many places.)

Even so, I think it is a very helpful thought-experiment for those tempted to follow the unregulated rhetoric from some FICers.

thank you for your honest answer.

I'll follow up shortly--I'm off to see the Cameron movie, Monumental.

 

[southkogs]

...I'll follow up shortly--I'm off to see the Cameron movie, Monumental.

I saw it last night too. I'd enjoy your perspective on it - if we don't derail the thread too much.

 

[southkogs]

You are correct at the lack of direct comparison for at least two reasons: maturity and unity.

That is probably an excellent summary of much of the problem. If we take my admission in the last post (that I would probably have used schools like the Geneva), and hitch it up with the state of the church (common scene), would a consideration that the FIC movement is "putting the brakes on" the forward momentum in an effort to deconstruct the common scene and seek out a truly Reformed culture be entirely unreasonable?

While not presented from the NCFIC in those terms, my church would more likely recognize that concept as a basis for it's design.

Some responses to your outline:

Background Considerations: C.1.

1. Age-specific means any and all distinctions in age. If adults are separated from children, then this is age-specific.

If we adopt your term "age-specific" as defined here to drive our definition of "age-segregated" (for example, "age-specific" ministry is the same as "age-segregated" ministry), then I think we've left Scott Brown's concept of "age-segregated."

I don't think there is a denial of "age-specific" needs (in terms of communicating the truths of Scripture) from an FIC perspective. However, age-segregation is something different. To segregate is to intentionally separate or split apart. Teaching can be age specific without being age-segregated. Age-segregation, in my opinion, is something there is less of a call for than age-specificity. When you consider my position on who is doing most of the teaching (comment below regarding III.C.2), then segregation has an element of danger when the less wise are subjected to poor instruction. Age-specific instruction in an age-integrated setting will allow guardians to better care for the instruction of their children.

As you mention from a practical standpoint, a parent may have a grasp on a topic but lack the ability to instruct the topic. They delegate (not abdicate) the instruction to a teacher, but the teacher makes a mess of the topic (we'll assume the parent's grasp was correct). In an age-segregated setting, there is a chance that the child will be instructed falsely. In an age specific setting, but not segregated there is less of a chance.

I'm not arguing against your point of the allowance of age-specific education, nor do I require that parents are ALWAYS with their children during education. But I would point out that age-segregation isn't a requirement of age-specific instruction nor are they interchangeable terms.

I think we agree on that, but I thought I would clarify.

C.2.

4. This is not a defense of the niche-market oriented youth culture of today or principled age- and family-segregated methods in either the church or anywhere else.

I believe that this is the major force at which the FIC position is aimed. The difficulty is when within a Reformed Culture (as we've defined it) the "common scene" seems present. I can believe there are specific instances (individually church by church) where a responsible age-segregated program is in place. But I have a hard time accepting that it is common place even within Reformed cultures. Or at least regionally, I have not been able to identify any.

In the scope of this discussion at least, I think you and I are like minded here as well. (Further punctuated by II.Proof A.4.)

III. Proof A. Clarification:
I have no argument against age-segregated education being allowable. The question of necessity and profitability (consistent anyway) is still hanging. I particularly appreciate your points III.A.3.b. & c. One gripe that I have with most Sunday Schools that I've encountered is the children are advanced through a haphazard program by virtue of age alone. Your attention to both understanding and character of the child is unique in nearly ANY consideration of Christian Education I've encountered in the past several years.

III.A.4. is another point where the guns of the FIC movement are aimed. Many of the educational practices of churches I've encountered (Reformed cultures included) do segregate based on age segments of this nature. Not specifically single year, but more like a public school structure would in an age/grade sense. I think we're in agreement on this particular point - at least in essence.

III.B. Light of Nature / 1. Light of Nature

a) Children and adults typically separated during formal education taught by an adult (see Egypt, Sumarians, etc.)

Is this a completely positive example? Not that it's entirely negative, but consider the schools during the Roman Empire for just a moment. Doesn't Tertullian essentially question the influence of the academy on the Church? Tertullian was battling heresies, but weren't the systemic approaches of the day empowering the heresies (while not necessarily authoring)?

If I'm not mistaken, the Greek and Roman schools were working to move a child from a "family" frame of reference and authority, to a "state" frame of reference and authority. In some senses, didn't the academy of Rome work to establish the state as a deity; in substance denying God? That was mainly a Platonic idea (I think) that the state was really the chief agent in developing a child's intellect, rather than a parent, wasn't it?

e) The Herodian temple was divided the Jewish family: the court of the men and the court of the women (and children) during the time of Christ. This was never challenged by Christ or the Apostles.

But there was a distinction later, wasn't there? When Paul wrote Galatians, did he not actually challenge this format of separation? Didn't he unify the church in 3:8? Now, true he didn't go on a crusade against the Temple. But the Temple was only around another 20(or so) years (not that Paul would know that as he was writing).

That's not so much of an argument against your statement; there is no direct challenge that I can point to. And there are considerations of separations of men and women/children even through (at least) the 17th century in worship. But ultimately the Temple was judged and eradicated. While the church is grafted into Israel, don't even the covenantal structures and NT language maintain some distinctions (for example: Mark 7 - Jesus came to feed the children first, the dogs have to wait; Romans 1 - first the Jew, then the gentile)? The Jewish structures of Jesus day were heavily influenced by the culture. The culture was heavily influenced by the Roman occupation and the religious establishment of the Jews (who Jesus railed against). Is it possible that the judgment on Jerusalem (and consequently the Temple) in A.D. 70 was God effecting change on that culture as well?

III.C. Christian Prudence

2. Church councils endorsed the erection of schools or tutoring by local Bishops

Of note, " … by Bishops." Looking back to another point in my disagreement with the "common scene" and what I see even among "Reformed culture,"

…The typical requirements for a Sunday School teacher in America today are a pulse and a clear background check. The average (dare I say, "overwhelming majority of?") Sunday School programs are kept alive merely because the church believes it should have one, and has little or no structure or Biblical standard. At some point the Pastor might review the curriculum (which is typically some "Jesus loves me" cookie cutter template). There is typically a "director," but they are usually not an elder or ordained in any sense and the teachers in the classrooms are really just looking to see that the kids "enjoyed it" rather than were effectively moved toward sanctification (if they even know them well enough to speak to justification).

There should be some qualification for teachers, especially considering James caution that not many should become teachers. Again, even within "Reformed cultures" I've encountered I'm not seeing care given to this point. Still anecdotal, but the only frame of reference that I have.

I'm working on more, and will hopefully be able to pay some attention to this over the weekend.

 

[Shawn Mathis]

Dear Erik,

I have a symposium to prepare for this coming Monday night and cannot give attention to your interaction. I strongly suspect I'll not be able to follow up afterward for a while if there is any feedback to the symposium. In case you do not know:

The Family in Crisis: Three Pastoral Responses
Pastor Swanson, Mathis and Kingsbury will each be speaking, with some interaction and then open to questions from the floor.

 

[southkogs]

Dear Erik,

I have a symposium to prepare for this coming Monday night and cannot give attention to your interaction. I strongly suspect I'll not be able to follow up afterward for a while if there is any feedback to the symposium. In case you do not know:

The Family in Crisis: Three Pastoral Responses
Pastor Swanson, Mathis and Kingsbury will each be speaking, with some interaction and then open to questions from the floor.

I did not know ... but I am definitely interested in hearing how it goes, and recordings if available. I understand the timing. I've got one more post tonight and then we can let it sit until it's convenient for you to get back to it.

And thank you for the link to your review of Monumental.

---------- Post added at 11:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:22 PM ----------

… some more. Again, not so much as disagreements, but points of conversation.

D. Word of God 1.c.)(2) -

The history of Christian education (esp. the Reformation) shows the power of traditional schooling, even to the judicious use of age-segregation

If we are defining Christian education today (either Reformed culture at large or the common scene) as "traditional," then I would probably argue the same point as I made a couple of posts ago. At large, Christian education today (with some exceptions) does not look like what I find Christian eduction during the Reformation to probably look like. If the Reformation era Christian education is "traditional" and the church as a whole needs to return to that (Reformed cultures at large inclusive), then I probably agree with the statement. It's back to that idea of like-for-like comparisons.

D. Word of God 1.d) -

Charity: Deuteronomy 22:1 "You shall not see your brother's ox or his sheep going astray, and hide yourself from them; you shall certainly bring them back to your brother."

In all of the CE programs that I've encountered, classroom instruction in an age/grade pattern is the mode and means. Can this accomplish teaching/discipling young people who's parents have abdicated their responsibility? Providence can break through and care for that, yes. But again, is a classroom necessary? AND, is it the only solution? I have heard several FIC proponents encourage churches to help families graft these "spiritual orphans" in to their own family worship/discipleship; AND also engage the abdicating parents as well in an effort to affect change in them. Information is important (a child needs to be catechized), but isn't discipleship more organic than a classroom? Maybe holistic is a good word?

The remainder of your outline advocates delegation and age-segregation, but I think you and I agree on the terms of your outline. Here's my "blue collar" version:

The Bible recognizes terms that are a little more broad (young men, older women, little ones, nursing babes, etc.). Those more broad terms better fit how the church should segregate at appropriate times.

And:

A Sunday school divided up by maturity, subject matter, gender topics or similar types of divisions, that is easy to place good Biblically qualified teachers over, and respects the parents role as primary in the discipleship of children is one that FIC churches could probably accept under Christian liberty. Most FIC churches have some type of divisions like this. My church, for example, has regular men's meetings for any male over 12 (among some other things). We don't have those meetings every Sunday (or every week), but we do have them regularly within a month.

Even your conclusion:

E. Some non-parental, regular, age-segregation is not only allowable but when properly understood commanded (Titus 2:4 and 1 Tim. 5:2)

… is fairly comfortable to me from an FIC perspective. We don't have a Sunday morning "Titus 2" class for the ladies per se, but we certainly encourage interaction between families and creating opportunities for the older to teach the younger per Titus 2. For us that instruction (age-segregated at times and age-specific at times) can be formal classroom when needed (not as often) or more shoulder to shoulder as your going through the day (far more common for us).

**** For clarification, when I say "shoulder-to-shoulder as you're going through the day (far more common for us)" I am not suggesting or advocating any sort of communal or "theo-civic" arrangement. Our families are encouraged to get together regularly and help one another along. We also have several groups of families with common interests who wind up at the same events. In other words, we intentionally get together outside of church and we happen to run into each other regularly outside of church. We've seen the communal approach and the "let's make a Christian city" approach, and we reject what we've seen on both. *****

The work you've just presented is in response to the question, "So, if an FIC has decided to structure itself as family integrated not because of Scott Brown's position, but rather because of how counter productive Sunday School and Youth Ministry seem to be (at large), is it still problematic?" And I'd like to try to summarize where we land considering your outline, and my interaction with it.

Your original response (much to the dismay of your wife) was "yes and no."

We clarified:
-That I was addressing the common scene, but knew of no Reformed cultures locally to me (within 50 miles or so) who functioned distinctively in that regard
-That there is such a thing as responsible age-segregated instruction within the scope of Christian liberty
-That I would probably have used the age-segregated teaching systems of the Reformation, Puritan England, etc. (Calvin's Geneva Schools, for example)
-That those particular age-segregated teaching systems are not like-for-like comparisons to existing Christian Education programs (with some exceptions)
-That Scott Brown is not completely clear in his book
(did I miss anything?)

I'm assuming that with all of the clarification, your answer is still "yes and no," but it leans more heavily toward the "yes it is problematic" side. Would that be accurate?

 

[Shawn Mathis]

Somewhat related to FIC dialogue (specifically the NCFIC) since they claim historical precedence for their suspicion of Sunday school:

Flagrant misquote in the movie Divided

Also: written introductions from the Family in Crisis symposium are up here. The hard drive that held the audio crashed. There will be two written summaries of the event that night shortly Lord willing.

 

[Shawn Mathis]

Summary of the unofficial Family Integrated churches symposium here: Local pastors discuss solutions for America's family crisis

 

[southkogs]

Pastor Mathis:

Forgive my delay in posting this.

In a recent off-line discussion you and I had you mentioned a family who was now "less radical about homeschooling." Around the same time (a week or so ago), I received an email of some notes from a recent conference call about FICs and homeschooling was mentioned as a distinctive of FICs vs. the church at large (or in our discussion common scene and reformed cultures). I read a little more in the discussion and was disappointed at some of the conversation, perhaps encountering some of that "radical about homeschooling" you mentioned.

I can only really speak to my own church's position, and can say that we've had direct conversation about the matter with Grace Family Baptist (Voddie Baucham's church) and with Dr. Baucham himself (so I think they'd line up with our position). Additionally, my church has had to wrestle with what to do if a non-homeschooling family wants to be part of the fellowship directly. That forced us to consider the matter in a slightly larger context, and be specific in our stance.

First, home educating does not make one a Christian. It is not listed among the fruit of the Spirit, and can't be considered evidence of salvation.

Second, home education cannot be a condition or requirement for admission to the membership of the local church body. There is nothing in scripture to secure that type of position.

That said - my church does state in our literature that we "strongly encourage home education." It's the best phrase we could come up with to plop our position on the table with people considering us a home church. Here is why we encourage home education:

1. The Bible tells us to train up our children in the way they should go - Prov. 22:6
2. The Bible tells us (specifically fathers) to bring up our children in the nurture and admonition of the LORD - Eph. 6:4
3. The Bible tells us the fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom - Ps. 111:10
4. The Bible tells us that we are to teach the Word of the LORD to our children diligently as we go about our daily business - Duet. 6:7​

In short, we are to provide a Christian education to our children. Public school does not (and really, in my estimation, cannot any longer) do that. Possibly, here and there may be a public school that is able to pull it off, but those are scarce exceptions. There are teachers in the public schools who want, and even try, to accomplish the task. But any more it's rather fool hardy to rely on those good intentions. If nothing else, the curriculum in the classroom of teacher who has the best of intentions is working against them mercilessly, and what small headway is gained will likely be chiseled away over the course of the ensuing years.

Further, the culture in which children are engulfed in 7 hours per day is counter productive to training disciples of Christ. That society will work harder against them over the years than they can be salt and light to it (as a rule; of course God can Providentially do unexpected and fantastic things).

Our printed statement does ignore the idea of Christian Schools. We did that intentionally. Mainly because we believe there are some that probably do a good job of providing a Christian education, we leave the door open on that concept. Unfortunately, most of us have experience of some sort or another with the local Christian schools and have found them unconvincing.

So, we (our local fellowship) will stand with other FICs encouraging home education, but we can't stand on a position that says that home education secures/enhances/displays one's position in Christ or the Church (local or universal). It's about the "why" one educates at home. We just believe that it its the best practical means on the table to provide a truly Christian education to a child.

I personally have a host of other gripes with popular education (even in the colleges and universities) to add to why we home educate, but it's neither here nor there to the FIC portion of things.

I hope that's a little bit of a help from one small corner of the FIC world.

 

[Shawn Mathis]

Dear Erik,

Thank you for the clarification. The relationship between homeschooling and FIC is strong but not necessary. I think another thread would be good to cover the question of homeschooling from a biblical perspective. I'll only say that a few FIC pastors have publicly endorsed homeschooling in stronger terms than you (what I dub radical homeschooling and its significance).

 

[southkogs]

I think another thread would be good to cover the question of homeschooling from a biblical perspective.

That was something of a "commercial break" due to my having run into the more radical element recently (new experience). If we get a little further in this thread, perhaps we can engage another on homeschooling. Though I'm not certain I know exactly what I would contribute there.

I'll only say that a few FIC pastors have publicly endorsed homeschooling in stronger terms than you (what I dub radical homeschooling and its significance).

Like I said ... new experience. I was surprised and a little saddened by it.

 

[Shawn Mathis]

My FIC interview by Mrs. Campbell of thatmom.com, here.

 

[southkogs]

Pastor Mathis:

I listened to the podcast last night, and had been waiting for the audio from the symposium. (Was that made available yet?) I didn't want you to think I'd vanished.

Best Regards,

Erik

 

[Shawn Mathis]

Erik (and readers): the symposium audio was lost. The hard drive crashed and is beyond repair. There are the three opening statements in written form, here.

I gave a summary of the symposium here.

It was a good start, although the substantiative differences were not directly dealt with. I got the sense (along with others in the audience) from some questions from the audience that some homeschoolers/FICers cannot imagine a church using the same Bible verses as those commonly used in defense of homeschooling/FIC in any other way than the way their leaders seems to use them. We were asked at least twice how my and Rev. Kingsbury's church would implement these verses or how we would treat homeschoolers. (As you know, I homeschool!). This is important because I think the rhetoric from some of the leaders lends to people thinking this way.

 

[Shawn Mathis]

Part 2 of my interview with Mrs. Campbell, here. It is the historical critique of FIC. (Or after talking with Erik, it should be called radical FIC.)

PS. Some people think it is only those with some biased grudge who speak caution about the FIC. Well, Mrs. Campbell attended three FICs in here life. She has the personal experience to speak of what I cannot.

 

[Shawn Mathis]

Part 3 of my interview with Mrs. Campbell, here.

I see the FIC postings here are still red hot. Don't be shy: questions or observations are welcomed!

 

[Shawn Mathis]

Part 4, the final, is up, here.

More about homeschooling, FIC and Reformed nurture, here: Uniting Church and Family

 

[Shawn Mathis]

For those who prefer audio interviews, here is the entire four-part series

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4

Otherwise, check out the written series of related articles here.

(For those interested in contacting me, please feel free. For those wishing to debate me or point out my errors, please use the public comment sections and Christian charity.)

 

[southkogs]

Pastor Mathis:

Before we get into the next round (in whatever form that may take), I do want to thank you for a couple of things. First of all, there can be no question that you have challenged me significantly with regards to family integration (as defined by the NCFIC anyway), and given me pause to consider several points. Please don't for a moment think that I've taken that lightly, nor that it hasn't been of immeasurable value to me. I will say that I am as firmly committed even at this point in our interaction as I was at the beginning, but I think you've given me a more critical approach. I'm not certain of what that means long term, but in the immediate sense our conversation has given me pause to caution myself (and my church) in a few areas. Thank you for your candor and the conversation. It has been a blessing to me, and the Lord has certainly worked through it to pack a little more snow on this particular lump of dung.

For our readers - if you've not seen it in the thread, my goal was not to change Pastor Mathis' mind regarding the FIC movement. It was to challenge myself and my own considerations.

…(Or after talking with Erik, it should be called radical FIC.)

Second, thank you for this comment. It would be foolish to deny there is a radical aspect within the FIC movement, and frankly anyone would expect there to be (while not desirable, it's somewhat inevitable). I appreciate not being completely lumped into that segment.

Finally, thank you for keeping this conversational. I am not skilled quite enough to hold my own in a real debate (usually), and a full on argumentative brawl is not a place where I do well either. Frankly, understanding the caliber of person I was entering into the discussion with, I had no real expectation of a "victory" of any kind (in terms of a debate/argument anyway). And honestly, I wasn't so much worried about winning or losing (though, I wasn't all that excited about the prospect of the latter) - I had hoped to be able to come through the entire discussion congenially and perhaps even find some unity through it. I think we've managed congeniality well, and there are some points of unity too.


Also, for our readers - I did have a conversation with Pastor Mathis off line regarding the recent symposium. Since the audio is not going to be available, I'll mention this here as I don't know that I have the time to get involved in another thread. If you have read the opening statements there is a quote in Pastor Swanson's statement that should be particularly troubling. The quote is that we are "saved as families." I contacted Pastor Swanson directly and asked about this statement. As a final landing point in our exchange, he did confirm that we are indeed saved (justified/redeemed) as individuals and not as family groups. I have encouraged him to deal with that statement publicly. To my knowledge, he has not made that correction.

As I know there are groups within the FIC movement who do hold that view (or one that is similar to it), I agree with Pastor Mathis that a statement like that needs to be corrected openly. There is too much at stake considering the Gospel to let a statement that is (intentionally or not) erroneous to stand uncorrected. We have a saying within our church that we need to be "careful to be a church that is family integrated, more than a family integrated church." It's a cheap way to remind us to keep our heads straight and not sacrifice theology for modality. I would encourage any FIC to adopt a similar reminder for themselves.



Lastly (for this post anyway), I think we might be able to review some points of unity in the discussion (Pastor Mathis, correct me if I'm wrong and add points if you feel I've missed any):

1.) The Gospel is the changing agent in the lives of individuals and the church - family integration offers no advantage in justification. Elevating ANYTHING over the Gospel is wrong.
2.) There is no scriptural prohibition (a "thou shalt not") against Sunday School or Youth Ministry
3.) The "common scene" of Sunday School and Youth Ministry has some substantial problems
4.) Age-Segregated Sunday School is Biblically permissible under Christian Liberty
5.) The FIC emphasis on parents taking responsibility for the discipleship of their children is a good message for the church at large
6.) The FIC emphasis for children being a part (present) in the assembly/worship service is a good message for the church at large - not excluding the reality of needing cry rooms, etc.
7.) There is no scriptural prohibition against other adults (outside the family) teaching children, and in fact there are Biblical examples and mandates for this to occur
8.) Some FIC churches overemphasize the family to a dangerous (perhaps even idolatrous) level
9.) There are distinctions to be made between the "common scene" (where both of us would point out problems) and Reformed cultures (where we have some disagreement in methodology)
10.) Maturity and Unity in the church (today) are lacking components making the entire conversation more muddy
11.) When you ask Shawn Mathis a question, you get an outline (see posts #57 - #59) … I thought I was long winded, sheesh! (Just kiddn' Pastor - I was actually impressed looking back through how much work you put into that. Thank you.)​

I'm finishing up listening to the last couple of podcasts. I'll post a couple of thoughts on the first one in just a moment.

 

[southkogs]

I've come up with a question based on not only listening to the podcasts, but also through a meeting with a national evangelistic organization recently (completely unrelated to FIC): how much do you suppose things are different in a regional sense?

For example, is the climate, style and practice of churches (reformed cultures on one hand and the common scene on the other) near you in Colorado considerably different than in Tennessee by me? Here in my area, there is (almost literally) a church on every corner. I live in a city of about 150K people, and we have at least 5 churches with attendance sizes over 3,000 (no kidding - I'm low-balling, here) and one of them has attendance somewhere more like 14,000. That doesn't include the larger and wealthier areas that are regionally close by to me. There are HUGE budgets at work and phenomenal programs that these churches have going on, and when you hear me reference "programs" and things of that nature earlier in the thread - that's what I have in my head. Seriously, these are fantastic budgets utilizing marketing in ways that are similar to the "Madison Avenue" tactics my company would employ (we're in a marketing industry). Would that perhaps skew my perception of the common scene (at least) and even reformed cultures (as some of the churches I am thinking of would fit into that category) comparative to what you're used to seeing in your area?

I'm wondering what affect that has on independent churches (specifically FIC) that establish in the area?

The early stages of the conversation in the podcasts paint with a fairly broad brush. I didn't hear you go off of your main criticisms, but I felt as though Mrs. Campbell was a little less accurate. However, given the experiences she writes about I can understand why. I was surprised by a couple of the comments written on her site (by readers/listeners). I appreciate your honesty and clarification with one of the posts very much.

This question is out of pure curiosity:

...Well, Mrs. Campbell attended three FICs in here life. She has the personal experience to speak of what I cannot.

Earlier in the conversation we discussed anecdotal information (at the time I mentioned my association with 3 FICs), and this was part of your reply (which I completely understand and agree with):

1. Anecdotal information has two problems:

a) The obvious: anecdotal. I have counter-anecdotal information.
b) The less obvious: interpretation of said information​

Much of what I heard (though not all) from Mrs. Campbell seemed more anecdotal to me - related to my "broad brush" comment above. I don't want to diminish her personal experiences at all. However, there is counter-anecdotal information and we have the struggle of interpretation of the given information. Would you agree the instances are similar?

Like I said, that's from curiosity - not sure that I'm trying to prove anything by it.

 

[Shawn Mathis]

11.) When you ask Shawn Mathis a question, you get an outline (see posts #57 - #59) … I thought I was long winded, sheesh! (Just kiddn' Pastor - I was actually impressed looking back through how much work you put into that. Thank you.)[/INDENT]

Ha! I thought it was too short!

I, too, want to thank Erik for his humility (how many leaders publicly admit what he did?), integrity and good questions and observations. He has certainly helped sharpen my understanding of my own stance and the various approaches among the FIC themselves.

I'll digest your upcoming questions.

 

[Shawn Mathis]

Erik,

At this "stage in the game" anecdotal information can help people reconsider 1) the possible impact of their message, 2) listeners consider potential avenues to further explore...if done aright. Sometimes it can be kind of like a yellow-light.

As for the Denver metro area, we are highly secular. The statistics show we are up there as a non-church going society in general. We have our mega-churches (I grew up in one).

I stick with the publicly verifiable facts as I can. I have proven my concerns with extensive quotes from Mr. Brown, his book, the movie and various other sources of info.

As for your list of agreements, I think that is a good summary. In fact, if such an approach as your are taking now was taken several years ago this (one-sided) public dissection of the NCFIC could have yielded more positive results. It still can if the de facto leadership would change their tact and follow your lead.

 

[southkogs]

At this "stage in the game" anecdotal information can help people reconsider 1) the possible impact of their message, 2) listeners consider potential avenues to further explore...if done aright. Sometimes it can be kind of like a yellow-light.

I've got no disagreement with that. I've actually re-typed four different versions of why I think I came up with that question, but I can't get to it without sounding as though I'm discounting Mrs. Campbell's experiences. I've opted for something simple: I believe her, but found some of her anecdotes rather sensational.

I stick with the publicly verifiable facts as I can. I have proven my concerns with extensive quotes from Mr. Brown, his book, the movie and various other sources of info.

I think you do that well, and you maintained it in the interviews from your end.

In the second podcast Mrs. Campbell makes a statement to the effect that a growing number of state homeschool organization leaders are suggesting that homeschooling should be legal for only Christians (and adds Christians of a certain persuasion). That's a rather shocking and (in my opinion) fantastic statement - is there any substantiation or evidence that you're aware of?

Also, in that same podcast Mrs. Campbell mentions Michael Pearl, Ted Tripp and Gary Ezzo in a manner that seems to suggest that they are a substantial (at least) voice in the FIC movement. Do you consider these people major figures and representative voices for FICs?

As for your list of agreements, I think that is a good summary. In fact, if such an approach as your are taking now was taken several years ago this (one-sided) public dissection of the NCFIC could have yielded more positive results. It still can if the de facto leadership would change their tact and follow your lead.

I am most assuredly not a major voice ( ... who am I kidding? I'm not even a minor one!) in the FIC movement, and I don't presume to speak on anyone's behalf but my own (and perhaps my church). I still consider myself in substantial agreement with the NCFIC, and at the same time have no problem being in disagreement with them and/or the NCFIC confession on some issues (if it turns out that I am). If indeed FICs are committed to the authority and sufficiency of Scripture, and they are truly (and humbly) seeking a healthier church I believe God will ultimately bless the motives and effort. There are non-FIC churches who are seeking the same thing, with the same commitment to the authority and sufficiency of Scripture. The hitch for many (FIC and not) is that what God reveals to us as His intention and will for our church (home, lives, etc., etc.) is often vastly different than what we concocted in our heads. All of us wind up in the same position then: learning to walk humbly with our God.

 

[Shawn Mathis]

Erik,

So, at the end of this thread, even with the uncontested evidence that Mr. Brown (and hence the NCFIC) maintains a substantially questionable hermeneutic, to whit, the "regulative principle of education," you are still not sure if you disagree with him? or just more specifically the vaguely worded NCFIC confession? That's one question (sorta).

Two: when Mr. Brown writes an article (like this one at the Christain Post) where he makes the broad-sweeping and unsubstantiated claim, "The Bible makes it clear that meetings for worship, instruction and discipleship were age integrated" do you find yourself agreeing or wondering what he is getting at?

Three: "Should children be in the meeting of the church, alongside their parents? If you only had the Bible, what would you conclude about what to do about childcare? Is there any evidence of childcare services to support the worship and instruction of God's people? Do the apostles ever allude to a nursery or Sunday school? Are there any commands relating to the subject? Are there any examples to follow in Scripture for this area?" Do you agree with the explicit "desert island" test?

I have studiously avoided the L-word during this whole discussion, but when such evidence is brought to my fellow pastors it is not far from their lips. This is the primary reason I can never endorse Mr. Brown or the NCFIC: adding to God's word to such a degree as he does. I know we are all tempted with such additions but the matter is exasperated by the condemning language that throws conservative Reformed ministers such as myself under the evolutionary bus (article xi)

This plus the average Evangelical audience's weak spiritual state adds more concern. Hence, my emphasis upon understanding the deeper need of these Christians, even homeschoolers: they do not need additions to the Word of God. They need clear presentation of the Law (many are antinomians) and the Gospel. When I see these families, I see my old life bound in the twin terrors of antinomianism and legalism.

My decision is further reinforced by the sloppy and careless research the organization uses (and his is not the only one). There are gross ommissions in the book (Calvin's Geneva, etc.) and gross commissions (flagrant misquote in Divided and his book).

The NCFIC has many good things to say about the family. But then so does Ligonier ministries. And Banner of Truth. And they do not have all the additional baggage.

Obviously, I believe it in your best interest to further distance yourself from the NCFIC. For the sake of late readers, I know your church has not signed the NCFIC confession and that is a good thing.

 

[southkogs]

So, at the end of this thread, even with the uncontested evidence that Mr. Brown (and hence the NCFIC) maintains a substantially questionable hermeneutic, to whit, the "regulative principle of education," you are still not sure if you disagree with him? or just more specifically the vaguely worded NCFIC confession? That's one question (sorta).

I don't personally have a good argument to contest your evaluation of Mr. Brown's book. And, if indeed some of the statements you highlight are Mr. Brown unilaterally stamping ANYTHING age-segregated Biblically wrong, then I would disagree with that. Much in the same way that I would say that I don't agree with everything in the NCFIC confession - I'm in substantial agreement with it, but not complete (which is true of the LBC, too).

At the same time, I am not completely convinced that your argument establishes an airtight case for Mr. Brown to hold such a dogmatic position. And that's why I'm not sure if I disagree with him.

Now, it could be given all the above, Mr. Brown will still allow for your version of age-segregation. But that is not clear from the book itself. What is clear is that Mr. Brown is unclear.

I've admitted that the book didn't impress me that much, and I can agree with you that Mr. Brown isn't completely clear. But that doesn't quite mean that he holds the position quite as you present it. As you say …

What Mr. Brown gives in one hand is virtually taken away by the other."

Or, as best as I can see it … there is an issue of clarity.

I have simply quoted Mr. Brown. You have thrown in all the qualifications. Your qualifications are more helpful than answers given by Mr. Brown. Add the prima facia reading of Mr. Brown with the blog post (linked above) where he further digs his hermeneutical hole and my case stands.

I have stacked on qualifications that I think are in line with the FICM as a whole (based on a more broad range of experience than just Mr. Brown), and you're as you say "simply quoting Mr. Brown." Your argument as presented is one that I cannot overcome based on Mr. Brown's book or any writing of his that I have encountered. I have heard him speak a few times, and I am of the opinion (based on what I've heard from him) that my qualifications would stand with him … but I have no guarantee of that. So, perhaps I do disagree with him. But for the moment, I'm not completely convinced of that.

Or better yet: publicly call upon Mr. Brown to officially make just such qualifications. Then and only then will this whole brouhaha be settled.

I should think that it would be more proper to talk with him privately first. Just as I've opened myself up here to be convinced one direction, I think I should open myself up in a similar fashion with him.

Two: when Mr. Brown writes an article (like this one at the Christain Post) where he makes the broad-sweeping and unsubstantiated claim, "The Bible makes it clear that meetings for worship, instruction and discipleship were age integrated" do you find yourself agreeing or wondering what he is getting at?

I think it is difficult to make that claim as that quote does. In my opinion, the rule (not without exception) was that the entire assembly was gathered for formal worship. I qualify that because worship is bigger than the formal gathering on the LORD's Day, but in terms of the assembly of the Church on a regular basis I think it's very common to see a complete assembly (all ages and genders). When you say "instruction" and "discipleship," I think it's more difficult to make a statement like that stand. There are just too many different applications of those terms that are valid, and in many cases they may be rather segregated. One of our most common mental images of discipleship comes from Jesus and His 12 - age and gender segregated, really. Most FICs have some sort of segregated meeting - Grace Family Baptist (Voddie Baucham's church) encourages FICs to have monthly men's (men & boys 12 or older) gatherings for instruction.

I'll go with your "wondering what he's getting at" there.

Three: "Should children be in the meeting of the church, alongside their parents? If you only had the Bible, what would you conclude about what to do about childcare? Is there any evidence of childcare services to support the worship and instruction of God's people? Do the apostles ever allude to a nursery or Sunday school? Are there any commands relating to the subject? Are there any examples to follow in Scripture for this area?" Do you agree with the explicit "desert island" test?

The "desert island" test is kind of a stupid one, in my opinion (regardless of what side of the debate you're on). The way the question is posed suggests that you wound up on this island void of any presuppositions and frames of reference. If we could truly be on that island with a contextual blank slate, who knows how we would interpret commands to instruct, disciple, teach, encourage, and so forth? God only knows because even our guesses are steeped in presuppositions.

The question is supposed to push us to rely objectively on the Scriptures, breaking through the presuppositions and contexts we have in our noggins. If we could make that objective leap would we completely reject the idea of different age groups or gender groups being instructed apart from each other? Nope. As you've pointed out, there is precedent (perhaps even command) for that to happen in the Bible. However, I think it's a stretch to suggest that using the same Scriptural data the first lever we would objectively reach for is classrooms established based on age segments of two to three years common ages, youth pastors, Sunday School and all of the other programmed gigs we have going on in the church today (common scene and reformed cultures inclusive). The scriptural data may be sufficient to allow for all of that, but it's not necessary that all of those things exist to fulfill the commands and precedents.

For the assembly worship on the LORD's Day, I absolutely think the children should be in there with their parents. If we could be on that island and truly objective with the scripture, I think the nursery (not the "cry room," by the way), children's church and the common scene of Sunday School would not exist. Would the older women teach the younger ones? Of course they would. Would children be catechized? Certainly. Would we recognize nursing infants (a Biblical term) don't learn in the same way as young men (another Biblical term)? Of course. And we would instruct and disciple within that context. But it doesn't necessarily follow that we would generate classrooms and programs designed around age groups like we see in the public school structures - which is VERY familiar territory in many (perhaps most) Sunday schools.

So, "poopoo-ing" the desert island test I wind up agreeing that age-segregated programs are permissible. But in the spirit of the desert island test, we should admit that, while permissible, age-segregated programs are not necessary (in that hard to define systematic classroom sense) to accomplish the commands and precepts of Scripture.

I have studiously avoided the L-word during this whole discussion, but when such evidence is brought to my fellow pastors it is not far from their lips. This is the primary reason I can never endorse Mr. Brown or the NCFIC: adding to God's word to such a degree as he does. I know we are all tempted with such additions but the matter is exasperated by the condemning language that throws conservative Reformed ministers such as myself under the evolutionary bus (article xi)

Again, based on things I've heard said by Mr. Brown and on elements of the FICM outside of the NCFIC (I really want a third acronym right now) I would suggest that comments about the evolutionary influence within age-segregation is limited to the age/grade structures like used in the public school systems. Churches have adopted that structure (common scene at least) for their programs as well, and you yourself even admit you're not in favor of segregating by age blindly (example: 12 year olds with 12 year olds simply because they're 12 years old).

The second half of your statement (about being thrown under the evolutionary bus) rides along with one of your earlier points about churches in the same denomination having the NCFIC confession become a wedge between them: I hadn't considered it exactly from that standpoint before and I haven't quite unwrapped all of that. Locally, our relationship with other churches is rather good and folks from my congregation do things with other churches all the time - not to mention joining in to help out things like the children's home, mission and so on. I've got good relationships with local pastors (non-FIC), and can't think of a conversation I've had ("how do y'all do stuff" conversations) where it didn't wind up being a friendly conversation or anything more than a "huh, well that's interesting." For me it's been more about conviction than about a crusade - which is why being in disagreement doesn't bother me too much.

Like I said, I'm still chewing on that part ...

This plus the average Evangelical audience's weak spiritual state adds more concern. Hence, my emphasis upon understanding the deeper need of these Christians, even homeschoolers: they do not need additions to the Word of God. They need clear presentation of the Law (many are antinomians) and the Gospel. When I see these families, I see my old life bound in the twin terrors of antinomianism and legalism.

It would be a flat out lie to say that either end of the spectrum (antinomianism to legalism) doesn't exist within the FICM. However, to insist that being family-integrated is by nature either antinomian or legalistic is too much for me. I've had experience on both ends myself, and can give you addresses of local congregations stuck in either problem across a wide denominational scope. We have had to counsel families in our own congregation on both ends, and I know that I've had discussions with other FIC leaders with situations similar to my own. It's a problem that is common across the entire evangelical landscape, not just FICs.

Perhaps when we limit the conversation to reformed cultures the dynamics change significantly, but it doesn't completely insulate. When I said "give you addresses for" one of the more antinomian churches I'm thinking of is a PCA. That draws us back to an issue of the Gospel and solid theology, and FICs are capable of that in the same manner as any other church.

My decision is further reinforced by the sloppy and careless research the organization uses (and his is not the only one). There are gross ommissions in the book (Calvin's Geneva, etc.) and gross commissions (flagrant misquote in Divided and his book).

I have to wave the white flag here. I'm not studied enough to counter any of your positions. Certainly, the post regarding the quote in "Divided" is something I have no argument against - or reason to believe that you are not accurate in what you say. I'm also not so pragmatic to say that it doesn't matter what some old dead guy (especially Dabney) said.

However, I got punched around pretty good for using some quotes not long ago too. I was accused of using the quotes out of context as well. My point at the time was not to suggest that any one of the men I was quoting would look at a healthy functioning reformed culture compared to a healthy functioning FIC and place a gold start on the FIC's forehead, leaving the reformed culture wondering, "what in the world happened?!?" My point was that compared to the common scene (and it's influence even within reformed cultures and FICs), there was historically a MUCH greater concern with family roles and discipleship within the home. The ignorance of that in the broad scope of the church today is something I think we can agree on. Perhaps you feel that an FIC approach puts the cart before the horse (the Gospel as a secondary), but I'm fairly confident in the situations that I've encountered the approach works in terms of a response to the Gospel.

All that still doesn't help the quote in "Divided," though.

 

[Shawn Mathis]

Dear reader (and Erik),

I think we have more than exhausted the similarities and differences. One major difference between myself and Erik is our respective understandings of what Mr. Brown and the NCFIC actually believe.

I believe if more people could evaluate for themselves the more sectarian view of Mr. Brown, et.al., in their own words, the more people will reevaluate their relation to the movement. To that end, here are three articles (the third being the longest). One is a previous post on this thread. The two others are further evidence that Mr. Brown and others believe in what I dub the "regulative principle of education". I think the second article is the most explicit defense offered by Mr. Brown:

1. A Summary of Mr. Brown's sectarian view
2. Mr. Brown explains the "regulative principle of discipleship"
3. Mr. Baucham employs similar thinking

And a reminder to the readers: my original article about the FIC includes my observation of a "desert island test" hermeneutic ("regulative principle of education"). This article was deemed acceptable by a member of Mr. Brown's church, one-time intern and occasional worker for the NCFIC, Mr. Glick (who also brought the article to Mr. Brown's attention): "So, in answer to your question, overall, the description was accurate and I greatly appreciate all the references. Some have slammed us and not even attempted to prove that it was so. That said, in all respect, I disagree with much of the analysis."

Thus, the burden of proof against my evaluation is upon those who disagree with me. If you still agree with Mr. Brown's position, fine, as long as everyone is clear about what is being said.

For peace and unity in Christ's Body,

shawn

 

[southkogs]

To our readers:

I'm terribly late getting this posted, please forgive me for letting it sit so long.

As Pastor Mathis indicated above, we've run this conversation out far enough and he and I have agreed that we can close this particular discussion. I do admit that I have not been able to give a substantial argument against his evaluation of the NCFIC or Mr. Brown, and will also add that his evaluation has given me much food for thought. At the same time, I hope the points of agreement have shed some light on (at least some) FICs and perhaps challenged some within the FICM to consider WHY they do what they do.

I'd like to finish off with just a few things:

For starters, I'd like to again thank Pastor Mathis for participating in this conversation and being challenging and grace filled throughout. As I said earlier in the thread, the value has been exceptional to me personally. We have accomplished precisely what I had (selfishly) set out to do, and I have been given several new perspectives to consider. It is my hope that our discussion has been an example of charitable debate between brothers in Christ, and an encouragement to be open in conversation with one another. My God be glorified even in our disagreement as we all love our neighbor as ourselves.

Next, I would like to encourage all of us to open ourselves up to challenge from time to time. The presuppositions with which we tend to approach God's Word often blind us to what the Word itself says. Having our positions challenged doesn't necessarily spell defeat for who we are and what we believe, but rather may offer a more mature perspective and solid foundation for our belief. In a multitude of counselors, there is safety.

Finally, I would like to return a focus of this conversation to a point that Pastor Mathis made at the very beginning - the Gospel is the key. ANY approach we may take to ministry, ANY decisions we make regarding how we "do" church and ANY considerations we make in living our lives out with our families must be based in a response to the Gospel. None of this is a path to the Gospel, it is merely an imperfect response to it. For now we indeed see dimly - we know only in part; but then (WOW) face to face! We'll know as we are known! Praise God that He who began the good work in us is faithful to complete it.

I am open to further discussion or comments, but at this point I think it may perhaps be better to do that in another thread. If you have questions for either Pastor Mathis or myself, I would suggest that a PM to one of would be a great starting point.

Erik