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.

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.)

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.

Helping Foreigners with Education

What should Christians do for those financially poor African families? Right now in some countries many of them send their children to school hundreds of miles away so they can learn to make money.  While there many are corrupted by the schools.  Or should they be encouraged to homeschool, working side-by-side with their fathers, digging ditches but staying morally safe.

I think most of the readers would immediately see the fallacy here.  Are these the only two options?

Turning the dial back, let us examine what the Puritan forefathers did. The famous Congregationalist, John Eliot, the apostle to the Indians, set up schools. And helped the families learn to work.  And, more importantly, preached the Gospel and catechized the tribes, children and all.

The Presbyterians followed the same course. Even into the 1800s various denominations furthered the education of the natives through local schooling.

So, a possible solution to this false dilemma is obvious: give them schools.

Money for Homeschooling Will Fix America

I received a letter begging for money. But the begging was couched in less beggarly-language than other letters. It painted a gloomy socio-political picture of America's woes. Clearly things are moving from bad to worse.

But (the letter continued) there is hope for such abysmal times as this!

Homeschooling!

That "Christ-centered education, one-on-one discipleship, and the liberating principle of individuality." Of which very "few political leaders, schools, media sources, or even churches that would encourage something as transformational as homeschooling."

Movements abound, draining time, money and energy for the small faithful churches that fall under their shadows. They don't get the same promotional power of homeschooling. And apparently very few churches would encourage something as transformational as homeschooling--and that is a good thing. They ought rather encourage something as transformational as the Gospel.

On the other hand, homeschooling is on the rise. Everyone is jumping on this bandwagon. It is now a cultural phenomenon. And it does change lives--but then so do many other things in life.

What will change the world for the better? What is a veritable reformation of life? What is the hope for the future?

The Gospel of our Lord & Savior, Jesus Christ. And that Gospel is found in faithful churches with uncompromising pastors and zealous members--whether they homeschool or not.

Want to change the world, to have a better place for your children, to contribute to something healthy, strong and growing?!

Then support the Gospel. Join a Reformed church. A Calvinist church. Give them your money. Pray. Fast. Use the means of grace in conscious realization of your unworthiness.

And pray the Lord of the Harvest to come with power and grace.

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.

The 2009 Leadership Summit

What are homeschooling families to think of the up-and-coming 2009 Leadership Summit? Certainly they ought to hope for the best (that is my hope). Yet, hope ought to be exercised by proper information. The following are some observations about this conference from 1) its own promotional material online & 2) knowledge of some of the new beliefs being propagated by some of the leading speakers.


"For Such a Time as This, in a Changing Political and Socio-Economic Climate . . .

Home education is poised to bear significant effects on the how we do education, economics, church, and politics in the years to come. As leaders, we feel it is important that we be self-aware of the direction we are headed."
(quotes found here).

Is it too much to ask Christian leaders (in any arena) to tone it down a bit? The rhetoric in the above quote is too much. Homeschooling is on the verge of transforming education, economics, church and politics?

What else does "bear significant effects" mean? It means homeschooling as homeschooling will have an important impact upon all the major components of American civilization. Like a good advertisement, this ad will not technically assert anything beyond its bare words ("effects"--good, bad or indifferent--are about to happen), but the import is clear: not just any kind of effect but good and important effects, that you dear reader, ought not miss out on.

The online ad continues:

"The goal of the 2009 Leadership summit is to define a vision for the future of the Christian home education movement."

The nice thing about being in a duly constituted church is that you get to pick your leaders. Either by simply joining the church after proper investigation of the church and her leadership and/or by voting in new leadership when the time comes. The not-so-nice thing about movements is that you don't get much of a choice either way. In this summit, Radical Homeschooling and Family-Integratedness leaders are some of the main speakers. Presumably, if such men have a voice in this conference (and its creation of an ambitious Christian Education Manifesto), they will--in good conscience--integrate their new and unique views into the "vision for the future" of homeschooling.

Lastly, the rhetoric finally moves into vague yet significant historical claims:

"Another objective for the leadership summit will be the development of a Christian Education Manifesto statement. After 1000 years of a secular, Greek education model first taking the university, then later capturing K-12 childhood education, home educators are recovering the biblical discipleship paradigm. The 2009 Summit will include discussion on this Manifesto."

This claim that the "Greek education model" dominating Western Civilization for 1000 years is incredible--and demeaning to the Reformation which occurred almost 500 years ago. It is an unproven assertion, giving the reader the distinct impression that this is an unchallenged historical 'fact'. It is challenged; it's just that those voices are marginalized. In this usage, it is simply an attempt to shock the reader into the obvious response: "you don't want an unbelieving Greek-based education for your children, do you?"

Furthermore, what is this "Greek education model" anyway? The reader has no idea--unless he or she has heard this catch-all phrase used by some of the key speakers. And I have heard the definition (at least Vision Forum's president): it is an "efficiency-driven approach to maximal, instantaneous education, divorced from relationship..." (History of the Sunday School Movement, track 3). In fact, the VF about page specifies: "modern classroom…is a distinctly Greek and pagan approach to education." This idosyncretic interpretation of the history of Christian education arises from a narrow hermeneutic and will be discussed later.

For now, dear reader, whether you agree with me or not, when and if you are able to evaluate the 2009 Leadership Summit I hope this primer will put the event into proper perspective.

Radical Homeschooling: Defined

'Radical' means "to go to the root."

And there is a movement within the movement of homeschooling that wants to get 'radical'.

In American society this word normally connotes a negative idea of rank anger and irrationality. But in this series of articles about an up and coming sub-movement within homeschooling, it will not be used in such a derisive sense. I struggled with finding a suitable adjective or even a noun, but I think 'radical' works best because when rationally examined, the word dovetails with the movements goals: to return to the supposed root of Western Civilization educational methodologies--homeschooling.

The other usage of 'radical' involves a relatively extreme commitment to a particular cause--which describes the leaders of this movement because they believe homeschooling (and other derivatives) is either demanded by the Bible or the best option that fulfills the Bible (not all who think homeschooling is the best option are radical as I define it in this post).

The word can also denote advocating drastic change. The leaders of this movement are not interested (as displayed by their actions) in presenting or propagating their views piece-meal. They want change and they want it now.

Why this much ink for a single word? Because being labeled is no fun and some people will react negatively to the word. But labels are necessary for those who wish to be disassociated from differing views. This tripartite definition--the historical, moral and urgent elements--may not set well with some, but it is my humble attempt to understand this unique approach to Christian education. I will try to only label this theoretical position and not the people.

Now to the point: Radical homeschooling is the doctrine that homeschooling is the sine qua non of biblically based parenting.

In other words, homeschooling is commanded by the Bible:

"Of course, my prayer is that every family would homeschool from birth. If that's not you, my prayer is that you will homeschool from now on. It may require difficult changes. It may require the awkward work of repenting to your wife and to your children for how you have abdicated your responsibility." (p.133, When You Rise Up)

" 'Therefore thou shalt love the LORD thy God, and keep His charge, and His statutes, and His judgments, and His commandments, always'" (Deut. 11:1). This is why we should homeschool. God commands parents to teach their own children God's law, and we must be obedient." (p.9, Homeschooling from a Biblical Worldview)

In fact the about page of Vision Forum asserts: the "modern classroom…is a distinctly Greek and pagan approach to education."

One of the more influential homeschooling leaders, the founder of the NCFIC (family-integrated church group), clearly stated his position a few years back:

"Our reasons for home educating are not preferential, but principled, being derived from God’s Word.... Wrong educational methodology can lead a child to Hell…" Doug's blog, Oct. 8, 2004

Is this his personal opinion? (As though that could be divorced from his public efforts.) Fortunately, this sentiment has been stated and rather boldly at the parent website, Vision Forum's about page:

"Most men are gripped by fear. They fear the loss of job security. They fear the unknown. They fear the opinions of others. This fear prevents many fathers from beginning home education — the educational approach most consistent with both the methodology and goals of education as articulated in Scripture. This fear prevents other fathers from making lifestyle changes which will allow them to spend more time walking beside their children, as God commands...Methods are not neutral. The rise of the home education movement is not merely a response to the failure of government education; it is an affirmation of a distinctively Biblical approach to both the methods and the objectives of Christian education."

The author boldly declares homeschooling as the "most consistent" approach to the Bible. Naturally, Christians would not settle for the second most consistent approach of anything in the Bible. Who would not want to spend "more time walking beside" their children--as God commands? Vision Forum is about homeschooling. It is about more, but it is in the business of propagating homeschooling as the Biblical approach. This statement is further amplified in a radio interview:

“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…” [1]

Clearly the speaker's prayer (and goal?) is to make every church in the world--not Reformed, not Dispensational, not Baptistic--but a family-integrated, homeschooling church. Why? Because homeschoolers "almost by definition, have turned their heart to their children." Homeschooling is a revival.

A clear and unequivocal statement, such as, "God commands homeschooling," is not needed because it is the warp and woof of this movement.

This unique approach to education presumably allows for exceptions to homeschooling (presumably because I have not actually found any such evidence), yet a biblical command is a biblical command, exceptions notwithstanding. If this is a message you wish to follow, dear reader, then by all means join the organization and help them make their point loud and clear. But I hope in this continuing series to demonstrate that, in spite of some of the laudable goals of RH, its view of the history of Christian education is mistaken and its understanding of key elements of Christian nurture is misguided.

Soli Deo Gloria

---

[1] Phillips quoted from “The Family-Integrated Church Movement,” interview, Generations Radio, sermonaudio.com, June 12, 2006.

Radical Homeschooling: So What?

This series on radical homeschooling (RH)--that homeschooling is morally required or required as "normative"--is an extra-biblical claim striving to redirect the Christian family and church into a new historical direction.

But it is a small movement. So, many may have not even heard of it. You, dear reader, may think, "so what? What's the big deal?" I personally do not believe the narrow question of homeschooling vs. private schooling is a big deal, but then I do not believe God has bound families to one method. On the other hand, some homeschooling leaders do think this is a serious issue and are shouting it from the rooftops:

"Of course, my prayer is that every family would homeschool from birth. If that's not you, my prayer is that you will homeschool from now on. It may require difficult changes. It may require the awkward work of repenting to your wife and to your children for how you have abdicated your responsibility." (p.133, When You Rise Up)

" 'Therefore thou shalt love the LORD thy God, and keep His charge, and His statutes, and His judgments, and His commandments, always'" (Deut. 11:1). This is why we should homeschool. God commands parents to teach their own children God's law, and we must be obedient." (p.9, Homeschooling from a Biblical Worldview)

"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..." (“The Family-Integrated Church Movement,” Online interview)

"…'dayschools, leisure village, from tantrums by adolescence, to PMS for women of certain age, and the end of creativity of the old,' these are all variations of evolutionary hellish thinking." (The History of Sunday School Movement, track 13)

The above quotes represent a fair sample of leaders who think this is a big deal. It is a big deal to assert that some of the 'modern' (a loaded term) activities are rooted in hellish thinking. (Day schools, for instance, have been around since Jewish times.) And labeling homeschooling a revival (without any qualifications) is a big deal--it adds unbiblical pressure on families. What Christian family would want to follow a "hellish" method? Who would not want to be part of a revival?

There's more: it is a big deal when consciences are bound by a commandment not found in God's Word. When homeschooling pastors and leaders inform their audiences that obedience to God means parents should homeschool or that parents should repent for not homeschooling, the so what becomes obvious.

I have no ax to grind. I am not after anyone. I only want public transparency of a new public belief. I believe too few homeschoolers are aware of what some leaders are promoting as godly education.

This series will attempt to show that, in spite of some of the laudable goals of RH, its view of the history of Christian education is mistaken and its understanding of key elements of Christian nurture is misguided.

The 2009 Men's Leadership Summit

I have been asked about my opinions concerning this event. The 2009 Men's Leadership Summit ran in early March 5-7 at Indianapolis. The website and promotions mentioned a Christian Education Manifesto that apparently never materialized, although mentioned a few times in the lectures. And I did write a preliminary posting on it here.

I'm sure there are those looking for the worse and hoping to find a hard-hitting expose. I'm equally sure that there are those looking for the worse and hoping to say, "You're just bitter."

I hope to disappoint both of them. The way to accomplish that is for the reader to shut down the over-driven emotional engine that I have witnessed personally on several occasions by those dedicated to a variation of Radical Homeschooling. And those most passionate (in my experience) are the leaders. And unfortunately, that has a way of clouding judgment.

For my part, the best way to avoid presenting a "hard-hitting expose" is to mostly avoid any direct references or quotes. You can get that over at John's Corner (I have verified much of his quotes and they are substantially accurate).

The way to bring to light a biblical-based examination of this conference is to write what I believe is the problem and the solution for America and for her churches especially. The links below are not necessarily to be read in order. If you have heard the summit (or were there), feel free to add your comments. Frankly, at the rate this sub-movement is growing the more dialogue the better.

Problem & Solution:
Revival of Rousseau
The Future of Homeschooling
The Revival of Homeschooling
Malachi 4:6 & the Revival of Homeschooling

Secondary Issue (many unsubstantiated claims peppered the conference)
Homeschooling, Statistics and Hype
Calvinism, History & Homeschooling
A Very Short History of Christian Education
Famous Homeschoolers in History..?
Controversy & Revival