When my lecture on the relation of the church and family was originally posted on the Reformed Baptist Fellowship’s blog, I believed that the whole family-integrated church movement was happy to say that the church should be “family-based” or that the church should be a “family of families.” I also assumed that I knew what this meant. I soon learned that men like Scott Brown and Voddie Baucham did not mean to say what this terminology seemed straightforwardly to affirm. Voddie, for instance, in his blogs on this very subject even admits that calling the church a “family of families” is easily misunderstood. In another blog post I want to take up this terminology and the way these men interpret it and try to answer the question, What does saying the church is a “Family of Families” mean for this more moderate wing of the family-integrated church movement?
But in all fairness it needs to be said that other wings of the family-integrated church movement are actually saying and doing the kind of things which properly expose them to the critique I gave of the family-based church movement in my lecture. The following statements come from www.patriarch.org.
The nation is a reflection of its communities and churches; a community or a church is a reflection of its families….Patriarch aims specifically 1) to develop Christ-like character and behavior in men; 2) to equip men to direct, protect, and provide for their families; 3) to enable men to lead the church back to its New Testament, family-based patterns….2. The church is simply an extension of the family….A redefinition of the Christian family has resulted in a redefinition of the Church as well as the entire learning process. May we continue to yield to the Lord’s leading as we pioneer….Unfortunately, most home educators have not seen the need to connect their renewed family to a renewed church; and cell churches have not seen that the church must be founded on godly family units. What we need is a return to the family-based church. …. These two institutions (SW—the family and the church) are God’s means of spreading his kingdom in the world. It is time they began working together again. I can foresee home educating families gathering together across the nation (and the world) to form churches of the cell church model. It is a natural combination. And it is a model that can be reproduced without limit all over the globe . Call them family churches; call them house churches; call them anything you like. But the family-church combination could be the basis of a thorough renewal and revival….The family-based church idea may sound new to most modern ears, but to ears attuned to the Word of God it is an old idea whose time has returned.
I think the NCFIC would take issue with a number of things in this statement. Furthermore, I believe it deserves the critique I gave it in my lecture. Here is part of it:
The constant refrain of the quotations cited above is that the church is family-based and should be home-based. While one cannot deny that generally speaking, the strength of a church will often be in exact proportion to the strength of its families, it appears to me that this movement means much more than this by asserting that the church is family-based. It means rather that the church is actually “the extension of the family.” This simply is not true in any strict sense. It is certainly not true for those who hold the view (all Baptists, for instance) that the church is composed only of regenerate individuals who give credible profession of their faith. In the strict sense families do not belong to churches at all. Individuals on the basis of their personal, credible profession of faith belong to churches. The rights of church membership are not conferred on families or heads of household, but only on individual believers as individual believers. The church is not a collection of families, but a collection of believers. It is not an extension of the family, but a completely different and sovereign institution. The family was instituted at creation and is a creation institution, while the church in its present and final form was instituted after the work of redemption accomplished by Christ and is a redemptive institution. This means that the head of the household in virtue of his being the head of the household has no authority in the church. His rights and liberties as to church membership and as a church member are no different than those of his 20 year old son who lives at home but is also a member of the church. The family-based church idea might make some sense from a paedobaptist and Presbyterian standpoint. They often have held that only heads of households should vote in the church. They have always held that the membership in the church is family-based and composed of families. (But I need to note that even Presbyterians who hold the traditional views of Presbyterians on voting and church membership have been critical of the family-based churches concept. See the critical review of Eric Wallace, Uniting Church and Home (Lorton, VA: Solutions for Integrating Church and Home Inc., 1999) by Joe Morecraft III.) But family-based churches are a specific contradiction of a Baptist view of the church and make no sense within a Baptist viewpoint.
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.
