Doug Phillips Sets the Standard for Family Integrated Church

A Good Idea At Risk Of Breeding Legalism

Among the other things that Doug Phillips promotes through The Vision Forum and Vision Forum Ministries is “Family Integrated Church.” Doug Phillips originally founded the “Uniting Church and Family,” a website and annual conference for training patriarchs to start their own churches, often home churches. This idea, which he originally “borrowed” from Eric Wallace’s book “Uniting Church and Home,” was initially headed up by John Thompson. The name was eventually changed to the National Center for Family Integrated Churches and is currently headed up by Doug’s friend, Scott Brown.

Just what is a family- or age-integrated church? What makes it different from a traditional church with age-segregated programs for adolescents, teens, college-age, adults, etc.? Is it a rejection of Sunday School and youth groups? Are family-integrated churches typically only for homeschoolers? Are they all the same? Is this a new denomination? Is Doug Phillips the new pope of this movement? Do you have to have a personal invitation to get in? And what in the world do you do at a family-integrated church, since there aren’t any programs?

Several of my commenters have asked me these and other questions. I’ve also been asked to write an article describing what the family-integrated church looks like. In order to adequately address all these questions, I’ll probably have to write more than one article. For this first article, I thought what I would do is describe two different family-integrated churches, based upon my own extensive personal experiences with them: Boerne Christian Assembly and Living Water Fellowship.

First, I’ll share my own personal experiences in the family-integrated church that we were members of for five years, Boerne Christian Assembly, pastored by Doug Phillips. Next I’ll share my experiences with Living Water Fellowship, pastored by Richard “Little Bear” Wheeler. The comment section is open for others to share their own experiences, both good and bad.

On the whole, I think that the family-integrated church movement started out as a good thing. I believe that it began with good intentions. One of the reasons it came about was that men like Doug Phillips wanted to address some of the deficiencies appearing in more traditional “programmatic” churches. However, over time, I’ve noticed a troubling trend in the family-integrated church movement. Much like “Patriarchy,” the FIC movement has often proven itself to be legalistic and divisive. I’ve heard numerous reports of it even causing church splits. I’ve also heard that there are smaller churches with limited facilities that embrace the FIC model simply because their limited facilities prevent their being able to have Sunday School classes and other church programs. So they call themselves “family-integrated” merely because that’s what they’ve always had to do anyway.

With this first article on the family-integrated church, however, I’ll limit myself to my personal experiences of what it was like being in an FIC. I have many fond memories of our time at BCA, and I hope that comes out in this article. However, I’ve also come to see that there were many problems, inconsistencies, and even hypocrisies, and that too will be discussed in this article.

The first issue I shall address is the impression that at least some FICs give that they’re not particularly open and welcoming of “outsiders.” Some have gotten the impression that in order to be welcome in an FIC, you first have to meet a certain set of criteria. The criteria may often include:

  • Homeschool only
  • Patriarchy
  • No women working outside the home
  • No daughters in college
  • Full-quiver
  • Dress code: women in dresses only (sometimes with headcoverings), men in suit and tie only
  • Courtship only

Those who don’t meet the criteria may be permitted to attend, at least for a time. However, they will often be made to feel that they don’t fit in, and that will also be reinforced from the teachings in the pulpit. They will be expected to conform. Image is very important in many FICs. I might also add to the list of criteria — “family only.” By this I mean that a divorced woman would probably be made to feel uncomfortable in many FICs, even if she had divorced for completely biblical reasons. Again, this is an “image” thing, and divorcees wouldn’t fit the image. Likewise, a college girl, especially if living away from home, wouldn’t fit the image.

Based upon my Doug Phillips’ story, and my prior descriptions of Boerne Christian Assembly, several people have gotten the impression that Boerne Christian Assembly is a “by invitation-only” church. That isn’t exactly the case, although I can certainly understand why so many people would have that impression. My own experience was such that I could not find out any information about BCA without a prior invitation. However, that doesn’t necessarily mean that BCA is by invitation only. Practically speaking though, if one of the BCA members doesn’t first extend an invitation to a prospective visitor, it’s highly unlikely that they would ever find their way to BCA at all.

Doug Phillips maintains an extensive list of family-integrated churches on his Vision Forum Ministries website, with a current figure of 524 churches listed there. However, you won’t find BCA nor any of the other churches in what we BCA members called “the community,” the four churches in the San Antonio area that had all come out of BCA, listed there. I always found it odd that Doug wouldn’t list his own church with an organization that he so strongly promotes. So unless you’re extended an invitation to attend, from a practical standpoint, it would make it nearly impossible to find BCA. Even BCA’s own web site provides no contact information or directions to the church. This is a very odd practice indeed for a church to have a web site with no contact information, or even a list of church officers. Indeed, the primary purpose of the BCA web site appears to be as a blog site for posting articles in response to my own articles. Doug Phillips himself told us that he wanted to keep BCA “small.” Failing to provide contact information is certainly a useful way of discouraging church growth.

As he speaks around the country, Doug Phillips often mentions the family-integrated church, and he implies that Boerne Christian Assembly is the “model” church for Vision Forum’s “Family Integrated Churches.” Most people find out about BCA because they hear Doug speak somewhere and find out that he also pastors a church. So they call or email Vision Forum to find out how they might attend BCA, or perhaps they already know someone who attends BCA and ask if they, too, can attend. With such a system in place, it would be easy for people to get the impression that BCA is a “by invitation only” church.

Upon arrival at BCA on a typical Sunday morning, after a lovely drive through the country, you will arrive at what looks like a Hollywood set for “Little House on the Prairie.” The tiny, white, country church has a huge grassy yard with several picnic tables under the oak trees. Across the street is a one room schoolhouse, which hasn’t been used for school for many years. Down the road is Little Joshua Creek, where we all went for baptisms, full immersion-style. Most men wear suits or sport coats. Most of the women wear very modest, long and full dresses. To visitors, it must seem as if they are stepping back in time.

As we’d arrive Sunday mornings, everyone is busy bringing their crockpots into the annex building in preparation for the “pot-providence” (we weren’t allowed to use certain words like “luck,” therefore no “potluck”) that would convene after the service. Many families drove an hour or more each Sunday, so it wasn’t uncommon to see a line forming at the outhouse prior to the church bell tolling at 10:30 a.m. Inside the church building, pews fill the very tiny room, from front to back, and wall to wall, with just enough room down the middle aisle to add a folding chair to the end of each row. Once you were in your pew you needed to plan on remaining there for the duration of the service, which generally lasted several hours (if not put on a schedule, Doug can be very long-winded). So if you needed to get up for any reason, it could prove to be quite a challenge squeezing through the tightly-packed pews. Each family was jammed very tightly into a pew. Large families are common at BCA, so some families took up two full pews. Tightly packed, the church holds about 125 people.

Church services at BCA usually began with about 30 minutes of singing hymns. We would often have several homeschooled young people playing instruments such as flutes, violins, or other stringed instruments. We always had a piano player and some of them were quite good. Three different men took turns leading the worship time. One young man, fresh out of Bill Gothard’s ATI and Alert, would give us the history of at least one hymn we sang each week. Another man, when he was leading worship, would pick one hymn each week to ask the men for biblical support for what was found in the lyrics. The men were on the spot to find Bible verses on the spur of the moment, as they never knew which hymn he would ask for verses for. After a while, I found myself really searching the text of each hymn, wondering what verses this hymn came from. We would usually sing one psalm from the psalter as well. Sometimes Doug Phillips would then lead us in singing Psalm 100, Puritan-style. He would sing a line and we would repeat it back to him. It was really old-fashioned, but I loved that part. Worship was a time of great joy at BCA, as everyone fully participated and sang with their whole heart.

We would have a short announcement time afterward, and it always began with, “We believe in a plurality of elders.” I could never understand that part since we only had one elder for several years, Doug Phillips, and even Doug was only in attendance about once a month at that time. As time went on we saw even less of him. Then we introduced our guests or, should I say, the men introduced the guests.

The men took turns giving the sermon. For most of the time I was at BCA from 2000 until the beginning of 2005, we heard expository preaching through I and II Samuel, I and II Kings, and I and II Chronicles. If Doug was preaching, he might preach on the current topic he was wanting to promote at Vision Forum. They recorded those sermons and then they were sold through Vision Forum. All sermons were recorded free for church members. Depending on who was preaching, the sermon was generally one to two hours in length, followed by up to an hour for the “discussion of the men.” This was my favorite time, even though I wasn’t allowed to participate. The men were allowed to ask questions of the preacher regarding the sermon. Charity was stressed at all times, so if a point of disagreement came up, it was expected that it be handled in a gentlemanly fashion.

For several years, “discussion of the men” was a great time of iron sharpening iron; but around the time of the 2004 elections, the atmosphere of this discussion began to change into a mutual self-admiration club, with the men generally just congratulating one another on a great sermon. This deterioration was a great disappointment to me. It seemed that this small amount of accountability was losing ground. This discussion time was also open for the men to bring up any other subject they wanted to discuss, although this didn’t happen very often. It was also an opportunity for the men to share what they learned from God’s Word that week, what they taught their families during family worship time, or to share a hymn or read some Scripture. Doug strongly encouraged these aspects of the men’s discussion time, but they rarely had anything of this sort to share.

Next came the Lord’s Supper, preceded by the second sermon of the day. One of the men would talk about some aspect of communion, generally lasting about fifteen minutes in length. Communion was limited to those who had been baptized as believers, full immersion-style. Sometimes the men passed the elements down each row, but later on, the fathers usually went forward and got communion for their whole family. The grape juice was served in medium-sized Dixie cups that the whole family could share. The men would take a chunk of matzoh to share with their family as well. It was left up to the men to decide who takes communion in their family. If the father was absent or if a woman didn’t have a husband, one of her sons could bring her communion, even if the boy hadn’t been baptized and wasn’t old enough to take communion himself. If there were no males in the family, one of the deacons would serve the woman communion. If you were not participating in taking communion, it was quite obvious to the whole congregation.

The following hour was for prayer requests and prayer. Every person in every family (except Doug Phillips) came to church almost every single Sunday, unless they were sick or out of town, so this was a time for everyone to get know each family a little better. We knew details of every sickness, updates on difficult situations, and prayed for many outside the congregation as well. This was often a time of just reporting on how God was Providential in our lives that week. Again, the men (and boys) were allowed to speak during the prayer request time. If a woman had a prayer request, she could write it down and give it to another man to read. Then the men all took turns praying for all the requests. The service ended with the Doxology.

There was an annex building next door to the church where all the women would immediately gravitate to get the “pot providence” lunch ready. Visitors were allowed to go first and everyone went through the line as families. There were several picnic tables set up outside (the weather in Texas is nice enough to eat outside almost year round) which were built by some of the boys. There were several tables set up inside as well. Some families ate together, but many didn’t. This was a time when many of the young ladies would take other ladies’ babies and take care of them and feed them, if need be, for the rest of the day. Some mothers wanted a day off and they were glad for the help. Some mothers, however, wanted their older children to take care of the younger children, so the moms could have a day off as well. I thought my children worked hard all week and deserved a day off, so I chose to take care of Alicia, my youngest, myself. My daughter Natasha took care of Honor Phillips nearly every Sunday for three years.

After eating, the children would mostly play outside for the rest of the day. Balls and sports were not allowed on the Sabbath, so the children had to be creative in how they used their time. They made up games and sometimes would bring activities to do together. Some of the young ladies would read books to the younger children or just hang out with the children, trying to keep some kind of order. The adults and other young people would mostly fellowship for the rest of the day. Women were strongly discouraged from discussing theology with men at BCA, although I often did with those men who were willing to do so. While the men would often discuss theology and points of doctrine, the women usually talked about sewing and cooking and child training, when we weren’t talking about how to be more submissive. It was sometimes frustrating to me that the women didn’t even want to talk about homeschooling methods. I almost never felt challenged or stimulated in my thinking during these fellowship times. I usually felt as if I had to park my brain on Sundays. We often wouldn’t leave church until around 5 p.m. Before leaving, we would all pitch in and help clean up.

For a couple years, however, we were given one hour to eat and clean up and then we would separate into a men’s meeting and a ladies’ meeting. The children were free to join us or continue playing, unsupervised. I don’t really know what the men did, other than talk about Scripture and church business. The women would discuss making plans to take meals to those who needed them. However, we also had to first obtain our husband’s permission, so quite often our meal planning didn’t get very far. We would sign up for various clean up duties. Then we would usually talk about how to be a Titus 2 woman or a submissive wife. No matter what the topic was, that was always the angle. We studied Titus 2, word by word. We talked about how “non-normative” Abigail and Deborah and other women in the Bible were. Sometimes women would read passages from books such as “The Excellent Wife.”

Since there was an apparent lack of hospitality among church members during the week (we certainly experienced this), we studied a hospitality book. After we finished the book, we didn’t seem to have much more hospitality than we had before. It wasn’t that hospitality never happened at BCA; it did — a lot — if you were in the right circles. There were certain families that fellowshipped with one another on a regular basis, like we did with the Shorts. But there were other families who never got invited to other members’ homes. If you wanted to eat with the Phillips, you had to be in their inner circle. During the week, however, the women and children often got together for homeschool-type activities and fellowship. Some of these were formal groups and co-ops, but often we just got together with friends.

We did have lots of group activities, however, where everyone was invited. While these do count as showing hospitality and having fellowship, it’s not the same as having just one other family other for dinner. We had lots of baby showers, we had big Fourth of July events, we got together for big events at Doug’s home, often revolving around special visitors. Some people have remarked that some of the events at Doug’s home for his VIPs were just a way of showing off.

A couple events that I especially remember were the “Dinosaur Party,” where Doug showed a National Geographic film about dinosaurs, pausing every few seconds to ask questions such as “Were you there? How do you know what color the dinosaur was? Did you see it change from a bird to a dinosaur?” etc. This picture to the left is when the men got together at the beginning of the year to read the Bible for a whole day. That is my son, Joshua, taking his turn at reading. We had a big party with the DeRosas after they had worked on the Allosaur skull for a while. We had a big party when the Guenther family came to visit from Germany. They talked to us about how extremely difficult it is to homeschool in Germany, legally or otherwise. They worked with HSLDA to set up a kind of legal foundation to help homeschoolers in Germany. As long as Doug hosted these events, nearly the whole church attended.

The Epstein family liked to celebrate the biblical Feasts at that time, and we also invited the whole church several times a year for these Feasts. Everyone came at least once, except the Phillips family. BCA has very much a “not invented here” mentality. Having a successful event meant that you either had to be Doug Phillips, or you had to be part of Doug Phillips’ inner circle. If Doug didn’t come up with the idea, or if Doug didn’t personally endorse the idea, the event generally wasn’t much of a success.

“Family integrated” means keeping families together for the duration of the service. This makes for some interesting challenges now and then. Each family did this differently. Some families worked hard at training their children to sit still for the three to four hour service each week. Others chose to take their children out if they got noisy. This usually took two different forms. Sometimes the mothers would take their babies or young children next door to the annex to feed them or just let them play. Sometimes the older children would take their siblings next door as well. There was no way to hear the sermon while over there, so the women would often sit around and chat while the children played or ate. This was not considered or called a “nursery,” as family-integrated churches don’t have nurseries. And then there were the families that just gave their babies and young children to other people to take care of for them during the service. Beall Phillips, for instance, gave Honor to Natasha to take care of, not just during the service, but for the whole day every Sunday. I used this as an opportunity to teach Natasha how to train babies and toddlers. Honor was a very well-behaved baby while he was in Natasha’s care and we trained him to sit quietly throughout the service.

Family integrated churches are opposed to church “programs,” “age segregation,” and “dividing families.” “Family integrated” implies keeping the family together for the Sunday morning worship service, as well as other church functions. But practically speaking that isn’t often the case, as we experienced at BCA. It was quite common that husbands were divided from wives, such as the “men’s meeting” and “ladies’ meeting.” Children were also often divided from their parents, especially if they couldn’t remain still and quiet throughout a three to four hour service; and the reality is that there are very few babies and toddlers that can. So they would be taken out of the service, often to be taken care of by members of other families. BCA didn’t have an official “nursery” with officially designated “nursery workers.” But practically speaking, if you walked over to the annex building any Sunday, that’s what you saw.

Although there were no rules for being a part of BCA, per se, it was the unwritten rules that were the invisible foundation. It was not a requirement to homeschool, but homeschooling was preached from the pulpit nearly every Sunday. If you didn’t homeschool, you would have felt very uncomfortable at BCA. It was not a requirement for women to never work outside the home, but being a keeper at home was constantly talked about, both formally and informally. If you worked outside the home you would have been made to feel very uncomfortable at BCA (the one exception was that some of the women were permitted to work at Vision Forum, although they apparently were never “hired”). There were no rules about what to wear, but if you are a lady and you don’t wear long, full dresses, you are going to feel terribly out of place. If you visit more than once and you aren’t wearing prairie-muffin dresses, there is at least one woman who will take you aside to teach you how to dress “appropriately.”

There were no rules about how you spent your time during the week or what kinds of activities you participated in, but most families did not participate in any activities outside of BCA-sponsored activities. Our family participated in community activities on a very regular basis and we were always disappointed that others from BCA did not enjoy these activities as well. The unwritten rules even extended to certain words that were not allowed, such as “luck” (as in potluck) and “deviled eggs” (they should be “angel eggs”). As one visitor recently put it, and as I heard from several visitors, “We only visited there one time and felt such an oppression that we knew we had to flee.”

BCA does not have church membership, but they do have a covenant, which in some ways is even more binding than traditional church membership. This covenant was not in place until BCA was about three years old. At that time, the men got together to study the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith, which they had to agree with before they could sign the covenant. On Covenant Sunday, Doug preached a message on why covenants were biblical. While we can all agree that covenants are indeed biblical, many people did not see that God was telling us to covenant with one another in that way as a church body and many families left that Sunday. Those men who agreed to sign the covenant all came up to front, one by one, and signed a large scroll-like document with the written covenant at the top and lots of blank space for all the men’s signatures at the bottom, similar to the Declaration of Independence. The man’s signature bound the whole family, although the wives didn’t even know what the beliefs of the church were, unless their husbands chose to share that with them. The women weren’t permitted to read the Covenant, although Doug did read it to the whole congregation. This is consistent with Doug’s view that women shouldn’t be permitted to vote. They were just expected to go along with whatever their husbands decided, even though they may not be permitted to even know the details of what their husbands determined for the entire family.

There are lots of young singles at BCA. Most of these twenty-somethings still live with their parents. A number of young men work at Vision Forum. Some live with other families and some live on their own. When a young lady was asked, “What do you do?”, every young lady was expected to answer, “I serve my father.” What that means in real life is that she lived at home, and cooked, cleaned, and helped with child care, either for her own family or for another family with lots of young children. It was considered quite prestigious to especially be able to do this for the Phillips family. While young men were allowed to work, most of them either worked at home, with their fathers, or for Doug Phillips. Getting a college education for a young man meant doing it by correspondence or through distance learning. None of the young men actually attended college. With approximately 125 people at BCA, about thirty or so were of marriageable age. Yet, weddings were few and far between. Courtship was emphasized and often talked about at BCA. Yet in spite the numerous eligible singles, we never saw much in the way of courtship happening. Perhaps it wasn’t encouraged enough in a practical way because the young ladies were considered too much of a valuable commodity in taking care of other people’s children?

Most people in the church were what we would call “like-minded.” We had the same doctrine, the same lifestyle, the same values, the same convictions. We spent lots of time together, not only on Sundays, but often throughout the week, in various church activities. So with so many eligible young people, we would have expected lots of weddings to take place. But, sadly, there were very few. In the five years we were at BCA, with an attendance peaking at 250 when BCA was about three years old, there was only one wedding within the church and only a couple more who married someone outside the church. Year after year, these young people continue to remain single. Why? Are their personal standards too high?

BCA was a legalistic environment. I have noticed with legalists that when we start with what we perceive to be a “biblical principle,” that principle tends to grow into a “biblical conviction” over time. That conviction grows until it reaches the level of “sin” if not followed exactly. At this point, the details of this conviction begin to become more and more defined, until what started as a good principle is now a long list of dos and don’ts. I have watched this process happen with many young people as well, with the detailed list of rules becoming very prevalent in their lives at an extremely young age. As they grow, they become unwilling to change at all. They are unwilling to make different choices in life in order to accommodate a potential spouse. The list of requirements becomes so extremely tight that it is nearly impossible to find a suitable mate. So we continued to see large numbers of single young people at BCA, year after year, with the number growing each year with more reaching marriageable age than those getting married each year. I still believe that courtship is much “safer” than what so many young people encounter in the dating scene. However, I do have to wonder why, if it’s a “biblical principle,” it isn’t working out any better in a church pastored by one of its leading promoters.

Not all family-integrated churches are alike, however, just as there are many differences among all other types of churches. Even in our like-minded “community” of churches that were all off-shoots of BCA, there are many differences. Since we attended Living Water Fellowship for a while as well, this is a good church to show some of the many differences.

LWF is much more “contemporary,” particularly in its liturgy and form of worship. After we all brought food in for the potluck afterward (and yes, we were free to call it a “potluck”), we began with about 30 minutes of electric guitars and drums and contemporary Christian music. Many of the women and children also participated in a circle of Davidic dance in the back of the school gymnasium, where we met for services. Men were invited to participate, but most were reluctant to do so. Davidic dance is a form of dance that is supposedly patterned after how the Israelites in the Bible, such as Miriam and David, danced to the Lord.

LWF did not have a set pattern of worship after this. There were always announcements, sometimes of classes or Bible studies or prayer times, many of which were often for certain ages or men or women only, or just for couples. They weren’t as concerned about always keeping the family together all the time. Sometimes, Little Bear Wheeler or one of the elders would give a testimony of something God had done in their life that week. Sometimes, other members would have an opportunity to talk about something God was doing in their lives as well. This was not a random testimony time, but usually was planned ahead of time. There were also times when Little Bear would ask someone to speak about something in particular on the spur of the moment, such as when he asked Mark to speak about how God was dealing with his anger. Both men and women were allowed to speak during this time. This did not happen every Sunday, but it did happen often.

Usually, one of the four elders would then give a sermon (LWF believed in and practiced a true plurality of elders). Sometimes it was topical, sometimes it was expository. Little Bear often used video clips or Power Point to embellish his sermons. We also had many guest preachers/missionaries, something which was almost non-existent at BCA. Communion was once a month at LWF, while it was every Sunday at BCA. It was very short and sweet, with each person being served a pre-packaged communion cup of grape juice with a little wafer in a plastic package as the lid for the cup. Everyone was able to decide for themselves if they wanted to take communion. Baptisms took place in the swimming pool at the home next door, which belonged to one of the attendees. I don’t remember any occasion for sharing prayer requests; I think the elders would just announce if there were any needs, which they also list on their website. They did announce prayer requests via email as well. We ended with a short prayer time and another song before getting the potluck lunch prepared.

Since LWF meets in a large gymnasium, there was plenty of room in the back for moms with noisy children or babies. You would often see moms pushing strollers around in the back during the sermon or maybe nursing their babies, but they were always able to listen to the sermon. We were also able to use the school lunch tables for eating our Sunday lunch, so everyone helped put away all the folding chairs from the service and set up everything for lunch. We tried to leave one end of the gym open for the kids to play basketball when they were done eating. It wasn’t unusual to have a ball come flying through your plate at lunchtime! And it soon became quite noisy with approximately 200 people all eating and talking and playing ball. Sometimes, the older girls would organize activities for the younger children. I remember that all the children got together one Sunday and made homemade Mother’s Day cards for all the moms. Some of the young ladies helped the little ones and my disabled daughter make cards as well. There were buckets of toys for the children to play with and there were always children practicing “Heart and Soul” on the piano to add to the delightful cacophony amidst hours of fellowship.

LWF does not believe in membership or signing church covenants. There is no statement of faith that I am aware of. In fact, although at least two of the elders are ordained, one with the Assemblies of God denomination, they don’t have a set of doctrines that I know of. The teaching leans heavily toward Arminianism and dispensationalism. Some families claim to be Reformed; however, I have some doubts that they even understand what “Reformed” means. Although there are many like-minded people at LWF, practicing things like homeschooling and affirming stay-at-home moms, there never seemed to be an emphasis on it. It is just something that most of us naturally did, but not something that we felt obligated by the elders to do, or that we even frequently talked about, the way we did at BCA. It’s entirely possible that there were some who did not homeschool and that there were some women who worked outside the home, at least part-time. College was never frowned on, for either girls or boys. Large families (”full-quiver”) were not idolized, as they were at BCA. Dress was varied. There were just as many women who came to church in jeans and t-shirts as those who wore “modest” dresses. There was no dress code and, for the most part, dress was not an issue.

The four elders made it a point to “smell like the sheep.” I would spend time talking with, and even eating with at least one, if not more, of the four elders and their wives, on any given Sunday. The elders made themselves available. The elders didn’t act like anyone special. They spent time greeting and fellowshipping with everyone who came to LWF. I remember one Sunday when I was sitting at a table with the elders and deacons and a couple other women. We were all discussing theology. I remember even openly disagreeing with their position, but they didn’t condemn me or make me feel uncomfortable for doing so. It was such a joy to be included in meaningful discussions — and with men no less! LWF seemed more “Complementarian” rather than Patriarchal.

These elders were also available day or night. Little Bear and Al both called Mark nearly every single day while we attended there. When there were serious problems, I could call those men even in the middle of the night. I remember one occasion when I was in much fear at home. I called Al (Little Bear was out of town) and he told us to come over in an hour. When we arrived at around 8 p.m., the other elders and their wives were there as well, all prepared to help us, with only an hour’s notice. They stayed with us until midnight that night. They also immediately got us into marriage counseling, with two elders and their wives and another couple who was trained in marriage counseling, meeting with us and another couple every week at Little Bear’s home.

Relationships were a little different at LWF as well. Men and women and children of all ages were able to mingle freely and fellowship with one another. The youth, however, naturally gravitated toward one another, and although there was not an official “youth” group, they definitely hung out together on Sundays, much the way that kids would at any regular church, complete with all the typical bickerings and jealousies. Even though LWF holds itself out as a family-integrated church, in many ways LWF was just a “regular” church, where just about anyone would feel welcome. LWF lacked any of the legalism that we experienced at BCA.

BCA and LWF represent for me two different extremes of the family-integrated church movement. The one was legalistic, authoritarian, and all about image. The other was about grace, with caring and nurturing shepherds, and not at all concerned about image. Looking back on it now, it seems very odd that these two very different churches could be in “community” with one another, especially considering the two very different theologies represented as well.

One of my concerns with the family-integrated church movement is that there are probably far too many of the legalistic churches involved, and too few of the “grace” churches. In fact, by its very nature, the family-integrated church movement tends to attract the former, and the NCFIC’s own Biblical Confession for Uniting Church and Family is representative of that. The “Confession” is judgmental and condemning of non-FICs. In my next article on the family-integrated church, I hope to address some of those issues.

527 Responses to “Doug Phillips Sets the Standard for Family Integrated Church”

  1. CG Says:

    Jen-
    I am sorry to say that I believe your description of Doug’s church mainly because those are the same experiences and impressions we got when we attended three of Vision Forum’s conferences. Since we didn’t look EXACTLY like the “inner circle” of families there (I don’t have long enough hair, and we just don’t have “the look”, even though we looked very nice and dressed very conservatively!!), we felt very uncomfortable in the conferences we attended, even though we really had looked forward to being there. We like Doug Phillips overall, and have benefitted from a lot of his teaching, but I agree that there really is a heavy oppressiveness that exists in his events. I didn’t think that there was an atmosphere of warmth and love as much as there was an atmosphere of everyone being extremely uptight, afraid that they would say or do something that might bring a stern rebuke. And honestly, I am not just parroting what you said, because these are the impressions we have had at all the conferences, but especially at the last one we attended. I was surprised at how aloof he seemed to people in general, and was really disappointed in that since so many families traveled SO far to come to these conferences, and he is one of the main reasons that they come! I did not once see him mingle with any of the families that came, or try in any way to greet people or get to know them even a little bit. Even a friendly handshake and a “hello” would have been nice, but he comes in, surrounded by his young interns, and leaves the same way, with almost no interaction with anyone. One thing that has always bothered me, too, is that after each conference event, when Doug posts pictures of the event, the photos are almost ALWAYS of very pretty, young girls, or of someone who is famous or “important” in some way. Having been to the event, I always felt like his photos misrepresented the majority of people who were at the event. There are almost NEVER any pictures of what I would call “regular” people. He seems to want very badly to portray only one certain “look” for his events and ministry. And while I understand that his purpose in these photos is to inspire people to set standards of lovliness and wholesomeness/purity in their own lives and families, the way that it comes across is that you have to either look a certain way or be somebody pretty important, or you really aren’t worth much notice. And like you mentioned for his church, the conferences have no nursery facilities of any sort whatsoever. I was stunned at this. Here he is, preaching on the blessings of large families, with many children, and yet I felt like his conferences were some of the most non-child friendly events I have EVER been to. We traveled over 1,000 miles to go to the last conference, and I was frankly shocked at how there was NO accomodation made for mothers with small children. I saw MANY mothers trying to drag chairs into the bathrooms to nurse their babies in private (me included!), and saw many more basically just sitting out in the foyer, watching the little ones, because there was no where else to take them, and missing most of the conference as a result. I was really surprised that there was not some kind of nursery room where mothers could go and let their children play or nurse their babies while watching and listening to a live video feed of the session. I guess all this to say that for a man who claims to love families and children, we felt like mothers, babies and toddlers got pretty poor treatment at all the events we have attended. I guess that’s why your description of the church services rang so true; we experienced much of the same stuff at the conferences we attended. All of this makes me very sad as I write it. Do you think that Doug intentionally sets out to make people feel this way, or is his treatment of people both at church and at the conferences just a reflection of a man trying to find his way through all the “fame” that has come to him in a relatively short period of time?

  2. Hutch Says:

    Jen-

    Great article! It is very helpful to read about your real life experiences at BCA. I had a number of assumptions about Doug Phillips and BCA prior to reading this; your article really helps to clarify what is going on. BCA really does seem to be a promotional “tool” or “laboratory” for Doug’s business Vision Forum. You mentioned how infrequently Doug was in attendance at BCA due to his speaking schedule and business demands. It sure seems interesting that most men in that movement would have a “stern talking to” if they missed “church” so often. The amazing thing is that you did not distinguish this pattern of attendance as not happening even when Doug was the only elder! Wow, Filmmaker, Archaeologist, Business Owner, Attorney, Christian Celebrity Public Speaker and sole elder of a church created and designed to test his tenets of Patriarchy and to promote his “Vision” of a past that never existed! Being an elder at a church is a sacred trust that men who hold that office must give an account for!

    What motivates Doug Phillips is very apparent as Cindy said:

    I thought this was a good quote.

    “There is no way of proving your point to someone whose income or position depends on believing the contrary. ~Sidney Harris, “Pieces of Eight””

    Jen & Mark-

    It is just clear that you did not fit into Doug’s aggenda, you did not benefit his “Vision” you were inconvenient and expendable. Actually loving people and truly ministering to their needs is just far to much trouble for a man like Doug.

    5 For this reason I left you in Crete, that you would set in order what remains and appoint elders in every city as I directed you,
    6 namely, if any man is above reproach, the husband of one wife, having children who believe, not accused of dissipation or drebellion.
    7 For the overseer must be above reproach as God’s steward, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not addicted to wine, not pugnacious, not fond of sordid gain,
    8 but hospitable, loving what is good, sensible, just, devout, self-controlled,
    9 holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, so that he will be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict.
    10 For there are many rebellious men, empty talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision,
    11 who must be silenced because they are upsetting whole families, teaching things they should not teach for the sake of sordid gain.
    12 One of themselves, a prophet of their own, said, “Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.”
    13 This testimony is true. For this reason reprove them severely so that they may be sound in the faith,
    14 not paying attention to Jewish myths and commandments of men who turn away from the truth.
    15 To the pure, all things are pure; but to those who are defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure, but both their mind and their conscience are defiled.
    16 They profess to know God, but by their deeds they deny Him, being detestable and disobedient and worthless for any good deed.-Titus 1:5-16.

    Doug Phillips is a rebellious men an empty talker and deceiver who must be silenced because he is upsetting whole families, teaching things he should not teach for the sake of sordid gain.

    For this reason reprove him severely so that he may be sound in the faith, not paying attention to commandments of men.

    He professes to know God, but by his deeds he denys Him, being detestable and disobedient and worthless for any good deed.

  3. Morgan Farmer Says:

    Jen Wrote:
    If the father was absent or if a woman didn’t have a husband, one of her sons could bring her communion, even if the boy hadn’t been baptized and wasn’t old enough to take communion himself.

    Oh Jen..this is wrong…this is SO wrong….SO wrong….

    I experienced this myself in a church of christ setting (an anti church group). I was so angry…and of course I could not speak to anyone about it….because I am a woman…..the fact that little children are by the virtue of their genital configurations given superior status over their mothers is probably the one thing that angers me the most. This teaches children that their mothers are useless and have no authority in the home.

    I have seen the results of this practice and they are not pretty…mothers wondering why their small sons will not obey them at home….well DUH!!!!! The church (I use the term lightly when referring to these dens of legalistic insanity) is telling the children that their moms are pretty much useless and worthless!!!!

    This is SO ISLAMIC!!!!!!!

    Jen this was an absolute SUPER article. Girlfriend…keep up the good work…we have your back.

    Best, Morgan

  4. Jen Says:

    At 10:05 Central time this morning, Don Veinot, of MCOI, is going to be on Moody radio’s “Circle of Friends” talking about Patriarchy. This is a live call in radio show and the number to call is 312-274-9624. There will also be a testimony from someone who came out of a Patriarchal church at 10:40 a.m. To listen online, go here and click on “listen live.”

  5. Hutch Says:

    Jen-

    How much free child care and housework do Doug and his wife receive from the services of members of BCA? How much free labor does Doug receive at Vision Forum from members of BCA?

    This church planting and “Christian Celebrity” status sounds like a great deal for Doug! It sure seems like he and his wife’s load is a lot lighter than the average large family who actually has to take care of their own children full-time, clean their own homes and actually pay their employees!

    Another benchmark of a cult.

    Maybe he interprets: “The workman is worth his wage” to mean that women certainly are not worth their wage?

  6. Jen Says:

    CG: “Do you think that Doug intentionally sets out to make people feel this way, or is his treatment of people both at church and at the conferences just a reflection of a man trying to find his way through all the “fame” that has come to him in a relatively short period of time?”

    CG, although I am very sad to hear that your experiences with Doug validate this article, it is good to hear that I wasn’t just being hyper-sensitive. I tried extremely hard to be excruciatingly accurate in my descriptions here. It’s certainly not necessary to exaggerate any when the truth is just as chilling. And that has always been my attempted standard for all that I write here.

    CG, I don’t think that Doug does this on purpose. My guess is that this “fame” does have a lot to do with it. He used to be much nicer. He used to spend time with people. There are lots of details I left out in this article, but I’ll cover them in the comments here and there. Doug used to stay for the fellowship time every Sunday, eating with others and talking with others. Over time, the amount of time he spent with people grew less and less. When church was at his home, he would just go take a nap after lunch, while everyone else stayed and fellowshipped at his home. During the last year I was at BCA, I could probably count on one hand the number of times Doug stayed for fellowship after church, and even then it was a big show, making sure that he greeted every person at church, but only long enough for him to say something, and rarely giving us peons the chance to reply back.

    For the other Sundays, he would usually show up just as church was beginning and often left before the service was over, usually in the middle of prayer time. It seemed to me that he was just trying to avoid talking to people.

    I think that in public, however, he is just “too good” for regular people any more. He sets up times where he is available to greet his public, very limited times, and outside of that, his bodyguards protect him from his admirers. That makes him feel important, I’m sure. It is very sad. If he only realized how much more of an impact he could have if he were just real.

    Hutch: “You mentioned how infrequently Doug was in attendance at BCA due to his speaking schedule and business demands.”

    Hutch, when I was there, Doug showed up about once a month. By the next year, that average was down to once every two months because his speaking engagements increased. If you look at his speaking engagements now, though, he should be able to attend church more often. Maybe that’s a good thing.

    This was another difference between Doug and Little Bear. Little Bear speaks just as often as Doug does, and he speaks in the same circles and the same types of conferences, sometimes the exact same conferences. But Little Bear shows up for church nearly every Sunday morning. I remember some Sundays when he would come in a few minutes late because he had just driven in from the airport. Little Bear always makes an effort to get to church on Sunday mornings.

    Morgan: “Jen this was an absolute SUPER article. Girlfriend…keep up the good work…we have your back.”

    Morgan, thanks so much. This was originally intended to be a filler article, since I didn’t feel up to writing anything serious. It turned out better than I anticipated! I hope it will help to flesh some things out for my readers.

  7. Hutch Says:

    Morgan-

    You are absolutely right. Very good points indeed.

  8. Jen Says:

    Hutch: “How much free child care and housework do Doug and his wife receive from the services of members of BCA? How much free labor does Doug receive at Vision Forum from members of BCA?”

    Hutch, although I think it varies from week to week, on average, there are one to three people at the Phillips’ home all day every day, taking care of the children, cleaning, helping with whatever Beall wants done, or doing yardwork. At least, this was the average a couple years ago.

    I don’t know if Doug pays all those women who work at Vision Forum or not, but there are several female family members who work there on a given day.

    What is even more interesting, though, is the amount of free help he receives when he puts on these expensive conferences. He may have dozens of free workers at these conferences, especially when they are local conferences here.

  9. Concerned Says:

    Jen,

    Does BCA participate in any evangelistic efforts as a Church or any outreach to the poor?

    Do they support or send out any missionaries?

    It occurs to me that those in this movement use Mothers as the backbone ..child bearing, nursing, helpmeeting, hsing, homekeeping, etc.. while not ever giving them time to feast at grow at Jesus’ feet. If the men were truly servant leaders pershaps they would take the children out so the mother could enjoy corporate worship.

    There are no VF conferences that I am of aware of for a mother to be recharged or encouraged in their calling.

    I met Michael Pearl once at a hs event, and he looked me in the eye and said not hello or how are you but “Where are your husband and children?” My husband had sent me to a conference w/o him and children. He truly is a man after Jesus’ own heart.

  10. Hutch Says:

    To be fair, I should have said pay “all” of his employees.

  11. kg Says:

    My experience is sort of the opposite of what is commonly described here. Here is my story, in brief:

    My family and I attended a garden-variety “evanglical” (baptistic in praxis) church for a number of years. It had lots of programs for all ages, singles groups, middle school groups, high school and college groups, etc.

    (this was in the 1980s-early 90s time frame)

    When we went to church, we were all split up into our age-defined groups and we wouldn’t see each other until it was time to go home. And all the while proclaiming our allegience to “family values.” This struck me as odd. I thought there had to be a better way, but I didn’t know what to do. I didn’t take my concerns to the church leadership, because having all of these programs was such an accepted way of doing things that I thought they would think I was nuts to even question it. Plus, I didn’t want to cause a big stink, even though I thought some of the groups were quite worldly. By that I mean they tried to look cool and hip for the kids, only they would go not quite as far as what you would find outside the church in music, dress, activities, etc. In other words, they looked like the world, only toned down a bit for Christian consumption, and this irritated me more and more, and I didn’t want my kids to be part of anything like this. I wanted then to learn the faith and theology and there was precious little of any of that that I could see in the youth group programs.

    I read a pamphlet called “Critique of Youth Ministries” (I think it was from Canon Press) and learned how all these things I had questions about were really modern inventions, and that made sense. It was impressed upon me that it was my responsibility as a father to teach my children the faith, so we started having family devotions in the evenings several times a week.

    My wife and I started keeping our kids with us in church and not sending them off to wherever. Nobody deliberately tried to make us feel ackward, but we could not help but feel weird since we were the only ones doing it. Some friends of ours, though, have been to churches were children are explicitly forbidden from being in the main worship service, and instead must be placed in “children’s church.”

    So after a time, we left and joined a Reformed church. We didn’t try to preach to anyone, we didn’t try to tell the leaders they were wrong, or anything like that. As I said, we didn’t want to make a big stink.

    Keep in mind that I had never heard of Doug Phillips at this point (late 90s), but when he came on the scene later, it was not that I agreed with him, but rather that he agreed with me, if you know what I mean. I read some of his stuff which I liked, although I was disappointed to find out that he was a Baptist, as I had become convinced of the rightness of Reformed paedobaptism some time before. But, whatever. The point is, my “family integrated” views developed independently of anything Doug Phillips has ever said and I have never looked upon him as either a leader or mentor.

    The Reformed church my family and I attend now consists of about 7-8 families. We practice paedo-baptism and paedo-communion and our liturgy consists of lots of responsive readings from Scripture and we sing psalms as well as hymns. We avoid the modern praise choruses, preferring older compositions instead. We don’t have any age-segregated programs.

    It is painful to read the accounts of others here on this blog who have been made to feel unwelcome at “family integrated” churches because they don’t quite tow the line sufficiently enough in one area or another.

    The church ought to be welcome to all believers. I read the phrase “church by invitation only” earlier, and if it is true that this is how some family-integrated churches are run, I can’t think of anything more repugnant and antithetical to the gospel. Who are we to decide who may approach the Lord our God in worship? We don’t get to choose who our brothers and sisters are, even in our natural families.

    Even though our church we attend consists mainly of families, it is really welcome to all, and I hope that God brings us many singles, older people, widows, etc. It’s kind of difficult though, since we’ve had some visitors attend one of our services leave because we don’t have, say, an “over 65″ group. I pray that God shows us a way to integrate everyone, not just families, into the life of our church.

  12. Cindy Kunsman Says:

    Jen,
    Thank you for writing this. I’ve wondered about all the ins and outs of communion at BCA. As Morgan Farmer notes above, the symbolism of the eucharist is an incredibly powerful tool within very controling groups.

    Thought, emotion and behavior that comprise the integrity of self really suffer when communion gets distorted. It becomes an opportunity to challenge your previous thinking when you can combine the weird rules with a symbolic behavior. This practice of men only really involves emotion, too. It’s impossible to resist all the pressure (trying to think critically) when you are contemplating the seriousness of what communion represents, the stringent rules, the shaming implications of partaking properly, the social pressure that you mention and the whole process of going through a behavior/ritual. I appreciate this.

    The other thing that struck me was how you loved the music and the echoing of the Psalms. Music hits all three aspects of self which I think is why it is so powerful and transcendent. Everyone can be going in separte directions, but when you sing, the music and the participation solidifies you with the group. Perhaps in that tradition when you echoed back to Doug, this is the only time that you really were one with one another? I felt so much of my own grief when I read this, and can only imagine (from your tone and language) the bittersweet sadness that you must feel. Like paradise lost. Much of my own grief centers around a similar experience of the music. (I went to a place very much like your description of LWF, and I loved the Davidic worship dance. I lost this, too.)

    But yet a little while… These things won’t compare to the glory yet to be revealed. This “bruising” is just so sad, though. When we all get to heaven, or maybe here on earth, we’ll have to make a point to revive all these traditions that we loved so much and lost. We’ll even get to do this with Doug again! It will be infinitely better than it was the first time and our hearts will sing together with every fiber.

  13. Cindy Kunsman Says:

    Jen,
    (Only slightly off topic… ;)
    How was the standard set concerning Christmas at BCA. You’ve said that Doug doesn’t observe it, but did BCA? I grew up next to Christmas City USA (Bethlehem, PA - founded as a missionary effort of Ct. Zinzendorf, a follower of John Hus). I can’t begin to imagine my religious experience without all the rich music concerning the incarnation, the birth of Christ and the epiphany.

    Did you even sing any Christmas hymns at BCA?

  14. Jen Says:

    Concerned: “Does BCA participate in any evangelistic efforts as a Church or any outreach to the poor? Do they support or send out any missionaries?”

    Not exactly. BCA does help financially support the “widows and orphans” in the church by giving some single mothers financial help. We also had one family in the church who were missionaries to Mexico. They invited families from all over to go on a one to two week missions trip with them to build homes for the homeless. Some families from BCA went once or twice. A few went more often.

    Another family from BCA became missionaries in Korea. Since she was a single mother, BCA was already supporting them; I think they continued to do so. Those are the only examples of outreach or missions that I can remember. Doug claims to be a missionary to homeschool Christian families.

    Concerned: “I met Michael Pearl once at a hs event, and he looked me in the eye and said not hello or how are you but “Where are your husband and children?”

    Yep. I’ve heard that story before.

    KG, I really appreciate your story about how you went from a traditional church to a family-integrated one. Your story is very similar to ours. We were concerned that every time we walked through the doors of church, our family was torn in many different directions and that our children learned more about the world at church than they did elsewhere. Mark and I actually went to the pastor of this mega-church and I explained to him that I didn’t see any provision in Scripture for age-segregated Sunday Schools, youth groups, and nurseries. He “invited” us to go to BCA, although he didn’t tell us the specifics at that time. When we started expressing our concern with the amount of very worldly teaching being brought into the church, we were “invited” to leave.

    So we, too, were already convinced that we wanted a more family-friendly church long before we ever heard of Doug Phillips. I am NOT opposed to family-integrated churches at all and, in fact, I still long to find another one. But I have seen how a good thing can be dangerous and divisive and I hope to warn against that mentality. It sounds like your church has the right attitude. I pray that many family-integrated churches will indeed glorify God in all that they do and that they will model a good way to “do” church, without having a divisive attitude.

  15. Dr. M. Says:

    This may be your best article yet. This article really lets the hypocrisy shine through. I just can’t comprehend Phillips’ antipathy for church nurseries, and all the while he pawns his children off on others to take care of. What’s the difference between that and the typical church nursery? What hypocrisy!

    My family has been to several VF conferences. My wife raves about Doug Phillips. I don’t know what she sees in the guy. To me it’s emotional hype. Little substance. This short little effeminate man seems to be a master of tugging at the ladies’ heart strings. There’s not very much in the way of rational thinking happening. As far as I’m concerned Phillips is a hypocrite of the first order and a carnival barker.

    One of my pet peeves with him is his “women and children first” theme. What a farce! Phillips doesn’t give a rip about women and children, other than to have them around, dressed up pretty, to make himself look good. If Phillips cared about women and children, and if Phillips was “family friendly”, then why don’t any of his conferences make any accommodations for nursing mothers? Why is there never a cry room? Why all the bloviating about nurseries but he doesn’t make any other provisions?

    Just what are the moms supposed to do? After our last VF conference I said never again. I’ve had it. My wife seems willing to miss large portions of the conference because she’s got to step out to attend to our little ones. I’ve had it though.

    How much effort would it take for him to set up an adjacent room and pipe in the sound from the PA so the moms can hear what’s going on while they’re attending the little ones? That’s SOP for many conferences. Even the most age-segrated programmed churches routinely do that at their conferences. A lot of them even set up video feeds.

    Doug Phillips claims to be family friendly? I’ve never seen it. I see just the opposite. I see a misogynist who has no regard for women or children.

    Thanks Jen for what you’re doing. I’ll make sure my wife reads this and thinks it through. After she reads it I’m going to have her explain to me just why I should permit her to squander this family’s money on anything Vision Forum. One thing’s for certain. There won’t be any more VF conferences for this family.

  16. Jen Says:

    Cindy, it is interesting how you saw the music as being the one thing that brought us all together as one. I suppose, in a way. After a while, even some of the songs rubbed me the wrong way, such as when we would sing “Rise up, O Men of God.” It just seemed like another way to not only elevate men, but to put women down. Maybe I was too sensitive about that.

    But I loved finding the verses to support the lyrics when we would sing with the one worship leader. The only problem was that if I found a verse, the only thing I could do with it is to show my husband. He could then choose whether or not to share that verse with the congregation. I felt so worthless standing there while all the men looked through their Bibles.

    “Did you even sing any Christmas hymns at BCA?”

    Cindy, it wasn’t quite that simple. The congregation was split about half and half on the Christmas issue. There were definitely NO Christmas programs or any talk about Christmas, but it really depended on who was leading worship as to what hymns we sang. Sometimes we did sing a Christmas hymn or two, but they were VERY limited, as most of them contained words that many in the congregation did not agree with.

    There was one family at BCA who had a Christmas party every year and everyone was invited, although not everyone attended. On the other hand, if you went to the Phillips’ home in December, you would find lots of poinsettias, nutcrackers, and green and red decorations. Beall decorates quite festively for someone who doesn’t celebrate Christmas.

  17. Hutch Says:

    Jen-

    You wrote: This idea, which he originally “borrowed” from Eric Wallace’s book “Uniting Church and Home,” was initially headed up by John Thompson.

    I have actually had opportunity to briefly meet Eric Wallace, when he came and spoke at our church. He appears to be sincerely interested in ministering to both believers and unbelievers. His ideas on family ministry and family mission are very good. He emphasizes that family integrated churches minister the gospel to the community through hospitality opportunities, not primarily through programs. His approach is for individual families to conduct ministry together as they minister to their neighbors.

    I questioned him closely about singles and barren married couples and his responses did not indicate an approach coming anywhere near what Doug Phillips teaches.

    I was relieved that my wife and I did not need to be adopted by a normal family in order to serve Christ!

    That was good news as I have been studying churches and movements for a long time, and even though I love my church and the big and small families in it, I do not know if I can identify a “normal family” that I would feel is qualified to adopt me!-Grin

    Praise the Lord that we are complete in Christ! It is good to be adopted by “The King”.

    Eric’s book actually has some very good ideas and concepts for churches to adopt, although the good ideas are interspersed with some scripture taken out of context, overall it is a good resource.

    Kg-

    I would distinguish solid evangelical ministry minded family integrated churches from Hyper-Patriarchy.

  18. Jen Says:

    Hutch, I am sure that you would now find many differences between Eric Wallace’s approach and how Doug has changed his original ideas into hyper-patriarchy. I think that family-integrated churches can be done well and I’m grateful for the overall movement. We just need to be real careful that we don’t develop the attitude of “us four and no more.”

    I’ve certainly never heard that singles or barren couples need to be “adopted” by a normal family. That is absurd! Please tell me that is just something in your own mind!

  19. Sarah Says:

    “He sets up times where he is available to greet his public, very limited times, and outside of that, his bodyguards protect him from his admirers.”

    Yes, and I am sure he needs bodyguards to protect him from dangerous ladies like Jen and Cindy . . .all those rabid home school moms, too. I’d be terrified myself .

    I am really sad to hear about Natasha and Honor. It is hard to be separated from a child you love, and I am sure Natasha cares about Honor a lot. No doubt it was hard on that poor little boy, too.

  20. kg Says:

    I’ve certainly never heard that singles or barren couples need to be “adopted” by a normal family.

    I’ve heard this in regard to singles but not childless couples. I thought it was just a way to make sure that the single person did not feel isolated and alone in a church that is mostly families. It did not occur to me to ascribe any ill intent to it, but I guess anything, no matter how good, can be misused.

  21. Jean Says:

    Jen,

    We attend a FIC, Southern Baptist technically. We meet in a rented space and the large room that holds 250 transforms from a school cafeteria into a sanctuary into a fellowship hall and back to a school cafeteria from teams of families rotating through set-up duties every few months. We had four elders, two left (DP supporters with extreme views on women among other things), and now we have two elders with more than a dozen deacons to hold them accountable.

    Our elders preach verse-by-verse through entire books of the Bible. Good, meaty teachings. No topical sermons. We’ve spent time in both Old and New Testaments.

    Our worship time is a blend of old and new. We have drums and keyboards and guitars, but sometimes sing acapella. During the sermon there’s a room available for “nursery” and moms/teens rotate overseeing the little ones so young moms can actually hear a sermon.

    We have communion every week and dads typically serve their families. If there’s no male head of a family, the deacons are always willing to step in and serve, or families will group together for the Lord’s Supper.

    There’s no particular dress code other than “modest and appropriate.” There’s a huge variety in dress in our group. From shorts and t-shirts, to calico dresses and head-coverings.

    The weekly potluck lunch is always a fun time. Kids can play on the playground or in the gym and are supervised by a rotating team of dads.

    When anyone becomes saved, there is a baptism held in a portable baptistry and usually dads baptise their own children; an elder will baptise another adult.

    Our church has monthly men’s meetings and women’s meetings. The men handle most of the business stuff along with a Bible study and prayer request time. The women are led by an elder’s wife and we study a wide variety of topics…hospitality, teaching the arts, etc.

    We also have a plethora of “classes” that folks can take (either individually or as families). Everything from church history, to refuting evolution, to a Great Books study. Something for everyone.

    We are a tight knit bunch, too. An elder jokes that we share everything even power tools. We’ve got packing and moving down to an art form. And the single moms and widows are cared for lovingly.

    I think our church is a healthy church. A wonderful example of a family-integrated church. And all that really means is that we’re a group that prefers to worship and learn right alongside our children. That doesn’t mean everyone HAS to, and it certainly doesn’t mean that we are in any way superior.

    Most of the families homeschool, but not all. Most moms are at home, but a fair amount have outside work. There are lots of teens. Some practice courtship, others date. Some young adults attend college, some don’t.

    It would be difficult to peg a “typical” family in our church. We are not a cookie-cutter fellowship at all! HA! The only thing that would make it better is if we weren’t on that silly NCFIC list. I’m plotting how to make that happen.

    Jen, you and Mark would feel welcome and would so enjoy our church! Come visit anytime!

    Have a pleasant day,

    Jean

  22. kg Says:

    I’ve certainly never heard that singles or barren couples need to be “adopted” by a normal family.

    I’ve heard this in regard to singles but not childless couples. I thought it was just a solution to the problem of how to make sure that the single person did not feel isolated and alone in a church that is mostly families. It did not occur to me to ascribe any ill intent to it, but I guess anything, no matter how good, can be misused.

  23. Top Posts « WordPress.com Says:

    [...] Doug Phillips Sets the Standard for Family Integrated Church A Good Idea At Risk Of Breeding Legalism Among the other things that Doug Phillips promotes through The Vision Forum […] [...]

  24. Jen Says:

    Sarah, yes, it was very hard on Natasha when she was ripped away from Honor. She really loved him.

    Jean, thanks for sharing how your church works. I really liked the fact that you said that you could not describe a “typical” family because there is so much diversity. There’s not much danger of legalism that way.

    I have a question about the communion, just because I’ve experienced that style. Do the single moms ever feel left out or demeaned in any way because they can’t participate the way “real” families do? When I was the only person being served by a deacon at BCA, I just wanted to slide under the pew and hide. I felt so second-class.

  25. Jean Says:

    Jen,

    I don’t think the single moms at our church feel weird at all. Quite the opposite…there are usually many families jumping at the chance to include them in their family communion. Or, they and their children can catch the eye of a deacon and he will pray with them and serve them if they like. Plus, there are half a dozen communion tables around the room, so it’s never obvious what any one person or family is doing.

    In fact, those times that my husband is out of town, the kids and I are always invited to join up with another family. I think that when a church really lives out the “serving” part of fellowship, those “left-out” kind of feelings just don’t have a chance to grow.

    We’ve moved quite a bit over the years and we’ve been a part of lots of different kinds of churches. Until our current church, however, I didn’t see believers really serving one another selflessly. It is such a joy to be a part of something that truly must delight the Lord while at the same time it is personally such a blessing. I wish more believers could experience such genuine fellowship.

    Something said by Hutche earlier really struck a chord with me. Hutch mentioned that Wallace says “family integrated churches minister the gospel to the community through hospitality opportunities, not primarily through programs. His (Wallace’s) approach is for individual families to conduct ministry together as they minister to their neighbors.”

    This is big at our church. We serve and minister to each others’ neighbors, family members and co-workers, too, which often puts us rubbing elbows with non-believers. LOTS of opportunities to preach the gospel in addition to living it out before their very eyes. You don’t need all the programs if, as the church, you go out to where the lost are! That reserves Sunday for believers which I much prefer. There are six other days of the week for being seeker-friendly, right? HA!

    Have a pleasant day,

    Jean

  26. Jen Says:

    Thank you, Jean, for explaining how communion works there. I am so pleased to hear all the positive reports from your church. It sounds like a lot of good things are going on there.

  27. Micah Gelatt Says:

    Interesting stuff, Jen.

    I find it fascinating because I come from a church that is a far cry from many of the things BCA engages in.

    One question (out of many) I had concerning BCA practices, is what would be their Scriptural support for men serving communion to their families? I find that incredibly odd. Thoughts?

  28. kg Says:

    One question (out of many) I had concerning BCA practices, is what would be their Scriptural support for men serving communion to their families? I find that incredibly odd. Thoughts?

    I’m not Jen, but I’ll offer my opinion nonetheless.

    I’ve always been opposed to this practice. I think it tells the wrong story about the gospel. That is, the benefits of salvation in Christ are not mediated through our earthly fathers, but rather come directly from Christ Himself. In Christ, my children are no longer my children, but rather are Christ’s children, as I also am, and we are all brothers and sisters together.

    Therefore, I believe it is inappropriate to structure the communion service around fathers distributing the elements to members of his family.

    Our Reformed fathers rightly revolted against the Roman Church’s setting up priests as mediators between the people and God. Having done this, let us not repeat the old error by putting fathers in their place.

  29. Micah Gelatt Says:

    kg,

    I could not agree more, and although I appreciate your answer, that was not my question. I am very firm in my stance on it, yet I am wondering where the Biblical support for BCA’s practices come from. I am not trying to be rude, but I don’t really need to hear from people that disagree with them. :) I want to know why they even do things this way. Where is the Biblical support for this? Make sense?

  30. wolfhound Says:

    The family integrated church movement is divisive. At these conferences that they put on they (Doug Phillips, Scott Brown, Voddie Bauchem, etc.) encourage people to leave their churches. They do it in a subtle and direct way.

    Many people come back from these conferences convinced that the traditional church is un-biblical. To sum it up, this NCFIC movement is about throwing mud at the bride of Christ.

    I believe that what you are seeing is the forming of a cult. While the churches are loosely connected, what you have described (BCA) is very similar to the FIC church that I attended.

    If someone goes to a NCFIC conference and then loads up on Phillipian theology (tapes) they will be convinced that Sunday School is from the “pit of hell,” as Phillip’s is fond of saying.

  31. Corrie Says:

    Something about the whole communion business doesn’t sit well with me.

    Why would a person even want to join with another family? The Bible says that the husband is head of his own wife. Since all men are not heads to all women nor are they an authority over any other woman but their own wife, then why the surrogacy?

    Also, is there a time where the wife and children can quietly reflect on their own time and in their own private prayer before the Lord or do they need an earthly “priest”/man leading the prayer for them during communion?

    This should be a very private time between a believer and his/her Savior. There is no need for a mediator or for a surrogate husband.

    If we are talking about meals shared together, that would be a very nice gesture for a family to invite a single mom and her kids to join them. But this is communion and a time of reflection between a Christian and the Lord.

  32. Corrie Says:

    Jean,

    Thank you for sharing about your church. It sounds lovely and inviting.

  33. Jean Says:

    Wolfhound,

    Voddie Baucham was one of the two elders that broke from our church to start a church of their own, taking a chunk of our church with him. Our church just wouldn’t bend enough in the direction they wanted, so they up and left. His leaving was not done in a loving or proper way and left much confusion in the wake. I noticed that he and his daughter were in the Botkin girls’ video and that he has been making the speaking rounds with Doug Phillips.

    Our family and many others in our church are still reeling from the fallout, although I must admit that our church is stronger for it. I have chosen to see the ugly mess as the vehicle that the Lord used to purify our church body. There was a growing group of “Dougites” that, left unchekced, could have completely destroyed our fellowship.

    The thing I find most difficult now is interacting with those who followed Voddie to his new church. I pray often for the right words and the proper heart attitude when it comes to these broken relationships. Our paths cross often.

    Have a pleasant day,

    Jean

  34. Corrie Says:

    CG,

    We just moved to the St. Louis area and we recently visited a large “family” church that doesn’t really fit our doctrine but they had a service on Friday nights and it was recommended to us by someone who lived here. They have things for all ages to do while the service is going on. We kept our little ones with us because we were new.

    The sermon was good, the pastor seemed to be a genuinely kind-hearted guy and we really were edified by the whole experience.

    But, what was most wonderful was the nursing moms room. I couldn’t believe it! Rocking chairs, sermon was piped in so we didn’t miss anything, water bottles, Boppy pillows, little baskets of toys, snacks, etc. It was lovely and I felt like they really meant what part of their name said- “family”. They SHOWED it by how they accommodated families.

    Now, they are definitely not anti-SS/youth group. There are many age-segregated programs. And they don’t claim to do it “God’s way”, either.

    But, go to an ATI seminar or to one of these other seminars that are big on family, no birth control, etc and one feels like having babies is an inconvenience.

  35. Micah Gelatt Says:

    This discussion goes to show that the Bible does NOT tell us exactly HOW to “do” church. The Bible is jam-packed with HOW to “be” the church to a hurting, lost world and to edifying one another. Big difference. I wish these legalistic groups would become infused with that, because it is stinkin’ contagious, baby!

  36. Jean Says:

    Corrie,

    I understand your concern for dads administering communion. I thought it was weird for a long time, too. HA! It just happens to be how our church does things. I don’t think I can point to a scripture that lays it out that way, any more than I could find a verse to support why we project song words on a screen. It just works for us, for now. WHY we do communion is a lot more important than HOW we do it. Unless it becomes an idol of sorts…like homeschooling, headcoverings, and so on.

    Communion time at our church is very sweet and reverent. Families love each other dearly and what a special thing to share a communion time together. I don’t see it as a “surrogacy” issue at all. Families, or widows or single moms pray individually before taking communion. I think it’s great that the dads in our church take communion so seriously and use the time to be able to pray for others, communicate the meaning of the event and serve others.

    I suppose this (like most anything) can be twisted to be something icky, but it just doesn’t happen at our church. I credit the elders for providing sound leadership and direction so that we can all celebrate the Lord’s Supper in a meaningful way.

    Have a pleasant day,

    Jean

  37. Jen Says:

    Micah: “One question (out of many) I had concerning BCA practices, is what would be their Scriptural support for men serving communion to their families? I find that incredibly odd. Thoughts?”

    Micah, I don’t know if I can give you an exact answer because I don’t recall any Scriptural support ever being given for doing such a thing. However, since patriarchy was so heavily stressed in all circumstances, I went to Doug’s “Biblical Tenets of Patriarchy” and pulled some quotes and verses that I thought might apply.

    The Authority of Fathers
    5. A husband and father is the head of his household, a family leader, provider, and protector, with the authority and mandate to direct his household in paths of obedience to God. (Gen. 18:19; Eph. 6:4)
    Gen 18:19 - For I have known him, in order that he may command his children and his household after him, that they keep the way of the LORD, to do righteousness and justice, that the LORD may bring to Abraham what He has spoken to him.”

    So the first reason is because Patriarchy says that the man is the head of his household.

    6. A man’s authority in the home should be exercised with gentleness, grace, and love as a servant-leader, following the example of Jesus Christ. Leadership is a stewardship from God. (Ps. 103:13; Mal. 3:17; Matt. 11:29-30; Col. 3:21; 1 Pet. 3:7)

    Even though Doug doesn’t provide any Scriptural support for this one, the second reason is that men are to be servant-leaders to their family.

    11. Male leadership in the home carries over into the church: only men are permitted to hold the ruling office in the church. A God-honoring society will likewise prefer male leadership in civil and other spheres as an application of and support for God’s order in the formative institutions of family and church.(1 Tim. 3:5)
    I Tim. 3:5 - (for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?)


    And the third reason I can find appears to be that this would be a stepping stone to becoming an elder.

    OK, Micah, this is the best I can do in finding support for Doug’s position. Your turn to refute it. Here’s my question to you, however: In the Bible, where does it tell us WHO is to give the elements of communion?

  38. Jen Says:

    Jean: “I think it’s great that the dads in our church take communion so seriously and use the time to be able to pray for others, communicate the meaning of the event and serve others.”

    Does every man actually participate in “leading” communion in some way for his family/group? I am picturing in my mind many men who either would not feel comfortable doing this or simply wouldn’t go to a church where they felt they had to do this.

  39. Micah Gelatt Says:

    Jean,

    I understand what you are saying, yet you must admit that comparing communion of our Lord Jesus with a projector borders on lunacy, right? :)

    With that aside, when you set rules that are not Biblical on communion, then the HOW becomes more important than the WHY. For example, in your church or any similar one, if a single mom or a mom with a deadbeat husband shows up and desires to take communion on her own, can she do so? Must she be served by some other man, or can she do it? If non-Biblical rules dictate in this instance, then the HOW just became more valid and important than the WHY. See my point?

    I don’t doubt that communion in your church is what you say it is; communion in our church is a gripping time as well, a time where we can and should INDIVIDUALLY go before God’s throne with boldness, remember Christ and His work on the cross, examine ourselves and proclaim our INDIVIDUAL part in the participation in the body of Christ. What I just said is all Biblical. What is not Biblical is any rules or regulations we add to that.

  40. Jean Says:

    Jen,

    Yes, all the men take the lead for communion for their family/group. And, yes, I would bet many men are not comfortable doing this and might not attend a church that does this. It’s not for everybody and we shouldn’t expect it to be.

    I can equate this to my personal struggle with praying aloud for a group. I can speak confidently to huge groups of people…but ask me to pray at the ladies’ meeting or even with a friend or two and I’m petrified. At least I used to be. But the Lord kept putting me in situations where I had to pray and I’ve matured as a result. But that’s just me. He works on all of us in different ways.

    In our family, my husband was not real high on administering communion, but he gave it a whirl. I don’t know HOW every dad leads communion at church. I know that my hisband does it one way, and our dearest friends do it another. That’s the beauty in it…it’s really very personal. Much more so than the robotic communion parade I experienced growing up.

    Like I wrote to Corrie, it’s probably not for everyone, though. It’s just how we do it. As long as it’s not UN-biblical, I think it’s a “whatever floats your boat” kind of area.

    Have a pleasant day,

    Jean

  41. Micah Gelatt Says:

    Jen wrote:

    “In the Bible, where does it tell us WHO is to give the elements of communion”

    Nowhere in the Bible does it say WHO is to give the communion.

  42. Jean Says:

    Micah,

    I think you gathered that I wasn’t comparing communion to projected song words, HA!

    And to elaborate, we don’t have rules about communion, per se. Folks are certainly welcome to partake individually, with or without a dad, with or without a deacon. The only requirement is that you be a believer who has been baptised. Pretty basic, really.

    We’re not hung up on the HOW. I agree with you wholeheartedly about extra biblical regulations that become elevated to something more. Dangerous.

    This is all SO good to talk about!

    But now, I really must hit the hay. I’ll try to check in again tomorrow before we head to church.

    Have a pleasant evening,

    Jean

  43. Jen Says:

    Micah: “Nowhere in the Bible does it say WHO is to give the communion.”

    So, is it wrong for fathers to give communion to their families? I can see potential problems, but I can see good from this as well.

  44. Micah Gelatt Says:

    No, it is not wrong for them to do this. It is wrong when a church or a movement says ” This IS the way it must be done.” or when they say “This IS the Biblical way.” That is my point. When you asked your question, I knew where you were headed with that.

    The very fact that fathers give communion is not necessarily wrong, but I don’t think it comes closest to fulfilling the ideas behind what communion is all about. IMO, because it puts an undue emphasis on the father, it tends to overshadow the redeemed individual before the Lord. In other words, in communion, we are all equal before the King - there are no submitted wives and leader husbands - we stand as justified equals before God. Thusly, it flows naturally that we should partake in communion as equals, with no authority structure. No priest has to bless it, no father has to give it…..instead each of us, being a royal priesthood, can access Him on equal terms.

    With all of this said, I think again that Patriarchy puts special emphasis on men in this instance, and thereby undermines what communion truly is.

  45. Jen Says: