The Church-integrated family, again

(In January of this year, I was contacted by another pastor who thought I might have been unfair to the leaders of the "family-integrated church" movement in my December 2010 Ordained Servant essay. Here's what I wrote in response, lightly edited.)

Dear Friend,

I think a couple points might be helpful in understanding what I did not address in my essay, and where this piece fits in with (what I understand is) Ordained Servant's editorial agenda. To begin with, I am firmly convinced the National Center for Family-Integrated Church's men and I disagree as to the correct reading of the times. The overarching crisis of our day is the collapse of the Church, of which any problems in the nuclear family are only symptoms. I firmly believe the Church is in as bad a condition today as she was immediately prior to the Protestant Reformation, only this time the core problem is schism rather than heresy. (On a cheerful note, I actually think reformed teaching is, on the whole, at a historically high level.) Christians in these United States bear primary responsibility for this sad state of affairs; the Church has been under assault here since before the founding of the Republic.

Hence, when the NCFIC men say "we recognize that the family—and especially fathers—are the focus of a fierce and unrelenting attack by the world, the flesh, and the Devil. This has escalated to the point that Christians must rise up in defense of the church and family in uncompromising biblical defense.", I think they're crazy. The Book of Revelation is clear: the Church is the target of Satan's assaults, and to turn one's attention even slightly in another direction is to give him more rein. These men need to focus their attention on building up the Church first and foremost, and I will believe they are serious about it when they repent of being Baptists and petition to enter a real presbyterian denomination.

Consequently, the very phrase "family-integrated church" is a ginormous red flag to me, as the Church must always be kept the central institution. The problem is not congregations fostering healthy families, but congregations which are organized with that as their main purpose; when, as I clarified in my essay, "by implication (and sometimes by flat-out statement), the church exists to support the family." Thus, my goal was to present a positive alternative to this error by demonstrating "the proper relationship of the family to the church: because the church is eternal, the temporary family must work to make its members better church members." I did not intend to present a direct critique of the NCFIC or its members. I have been told by the editor that a direct critique of the NCFIC is in the offing for Ordained Servant, but I don't know when.

Nonetheless, your suggestion I might be setting up a straw man is a valid one. However, the webernet abounds in testimonies of spiritual abuse in congregations sporting the "family-integrated" label (Mrs. Curmudgeon has made a minor hobby of discovering and forwarding me these sites). These are by definition anecdotes, but I take from them a couple very serious points. While the NCFIC men on occasion offer qualifications, at least a few have a tendency to strong rhetoric which is taken at face value by people impressed by it. (I've read and listened to a fair amount of Kevin Swanson in making this judgment.) This tendency to strong rhetoric can easily overwhelm the less-strong qualifications. Moreover, as a pastor, I am grieved by the damage done by the patriarchy movement to the souls of too many people. And of course, a few is too many. With that in mind, my essay was intended as a positive defense, an innoculation (if you will) against error. Give people a right view of the relationship between Church and family, and they might see patriarchalism for the schismatic and heretical notion it is.

To better understand my thinking, you should also know the OS piece was actually the first of a two-part argument. The follow-up seeks to show how, from the 1647 Directory for Family Worship, one might develop a "Church-integrated family." For editorial reasons, Greg Reynolds chose not to run it, so I will make it available in case you're interested. This might be the kind of constructive corrective you mention. It also shows the direction in which I firmly believe we should be moving: towards a recovery of historic Presbyterian practice in the life of the Church. When Presbyterianism, which is the Biblical religion, is rightly conceived and practiced, Churches will not only be well-ordered but families will (God willing) thrive as well.

In sum, it seems to me your concerns lie less with what I wrote than with what I didn't write. It may be that the NCFIC men and I agree on the relationship between family and Church, but we certainly disagree on how the Church should be organized. I believe that traces back to a defective ecclesiology on their part (whether by commitment or actual practice). I hope the December issue of Ordained Servant will be part of a helpful dialogue in which they learn to reform their faith and practice to the contours of historic and confessional Presbyterianism.

grace & peace,
the Presbyterian Curmudgeon