Imagine for a moment a frightening scenario.  Let’s imagine that a man has entered my home and taken from me that which is most precious to me.  In his wickedness he has killed my wife and children.  He shot me and left me for dead.  In the weeks that follow this man is arrested, tried, and imprisoned.  Now let us suppose that this man is solidly converted while in jail.  He corresponds with me.  He asks my forgiveness.  Now let us imagine that this man is one day released from jail.  He wants to come to my church and hear me preach from my wheelchair.  Here is the question—whose wounds do I see when I look upon this man?

The scenario I have laid out has more or less transpired numerous times in church history.  I think of what it must have been like for the church in Jerusalem to welcome Saul of Tarsus.  Welcome the man that have ravaged the church? Welcome the man that had bound them?  Punished them?   The man who sought to compel them to blaspheme?  And yet when Barnabas could convince the apostles and the brethren that Saul was a new man in Christ, we read that he was “with” the church. The word mean ‘among’.  His desire was to ‘join’ the disciples.  Not simply attend the preaching—he wanted to join.  To be cemented to, to cleave to.  That could only happen if there was a mutual relationship.  Some of the brethren who welcomed him into the church bore the scars, physically and emotionally of his persecution.  Some of them had lost husbands, wives, fathers, and mothers to his cruelty.  And yet, he joined them.  The question for these brethren was—whose wounds would they see when they looked at this man.

Perhaps you have a brother or sister in Christ who has done you harm.  They may even be in your own family.  Every time you see them you could be reminded of your wounds….or you could be reminded of the wounds of another.

You see when the church in Jerusalem saw Saul they focused not on the wounds he had caused them, but the wounds his sins, and their sins had inflicted upon Jesus.  When we behold His wounds and not our wounds we are able to love and forgive and fellowship with sinners—even sinners who have sinned against us.  So the question, my friend, is this—whose wounds do you behold?

Humanists with a thin coating of religion won’t put up with this for long.

Reformed Baptist Churches tend to be between 50 and 350 congregants in size, generally. Here is a contrast. A “church” with 16,000 in attendance. Listen to the message.

While I did not add the text to this video, the final verse provided says it all.

Christ held an impromptu open air meeting that drew a huge crowd to a deserted place.  One thing that was true then, and is still true today, a crowd loves a crowd, and a crowd draws a crowd!  Some came to be healed.  Some came out of curiosity to see this One who was becoming such a celebrity.  Everyone had their own particular reasons for coming.  Mark 6:34b tells us, “He had compassion on them, because they were as sheep not having a shepherd, and he began to teach them many things.”

It is well known that Christ fed five thousand men plus the women and the children that day.  But this blog entry is concerned with the aftermath.  The crowd went home with their bellies filled with food.  The disciples were sent to the other side of the lake.  Christ withdrew to a mountain to pray.  It didn’t take long for the crowds to begin to gather again.  In fact, many of the same people who had been at that impromptu open air meeting made their way to the other side of the lake to find Jesus again.

Thronging crowds! Huge popularity!  Approval rating through the roof!  Even a groundswell of support to declare him King!  Any decent publicist would tell you, “Strike while the iron is hot and make the most of your 15 minutes of fame!”   Evidently, Christ did not have a good Hollywood handler.  Instead, he confronted the crowd for the very reasons they wanted to see him.  John 6:22-71 report to us the results of this next open air meeting.  Jesus confronted their motivations:  Food (prosperity teaching?), entertainment (self worship?), healing (who doesn’t want to be healthy?), having perceived needs met (self-improvement?).  How many came to give glory to God?  How many desired true spiritual teaching?  How many really cared about the message Christ spoke?  Twelve (and a handful more) stayed with him, but even one of them was a devil (John 6:71).

How many will throng to hear a famous speaker today?  Some preachers enjoy brief periods of fame and they will be accountable to God for how they use their ministry.  Will they teach the Word, even if it costs them fame?  Will they be responsible for leading their hearers into errors like the Charismatic movement, or the Prosperity Gospel, self-esteem theology or some form of emotionalism or mysticism?  Will they be faithful and grounded in the Scriptures alone?  How will they handle the fame (and fortune) they generate?  How will they deal with those who come only to be part of the crowd?  How about the masses who feed on the emotionalism generated?  How about the ones who come to see a gospel show?  The Fabulous Forum, former home of the Lakers, is now a church, the “Faithful Central Bible Church”.  This is where Britney Spears made her famous religious “decision” in what has been described as “a powerful, emotional service” about five years ago.  A simple Google search will tell you what you need to know about that “decision” and that “church”.

Most of the time, the Word of God given in truth will repel a crowd, instead of draw it.  There are isolated incidents in ancient or modern history where we find men and women gathering in large numbers for the sake of truth and righteousness.  As Reformed Baptists, if God is pleased to grant us large numbers, or even relatively small ones, let us make sure we do our duty as ministers of the gospel to give them the entire counsel of the Word of God when they come.  Even our small gatherings present temptations for compromise in various ways.  We must be faithful to the Scriptures, and preach the truths we profess to believe, as found in our Confession, and not rely on the popular methods and techniques of our day. It will likely keep our numbers relatively small, and keep us from being popular, but what good is it to draw a crowd – if they come and are not fed?

DA Carson answers the question,”how do I know that God exists.”

For readers who could not know, this past Sunday morning’s sermon at GRBC was an over-view of the doctrine of Election.  No one has asked why the decision was made to preach such a difficult subject on Sunday morning; however, I suspect the question has crossed some one’s mind.  In our context, the Sunday morning congregation ordinarily has a larger number of visitors and non-Christians than does the Sunday evening service.  Consequently, the thought might be that the subject matter for Sunday morning ought to be a bit lighter and more “seeker sensitive” (though we would never use that language) than in the evening.  So, why preach on the complex and controversial subject of election?  Again, no one has actually asked, so I am not attempting to defend against protests; but, I do want the reasoning to be understood.

Reason #1: we are preaching consecutive expositions through Paul’s Epistle to the Colossians and we have arrived at chapter 3 and verse 12:

Therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, put on tender mercies, kindness, humility, meekness, longsuffering;

Some explanation must be given to the words “the elect of God”.  In certain respects it is easier to take time to expound the term “elect” more thoroughly than to give an adequate short explanation that would satisfy the inquiring mind.  So, the primary reason for taking up the subject was to deal with the actual text of Scripture.

Reason #2:  the stated purpose of the Sunday morning meeting is the worship of God.  That is as it should be.  The gathered church on the Lord’s Day should be supremely focused on the worship of God.  We should eagerly invite everyone we can to join us in this grand endeavor.  Man exists for the glory of God.  The Christian ought to have a deep concern that all people everywhere know and worship God.  However, because that is the great end of the church and of its Lord’s Day meetings, the subject matter of preaching and singing and praying ought to be expressly the glory of God.  It is a contradiction of our purpose to profess to worship God and then calculate what we do for the unconverted hearer more than for the actual pleasure and praise of God.  Though we must desire the salvation of all people fervently, especially all those that we are able to host in the services of the church, nonetheless, the open and candid worship of God is even more important.  God is to be praised for His electing grace and we should not be embarrassed in the least to praise Him in those terms.  That being said, the doctrine of election should always be preached evangelistically. God chooses sinners for salvation.  It is contradictory to speak of electing grace without doing so in the very spirit of the Gospel itself. Hopefully that was somewhat the case on Sunday.

Reason #3: evidently the Holy Spirit considers it important for the church to know about the doctrine of election.  The doctrine is repeatedly discussed in the New Testament epistles.  Election, exegetically considered, is  doxological and nourishing.  In other words, it fuels worship and edification.  God is robbed of His due honor and His people are deprived of exhilarating comfort when the doctrine of election is treated as some sort of theological contraband.

Reason #4: God has revealed difficult things in the Bible for our good, not our confusion.  The doctrine of election is difficult in large measure because it demolishes our assumption of spiritual neutrality and objectivity.  Even though all Christians would admit that humans are sinful, the common assumption is that people are sufficiently objective and unprejudiced to make the determining decision regarding their own eternal salvation.  However, Scripture teaches much the contrary.  “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent me draws him” said our Lord to people were lost yet thought themselves in control.  In reality, no one by nature is able to choose Christ.  No one is able because no one is willing.  No one is willing to choose Christ and His cross above their sinful preferences and their assumed autonomy.  Yet, even after salvation, we want to think that our choice was decisive.  It is tremendously difficult for many of us to accept that our lostness was such that had God not chosen us, we never would have chosen Christ.  But, we very much need to be humbled in that respect.  We need to recognize what a complete miracle it is that any of us are citizens of Heaven.  We need to worship God in complete awe of His grace.  God has revealed doctrines like election to deepen our humility and to heighten our awe toward Christ.

You are perhaps thinking of other reasons; but, these are the primary reasons behind our decision to have the doctrine of election preached on Sunday morning (and it was a decision of the eldership and not of a single pastor).  No doubt the doctrine could be better presented than it was; however, may we never come to a mindset that would think it inappropriate to hold forth any primary doctrine of God’s glory in a public worship service.

In many modern editions of 2LCF, chapter 10:3 begins simply ‘infants dying in infancy . . . .’ Other texts read ‘elect infants dying in infancy . . . . ‘ Which text is correct according to the original printings? This question is simple to answer.

In consulting all of the 17th century editions (1677, 1688, 1699), the word ‘elect’ appears in all of the original editions, and thus the text properly reads ‘elect infants dying in infancy . . . ‘

When did it change? While I have not investigated this in detail, my best guess is that Charles Spurgeon dropped the word ‘elect’ from his published edition in the 19th century. CHS believed that all infants dying in infancy are ‘regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit.’ But one could believe this, even with the word ‘elect’ in the Confession’s statement!

I have a strange prayer request for you.  I want you to start praying that people will be afraid of our church.  Terrified.  In fact I want you to pray to the extent that no one could conceive of joining us. Thanks!

Oh, and while you’re at it…pray that the LORD will be adding to his church daily!

Got it?   Hope so!  What I’m asking you to do is to pray that God might use us the way that He used the church in Jerusalem. You remember that don’t you?   When the power of God was working through the church, expressing itself in the way that the believer’s clung to the apostle’s doctrine, to fellowship, to the breaking of bread, and prayer, we read that ‘fear came upon every soul’.  Later in Acts 5 when the Lord dealt severely with Ananias and Sapphira we read again that ‘great fear fell’, not only upon the church, but upon all who heard these things.   What was the result of this dread?

We read in Acts 5:13 “Yet none of the rest dared join them, but the people esteemed them highly.”

Blessedly none of this stopped the growth of the church, as the next verse tells us that believers were increasingly being added to the Lord and to the church.  Imagine that!  Sounds like something supernatural was at work!

Is anyone afraid of your church?  Does your church inspire awe and a sense of reverence?  Is anyone amazed by the lives and the worship of the people?

Is there ever a sense that it is really, truly, like no other place on earth?  Is there any sense that visitors have  that these people who gather together for worship on the Lord’s Day  actually encounter regularly the one true and living God?

People are afraid of the church today, but not for these reasons.  They are afraid of our politics.   They are afraid of us as a voting block.  They are afraid of what they perceive to be our stupidity.   They are afraid that we will shoot abortion doctors or bomb clinics.

I realize that these may be stereotypes perpetuated by the mainstream, but, how can we best silence these voices and instill true fear?   Let us cry out that the presence of God in our churches may not simply be a theological truth which we believe and embrace by faith, but a reality that even the lost cannot deny.

I was translating John 9 , and was struck by the following dialogue (super-functional translation warning):

The blind man said to Jesus, “Lord, I believe!” And he worshipped Jesus. Jesus said, “I came into this world for judgment, so that those who do not see may see, and so that those who see may become blind.” Some of the Pharisees who followed Him around heard what He said, and said to Him, “We are not blind as well, are we?” Jesus said to them, “If you were really blind, you would not be guilty of sin. But since you claim that you can see, your sin remains.”

Blind beggar, born blind for the purpose of this very encounter with Christ. Makes fools out of the religious elite by having common sense in seeing God’s hand in his own healing (was that not the unpardonable sin in Matthew: the twistedness of those who saw in the work of the Spirit the mark of Satan himself?). Is cast out for his troubles. Jesus seeks him out (Shepherd seeks the lost sheep—very next chapter!) Jesus identifies Himself, speaks of faith. The man believes and worships. What does his faith and worship produce? Jesus explains that He has come for a purpose, and it is not what you normally hear about during the 14th verse of Just As I Am. He has come for judgment, and the judgment involves sight. The blind are made to see, the seeing are made blind. Obviously, though He has healed a blind man, the action was metaphorical in the sense that it pointed to a greater reality: the physical healing pictured a spiritual reality (just as in John 11 and the raising of Lazarus!). The blind man could see what the Pharisees could not. They who thought they could see were, in reality, blind, and when Jesus says this, the little group of spies who followed Him around, trying to catch Him in His words, reporting to the big-wigs back in Jerusalem, knew He was talking about them, and so they ask Him bluntly if His words applied to them. He just as bluntly says yes: since they claim to see (and in fact do not), their sin abides or remains.

We need to be reminded, often, of the powerful Christ, the Christ who walks the pages of the gospels, but whose presence is often muted by our traditions and our fear of the faces of men. The Jesus of the Gospels tramples all over the canons of political correctness.

PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS

The Family-Integrated Church Movement (FICM) presents many practical considerations and problems for the American Church.[1] The FICM is right in pointing out the problem of dropout young people and the breakdown of families. They are correct in emphasizing the role of fathers in the spiritual development of their children. Many fathers have neglected their role as head of homes and spiritual leaders in their homes. Many children are not holding onto their parent’s faith. Families need to take their responsibility seriously. The FICM says a lot that is right and needs to be heard, but there are several practical considerations that rise from this thesis.

The first practical consideration is the need for the FICM to take more care in their writing and their theological work.  It is possible that many proponents will say that the author has not analyzed the movement properly here or there and say, “I did not mean that to be taken like that.” It is possible that the author may have misinterpreted much of what the FICM’s proponents have said, but the defense is simply this:  Then what they have said is unclear.

The FICM states that the God-ordained building blocks of the church are families. The proponents of this view need to say precisely what they mean and what they do not mean. The building block metaphor is used sparingly in the Bible and it never refers to families, so either they mean it in a different, unspecified way, or they are contradicting the Word of God. They take the Word of God seriously; so one has a difficult time imagining that they mean what they are saying. Are they saying in un-equivocating terms that families, and not individuals, are the building blocks of churches? They do not refer to individuals, and so what other conclusion can a person draw?

Another area of clarification is this: Is the FICM saying that people stay in the New Covenant through covenant keeping? This is a popular idea for some with many of the same ideas, but this concept is foreign to the gospel of Jesus Christ provided in the New Covenant. We are kept in the New Covenant through God’s grace. We cannot break the covenant because God provides all the obedience in Jesus Christ, and the new heart necessary to stay faithful. Covenant keeping is only another way to say obedience. Do they really mean children need to learn to obey to stay in covenant with God? What then of the need for regeneration and repentance? They speak of evangelizing children, but treat them as covenant members who need to obey the covenant stipulations or lose their place as God’s covenant people. The FICM needs to clarify their stance on covenant theology. They need show how their ecclesiology fits into Biblical covenant theology.[2]

Another practical application of this study should be that the Church of Christ should take families seriously. There is an anti-family, anti-children mentality rampant in our culture. This mentality is damaging to all who embrace it and is damaging to the church. The FICM is absolutely correct in its disdain for programs for programs sake, and for programs that constantly tear the family apart. The self-aggrandizement of the church over the family to the destruction of the family must stop. The Church is more important than the family. Christ died for the Church and loves the Church, but the Church is called to be like Her Lord who heals and binds up. The Church should be a redemptive unifying force in family life with the basic understanding that the gospel will divide families. Let the gospel divide families, but there is no need for churches to have a dozen programs and events that leave Christian families running ragged. God wants His Children busy with His work, not torn and flayed by the shepherds. Much of God’s work for moms and dads is sitting and walking and lying down with their children telling them God’s Word. If a church’s programs are taking this opportunity away from the family, then it has gone too far.

On the other side those sympathetic to the FICM need to guard their attitudes toward the Church. In the end there will not be families. There will only be God’s family, the Church of God. Christ died for the Church, not for families or households. Voddie Baucham was mistaken when he said “the family is the institution for which all other institutions exist, including the church.” Paul writes, “Christ is the head of all things for the Church.” Baucham’s attitude dishonors the institution that Christ died for, and dishonors God’s intentions for the world. His plan is to fill the earth with His family. Our families are temporary blessings and will not last the judgment. The FICM in their zeal for family, have not guarded their words about the Church. To call church buildings “catacombs” and “sterile” is unnecessary and careless. It is a sweeping generality to say that all churches are barren and lifeless places. This is to denigrate the countless churches that are seeking to balance all of the priorities of God’s Word, and seeking not self-aggrandizement, but the holiness of its members.

Therefore, there is a great need for balance. Balance is something that fallible humans have trouble achieving. The FICM has elevated the family too high as a principle in the organization and ministry of Church. This is reflected in their family of families mentality and their general disdain for all age-segregated activities. The Bible does indeed present the importance of families. The Bible presents the importance of fathers discipling their children as well, but it also gives the responsibility of discipling the world to the Church, and this includes all the little households in the world. This responsibility and authority necessarily means that the church is a separate entity, and is over the family in this regard. The Church has the care of all people everywhere. From little children to hardened criminals in prison, the Church is responsible for all, and so should have a discipling ministry to all.

Because Christ has given the responsibility to hold the truth up and to minister the Word of God to the whole world, the church has the authority to fulfill this responsibility. This means that the Church has the right to disciple in ways that it considers prudent and in accord with God’s Word. There is no rule against dividing up children once or twice a week to teach them in age appropriate ways. This ministry does not take away from the parent’s responsibility or prerogative. It is a means of fulfilling the Great Commission. There are general principles that should guide the church’s entire ministry, but there is great latitude in the everyday practical outworking of ministry. Sunday Schools are neither sacrosanct, nor are they wrong.[3]

What this principle implies is that age-segregated meetings of a church are proper so long as they serve the ministry of the church. These meetings should be controlled and guided, but to say that they divide families and crush the spiritual life of children is only true when they have actually done so. This is where the logic of the FICM breaks down and shows its reductionism. The reason that the FICM pushes for a family of family ecclesiology is that the age-segregated programs of churches have destroyed the family and the church. Children are abandoning the faith and the FICM puts the blame on the doorstep of the Church for usurping the family’s place with its programs.

Is the above assertion true? Perhaps it is partly true for some, but the abandonment of Christianity and breakdown of families is a complicated phenomenon. It is too complicated to be attributed to one single cause. Even if a person were to say that the Church’s usurpation of the family’s role is the cause behind the thousands of secondary causes, which would be difficult to prove as well. Parents have not abandoned their children to the Church because the Church somehow forced them or cunningly usurped their authority. The phenomenon is better explained by examining the spiritual condition of the parent’s themselves and children themselves. The better, more comprehensive answer is that there is a growing coldness and unbelief in the hearts of most people. The love of this world has pulled away those who were in the church, nominally, and seemed to be good church members for generations. There is no room in their hearts for God anymore, if there was a love there to begin with.

The need then is not a family-centered revival, but a God-centered, Christ-centered revival. The FICM has simplified the answer and missed the true problem. In their self-proclaimed revival, they have missed the true revival so desperately needed. What families need is not to be exalted in importance, but for Christ to be once again exalted in importance. Families need to find their secondary place in the periphery of a Christ-exalting revival. Only when a Holy Spirit inspired revival takes place in the Church is there a hope for families and for the American Church. The basic problem then is not age-segregated churches, but a lack of love for Christ. The only thing that can renew that love is for the Holy Spirit to come down and in power warm the hearts of people.

CONCLUSION

The simplest conclusion that can be drawn from this thesis is that more work is necessary in understanding and evaluating the Family-Integrated Church Movement (FICM). It is still an unfolding event, and in many ways is still seeking to understand itself. What also seems to be clear is that there is a firm wall of Biblical truth that the FICM needs to come to terms with- simply that the church in its local or universal manifestations cannot be understood as a family of families. The Biblical evidence is simply negligible for this assertion. Perhaps in a general, superficial way this ecclesiology can be held, but they are talking in more than superficial, general terms.

In particular, however, the family of families ecclesiology is wrong for several reasons. It misunderstands the basis for ecclesiology. It has as its basis some sort of conjunction of Old and New Covenants with an emphasis on the organic principle that is present in the Old Covenant alone. They come to this conclusion through what apparently is a lack of consideration for the clear words and guidelines of the New Covenant found in Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews 8. The New Covenant specifies who is in the covenant and what characterizes the covenant members. The New Covenant does not allow for an organic principle to work, because it defines its members as the redeemed and regenerated of God. Redemption and regeneration is not hereditary, and therefore not familial.

The FICM also flattens out the role of the Church.  The FICM does not see the wide role that God has given to the church in discipling the world and proclaiming the truth to all creatures. It confuses the authority of the church and the family. The Church is a separate authority and also has a wider sphere of spiritual influence than the family does. The Church’s authority includes all the family members, and not just the fathers. The FICM’s limitation of the churches’ authority reduces its role in the family. This reduced role necessitates the family-integrated model of ministry. But when the Church is given its proper due, then it has the authority and right to prudently disciple those under its care, including using age-segregated means. The family structure cannot constrain the Church’s ministry, given that the Church is of a different sphere than the family.

The history of the FICM is at best fuzzy, and at worse misguided and misguiding. The Church has never seen itself as being constrained by the family structure. The Church has never defined itself as a family of families, and has never seen its role as poured into the same mold as the family.  The FICM often sees the Puritans as pursuing family-integrated churches, but to look at what they actually say is to see that they were not family-integrated theologians. They did not hold to this ecclesiology, nor did they practice this philosophy of ministry. They saw the importance of families, but they did not combine the church and family. They held them as two separate entities with different authorities and powers.

The only conclusion that can be drawn from the research is that the Family-Integrated Church Movement needs to rework their ecclesiology. They need to clarify their positions and their priorities in light of Scripture. Their ecclesiology does not bear up to the scrutiny of the Word of God; neither does their elevation of the family as a guiding structure for the Church. Christ is building His Church. The FICM needs to make sure they are not building with wood, hay, and straw.

Jason Webb

Jason is a graduate of the Reformed Theological Seminary and a member of Grace Fellowship Church

• My Introduction to the Family-Integrated Church Movement
• What is the Family-Integrated Church Movement? – Part 1
• The Family-Integrated Church Movement – Part 2
• The Family-Integrated Church Movement – Part 3
• The Family-Integrated Church Movement – Part 4

[2] This is said especially to those who hold the 1689 confession, who are professed reformed Baptist. Their ecclesiology and their stance that the organic principle is still active in the New Covenant is the very argument that paedobaptists use for their ecclesiology and sacramental theology.

[3] The matter of nurseries could be brought up here, but space prohibits it. When they say nurseries are wrong, they are simply taking a principle of family togetherness to unwarranted extremes. The matter of having babies in the public worship of God seems to have pros and cons, and is best answered with prudence. I think the prudent answer is that the cons of having babies in the public worship outweigh the supposed benefits to the baby.

SCARBC Reformation Day Service with Dr. James White

at the Colony High School Auditorium

3850 E. Riverside Dr. Ontario, CA  91761

Sunday Evening – October 25 @ 5 pm

Sponsored by the Southern California Association of Reformed Baptist Churches*

Free and all are welcome!

James White is the director of Alpha and Omega Ministries, a Christian apologetics organization based in Phoenix, Arizona. He is a professor, having taught Greek, Systematic Theology, and various topics in the field of apologetics. He has authored or contributed to more than twenty books, including The King James Only Controversy, The Forgotten Trinity, The Potter’s Freedom, and The God Who Justifies. He is an accomplished debater, having engaged in more than seventy-five moderated, public debates with leading proponents of Roman Catholicism, Islam, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Mormonism, as well as critics such as Bart Ehrman, John Dominic Crossan, Marcus Borg, and John Shelby Spong. He is an elder of the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church, has been married to Kelli for more than twenty-seven years, and has two children, Joshua and Summer.

For more information you may contact us at:
www.sgbc-ontario.us or  (909) 986-9476

SCARBC Members are:
Centinela Baptist Ch – Lawndale;  El Monte Reformed Baptist Ch;  Escondido Reformed Baptist Ch;   Free Grace Ch- Lancaster;  Mountain Reformed Ch- Crestline;  Reformed Baptist Ch – Riverside;  Sovereign Grace Baptist Ch – Ontario;   Trinity Reformed Baptist Ch – La Mirada