As I said in my last post, I want to present some critiques of Scott Brown’s A Weed in the Church in which he presents a defense of family-integrated church views. It is my goal, however, in this series to do more than merely criticize (what I would describe as) the more moderate wing of the movement Scott represents. It is as much for the cause of truth to recognize areas of agreement and common ground as it is to point out weaknesses and problems in family-integrated views. In my last post I did this by affirming that I felt myself in several respects on familiar and trusted theological ground in reading Scott’s book. Before I present my critiques, I want to commend Scott for something else. I really appreciate his attempt carefully to qualify his views in A Weed in the Church. It will be helpful, I think, to point out some of these qualifications.
First, Scott has attempted to make clear that God has appointed three jurisdictions in human life (49-52). He recognizes that each of these jurisdictions has genuine authority over the Christian. Thus, Scott recognizes what has historically been called sphere sovereignty in Reformed theology. If others in the wider movement had understood this view, they would not have claimed the right as fathers to give the sacraments of the church to their children or denied to women (who are in their own right baptized believers members of the church) the right of common suffrage in the church or the right to seek counsel from the elders of the church.
Second, Scott’s fourth chapter is entirely dedicated to qualifying what he is saying. It is, in fact, simply entitled, “Qualifications.” (55-68) Here he provides us ten welcome and usually irenic qualifications of his thesis. He says: (1) Contemporary youth ministry has not been a total failure. (2) He is not criticizing the motivations of typical youth ministry, but its methodology. (3) He acknowledges that there is a reform movement spreading through youth ministries which is striving to become more biblical. (4) Every problem in contemporary evangelicalism is not due to unbiblical youth ministry. (5) Even though he rejects typical youth ministry, he affirms youth discipleship. (6) It is wrong to and he does not intend to superimpose the worst forms of youth ministry on all youth ministry. (7) He affirms that the family need not always be together in church. [I will have some comments on this startling affirmation in a future blog post.] (8) He asserts that a child does not learn as differently than an adult as it is commonly thought. (9) He clarifies what he means by saying that the father has the primary responsibility for the rearing of his children. (10) He states that his goal is not simply to alter youth ministry, but to reform it.
Of course, I disagree with several things in these qualifications. I even think that they provide the basis for the claim that Scott has undermined his thesis in some of them. Nevertheless, I am glad for them. I am encouraged by the care with which Scott puts forward his thesis. If others had been so careful, perhaps a lot of the extremist actions of, and problems caused by, some exponents of family-integrated views would have been avoided.
Dr. Sam Waldron is the Academic Dean of CBTS and professor of Systematic Theology. He is also one of the pastors of Grace Reformed Baptist Church in Owensboro, KY. Dr. Waldron received a B.A. from Cornerstone University, an M.Div. from Trinity Ministerial Academy, a Th.M. from Grand Rapids Theological Seminary, and a Ph.D. from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. From 1977 to 2001 he was a pastor of the Reformed Baptist Church of Grand Rapids, MI. Dr. Waldron is the author of numerous books including A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, The End Times Made Simple, Baptist Roots in America, To Be Continued?, and MacArthur’s Millennial Manifesto: A Friendly Response.
