1
LIBERTY UNIVERSITY BAPTIST THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY
Philosophy of Family Discipleship:
What are the true goals of family discipleship?
Submitted to Dr. Burrell, in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the completion of the course
DSMN 610-D02
Family Discipleship
by
Derek J. Cormier
June 1, 2016
2
Contents
Introduction......................................................................................................................................1
Current Models................................................................................................................................2
Family Integration Model............................................................................................................2
Criticisms.................................................................................................................................3
Silo or Programmatic Model.......................................................................................................4
Criticisms.................................................................................................................................5
Family Equipping/Based Models................................................................................................5
Other Approaches........................................................................................................................6
Why Theory Matters........................................................................................................................8
So goes the church, so goes the family........................................................................................8
Not a Round Table.......................................................................................................................9
Workable Model..............................................................................................................................9
Marriage as Discipleship...........................................................................................................10
Intentional and Consistent.........................................................................................................10
The Heart of the Matter-Beyond Behavior................................................................................11
Final Thoughts...............................................................................................................................11
Bibliography...................................................................................................................................iii
1
Introduction
If the average born-again parent were asked “What do you want most for your children?”
most if not all would answer that their children grow up to know and love God. It is the genuine
passion and desire of every Christian parent to see their child accept Christ. Yet the nature and
structure of their (the parents) discipleship programs and activities do not seem to reflect this
heart desire. Instead it seems that the overarching theme is good or moralistic behavior that
keeps the child from danger and the parent from headache and anxiety. The Apostle Paul, if
observing the 21st century parent in action today would more than likely refer to them as
“Judaizers”. So, in light of this contradiction the question put forth is “What is the overall aim of
family discipleship and why are so many families missing the mark?” The answer is that most
parents and the churches they attend lack a clear and biblical philosophy of family discipleship.
Most families are trained and lectured in the “how-to” but never consider the “why” behind the
how.
This paper will attempt to answer the question: “What is a biblical, workable, and
relevant philosophy regarding family discipleship in the 21st century? Several current
mainstream ideas regarding family discipleship and ministry will be examined. The examination
will include biblical foundations (or lack thereof) of each theory as well as practical
consequences when said theories are applied. While both individual family settings and
cooperate church settings will be discussed, a much stronger emphasis will be paid to the
cooperate aspect of ministry for the rivers of knowledge that flow from the pulpit will come to
rest in the home and form great ocean of Christendom. Simply stated this paper will show the
“why” and “why the why matters” when it comes to the discipleship process at home and in the
church.
2
Current Models
This section will briefly examine some of the most current models seen in churches and
also offer insights into the chief aims and goals of these models as well as strengths and
weaknesses within each model.
Family Integration Model
This model attempts to keep all generations together as much as possible during
corporate events. There is typically no children’s church and no youth group. According to
Renfro (himself quoting the National Center for Family-Integrated Churches) “We…reject the
church’s implementation of modern individualism by fragmenting the family through age-
graded, peer-oriented, and special interest classes, thus preventing rather than promoting family
unity”1 This particular model not only promotes family unity but altogether rejects (harshly) any
type of family separation during worship. They view this model as not only wrong but heretical
and altogether antithetical to the teachings of scripture. Dr. Holly C. Allen adds this note in her
article regarding family integrated discipleship:
Intergenerationality enables the whole church to benefit from each individual’s
God-given gifts and enables believers to fully live out being the body of Christ
and the family of faith. Among the many benefits for both adults and children are
a sense of belonging, support for troubled families, better use of resources,
character growth and sharing each other’s spiritual journeys. Additionally, this
article will highlight special benefits for particular age cohorts—children, teens,
emerging adults, young adults, middle adults and older adults2
1 Paul Renfro, Brandon Shields, and Jay Strother, Perspectives on Family Ministry: 3 Views, ed.
Timothy P. Jones (Nashville, Tenn: B & H Academic, 2009).
2 Holly Catterton Allen and Christine Lawton Ross, “The Benefits Of Intergenerality,” Journal
of Discipleship and Family Ministry 03, no. 2 (Spring 2013),
3
It is the belief of those who follow this model that it is the most biblical model and is most
defensible using a strict interpretation of the regulative principle. The church is meant to be a
family style structure and each generation has unique gifts to offer so why follow a non-biblical
cultural model or as Renfro says “solo scriptura not solo cultura”3
Criticisms
Major criticisms of this model are that it is out of touch and not poised to reach out to
culture, especially the youth culture. Furthermore, even though Dr. Catterton argues it offers
support for troubled families, statistically speaking it is not reaching out to these types of
“broken families”. According to Brandon Shields “the vast majority of families who attend
family integrated churches are homeschooling, nuclear families”4 and Jay Strother adds “How
would a non-traditional family feel when attending a family-integrated church?”5 While this
model seeks to put family first it does so at the expense of putting God and people first.
Furthermore while it is true that Scripture and not culture is the grounded truth by which all
discipleship should occur no Christian nor church family should shun culture nor is any church
excused from adapting to culture based on an overly legalistic approach to the regulative
principle. Instead flexibility must be allowed so that one can find, as Canales puts it, “the best
integration of multiple models to best fit the context and culture which one minister in”.6 Even
Paul the Apostle writes in 1 Corinthians 9:22 “When I am with those who are weak, I share their
http://www.galaxie.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/article/jdfm03-2-02.
3 Renfro, Shields, and Strother, Perspectives on Family Ministry.
4 Ibid.
5 Ibid.
6 Arthur David Canales, “Models for Adolescent Ministry: Exploring Eight Ecumenical
Examples1,” Religious Education 101, no. 2 (Spring 2006): 204–32.
4
weakness, for I want to bring the weak to Christ. Yes, I try to find common ground with
everyone, doing everything I can to save some.”7
So how then does this particular model translate to home ministry and discipleship within
the individual family structure? Typically those who favor this model as mentioned above also
favor home-schooling and overall “protection” from what is perceived as an evil culture. While
not quite as extreme as the Amish most who favor this style of church in cooperate settings tend
to separate themselves and their children from secular culture as much as possible. Most, if not
all, exposure to culture is done so through a Christian sub-culture context. This is not to be
confused with a Christian worldview, which is exposure and interaction with secular culture that
gently but firmly holds true to biblical values despite competing worldviews, i.e. Christianity
turned outward. No, instead “Christian sub-culture” in this context is meant to be a faux
exposure to culture through music, schooling, entertainment, and friendships which all come
from the same Christian worldview. This is Christianity turned inward, i.e. Christians only
interested in lifting up and helping other Christians.
Silo or Programmatic Model
This model is an attractional model which places a high emphasis on attraction and
entertainment. It also champions the youth minister (or children’s minister) and his (his is used
throughout this paper as the author comes from a faith tradition of allowing only men to be
pastors within the church but is in no way meant to diminish the amazing work or necessity of
great women of God in the church) team as the primary disciple makers in the youth’s life. The
church who follows this model will typically offer a wide array of both Sunday morning and
Wednesday night programs which are designed specifically to appeal to their target audience
7 Tyndale House Publishers, Holy Bible: New Living Translation. (Carol Stream, Ill.: Tyndale
House Publishers, 2004).
5
(youth or child). Also a high emphasis will be placed on camps or retreats. Canales defines
retreats in the following way:
By "weekend retreat," I am inferring that the youth ministry leave the church
grounds and get away for 48-72 hours at a retreat house, retreat campsite, or
simply in tents in the backcountry somewhere. The critical ingredient is to retreat
from the business of the world, reflect, and relax with spiritual matters. Many
congregations call a day of reflection a retreat or a three-hour evening a retreat. In
my opinion, anything less than a weekend retreat is not a retreat and therefore
only dilutes the proper place for a weekend retreat format8
The strength of this model is it attracts a high number of youth and therefore has an opportunity
to present the gospel to the widest audience of teens out of all the models.
Criticisms
While this model does indeed attract a high number of teens and children it fails at the
most basic level of discipleship. By constantly appealing to the lost it fails to help mature the
saved. Furthermore it associates spiritual things with emotional highs. A child or teen may
question his or her salvation when times get tough and their salvation will have very shallow
roots since proper discipleship rarely takes place in this style model. Another downfall of this
model according to Dr. Burrell is as a silo it fails to adequately connect the youth or child to the
rest of the church as a whole and operates almost as a separate entity from the rest of the church
family. 9 Finally it fails to have a “home transition” since the church workers are consider the
spiritual leaders of the young person and not the parents.
Family Equipping/Based Models
8 Canales, “Models for Adolescent Ministry.”
9 Dan Burrell Dr, “Analyzing the Strategic Family Discipleship Efforts of the Church,” Video
Lecture (Liberty University), accessed October 31, 2014, http://media.liberty.edu/lyrga.
6
While these two models are actually separate they are closely enough related that
separate sections for each are not needed. Both models champion the family unit and both
believe that parents are the primary disciple-makers of the home. They differ significantly from
the two aforementioned models however since they both recognize the need for age segregated
ministry due to cultural need and evangelistic opportunity as well as the need for discipleship
beyond the four walls of the church. The strength of both models is their dual discipleship
approach which integrates the family and the church into the life of a young person. Both
models have home transitions as they both encourage the parents to teach, interact with and be a
significant part of their child’s discipleship. One does this by encouraging intergenerational
events as often as possible ( family based) while the other does this by doing as much as they can
to equip parents to teach at home( family equipping). While some, such as Renfro and others in
the Family Integrated movement, have criticized this movement for being too contextual10 (the
aforementioned solo cultura) the majority of evangelicals currently champion family style
movements as the best approach to family discipleship (and this author concurs).
Other Approaches
For this sub-section the author will briefly examine alternative approaches to children’s
and youth ministry not regularly seen or mentioned in more evangelical circles. This section will
rely heavily on an article (previously cited) by David Canales entitled “MODELS FOR
ADOLESCENT MINISTRY: EXPLORING EIGHT ECUMENICAL EXAMPLES”
10 For in depth criticisms see Holly Catterton Allen and Christine Lawton Ross, “Why Churches
Tend To Separate The Generations,” Journal of Discipleship and Family Ministry 03, no. 2
(Spring 2013), http://www.galaxie.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/article/jdfm03-2-02; and
Renfro, Shields, and Strother, Perspectives on Family Ministry. (chapter 5)
7
Unlike the previous methods an in-depth analysis will not be presented but instead a very brief
overview to give the reader a basic introduction to other models he or she may not be familiar
with.
The Friendship Model
oThis model places a high emphasis on the social aspect of teenagers and
encourages friendships with both other teens and youth leaders as the primary
mechanism for discipleship. This method has the same shortcomings as the silo
model as it champions the church while placing little to no emphasis on the family
structure or hierarchy.
The Spiritual Awareness Model
oFound mainly in Catholic and other more liturgical churches it places a high
emphasis on prayer and liturgy as the primary mechanism for spiritual growth.
While prayer is important it is overall a model not poised to meet the needs of the
21st century teen nor does it include any mechanism for evangelism whatsoever.
The Servant Leadership Model
oPlaces a high emphasis on service to teach the young person that life is not all
about them. While this model helps young people and teens discover the beauty of
service it has a tendency to become overly focused on a “social” gospel and by
default tends to have a low Christology and can lead teens to believe discipleship
is all about service to community i.e. helping the poor is more important than
reading the Bible or prayer.
The Liberation Model
oThis is the servant model taken to an extreme and global level. Its orthodoxy is
that all mankind is biblically mandated to be free from all persecution and
oppression from a more powerful eternity (such as majorities or governments).
This theory in its orthopraxy fails to place Jesus as primary focus and believes
liberation is more important than both discipleship or evangelism and therefore
8
falls outside the bounds of orthodox Christianity. It is only mentioned here since
it is a very large and growing movement especially in South America.
Canales mentions several other models which can be found in his article which is linked in the
bibliography. Most of the ones not listed here are simply variations or extreme versions of those
listed.
Why Theory Matters
Several models and their subsequent strengths and weaknesses have been listed above. So why
does theory matter. Why does how a church chooses to do family ministry matter? This section
will attempt to answer that question.
So goes the church, so goes the family
Dr. Howard Hendricks once remarked “A mist in the pulpit is a fog in the pew”11. In this case a
mist in the church is a fog at home. If a family’s home church doesn’t have a solid understand
and theory of how and why family discipleship should be done then the family units within that
church are going to be lost at home. Instead the church must make it crystal clear how family
discipleship should be done. If, for example, the church decides a programmatic model is best
than the family needs to know the shortcomings of this particular model. If the family chooses to
stay with that church they need to understand that this model can lead to their child to associate
emotions with spiritual growth or regression. It is incumbent on the parents to emphasize the
eternal nature of salvation regardless of emotion. So know they type of theory and overall
approach to discipleship at the church can help parents custom tailor a discipleship plan which
best fits the needs of their child as well as supplement the church’s efforts toward that end.
11 Will McRaney, The Art of Personal Evangelism: Sharing Jesus in a Changing Culture
(Nashville, Tenn: Broadman & Holman, 2003).
9
Not a Round Table
Another aspect that parents must be keenly aware of regarding theory is that they must teach
their children, especially teens, that discipleship is not a round table approach. While not
intentional many churches, especially those who hold to an attractional model, place all the
emphasis on pleasing the teen. The teen’s overall experience is what is most important. From the
music to the food to the coffee bar to the lesson it is all about the youth. The Bible, on the other
hand, teaches that discipleship is based on a familial structure with accompanying hierarchies.
John Elliott in his wonderful piece The Jesus Movement was not Egalitarian but Family-
Oriented writes how even Jesus dealt with his disciples in a family structured way. Jesus loved
and taught the disciples but never were the disciples His equal. Elliott puts it this way:
As no discipleship of equals was founded by Jesus, so none was introduced
following his death. Attention to household and family following Jesus' death and
instruction on household conduct did not entail an "abandonment" of equality and
a "reversion" to patriarchalism (as argued especially by Schüssler Fiorenza), but
continuation of a concentration on household and family initiated by Jesus.12
Likewise the modern family, while valuing the child’s input and including the child in
discipleship planning and activities must understand that it is they, the parents, who are
ultimately the leaders of discipling the child. They must ensure that the church they attend is
promoting the same philosophy or else they are swimming upstream when it comes to the
sanctification process.
12 John Hall Elliott, “The Jesus Movement Was Not Egalitarian but Family-Oriented,” Biblical
Interpretation 11, no. 2 (January 1, 2003): 173–210.
10
Workable Model
In light of the aforementioned theories and their various strengths and shortcomings and in light
of why the why matters the natural question that follows is “What is a workable model of family
discipleship within the home?” Once parents have settled on a church which hopefully
champions the family unit as primary in the disciple making process how now shall they live?
Marriage as Discipleship
While often overlooked the first mechanism of family discipleship is marriage. As Gary Thomas
writes in his excellent book Sacred Marriage “What if God designed marriage to make us holy
and not happy?”13 Children, as well as the outside world, are going to observe how a couple
interacts with each other therefore it is imperative that parents have a proper understanding of the
nature of marriage and the impact it has on the family. Jane Strohl notes the following in her
article Marriage as Discipleship: Luther’s Praise of Married Life: “Adam and Eve are the first
married couple, and Luther looks to the story of their creation and fall as the paradigm for the
relationship between man and woman.”14
Intentional and Consistent
Parents must view philosophically view their home as a mission field with children as the natives
to which they are trying to reach. They are not just parents but missionaries and thusly must be
intentional and consistent with discipling. This includes but is not limited to daily bible time,
weekly praise and worship sessions (this is especially helpful if done outside the walls of the
13 Gary Thomas, Kevin Harney, and Sherry Harney, Sacred Marriage: What If God Designed
Marriage to Make Us Holy More than to Make Us Happy? : Participant’s Guide (Grand Rapids,
Mich.: Zondervan Pub. House, 2009).
14 Jane E. Strohl, “Marriage as Discipleship: Luther’s Praise of Married Life,” Dialog 47, no. 2
(June 1, 2008): 136–42, doi:10.1111/j.1540-6385.2008.00379.x.
11
church as it helps child understand that worship is a part of everyday life not just something done
as part of a religious ritual at church), regular service opportunities, controlled exposure to
worldly, non-Christian worldviews, and opportunities to question their own faith traditions.
Spiritual education cannot play second fiddle to other activities or be just a “when we have free
time” activity. By being consistent and intentional children will learn that Christ and
discipleship have a preeminent position in the home.
The Heart of the Matter-Beyond Behavior
No, not the popular Don Henley song but a philosophy of discipleship. As noted in the excellent
books by Tedd Tripp Shepherding a Child’s Heart and the sequel Instructing a Child’s Heart
Tripp reaches out to parents to let them know that a well behaved child is not necessarily a
Christian child. In fact many atheist children are quite well behaved.15 As Tripp notes “We want
more than well behaved legalists”16. Practically speaking this means that parents must interact,
ask questions, and allow children opportunities to display their heart. While authoritarian
parenting is sometimes necessary for discipline, discipleship should be more of an interactive
leadership style. Observation, correction and encouragement are far more effective in molding a
heart than forced moralistic behavior. How does the child react to failure? And more important
how does the parent react?
15 For an excellent article demonstrating behavior versus heart check out Derwin L. Gray, “More
Than Just a Good Church Kid,” Magazine, Just Marinating | A Blog by Pastor Derwin L. Gray,
(n.d.), http://www.christianitytoday.com/derwin-gray/2015/january/more-than-just-good-church-
kid.html.
16 Tedd Tripp and Margy Tripp, Instructing a Child’s Heart, Kindle ebook (Wapwallopen, PA:
Shepherd Press, 2008).
12
Final Thoughts
As noted in this paper there are several ways which a church can philosophical think about and
carry out family ministry. Some chose to hold to a rigid regulative principle like the family
integration model while some chose to focus more on evangelism than discipleship such as the
programmatic model. While all models have strengths and weaknesses one thing is for certain
and that is those models which champion the family and chose to work hand-in-hand with
families are those which are going to be most successful at long term discipleship. Family
models are both the most sustainable models and the most biblical. Parents would be wise to
seek out these types of churches if they wish to have their children grow and mature spiritually.
While it is true that God can and does work through anyone and anything it is still imperative on
Christians to study and find the best approaches for discipleship both in the church at home. For
some this will require rethinking how discipleship is done and possibly even considering a new
church home. It may also require rethinking what elements are most important within the home
itself for successful discipleship. Regardless of how it is done, it is this author’s sincere wish
that all children of God have the tools and opportunities necessary to grow strong in their faith
and experience the amazing joy discipleship has to offer.
3
Bibliography
Allen, Holly Catterton, and Christine Lawton Ross. “The Benefits Of Intergenerality.” Journal of
Discipleship and Family Ministry 03, no. 2 (Spring 2013).
http://www.galaxie.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/article/jdfm03-2-02.
———. “Why Churches Tend To Separate The Generations.” Journal of Discipleship and Family
Ministry 03, no. 2 (Spring 2013).
http://www.galaxie.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/article/jdfm03-2-02.
Burrell, Dan, Dr. “Analyzing the Strategic Family Discipleship Efforts of the Church.” Video Lecture.
Liberty University. Accessed October 31, 2014. http://media.liberty.edu/lyrga.
Canales, Arthur David. “Models for Adolescent Ministry: Exploring Eight Ecumenical Examples1.”
Religious Education 101, no. 2 (Spring 2006): 204–32.
Elliott, John Hall. “The Jesus Movement Was Not Egalitarian but Family-Oriented.” Biblical
Interpretation 11, no. 2 (January 1, 2003): 173–210.
McRaney, Will. The Art of Personal Evangelism: Sharing Jesus in a Changing Culture. Nashville,
Tenn: Broadman & Holman, 2003.
Renfro, Paul, Brandon Shields, and Jay Strother. Perspectives on Family Ministry: 3 Views. Edited by
Timothy P. Jones. Nashville, Tenn: B & H Academic, 2009.
Strohl, Jane E. “Marriage as Discipleship: Luther’s Praise of Married Life.” Dialog 47, no. 2 (June 1,
2008): 136–42. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6385.2008.00379.x.
4
Thomas, Gary, Kevin Harney, and Sherry Harney. Sacred Marriage: What If God Designed Marriage
to Make Us Holy More than to Make Us Happy? : Participant’s Guide . Grand Rapids, Mich.:
Zondervan Pub. House, 2009.
