It just came to my attention that Voddie Baucham, Vision Forum favorite, has associated me with a chain of causality in the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) that does not cast him in such a favorable light.

From Baucham’s The SBC and Calvinism:

This, coupled with the release of Family Driven Faith, and planting Grace Family Baptist Church, set off a chain of SBC events that would culminate in the SBTC Youth Ministry Forum, and (some would argue) the recent “Patriarchy” rant at xxxxxxxxx Seminary by Cynthia Kunsman. [Blog host note: Link to the complete video HERE.]

[Addendum Note 21Nov08: Someone asked me if I mention Baucham in my Patriarchy “rant” at all. I just checked the Powerpoint presentation and the bibliography. Baucham’s book is not even listed as a reference there, and I never mention his name. I did not review his material at all for the presentation which was my own work. I’d not looked at or read “Family Driven Faith” until approximately 6 months after I delivered the workshop. In fact, there are blog posts here that mention when I did first start reading the book. Read more details HERE.]

What thought immediately popped into my head? If Baucham thinks my apologetics workshop at an SBC seminary in March was a rant, what does he call the work of Kevin Swanson, a fellow faculty member with Henry Reyenga’s Christian Leaders Institute. (Take a look at the video that appears on the home page while you’re there.) My second thought regarded who it is that argues that I am a part of that chain of causality in the SBC.

You can read the full discourse by Baucham for yourself (one soul’s discourse is another’s rant?), but I find it interesting that he identifies the SBC with a spirit that is anti-Calvinistic. He identifies the SBC’s rejection of Calvinism as the true, core rationale behind all the criticism that he’s received since he appeared on CNN rejecting Sarah Palin as a sound choice for the McCain ticket. And I find it interesting that he seems to identify me as an agent of the SBC.


What Do I Believe (for the record)?

I just wanted to clarify a bit about my own beliefs because there are so many different individuals with different convictions mentioned in Baucham’s blog piece.

I wholeheartedly embrace the Doctrines of Grace. I actually hold beliefs that conform more closely to New Covenant Theology than anything else, but not entirely. I aspire to follow the Word and my honest comprehension of it with fear and trembling, not a theology, a construct of man. I’m a TULIP girl, though I wholeheartedly reject the increasingly popular practice of mere man’s discerning who is elect and who is not, deeming those who disagree with them to be damned by God for eternity and therefore deserving of abuse in this life. I’ve written before about this HERE, as some seem to use TULIP like karma, a cruel task-master of works. But unlike Baucham, the only thing I breathe fire about perhaps would be Ephesians 2:8-9 and my opposition to the promotion of Hegemonic Patriarchy/patriocentricity as orthodox Biblical Christianity. I also believe that those who do not embrace the Doctrines of Grace are very much God’s elect, as these are also intramural issues that fall within the pale of orthodoxy.

In wrestling with my own issues of the Word of Faith movement and all its inconsistencies, in the early ’90s, I found the soothing writings and mostly all sound teachings of a man named R.C. Sproul. (I’m among the earliest contributors to “Tape of the Month,” believe it or not.) My mentor also introduced these concepts to me in high school, having been influenced by the Reformed faculty at Lee College (now University). Under his tutelage and also influenced by faculty of Pinecrest Bible Training Center, I’ve rejected pre-millennial eschatology since high school. All these things contributed to my understanding of the Word of God, directing me on a path toward a Reformed view. And I read this little book called Ephesians in my early twenties for myself, without necessarily being told what it said or what it meant. It was hard work for a number of years to reckon the doctrine, but as a result and as a balm to my Arminian anxieties, I came to a new understanding of God’s Sovereignty.

A similar thing happened to me when I began to study New Testament Greek. I took for granted that, though women were not given senior pastor positions in the Pentecostal church I grew up attending, I never had a problem with women teachers or ministers or elders. I really don’t have a problem with others who believe this now, but upon studying and reconsidering the matter in my own right as an adult, I changed my mind on what I perceive as an intramural issue. I believe that a very conservative interpretation of the Word of God requires that women not hold the position of pastor or elder. Because the Scripture does not speak openly and clearly without doubt that women can be anointed elders and pastors, I am convicted that I should follow the conservative approach. Based upon the Greek texts and the Apostle Paul’s grammar, I am persuaded and convicted that the Word provides for women to teach and speak. But again, because of the many ways of interpreting the Scripture, just based on the translation issues alone, I believe that this is an intramural issue and that it is not one that should divide believers. I believe that this classifies me as a “soft complementarian,” a defining term that was created to soften the negative connotation of the term “patriarchy.”

That said, I was once very Arminian, and I was very much a Child of God. I once believed that there was no problem with female elders and pastors, and I was very much a Child of God. I was also once very zealous about the Word of Faith movement, and I was very much a Child of God. At every point in my journey and life in Christ, I loved the Word and sought nothing other than to live faithfully to it, always desiring to live in submission to what the Word teaches. These are intramural issues, and I rejoice in the fellowship that I have in Christ with all who Love Jesus, our Messiah.

I Am an Agent of the SBC?

Definitely not. This is the element of all this that I find most amusing.

I must admit that I did attend an SBC church in the deep south for a few months in 1990, but I left it because it seemed to me to be what I call a “rich white people’s church.” I could stay there no longer after I asked why I’d only ever seen one minority in that church on only one occasion in a town with a Black majority. I was told that “they had their own churches” and that this is where the “missionary Baptist” denomination came from. And then I suddenly noticed the monthly Sunday night “report” from the pastor who mentioned their “missionary churches” in the area. I didn’t last long there after that. That’s the duration and extent of my affiliation with the SBC.

I was invited to speak by an apologetics organization (my infamous rant?), primarily because I was asked to write an article by a well known Calvinist theologian who published it in two of his monthly newsletters in 2004. The article came about because of Doug Phillips’ polemic and aggressive response to criticism (circa 2003) of his bizarre teachings and statements that women working outside the home, training of women outside the home setting, and education of children by any means other than homeschooling were sins. And I also would like to point out that two Calvinist ministers and three Calvinists (not to mention the Dispensationalists) extensively reviewed my material before I made the presentation. Many Calvinists have commented on the soundness of the arguments that I presented at the SBC seminary.

And if I indeed was some indirect agent of the SBC by this invitation from someone who does not attend an SBC church, it was certainly undone within about 48 hours after I put the video of the Patriarchy Workshop online. I was asked to remove all mention of the seminary that hosted the apologetics conference as well as the name of the apologetics organization from my web and my blog. I showed such a willingness to comply with what I believed to be an inappropriate request because I was told over the phone that I’d put the employment of the president of the unnamed SBC seminary (which I have agreed no longer reference) in great jeopardy as a result of my criticisms of the patriarchal teachings of Bruce Ware and Russell Moore of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (SBTS). (Please note that I contacted the apologetics group and offered to remove the name of the seminary and possibly the names of the teachers from the lecture before I printed my handout, one month prior to the presentation.)

So though I am no agent or representative of the SBC, I have no vendettas either. A little respect might have been nice, however, and I could do without the miserable comments that were made about me, some of which have been quite personal and unrelated to the content of the lecture. And as my friend Karen Campbell says (who coined the term “patriocentricity” to differentiate these bizarre teachings from true patriarchy which I would say we both embrace), the statement made by the apologetics group about my scholarship was quite far “over the top.” They sought not to clarify my position or their organizations’ position in comparison to the doctrines and positions of the SBC but to “poison the well” concerning the Patriarchy Workshop so as to discourage it’s viewing and fair consideration. The SBC exercised milieu control, and in their anger, I think the tactic has ultimately backfired on them.

With that, I can say with certainty from my perspective, I am no agent or any kind of voice for the SBC.

As someone within the SBC did mention to me, I “innocently wandered over fault lines” of controversy in the SBC (since most of the material I presented concerned and was drawn from Vision Forum). The workshop I gave voiced what many within the SBC have known for some time but did not have a voice to speak freely about these issues within their own denomination. I did not realize any of this when I prepared and gave the workshop. Since then however, I have been contacted by many SBC survivors of these teachings. SBC seminary graduates and pastors that have been chewed up and spit out by the Family Integrated Church movement account for the highest percentage of people who have written to me, thanking me for so succinctly describing their experience and for directing them to the literature concerning spiritual abuse.

Criticism of Baucham Comes Not Because of Calvinism But Because of PATRIOCENTRICITY

I would disagree with Baucham concerning the central issue of criticism against him stemming primarily from his bold embrace of Calvinism, TULIP, the five solas, the Doctrines of Grace or any other means one can find to describe what I most often describe as a Reformed view of Scripture. I believe that, without any doubt, Baucham has received criticism because of the extreme doctrines that he shares with Vision Forum. Those odd beliefs transcend the divisions between Calvinism and Dispensationalism/Arminianism/Pelagianism, affecting both groups alike. Baucham accepts Numbers 30 as a rational supporting the idea that a woman cannot live outside of the authority and protection of a patriarch (male governance) and be true to Scripture, and he speaks openly about this in the Vision Forum video, “Return of the Daughters.” He believes that Sunday School is Communistic, not just an option that he no longer believes serves the best interest of the church. I’m unclear about whether he permits declining participation in a home catechism for believers or whether he also believes that private Christian school for children is Biblical. I wonder if he also advocates Vision Forum tradition that requires the payment of a “bride’s price” (from the groom to the father of the bride) during wedding ceremonies, or the bride’s washing of the groom’s feet? As many in Vision Forum believe that men govern the sanctification process of their wives (and daughters, too) and thus finding sanctification through the intercession of their male patriarch, I also wonder about Baucham’s specific interpretation Ephesians chapter 5.

Now that Vision Forum no longer seems to prohibit women from voting as it once staunchly insisted (voting would amount to participation in the sphere outside the home and is thus limited to men, violating “kingdom architecture”), I don’t know Baucham’s position on this particular issue. I do know that he believes that college is not in a young person’s best interest and is not an option for young adult women. They are open to harm because they sleep at dormitories without a patriarch’s protection under their roof and because there is no one to protect their daughters from the Communist in every lecture hall and behind every bush. Baucham also discussed this in “Return of the Daughters” and his associate Kevin Swanson states that the father that sends his daughter to college hates his daughter. I would assume that this also applies to the wife who also falls under his patriarchal authority and protection. Women lack discernment necessary to safely navigate life without a patriarch. For more information on Vision Forum’s beliefs and those of their following, please listen to these podcasts.

We do know that Baucham stood with Vision Forum in opposition to Sarah Palin’s nomination as the Republican Vice Presidential Candidate. Baucham stood before the world and voiced his patriocentric views about Sarah Palin, someone who Vision Forum claimed was essentially committing adultery by working for another man. And he did this while the world watched intently and could get online and watch again ad nauseum, opposing the candidate that his fellow Calvinist, Albert Mohler, and even CBMW advocated. Baucham’s associate Kevin Swanson says this is selling one’s flesh to a man other than one’s husband. The Botkins of Vision Forum compare women working outside the home to the harlotry, as the harlots feet always wander away from home. I wonder if he agrees with Brett McAtee who was cited by Vision Forum, along with his own statements, saying “While Christians must continue to insist that it is against Scripture to vote for a female magistrate as our political covenant head, we must at the same time insist that Palin is right about many of the issues on which she has taken stands”? I guess that would have made her our “federal federal head,” had McCain been elected?

In regard to the opposition to the issues raised in “Family Driven Faith” and similar sentiments that prohibit age-appropriate training or youth ministries as a cause for criticism, let me say that I find this to be partially true, but not for the reason that Baucham identifies. People oppose and react to these teachings, not because they’re opposed to viable options that will help young people and old alike live effective Christian lives that are committed to Christ. Christians inside and outside the SBC oppose them because Baucham abrasively and arrogantly denounces any options other than his own related preferences as unbiblical and far less than orthodox. Believers’ equally valid methods of communicating the Gospel to their families and the world have been maligned with a host of pejorative labels in the process, with the Baucham methods and personal convictions defined as their only Biblical option. That may not be Communistic, but I would say that Baucham’s views classify as a fine example of totalism (spiritual abuse). He calls not for unity in Christ but for uniformity among men and within man’s construct, as Vision Forum’s brand of patriarchy is consistent with the pagan practices of Roman culture, not Biblical Christianity. The criticism Baucham experiences derives not from his methods themselves (no age-appropriate groups, courtship and home catechism for his children). It derives from the elitist and exclusive tactics he and his associates use to create gnostic categories of “better Christians” and his cruel and arrogant denouncement of faithful believers who reject his paradigm.


Calvinists Who Oppose Patriocentricity

The other reason that I find Baucham’s claims of anti-Calvinist prejudice to be weak stems from the many Calvinists who reject patriocentricity, both inside and outside the SBC.

I think Pastor Wade Burleson’s example completely discounts Baucham’s claims regarding Calvinism, because like me, he is a Calvinist. Burleson did suffer a great deal of opposition, prejudice and what I would describe as harassment because he also opposed the patriarchal trends within the SBC. The main source of opposition to him while he served on the International Missions Board came from a group of Calvinists associated with CBMW because he opposed the dismissal of women from the mission field and from seminaries. The Calvinism cancels itself out in this case. The crowd that embraces Baucham was responsible for much of the opposition that Wade Burleson still faces because of what I term patriocentricity/”hard complementarianism.” Wade’s example, to me, makes Baucham’s argument moot.

Andrew Sandlin who wrote the aforementioned article, Hegemonic Patriarchy, is another Calvinist who is quite outspoken in his opposition to Vision Forum doctrines. And I also offer the writings of the late John Robbins and the Trinity Foundation as another example of Calvinists who find pagan patriarchy and patriocentritcity repugnant. (The apologetics group classified my presentation with worshops concerning paganism.) These men are also controvercial among certain sets of Baptists because they oppose the Vision Forumesque paradigm and not because they are Calvinists. Note this quote from Robbins concerning “Christians and the Civil War”

Organizations such as American Vision in Atlanta (Gary DeMar) and Vision Forum in San Antonio (Douglas Phillips) are promoting Confederate propaganda. (Oddly, these groups all have “vision in their names, yet they are blind to both soteriological and historical truth.) Wannabe Romanists themselves, their efforts are applauded by genuine papists like Thomas DeLorenzo.

And I’d like to mention that I personally do not think that terms like “hyper-patriarchy” or “hyper-Calvinist” make much sense, since either you are or you are not. Actually, I think that most of those whom most people label with these terms actually fall into the category coined by John Robbins: that of ersatz evangelicals, neither truly Calvinist nor truly patriarchal in the legitimate and traditional understanding of the terms. I would also like to note that I happen to love many of James White’s writings, do not consider him a “hyper” anything, and I think several of the professed Calvinists at SBTS could learn a thing or two from his writings on the Trinity.

For all these reasons, I find the claims that Baucham makes about Calvinism and even his own preference for raising his own family at the source of his own controversy to be nothing more than damage control and more spin, so consistent with his fellow patriocentrists. He stood before the world while the world watched and voiced an opinion about Sarah Palin that was contrary to that of his denomination. Please don’t blame the arrogance of patriocentricity on Calvinism.

And please do not classify me as someone who stands opposed in any way to the Doctrines of Grace. I’m also not anything remotely like an agent of the SBC. I’d be happy and proud to admit it if it were remotely true.

Advertisements

The CHEC and Casting Visions for the Rest of Us?


I don’t believe this 2009 Men’s Leadership Summit has been officially announced to it’s intended broad, target audience, but bloggers are currently discussing it HERE. I wanted to point out the nature of the response that one outside the culture of patriarchy/patriocentricity generally receives when they offer criticism. I would like to point out the lack of cooperation to respectfully and thoughtfully discuss disagreements on the part of the patriocentrists. I encourage everyone to read the blog article and the comments that follow, but I hope to specifically draw your attention to the comments made by someone who represents the group presenting the conference. I could also address the loaded language of “vision casting” which sounds like spell casting to me, but I will let that one pass, for now.

I take it that all previous endeavors of Christians regarding homeschooling were either NOT “rock-solid” or “biblically-based” (or were neither)?

Please note that the emphasis of text
in this post is all my own.

Karen Campbell writes in Phillips, Swanson, Baucham, and Ray Casting a Vision for Whom? Not Me!:

Christian Home Educators of Colorado [CHEC] will be hosting a conference in Indianapolis in March of 2009. They state that the goal of this 2009 “leadership summit” is to define a vision for the future of the Christian home education movement, (to) lay down a rock-solid, biblically-based vision for home education that will withstand the attacks of our current generation and preserve this precious vision for future generation.” In order to do this they are “assembling the key national leaders, authors, researchers, speakers and advocates who have framed the homeschool vision over the past generation (1979-2009).” Headlining this meeting will be Voddie Baucham, Doug Phillips, Kevin Swanson, and Brian Ray…

As I read through the website, I kept asking myself “Who appointed or elected these men as leaders? What makes them think they can speak for me or the millions of other Christian homeschooling families? Where are the voices of the mothers who are doing all the hard work of homeschooling in the first place? Why are they being excluded in this vision casting?”

Immediately I had three thoughts as I watched this. The first is that it appears that the true leaders and founders of Christian homeschooling are missing in this version of the history of this movement. The second is that some of the “leaders” shown in this trailer [also affiliated with the leadership summit] have serious charges against them and their reputations, in my mind, disqualify them from speaking for any of us. And thirdly, I find some of what they are saying to be unsubstantiated and questionable and, quite frankly, more of the same scare tactics I have seen used to promote and sell a paradigm to homeschooling families in the past.

This blog post did not go unnoticed by the CHEC, because the group’s president, Bill Roach, posted this response:

Hi,

My name is Bill Roach and I serve as President of CHEC…we are sponsoring the National Men’s Leadership Summit II.

I have read your comments with great interest.

We could have a robust discussion about this topic!! I’m not quite sure we would come to a consensus about the issues, but I’m sure it would be lively.

First, my sympathy and prayers to those of you who have been the recipient of “angry patriarchs.” Whether you received it by teaching or personal experience…I know that kind of pain is real and extremely damaging. I don’t know if there is a worse roof to live under than one that has an unloving man claiming a biblical headship and living a life of anger.

To be honest, I have come to shy away from the word “Patriarchy”…partly because it has been misunderstood, and partly because it has been misdefined. I prefer to see my role as father/husband in unity with my wife. I guess you can call it “one flesh.” We strive for unity in all areas of our marriage- education, discipline, business, church…etc. I would probably have a different take on egalitarianism than some that have commented on this blog, but I’m sure we would agree on more things that you might think.

Secondly, may I say a warm and hardy thank you to all of you hard working moms. Without you all ,the modern homeschooling movement wouldn’t have even gotten off the ground. God clearly used moms from all over this country in a mighty way. While most men couldn’t see the need for homeschooling back in the 70s and early 80s, the love that you moms had for your children spawned the movement (sorry, I know some of you disdain that word…) From my heart, I say thanks….for all that you did and all that you are doing.

Here in Colorado, we owe a huge debt of gratitude to Sandy Lundberg who literally gave her health to the start of CHEC. She is an extremely taleted, giving and godly lady. At one point she served as Executive Director, Conference Coordinator, Newsmagazine Editor and Volunteer Coordinator…all at the same time!! There is not a week that passes that I don’t thank God for her contributions.

I owe my own wife so much for the job that she is doing in raising the 6 we have at home. I have 3 natural born children, 2 adopted children and a young lady who came to live with us after her mom died of cancer. Without my wife, I would be lost at sea…

My only question to you all is this…has anyone here ever met Kevin Swanson?

If not, you should…he is one of the most gentle, humble men I have ever met. I would have to say that if you only know the “radio Kevin,” you wouldn’t get the full picture. In fact you would get about 3% of who Kevin is. He and Dave (his co-host) sometimes do go over the top in their satire and humor. Kevin is very good at visual illustrations…but he would be the first one to tell you that sometimes he misses. But his radio program is a blessing to so many people…I wish you all could read the comments of people who are hearing the Word of God…sometimes for the first time!! The folks who write or visit the church come hungry and hurting I have seen time and again where the love of the church body ministers deeply to their soul.

Just thought I would let you know that this is a man who loves God, loves his family and is a wonderful church leader and Executive Director of CHEC. He serves the organization without pay, he donates his book sales (which are small but growing, to CHEC) and will travel to speak anywhere for little to nothing in return. He genuinely loves people. He is the last person in the world that you would think was in it, “for the money.” Not quite sure where that money is, even if any of us were in it for that. )

I’m sure that if we all sat in a room and talked about the issues, there is no doubt that we would disagree…in fact, I’m sure some of you might even be angry.

But I do know one thing…even though you might not agree with him; you would know that Kevin Swanson is a kind, humble, loving man.

Anyway…just thought you might want to know…

I am not so naive as to think that you have to meet Kevin to comment about him…he has a daily radio program…you have the right to comment on it and disagree with it…but try to remember to be gracious in that disagreement… the way I assume you would want someone to disagree with you, if mentioning you by name.

Thank you,

Bill Roach

Roach mentions the “angry patriarchs.” I think it’s interesting that two of the worst offenders are listed as plenary speakers for his conference. Phillips and Swans are the most outspoken and abrasive angry patriarchs, and Phillips is, by far, the most aggressive. Dr. Raymond Moore (who Karen points out started homeschooling when Doug Phillips’ father was 3 years old and who published one of the first books on homeschooling when Doug would have been running around with a cap gun in elementary school) notes in his White Paper that one of the other speakers, Brian Ray, used Moore’s own research to obtain his PhD, but then was miserably critical of him. (Does that make Raymond Moore an angry patriarch?) As my husband often says, “No good deed goes unpunished.”

After a brief and non-patriocentric sounding explanation of his version of “patriarchy,” he says “I would probably have a different take on egalitarianism than some that have commented on this blog, but I’m sure we would agree on more things that you might think.” What does this mean, I wonder? I guess I’m to unsophisticated to figure it out. Why would egalitarianism come into play in this discussion of homeschooling and why is it significant? To explain why no women are welcome at this conference (just like Phillips’ Witherspoon School)? I find it amusing, considering that Karen Campbell and I share nearly identical views on the role of women, and we classify as complementarian (though we are “soft” complementarians by comparison to the teachings of those participating in the leadership summit).

What exactly is he trying to conote with his comment of those who “spawned” the homeschooling movement. If it was a potentially offensive word, why did he use it and then apologize for the usage? Is that gracious, a concern that he also voices regarding the way these matters are discussed?

Roach also says, “My only question to you all is this…has anyone here ever met Kevin Swanson? If not, you should…he is one of the most gentle, humble men I have ever met. I would have to say that if you only know the “radio Kevin,” you wouldn’t get the full picture.” Frankly, after listening to these broadcasts of Swanson’s, I don’t have any desire to meet with him because his discourses in that venue are so abrasive and reactionary. This is one of the most ridiculous arguments against false teaching and inexcusable conduct, playing upon the principles that Cialdini points out in his writings concerning the “weapons of social influence.” And if the radio program is only 3% of who Kevin is, he might also note that it is the most publicized and is therefore more potent. If he is that indiscriminate about the manner in which he presents his views, what does that say about the remaining 97% of the rest of his character? Sounds like potent leaven that is indicative of and leaven for the whole lump. Oh, wait. Kevin says that Christians are leaven. The Bible speaks of leaven as sin 90% of the time. (Swanson states that Christians are leaven in his Christian shock-jock commentary that my husband begged me to turn off or use earphones because it was irritating.)

And I now assume, reading his second response, when he said that “we COULD have a lively discussion” of this topic, he really meant that it was possible but that this was never his intent. I guess his posts were damage control.

One woman named Kathleen responded with

Thanks, Bill, for your comments. I just remembered Kevin Swanson made the broad sweeping comments about girls who go to college being “vagabonds”, etc.” He may have a lovely family, and have a wonderful “off air” personality, but it is his teaching words that I’m concerned about. I hold the same standard up to the people of leadership in my church (former).

Another blogger named Corrie said

As for Kevin Swanson, it is his words and teachings that we are measuring. I do not see anyone making a judgment on whether or not he is good or bad.

There is no reason for such over-the-top rhetoric. It is embarrassing to me, a homeschool mother, to listen to some of the extreme hyperbole. It discredits us as homeschoolers and makes us a laughing stock for those who oppose us. We look more like the caricatures on SNL than we do logical and rational individuals.

I am not opposed to satire or sarcasm but claiming that working women, for instance, sell their flesh for cheap in one-night stands with their co-workers is beyond ridiculous. It is one thing to believe that women should not work outside of the home and quite another thing to make such claims.

And I take it that this is chastizement for what Roach thinks is ungracious. (I guess he doesn’t listen to Swanson very often who is about as gracious as an angry rodeo bull in a china shop.) “but try to remember to be gracious in that disagreement… the way I assume you would want someone to disagree with you, if mentioning you by name.” Is he offended by the fact that we name names? Milieu control? I guess gracious is defined by anything with which he agrees as opposed to that which lacks grace.

Karen Campbell responds:

Bill,Welcome to my blog and thanks for your comments. I would heartily agree with you that we are most likely in agreement with many, many things, first of all our love for and commitment to Jesus Christ and secondly our love for and commitment to home education. And on a personal note, I was adopted and have a great deal of respect for those who choose this way of welcoming children into their homes so I appreciate your sharing that part of your life with us. (One of my podcasts in the militant fecundity series addresses the growing number of orphans worldwide and the importance of homeschooling families in making homes for them.)

You didn’t say whether or not you would welcome a robust discussion about the issues surrounding your upcoming conference but I would be happy to host that discussion here if you are interested. I will always allow unmoderated comments and will only delete those that are rude or inappropriate. I know that there are many who read here who would welcome the opportunity to have a real discussion about some of the concerns they have. In fact, I often hear from homeschooling moms who live in Colorado and whose families have decided to no longer attend your convention because of the patriocentric beliefs of your leadership and speakers you bring in. I believe it would be wise for you to listen to their concerns.

My chief objection to your conference is that I do not believe that either your organization nor the speakers who are advertised speak for the vast majority of Christian home educating parents in this country. In fact, for your group to assume that you can cast a vision for all Christian homeschooling families is audacious and arrogant. There are so many believers in solid, Bible-believing and teaching churches, whose leaders and teachers are committed to sound exegesis, who do not agree with your conference speakers on any number of issues. In fact, I believe that the number of those who embrace your philosophy of family life and education is becoming more of a minority all the time as the fruits and benefits of relationship homeschooling (see my sidebar) are apparent. Healthy, vibrant homeschooling families practice the one anothers of Scripture and seek to build relationships both within their homes and with those who are in need of a Savior.

Sadly, many of those things that your conference speakers represent are in sharp contrast to those objectives. Let me list just a few of those things that I believe have placed your conference into question and please consider engaging us in dialogue regarding these and other issues, for the sake of the future of homeschooling and the glory of God.

1. Kevin Swanson, Voddie Baucham, and Doug Phillips have all embraced and promoted a view of daughters that is not based on Scripture and, in fact, have misused the Word of God to promote their views. (Numbers 30) Those who have a high view of Scripture and who seek to follow its counsel rather than to use it to promote our own views, bristle at this every time we read or hear these teachings, not because we are feminists, white-washed or otherwise, but because we love the Word of God and cannot bear to see it handled in such a manner. Being a wife and a mother is a high calling from the Lord and it is one that any young woman would do well aspiring to. In fact, most of us who have real concerns about your movement are stay at home mothers who serve our families, some with many children, we homeschool, and would be the first to testify that we love being homemakers. But nowhere in the Bible does it say that it is the ONLY calling for a woman nor does Scripture claim that it is the highest calling. To place this burden on all women to conform to a patriocentric image of hearth and home when the Bible does not do so is legalism. In their zeal to show the value of motherhood, these speakers have gone further than the Word of God does and have superimposed their agenda onto all women.

2. The concept that the father is the only one in the family who has a calling from the Lord and that all family members are to further that calling is also not substantiated in Scripture. While I do believe that God works generationally and through families, it is not the ONLY way that His redemption plan is brought into fruition. The Holy Spirit works in the individual hearts of individuals, in each generation, giving spiritual gifts to each believer at the time of salvation and calling each one to serve and follow Him. Both mothers and fathers are to introduce their children to Christ and are to disciple them, using their own gifts to help their children recognize God’s plan for each of them. Placing the father at the center of the family and giving him a higher calling within that family is idolatry.

3. A few months ago, Doug Phillips made a declaration that a woman who faces an ectopic pregnancy, a life-threatening situation, and has surgery is considered to be a “murderer,” one who practices “child sacrifice” or “infanticide,” and is not 100% pro-life. In researching Doug’s position and asking pro-life leaders around the country to comment on his writings, I could not find a single person who could agree with his perspective and many were concerned that homeschooling mothers who are being influenced by Doug could have their very lives placed in danger. He also stated that he would not support any organization that didn’t agree with him so I can only conclude that his is also the position of CHEC, lending credibility to this dangerous view.

4. Kevin, Voddie, and Doug promote the family integrated church movement and use the homeschooling venue to do so. As self-proclaimed leaders of homeschooling who are purporting to establish the standards for all Christian home educators and are casting a vision for all of us, I believe that the FIC agenda will most certainly be part of that vision, further isolating homeschoolers from other Christians and causing further division within the body of Christ. (see my article on the pros and cons of the family integrated church on at http://www.thatmom.com for a more complete listing of my concerns.)

5. No mothers are included being included in your conference, which is unfortunate. Why would this be? Where is the prohibition against women helping to establish a vision for home education? You mentioned that women helped to found the modern homeschooling movement but imply that now the men should take it over. Could you please explain your thinking so moms can understand this?

6. There is concern among some homeschoolers that there is a class distinction agenda being promoted by Doug Phillips because of his affinity for the pre-Civil War south and the lifestyle of that day. Combined with the message that anything outside of this paradigm is “socialism,” the message is sent that there is a certain elitism to home education. R. C. Sproul Jr.’s observations seem to substantiate that and were affirmed by James McDonald.

I have one final thought, regarding Kevin Swanson. I have not meant him in person but have listened to his podcasts. In fact, I have Kevin to thank for inspiring me to have my own podcasts. I was in awe of the lack of a gracious spirit that permeates his presentations and the fact that he was homeschooled himself cause me to cringe every time I heard him speak. My oldest children are just a few years younger than he is and I would be appalled if they behaved as he does. Do you remember those who heard Jesus speak and “marveled at the gracious words that came from his mouth?” I pray that that would be the response to my own children as they represent both Jesus Christ and homeschooling. Maybe you could pass that along to Kevin.

Bill, I look forward to hearing from you and to exchanging ideas regarding homeschooling and the future of this great way of educating children.

And Bill Roach’s response to Karen:

Hi Karen,

Thanks for your warm comments about the adoption of my children. What a wonderful way to experience the love and grace of God by being adopted yourself! Of all the “things” that we have done as a couple and family, adopting two children was the one I was most convinced was of the Lord.

My goal in chiming in was to just present to you a different perspective on the Kevin Swanson you probably don’t know. Nothing more and nothing less.

I hope that you would respect that the first difference we would have between us is the format of a blog to discuss such heavy issues as you have asked of me. Unfortunately, we would disagree on that issue, and I have to respectfully decline your offer to engage in this way.

If you are ever out this way in beautiful Colorado and would like to meet, I would do all that I can to make it a reality. Please contact me at my email that I gave you.

May God grant you wisdom as you raise your family and run this blog.

Sincerely,

Bill

Karen responds again:

Bill, thanks for your response and I will accept your position though I hope you will reconsider.

I really think being open and forthright about our beliefs and a willingness to hear a variety of positions from other Christians whom the Holy Spirit works through will be the first step in understanding the purposes of your conference and to clearing up any misconceptions we might have.

A blogger named Mary responded to Bill also:

I would like to respectfully ask Bill what he would consider as an appropriate venue for the discussion of the points that Karen mentioned? As far as I know there has never been a venue for this discussion . Would CHEC consider some kind of public discussion of these issues?

I guess that’s the $75,000 question:

What is a fair, respectful and productive venue for the discussion of these issues? And I can bet that there will never be a public discussion of these issues. First of all, it would have to include women, and women are not respected as “leaders,” requiring all matters to be digested and discerned by men first as their “covering.” Patriocentricity find women who do assume this role for their families (overseeing homeschooling matters), whether delegated to them by husbands or not, to be acting against God’s kingdom architecture. There is also a trend within these circles to keep these matters out of public discussion forums. The only open forums that they will agree to participate in are those that give the appearance that they are open to discussion but ones wherein there is no real discussion. Appearance is everything. Anything said in private is free game, and it can be the word of the patriocentrist against others, claiming that later discussion of an issue addressed via email constitutes gossip. This is milieu control, folks. Plain and simple. Star chambers can contain the messy business that these types of people would like to keep silent and deny later. It is also more intimidating, in many cases, for the critic.

Are You Considering a Family Integrated Church?

September 5, 2008 at 9:31 pm

If you are in any way associated with the Family Integrated Church movement that embraces the doctrines of Doug Phillips, most of which are made up of all homeschooling families, I would encourage you to check out the latest series of articles by Cindy Kunsman. She has done a terrific job, in a very succinct article, of tracing the history of this modern movement to the antebellum south, and the renewed, though not historically supported, concept that the Civil War was a theological war. (For more study on this topic, here is another article that expands on this. It is interesting to note that many of the concepts promoted within the modern patriocentric movement, particularly as written by Phil Lancaster, are straight from these early writings by Dabney, Thornwell, and Palmer.

Also visit Grace and Truth to You, Wade Burleson’s Blog.

September 10, 2008 at 8:36 pm

I thought it would be a great idea to offer a few thoughts on the growing family integrated church movement after reading Wade Burleson’s recent article and also Cindy Kunsman’s thoughts about this movement over the past few weeks. I want to encourage good discussion here and hope anyone who is interested in this topic will feel free to discuss it. As always, I don’t mind anonymous comments as long as they come along with a real e-mail address and civility.

Having attempted to integrate our own family’s preferences and convictions into church life, sometimes succeeding and sometimes not, over the past 24 years, I fully understand why homeschooling families would love to find a church home where their lifestyle is not only accepted but is also the standard. Let’s face it, once you begin taking the responsibility for academically educating your own children, as a parent you begin to see all of the areas of your life where the Lord has called you to take responsibility for your family and your home. As you put into practice family worship, discipleship of your own children, caring for the needs of extended family, etc, you begin to see how the bureaucracy of the local church, especially if it can’t accommodate your own convictions, can become burdensome and frustrating. It only seems natural to turn to the family-integrated church model and many homeschooling families do just that.

Growing both in the number of churches and in membership, these churches have been established to meet the particular needs of homeschooling families and will eventually be available in most areas of the country. In fact, the National Center for Family Integrated Churches, established only 5 years ago, currently lists 657 churches and claims a membership of 1677 families who desire to further their mission.

While this organization does not represent all those who wish to follow a family-integrated approach to church life, they certainly have had tremendous influence through their conferences and publications. Founder and leader of the NCFIC, Doug Phillips, considered one of the most popular homeschooling speakers around the country today, promotes this off-shoot of his Vision Forum ministry while at homeschooling conferences along with other voices for pro-family-integrated worship such as Voddie Baucham, a SBC-ordained pastor, and Kevin Swanson, ordained in the OPC.

Not associated with Phillips but also a founder of what he calls “home-discipleship churches,” former church planter with the CRC, Pastor Henry Reyenga, is the head of the Christian Leaders Institute that seeks to launch churches and to prepare young men for leadership within those congregations. In recent years he has established his own denomination that reflects his family discipleship priorities and interpretations of Christian education.

His is not the first group to do go out on his own to form churches with this family emphasis. James McDonald, founder of Family Reformation Ministries and pastor with the Covenant Presbyterian Church, left the RPCGA and starting his own denomination, one that reflects his convictions about home education and paedo-communion, both views not necessarily advanced, and sometimes discouraged or forbidden, within traditional churches.

In contrast to the traditional structure found in most denominations and eschewing the long-established polity in most conventional churches, NCFIC churches each struggle to carve out their own paths and even theology based on the premise that homeschooling is the best and most biblical lifestyle for Christian parents. Placing fathers in leadership of these churches is to be the norm. To this end, the NCFIC mission statement says that they “deny/reject two unbiblical extremes of our day, authoritarian, one-man leadership/one-man ministry that impedes the biblical functioning of the body, and leaderless house churches that disregard the biblical necessity of elders.”

Further, claiming to follow in the footsteps of 17th and 18th century pastors Richard Baxter, John Bunyon, Matthew Henry, and Jonathan Edwards, all great men in history who stressed the importance of fathers discipling and catechizing their own children, the NCFIC seeks to provide tools for men training their own families and believes this is the means for seeing future generations of Christians.

While I whole-heartedly believe that fathers are to be instrumental in the discipleship of their children and while I appreciate so many of the reasons homeschooling families have for leaving their traditional churches, I have come to see some flaws within the family-integrated church movement that I think need to be addressed if it is to have the success so many homeschooling families are hoping to experience. In the next few blog articles I will be looking at some of the things I really like about family-integrated churches and at some of my concerns and am looking forward to some great discussion here.

September 11, 2008 at 8:59 pm

Yesterday I began a series of thoughts on the pro and cons of the family integrated church model and today I want to continue the discussion, talking about why I believe homeschooling families are so attracted to this new model of family church.

First, I would like to take you through the Reader’s Digest version of the past 25 or so years of our church life as a family.

Let me begin by sharing some of the ministries Clay and I have been involved in as adults: Clay has served as a children’s church teacher, a primary Sunday school teacher, VBS teacher, high school Sunday school teacher, a high school youth group leader, Chairman of the Board of Christian Education, adult Sunday school class teacher, AWANA leader and director.

I have been a high school Sunday school teacher, children’s church teacher, VBS teacher, After School Club for Kids Director, Chairman of the Board of Christian Ed, Chairman of the Board of Community Outreach, Missionary Conference Director, secretary and president of Women in Church in a PCA church, children’s choir director, church pianist, CPC counselor for 10 years, and those are just the things we can remember. Both of us found most of these ministries very rewarding and were blessed to serve in any way that we could do so.

But, in retrospect, none of these ministries have given us the blessings or have allowed us to see fruit in the lives of others in the same way or even in the greatest ways we have witnessed through our continued efforts toward discipling our own children. In fact, we have come to realize that some of the ministries we have participated in have, at their roots, a mission that is in stark contrast to many of the things we aspire to do as a homeschooling family.

When we began homeschooling, we continued to be involved in many church activities, all of us participating in programs and ministries that often took us separate directions on Sunday mornings or on Wednesday nights. While we didn’t allow them to cause division within our family, we did come to the place where we needed to evaluate our own family priorities against the backdrop of how much time and energy we would be spending in working within our local church.

Because we were homeschooling, we had made the commitment that we would be a family living on one income. That meant that there were certain activities that our children simply couldn’t participate in because of the cost. It also meant that our time schedule would need to work around Clay’s job, which grew increasingly demanding as the years went by.

We made the commitment to spend time together in the Word every evening so that meant that some of the evening activities at church would have to take a back seat to what we were doing at home. In essence, as our commitment to homeschooling grew and as we became more confident in how we were living out our convictions, we began to have less and less need for church ministry and eventually began to see our own involvement as a hindrance to our most important efforts, those of ministering to our own children.

We had to ask ourselves some hard questions regarding our use of time and resources. Would spending 4 hours preparing to teach an adult Sunday School class be better used in spending 4 hours in one on one time with each of my older children? Would my children glean more by spending time helping care for elderly grandparents or younger siblings than they would sitting under the teachings of the youth leader whose own wife and children didn’t even attend church? Would it be worse to offend some of the church leadership by not attending their activities than to offend our own children by exposing them to influences that weren’t godly or wholesome?

As you can imagine, responses to the decisions we began to make were not always well received and along our journey to finding a church home, we made many mistakes. While we weren’t looking for a church that would be custom designed for us, we really longed for one where sound Bible teaching was a priority and where we could feel the freedom to not participate in a myriad of programs but could use our weekdays as we saw fit to nurture and disciple our own children, to building relationships with them and with others, as a family rather than as scattered individuals each with our own lives. We knew, instinctively, that that day would come soon enough as our children grew up and left home and we wanted to make the most of our time with them as possible.

Then, one day, out of the blue, we were invited to attend a church that not only didn’t have a list of weekly programs, but one that published a brochure designed just for homeschoolers and that listed all the ways the church family and even the pastor would love to minister to homeschoolers. We were amazed and hooked.

But, in spite of the great hope we had that finally we had found a church that understood our parenting philosophy and even though we were eager and willing to believe that the church’s self promotion was legitimate, that next week’s visit was the beginning of what was to be the most painful season of anti-homeschooling abuse we were ever to experience.

In picking up where I left off yesterday, I will continue my saga of coming to the church that led us to our experiences with the family integrated church model. I believe that telling our own story is the best way to illustrate the main arguments pro and con for the FIC model and it will be helpful for others who are facing similar decisions regarding finding a church home for your family.

Initially, we were quite excited to be part of a small congregation that didn’t have endless activities or programs. The preaching was challenging and inspiring and we really appreciated the worship service and hearing the doctrines of grace taught weekly. We enjoyed the fellowship of other believers, though there were not as many homeschooling families as we had been led to believe would be there. In fact, most of the homeschooling families we met had only been there a few weeks before we arrived and shortly after we came a few more came, too. Though people were friendly enough, it was really only the other homeschooling families who welcomed us into their homes and it soon became apparent that there were those in the congregation who were feeling threatened by the ever-growing group of homeschoolers and that those of us who had come had done so because we had responded to the brochures that had been sent out.

Later, we discovered that that flier had been written and published by one of the elders who was hoping to turn the church into a family integrated one by filling it with homeschoolers, a method, I might add, that is sometimes suggested by those who are encouraging the FIC model, though one we came to see does not work.  Eventually, two things happened that confirmed to us that this church was not the one that had been portrayed in the brochure.

We had joined the church and had scheduled our annual visit from our elder in our home. He and his wife came for dinner and afterwards we spent several hours chatting with him as he asked questions about our family’s spiritual growth and as he shared the elder’s vision for the future of the church. Interestingly enough, he didn’t mention any of the priorities you would expect from a church that wanted to support homeschooling.

And then, as Clay mentioned family discipleship, the elder informed us, in no uncertain terms, that we were not to ever mention homeschooling in church, that it was fine if this is what we wanted for our own family but it was never to be talked about at church. My husband pressed him on this issue, suggesting that if we had found a method of educating our children that had proven to be successful, wouldn’t it only follow that we would joyfully want to talk about it? He was adamant that we were never to do so. This was a stunning revelation to us because he was verbalizing what we had been sensing from some of the congregation but we didn’t realize that it was also the growing consensus of the elders.

The second shoe dropped when we attended an annual congregational meeting not long afterward and it was announced that the church would be starting a youth ministry and would be placing a young woman, who was trying to complete a degree in youth ministry, in charge of it. Since our pastor had repeatedly remarked that we would not be a “program church” and that that meant we would never have a youth ministry, we began to feel like we had been deceived.

While none of us knew this woman very well and certainly didn’t know whether or not we would want to have any of our children mentored by her, we were shocked that this was being brought before the congregation for support without any details of her philosophy of working with young people being shared with us. Several of us began to ask questions about what she believed about youth ministry, what goals she would have, what activities she wanted to be involved with, how she planned to include parents, and all the questions any good parent would want to know. We were met with disbelief that we would feel we even needed to know these things. Finally, someone moved that there be a committee established to explore the possibility of beginning a youth ministry and Clay and I were placed on that committee.

Subsequent meetings were not productive and it was apparent that battle lines had been drawn, with the homeschooling parents, who were now in the majority, on one side and everyone else on the other. Clay suggested that each family come back to the next meeting with their own philosophy of youth ministry prepared to hand out to everyone else so we could have an understanding of where everyone was coming from. I still believe this was helpful, though were we to write that philosophy today I am certain it would look quite different now that we are older and have been able to gain some perspective on life and ministry, an appreciation for the concerns and convictions of others, and a clearer picture of the mission of the true church as taught in scripture.

When we returned to the next meeting, we were the only ones who had come prepared with our own views in writing. In fact, the woman who was to be the youth leader had prepared nothing and was still unable to offer anything of substance. The discussion continued with the turning point in the meeting being when one of the mothers asked this very astute question: “Are we wanting to minister to youth from covenant families or to covenant families who have youth in them?” This simple insight clarified the difference between a family integrated perspective on high school age kids and the normal perspective you find in most traditional churches.

I wish I could say that that was the beginning of unity within the group and that we moved on, having better understood each other and that the conclusion was a dynamic family-oriented ministry involving young people and led by parents who were assisted by this young woman. Unfortunately, that meeting and that clear defining of the differences between the way homeschoolers think about raising teen-agers and the way that the traditional church approaches youth only served to further galvanize the differences. The relationships between those who homeschooled and those who didn’t became even more strained and as more homeschoolers continued to come into the church, a battle zone was soon firmly in place.

September 15, 2008 at 5:20 pm

The philosophy of youth ministry meeting, as I mentioned in part three of this series, did not solve the differences within the congregation regarding the proposed youth group but it did bring to the forefront all of the differences between the way the typical homeschooling family and other families approached the many aspects of raising children. As a result, the handful of families who were committed to public education for their children and who loved the idea of church programs felt more and more alienated. Homeschooling families were suspect any time they suggested doing anything at the church and everything began to reflect this tension.

One example of this was when the church building experienced water damage after a storm, requiring major reconstruction and we had to rent an empty school building for several months. This turn of events moved the church building program to the front burner and a new set of tensions that reflected the differences in family philosophy, as you can imagine, began to surface.

For years the church had owned 50 acres of land, most of it on the side of a hill and surrounded by beautiful woods. There were several hundred thousand dollars in the building fund and the big dream of a large sanctuary and educational wing was still in the hearts of long-time church members. An architect had been hired at one time and had drawn up plans that depicted everything from a soccer field to a retirement village on the property, which, because of the lay of the land, would require more than what was in the building fund just to prepare the current landscape to support the buildings.

Those in the congregation who had been around for a long time had caught the vision for this building and saw all the new families who were coming in as a reason to have better facilities, an educational wing, and there was even talk of a Christian school. They also saw us as the means to pay for their building.

Those of us who were new, which was nearly all homeschooling families, looked at the architectural drawings and saw a facility that certainly didn’t resemble the small country church that had drawn us in the first place. When several church members tried to sell us all on the idea of a Christian school, it showed us that they still didn’t understand our convictions about homeschooling.
One Sunday afternoon there was a meeting after church where one of the elders presented his perspective on how we could pay for the new building. Central to his plan was for all church members to consider selling their homes and downsizing, using the equity to fund the church building project. I was incredulous at this idea and could hardly believe what I was hearing. This man, an elder who was called to minister to and to serve his congregation, had absolutely no concept of the way of life for most of the families in his church.

When I looked at this same group, I saw half a dozen or so families with 3 or 4 pre-school age children and a stay-at-home mom, all already struggling to live on one income and all willing to open their homes to other babies. Some were even talking of adopting and knew the financial sacrifice that would involve. I saw other families, like ours, who had children in college and had a line-up of others behind them, all of us knowing that any extra income we had, had already been earmarked for their education. I saw two families, ours included, who had opened their homes to elderly parents and, as such, their living quarters were already feeling cramped. I knew, first hand, that when you homeschool, you use every available space in the house for books, school supplies, and even nooks and crannies where individuals can pursue their own hobbies and projects. I knew that, for most of us, inviting another family to your home for dinner and a time of fellowship required creativity and a willigness to be “cozy.”  At that point it really hit home to me how out of touch this church’s leadership was with the real lives of homeschoolers.

It was at this point, that several of us began to see what we thought might be a great solution for the congregation that could meet all the needs and even future ones as they presented themselves.

Every Sunday as we met together in the rental property, we began to see the potential that the building presented to us. We began to see how perfect this building would be for a church that was committed to equipping families in discipleship and for fellowship. We envisioned building a balcony above the gymnasium, for example, so parents had a place to take noisy toddlers to teach them how to worship. The school cafeteria, which opened on to the gym, was large and roomy, perfect for hosting fellowship dinners. There were several large classrooms that could be used to build a church library and a beautiful back lot that could be fenced in for a playground. The gym itself was perfect for not only worship but for any family fun nights or possibly homeschooling co-op activities, and even wedding receptions. The central location itself was ideal, just a few minutes away from the main interstate which nearly everyone used to come to church. And the best part was that the building could be purchased for cash and there would be enough money left over to do major remodeling without selling the 50 acres, which we suggested could be used as a family camp, opening it up to the entire denomination at some point in the future.

So several of us began to make the suggestion that we consider purchasing the rental property and you would have thought we were terrorists! Even the pastor, though he was fairly polite, had any number of reasons why this was a bad idea, none of them really making any sense at all. It was obvious that he would not be swayed from his vision for a church on the original property. The elders were divided on the idea, the homeschooling elders believing it was worth considering, the others seeing that they needed to push their building program ahead as quickly as possible, which is exactly what happened.

Finally, after many months, our church building was repaired and we moved back into it, any discussion about purchasing the rental property lost in the midst of serious problems that had surfaced among the church elders. Though it didn’t directly involve those of us in the congregation at large, it put the entire church into a state of paralysis.

Some of the issues were theological, some were personal preferences being treated as essential doctrines of the faith. But underlying the problems and contention was the negative attitude that continued to be held against homeschoolers, with left over bitterness about the youth ministry and frustration at the lack of enthusiasm for the building program often surfacing in comments. In fact, relationships had disintegrated to the point that the pastor told people that his problems would all be gone if all the homeschoolers left. Had this been a divorce, homeschoolers could have sued for alienation of affection.

During this time, homeschooling families began to trickle out of the church and any who happened to visit quickly sensed that they were unwelcome. Eventually, after several years, only a couple homeschooling families remained and those who did welcomed the new building program and even supported a Christian school where the parents were involved.

At this point, we had grown weary of not only the anti-homeschooling attitude but the direct attacks from the pulpit against those who held to convictions that were different than the elders’. Pro-homeschooling rhetoric that had drawn us to the church, anti-homeschooling rhetoric had driven us out.

We spent a year in another traditional church, basically trying to recover from what had been a terribly painful experience. It was at this point that we heard that several families we knew, including the author of the original brochure that had brought us to the previous church, wanted to begin a family integrated church so we decided to join them. We still have a picture of that first day we gathered for worship, 3 families standing in front of a rented American Legion hall, smiling children and hopeful adults. I don’t presume to know what thoughts went through the minds of everyone else that day, but I remember thinking that maybe we could have peace, at least for a while. And for a while, we did.

I might want to back up at this point and share a couple things about where Clay and I were theologically on that day. Both of us had grown up in American Baptist churches and had gone to an American Baptist college but had been greatly influenced by the writings of Francis Schaeffer and the preaching of John McArthur. We both embraced the doctrines of grace and had been members of a Presbyterian congregation but neither of us was convinced of the necessity of infant baptism, although we didn’t have an issue with babies being baptized. We had no preferences for worship style, the singing of hymns, psalms, or choruses, or any combination of them. We did want to feel the freedom to direct our own family’s spiritual training and education, free from the continual negative attitudes and statements we had experienced previously.

In retrospect, we probably should have had many more questions than we did about the direction the other families thought the church would be taking but we had been under the assumption that there would be freedom of conscience in these areas as well as others.

To begin with, we didn’t realize the amount of influence that the teachings of Vision Forum had on some of the families, including new ones that joined us. Many times someone would bring a tape by Doug Phillips and we listened to it after the noon fellowship dinner. When he was in town for a homeschooling convention, Phillips was asked to preach during our worship service, though it turned out to be an hour and a half talk on keeping daughters from losing the vision for multi-generational family life rather than an expository message. Many visitors came that day, several who later privately told us that they were horrified at the things he had said and certainly would never consider returning. We began to wonder if the church could grow if others had this same opinion.

We also came to understand that everyone in the church, except for our family, held to what is known as the Civil War as a Theological War theology. We began to hear phrases like “Abraham Lincoln was a wicked man. I hate him” and “Had the south only won the war, we would have had a truly Christian nation” and “the war wasn’t about slavery” At one men’s Bible study, one of the men commented “The Klan has done some good things,” referring to the KKK, leaving us dumbfounded. It wasn’t until later that we learned that some of the members had participated in wearing black face for a homeschool co-op production and we also began to see all of the racist teachings in books recommended by Vision Forum and the lauding of men like Confederate chaplain R. L. Dabney. A growing discomfort began to nag at us.

In the midst of this, we learned that a church planter from the Chicago area was interested in helping us grow our family integrated church and the offer was made to bring in a pastor who believed he was called to minister in a home discipleship church. After hearing him preach and getting to know his sweet family, we were thrilled to support his move to our area. And in the back of our minds, Clay and I felt that this influence would help to temper the patriocentric and pro-south leanings we were witnessing.

In a traditional church setting, the pastor’s presence and influence can set a tone, for good or for bad, that has far-reaching effects on everyone in the congregation. The same is true within the family integrated model church, in spite of the fact that most of these congregations are touted as being father-led or father-directed.

Depending on the polity of the individual church and the standards adopted by the denomination, if there is an affiliation with one, the expectations on the role of the pastor can be quite varied. So can the expectations of the local church leadership, especially as a new church is being established and when there are no “official” church officers.

In our first family integrated church experience, as I talked about yesterday, a pastor was brought in to an already organized congregation, one that was considered to be under the authority and care of an already established presbytery. However, because this presbytery was located 1000 miles away and the church, in all honesty, maintained its own autonomy, involvement with another denomination who saw us as a viable church plant seemed logical, especially given the fact that our church had initiated contact with and solicited assistance from a church in the Chicago area who wanted to plant a family integrated church locally. It appeared to be a win-win situation.

Since the church planter had spoken at a local homeschooling convention and had promoted the concept of family integrated church, our pastor had a list of contacts in the area. He opened his home to many on that list and we began to see visitors coming to the church every week. From the perspective that Clay and I had, it was encouraging because the people who came to visit were what we would categorize as “broadly evangelical,” mainstream Christian homeschool families. These were people who longed to have fellowship with other like-minded families and who desired to be encouraged in their home discipleship. There seemed to be less of a radical fringe-philosophy element.

And speaking of the phrase “home discipleship,” I would like to take a few minutes to talk about what that looks like in a family integrated church.

Clay and I both love the phrase and are big proponents of much of the home discipleship philosophy, having made this a regular part of our family life since our earliest days of homeschooling. Simply put, it is a model where families meet daily for family worship that includes reading the Bible, Scripture memory, prayer, and singing, with emphasis on teaching the great hymns of the faith, which also might include psalm singing, all led by dads.

Inviting other families to your home for fellowship and then sharing these practices is to be the means for growing your congregation and for opening the door to evangelism as you reach out to neighbors and unsaved loved ones.

Many FIC families then meet together for a monthly hymn sing and fellowship dinner where families can share the fruits of their Scripture memory efforts or musical abilities. I can’t begin to tell you what a blessing these evenings can be and what an encouragement it is to see so many precious children memorizing God’s word!

While it will naturally follow that these evenings take on the individual flavors of their particular congregation, we realized early on that the personal childhood experiences of the church planter who was involved with our group set the tone and example for many things that we did. His Dutch reformed heritage was one rich in home discipleship and it was a blessing to see how it influenced the entire ministry. While the principles in our own home had been the same, some of the particulars as he practiced them were foreign to us and we were certain that each family made their own adjustments as time went on, reflecting their own tastes and convictions.

But, as much unity as you would expect there would be among people who had similar goals for their families, there were still denominational and theological differences that needed to be addressed. Several of the men in the congregation had very strong convictions about certain things, including the use of the KJV Bible only, hymns and psalms used exclusively during worship, no overhead projector during worship, paedo-communion served by fathers, and one-household voting, excluding women from any decision making. The pastor and the church planter, on the other hand, preferred to use a more modern translation, wanted to include praise music, and the pastor preferred to use an overhead projector for his sermon outline, etc.

And then there was the problem of the church plant denomination and whether or not our church could really be a member of it. One of the men was being encouraged by long distance friends that this particular denomination was apostate because they allowed for women deacons and their denominational colleges had opened the discussion on how to deal with the issue of homosexuality. This translated into “if we go with this group, we will be known as the homosexual-woman church,” a phrase that sent me through the roof every time I heard it because it sent the message that choosing a homosexual lifestyle and the strong Biblical teaching that it is a sin somehow equates with being a woman, as though that is also sinful. While I would be certain that this man didn’t believe this to be true, this is just one example where the attitude that women are somehow lesser beings would repeatedly manifest itself.

These issues were unresolved until one of the men at the church decided that the solution would be to explore another option, that of bringing in another pastor. So he took it upon himself to write a letter to Phil Lancaster, one of the authors of the Basic Tenets of Patriarchy, asking him if he would consider coming to the area to pastor our church and, initially, Mr. Lancaster indicated that he would be open to the idea.

Though there were no elected or appointed elders at this point nor had Clay heard anything at all about this idea at any of the men’s meetings, it became obvious that this church, by this time a couple years old, was not really thought of as a part of the church planter’s efforts nor was it even a father-directed congregation. In fact, once again, we felt as though there had been a bait and switch, as we had experienced in that first church with the brochure.

But this time, we were really concerned not so much for ourselves but because our pastor had moved his family over 3600 miles to take this job, and we, as a church, had made a commitment to him and to the church planter to support him. And the truth was that the majority of families coming into the church weren’t interested in coming because of the regulated worship nor were they worried about any perceived concerns about the denomination. They simply wanted to be encouraged in their home discipleship efforts.

What happened next was amazing! The first church congregation who had come to disdain the influence of homeschoolers had now, in reality, become responsible for the planting of two family integrated churches, both made up entirely of homeschooling families!

In the last segment, I listed some of the differences that the church planter and the local pastor had with some of the men in the congregation regarding worship styles and denominational affiliation. These differences soon became central to the power struggle that was taking place in the church and once Phil Lancaster had been contacted, the pastor and church planter knew that they could no longer work with this congregation.

And Clay and I knew that we could not be a part of it any longer, either, since it signaled to us the patriocentric direction the church intended to take.

We also knew that the next step for our family would be a difficult one. On one hand, we had come to truly love the people in our congregation. But we also knew that remaining in this church would only delay the inevitable, especially if Phil Lancaster or any other patriocentric pastor were to be called. With much sadness but with full confidence that we were doing the right thing, we chose to join the church planter in his efforts to plant yet another family integrated church.

At this point, you have to understand that we were still experiencing some of the after-effects, both emotional and concrete, of the spiritual abuse from the past few years. I am not sure how Clay was feeling exactly but I know that I was battling a numbness, a flatness of feelings or emotions regarding this turn of events. I was glad that we could still participate in a family integrated church and that, as homeschoolers, we could be welcomed. I was relieved to know that we were not going to have to listen to all that pro-south rhetoric or that inane “homosexual-woman church” comment. But part of me was still not certain what I actually thought about how we were approaching “church.”

When we left the traditional church a few years before, there was still a breech between the leaders and our family. Over a period of months, Clay had challenged some of the over-the-top statements the pastor had made, to the point of filing a complaint with the presbytery. The first committee who heard his complaint agreed that the elders had not taught correct doctrine and that they had not treated us properly in the process and then gave them the opportunity to change their position. Rather than accepting the discipline from the denomination, the elders figured out a way to get around it by having the original complaint thrown out on a technicality, proving that our complaint had not been filed within the 30 days allowed. Our filing was 31 days after their decision had been made. Never having worked within this sort of system, we didn’t realize that there is a statute of limitations on righteousness.

When Clay filed an appeal, publicly he was told that they were really sorry, but this was the way the system works. Privately, several pastors and elders who were familiar with the situation confessed to us that both the system had failed us and that this was an elder board and pastor who were out of control and who needed help.

The end result for us was having the session announce that we had been “defacto excommunicated,” which made no sense to us or to many of the people who heard it announced from the pulpit. Two of the elders contacted us privately, one to tell us he wanted to come and visit us but who never did. The other one called me, saying that that he agreed that the pastor had been out of line but that he couldn’t do anything about it because the Bible says to “touch not God’s anointed.” He then proceeded to tell me that he had to believe that I was not even a born-again Christian because we wouldn’t go along with the pastor in spite of his false teachings. I remember getting off the phone that afternoon and weeping uncontrollably. A couple days later I providentially came across my baptismal certificate from 1963 and cried again, knowing the Lord had, in a very real way, reminded me that I was His child and no man could pluck me out of His hands.

When we first met the church planter, we told him our story and, after looking at his own denomination’s Book of Church Order and that of the former church, he welcomed us into membership in the mother church, again, providentially and unbeknown to us, on the very day of the “defacto excommunication.” We had been very open with everyone regarding what had happened, shared all of our paper trail with those who needed to see it, and had been assured that all that was behind us. Emotionally, as I said before, there was still residue but what we didn’t realize was that our past struggles weren’t as far behind us as we had thought and that the Lord would use them in a mighty way in our own spiritual lives.

Over the next few months, the new congregation slowly began to grow with new families visiting almost weekly and several deciding to stay. We soon outgrew the basement/garage of the pastor’s home and moved to a motel which was even further away for us, but we were happy to make the drive because we believed in what we were doing. Within a few months, we had the opportunity to purchase a small church building with the assistance of the church planter’s denomination. Clay worked with the other men to make the building suitable for our own needs, rewiring the sanctuary, painting, cleaning, and making it a warm, inviting place for adults and children.

As the months went by, two things began to happen. We really came to love and appreciate the wonderful families in our church and we enjoyed times of fellowship and friendship both in their homes and in ours. And adding to our situation was the fact that our daughter and her family had relocated to our area, bringing them into our church home, which was a special joy to us. Then, a series of events caused us to begin to look more critically at what we personally believed about what the mission of the church universal really is and whether or not what we were doing was fulfilling that mission.