It has been a while since a vigorous  discussion was sparked by Justin Taylor on the Family Integrated Church movement. Traffic was high and debate was brisk with my last count of over 100 comments the announcement for the new chapter. Voddie Baucham weighed in. Then,  Dr. Kostenberger engaged the debate on his own blog clarifying some of his statements. 

 

I have been a promoter of Kostenberger's book since it was published, so my comments need to be seen in that light. As someone who has been involved in this for the past decade, it was very surprising to note the lack of original source documentation in the chapter – in sharp contrast to the rest of the book. For example he did not quote the visible leaders of this movement or cite their stated positions in spite of the abundance of their public statements.

 

I was not sure why he neglected to refer to the NCFIC Declaration or cite our "Frequently Asked Questions" section on our web site, where we attempt to explain critical doctrinal matters and answer some questions with some level of precision.

 

Perhaps one of the glaring systemic faults of the chapter is that the majority of the footnotes reference Jason Webbs masters thesis which so severely misunderstands, misrepresents and straw mans the movement that it hardly seems worthy of rebuttal. For some reason, Webb builds his entire thesis on things that are not believed by anyone I know in the family integrated church movement, and accuses us of things that don’t actually exist in the movement except perhaps in unusual situations. He pretends that the FIC leaders have what he calls “a family of families ecclesiology.” If he knew what the leaders actually believe and teach he would know how inaccurate this proposition is.

 

It struck me as odd that Dr. Kostenberger, otherwise known for his well documented research, would continue the “family of families” concern which has been so clearly and publicly explained by both Voddie Baucham and myself. He criticizes us for using the term, and then uses it himself in another part of the book. One blog commentator on Justin Taylors blog comments rightly said, “The opponents of family integrated churches talk a lot more about “family of families” than the proponents do, and they almost always misrepresent what is actually meant, which is simply that the family doesn’t cease to exist when it passes through the doors of the church.”

 

It seemed that the author did not understand some important distinctions of the various parties involved in family and church reform. In footnote #20 he seemed to be confused about various streams of thought (the difference between “family equipping” and “family integrated”). Dr. Timothy Paul Jones has pointed out some of these misunderstandings in a book review of God, Marriage, and Family, in the upcoming edition of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary's, The Journal of Family Ministry. (Forthcoming at www.familyministrytoday.com)

 

Kostenberger seemed unaware that hundreds of churches have identified themselves with the NCFIC confesssion – something that communicates a clear vision for the centrality of the gospel, the importance of expository preaching as well as a description of the complementary roles of church and family. Many of the doctrinal elements identified in this confession refute Dr. Kostenbergers suppositions about the FIC. This has been available online since 2002.

 

It is commonly noted by critics that the FIC movement is not monolithic. I think that it is actually far more monolithic than people might perceive. Dr. Kostenberger picks up this same notion in his new chapter. I have a very different view. The main voices in this movement are mostly confessional baptists who are constantly communicating a very high view of the church, the power of the gospel and the centrality of the glory of God. There are also many FIC presbyterians who are confessional churchmen. About half the churches that affirm the NCFIC confession are Second London Baptist Confession churches and the other half embrace the Westminster Confession of Faith. These explain the true ecclesiology of the movement. My perception after traveling 12,000 miles around the nation this year, visiting representatives of the over 700 churches who have aligned with the NCFIC confession, is that the movement is somewhat monolithic doctrinally in the sense that they are not creating their own doctrine but rather are relying on historic doctrinal statements.  In this sense, I believe the movement is monolithic.

 

It was encouraging to see the comments of those who tried to clarify things on Justin Taylors blog. I noticed the fellow who said that Kostenberger “is not painting the family integrated church at all. I am not sure what he is writing about. This is not the family integrated church that I know. And if there are extremes out there (as I am sure there are), it is certainly disingenuous to hold up those extreme elements as the norm.”

 

Another commenter did mention the identity some of of the leaders of the family integrated church movement, on Taylor's blog, and noted that they “do not place the family over the church or neglect the gospel in their churches.”