What Is a Family Integrated Church?

Is your Christian education based upon evolutionary and secular thinking? It is if your church practices the usual age-segregated Sunday school according to a new church movement.

The family-integrated church movement, primarily within the homeschooling community, is a self-conscious challenge to classic Christian nurture. It has already affected some Reformed churches. This paper will explain what it is and examine its assertions by the Word of God and church history.

Many such churches are associated with the National Center for Family Integrated Churches (NCFIC). The center was publicly part of the Vision Forum organization until 2009.[1] The NCFIC, among other things, is about “uniting church and home,” inveighing against the typical Evangelical church’s abundance of age-segregated, special-interest programs. It unequivocally rejects age- and family-segregation that separates children from parents.

Churches interested in associating with this organization must be in “substantial agreement” with the NCFIC confession, a “working document.” Churches are not officially endorsed and denominational affiliation is no barrier to enrollment.[2] Although not a church planting agency, it wants to “encourage new church plants” based upon this model.

The confession includes a laudable rejection of children’s worship services and affirmations of parental responsibility; it also includes some questionable assertions. For instance, it rejects “family-fragmenting, age-segregated, peer-oriented, youth driven, and special-interest programs” (Article VII). This is another way of rejecting typical Sunday schools, youth groups and the like.

The core challenge of the confession is Article XI:

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

This affirmation uses unqualified language beyond the vague adjective comprehensive. While the confession never uses the words “Sunday school” and the like, the unqualified language and logic is clear: “age segregated practices are based on unbiblical, evolutionary and secular thinking”; modern Sunday schools are age segregated; therefore, they are based on “evolutionary and secular thinking.”

This serious charge is also publicly asserted by the leaders of this organization.

In his lecture about the history of Sunday schools, the founder and current board member, Mr. Phillips, declares these schools a “modern invention without biblical and historical precedent—period.” He also asserts that today’s church has “ . . . an entirely new hierarchy of social groups based on age: . . . dayschools . . . adolescence . . . PMS for women of certain age . . . these are all variations of evolutionary hellish thinking.”[3] Mr. Phillips claims that such special-interest thinking resulted from Greek thinking (youth and efficiency) instead of Hebraic thinking (discipleship and relationships). In fact, the “modern classroom . . . is a distinctly Greek and pagan approach to education”—an approach initiated by the Devil himself.[4]

It is certainly true that age-segregated programs (and special-interest programs in general) have been abused by churches and become crutches for too many families. Too many churches readily regulate the family into niche-market “ministries,” keeping the families busy while teaching them little of God’s Word. And too many families like it that way: there is less responsibility for them and they feel godly. Even so, do such abuses warrant rejection of any type of special-interest programs or age-segregation? Are all age-segregated approaches unbiblical, even evolutionary?
Such a serious charge is supported with three main claims: the “desert island test” of the Bible, the evolutionary roots of modern education, and the revival of families.

First there is the novel “desert island test”:

“[If all you had was the Bible on a desert island] . . . would you naturally conclude that you should fragment children along age-groups and put them in grade-based classroom . . . would you see a foundation . . . would you see a pattern, would there be any ground, any refuge in God’s Word that leads you to mimic this approach?”[5]

In other words, if the education method cannot be found in the Bible (by command or example), then it is forbidden (cp. Articles II, XI). In contrast, the Reformers stood upon the liberty of the Word of God (Rom. 14:4). For example, Christian liberty allows believers and churches to use note-taking, picture-books, and catechisms. They are neither commanded nor forbidden, yet are perfectly allowable if used correctly.

In fact, Luke (2:42ff.) explains that as a boy, Jesus was separated (segregated) from His family while under their authority. Furthermore, the temple layout at that time was family segregated: there was a court of the men and a court of the women (and children). The synagogue, regularly attended by Jesus, the Apostles and the early church similarly divided the family.

Moreover, the apostles preached to women and children without the presence of their male heads (Acts 16:13). Nehemiah 8:2 records the public meeting of the men and women of Israel, “all that could hear with understanding.” It appears that those of mature understanding attended, leaving those not able to understand (smaller children) at home or with the servants.

Next, it is asserted that many methods of education are evolutionary in origin. Yet, historically, children were separated from family, even age-segregated, before Darwin’s book published in 1859.[6] During the time of Christ many a young Jewish boy attended age-segregated day schools. The early church fathers and councils encouraged the creations of schools. New England worship services segregated the women from the men, and the children sat together elsewhere with adult supervision. Catechizing by ministers or elders could include separating children from parents and boys from girls. Larger schools, such as at Calvin’s Geneva, included seven grade levels with a typical child in a grade for about a year before testing for the next grade-level.

Lastly, there is the claim of revival:

Home educators, almost by definition, have turned their heart to their children [Mal. 4] . . . So there’s been a revival that’s taking place in the heart of these homeschool families. And this revival works itself out to the local church . . . our prayer: every Christian in the world is in a family integrated church. And there should be nothing but that, but you know what that is going to lead to? That’s going to lead to people homeschooling! . . . [7]

Three points will demonstrate this as a misguided prayer: 1. The Malachi four passage involves the family and the church with the minister (the prophet) as an instrument of revival in the family. 2. Luke 1:16ff. interprets “fathers” and “sons” in moral or spiritual terms. 3. Why pray for more such churches instead of more Reformed churches?

In summary, even though this confession’s emphasis on family is commendable, its unqualified rejection of age-segregation is biblically unfounded and contrary to historical facts. There is no Biblical “desert island test”; there is no biblical prohibition against properly practiced segregation; and there is no revival that focuses on family-integrated churches.

The church does not need another movement. In today’s climate of Christian darkness, churches and families do not need another method; what they need is the old message. A 2008 Pew Research Center study notes that fifty-seven percent of confessing Evangelicals believe in other ways to heaven than through Christ.[8] Ignorance about basic Law and Gospel is wide-spread as well.
And in an already fragmented church landscape, an emphasis upon this narrow issue only creates another sub-culture that weakens Christian unity. It also diminishes the role of the church in nurturing the children (Matt. 28:19, 20; Deut. 31:12ff.).

The views documented here are integral to the NCFIC’s very existence. To sign the confession is to publicly associate with these public sentiments. In spite of the leaders’ strong denunciations, it is hopeful that open dialogue can move beyond methods to uniting over the message of the Gospel.
_______________________
Footnotes

[1] In January 2009 the NCFIC changed their site from Vision Forum to www.ncfic.org. The confession was expanded too. Mr. Phillips (president of Vision Forum), is on the NCFIC board; his articles and lectures are used by the center.

[2] The registered Colorado churches include Dispensationalists, Presbyterians, Seventh Day Adventists, a range of worship styles and infant, child and father-led communion (as of Spring, 2011).

[3] Track 2, The History of the Sunday School Movement, Doug Phillips; track 13, post-Civil War era. Emphasis mine.

[4] Vision Forum about-page, 2010; History, track 3.

[5] Ibid, emphasis original, track 13; cp. track 2. Scott Brown, the center’s director, makes a similar argument, “Yet this structure [Sunday school] cannot be found anywhere in the Bible. It is not commanded in Scripture.” The Sufficiency of Scripture at Work in the Family Integrated Church, Scott Brown, NCFIC online, Jan. 2011

[6] Such facts and more are documented at ChristianNurture.blogspot.com or in good history books.

[7] Phillips, quoted from “The Family-Integrated Church Movement,” interview, Generations Radio, sermonaudio.com, June 12, 2006. This broadcast is favorably referenced by the NCFIC blog, January 21, 2009.

[8] Pew Research Center Publications, Religion in America, http://pewresearch.org/pubs/876/religion-america-part-two

[ORIGINALLY POSTED AT WES WHITE'S SITE. That site is closing so my articles are moving here.]

Overt misquote in the movie Divided

"The first one to plead his cause seems right, Until his neighbor comes and examines him." Proverbs 18:17

The Claim
When watching the movie, Divided, last year at the Colorado homeschooling conference, I was curious about what kind of historical evidence would be brought forward. Would the true story of Sunday school be told?

To my dismay, it was not so.

[continued here]

Family Integrated Church podcast series

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.

Family integrated church podcast, part 2

Part 2 at Thatmom.com is up, here.

Family Integrated Church podcast series at Thatmom.com

Here is the beginning of a series of interviews I gave Mrs. Campbell at thatmom.com.

Denver pastors discuss solutions to family crisis

"At a symposium in Denver, a panel of three pastors discussed why Christian families are losing their children to the world and how this can be prevented. Local homeschooling advocate and internet talk show host, Rev. Swanson, was on the panel presenting his vision of family restoration. The event was hosted at Park Hill Presbyterian Church on Monday night, April 2."

Continued here.

A sketch of the history of age-segregation among Christians

The following is a sketch of the facts I have uncovered in my research over the last few years in response to claims from many homeschoolers and/or family-integrated proponents. It is a slightly modified reprint (spelling and format) from the original post at puritanboard.com:

Hello Boliver,

If you are referring to Divided, please see the comments at the puritan forum here. And my review here.

It is important to know that the organization behind the movie actually has two problems with the modern "youth programs": separation from parents and age-segregation. Thus the history of Christian schooling as well as catechizing are both relevant in showing the gross inaccuracies of this movement.

[To fully understand the NCFIC and her leaders please read my article, What is a Family Integrated Church? (According to a current church member of Mr. Brown's church and one-time intern for Mr. Brown and currently employed with the NCFIC, Mr. Glick, my article was accurate).]

Here is a sample of the history of catechizing (and school class divisions).

Jewish Church: "In this period a synagogue presupposed a school, as with us a church implies a Sunday school. Hence the church and Sunday school, not the church and the district school, is a parallel to the Jewish system. The methods in these schools were not unlike those of the modern Sunday school. Questions were freely asked and answered, and opinions stated and discussed: any one entering them might ask or answer questions. Such a Jewish Bible school, no doubt, Jesus entered in the temple when twelve years old...in the apostolic period teachers were a recognized body of workers quite distinct from pastors, prophets, and evangelists (see 1 Cor. xii. 28, 29; Eph. iv. 11; Heb. v. 12, etc.). The best commentators hold that the peculiar work of teachers in the primitive church was to instruct the young and ignorant in religious truth, which is precisely the object of the Sunday school." (A Religious Encyclopedia, Schaff, 2262)

Ancient Church: “These catechetical classes and schools were intended to prepare neophytes, or new converts, for church-membership, and were also used to instruct the young and the ignorant in the knowledge of God and salvation. They were effective, aggressive missionary agencies in the early Christian churches, and have aptly been termed the 'Sunday schools of the first ages of Christianity.' The pupils were divided into two or three (some say four) classes, according to their proficiency. They memorized passages of Scripture, learned the doctrines of God, creation, providence, sacred history, the fall, the incarnation, resurrection, and future awards and punishments..." (Schaff, ibid)

Reformation & Post-Reformation:

The Geneva Academy had two divisions: schola privata and schola publica (the Academy proper). The schola privata (the lower school) was divided into seven grades, admitting children as young as age six. Most boys stayed in each grade a year, but could advance earlier. School began at six in the summer and seven in the winter and lasted until four in the afternoon. Children went home under escort from nine to eleven in the morning. Classes were on Saturday as well and included an afternoon recess. The children sung Psalms one hour a day as well. Catechism classes were held Sunday afternoons. (The History and Character of Calvinism, John T. McNeil (New York: Oxford University Press, 1967), 194ff. cp. Calvin and the Biblical Languages, John Currid (Christian Focus Publications) 2007).

Article 21 of the Dutch Church Order of Dordt (1618) orders that “consistories everywhere shall see to it that there are good school teachers not only to teach the children reading, writing, languages, and the liberal arts, but also to instruct them in godliness and in the Catechism.” (cf. the full Dordt instruction for catechetical teaching here).

"John Knox devised a system of Sunday schools, at the very beginning of the Reformation in Scotland, which system has been in operation in that country more or less extensively ever since. So that the Sunday schools which now exist in Scotland are derived, not from the system of Raikes in England, but are only a revival of the old system of the Reformer. These schools are frequently referred to in the records of that Church, and in the biographies of good men connected with it. In 1647, the General Assembly recommended to all universities to take account of their scholars on the Sabbath day of the sermons, and of their lessons in the catechism [students at "universities" could be as young as twelve]. John Brown, the godly carrier, had in his day a Sabbath school at Priesthill. It is stated, on the authority of Rev. John Brown, D. D., of Langton, Berwickshire, that Sunday schools were in existence in Glasgow, and other places, in 1707. They were in operation in Glasgow, and other places, in 1759, and also in many places in 1782." (The Congregational Quarterly, 1865, p.20)

The pastors and elders of the Bohemian Unity of Brethren church would assemble the older children of the church after the worship services to examine how well they retained the sermon; “hence our ancestors held separate addresses to the different classes, the beginners, the proficients, the perfect; also to the single, and again to the married by themselves: which practice it is evident was not without its advantage.” "At the conclusion of the noon and afternoon service, the elder youths and girls remain, and are examined by the preacher (one of the elders assisting him with the former, and one of the matrons with the latter) to ascertain what attention they have paid that day in hearing the word of God, and how much each has retained. Moreover, during the Lent season, on Wednesday and Friday evening, meetings are held, termed salva (from the hymn..."Save us, Jesus, heavenly King,") in which the mystery of redemption is diligently inculcated, especially upon the young." (Church Constitution of the Bohemian, 136ff.)

Early America:

The church in Norwich, Connecticut, in the Spring of 1675 covenanted together to instruct their children in the fear and admonition of the Lord: “We do therefore this Day Solemnly Covenant to Endeavour uprightly by dependence upon the Grace of God in Christ Jesus our only Saviour. First, That our Children shall be brought up in the Admonition of the Lord, as in our Families, so in publick; that all the Males who are eight or nine years of age, shall be presented before the Lord in his congregation every Lord’s Day to be Catechised, until they be about thirteen years in age. Second. Those about thirteen years of age, both male and female, shall frequent the meetings appointed in private for their instruction, while they continue under family government, or until they are received to full communion in the church.” (110ff. The Ecclesiastical History of New England, p.665 )

"It is well known that every respectable family had a regular weekly exercise in the catechism [in early New England]; and also that once a week in some towns, or once a month in others, the minister gather the children and youth of his parish, at two o’clock, on Saturday afternoon to catechize them." (The Congregational Quarterly, 1865, 21)

As late as 1808 (before Sunday Schools reached critical mass), the General Association of the Congregationalists in Connecticut, “That they [parents] require them to attend public catechisings till they are fourteen years of age, and thenceforward, during their minority, to attend seasons, that may be appointed by their pastor, for the religious instruction of youth.” The Panoplist, 1808, p.159

"My first acquaintance with Mr. Donnelly [early 1800s] was when I became a pupil in his school in my father's neighbourhood, in Chester District, S. C. I entered his school at an early age; and as he was my first teacher, (my parents excepted,) so he was also among the last. Under his tuition I studied the elementary branches, such as reading, spelling, etc., and recited to him the Larger Catechism. The Bible was not then excluded from the school, on the ground of its being a sectarian book…the afternoon of every alternate Saturday was spent in reciting Catechisms and portions of Scripture, which had been previously committed to memory- He was a rigid disciplinarian of the Old School…” Letter, 1862, Rev. McMillan to William Sprague, Annals of the American Pulpit, vol. 9, p. 26

If you have any more questions please ask.
If interested in more of how Christians educated over the centuries, please see my blog, ChristianNurture.blogspot.com   

Additional (2.7.12): I have combed some of the sessional minutes of Scottish churches in the 1600s: they had age-segregated Sunday school between services. I'll gather that info soon Lord willing.

Christianity Today's review and critique of Divided the movie

It's short. Read it here.

Mr. Baucham on youth ministries, uncut

Here is the unedited interview with Mr. Voddie Baucham from the movie, Divided.

I was asked my opinion about this segment. That will be the next posting, Lord willing.

(More about the movement here.)

Mr. Brown's late-in-coming distinctions for family integrated churches

The following is from the NCFIC blog by Mr. Brown. He is responding to counter-claims that the bible does not have cars or films just like there is no age-segregation.

My hope is that my questions will help bring differing parties together. Or at the least clarify any real differences between the NCFIC and traditional Reformed thinking.

First of all he writes,

"First, the primary argument of the NCFIC and the film Divided is not that youth ministry does not exist in the Bible...What is more important – and this is the main point we want to make – is that all the positive commands and examples in Scripture call for the practice of age-integrated worship and discipleship in the church and the responsibility of parents to disciple their own children."

First, the reader should note the careful (yet unclear) language "modern form of systematic, age-segregated youth ministry". What does this mean? In the movie, the reviewer is left with the worst possible illustration of such ministries. However, it is not youth ministry per se that is rejected but "systematic age-segregation". The NCFIC confession article uses the words "comprehensive age segregated discipleship." But it never offers a definition of these phrases.

Can a youth ministry have non-systematic age-segregation? This important question will help clarify exactly what Mr. Brown means.

Secondly, an argument from silence is used but it is a secondary argument. As such it is still invalid unless clarified by another premise. Such a premise has not been offered or proven (for example, "that which is not in the Bible is therefore suspect").

Third, it is claimed "all the positive commands and examples in Scripture call for the practice of age-integrated worship and discipleship in the church and the responsibility of parents to disciple their own children." This is not precisely true since no command states: "children should only be family integrated for instruction," neither in so many words or by syllogistic reasoning. Not one. But apparently the bible states that "children should more often than not be age-integrated for instruction" according to Mr. Brown's exceptions (see below).

Consider another important point: the commands and examples offered are not specific enough to determine exactly how the meetings of instruction were arranged. Did the wives sit with the husbands? Did nursemaids watch over the infants? Did families even sit with each other? The texts do not say, except Nehemiah 8 which is (special) pleaded away into an insignificant "exception". Yet history tells us that during the time of Christ families were separated in the temple worship. Where is the New Testament outrage for this practice?

Next he states,

"The Bible is clear about this matter, and it gives the full range of that teaching including who, where, why, what, and when....When you split youth up according to age, you are doing something that is contrary to the explicit, revealed commands and patterns of Scripture...to claim that we can set aside these scriptural methods and employ our own methods because we do things and use means not mandated in Scripture in other areas of church life is a generic fallacy."

Let me take this in reverse: "generic fallacy"--I do not know what that is. I googled it. Perhaps he means the "genetic fallacy." This is a logical fallacy of denouncing (or proving) something based upon its origins. Thus a Christian who would reject Aristotelian logic because it was formalized and expanded by an unbeliever is committing the genetic fallacy.

Even granting this is the fallacy he desired to use I am not sure how it relates to the issue at hand. On the other hand, when the movie points to Plato and Rousseau as the source of modern age-segregated youth ministries that is a genetic fallacy.

Now for the details:

"The Bible is clear about this matter, and it gives the full range of that teaching including who, where, why, what, and when."

I am not sure what this means. For instance, what is what? Is this the subject matter of the teaching? The method? It is noteworthy that how is missing in this list. But age-segregation is a how of instruction.

If the bible gives the what of teaching where is the verse that says: "learn to read, write and type"? Where are the examples? If we are counting examples and lining them up as Mr. Brown appears to do in his book, then in the bible the majority ("primary") of examples are oral examples: people speaking and memorizing.  The "exception" is non-verbal.

If these are not the "full range" covered in his assertion then what is covered? This assertion only creates more questions.

Lastly, he elaborates a distinction missing in the NCFIC confession and book:

"Third, methods and means of discipleship are in a different class than microphones and computers. Discipleship methods are defined and commanded in Scripture and are matters of Law (i.e., God’s revealed will that we are to obey), while things like microphones, computers, and film are matters of technology (i.e., practical tools we can use as means to carry out the Law of God). In regard to technology and other practical aspects of church life (where we meet, the length of our meetings, type of seats we use, etc.), these are matters of liberty that are under the biblical guidelines for the practice of liberty. This means that Scripture must be consulted to see if they contradict anything that Scripture maintains."

Not a single bible passage or theological syllogism is offered to prove this point. It is completely arbitrary to assert that "methods and means of discipleship" are substantially different than "microphones and computer." For if the sufficiency of Scripture gives the "full range of that teaching including who, where, why, what, and when" then one would expect technology (a what and how of discipleship) to be sufficiently and explicitly guided by the Bible.

So, since discipleship is part of the law of God. And the "methods and means of discipleship" are matters of the Law. Therefore, these "practical tools" which Mr. Brown admits are "means to carry out the Law of God" must fall into the same category. Unless equivocation of terms is occurring.

Again, upon what biblical principle does he differentiate discipleship methods that are significant from discipleship methods that are not significant (my language)? I believe that using computers for discipleship purposes is significant because instructional time can be hampered if one is using the computer more than a human in some cases. Generally, it is not the tool itself that is a problem but the usage of the tool.

More importantly, the entire paragraph is built upon an unproven premise (as is the entire book): the regulative principle of discipleship. In my own words for clarification: all methods and means of discipleship invented by the brain of man without His own express commandment is wrong.

Now, I have never seen it written out that way. What we have instead are the elements of this premise found in Mr. Brown's posting and book. See especially the "desert isle test." He requires that "all the positive commands and examples" must limit the range of discipleship methods to just those things explicit in the commands and examples of the bible--just like the regulative principle of worship (RPW).

The Scottish reformer, John Knox, explained the regulative principle of worship as, "All worshipping, honoring, or service invented by the brain of man in the religion of God, without His own express commandment, is idolatry." All Reformed creeds follow this principle for worship. Otherwise the Reformers exercised Christian liberty even in the domain of education and discipleship (read the history here).

Now to sum up, why is "systematic age-segregation" rejected? Because all the commands and examples of the bible are age-integrated. But why does a Christian need to find explicit commands and examples of discipleship before using a method of discipleship? I do not know what their answer is. Somehow discipleship (however defined) has a separate moral interpretive tool than other moral fields of everyday life.

But the matter does not end there. Mr. Brown allows for age-segregation!

"There are times when it may be appropriate for various ages of people to meet for specific purposes" (A Weed in the Church, p.231, cp.61).

Then what is the whole debate about? Why is this exception not placed at the beginning of the argument? Where is it in the NCFIC confession?

Has the entire decade long debate been over how much age-segregation is allowed? If so, how much does Mr. Brown think is allowable?

Very little it seems. "However, this is not to be the normative pattern of biblical youth discipleship, but rather an exception." A glimpse of how much is offered on page 225 where he contends that as "little as one hour a week" of age-segregation is "problematic" for those wishing biblical felicity.

In other words, 1/168 of a week is still too radical to contemplate. That is .006% of a child's week! What Mr. Brown gives in one hand is virtually taken away by the other.

At the end of the day, the article offered by the NCFIC did not bring much clarification. I do not know where this leaves the movement. But I do hope that the questions and observations of my article will bring more light than heat.

[Family integrated church series here].

Fellow blogger with good analysis of Divided the movie

My fellow blogger, Adam, has a few good thoughts about the semantic confusion from the NCFIC and the Divided movie, here.

"Do parents have the authority to teach kids? Yes. Do churches have the authority to teach kids? Yes. Where is the contradiction, and what is the objection? I don’t know, and I am finding that, the more I listen to these guys speak, the more I am impressed with their ability to say very ambiguous statements with a ton of conviction and passion. That is, honestly, not helpful."

Unity of Church and Family

Although I have critiqued the family-integrated movement, it is not enough to show its errors. An alternative must be presented. And here it is:

Uniting Church and Family

Divided the movie

Why are churches losing upwards of 80% of the youth?

Why are Christian youth increasing in childishness?

What can be done to stop the demise of the next generation?

A new, provocative movie, Divided, seeks to give an answer. The movie was shown on June 17th at the Christian Home Educators of Colorado conference in north Denver.

Summary

The movie was fifty minutes long. The producer, Mr. LeClerk, takes the viewer on a grim journey into the heart of youth ministries. He interviews church kids, youth ministry experts, statisticians, and pastors.

In an ever-spiraling descent into marketing madness, the film ably portrays the deep-seated pragmatism of the teenagers and their would-be pied-pipers. One youth leader bluntly told the camera that the youth did not need more Biblical truth but more practical things, more relationships, more fun.

Mr. LeClerk then "discovers the shockingly sinister roots of modern, age-segregated church programs..." The roots do not begin with Mr. Raikes of late eighteenth-century England but with Plato and Rousseau. And even more, there is no biblical precedent for such programs. Therefore, the solution is to tear down the entire youth ministry--branch, root and all.

To rescue a lost generation it will take churches and families following the Word of God. Churches should stop usurping parental responsibilities. And parents should take back their God-given duty to train and nurture their own children. This will rescue the next generation.

Analysis

The movie was created in conjunction with the National Center for Family Integrated Churches (NCFIC). The president of this organisation, Mr. Brown, figures predominately in the movie.

The photography, mood and music were spot-on. This is obviously a professionally made film. The pacing was good. Its presentation was not over-the-top or in-your-face, but subtle and dramatic. Aesthetically, the movie deserves full marks.

But presentation aside, what of the content? Given the applause at the end of the Friday night showing in Denver, it grabbed the audience. Setting the problem up with multiple teen-interviews, peppered with real-time video of Christian "rock concerts," LeClerk masterfully guides the audience through the entertainment-minded youth ministries of today.

This is a serious problem. Children, teenagers and youth alike are baptized in a sea of childish entertainment all for the sake of "relevance." If the statistics are only partially accurate, they are astounding enough. Too many youth are leaving the church.

And the parental problem is equally heinous: too many parents feel godly sending their children off to youth camp while neglecting family worship, home discipleship and basic doctrinal fidelity. Added to this problem are too many churches willing to accept the status quo.

In fact, a Pew study shows 57% of confessing Evangelicals deny that Christ is the only way to heaven. Barna numbers suggest that being a homeschooler is no sure defense either: half of those polled believe that salvation is not by faith alone.

Although the show does a good job presenting the youth problem, it misses the wider context of that problem. With such wide-spread doctrinal ignorance, is it any wonder the youth leave the shallow churches?

Unfortunately, the history section leaves much to be desired. Pointing out that Plato wished to send children to the state schools is not the same as proving this as the intellectual source of today's age-segregation. The omission of the fact that the Reformers and Puritans practiced age-segregation is another problem.

What of the solution: to demolish youth ministries and incorporate family discipleship?

The solution is wonderful...if understood correctly. But proper understanding cannot come from the movie since it leaves out important pieces of information. For instance, Mr. Brown believes there are times and occasions for the family to be separated (see his book, A Weed in the Church). Likewise, Mr. Phillips thinks there are times to speak to teenagers as teenagers.

In other words, the rhetoric of the movie would forbid any and all age-segregation. When in actuality the leading proponents have a more nuanced position. If the film were twenty-minutes long this lack of nuance could be tolerated.

What family discipleship entails was lightly touched upon. But the proper role of the church was not clearly articulated. In contrast, Mr. Brown's book helpfully clarifies that the pastors and laymen have a role in the life of the youth.

Overall, the movie delivers the content and delivers it well. The problem is that the content is one-sided. There is a youth problem but there is a larger problem of Gospel ignorance. It would be better to read the book, but at least the movie will challenge Christians to rethink the role of youth ministries.

[More about the NCFIC organization here. More about Mr. Phillips here. A Review of Mr. Brown's book here.]

Recent articles about family integrated churches

This week was full of family-integrated church articles.

For those interested in intelligent interactions on this issue I offer the following. The first is an article I hope many proponents of FICs can agree upon.

1. Uniting Church and Family  The proper relation requires the Gospel.

2. A Weed in the Church: A Review.  I may expand on this in detail.

3. Family-Integrated Church Series by Prof. Sam Waldron. Part 17 here. It is an irenic engagement.

4. Christian homeschooling conference: who is Doug Phillips? There is a lively exchange in the comment section. Unfortunately, it is not as productive as the discussion with Mr. Glick here. Many ardent supporters of this movement tend to jump the gun and assume that if you critique them then you are against parents having the primary responsibility of instructing their children.

A Weed in the Church: A Review

Overview
There is a crisis among the Christian youth. They drop out of church. They remain childish. They are biblically illiterate. The church is losing the next generation.

Author Scott Brown, pastor and director of the National Center for Family-Integrated Churches (NCFIC), insists this youth problem is of “epic proportions,” requiring repentance and change right now.

This book is his clarion call to change youth discipleship. It is divided into five sections: orientation, history, solution, objections, and implementation. The first section is a much-needed explanation of what family-integration (FI) is and is not. He offers ten qualifications that help nuance the concern and the solution. He also explains his view of sola Scriptura in relation to not only worship but discipleship.

The second section of the book traces the history of age-segregation. Section three (the largest part) collects the biblical data for youth discipleship for both the family and the church. Section four rebuts eleven arguments against age-integrated discipleship. The last section tersely explains nine steps to planting an age-integrated approach.

The thesis of the book argues that this problem among the youth (drop-outs, childishness, etc.) is caused by (among other things) “systematic age-segregation.” Age-segregated youth ministry “is the result of apostasy in the church,” the supplanting of the Word with man-made traditions of discipleship (p.43). But the modern youth ministry is not only defined by age-segregation or Sunday school but by a curiously long, heavily-descriptive sentence (p.47).

The author offers a two-fold solution: stop age-segregation and start age-integration (especially get the fathers involved). This dual solution is to be implemented en toto and not piece-meal (p.249ff.). Obedience to God is a hard calling, but ministers must persevere for the sake of the families.

Analysis
A Weed in the Church does the church a service by graphically illustrating the corrosive effects of a youth-oriented, niche-market culture. It rightly calls fathers back to their God-given duties to disciple their children and to lead their families. It rightly denounces children worship services.

The opening chapters include details that attempt to clarify the concerns. But the highly-specific definition of youth ministry (p.47) is partly a loaded definition that poisons the well of discussion from the very beginning. For instance, youth ministries are described as methods “that usurp parents’ authority over their children.” Many good churches that are careful in their use of Sunday school and the like would take great umbrage at being labeled thus without evidence.

The book does not make the historical case that age-segregation is secular and evolutionary in origin. There is no explicit tie-in between each historical segment. Lining up quotes is not the same as proving their connection. Further, the omissions of the many age-segregated meetings in history—such as age-specific meetings in Puritan New England—are conspicuous by their absence.

The heart of the book, the theological assertion, is tenuous at best. It is asserted that God did not tell the church to use age-segregation for discipleship; therefore it should not be used (p.47, 85). This appears to be (what I dub) the “regulative principle of education,” a confusion between Christian liberty and the Reformed doctrine of worship (cp. chapter 5). This approach is assumed but never proven.

Further, segregation “does not properly fulfill” the biblical requirements for discipleship and is contrary to the “primary examples” of church gatherings (p.203, 74). What a “primary example” is in contrast to secondary examples is not clear. And since segregation does not “properly fulfill” biblical requirements it is odd that some age-segregation is allowable (p.231).

It is true: churches should stop abusing age- and family-segregated meetings like a drunkard abuses wine. And many families feel godly using the multitude of programs to bypass their own responsibilities. But the author simply throws all such meetings into the waste basket of evolution—almost. He admits there are times and occasions for the family to be separated (p.61, 231), yet never explains when and why such a time should be an “exception.” In contrast, he actually argues that even if fathers were properly instructing their children and youth groups were Bible-centered with only one-hour a week meetings, it would still be wrong (p.57, 218, 222, 225). What is given in one hand is taken by the other.

Conclusion
I am a child of age-segregated discipleship. I grew up with Sunday school. I attended my local youth ministry. I went to school. If Scott Brown was the typical youth group leader, I was the typical teen target for that leader.

Yet I was not a typical youth. By God’s grace, I paid attention to the pastor. And I paid attention to my parents, my father in particular. But, like many today, I was ignorant of much Christian doctrine and practice.

So I tried to obey God’s Law to gain heaven. I tried so very hard until the Law shattered my ego. Around the age of sixteen, I recognized my inability to save myself through good works. I cried out to Christ to save me from myself. A few years later, through the doctrines of sovereign grace, I matured in my faith.

Are youth-oriented, programmatic “ministries” a problem? Yes. Do fathers need to take their duties seriously? Yes. And this book is a needful reminder of these facts. But there is a greater problem that is harming youth and families alike: a soil of widespread ignorance of the Gospel. The basic truths of Christianity are needed in the churches. The conversion of a teen-ager twenty years ago illustrates this dire need.


[More analysis of the book may be forthcoming. A picture of what uniting church and family should look like, here. More about family-integrated beliefs here.]

Recent rejoinder of Family Integrated Church comments

The original article, What is a Family Integrated Church?, garnered over 80 comments.

Thus I thought it wise to write another article handling some of the issues brought up. It is published here.

The Church-Integrated Family

"We are at the beginning of the end of the American family as it has been known for generations and generations. As I've discussed this over the years with other pastors, we can no longer assume husbands and wives know the duties they owe one another, let alone how the Bible defines those duties. Parents do not teach their children basic manners, let alone the catechism. Hence, it seems to me churches and pastors will be increasingly obliged to teach congregation members what they never learned at home (that is, how to be families), or they will never find men who rule their households well to serve as elders (1 Tim. 3:4)."

continued here.

Online Articles Examining FIC

Here are some thoughtful analyses of the Family Integrated Model:

Believe to Reason is lead by a pastor of a mixed church: FIC and programatic.
The Family Integrated Ministry Model.

He also has an analysis of the program church.

Book Review: Family Driven Faith--by one who likes the book but has one reservation...

Educational Hubris

Here's an excerpt from a thoughtful article on what was called patriarchalism (which in many circles may properly be dubbed Radical Homeschooling and Family-Integrated Churches):

Hubris

"The new patriarchalists would be less offensive if they couched their hegemonic views, well, less hegemonically. Why not simply say, “We’re attempting to recover a more consistent view of the family, and we know some dear Christians will not agree, and we know that most of orthodox Christianity stands against us, but we would humbly ask that you consider these things.”

No, it often is something like this: “Fathers, until we came along, have been irresponsible, and they are irresponsibly sending their daughters off to college, and they are sending their children to Christian day schools, and they are irresponsibly attending churches that sponsor age-graded Sunday School. They need to quit sinning, and start taking responsibility.”

I am exaggerating, but not by much. Christians, like all humans, are susceptible to fads, and this hegemonic patriarchalism is one of the latest fads that has emerged popularly, and will eventually die quietly."

Radical Homeschooling & Family-Integrated Churches

What does Radical Homeschooling have to do with Family-Integrated Churches?

As I pointed out earlier, the major premise of RH is that homeschooling is considered an indispensable part of education. Likewise, some Family-Integrated Church (FICs) leaders believe that homeschooling is required by the Word of God. One leader in particular ties the two movements closely together:

“Home educators, almost by definition, have turned their heart to their children [Mal. 4]… So, there’s been a revival that’s taking place in the heart of these homeschool families. And this revival works itself out to the local church….our prayer: every Christian in the world is in a family integrated church. And there should be nothing but that, but you know what that is going to lead to? That’s going to lead to people homeschooling! And vice-versa; they play off of each other. Because when you understand the importance of discipleship you move in that direction…” (Doug Phillips, interview, here)

That interview was a presentation about Family Integrated Churches. It is thus most instructive that FICs and homeschooling were organically tied together in this interview.

Much of RH is concerned about the demise of the American family. It is also concerned about the demise of the American church. The destruction of the family is the destruction of the church. So, the root problem is the disintegration of the natural nuclear family: it is being attacked by the culture and being undermined by the church. Such sentiments echo The National Center for Family Integrated Churches.

The NCFIC was created and originally hosted by Vision Forum (their president in particular); its online confession contends that the family is “crucial to the stability and health” of the church while the church leadership “bear a level of responsibility for the vulnerability of the family.” In fact, the church must repent of these unbiblical practices and the NCFIC prays for more “healthy family-integrated assemblies [to rise] from the ashes of our man-centered, fragmented, and individualistic churches.” Thus, the solution is to transform the church through family-integratedness.

But is that all? Can the NCFIC Confession be understood to endorse homeschooling above other methods--even as the essence of proper Christian education? Consider:

1. "...that children are also equipped primarily through family-based, one-on-one, father-directed, heart-level discipleship relationships (Ephesians 4:16;1Tim. 3:4-5)." Article IX
2. "We affirm that there is no scriptural pattern for comprehensive age segregated discipleship, and that age segregated practices are based on unbiblical, evolutionary and secular thinking which have invaded the church..." Article XI
3. "We affirm that the church’s relationships are nurtured primarily through daily discipleship in everyday life, especially fathers and mothers training their families..." Article X

Does NCFIC know of their founding member's view that homeschooling and family-integratedness go hand in hand? That to endorse one should lead to the other? Or is it a point so fundamental that it need not be explicitly stated?

The president of VF spoke of family-integrated churches and homeschooling as joined at the hip. They "play off each other." So, whether my analysis about NCFIC has any merit, it is certainly the case that the president of VF believes RH and FICs are peas in a pod.


Note: I recently discovered that NCFIC launched its own url in January of 2009. Does this mean quoting the NCFIC document is pointless? No: 1) The president of VF founded the NCFIC; 2) the new NCFIC site still lists the VF president on its board (uses his articles and lets him lecture); 3) NCFIC has not publicly separated itself ideologically from VF--a new url does not equal new ideas.