First of all, thank you for articulating your strong commitment to regenerate church membership, with implication for observance of the Lord’s Supper. I accept your assurance that this is not an FIC issue even though Presbyterians will differ from Baptists on these matters. Perhaps a bit more dialogue is needed on this to crystallize the issue even more clearly.

I’m not sure what was unclear about my response regarding the Mohler blog. As I tried to indicate, Dr. Mohler had planned to post a blog but did not end up doing so, and when I realized this I tried to have the reference removed, but the book was already being printed. As already planned, note 17 will be reworded in future printings.

As to Renfro and the Perspectives on Family Ministry volume, I don’t recall the exact details now, but I believe the manuscript only reached me in the final stages of working on the chapter. I am certainly prepared to consider Renfro’s response and note any salient points in any future editions.

With regard to “segregation” language, I am sincerely glad to hear you say that you don’t necessarily disagree with me (though it certainly sounded like you did when you wrote in your post that “[t]he term is appropriate … it simply communicates a truth … the word fits … Segregation is simply the most appropriate term for the church practices in question”). When you compare this issue with my use of the word “extreme” in a single, passing reference and call this a “double standard,” here is the difference (at least the way I see it): I used a given word once (in the context of seeking to differentiate between various models of family integration), while “segregation” language represents a consistent pattern of usage in family-integrated circles. Perhaps the reason for this proliferation is that the term “segregated” serves as the preferred antonym to “integrated.” I think this is just plain unfortunate. But I’m glad to hear that you don’t necessarily disagree with me on this issue. I hope that other family-integrated church advocates will follow suit and avoid “segregation” language in the future. How about this: I’ll change the one instance of “extreme” in my chapter to something like “thoroughgoing,” and you desist from using “segregated” from here on out. Agreed?

I am also glad to hear you say that, “We have never argued that ours is the only way to do church.” That’s very refreshing. I sincerely hope that you are representative of other family-integrated churches in this regard. This is the kind of humility that will make future dialogue a whole lot easier, in my opinion.

Finally, thanks for your gracious tone and apology (accepted!). I’m genuinely grateful for our dialogue, and others have told me they have found it helpful as well. Be assured that I will continue to ponder the concerns you raised as I continue to reflect, and perhaps write, on the subject.

Your brother in Christ,

Andreas

Thank you for taking the time to read the chapter on God, Marriage, Family, and the Church in the second edition of God, Marriage & Family and for your blog post in response to it. You are a man of God, and I am deeply grateful for your ministry. In fact, I endorsed your most recent book!

I think it’s great that you and I seem to agree on the bottom line—you quote at length my positive and constructive prescription on how to move forward in encouraging family-friendly and family-oriented churches (though you prefer the term “family-integrated”).

We also agree on the inadequacy of a “family of families” theology. (I was told that this kind of language was removed from the FIC website a while back. That tells me that this language was indeed in use, and then removed, and that there must have been significant reasons why this was done.)

What we don’t agree on is whether the cautions and concerns I raised in my chapter were justified. At this point, I think there may be a misunderstanding. You read my comments as a critique of your church and your “movement” while in fact my purpose was to assess the theology of family integration. (If I had sought to write a critique of the “movement,” I would have given a history of it, named the major organizations and key individuals, and so on. But this was not my intention in the book.)

Here some questions remain. For example: Do you and others with whom you associate hold to, and practice, regenerate church membership? Is this vital biblical principle also followed in the observance of the Lord’s Supper?

You mention that I cite a non-existent blog post by Dr. Mohler. The background to this is that at the annual ETS banquet this past November, Dr. Mohler and I talked at length about family integration, and he and I completely concurred on some of the concerns I just mentioned. At that time, he was planning to post a blog on this topic, but apparently subsequently did not find the time. I had temporarily included a reference to this forthcoming post. When I found out that it was no longer forthcoming, I tried to remove the reference, but was told my book was already in press. Nevertheless, in that lengthy conversation, Dr. Mohler and I saw completely eye to eye on some of the above-mentioned, and other, concerns.

You also fault me for being second-hand in my research and for only using a few, and biased, sources (though I sometimes wonder if “biased” means that those sources don’t agree with you!). In large part, the problem I encountered in writing my chapter was the paucity of cogent scholarly defenses of family integration. I am not talking about blog posts here, or statements on websites, or other talks or personal conversations, but about sustained biblical and theological treatments in form of scholarly monographs or articles. If you know of such treatments, please point me to them, so I can include reference to them in future editions of our book.

We also disagree on whether the words “segregated” or “segregation” as regularly used by family-integrated church advocates is appropriate and helpful. (Merely citing an instance where I accommodate myself to the use of the word by family-integrated advocates does not substitute for an argument. By what legitimate logic can you justify a practice just by catching your “opponent” in doing the same thing?) I continue to think that this rhetoric is inflammatory and unhelpful and urge you and others to consider stop using it. It is this reactionary aspect that concerns me, because it defines a certain set of beliefs over against an “enemy” who “segregates.” Family integration is not the gospel, and traditional churches who “segregate” are not our enemy. Our struggle is not against flesh and blood; it is against the devil who seeks to divide brothers and sisters in Christ with regard to non-essentials of the faith.

Surely ministering to various age and other groups in the church is not all bad, and there are other ways to go about discipling our children than to do away with youth groups or even nurseries. As I mention in my chapter, we should distinguish between underlying biblical and theological principles and specific methods. When we start investing particular methods with biblical authority and charge others with lack of biblical fidelity because they differ with us on the matter of method, we are treading on dangerous ground. On my recent travels in Europe, I found that the North American controversy surrounding family integration is virtually unknown there, at least in the places I visited. One young youth minister did a wonderful job involving parents in working with the youth while being blissfully unaware of North American family integration debates.

On the whole, your response to my new chapter in God, Marriage & Family strikes me as a bit too reactionary and prickly (at one point you say I “attack” a “straw man,” a most unfortunate word choice). Even if you feel that my concerns do not apply to your church, or to most in the “movement,” if they are valid, and well taken, then they should be heeded. What is more, we agree on the positive agenda and on the inadequacy of a “family of families” theology! Do we also agree on regenerate church membership and its implications for the observance of the Lord’s Supper? I would be thankful to hear that we do. By all appearances, the debate generated by the new chapter in God, Marriage & Family has surfaced considerable common ground between us, and this is something for which I am deeply grateful.

Yours in the common cause of celebrating God’s good plan for marriage and the family and of affirming the centrality of the church in God’s work in the world today,

Andreas Kostenberger

(1) In the first edition, I gloss the phrase “the Father from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named” in Eph 3:14-15 as “family of families.” This does not mean that I espoused a “family of families” approach the way some advocating a “family of families approach” in the family-integrated church movement do. Again, what is required is more than a quick google search or taking one passing remark out of context. Please see my entire analysis of this approach in the context of the entire chapter, and in fact the entire book.

(2) My analysis of the family-integrated approach is not primarily directed against any one organization or group of individuals. It pertains to the approach as such as it is propagated by a variety of people, understanding that the movement is anything but monolithic. It is my understanding that no one organization can claim to encompass or speak for the movement in its totality. If anyone claims they are the primary or exclusive target of my analysis, this claim is therefore false.

(3) Those who read the entire chapter will discover that, on the whole, my assessment contains much that is complimentary and worthy of affirmation in the family-integrated approach. At the same time, I raise some, I believe appropriate, cautions and concerns. In some cases, I invite those who advocate such an approach to provide further clarification and support for their views. May the debate continue, and may God’s Word be honored, and his people be blessed as a result.

(4) Finally, debates surrounding the family-integrated approach have sadly proven to be divisive in many quarters. This kind of disunity is not good. It does not commend the gospel to unbelievers when Christian brothers and sisters engage in reactionary or defensive interchange. We should all agree that the gospel of salvation in Christ is primary, not any one approach to family ministry in the church.

Again, let me invite you to read the whole book, and the whole chapter. I’m sure there will be much on which we can all agree. And as Justin points out, there are many other new additions to the 2d edition, including a discussion on the theology of sex and updates on various other debates surrounding marriage and the family. God’s plan for man and woman in marriage, and for families, in the home and the church is very wonderful, good, and wise. Let’s celebrate God’s good gift to humanity, and let’s give him all the glory.

Here is my response:

The ruling shows that as Christians, we should not look for a political solution to the crisis surrounding marriage and the family in our culture. The only true and lasting solution is found in a return to our spiritual foundations. The Bible makes clear that marriage is God’s idea rather than a social contract that we are free to renegotiate based on changing social trends. But we can’t expect the unbelieving world or any government or judicial system to understand or reinforce that. For this reason we should focus our efforts not on swaying political opinion but on teaching people what the Bible says about God’s plan for marriage and the family.

To read the full article click here.

In first-century Galatia, as in our day, there are those who would change the gospel of God’s grace into a message of human effort—but, as Paul aptly notes, if our salvation depends on our own contribution or ability, this message is no longer “gospel”—good news—because we are sinners! If our salvation depends on something we do, we are doomed! This is why Paul says in Romans, “I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is God’s power for salvation to everyone who believes … For in it God’s righteousness is revealed from faith to faith” (Rom 1:17).

The adherent of virtually all world religions, except for Christianity, seek to attain to communion with God, or to Nirwana or some other form of final state, through self-effort. Ultimately, these people are without hope. True hope comes, not through what man may do, but only through faith in what another man has already done—Jesus, the Lamb of God and the Savior of the world, when he died on the cross for the sins of the world. This is the salvation that is both the power of God and the righteousness of God, and thus truly “good news.”

What are we to say about this way of presenting things? In essence, the argument is circular. Once “orthodoxy” is defined in fourth-century terms as ecclesiastical doctrine hammered out by the various ecumenical councils, any doctrinal core preceding the fourth century can be considered “proto-orthodox” at best. Thus the validation of the Bauer-Ehrman thesis becomes in effect a self-fulfilling prophecy. Bauer, Ehrman, and others have cleverly recast the terminological landscape of this debate, most importantly by narrowing the term “orthodoxy” to a degree of doctrinal sophistication only reached in subsequent centuries, so that everything else falls short by comparison. Then they put “diversity” in place of what was conventionally understood as orthodoxy.

As we will see below, however, the New Testament presents instead a rather different picture. What we find there is not widespread diversity with regard to essential doctrinal matters, most importantly Christology and soteriology, but rather a fixed set of early core beliefs that were shared by apostolic mainstream Christianity while allowing for flexibility in nonessential areas. In matters of legitimate diversity, there was tolerance; in matters of illegitimate diversity (i.e., “heresy”), no such tolerance existed, but only denunciation in the strongest terms. What is more, as we have seen in the previous chapter, this early agreement on the fundamentals of the Christian faith in no way precludes subsequent theological formulation.

For this reason Christian orthodoxy for our present purposes can be defined as “correct teaching regarding the person and work of Jesus Christ, including the way of salvation, in contrast to teaching regarding Jesus that deviates from standard norms of Christian doctrine.” Defined in this way, the questions then become: Is it meaningful and appropriate to speak of the notion of “correct teaching regarding the person and work of Christ” in the first century? Were there standards in place by which what was “correct” and what was “incorrect” could be measured? As we will see, when framing the issue in this manner, the answers that emerge from a close study of the New Testament present themselves quite differently from those given by Bauer-Ehrman thesis.

One final point should be made here. As in many places, Ehrman places the conventional view in a virtual no-win situation. If the New Testament is held to be essentially unified, this, according to Ehrman, proves that it was “written by the winners” who chose to suppress and exclude all countervailing viewpoints. If the New Testament were to exhibit a considerable degree of diversity, and an unsettled state of affairs as to which theological position represents the standard of orthodoxy, this would be taken as evidence that the Bauer-Ehrman thesis is correct and diversity prevailed in earliest Christianity. Either way, Ehrman is right, and the conventional understanding of orthodoxy wrong. As a debating tactic, this is clever indeed. But will it work?

An excerpt from The Heresy of Orthodoxy: How Contemporary Culture’s Fascination with Diversity Has Reshaped Our Understanding of Early Christianity.

Thus Paul’s words ring out in his letter to the Romans: “But now, apart from law, God’s righteousness has been revealed—attested by the Law and the Prophets—that is, God’s righteousness through faith in Jesus Christ, to all who believe, since there is no distinction. For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. They are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus” (Rom 3:21–24).

In his day, Jesus was asked by religious Jews, “What can we do to perform the works of God?” (John 6:28). This has always been, and will always be, the misguided human quest to please or placate God by human self-effort. But what was Jesus’ response? It was this: “This is the work of God: that you believe in the One he has sent” (John 6:29). Jesus and Paul concur: trust in Jesus for salvation on the basis of his work on the cross is all that is required.

Glorious gospel! Wonderful news! For if it depended on us, we could never do enough to overcome our sinful nature or make amends for our sin. Not only did Jesus, the God-man, die a perfect, sin-atoning death, he lived a perfect, sinless life. In a wonderful exchange, Jesus’ life and death are credited to the account of those who trust Christ: “He made the One who did not know sin to be sin for us, so that we might become the righteousness of God in him” (2 Cor 5:21).

Beginning with Walter Bauer in 1934, the denial of clear orthodoxy in early Christianity has shaped and largely defined modern New Testament criticism, recently given new life through the work of spokesmen like Bart Ehrman. Spreading from academia into mainstream media, the suggestion that diversity of doctrine in the early church led to many competing orthodoxies is indicative of today’s postmodern relativism. Authors Köstenberger and Kruger engage Ehrman and others in this polemic against a dogged adherence to popular ideals of diversity.

Köstenberger and Kruger’s accessible and careful scholarship not only counters the “Bauer Thesis” using its own terms, but also engages overlooked evidence from the New Testament. Their conclusions are drawn from analysis of the evidence of unity in the New Testament, the formation and closing of the canon, and the methodology and integrity of the recording and distribution of religious texts within the early church.

Editorial Reviews

“In the beginning was Diversity. And the Diversity was with God, and the Diversity was God. Without Diversity was nothing made that was made. And it came to pass that nasty old ‘orthodox’ people narrowed down diversity and finally squeezed it out, dismissing it as heresy. But in the fullness of time (which is of course our time), Diversity rose up and smote orthodoxy hip and thigh. Now, praise be, the only heresy is orthodoxy. As widely and as unthinkingly accepted as this reconstruction is, it is historical nonsense: the emperor has no clothes. I am grateful to Andreas Köstenberger and Michael Kruger for patiently, carefully, and politely exposing this shameful nakedness for what it is.”
—D. A. Carson, Research Professor of New Testament, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School

“The Heresy of Orthodoxy will help many to make sense of what is happening in early Christian studies today. It explains, critiques, and provides an alternative to, the so-called ‘Bauer Thesis,’ an approach which undergirds a large segment of scholarship on early Christianity. The ‘doctrine’ that Christianity before the fourth century was but a seething mass of diverse and competing factions, with no theological center which could claim historical continuity with Jesus and his apostles, has become the new ‘orthodoxy’ for many. The authors of this book do more than expose the faults of this doctrine, they point the way to a better foundation for early Christian studies, focusing on the cornerstone issues of the canon and the text of the New Testament. Chapter 8, which demonstrates how one scholar’s highly-publicized twist on New Testament textual criticism only tightens the tourniquet on his own views, is alone worth the price of the book. Köstenberger and Kruger have done the Christian reading public a real service.”
—Charles E. Hill, Professor of New Testament, Reformed Theological Seminary

“The Bauer thesis, taken up in many university circles and popularized by Bart Ehrman and through TV specials, has long needed a thorough examination. The Heresy of Orthodoxy is that work. Whether looking at Bauer’s thesis of diversity, at contemporary use made of the theory to argue for the early origin of Gnosticism, at the process that led to the canon, or what our manuscript evidence is, this study shows that Bauer’s theory, though long embraced, is full of problems that need to be faced. What emerges from this study is an appreciation that some times new theories are not better than what they seek to replace, despite the hype that often comes from being the new kid on the block. It is high time this kid be exposed as lacking the substance of a genuinely mature view. This book does that well, and also gives a fresh take on what the alternative is that has much better historical roots.”
—Darrell L. Bock, Research Professor of NT Studies, Dallas Theological Seminary

“This is an admirably lucid and highly convincing rebuttal of the thesis that the earliest form of Christianity in many places was what would later be judged as ‘heresy’ and that earliest Christianity was so diverse that it should not be considered as a single movement—a thesis first presented by Walter Bauer but most recently advocated by Bart Ehrman. As Köstenberger and Kruger show with such clarity and compelling force, this still highly influential thesis simply does not stand up to scrutiny. By looking at a whole range of evidence—early Christian communities in different regions in the Roman Empire, the New Testament documents themselves, the emergence and boundaries of the canon and its connection to covenant, and the evidence for Christian scribes and the reliable transmission of the text of the New Testament—they show step by step that another view of early Christianity is much more in keeping with the evidence. That is, that there is a unified doctrinal core in the New Testament, as well as a degree of legitimate diversity, and that the sense of orthodoxy among New Testament writers is widespread and pervasive. They also unmask the way contemporary culture has been mesmerized by diversity and the impact this has had on some readers of the New Testament. In this astute and highly readable book—a tour de force—Köstenberger and Kruger have done us all a great service. It is essential reading for all who want to understand the New Testament and recent controversies that have arisen in New Testament Studies.”
—Paul Trebilco, Professor of New Testament Studies, Department of Theology and Religion, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand

“Köstenberger and Kruger have written a book which not only introduces the reader to the problematic Bauer thesis and its contemporary resurgence, but which, layer by layer, demonstrates its failure to account reliably for the history of communities, texts, and ideas which flourished in the era of early Christianity. In their arguments, the authors demonstrate their competence in the world of New Testament studies. But, additionally, they weave throughout the book insights into how fallacies within contemporary culture provide fuel for a thesis which long ago should have been buried. Believers will find in these pages inspiration to ‘contend earnestly for the faith once for all delivered to the saints.’”
—D. Jeffrey Bingham, Department Chair and Professor of Theological Studies, Dallas Theological Seminary

“In recent times, certain media darlings have been telling us that earliest Christianity knew nothing of the ‘narrowness’ of orthodox belief. Now the authors of The Heresy of Orthodoxy have provided a scholarly yet highly accessible rebuttal, showing that what is actually ‘narrow’ here is the historical evidence on which this old thesis is based. In a culture which wants to recreate early Christianity after its own stultifying image, this book adds a much-needed breath of balance and sanity.”
—Nicholas Perrin, Franklin S. Dyrness Chair of Biblical Studies Associate Professor of New Testament, Wheaton College; author, Lost in Transmission? What We Can Know about the Words of Jesus

“Köstenberger and Kruger have produced a volume that is oozing with common sense and is backed up with solid research and documentation. This work is a comprehensive critique of the Bauer-Ehrman thesis that the earliest form of Christianity was pluralistic, that there were multiple Christianities, and that heresy was prior to orthodoxy. Respectful yet without pulling any punches, The Heresy of Orthodoxy at every turn makes a convincing case that the Bauer-Ehrman thesis is dead wrong. All those who have surrendered to the siren song of postmodern relativism and tolerance, any who are flirting with it, and everyone concerned about what this seismic sociological-epistemological shift is doing to the Christian faith should read this book.”
—Daniel B. Wallace, Professor of New Testament Studies, Dallas Theological Seminary

How was this possible? There is only one satisfying answer: the same Jesus who was crucified on a hill outside of Jerusalem rose again from the dead three days later and was exalted to the right hand of God. As Peter proclaimed at Pentecost, “God has resurrected this Jesus. We are all witnesses of this. Therefore, since he has been exalted to the right hand of God and has received from the Father the promised Holy Spirit, he has poured out what you both see and hear” (Acts 2:32–33).

The rest of the Book of Acts records the amazing, astounding, breathtaking, irresistible progress of the Christian gospel in a world where the Jews fiercely oppose the early church’s mission and where, ironically, the Romans protect Paul and the early Christians from certain death. Internal obstacles, whether dishonesty or potential disunity, are overcome, as are persecution and various external threats. Not clever strategy, but humble trust in God and faithful witness to him empower the early Christians, who prove victorious again and again.

Luke’s account of the spiritual exploits of the early church can serve as a mighty inspiration to the church of all ages which is faced with the same challenge of bearing witness to the living, resurrected Christ in a world hostile to the gospel message. As we continue this godly legacy, we must make sure our trust, as that of the first Christians, is in the same God who raised Jesus from the dead and for whom no obstacle is too great if we only put our trust in him and his awesome power rather than in our own ability to overcome the obstacles we face.