A Summary of Posts About the Family Integrated Church

General Beliefs Associated with Vision Forum’s                                          Family Integrated Church (FIC)

• What is the FIC? (Brief description of ideas associated with the FIC)
• The Family Integrated Church and Spiritual Abuse (A review of general criticisms of the FIC and beliefs associated with its practice)
• Perception: A Major Problem for Patriarchy (Ideologies, practices and affiliations associated with the wide array of beliefs associated with the FIC)
• The Linguistic Snare of Men as Prophet, Priest and King (A review of Baucham’s email correspondence contrasted against Whitefield’s sermon)

Tweet

A Rightful Reaction to the Stealth and Deceptive Doctrines of the FIC

It seems that my email correspondence with Voddie Baucham has completely ceased, even though he expressed what seemed like great interest in discussing his beliefs and what he believes about the Family Integrated Church (FIC) with me. I have not heard any response from Baucham in over a week now, and it’s been a week since I sent him the list of questions that he said he would make some effort to answer. He's not even acknowledged them. I can only draw his originally stated good intention toward me as stated in his emails into question, in consideration of his online response which showed his accountability to the truth (quite admirable) but in a manner that was unkind to me (negating his statement that he intended to cause me no harm, offering a confusing apology which he never attempted to qualify and explain to me).

Tweet

Putting Voddie Baucham's "Family Driven Faith" Into Perspective

Quite often, we spend our lives countering or making up for what we did not have when we were growing up. I’ve though recently about Catherine McAuley, a woman born in Dublin a little more than 200 years ago. She was orphaned but received a large inheritance from those who raised her. McAuley was moved with compassion and used her wealth to establish a ministry for disadvantaged women and children, and her efforts eventually birthed the Sisters of Mercy who still continue to carry out her mission today. I find it inspiring that my own experiences moved me to outspokenness regarding the spiritual abuse of women and children within the church after having been trained at a Mercy college. The driving force in our lives often stems from a motivation to provide for needs that we ourselves did not realize, just as McAuley demonstrates.

 I was miraculously healed as a newborn and had chronic health issues, so I became fascinated with healing and inspired to help other people to heal, comforting others as I had been. My mother also strongly encouraged nursing for me so that I would be financially self-sufficient, never finding myself financially trapped in a painful relationship (as she was within her own family of origin), a bad marriage or the plight of widowhood. I believe that she also encouraged me to train as a nurse because she wanted this for herself, but her parents refused to send her to nursing school when she was young. Many other things my parents stressed with me growing up were very much a concerted effort to make my life better in all the ways that their lives were not.   I believe the same is true for Voddie Baucham after reading through his “Family Driven Faith.”

After my disappointing experience with Baucham, I decided to finish reading his book to comment on it here because I want to represent him fairly here on this blog. I may not agree with him and may state why I do not, but such disagreements never give us cause to misrepresent others. As he stated in an email to me, we do share a great many beliefs. I’ve long shared the sober concern regarding the vital importance of a Christian worldview that Baucham discusses in his book, pouring over my copies of Schaeffer’s “Christian Manifesto” and LaHaye’s “Battle for the Mind” soon after they were first published. (When preparing an essay on “the desperate need for reformation in my generation” in the midst of the cold war in 1981, I read Donald Howard’s citing of Stalin saying “If we can destroy the pride and patriotism of just one generation, we have won that nation.” I vividly remember looking around my classroom thinking, “We are in BIG trouble!”)

 I also share Baucham’s concern over Biblical illiteracy among both adults and young people in the church, the troubling negative trends regarding church attendance, as well as a profound disappointment in public education. Regarding the essentials of the faith, I do believe that we agree upon more than we differ. I find this frustrating to realize when he addresses the issue of women, and I wonder how he can be so right on some points, yet so wrong on others. I suppose he might say the same of me. As I mentioned before on this blog, initially, I had to set his book aside. Because the authoritative approach and the numerous fallacies Baucham uses to support his views frustrate me, they impeded my progress through the material. For example, he states that Moses taught that the home was the only intended site for religious training for children, citing the shema and the other commandments found in Deuteronomy Chapter 6. He strongly encourages families to study the Word together through catechisms and to engage in worship with one another in the home per the Biblical model that Moses intended.

 Though there are several elements within his argument with which I wholeheartedly agree, I also note many problems and inconsistencies making this entire argument in his full context misleading and frustrating for me. An unrelated and exaggerated analogy demonstrating how he communicates these matters authoritatively would be, “We all know and it goes without saying that apples are red, and the greatest minds of history attest to this obvious fact.” Many apples are red, but not all apples are red. Some are green, some are yellow, and some boast a mottled combination of colors. This authoritative approach used on nearly every topic becomes labor intensive for me, because I believe that his views on these topics are often manipulative and/or narrow-minded. As an only child like Baucham, though I certainly could never speak to all the experiences that he must have endured, I’m well acquainted with the “only child” experience and all that it entails. We tend to see the world from only one perspective, having no siblings to give us the perspective that things can be different or that others perceive things in ways that differ from how we make sense of the world. One of the tasks that the only child must learn as an adult includes an overcoming of this “narrow mindedness.”

 I see a great deal of myself in the “That’s how I see it, so this is how it is ” statements in the book which likely account for SOME of his style that I find abrasive. I recognize this and see Baucham playing out this dilemma and its consequences in his book, sometimes projecting his perspective onto others using a misleading and authoritative approach. As Baucham describes the circumstances of his life in the book, I am reminded of myself, my own mother and even Catherine McAuley. We’ve all determined to be an agent of positive change, seeking to counter that which has hurt us, making sure that those like us will not be left without comfort. Baucham states that he grew up in South Central Los Angeles, born to a young mother who was abandoned by his father. He talks about how she practiced Buddhism, performing her daily rituals of prayer which left a deep impression on him. She gave up everything to raise her son, setting her own needs aside to provide for him, and he speaks of his epiphany of realizing how she’d put his needs before her own desires in life. He speaks of how his mother graduated from college at age 49, but she did not return to school until after she’d seen her son grow up to be a fine man.  Baucham also mentions the “unspeakable” abuse that his wife and her sisters endured – the wife he married while yet still both a football player and a sophomore in college.

In his junior year when his daughter was born, he describes the precious epiphany he had over the tremendous weight of responsibility that he realized for raising her. Baucham describes how when his daughter, then attending a private Christian school, developed displeasing attitudes, requiring that he and his wife to go back and “completely retrain her.” Jasmine, his daughter, states on her blog that they’ve been a homeschooling family since 2000 only, a few years after Doug Phillips established Vision Forum. I cannot help but speculate that Baucham found that message of patriarchy and family integrated worship enticing in his hour of great need with his beloved daughter. If Baucham did not already embrace these concepts, he was certainly ripe for harvest by the ideology through his need for guidance with his daughter, his great love for all the of women in his life, all in addition to the history of his family (particularly concerning the pains and tragedies experienced by his wife and mother).

I’m impressed that what he lacked in his own life, he hopes to provide for others, encouraging them so that they do not suffer as he and members of his own family have (though we don’t agree at all on what that should look like). Vision Forum promises “Biblical” answers and what look like solutions to serious problems. When we become off balance or needy in life, ideologies can easily pull us in by promising to solve our problems, by temporarily appeasing our fears, and by celebrating in our virtues. When you are parched and thirsty, and someone who has no duty to do so gives you life-giving water with the promise and appearance of love and care in the name of an ideology, those experiences profoundly soften our scrutiny.

 Much of what I found in the book was an argument in support of training children in the home, much of which I don’t think any Christian would dispute. Many of the single elements within his paradigm prove sound. However, Baucham presents his paradigm of training children in the home as God’s and Moses’ only Biblical or most consistently Biblical plan for the education of children, something I do not believe is as exclusive as the book claims. Though Baucham makes claims of tolerance, denying an agenda that opposes other alternatives to his own, a Christian should intrinsically understand that if they follow a practice that is not Biblical, that “not Biblical” amounts to an accusation of sin (rather than just someone else’s personal conviction). Baucham poses statements with obvious emotionally loaded connotative meaning for the Christian (i.e., Sunday School as Darwinian), but he fails to directly state the final conclusion: that people who do not follow his paradigm, his preference, and his interpretation practice sin. What that is unbiblical or not quite Biblical falls within the pale of orthodoxy? These ethics are never discussed specifically or openly.

 Baucham uses the fallacy of unstated assumption, vague implication and, fuzzy logic so that he can claim innocence. Technically he has only said “less Biblical” and not made a direct and open statement charging others with sin (by saying something stronger like unbiblical or non-Biblical). If it is Biblical to have no other Gods before YHWH God, how can a less Biblical view be anything other than sin? “Unbiblical” connotes sin. “Non-normative” is used interchangeably and is understood in the same manner.

Like Vision Forum, Baucham makes all sorts of presuppositional errors which have an “all or nothing” flavor to them, all carrying an adversarial implication. “If you are not with me, you can only be against me” (to one varying degree or another). He does a great deal of Affirming the Consequent and Denying the Antecedent and post hoc ergo propter hoc, etc.. Here is a simple example of just one of the errors he makes frequently and applies inconsistently (when it promotes his argument):

Anything that is not specifically outlined in the Bible is part of the secular culture. AND The secular culture is humanistic and sinful in terms of Christian worldview. THEREFORE To embrace or practice anything in our secular culture opposes a Christian worldview and is sinful.

But this assumption does not apply to everything, and these rules of thumb that are generally true are NOT ALWAYS true. In terms of Christian worldview, humanism is sinful, but not all components of secular culture are sinful. Indoor plumbing, houseplants and kitchen curtains are never discussed in the Bible, so this is a secular concern, but total silence on these specific secular matters in the Word does not make these things unbiblical or sinful. Calvin and Martin Luther in particular taught and spoke regularly about the sacred and the profane. Is all human conventional wisdom and logic an example of vain deceit that defies God? Those who profess to be Reformed should be well-versed in these writings, as Luther wrote about these matters and reinforced with people that their daily work was an act of worship and their ministry. Ministry was not limited to the priesthood or the priestly duties only, nor was ministry in the church more precious to God than any humble service performed unto the glory of God. Many of these arguments are akin to this example:

The roads get wet during rain. AND The roads are wet. THEREFORE It’s raining.
(OR It’s a tsunami!!!)

Again, it is a general rule of thumb to assume that if the roads are wet, it has rained or that it is raining. This is not always true, as the roads could be wet from having been washed down with a hose, from snow melting, from a water-main break, from a leaking vehicle full of liquid, etc. Also consider that many of these issues are complex and not as easily discerned as is the determining of how the roads became wet. Baucham makes many such errors of this variety, as does Vision Forum. 

Voddie Baucham, like Doug Phillips, has a great deal to offer the church, but his personal and extra-biblical preferences work like potent poison in practice for a great many people who found the full scope of these teachings to be devastating. Baucham’s book misleads, and though it contains many good elements, it uses bad logic and manipulation to force mere opinions and preferences as indisputable facts with either absent or unsatisfying “proven evidence.” In “Family Driven Faith,” he softens his stance and his specific opinions concerning many of the views he hold in common with Vision Forum and does not reflect the whole scope of his views.

 Baucham’s anticipated new book release in February should elucidate more of his aberrant views than “Family Driven Faith” does because of the specific subject matter, though he might be able to soften the sharp edges in that cutting doctrine, too. It depends on how honest of a book it proves to be. Perhaps then we may learn whether it is his Calvinism or Vision Forumesque doctrine that proves to be his greatest detractor within the SBC? .
.

Tweet

Attempting to Clarify Voddie Baucham's Position on Vision Forum's FIC

In my correspondence with Dr. Voddie Baucham, he expressed concern over my “wondering” about his doctrine on my blog. I would like to note those doctrines he embraces and those he rejects from the emails that he did send me. I believe that I can also discern which groups with whom he does and does not want to be closely associated. As he expressed some desire to clarify these matters so that I do not have to “wonder aloud” about his beliefs, I would like to point out that which I believe I can identify from our exchange via email. I’ve also posed formal questions to him, and they are listed HERE.

My takeaway:  Apparently, everyone gets the Family Integrated Church wrong except Voddie Baucham.

I would also like to state that in his correspondence with me over a few days, Baucham echos my language, a technique I learned fairly early on in my studies and work writing papers. Instructors like to hear the language that they used with you in class, and reflecting their own language back to them (or regurgitating as some would put it) ingratiates the student-writer with the instructor. Baucham reflects back to me some very specific language that I used in the Patriarchy Workshop in his emails, just something I would like to note.

Based on what he’s written to me, because he’s only appeared at three conferences with Doug Phillips, he’s improperly associated with the beliefs of Vision Forum, giving me the impression that he wants to be perceived as having some distance from their group. I do not understand how he can make this statement when he shares and passionately defends so much of Vision Forum’s doctrine concerning women and daughters. He specifically mentions Vision Forum in this statement about what he calls “FIC Reaction Syndrome” wherein critics:

1.) "Wrongly characterize the FIC as a monolithic movement with unified doctrine, which emanates from Vision Forum headquarters in San Antonio (even though it includes Baptists, Presbyterians, Pentecostals)"

[Blog host note: By stating that all FIC minded churches and groups are wrongly perceived as sharing unity with Vision Forum, Baucham implies some sense of desire to be considered quite separate from them. And though Vision Forum (and the affiliated local body, Boerne Christian Assembly) professes to be an independent Baptist denomination embracing the 1689 London Baptist Confession, he contrasts Presbyterians, Pentecostals and Baptists (his own affiliation) with Vision Forum’s example.]

Tweet

Corresponding with Voddie Baucham

Earlier this week, I received a very brief and pleasant email from Voddie Baucham, stating that he realizes that I did not mention him in my workshop in March 2008, declaring his apology. See this previous post. For me at this point, it seems to be a blanket apology that is very nonspecific and does not actually repent of the primary aspect of his online statement that I found offensive. I am grateful that the correspondence has been cordial and that I’ve been honored as a sister in Christ and not Jezebel, I cannot help but to also consider the potential that some of what has been written thus far might be damage control. Let me walk you through my journey thus far. Though I continue to correspond with Dr. Baucham (I think?) who has graciously invited me to call him Voddie, I actually find myself more offended, and it’s odd because the initial apology was more offensive than his online statement was for me because it does seem quite broad.

EDIT:  The original post in question which first appeared on Baucham's site can be read HERE, as someone felt it was worth preserving.  I cannot find it on the internet archive anywhere.

Tweet

Language Used in Reference to Ministry to Families and Plans to Continue Examining the Many Interpretations of FIC Concept

I thought I would breeze over this book in one post, but I received some comments by email about it, some asking questions about the book itself and some that related to some real life situations that are addressed by the author in some very productive ways. So in some upcoming posts, I’d like to look at some of the “pros” and what I found to be “cons” in the book. When I ordered this book, I also ordered a copy of Voddie Baucham’s book entitled “Family Driven Faith.”

Tweet

More From Randy Stinson in the FIC (Part II): Rejection of the Church as a Family of Families

Thanks to readers of this blog who also have knowledge of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary's (SBTS) beliefs about the Family Integrated Church (FIC), I've become aware of more distinctions between between their views and those held by SBC minister Voddie Baucham and those at Vision Forum, etc.

 The following quote from Randy Stinson at Steve Wright's "reThink Conference" in May reflects something only vaguely described in the Towers Online announcement about the SBTS concept and unique version of the FIC. Though the seminary shares many common beliefs with Vision Forum, it does reject this concept of the church as one big family that is comprised of many families (not acknowledging the individual apart from a family).

 Randy Stinson's "reThink Conference" presentation (audio download from blog sidebar):

There are some, in their effort to help this problem, some are defining the church in such a way so that the family will be prioritized. Some are defining the church as made up of a family of families. And while it may be just a subtle shift, a subtle move, this kind of definition, frankly, leads to certain expressions of ministry in local churches that can lead to and can be exclusive, that can be isolationist, it has a tendency to homogenize the congregation and produce sameness. 

You see, I would argue that it’s not that the church is a family of families. I would just stop at the family part. The church is a family. In fact, if you look at Romans 8, it’s your real family. I mean, what Romans 8 is teaching us is this: Paul says, “You didn’t receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the spirit of adoption as sons by whom we cry, ‘Abba Father.’ The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God. And if children then heirs, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ provided we suffer with Him in order that we may be also glorified with Him.” ..... Outside of Christ and outside the family of God, you don’t buy yourself in, you’re not born into it, you’re adopted. Adoption is central to the Gospel. 

Because you’re outside and then you’re in. You’re adopted in. And so, while three of my daughters were born into other families, they’re in their real one right now. This is their real family. And when you come to Christ, those fellow believers around you are your real family. Now you may have some people in the real family that are biologically related to you, and that is an added blessing. But when it’s all said and done, what Paul is saying here is that the family of God is your real family. 

So it’s not that the church is a family of families, it is a family – it’s your real family. I mean, Jesus said – just think about this. Jesus said almost just the opposite. Don’t expect everybody to come, you know, with a mother, father, sister, brother lined up. He said, “If you’re not willing to forsake mother, father, sister, brother, you’re not worthy of Me.” What’s He saying? There are going to be people that are coming who have had to forsake families. There are going to be husbands whose wives have rejected the Gospel. 

There are going to be wives whose husbands have rejected the Gospel. Teenagers whose parents have rejected the Gospel. I mean, that’s where this is an unbelievable picture of the Gospel -- when the church is truly operating as a family, like a family. We went to Taiwan, we had three kids already. We went to Taiwan and brought two home, dropped them in and told everybody, “Love them. Deal with it. They look different than you and don’t even talk your same language. Love them”... I mean, that’s exactly what’s happening every time somebody comes to Christ, God’s bringing some into the local church whenever somebody comes to Christ, and He’s saying. “You’ve got to love them. 

Here’s another one. Deal with it.” They’re not going to talk like you, they’re not going to have the same socioeconomic background. It’s every tribe, every tongue and every nation – it’s not just people like you. It’s not just people that talk like you. It’s not just people who look like you – who have the perfect family like you, who have the same socioeconomic background as you with the same hobbies. We’ve got church for cowboys, church for sky divers, church for homeschoolers. So, wow. You can get a bunch of people that look like you, think like you, and talk like you and love each other. Where’s the exhaltation of the Gospel in that? Big deal. That’s not what the Gospel says. 

The Gospel says that everybody’s going to be different. Now see what you’ve got. Now let’s love them and see what you’ve got... So if we believe that the church should be understood in this way, then I think we should structure the ministries in our church to cultivate this, to encourage this, to promote it. What we’re talking about here is such a – it’s not a radical shift. It is a trajectory shift which means that we’re saying that we’re going to re-tool this thing. 

We need to make it a shift, but it’s not radical, but it’s enough that it puts you in a different trajectory. You are going to end up somewhere other than where you were going to end up before. I mean, it’s family focus, it’s an intergenerational approach, that treats all believers as part of the family. This is where I think so many people are missing it.

Tweet

More From Randy Stinson on the FIC Part I: Vision Forum Commonalities

Steve Wright's concept of revising and "reThinking" youth ministry outlines the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary's concept of the Family Integrated Church. At least, that's what I'm told. On Wright's website entitled "Lasting Divergence," in the sidebar near the bottom, you can access Randy Stinson's message at Wright's May 2008 "reThink Conference."

In upcoming posts, I would like to point out where SBTS departs from the Vision Forum FIC concept, but in this quote, I note language that echoes the language that Vision Forum and others like Philip Lancaster have used for many, many years.

Randy Stinson's "reThink Conference" presentation
(audio download from blog sidebar):

We’re really talking about creating an ethos, a way of life in the church, a climate in the church.

A climate where as you’ve discussed all day long, where families are brought together, not fragmented. Where dads are encouraged to lead, where parents bear the primary responsibility of discipling their children, where the hearts of children are turned towards their mothers and fathers, where the hearts of mothers and fathers are turned toward their children, where teenagers who come without their parents have a place, where single moms and broken families can come and understand what real family living is all about but being part of the broader family of God. 

Because the Bible teaches that the church is a family. Or at the very least, it teaches that the church is supposed to operate like a family in its structure, in the way that members relate to one another. It’s supposed to be a family and it’s predicated on the family, and so the family is central to this and we need to pour a lot of energy into the preservation of the family because the family is the picture and the family is the paradigm for how the church is supposed to operate.

Please visit again for upcoming posts that point out some sharp contrasts between the SBTS concept and the Vision Forum concept of the FIC.

.
.

Tweet

More From Randy Stinson on the FIC (Part III): No Rejection of Age-Appropriate Education

Other topics addressed by Randy Stinson at Steve Wright's "reThink Conference" (note audio download from sidebar):

Concerning the integration of ministry, unlike what is professed within some FICs, what Randy Stinson described does not rule out separate ministries in the way that those who founded the FIC concept originated. Doug Phillips and Philip Lancaster vilify separate activities so that they are not permitted. Randy Stinson describes a system that directs families who minister and study together, but it does not vilify these separate activities, just as Steve Wright points out in the “reThink” book. 

Stinson says that it’s not the ministries themselves but it is the lack of integration in these ministries. Previous statements did not distinguish the SBTS model from these pre-existing groups, and perhaps SBTS honestly did not realize that in the original FICs, activities like Sunday School and age-appropriate groups were not just discouraged but were outright forbidden. The practice in many FICs (specifically that advocated by Voddie Baucham and Vision Forum) is not so much of an integration model as it is a rebellion against and a rejection of group leaders and separate groups themselves, integrating by exclusion rather than by inclusion. Stinson argues against the exclusionary model that rejects age-appropriate education. Is this not all the more reason for SBTS to distance themselves from the groups that do vilify programs like Sunday School, particularly if they are going to use so much common language and terminology.

Stinson does say that those who do not have a traditional family can be “looped back in” so that they can participate in the church, just as fragmented family members are brought back into the whole of the church. He does not go on to describe how this is accomplished, but it does NOT sound anything like the “adoption by normative families” by the assignment of a surrogate “federal head of the family” as is necessary in Doug Phillips’ FIC.
.
.

Tweet

"reThinking" the FIC in the SBC -- More Distinctions

In previous posts, I described how individuals within the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) criticized my inclusion of their seminary professors' statements within a lecture on patriarchy, and how at least two of their seminaries embrace a concept of ministry that they call the “Family Integrated Church,” (FIC) a system that originated outside of the SBC.

Tweet

MORE Discussions About the Family Integrated Church

Please visit "thatmom" Karen Campbell's website for a new series of posts discussing the phenomenon of the Family Integrated Church (FIC).

Karen and her family cycled in and out of FICs, bringing a unique perspective to the discussion. When you finish reading the post on this topic on Wade Burleson's blog where Karen gives an overview of her experiences, venture over to" thatmom" for a more detailed discussion.

Tweet

Two Major Distinctions between SBTS and Quiverfull's Family Integrated Worship

In the previous post, I mentioned that the only distinction I could find that sets the Reformed movement's Family Integrated Church (FIC) movement (including SBC ministers like Voddie Baucham and Scott Brown) from the FIC mindedness and patriarchy at SBTS/CBMW was their statement regarding evangelism. Southern Baptist Theological Seminary President, Dr. Albert Mohler states that the school's focus on families via the FIC serves to accomplish the Great Commission and as a means of living after God's grace. But...

I've noted another distinction between these two groups:
their support of a woman holding a position in the civil government.

(Provided that Dr. Mohler's personal position is somewhat reflective of both SBTS and CBMW, I interpret his blog post as at least a tacit indication of the general (non-formal) positions of both organizations in Louisville.)

Tweet

How Patriarchy Necessitates Family Integrated Worship, and Why Evangelism is the Only Southern Seminary FIC Distinction

There are a host of practices associated with the Family Integrated Church (FIC). Previous posts already established a fairly extensive history of the FIC and its developments from within homeschooling-minded communities. This FIC concept stems upon a unique interpretation of headship and the writings of John Calvin (preferring a strong and often static hierarchy in terms of all relationships). Previous posts also described the influence of neo-confederate idealism on the Christian Reconstruction movement (a Calvinistic movement) and how those influences affected the growth of the homeschooling movement in most Reformed circles who created the FIC concept. As stated many times in the past on this blog and in other venues, the FIC is not a monolithic movement and is comprised of a diverse combination of associated principles, beliefs and practices.

They are connected however, in terms of beliefs in a rigid male headship and the subordination of women as the ontological lesser of men (of lesser essence physically and metaphysically per the classical philosophical understanding of the word). The teleology of woman (the divine purpose and design for woman) also deems her as a more limited creature (role, evangelism, etc.) as a consequence of her lesser essence. (Man is made in God’s image and woman is made from and after man’s image without transfer of the same spiritual qualities of the imago dei that only the male gender retains.)

The most basic fundamentals of the FIC:

• Patriarchal dynamics within the family and the church (strictly hierarchical)
• Focus on “top-down” leadership as a function of a particular interpretation of male headship (paternalistic view of church and family)
• Limited operations and functions for women in home, church and society
• Promotion, support and preference for large, homeschooled families Prejudice against “segregated” groups within both collective worship and church ministry, perceived as a cause of the progressive decline in church membership, particularly the subgroup of children
• Presuppositions consistent with Covenant Theology/Doctrines of the Reformed faith

To further summarize, I believe that all of these elements can be traced back to one single element: an aberrant re-interpretation of Calvin’s doctrine of federal headship, stretching the understanding of Adam as the father of us all who introduced sin into mankind into idolatry of man’s traditions. The spiritually regenerate man becomes a new type of “improved”Adam (a new creation in Christ like unto Adam) who saves his family through works of the law under this aberrant teaching. The profound focus on the virtuous, salvific abilities of the paternalistic system and the focus on legalistic performance standards (finding an antinomian under every pew) brings their profession of this aspect of Reformed faith somewhat into question. Jesus is seen only as a type of catalyst that does not dissolve or obliterate our relationship to Adam (and our relationship to the law) but rather enables the Christian man to perform works of the law to progress and enhance his own sanctification (and thus that of individuals with his family because they are spiritually dependent upon him and his efforts to various extents, depending on the FIC in question).

In an effort to honor the law, idolatry of both family and the mediator of all things pertaining to family ensues. I’m sure that those who advance the FIC cause would willing state vehemently that they oppose idolatry and do not conform to it, yet this spiritual pride becomes quite evident despite the best of intention in this system. This FIC element is also consistent with Bill Gothard’s teaching wherein grace is viewed like the opus operatum, a mystical dispensing or infusing of power or merit that is earned through works and through right attitude, rather than a forensic application of grace as God’s unmerited favorable disposition towards the believer.

In this system, initial salvation by belief in and confession of Christ as Savior does come through faith; but thereafter, man participates and enhances his own sanctification process through works and faith together, partly dependent on following the law. Salvation in this type of system is thus works mediated and not entirely faith mediated. Pelagius taught that mankind was not ill-effected by Adam and thus did not inherit a sin nature. All men could thus achieve God’s will through his own virtuous moral free will without spiritual rebirth and guidance by the Holy Spirt of God. For that reason, I believe that these views are actually very functionally semi-pelagian because of the confidence in the abilities of the virtuous patriarch who redeems his family and self through works of the law. 

Patriocentrists do not deny the sin nature, but they consistently behave as though, with a certain degree of mastery over the sin nature, their works of the law mediate holiness and spiritual transformation for themselves and dependent others (rather than works being an outward expression of faith). Augustine spoke of the visible church (church members who may or may not be believers) and the invisible church (believers only whether members of an established church group or not). These traditional definitions, long held to accurately describe the church do not apply under an FIC concept. Because the FIC only sees the church as a family of families and not as a group of individuals as a part of one body, all ministry must flow through this “federal head” of the family. The Family Integrated System is thus family dependent.

The FIC rubric views father as the “federal head” of the family and a minster or elders as “federal heads” of the church. Based on the views taught by the patriocentrics and this paternally dependent view of family, if one holds to this novel interpretation of spiritual headship under the guise of male headship that is taught in the Bible as a strict diagram of hierarchy, then all Christians must follow a family integrated model. (!) The FIC thus appears to reject the concept of the “invisible church,” because it is so focused on outward appearances and proper hierarchy, denying many their rightful place within the invisible church.

The Family-Dependent Concept of Ministry Within the FIC

The FIC Concept Promoted by Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (SBTS) As previously stated, I endeavor to demonstrate how the Family Integrated concept professed by SBTS does not demonstrate itself to be unique from the basic beliefs, assumptions and many of the condoned or prohibited practices in the pre-existing FIC within other Reformed circles. First, I am not the first and only person to connect the FIC concept with Doug Phillips, Philip Lancaster, Eric Wallace and R.C. Sproul, Jr. I offer the FBFI statement, other discussions on the fundamentalist website “Sharper Iron,” and a private document sent by Pastor Jack Brooks to his Evangelical Free Church in America colleagues in his Southeastern District to warn them about his personal concerns about the factional and schismatic FIC ideology as three of many such examples.

The Tenets of Biblical Patriarchy and the Confession for Uniting Church and Family appears on Vision Forum Ministries website for those who wish to review this formal depiction of the FIC, and this list of some of the more extreme practices of the FIC (“fringe” per SBTS) also includes some of the informal practices associated with that group. Second, let me also state again that it was the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) that came to the FIC concept years after Presbyterian and Reformed denominations created the term, even adopting it into their church mission and vision statements before the SBC ever acknowledged the FIC. The Southern Baptist Church and Home Education Association (SBCHEA) formed to “foster communication between Southern Baptist homeschooling families and the SBC,” but not until 2004. In 2005, the SBCHEA then endorsed the FIC model.

Per the Ethics Daily article reporting on the FIC, though he contended for the concept for many years within the SBC, Voddie Baucham co-sponsored an SBC resolution that advocated for home schooling as opposed to public, government school education, but not until 2005. Previous posts document some of this history and authors who wrote on this subject throughout the decade of the 1990s. And in 2006, the FBFI denomination had been so ill-effected by the movement that they passed a resolution denouncing the FIC, describing well that the FIC produces “an innate suspicion and distrust of, not to mention disloyalty to, their local churches and local church leadership.”

This would suggest that the FBFI experienced the FIC phenomenon on a fairly wide scale to be compelled to pass a resolution against the model. This suggests that though other Baptist denominations were well aware of the concept, but that the movement had come later to the SBC. What is SBTS’s purpose for creating an FIC focus and adopting it at Southern Seminary if they have no knowledge of, connection to or similarities to these other FIC groups?

What then qualifies SBTS as a source of expert training in the FIC model? According to President Al Mohler and Dean Chuck Lawless, the FIC concept was adopted in order further the Acts 1:8 Great Commission with “missions, evangelism and healthy, biblical church growth” at the forefront to thus reflect God’s gracious character “in all that is done” at SBTS. Mohler states that the “family ministry is at the very heart” of what they want to accomplish in local churches toward achieving the ultimate, evangelistic end of the Great Commission.Randy Stinson states in general terms that he wants to encourage spiritual growth and model it after the process that takes place within a family under male leadership, so one can assume that thse goals are consistent with the “fringe” model of the FIC. He also states that, as consistent with the “fringe” model, church ministries have become unfocused because of what he defines as age and gender “segregation.” It also seems women’s, youth and children’s ministries are to be merged, suggesting that groups that do separate for focused, age-appropriate Bible study or ministry do not conform to a “Titus 2 mold.” (???) Somehow reintegrating them will better achieve a Titus 2 model, yet Stinson states that all these groups should be integrated under the "unified vision" of the leadership of men. 

And drawing from the teachings of CBMW, one can infer that the FIC gender roles that Stinson recommends also conform to the “fringe” FIC groups. In Defense of Age-Appropriate Education I would like to say that in defense of Sunday School and other such ministries that I never saw them as interfering with unity but as a great means to carry the Gospel to as many people in the most effective means possible so as to minister the witness of the Good News of Jesus to them. In that context, it was not “segregation” but effective ministry.

Particularly with age-appropriate ministry, a child may learn to sit through a long sermon that is geared toward a much older crowd. (I remember as a small child, laying under the pew where my mother sat with a bag of Cheerios and a coloring book.) And to this day, I sometimes have images of flannelgraph pictures of Bible stories pop into my mind, as my teachers were kind enough to meet me like a lost sheep, bringing me a more meaningful message because it brought Jesus to me at my level of understanding. One of the longest and most meaningful relationships of my life, along with those within my family, is the relationship I shared with my Sunday School teacher when she prayed with me at the altar when I was five. She served as my Sunday School teacher many times after that day, and she modeled Jesus Christ to me over the course of my life. That relationship with her strengthened my faith, watching her raise sons as a widow and braving breast cancer, and certainly did not weaken it or cause me to turn away from Christ.

My mentor in Christian School who introduced me to the writings of the Doctrines of Grace (as such) served as both my highschool teacher, my youth group leader and the pastor that officiated at my wedding. I am infinitely all the better for their enduring witness and friendship in my life, not worse. In fact, I can’t imagine where I would be without all of these mighty testimonies that I came to know by virtue of age-appropriate Christian education.

 What DOES Makes SBTS Different? The only distinction that I can discern is that SBTS professes a desire to evangelize, something most of the FICs outside of the formal SBC advise against. In Karen Campbell’s most recent podcast series on “militant fecundity," she explains how that belief in the supposed “fringe” following of the FIC, those adopted children that are not biological are frowned upon in the FIC. She lists several teachings of Gothard and others about the negative view of adoption. What she did fail to mention was RC Sproul’s adoption of a son which the neoconfederate sub-group of kinists protested because the adopted child was of a different race and ethnicity, so the here is yet another example of the splintering that takes place within the FIC. (Not all the neo-confederate idealists are kinists, but all kinists are neo-confederates.) But also mentioned in this podcast on militant fecundity are Doug Wilson’s teaching to pray for the unborn of the non-elect to die in utero and allow the poor and destitute children of the non-elect to remain unclothed and hungry in the gutter. As previously stated, because male intercession interferes with the priesthood of the believer, so being born into the covenant community through Christian parents grants children a higher status than those who come to Christ in faith by conversion. Church membership through a blood relative by virtue of one’s birth (as God’s providence) supercedes the individual’s belief and profession in Christ which explains why so many FIC churches focus upon “militant fecundity.” 

Therefore, the children of believers always enjoy a higher status through this odd FIC-associated, sick twist on election, a view that is far more cruel than even the pagan concept of karma. This profession of evangelism as a goal of the FIC concept of SBTS serves as the only single identifiable factor that distinguishes the SBTS concept of the FIC from that of the patriocentrists. And it remains to be seen whether this stated “family centered” evangelistic vision of the SBTS version of the FIC produces the desired end of the Great Commision, proving whether this confession can overcome the rest of the problematic FIC system. Time will bear out whether the SBTS adaptations of the FIC will also become a warped tool of condemnation, aggressive proselytization of the non-Calvinist and a pious retreat from compassionate ministry to our secular culture.

 For the sake of both saint and sinner, I pray that it miraculously does not. From my experience and from the reports of so many others, this cure for our culture, our churches, our families and our beloved children proves to be worse than the disease. It’s proved far worse and operates far more quickly than the inconsistencies found in Gothardism, producing its painful, idolatrous fruit. People seem to cycle through the FIC mill into realization of the fallacies and aberrant teaching far more quickly than they do through the Bill Gothard experience, so I suppose that this is one of the many silver linings contained in this dark cloud. But judging from the already SBC affiliated FICs to date, they differ only from the pre-existing FICs in terms of expression of the desire for evangelism, but not in kind or function.

Lord God, please have mercy on us and deliver us from ourselves – from the traditions of our own making that work to make Your Word ineffective. Do a new planting in us, that we might be oaks of righteousness unto Your Glory rather than tombs full of dead men’s bones. Amen. Amen. And, AMEN.

Isaiah 61 [KJV]

The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound; To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn; To appoint unto them that mourn in Zion, to give unto them beauty for ashes, the oil of joy for mourning, the garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness; that they might be called trees of righteousness, the planting of the LORD, that he might be glorified. And they shall build the old wastes, they shall raise up the former desolations, and they shall repair the waste cities, the desolations of many generations. And strangers shall stand and feed your flocks, and the sons of the alien shall be your plowmen and your vinedressers. But ye shall be named the Priests of the LORD: men shall call you the Ministers of our God: ye shall eat the riches of the Gentiles, and in their glory shall ye boast yourselves. For your shame ye shall have double; and for confusion they shall rejoice in their portion: therefore in their land they shall possess the double: everlasting joy shall be unto them.

May this become the final chapter of the story of the testimony of the Family Integrated Church! . ,

Tweet

Stay Tuned for more on the FIC

I am in the process of trying to condense and edit information for what I would like to make a final blog post on the subject of the FIC. Please be patient. I should have it online by Wednesday. I've been overwhelmed with private correspondence on this topic, all of which has been favorable and some which has required thoughtful personal responses to people who are currently suffering or have suffered spiritual abuse in Family Integrated Churches (FIC).

The topic is a heavy one for me, and I have spent time that I intended to spend writing for this blog in email correspondence with others, recommending resources and encouraging these individuals. Many of them are very broken and in need of counsel. I've taken that time to respond to them. I may also recap the posts with a summary of all of the ideological ties and common relationships of which I am aware among the SBC, CBMW and SBTS and their affiliations with the so-called "Biblical patriarchy" movement, patriocentricity and the FIC. As previously stated, this I offer in response to the statements of individuals at SBTS who claim my thesis has no basis in fact and that I am thus guilty of the fallacy of "guilt by association" by falsely insinuating that SBTS has connections to what has been called "fringe." What I did not appreicate at the time that I delivered the controvertial apologetics lecture was just how many true ties the SBC shared with patriocentricity, formally, informally and idealistically.

Many are already addressed in these recent blog posts, but there are many more significant ones to add to them. I have not yet decided if I want to do that or not, as I believe that my thesis has plenty of factual merit as it stands. Some ties are weaker than others, but I may consider a recap of them. Yet I understand the cognitive dissonance (the "does not compute" factor) that comes along with learning these things. When you believe a group or a person to be 100% trustworthy and above reproach, it is a very natural response to doubt information that is not consistient with your own beliefs. Newly released books such as "True Enough" and "The Age of American Unreason" discuss this phenomenon in some detail, with "True Enough" noting that Conservative Fundamentalist Christians demonstrate a higher degree and ability for cognitive dissonance than other political groups.

I find that very interesting, as we are people called to walk by faith and not sight (but we are also called to be wise as serpents while innocent as doves). Perhaps I can pull some related quotes on that topic from these books in future blog posts. Please check back over the course of the next week for more on the FIC.

Tweet

The Development of Christian Education-Oriented Affinity Groups and Intolerance of the Non-Reformed: The Shift from Dominion to Domination

Before addressing how the related interpretations of an hierarchical view of Calvin’s spheres of government and dominion (as opposed to the traditional interpretations of the sphere of family and federal headship) necessitate the Family Integrated Church (FIC), I would like to review a bit more about the development of Christian education options as related to the FIC.

The transition of the children of Christian families out of the public school system which became increasingly hostile to Christianity has been an interesting history, one that has offered two options: private Christian school and homeschooling. The original goals (circa 1970) of both groups were once common ones, primarily. All focused on providing Christian young people with a firm foundation in a Christian worldview without the pressures of indoctrination from the socialist and humanist influences within the government school system. I had the privilege of attending a Christian school at the height of the growing movement and wrote award winning essays about the desperate need for reformation among my own generation. I was inspired by the writings of men like Donald Howard and Francis Schaeffer, and the vision and mission were clear: spiritual and academic preparation of young people who would be well-equipped Christian ambassadors, effective evangelists of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The early writings concerning homeschooling also embraced this approach.

Tweet

Patriarchal Mediation for His Family in the Writings of Palmer

Note these excerpts from the Confederate minister Palmer's work, describing the great significance of the essential component of the "Natural Religion" of patriocentricity. These quotes argue for the patriarch as a spiritual mediator for his family, a theme that the patriocentrics of today have further expanded upon, teaching that wives find spiritual sanctification in their husbands and as a consequence of his governance.


These themes are reiterated in Philip Lancaster's "Family Man, Family Leader" in contemporary language. All of these same key concepts and themes that Lancaster presents were first described by Palmer in 1876. These teachings were not original teachings of Lancaster, yet he does not reference Palmer.

“The Family in its Civil and Churchly Aspects: An Essay in Two Parts”

Pg 240 -243

We have seen, in a previous chapter, how the first father was the organ of primeval worship, and the prophet to convey the tenets of the primeval faith to the offspring of his loins. Also when sacrifices were instituted under the dispensation of grace, the patriarch was invested with the functions of priesthood; and as the appointed mediator, conveyed in the patriarchal blessing the utterance of divine approval…

Beyond this, however, mediation is interwoven into the very texture of the Family… Indeed, the whole of parental duty is a system of mediation, often attended with suffering and self-denial, but always impelled by love. If these hints should be deemed obscure, and the analogy but faint, it must be remembered that the doctrine of mediation by Jesus Christ as the greatest revelation of God’s grace to man. It is enough if, in the daily outworking of Family life, there should be found even this analogy to hold up the principle against oversight and forgetfulness.

Pg 291

On each recurring Sabbath, when the father and the mother sit at either end of the family pew, with their offspring between them, does not the great congregation appear as a collection of smaller churches aggregated in one large assembly of worshippers?

But enough. If the Family holds the knowledge of God amongst men in the instruction it affords, much more is the depository of His worship. Each pious household is a separate fibre of those roots by which the Church of the living God takes hold upon the earth, and preserves his existence in a sinful world.

Tweet

The Natural Religion of Family of Benjamin M. Palmer

More Excerpts from Palmer's Confederate work, describing the great significance of the essential component of the "Natural Religion" of patriocentricity. Note the material that references the husband as "prophet, priest and king" for his family within the system of natural religion that preceded the system of grace. These themes are reiterated in Philip Lancaster's "Family Man, Family Leader" in contemporary language. All of these same key concepts and themes that Lancaster presents were first described by Palmer in 1876. These teachings were not original teachings of Lancaster, yet he does not reference Palmer. 

“The Family in its Civil and Churchly Aspects: An Essay in Two Parts”

Pg 197 - 209

1. At the very beginning, under a system of natural religion, Adam was constituted the head and organ of a religious Commonwealth.

And by just so much as he was the minister of worship, by so much was this the typical and germinant worship to be rendered by his seed, in all the generations which successively they should be born. It was the joint worship of himself, and of her who was the partner of his being, offered officially by him for her, in the conjugal union form which the Family should spring: an organic worship, in which were represented the countless tribes into which that Family should spread, to the end of time.

 But the force of his position, as the root and representative of all his offspring, he was constituted the prophet, priest and king of that religious empire. Has he continued steadfast in obedience, until confirmed in holiness at the end of his probation, it had been his high office, as prophet, to teach the doctrines of natural religion to his descendants; as priest, to order the ritual of worship in which they, with him, should engage; as king, to wield a vice-regal scepter over millions, who would recognize his authority the supremacy of the great Lord over all, God blessed for ever. From its origin, the Family, in its idea as it stood before the mind of Jehovah, was the Church, the temple of His worship.

Tweet

Benjamin M. Palmer's Ontological Subordination of Women: "The Derivative Image of God"

Ontological subordination of women, a doctrine that views women as creatures that are of lesser essence than men was well described by Palmer in this 1876 publication, re-published by Sprinkle Publications in 1991. The Reformed teachers associated with CBMW did not create this doctrine but derived it from these strict hierarchical interpretations of male headship which they viewed as critical arguments that also supported the divinely ordained hierarchy of slavery.

Tweet

The Sphere of Family and the Family Integrated Church

.A further examination of the “spheres” of government or dominion will lay the foundation for understanding why a particular and increasingly popular interpretation of Calvin’s work and the work of some Theonomists necessitates family integrated worship. As previously stated, these spheres of government extend from the individual sphere into social spheres of family, church and then civil (secular) government – a grassroots approach only, from the bottom to the top.

Transformation in the life of the believer spills over into the sphere of family first, a sphere that is taught to be governed by a federal head in the person of husband/father or patriarch.

Tweet

How Calvin's Spheres of Dominion Facilitate the Family Integrated Church

In the statement that Dr. R Albert Mohler, Jr. made concerning the appointment of Randy Stinson as a dean and a Family Integrated Church (FIC) specialist, he says that Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (SBTS) holds a

“family-centered vision of church ministry.”

It was stated that this “revolutionary vision” of the seminary and for the seminary inspired them to formally adopt their focus on family integrated worship. I find this term troubling, though it is not for terribly obvious reason. I admit that I do have a mild knee-jerk, emotional reaction to the sound of the phrase that Dr. Mohler uses here because of its subtle implications. Should church ministry be anything other than Christ-centered, and how does one mediate that ministry – to the individual or to the individual who is only seen as part of a family? Here a particular, strict hierarchical interpretation of Calvinism’s and Theonomy’s spheres of responsibility competes subtly with the Word concerning how one views Christian ministry and how the church should best accomplish it.

Dr. Mohler says “family-centered” but this need not mean that he believes in anything other than a Christ-centered life for the Christian. That is not my point, though I don’t like some of the implications, preferring "Christ-centered" with perhaps a primary focus of ministering to families instead of “family centered.” Among other things, I am concerned about whether individuals will miss ministry in favor of a family-only focus. Can an individual exist as an entity worthy of ministry apart from a family? How, by whom and by what standard is family defined? Within the next few blog posts, I shall explain the foundations of federal headship and how the doctrine forms the foundational rationale for family integrated worship.

The Spheres of Calvin and Theonomy Government can be defined as that agency through which an individual or body functions and exercises authority. Theonomy ( theo and nomos or “god’s law” -- the study of the Word of God as the sufficient source of all human ethics) recognizes four spheres of government within which the Christian should endeavor to establish dominion : individual, family, church and civil. Personally, I find this to be a very helpful way of looking at how an individual relates to these different social spheres, but I do not always see them as falling in an hierarchical order under all circumstances.

Some who follow Calvin or Theonomy sometimes see the subordinate individual as confined to the next immediate sphere, perceiving and interpreting the world in such a way. And with all due respect to men like John Calvin if that is his interpretation, but I do not believe that this is always a Biblical approach. This concept and misapplications of it have opened up into several different problems in many Reformed teachings as a result of honoring Theonomy's conceptual framework over what we know to be true in Scripture. Conceptual models should help us understand Scripture and should not take precedence. The Bible first, then Calvinism or whatever other theological concept you might like to add as a tool to help you understand Scripture – and NEVER should the reverse be true. What does an hierarchical ordering of the spheres of dominion look like in terms of evangelism? There is a definite order to how we should go about evangelization:

• Individual -- The first sphere of ministry is personal – and within this sphere, we experience spiritual rebirth and experience transformation by the renewing of our minds.
• Family -- From then, our faith should flow forth from the individual sphere into the next immediate one: that of family (from sphere #1 to sphere #2 in the diagram).
• Church -- As our families experience the benefits of faith, evangelism and the blessings of our faith will manifest in the next sphere of the church.
• Civil / Secular -- As our churches are transformed and become more effective, our society (our civil and secular spheres) will experience the benefits of our faith.

This is significant, because taking dominion begins at the “grassroots level” and should never start with revolutionizing from the top down. To change society, we must first change ourselves, then our families, then our churches. The hearts of the people will change through faith first, not through politics, works of the law, or through legalistic conduct standards within the church (something akin to Roman Catholicism whenever outward rituals are employed to "infuse" grace or holiness). If you are RC, please take into consideration that I am not, and infused grace through works or sacraments was strongly reputiated by the Reformation, the theology from which these teachings developed. 

Based on personality traits, belief systems or power motives (or a combination thereof), some individuals will naturally prefer to order the world more sequentially versus a personality that best makes sense of the world through random or non-sequential means. Both through personality assessment and through recent, fascinating advances in neurophysiologic imaging, we observe that human beings tend use or “prefer” one side of the brain over the other side. Those who favor the analytical Left Side of the cerebral hemisphere of the brain will also “prefer” hierarchical ordering because this is where these functions are located within the brain. (Neither sequential/hierarchical preference or a linear/non-hierarchical ordering of information is right or wrong, it is just different and often a consequence of anatomy, not necessarily feminism.)

For those who do prefer hierarchy, they may also apply the same concept of Calvin's spheres of government to their conceptual understanding of how the individual should behave within the larger society. They will likely follow a similar hierarchical pattern for conduct just as the Reformed concept of evangelism maintains because this is what comes easily and naturally for the Left-Brained individual. Those who do not possess headship (women and children) cannot transcend these spheres of dominion under this interpretation because of hierarchy. A woman cannot approach one sphere without her inclusion within the immediately lesser sphere (one of which is mediated by her federal head). This is the foundational argument for prohibiting voting for women as it would be interpreted as functioning within the civil sphere, out from under the authority of her family and presumably the church as well. For this reason, Reformed beliefs do tend toward theocracy, because under a theocracy, there very little to no ambiguity between spheres of government. It's just easier. The government is all well ordered under the same law in a theocracy -- God's Law, presumably reducing miscarriage of justice and providing benefit for all people. On a functional level, when all spheres follow a uniform code, there is theoretically less logistical "mess." The spheres nest quite well within one another, and the power structure (per this paternal interpretation of the spheres) limits dissent.

One can attempt to work one's way up the chain of command to address injustice, but at the lowest level, women and children are called to the virtue of submission to unjust authorities for the purpose of developing patience, character and perseverance. This strongly discourages women and children from voicing complaints and limits their opportunity to do so. The next post will investigate the spheres and their implications for women, with the third post summarizing how family integrated worship can be seen as somewhat of a necessity when one strongly adheres to and espouses these ideals and interpretations. . .

Tweet