A Reflection on Scott Brown, A Weed In the Church,
Wake Forest: The National Center for Family-Integrated Churches, 2011.
William Rosano
“What is the Family Integrated Movement?” Some who read this paper will have never heard of this
movement (hereafter, “FIM”). Others will be among its most loyal devotees. And of course, there will be many
in between. For the sake of the uninitiated, a bit of explanation is necessary before I enter into a critical
reflection on a particular aspect of this movement. It is not limited to any one denomination. It is a largely
grassroots movement that values and promotes the life and discipleship of the family, as a family. And it speaks
strongly against the modern trends of disintegration within family life. It particularly addresses these trends as
they have influenced the church in unhelpful ways. This is to be applauded. When I survey the current cultural
scene, it seems to me that I share many of the same concerns as this movement.
So where does my concern lie? My concern lies with those things that make the movement distinct…not
just distinct from the culture but distinct from the rest of the church. Throughout church history, there have been
many examples of godly believers seeking to work out their salvation in ways that affected their family life.
Particularly within the broadly Reformed tradition of Martin Luther and John Calvin, there have been many
voices that have faithfully called for the best kinds of family discipleship. The FIM a trend that has recently
emerged within this tradition. But the FIM also has distinctives which set them apart from any other group in
the history of the church. It is in precisely these places where I believe the movement makes several mistakes.
My concern is with the ways in which the Family Integrated movement has gone beyond Scripture and beyond
the practice of the church for the last 2,000 years.
There is diversity within the FIM so this critique won’t apply to all within the movement equally. I
would encourage more of a “if the shoe fits, wear it” approach here. But for the sake of discussion, Andreas
Kostenberger’s basic analysis is helpful: “The central plank in the family-integrated approach is usually the
contention that families ought to worship together at church and stay together as they study the Scripture,
fellowship, and engage in other worship-related activities.”1 The rest of this paper intends to explain what a
particular proponent of the movement means by that and what is wrong with it.
A good example of the ways in which the FIM has overstepped the bounds of what is good, can be seen
in one of its leading advocates, Scott Brown. I have never met Brown, but I should start out by saying that I
would probably like him. I am told that he is a godly man and that he is appreciated by his church and by those
who serve alongside of him. If the stories I hear about him hosting guests and holding various events out of his
home are true, he appears to be a very hospitable man (to say nothing of his wonderfully supportive and hardworking wife!). Additionally, he writes from the perspective of a pastor who is willing to get his hands dirty in
the real life of ministry and not merely in the isolation of an ivory tower of isolated academia. I appreciate that.
Furthermore, he writes persuasively, frequently making good observations about weaknesses in the
contemporary church. His desire appears to be to try to reform those weaknesses despite significant obstacles in
a church weakened by worldly influences. In that sense, may his tribe increase!
1
Andreas J. Kostenberger, God, Marriage, and Family: Rebuilding the Biblical Foundation, 2nd ed., Wheaton: Crossway, 2010, p.
259.
What about Brown’s teaching? Even here, I find many of Brown’s concerns to be on the mark and I also
find several of his points to be well argued. Although I am writing a critique of Brown, I don’t want to give the
false impression that he is all wrong. He isn’t. On the contrary, many of the things he is saying are good and
biblical. And many of his criticisms challenge the church in ways that it definitely needs to be challenged. In
fact, and this is important to understand, much of what he is saying is simply what the church at its best has
always said.
But not all of what Brown says would be echoed by our fathers in the faith. More importantly, not all of
what Brown says is found to be rooted in Scripture itself. Scott Brown is a classic example of a man who in his
zeal simply goes too far. His book, A Weed In the Church, is a good example of this. So what follows is meant
to be a reflective critique of a Christian brother in the hope that iron will sharpen iron.
What is Brown’s main concern in this book?
Brown is concerned about the common practice of separating children from their parents for the sake of
ministering to them. Brown calls this “the unbiblical practice of age segregation” (p. 63). He often uses phrases
like “age-segregated Christianity” (p. 39), and “age-segregated youth culture” (p. 41), and “age-segregated
philosophy” (p. 43) to describe what he understands to be a modern phenomenon that is built around this
“unbiblical practice.” An example of Brown’s concern can be seen when he says,
Because the church has embraced this age-segregated philosophy, we have created groups for everyone,
but community for no one; meetings for all, but discipleship for few. Age segregation has replaced the
older mentoring the younger. Church programs have displaced family discipleship. (p. 43)
An Initial Critique
Where does the critique come in? First, a gentle critique is probably in order in regard to how arguments
are presented in the book. Brown is skilled in the art of rhetoric and persuasive writing and this is good. But
sometimes he allows his rhetoric to get in the way of the clarity of his argument. This is unhelpful for the person
who genuinely wants to understand what he is saying.
For example, consider how Brown defines “modern youth ministry.” A definition should be both
concise and clear. But when Brown uses an entire paragraph to define “modern youth ministry,” it ends up
defeating his purpose (p. 49). The youth minister reading some of the more extreme characteristics of some
youth ministry described in this paragraph is still left asking, “Does this apply to me or not?” If, in order to fall
in Brown’s category of “modern youth ministry,” someone has to meet all the criteria in the list that Brown
gives, I personally don’t know anyone who it would all apply to, though I am sure there are some of them out
there. The critique Brown offers, then, ends up being diminished because it is very easy for most people to say
“Well, that label doesn’t apply to me!” And many of them would be right. They are not as extreme as that
paragraph portrays Brown’s definition. I would advise Brown to try to formulate a definition that is (1) more
concise and therefore manageable and (2) more consistent with the actual thing he is criticizing throughout the
book. In particular, the gist of the book seems to be that anyone who gathers children together apart from their
parents in the local church order to minister to them (for instance in a Sunday School setting) is being criticized
as doing something unbiblical and wrong. For instance, Brown goes as far as to claim that “as little as one hour
per week [of age-segregated youth ministry] is problematic for those Christians who want to be faithful to the
directives of the Word of God” (p. 227). It would be helpful if Brown got more to the point and stated clearly
how extreme his view is. Brown is not just criticizing worldly fringes of youth ministry. He is criticizing any
and every form of age-segregated ministry.
A More Substantial Critique: or 4 Ways to Distinguish Babies from Bathwater:
If I were to sum up my critique of Brown it would be that his book seems to be a classic case of
throwing out the baby with the bathwater. In other words, Brown is right in that he is looking at the “bathwater” of modern youth culture in the church. He rightly realizes that it needs to be removed from the church
and relocated to the sewer. But Brown is wrong in that he fails to see that the “baby” of congregational ministry
to youth is not part of the bath-water and should not simply be flushed down the drain with the rest. We need to
have enough discernment to see that even if a baby is dripping with bathwater, that baby is worth toweling off
and hanging onto.
For instance, Brown claims that we have “a major fire burning in an unexpected place: in our Sunday
Schools and youth programs” (p. 42). These ministries to our children “are actually providing kindling to fuel
their destruction” (p. 42).
It appears that Brown’s instincts are good in that he desires a reformation in family discipleship which
even impacts the way we envision congregational life. But while his motives and instincts are good, the system
he has developed is not. His philosophy of ministry seems to have moved him into a camp that is better
characterized by extra-biblical sectarianism and historical novelty. The specific dangers that we will see are
found in his philosophy are (1) legalism, (2) gnosticism. As a corrective to Brown’s philosophy, I would like to
reinstall a tub drain with a baby-filter; actually, four baby-filters. These filters will correct Brown’s views in the
following areas: (1) an examination of the lack of actual biblical support for Brown’s arguments, (2) critique
and correction of Brown’s understanding and application of the doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture, (3) a
careful consideration of the historic teaching of Christ’s church, and (4) a consideration of the biblical teaching
about covenant jurisdiction.
I believe this will help us regain a more biblical view of Christ’s church and our relationship to it as
individuals and as families.
Point 1. Brown lacks biblical support. This makes his claims somewhat difficult to interact with. Although
Brown uses Scripture regularly he never marshals any biblical arguments that specifically support his thesis.
They are built more on assumptions about the relationship between Scripture and family life than the actual
teaching of Scripture on family life.2 Kostenberger has likewise noted that “the general lack of a thorough
biblical rationale for a family-integrated approach makes it somewhat difficult to evaluate.”3 To put it rather
bluntly, the main problem with Scott Brown’s view (that children should not be gathered, separate from their
parents, for the sake of teaching them) is that this view is never taught in Scripture. This is surprising in light of
Brown’s dogmatism on this point. In fact, not only is this position never articulated in Scripture, there are places
where it is undermined by the actual biblical testimony itself. One example comes to mind when I read the
argument in Galatians 3:24-4:6. First notice the statement in Gal. 4:1-2.
1A. Galatians 4:1-2
2
At times, Brown himself seems to recognize this. In defense, he argues that general biblical principles still support his dogmatism.
He says, “Even though there is no express command against systematic age integration we argue against it because it does not
properly fulfill the principles and commands of Scripture which apply to youth discipleship, and it goes against the primary example
of gathering involving the whole people of God” (p. 205-06). As we will see from what follows, the biblical example of the gathered
people of God does not require what Brown claims. Furthermore, this paper will deal the other argument Brown mentions about
generally “fulfilling the principles and commands of Scripture which apply to youth discipleship” by showing how Brown has an
apparent misunderstanding of the principle of sola Scriptura.
3
Andreas J. Kostenberger, God, Marriage, and Family: Rebuilding the Biblical Foundation, 2nd ed., Wheaton: Crossway, 2010, p.
260.
“I mean that the heir as long as he is a child is no different from a slave, though he is the owner
of everything, but he is under guardians and managers until the date set by his father.” (Gal.
4:1-2)
These two verses are an illustration in the middle of Paul’s argument (3:23-4:6) about passing from one
state of existence to another. Paul describes this as happening in two different, though related, ways: (1) the way
that God’s redemptive plan has unfolded through history, moving from Moses to Christ, and (2) the way that an
individual Christian who once lived as a slave now lives as an adopted son. Paul kills two birds with one stone,
so to speak, when he illustrates both of these spiritual realities with a single everyday-life allusion.
But the every-day life allusion that Paul uses to make this point is what is important for our purposes.
The specific allusion he uses is to the universal experience of bringing up children. Paul points out that children
grow up under the authority of their father. And the father’s authority is delegated to others who are charged
with direct oversight of the child at various times. The terms Paul uses here are guardians4 and managers.5 In
both cases he is using words which, in this context, describe the common practice of delegating responsibility
for child rearing.
A few verses earlier (3:24, 25), Paul mentioned another term that was commonly used as a label for
those who are given the responsibility of oversight and instruction of a child. The term here is tutor (the Greek
is paidagogos, where we get out English word pedagogy). In the world of the ancient church this person was
usually a household slave who served as a disciplinarian and teacher. They were like really harsh baby-sitters
with a lesson plan. It was common for this family slave to take charge of the boy from the age of 6 through
adolescence. The paidagogos offered round-the-clock supervision at times and was known for being a stern
teacher who gave whippings when the child did not comply. Similarly, Thiselton comments on the Greek word:
“In the ancient Graeco-Roman world [paidagogos] had a definite social meaning and function. This
person was usually a slave or paid attendant who accompanied the child…for the purpose of protection,
guidance, and general supervision of behavior, e.g., to or from school, or on occasions when a parent
was absent. The main function was as guardian, teacher, and corrector…” 6
Paul’s entire argument in 3:24-4:6 depends on the legitimacy of these illustrations. Like all good
illustrations, the cultural associations of these words don’t have to be argued or debated. Both the writer and the
readers recognized what Paul was talking about as a normal part of life. This simply was the everyday
experience of the people that Paul was writing to. That is why guardians, managers and tutors can be mentioned
in passing and serve to help (not hinder) Paul’s points that he is making in the passage. His argument, in other
words, goes something like this: “Just as your children have been, and now are at times, under various tutors
and guardians, so also in God’s redemptive plan…”
Notice also that this was the experience of Christians as well as non-Christians alike. After all, Paul is
writing to the churches in Galatia (Gal. 1:2; 3:1). He calls them brothers (1:11, 3:15; 4:12, 28; 5:11; 6:1, 18).
Notice that Paul didn’t say “the heir is under guardians and managers and tutors…except in Christian homes
where they are family-integrated and don’t do that kind of thing.” It never enters Paul’s mind to make this
distinction when describing the experience of the Christians and the churches he is writing to. Furthermore, in
using this illustration, Paul does nothing to discourage this reality in their lives.
4
The Greek word for “guardians” is epitropos. It is used two other times in Scripture. In Matthew 20:8 it is translated “foreman,” and
in Luke 8:3 it is translated “household manager.” In both cases it describes people who have a role as those who are caretakers of
things that don’t belong to them.
5
The Greek word for “managers” is oikonomos. In Scripture, “mangers” are also those who are caretakers of various things that don’t
belong to them such as property (Lk. 12:42), money (Rom. 16:23), and divine things (1 Cor. 4:1). In this passage in Gal. 4:2, it is
children who belong to someone else that are being managed and overseen in the absence of their parents.
6
Anthony C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2000, p. 370.
Now compare this to Brown’s teaching.7 Brown’s argument goes something like this: “As long as a kid in your
family is a child, he should not be under guardians and managers, he should instead be under his father.”8
Ironically, Scott Brown seems to make a prescription for normal Christian life that is exactly the opposite of
Paul’s description of normal life in 4:2 and the rest of this passage (3:23-4:6).
1B. Covenant Renewal Ceremonies (Ex. 34:23-24; Deut. 9-10; Joshua 8:35; Neh. 8:1-3; Ez. 10:1)
Another appeal is sometimes made to the family worshipping together in both Old and New Testaments
(cf. p. 64). In the Old Testament, there are several occasions in which we are told that all of Israel gathered to
worship God and hear his word read. These are instances where the family is depicted as worshipping and being
instructed together in a congregational setting, including children (Deut. 29:11; Joshua 8:35; Neh. 8:1-3).
These are wonderful passages but what exactly do they prove? For instance, is there a reason to view
this as a normal experience in Israel, or, more importantly perhaps, is it a “norming norm” which the church is
obligated to imitate anytime it gathers?
First, we have to recognize that at least these commonly cited passages do not describe a normal
experience for Israel. In these passages, the point is made that even the children were present, because this in
itself was noteworthy. Moses makes this point because of the unusual nature of the gathering as a covenant
ratification ceremony. In Israel, children of the flesh were also children of the promise and therefore members
of the covenant. When it comes to the mandatory presence of children in the assembly this is actually designed
to catch the attention of those gathered. It is an unusual gathering, therefore indicating its significance. As
Calvin comments on this type of assembly again in Joshua 8: “It added no little weight to the whole, that the
children also were admitted as witnesses.”9 It added weight because it was out of the ordinary.
As a sub-point related to the covenant renewal ceremony, sometimes it is argued that the idea of a
“nursery” is not biblical. It is basically argued that the idea of a nursery is an anachronism which imposes
modern concepts on ancient Israelite culture which did not in fact exist in that time. Nehemiah had no nursery,
it is insisted.10
There is probably some merit in recognizing that child-care in ancient times probably took some forms
that it doesn’t today. We don’t have all the details at our disposal and we should try to avoid anachronism. But
this protest can be taken to far also. Nurses and caretakers of the young were in fact a common feature of
7
Brown makes reference to this passage (p. 208-210) and dismisses it though he doesn’t pay careful enough attention how Paul’s
argument works. First, in his two-tiered argument, Paul shifts his focus a bit and mentions “guardians and stewards” as a feature of
normal life in the Graeco-Roman world not, as Brown says, “the status of Old Testament Israel under the Mosaic Covenant.” In other
words he uses one cultural phenomenon as an analogy to do double-duty, illustrating two aspects of redemption (one economic, the
next individual). Brown missed the shift from chapter three. Furthermore, Brown ends up protesting that this passage should not be
used to claim too much in the favor of age-segregation. True enough. But the knife cuts both ways. Surely exaggerated claims about
the necessity of comprehensive age-integration have to be abandoned in the face of biblical passages like this.
8
Perhaps Brown would protest that he is not necessarily being this strict. I admit, at times he seems a bit more judicious (cf. p. 66-67).
Nevertheless frequently he argues exactly this way: “Fathers will see the safety net of Sunday School as an escape hatch…[by
providing Sunday School] we are actually hindering fathers in the church who would otherwise do their duty” (p. 230). And again,
“The Sunday school becomes the de facto replacement for father-directed biblical education” (p. 232).
9
John Calvin, A Brief Commentary on the Book of Joshua, trans. Henry Beveridge, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979, vol.
10
Brown says regarding Nehemiah 8:3, “To read ‘nursery,’ ‘children’s church,’ or ‘age segregation’ into the text is more along the
lines of eisegesis than biblical exegesis” (p. 203). I agree with him on this point.
ancient life. And this shouldn’t be ignored in an attempt to prevent modern abuses.11 Sometimes this was even
the case when the mother or father was present or close at hand. Naomi became the nurse of Ruth’s son Obed
(Ruth 4:5). Other times it was when the parents were absent and attending to other things. Sometimes it was for
extended amounts of time. Other examples abound. Rebekah had a nurse who remained with her (Gen. 24:59;
35:8). In ancient Israelite/Egyptian culture, it was quite natural to go “fetch a nurse” among the Hebrew women
for Moses (Ex. 2:7-10). This phenomenon is not lost on the New Testament world (Acts 7:20-21).
Mephibosheth had a caretaker-nurse (2 Samuel 4:4). The sons of Ahab had “guardians” (2 Kings 10:1). King
Joash had a caretaker-nurse (2 Kings 11:2; 2 Chron. 22:11). The same Hebrew word (‫ )ﬡמן‬which in the Qal
stem as an active participle means “nurse, caretaker, ‘upbringer,’ foster father,”12 appears as a passive participle
translated as “those who are brought up” uncared for in Lamentations 4:5 (cf. 3-4, 10). God’s care of exiles in
foreign nations by foreign kings is compared to foster care and surrogate nurses (Is. 49:22-23)
Additionally, think about the significance of Num. 11:11-12:
“Moses said to the LORD, ‘Why have you dealt ill with your servant? And why have I not found
favor in your sight, that you lay the burden of all this people on me? Did I conceive all this
people? Did I give them birth, that you should say to me, ‘Carry them in your bosom, as a nurse
carries a nursing child,’ to the land that you swore to give their fathers?’” (Num. 11:11-12)
It is interesting that God compares Moses’ role in shepherding the people that God had brought into the
world (‘birthed’ so to speak) to the role of a nurse who cares for a child that a mother brings in to the world. A
person in this role provides guidance, care, provision and protection that a caretaker should. It is a high calling.
Moses is complaining about this role at this particular moment, nevertheless, note that Moses is well aware of
the significance and meaning of a nurse that carries a child along the way. The cultural image is well embedded
in his psyche and deeply rooted in his experience. Moses is complaining, not because the role of a caretakernurse is ungodly (!), but because he doesn’t want to be bothered with what he considers to be an unpleasant
calling.
All this to say, the descriptions of covenant ceremonies in Israel do not place an obligation of
comprehensive age-integration on the church. Even beyond this, if a person wants to argue that these texts place
an obligation on the church, it ends up proving more than they bargained for. For instance, look closely at Deut.
29:9-12:
“You are standing today all of you before the LORD your God: the heads of your tribes, your
elders, and your officers, all of the men of Israel, your little ones, your wives, and the sojourner
who is in your camp, from the one who chops your wood to the one who draws your water, so
that you may enter into the sworn covenant of the LORD your God, which the LORD your God is
making with you today.” (Deut. 29:9-12)
Notice the arbitrariness that has to be employed in making this an obligation upon the church. Yes,
Israel brought their little ones into congregational worship during covenant renewal ceremonies, but what about
the rest of the verse? After all, along with wives and little ones, Moses also mentions “the one who chops your
wood” and “the one who draws you water” (v. 29:11). If you argue from these passages that the church is
obligated to always have our little ones in congregational worship, then you ought to be prepared to drag your
landscapers (“the one who chops your wood”) and pool-boys (“the one who draws you water”) into church with
you whenever you come as well!
11
Anachronism goes both ways.
Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics: Holy Spirit, Church, and New Creation, trans. John Vriend, Grand Rapids: Baker
Academic, 2008, p. 104.
12
Families worshipping together in a congregational setting is a wonderful thing. Personally, my family
has always brought our children into congregational worship with us and we always will. I have seen many
examples of this in Scripture (Deut. 31:12; Joel 2:16; Col. 3:20; Eph. 6:1-3) and I recognize that this is a pattern
of Scripture that shouldn’t be ignored. We can, and should, look at these passages and see God’s pleasure in
having families worshipping together. But as soon as you say this places a comprehensive obligation of “ageintegration” upon the church in every setting, you have simply mishandled God’s Word. You have begun
manufacturing laws to bind Christians consciences where God has not.
This is precisely where I see one of a few flaws in the Family-Integrated movement. It is asserted that it
is unbiblical (and therefore morally wrong) to do things like children’s Sunday School because it outright
compromises the authority of the parents who are given the role of discipling their own children. This is
claiming too much. While it is true that parents are given this role of primary disciplers of their children, and it
is also true that churches have often intruded unhelpfully in this territory, it is also just as wrong and unbiblical
to assert that the parents should be the exclusive influence in their children’s training. And it is wrong and
unbiblical to assert that parents can’t wisely delegate their authority over their children to others at times. This
is placing a yoke of law on the neck of the disciples that God has not.
As Christopher Klicka has helpfully said, ““You will find that God delegated to parents the authority
and responsibility to teach and raise children. You can delegate the authority to train your children to someone
else, but you never delegate the responsibility.”13 A parent is always responsible before God for the training and
discipleship that their child gets (or does not get). This responsibility is theirs in times where they maintain
direct oversight and in times that they choose to delegate that oversight to others. So this becomes a wisdom
issue. Spiritual responsibility for the education of our children is a tremendously important thing. Who we
delegate authority to in order to assist our training of our children cannot be taken lightly. But it is an error to
say that we cannot, or should not, delegate at all. That is left to the individual parent’s conscience before God.
There are no biblical arguments that can be successfully used to support Brown’s insistence that it is biblically
wrong to do Sunday School. Brown is taking babies and throwing them out with the bathwater.
Point 2. Brown misunderstands the doctrine of Sufficiency of Scripture and Sola Scriptura. Brown has an
admirable enthusiasm for the power and authority and sufficiency of God’s word. I am greatly encouraged by
this. I believe strong convictions about the authority and sufficiency of Scripture are a mark of every faithful
minister of the gospel and I am happy to see these convictions in Brown. Nevertheless, Brown appears to have a
misunderstanding in this area.
As I said earlier, Brown talks about Scripture…a lot. In doing this, Brown repeatedly turns to the
doctrine of sola Scriptura for support of his argument against age-integrated ministry. Brown says Scripture
repeatedly exhorts us regarding
“…a cardinal tenet of the Protestant faith, Sola Scriptura, which argues that God’s Word alone is
sufficient for faith and practice. This principle makes the Bible the exclusive foundation for all that we
do. It is rooted in the belief that man’s notions for how to live must be set aside for God’s clear
directives as found in His inspired, written revelation, and that God’s people are to limit themselves to
obedience to His revealed will.”
13
Christopher Klicka, The Heart of Homeschooling: Teaching and Living What Really Matters, Nashville: Broadman & Holman
Publishers, 2002, p. 5.
Brown’s statement sounds good in many ways and his error here is subtle. Nevertheless there are some
flaws in the way Brown works out the implications to this statement. Specifically:
1) Brown apparently misunderstands the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Brown speaks of the Bible as our
foundation. Amen and amen! But what does Brown mean by that? His language is not precise here but it
seems that when he uses the word ‘foundation’ he is referring to authority. He is speaking of the Bible,
then, as the foundational source of authority. This is still good. But if this is what he means, then he
makes a mistake in the way he applies the Bible’s authority. The church’s historic principle of sola
scriptura does not make the Bible “the exclusive foundation for all that we do” as though we should
never do something that we can’t find a specific endorsement of in Scripture.14 The problem here is the
word “exclusive.” Scripture is not “the only guide from God for the governing of our lives” as Brown
says. That would be the principle of solo scriptura which the confessional church has never affirmed!15
After all, the Scriptures mention all kinds of authorities (Rom. 13:1; Col. 3:18-22; Heb. 13:17 and
sources of wise guidance (Prov. 24:6). God never intended the Bible to be our only authority or our only
source of guidance. The Bible is the only inspired authority that God has given us and it is given by God
to be our ultimate authority and ultimate source of guidance. But Brown doesn’t seem clear on this
distinction. The Scriptures that Brown cites (Deut. 4:1-4; 2 Tim. 3:16-17; 2 Pet. 1:3) affirm the
inspiration, authority and sufficiency of Scripture but they certainly don’t support Brown’s “exclusivity”
view. The Reformers and post-Reformation church, who first articulated the principle of sola scriptura,
never thought of the Bible as our only authority. They recognized many God–given and legitimate
authorities as well as the significant teaching of Christian liberty. For the Christian, the Bible simply is
our supreme authority above all others. There are many legitimate authorities and sources of guidance
but when push comes to shove, the Bible trumps them all. This is the true meaning of sola scriptura.
The way Brown applies this “cardinal tenet of the Protestant faith” would have been unrecognizable by
the Protestants.
2) Brown misunderstands the Sufficiency of Scripture. Brown equates the doctrine of the sufficiency of
Scripture with the principle of sola scriptura (p. 82). Brown mentions that Scripture “alone is sufficient
for faith and practice.” Again, amen. So far so good. This is the way the confessional church has always
articulated their confidence in God’s word. But again, how does Brown understand this? Brown
describes this doctrine in a way that the confessional church has never accepted. How does he do this?
Brown says: “God’s people are to limit themselves to obedience to His revealed will.” If Brown meant
by this, simply that God’s people should obey everything and anything they find in God’s word, this
would be fine. I would be right with him. But Brown’s error can be seen in what he means by “God’s
people are to limit themselves.” Elsewhere he says age segregated youth ministry is problematic because
“we are doing something that is not seen is Scripture” (p. 220). What does Brown believe Christians
should limit themselves to? Apparently Brown believes that Christians should limit themselves to
practices that they see explicitly in Scripture. In another place he says, “we are referring to modern
methods of youth discipleship that are absent from or contrary to the Word of God” (p. 49). This is key
14
In this same vein, Brown says, “if all I had was the Bible, it would be difficult (if not impossible) to establish the credibility of this
practice” of age-segregated ministry to youth (p. 29). Brown consistently appears to be saying that if we can’t explicitly establish
biblical precedent for something we as Christians do, then we should abandon it. Again, he says “Modern churches do not always base
their decisions upon Scripture alone…using those means that are not supported by the Bible” (p. 215). Again, Brown appears to be
requiring explicit and specific validation for anything the church does. It is important to understand how this departs from the doctrine
of sola Scriptura as it has been historically understood.
15
See Michael Horton, The Christian Faith: A Systematic Theology For Pilgrims On The Way, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011, p.
187.
to Brown’s argument. We can all agree that something is wrong if it is “contrary” to Scripture. But
Brown goes further than this and also claims that it is wrong (“unbiblical” p. 48) if is “absent from”
Scripture. In other words, if we don’t see any explicit examples of the church doing something in
Scripture, we should not do it either. Brown makes this same point again when he says “we must define
the word biblical. It means ‘of or in the Bible…in accord with the Bible.’” (p. 50). Again, Brown is not
making room for a category of things that are non-biblical but still legitimate. He is not leaving any
room for the huge ethical category of gospel liberty. The Scripture recognizes that there will be many
things which are perfectly permissible yet lie outside the realm of explicit biblical sanction. “All things
are lawful,” Paul repeats four times to the church in Corinth (6:12a, 12b; 10:23a, 23b). These things are
sorted out, not by looking for an explicit biblical endorsement, but by asking questions about whether
they are helpful or enslaving (6:12), or edifying (10:23), or God-glorifying (10:31). For Brown, if a
person is involved in ministry activities that are not specifically mentioned in Scripture is apparently to
be unbiblical and destructive (“a weed in the church”). The biblical category of gospel liberty is missing
altogether.
Brown is promoting a legalistic view of the Christian life. To discourage children’s Sunday school on the basis
of an appeal to the authority or sufficiency of Scripture is an imposition of human law where no divine law
exists. This is ironic because in the book Brown is repeatedly warning us against imposing the “traditions of
men.” Yet Brown is creating a new tradition of man and trying to enforce it as law. “Ye must not ever agesegregate” is not a teaching found in Scripture but Brown is strongly urging that it be embraced. He is strongly
impressing it upon the consciences of all the faithful. This is very serious. He would be wise to listen to his
own counsel. Brown himself says that imposing the traditions of men is a “problem that leads to a false gospel:
laying aside the commandment of God for the traditions of men” (p. 48). What Brown is doing here is plain oldfashioned legalism.
As Sinclair Ferguson explains: “Legalism means either seeking salvation on the basis of obedience to
the law or believing that every detail of life is covered specifically by some law. But neither of these positions
was ever mandated in Scripture.”16 Brown is guilty of the latter. Where Scripture is silent, Brown invents his
own law. This is legalism and the church, if it is to remain faithful to the gospel in its life, must point out this
error. This is a true weed in a gospel church.
Again, as John Armstrong points out, it is important to realize that “Scripture is not an encyclopedia of
facts pertaining to all areas of human knowledge.”17 It is true that Scripture is ultimately authoritative in regards
to whatever it speaks. But when we act as though Scripture speaks with equal detail about all things we become
vulnerable to a kind of “legalism [which] undermines Scriptural authority.” As Armstrong says, “whenever we
impose moral expectations upon ourselves, or others, which are not clearly and plainly revealed in Scripture we
have set up our own norms for the covenant and thereby trivialized the authority of Scripture. Let the reader
beware!”18
Brown would be better off not trying to re-invent the wheel. He should return to the old well-worn paths
that the church has safely walked before us. Some examples might be helpful. The Puritan William Perkins
16
Sinclair Ferguson, “The Reformed View,” in Christian Spirituality: Five Views of Sanctification, Downers Grove: InterVarsity
Press, 1988, p. 69.
17
John, H. Armstrong, “The Authority of Scripture,” Sola Scriptura: The Protestant Position on the Bible, ed. Don Kistler, Morgan:
Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 1995, 132-33.
18
ibid., p. 144.
(1558-1602) said, “And many things we hold for truth not written in the word, if they be not against the
word.”19 Francis Turretin (1623-1687), who taught children at the Geneva Academy founded by John Calvin,
said “that many things occurred as appendices and supports of religion which are not particularly mentioned in
the Scriptures and were left to the prudence of the rulers of the church who…should see that all things be done
decently in the church.”20
John Murray, one of the founders of Westminster Theological Seminary, addresses the perversity of
prohibitionism which adds “thou shalt not’s” where God has not placed them. He says:
“There is a prohibitionism that legislates in things not wrong in themselves, and piety has been
construed to a large extent as consisting in these abstinences. This prohibitionism has done great damage
to the ethics of Christian behavior. Paul deals with its pernicious demands in 1 Tim. 4:1-5. It is apostasy
from the faith, the propaganda of seducing spirits, and the doctrines of demons.”21
Scripture offers general principles by which all ministry should be evaluated. We are to do all things for
the glory of God (1 Cor. 10:31), and for the edification of others (Rom. 14:19). We should put no unnecessary
stumbling blocks before others (Rom. 14:13). We should walk in love (Rom.14:15) and do all things in faith
(Rom. 14:23). But nothing in Scripture would lead us to believe that every detail of how we conduct a biblical
ministry must be found in Scripture. Brown says he is critiquing “methods of youth discipleship that are absent
from or contrary to the Word of God” (emphasis mine, p. 49). It is true that if something we do is found to be in
violation of Scripture it must be reformed or discarded. But if an activity of ours is consistent with the principles
above and yet it is simply not found in Scripture, or is “absent from” Scripture as Brown says, then it is lawful.
The Christian is free to follow what is good in this regard. To forbid something, that God does not forbid, is
legalism. To bind the conscience of a Christian with a yoke of restrictions that do not come from God is to
introduce slavery whereas Christ introduces freedom. And ultimately this subtle legalism serves to undermine
the gospel life and testimony of the church. If Brown would recover the doctrine of Christian liberty in a more
biblical way, he would safeguard his own conscience and the consciences of those who follow him.
Point 3. History of Christ’s church
Brown makes the argument that his views on age-integration and his antagonism toward congregational
ministry to youth have been the norm for most of the history of the church. This simply is not true.
I found it difficult to understand exactly when Brown believes age-segregated ministry started. He says,
for instance, “I had adopted what was to be a fifty-year failed experiment” (p. 29, cf. 62). Later he broadens this
timeframe a bit when he speaks of “the rise of modern youth ministry during the twentieth century” (p. 92). Still
later he says you “can hardly speak of modern youth ministry without citing the acclaimed founder of the
Sunday school movement, Robert Raikes” (p. 95). But Raikes was born in 1736 and died in 1811. So did agesegregated ministry start 50, 100 or 200 years ago, according to Brown? This is not a major criticism in itself,
but I found Brown to be a bit ambiguous here. I would be helped if he could be more clear on this point in any
latter publications.
19
William Perkins, “A Reformed Catholic,” in The Works of William Perkins (ed. Ian Breward; Appleford, U. K.: 1970), 547. quoted
in Michael Horton, The Christian Faith: A Systematic Theology for Pilgrims On the Way, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011, p. 191.
20
Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, I.II.XVI., trans. George Musgrave Giger, ed. James T. Dennison, Jr., Phillipsburg:
P&R Publishing, 1992, p. 135.
21
John Murray, “The Christian Ethic,” Collected Writings of John Murray: 1:The Claims of Truth, Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth
Trust, 1976, p. 177-78.
It is a common theme in the Family Integrated Movement to cite Robert Raikes as the founder of the
Sunday School, and then move from that observation to the assertion that modern Sunday School is a historic
novelty.22 Brown goes even further than this and says: “When one traces the history of the principles of age
segregation, he will find that the thinkers who have been its key architects were men and women who were
clearly opposed to the Bible” (p. 50) and their work was “based on an evolutionary philosophy of education and
development” (p. 64). This is an extremely strong claim! But assertions like this leave a person who has some
acquaintance with the church history a bit puzzled. Let’s think carefully about this. What exactly did Raikes
start in the 18th century? Did age-segregated ministry really begin with him? Was it really driven by men at war
with the Bible? To the astonishment of many who have been listening to spokesmen of the FIM the answer is a
resounding ‘No.’ Granted, the church’s ministry to youth has looked different in different times. But the
practice of age-segregated ministry methods is not the clear dividing line that Brown says it is. Age-segregated
ministry to children is not an 18th century novelty. The irony, as we will see, is the FIM’s assertions about
children’s ministry are actually the historic novelty.
A Brief Survey of Age-Segregated Ministry to Youth in Reformed Churches
Before Robert Raikes developed a particular method of ministering to children in the 18th century, many
different examples of age-segregated ministry to children existed.23 For instance, it was common practice for
Reformed churches to start Christian schools to ensure the godly education of young people. But more than this,
age-segregated ministry was thriving in the Reformed churches as well.





22
16th century Geneva under Calvin’s leadership had Sunday catechism classes for children24
16th century, In the Scottish Reformation church under Knox, the pastors and other church officers were
expected to teach the children the catechism.25
16th century, the Reformed churches prescribed a uniform approach to catechism teaching at school,
home, and church.26
17th century France had Sunday catechism classes for children.27
17th century Puritan England had thousands of churches with catechism classes28 and some heroic
figures like Puritan Joseph Alleine would even gather a group of 60-70 youth into his house on Sunday
afternoons in order to catechize them. He even continued this when he was deathly ill, being semiparalyzed and suffering convulsions.29
The FIM movement is not alone in thinking that age-segregated youth ministry began with Robert Raikes. In fact, this is a belief
that is seemingly everywhere repeated, but nowhere validated. For a similar example of this understanding but from the very different
perspective of literature which is favorable to “contemporary” youth ministry see Mark Senter, “A Historical Framework for Doing
Youth Ministry,” Reaching a Generation for Christ, Chicago: Moody Publishers Inc., 1997, p. 105-120.
23
It would require a full length book to catalog them all. One example which I won’t take the time to explore in this paper is the
circulating schools of the Calvinistic Methodists which are a somewhat unique approach in the history of youth ministry and slightly
pre-date the Sunday School. See for example John Morgan Jones & William Morgan, The Calvinistic Methodist Fathers of Wales,
Vol. 2, Carlisle: Banner of Truth, 2008, p. 287.
24
John T. McNeil. The History and Character of Calvinism, p. 162
25
Thomas M. Lindsay, A History of the Reformation, vol. 2, p. 305.
26
Marinus Golverdingen, “The Heidelberg Catechism in Preaching and Teaching: The Catechism in Church Education,” The
Church’s Book of Comfort, ed. Williem Van ’T Spijker, trans. Gerrit Bilkes, Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2009, p.
211.
27
Philip Benedict, Christ’s Churches Purely Reformed: A Social History of Calvinism, New Haven: Yale University Press, 2002, p.
509.
28
Stephen Orchard, “From Catechism Class to Sunday School,” The Sunday School Movement: Studies in the Growth and Decline of
Sunday Schools, p. 5.
29
Braund, Elizabeth, “Joseph Alleine,” Puritan Papers Volume Five 1968-1969, p. 212.

17th century Netherlands, “the catechetical system of instruction…was practiced in the triad of family,
school, and church.”30 In addition to the teaching that happened within families, the Reformed were
concerned that formal religious education be given to children in schools. For instance, the “Synod of
Dort of 1618-1619 prescribed that religious instruction be given two days per week. The instruction
content was usually identical to that pursued within families.”31 “The schoolmaster was an important
person. From a catechetical perspective, he held a key position…Every Sunday afternoon the
schoolmaster attended the catechism service in the company of his students.”32
As it turns out, it was the recovery of the gospel in the Protestant Reformation that birthed a wave of agesegregated ministry to youth! This is very different from the picture that Brown paints of age-integration being
a result of church in decline and increasing in worldliness. It is certainly not the product of Darwinism or of
men opposed to the Bible. This no doubt will surprise those who have a limited knowledge of Church history.
But to those who should know better these assertions are slanderous and shameful. The church, when it is at its
best, has always recognized the complementary role of family and church in the discipleship of children. The
parents are given the primary responsibility for the discipleship of their children. But the church is given an
oversight and complementary responsibility for the discipleship of the entire flock, which has implications for
children of members.
Interestingly, this has even been recognized by Brown’s heroes. So it is a curiosity to me that Brown
doesn’t seem to acknowledge this. For instance, in a separate article he identifies what he calls his “four favorite
family-integrated church pastors”: Matthew Henry, Richard Baxter, Jonathan Edwards, and John Bunyan.33 But
as far as I can tell, none of these men took the view that Brown is advancing. None of them said it was wrong
for the church to gather children together for the sake of teaching them. None of them said age-segregation is
unbiblical. In fact, at least three of them explicitly practiced and advocated it!
Matthew Henry: Ministry to youth was important to Henry and it actually occupied a significant
portion of his personal attention. As one of his biographers records: “The attention paid by Mr. Henry to
the rising generation was exemplary, constant, and attractive. Following his own excitement, and the
guidance of others also, he not infrequently observed that Peter was charged to feed the lambs, as well as
the sheep”34 When Henry said this, he meant that the church had a responsibility to teach the young as
well as the old. Henry was instrumental in a revival of catechizing gatherings of youth in London. “In
addition to sermons often expressly preached to the young, some of which were printed, the work of
catechizing was indefatigably performed every Sunday afternoon.”35 Furthermore, not content with only
catechizing youth in his hometown of London where he settled, he also went to Hackney on Saturdays to
catechize youth there as well.36 These Saturday times with youth were useful to Henry because they
allowed more time to be spent with the young people who gathered than he had available on Sundays.37
30
Wim, Verboom, “The Heidelberg Catechism In the Netherlands: Catechism Teaching From the Late Middle Ages,” The Church’s
Book of Comfort, ed. Williem Van ’T Spijker, trans. Gerrit Bilkes, Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2009, p. 133.
31
Ibid, p. 136.
32
Ibid, p. 135-36.
33
Scott Brown, “My Top Four Favorite Family-Integrated Church Pastors: Richard Baxter, John Bunyan, Matthew Henry, Jonathan
Edwards,” 11/22/2006. http://www.visionforumministries.org/issues/cross_examination/my_top_four_favorite_familyint.aspx.
Accessed 4/17/2013.
34
J. B. Williams, Memoirs of the Life, Character, and Writings of the Rev. Matthew Henry, Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1974,
p. 129-30
35
ibid., p. 130-31.
36
ibid., p. 157.
37
Allan Harman, Matthew Henry: His Life and Influence, Geanies House: Christian Focus Publications, 2012, p. 79
Eventually he began catechizing on Tuesdays as well. During times when Henry was not catechizing
children he would still gather them together in a group in order to preach to them. “No record remains of
these sermons, but presumably they were adapted to suit the needs of the children,”38 one biographer
remarks. There are indications that the Lord blessed his efforts in this area for the conversion of
numerous young people who were formerly dull to spiritual things. Additionally, Matthew Henry was an
advocate of starting more Christian schools for children. He practiced what he preached in this regard.
He led by example by preaching in a local Christian school and even “prepared a paper setting out the
reasons why the dissenters should establish more schools in city and country.”39 The fact that Henry
cherished the home-education that he had personally been given by his parents did not diminish his zeal
for Christian schools in any way. He wanted biblically faithful churches (i.e. Dissenters) to get involved
in this work of starting schools despite their minimal resources compared with the huge infrastructure of
the Church of England. He was glad that the Church of England was already involved in this kind of
work but he did not think the work should be left to them alone. It is also true that Henry was a strong
advocate of the necessity of family worship and parental discipleship. He had sweet memories of times
of worship and sometimes remarked as an adult about the profound influence that worship in the home
had on him. Yet what a loss if Henry would have simply told the church, “Let the parents take care of
their own kids. That isn’t our jurisdiction.”
Jonathan Edwards: Jonathan Edwards conducted meetings specifically for children and said that he
was encouraged by examples of lasting fruit that he saw from “children’s religious meetings.” He also
encouraged “children’s prayer meetings.”40 Edwards said, “I have seen many happy effects of children’s
religious meetings; and God has seemed often remarkably to own them in their meetings, and really
descended from heaven to be amongst them.”41At times, Edwards himself gathered children together to
preach to them specifically. In the transcripts of two sermons he had given youth in the month of
February in 1740, “the differentiation is made between ‘children’ and ‘young people’.”42 It seems that at
times Edwards gathered children of approximately elementary school age together and then at other
times gathered the older youth separately. Furthermore, preaching personally to youth was not merely
viewed as a personal preference for Edwards but, as he says in one sermon to a gathering of children,
“Tis my duty to earnestly seek your salvation.”43 Did Edwards think it was the parent’s duty to seek
their salvation? Absolutely! But thankfully, he also understood the biblical responsibility of the church
in the discipleship of children. God used Edwards in the lives of many children, both in and outside his
own biological family. Edwards gives no evidence of discouraging the practice of gathering the children
of the church for instruction.
Richard Baxter: Richard Baxter is, perhaps, the prima fanci example of a historical precedent for
NCFIC values. And I happily agree, he is a good role model when it comes to promoting family
discipleship. And this is where his emphasis would lay. But the question we are considering is not ‘Did
Baxter promote family discipleship?’ We are asking if he is a proponent of specifically NCFIC values
such as the tendency to discourage the practice of gathering children to teach them the gospel. And here
again, the answer appears to be no.
38
ibid.
ibid., p. 128.
40
Joel Beeke, The Family at Church, p. 52;
41
Jonathan Edwards, “A Narrative of Surprising Conversions,” (Part IV) The Works of Jonathan Edwards, p. 397
42
William C. Nichols, Seeking God: Jonathan Edward’s Evangelism Contrasted With Modern Methodologies, p. 425.
43
ibid., p. 428.
39
It is true that Baxter often urges the primacy of parental responsibility in the discipleship of their
children. For instance he says: “The proof is undeniable; because God appointeth parents diligently to
teach their children the doctrine of his holy word, before they come to the public ministry: parent’s
teaching is the first teaching;”44 But even here, notice that he says the parent’s teaching is the first
teaching, not the only teaching. He does not advocate that parents alone are to be tasked with the work
of teaching. Baxter is an advocate of parents wisely delegating their authority. And he never says that
children shouldn’t be gathered together for the efficient practice of teaching them. In fact, in numerous
places he endorses Christian schools! For instance he says: “Therefore let those that are able, either
educate their children most at home, or in private and well-ordered schools.” Furthermore, he gives
directions directly to youth themselves on how to be discriminating about what teachers they sit under. 45
What about the church? We can see Baxter’s perspective on children’s ministry in the church
when at one point, he is discussing what role a Christian may take in the assembly of the saints, if they
are not a minister or a pastor. If they are competent [he calls them the “ablest”] in their knowledge, he
says they may take the young aside and catechize them. According to Baxter, along with the normal
view of his Puritan contemporaries, “such may catechize the younger and more ignorant.”46 It was never
his intention to exclude the church from the work of teaching the children within its ranks. He simply
insisted that it was primarily, not exclusively, the responsibility of the Christian parents. Richard Baxter
and Matthew Henry knew each other so it is not surprising to see the similarity between them. I see
nothing in Richard Baxter, therefore, that matches the unique distinctive of the FIM, discouraging the
method of gathering children together for the sake of discipleship.
John Bunyan: I am no expert on Bunyan, but after reviewing his collected works and also reviewing a
cross-section of secondary literature on him, I have not found anything that would lead me to believe
Bunyan discouraged children’s discipleship meetings. On the contrary, a consideration of Bunyan’s
social context may lead to the opposite conclusion. Bunyan had close associations with other London
area ministers, including John Owen. He was certainly familiar with the common practice of agesegregated catechetical classes for children that was practiced by more than a thousand different
churches in England in the 17th century. If Bunyan thought age-segregation was as destructive a practice
as NCFIC does, wouldn’t he have at least mentioned it in his writings? Probably a better explanation for
Bunyan’s silence on this topic is that he had no problem with the church’s practice of age-segregation in
principle. Where he would have problems would be in the same area that all of his fellow Puritan pastors
would…if devotion to Christ and discipleship of children was not purposefully happening in the home. I
would be happy to be shown something different about Bunyan that I have missed, but at this point I
don’t see anything in Bunyan that would lead me to the conclusion that he agrees with the NCFIC
antagonism toward children’s discipleship gatherings. Specifically, I do not see any evidence that
Bunyan would have discouraged gathering young people together outside of the weekly public worship
meetings of the church for the sake of teaching them.
So to recap: when Brown says, “What we advocate at the NCFIC is nothing new, but is rather the practice of
historic Christianity,” 47 I must disagree. This statement is simply not true. In fact, the insistence on
comprehensive congregational age-integration does not appear to be something that historic Christianity has
44
Richard Baxter, A Christian Directory, p. 428.
Richard Baxter, A Christian Directory, p. 270-71.
46
Richard Baxter, A Christian Directory, p. 717.
47
Scott Brown, “My Top Four Family-Integrated Pastors”
http://www.ncfic.org/articlemodule/view_article/id/132/src/@random49598ead4a15d/
45
ever held. Even Brown’s favorite examples can’t prove the point that he would like to make! This is a classic
case of anachronistically reading your own personal biases into history.
It is true that the church at its best has always promoted family discipleship. The church at its best has
always recognized the principal role of Christian husband and wife as a spiritual union and the family in
covenantal relationship to God. I am thankful that Brown says much to promote these things. But babies are not
bathwater and the two must be distinguished. The distinctive beliefs of the NCFIC per se, which set them apart
from the broader stream of Reformed Christianity, are a historical novelty (i.e. bathwater). Specifically, it is a
historical novelty (1) to discourage Sunday School, nursery, or such things. It is also a historical novelty (2) to
discourage the direct discipleship of children by those in the church who are not the children’s parents.
Point 4. Jurisdiction Distinction & Overlap, Or The Delegation of Covenantal Responsibility
Brown spends a fair amount of time talking about jurisdiction. I found much of what he had to say here
helpful. But my critique of Brown’s inability to distinguish babies from bathwater applies here as well.
A major plank in Brown’s argument is that it is outside the church’s jurisdiction to take any
responsibility for educating children. Although Brown does not use the language of covenant here, when he
speaks in terms of distinct “realms” and “spheres” of governance that belong to the family, the church, and the
state, that is essentially what he is arguing for here. Biblically, the family, church, and state are all covenantal
institutions of God (Gen. 1-3). And Brown is right that it is important to distinguish them and their respective
responsibilities. But I disagree with how Brown distinguishes them.
He says: “Education of children is given to the family, but not to the state or the church…An otherwise
legitimate action can be sinful when someone who has not been given the authority by God performs it” (p. 52).
First of all, this is not true. Education is given to the family and to the church (though in different ways) but not
the government. To leave education out of the church’s calling is to redefine the mission of the church
altogether. This is a far-reaching point with roots that plunge deep in the structure of the New Testament. If
Brown concludes that it is biblically wrong (sinful?) for the church, as the church, to attempt to educate children
because it over-steps its jurisdiction, then this is may prove to be the underlying kernel of my disagreement with
Brown.
Brown understands that there is distinction in responsibilities that God gives to different covenant
communities. But to some extent he misunderstands the God-ordained overlap in responsibilities of covenantal
communities. There are certain ways in which the family, church, and state are distinct in their responsibilities.
But the education of children is one way in which the role of the church overlaps with the role of the family. To
be clear, the church cannot trump the authority of Christian parents in the discipleship of a child. For instance,
in issues not explicitly addressed in Scripture, the church cannot bind the conscience of a child in a way that the
parents do not. Likewise, in issues not explicitly addressed by Scripture the church cannot liberate the
conscience of a child where the parents bind it. In this sense, parental authority is a front-line authority that
trumps all others. But neither do the Christian parents have the authority to deprive their children from the
teaching ministry of the church. The specific details will vary from case to case and will have to be worked out
with wisdom. But the principle is firm. This is not a new issue. It has been thoroughly worked through and
spoken to in the history of the church by godly preachers and theologians. The many previous examples given
from church history amply attest to this.
So how should we think about overlap of responsibility in covenant communities? John Murray, former
professor of Systematic Theology and one of the founding faculty at Westminster Theological Seminary, also
acknowledged Brown’s observation about distinct spheres of authority. Murray said “the church is not to
discharge the functions of other institutions such as the state and the family”.48 Yet Murray went on to point out
that Christian education of children “is the function of the home and of the church” (my emphasis). And “the
home and the church are basically responsible” to fulfill this duty of Christian education.49 In other words, their
spheres of authority and responsibility overlap at this point: education of children.
Conclusion.
The danger here is that Brown mixes good with bad in a way that confuses people. It is good and
understandable that Brown is pastorally reacting against the real modern failure of the family and the church to
disciple young people. I sympathize, and in fact applaud him here. But Brown’s reaction is the classic case of
the pendulum swinging too far. What Brown meant for good, has in fact gone bad. The intended correction has
now itself become a problem that the church must correct.
There are two kinds of errors that Brown is making. They are the errors of legalism and of gnosticism. As I said
in the beginning of this critical reflection on Brown’s thesis as it is presented in his book, I have not doubt that
he is a Christian brother. Furthermore, I suspect I would agree with him on most of what he says about the
Christian life and faith. But in this particular area of FIM novelties, I offer my criticism in the hopes of
encouraging further reform.
The dangers of Brown’s thesis:
1. Legalism. When Brown imposes standards upon the church that the Bible does not impose, he is
creating a new standard for godliness. This is a kind of legalism, plain and simple. Legalism is always
bad for the church. By misunderstanding the category of things that the church has historically called
adiaphora (‘Things indifferent’), my concern is that Brown is breeding gospel immaturity in the name
of family discipleship. Legalism is a real and present danger in this movement.
2. Gnosticism. Gnosticism is a more remote, though nevertheless real, danger in this movement.
Gnosticism has come in many forms, such as Gnosticism proper arising in the second century. One of
the problems with all forms of gnosticism is that it distinguishes a sub-group of the “initiated” within the
broader Christian community who had come to possess knowledge that other Christians did not yet enter
into. This “mature” knowledge cannot be found in the simple teachings of Scripture, however. It is only
accessible through a progressive form of enlightenment which is viewed as the gateway to spiritual
maturity. While all Christians have the Bible, some Christians have an enlightened view of (fill in the
blank) which can’t be clearly demonstrated from Scripture alone. If FIM initiates believe they have
come to understand something that can’t be explicitly proven from Scripture but nevertheless is true,
obligatory for the church, and more closely aligns a Christian with God’s will, then by definition we are
dealing with a hybrid form of gnosticism.
I believe we are making progress in the discipline of discernment as we recognize that these perennial
dangers to the church have manifested themselves within the Family-Integrated Movement. We have to learn to
distinguish babies from bathwater. Or, to build on Brown’s analogy, to distinguish weeds from wheat.
48
John Murray, “The Relation of Church and State,” Collected Writings of John Murray, vol. 1, Cambridge: The Banner of Truth
Trust, p. 255.
49
John Murray, “Christian Education,” Collected Writings of John Murray, vol. 1, Cambridge: The Banner of Truth Trust, p. 368.
Positively, once we understand that the weed problem is not age-integration per se, then we are able to
have a constructive discussion about some of the real problems evident in common approaches to youth
discipleship. It is true that there are big problems within age-segregated ministry. It is true that families have
largely abandoned their God-given role as the primary disciplers of their children. It is true that churches have
capitulated to worldly thinking by substituting biblical ministry for cultural silliness. How should we deal with
these things?
I would feel privileged to attack this problem head on side-by-side with someone like Brown.50 I
appreciate ways in which the Lord has used him for the good of Christ’s church already and I am hopeful that
God will continue to use him as a good soldier of the faith. But as we labor for reform in the church, we must
not plant new weeds while we are trying to rip out the old ones.
50
In fact, I have been privileged to have that very experience with my co-pastor of many years who is committed to thinking carefully
and biblically about ministry in today’s world, as well as reformation in today’s church.