A Detailed Response to Doug Brown’s Critique of the FICM

Doug Brown has joined a long list of pastors, professors, bloggers, theologians, and otherwise interested parties in writing a critique of the Family Integrated Church Movement (FICM).1  This critique comes from a “Fundamental Independent Baptist” perspective.  His motivation is the fact that “The (FICM) is having a growing impact within fundamental Baptist churches.”  Brown notes:

Since the mid-1990s an increasing number of families within fundamental churches have gravitated toward the family-integrated approach. In addition, families entrenched in the movement have been drawn to fundamental churches because of their emphasis on Biblical preaching and conservatism.”

And of course, like other critics, Brown found an eager audience of both readers and bloggers ready to link to yet another piece pointing to the dangers of this ‘divisive’ movement.

Brown is very fair-minded toward the FICM from a theological perspective.  He writes, for example:

“those in the FICM have a high view of Scripture and correctly see it as the sole authority for doctrine and practice in the church. Second, they place a high value on expository preaching. Third, proponents should also be commended for staying in the church. Their ecclesiology reflects the New Testament more closely than other family movements such as some cell churches and home churches who have virtually abandoned a full ecclesiology. Fourth, those concerned with worldliness in the church will find an affinity with FIC authors.”

Brown also gives an affirming nod to the FICm on the practical ministry/family discipleship side, noting:   Continue at Voddie Baucham

IMAGE

The Mission of the Church in Living Color

Greg and I have been trying to engage some of the conversation about our book. Believe it or not, we also do many other things besides blog and read blogs. So unfortunately we will not be able to respond to everything everyone wants us to respond to. I don’t have any missions-related posts planned after this one.

 But perhaps it would be helpful to think practically about how these things play out on the ground level. I’ll start by giving some examples from my church. At the end I also want to raise some questions for those who want a more expansive definition of the church’s mission.

What We Do

First off, I should be clear that the things we write about in the book are live discussions at URC too. I don’t claim that everyone in my congregation agrees with everything I’ve written in the book. Most haven’t even read the book yet (though I’ve preached on some of these themes).

Having said that, here are some (only some) of things we do and how I think through them.

One woman in our church heads up a crisis pregnancy center. Another woman has developed an inner-city arts ministry. Both ministries are on our church budget. I am thankful for both organizations. People from our church volunteer and help out at both places. At the same time, these ministries are not under the authority of our elders. They have separate boards. They get funding from many sources. Christians and non-Christians can be thankful for what they do. Their work is not first of all to win converts or make disciples. They try to help save babies and teach art to kids. That’s great. They do good in the community. Our folks who serve try to build relationships and talk about Jesus.  Keep Reading >>>

The Bible’s Burden for Church Revitalization

Throughout much of the United States (and a few other parts of the world) evangelical churches quite literally litter the landscape.

Many of these churches are like trash left on a street corner—they cause people to cross to the other side to avoid them. The people who belong to them profess to believe in the gospel, and their historic statements of faith confess the gospel. And some true Christians do belong to such churches. But on the whole the life of the church broadcasts anything but a gospel message. These churches instead churn out toxic waste rather than the nourishing food that people need.

Some churches in this state may be unrecoverable. But the sad thing is, many evangelicals seem content to ignore such churches and simply start new ones.

Church planting is important and strategic, and I am glad to see more and more people taking up that work.

But if you saw a garden overrun with weeds, would you simply plant some nice new irises right in the middle? If you couldn’t hear the news on TV because your radio was blaring, would you simply turn up the TV?

I would suggest that church revitalization—bringing life to dying churches by dealing with the causes of decline and building toward faithfulness—is a biblical burden. That is, when we see these churches acting as anti-witnesses to Christ, we should, according to Scripture, have a burden to do something about it. The burden of this article is to prove that point.    Keep Reading  >>>

IMAGE