I really like the idea of this, at least in theory. Having all generations in church from babies to ninety-somethings certainly has a big family 'feel' about it. I think we should do it a bit more at church (in addition to the all-age services we have in the summer holidays, where the small children are allowed to wander about a bit). But it must have a lot of limitations. How much can children understand from an adult sermon? Will they develop the idea that church is boring? What about if it is a sermon unsuitable for children? The noise is also a factor if you are hard of hearing!

The first definition was quite similar but it under-emphasised the role of church as family. I like this new definition as it seems to recognize better the reality that it's not just about training parents, and that as the author later says, the generations need each other to spur each other on at every life stage. Nonetheless, since my church isn't particularly "intergenerational" in its practices, I'm still not sure what this looks like on a Sunday (or at other times in the week). Are we saying that we want ministry from the front and in small mid-week groups to place more emphasis on church members seeking out others who are different? Are we saying that we want people to get to the stage where, for example, before and after the service, there are cross-generational conversations going on with adults talking freely to children, youth to adults, younger adults to older adults etc? I'd love to see more of that in my church - I think it would take adults being intentional about speaking to children and youth, and others of different life stages.

On implementing Family-Based ministry: I do wonder if the church family senses that there is a massive emphasis on family and parents as primary disciple-makers, there might be some push-back. Especially from single folks who might feel excluded. So there must be a big pastoral challenge in these Family Ministry churches to get buy-in from those who have little or no immediate family?

This sentence captures why I am drawn to the Family-Integrated Ministry model. It’s not about adding more programs but about reshaping how we understand ministry itself.

Families and the church should not operate separately but together as one community of discipleship. In my context, this vision feels both inspiring and challenging. I see the need for a new culture where parents, children, and all generations share the same spiritual journey.

This approach also feels deeply authentic in a world that often values appearance over depth. Much of what passes for faith today seems external or performative. But when families truly live out the gospel together, it becomes real and convincing. People outside the church can see the Kingdom of God embodied in everyday life—and that’s what makes faith truly alive.

When I read this part of the chapter it made me realize that so many churches build a program based on what is current and then in 3-4 years they find them questioning why are numbers dropping. Because people or families don't feel its relevant anymore. How raw of a thought that a church that is not consistently reorienting itself in its entirety will become irrelevant. I guess we could draw a parallel to technology advances. every couple of years something new comes out and makes the design of 2 - 3 years ago less desirable. The challenge becomes how to hold true to gospel truths consistently adapt to the newest issues facing families in your congregation over and over again.

I feel this is really the crux of the discussion in analyzing the different models of family ministry. Beyond the differences of thought and implementation, what we all must really pursue is to have a church that is salt and light, grounded in the truth of God's Word, and that is the living proof of being entirely different from the godless society around it.

I enjoyed much of the reading, and I agree with most of what the authors shared, not trying to prove which particular family ministry might be "the best", but giving different perspectives and encouraging the readers to do an accurate evaluation of their own church contexts, and then to decide which model could be the best suitable for that particular community.

This seems like quite a bold statement to me. Yes, scripture is supreme and sufficient for Christian life, but is it the exact standard for how to do ministry? It is, obviously, the place that we see God's mission, His character, etc, and, therefore, its where we see the heart behind ministry, but the Bible doesn't have a clear list of ways that we are supposed to minister to families. If it did, I can't imagine we'd be spending so much time questioning the exact grammatical wording of Deuteronomy 6.

Scripture is hugely interpretable. Arguments can be made for all sorts of things that do or don't line up with scripture depending on your tradition. Should we not then make use of the resources we have, of "organizational psychologies, statistical correlations, and other social-scientific claims?" Do we not want to learn from church tradition, evaluating, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, what does and doesn't work in our congregations and making informed decisions?

This line of argument, stating that these are entirely scriptural methods of family ministry, seems to set its own thinking on a pedestal, making the implication that if they don't seem to work from a human perspective (the only perspective that we as humans actually have), that's ok because they are based in scripture and are probably working in God's perspective.

I'm likely reading far more into this passage without the context of the entire book. Maybe the writer is specifically responding to methods of ministry which ignore scripture as a whole and rely entirely of secular structures and tradition. That being said, this seems like an overcorrection.

I would love to hear what others think on this and if it created tension for anyone else or if there is a more gracious reading of this paragraph than I have given.

This part of the reading speaks to me because as a parent, I would never just rely on the school system to educate my child. I would never just entrust the medical doctors to ensure my child's health. We as parents are responsible for the raising up of our children, this is our God given responsibility. Seen in Proverbs 22 verse 6 "Start children off on the way they should go,
    and even when they are old they will not turn from it."

Then again in Deuteronomy 4: 9-10 and again in 11:19.

I am starting to thing that a young persons foundational faith is strongly reliant on that of the family ministry, then can be further refined by the rest of the church the professional leader and the discipleship of other generations.

For me I find this to be true I entered into a church with little to no foundations as my family was a family of non believers. I had to rely solely on those in the family I married into and those in the church to help me grow. It was a much more slowly developing faith with many occurrences of failure and stagnation.

With these things in mind I'm strongly leaning towards a focus of family first ministry, with supplementation of the multi-generational church.

I think I have chosen the same quote as Jason!

I really enjoyed this section of the chapter where the author was touching on this overemphasis on professionalism. So often parents feel incompetent to disciple their children, perhaps they are new Christian’s themselves! Inevitably, parents give the sole responsibility to the church, they spend Monday to Saturday giving practical care to their children and then on a Sunday hand them over to Sunday school. Perhaps, the trained youth leader feels more competent and vital than the parents and therefore carries the weight of discipleship alone.

Yet, the pattern of Scripture is God using the unskilled, and the untrained, because ultimately it is God working through them. Moses, Gideon, Jeremiah, the disciples and even the Samaritan woman! I think this is an important thing to remember when discussing the approaches to children’s ministry - are we trusting in our own abilities or relying upon God?

I also appreciate that the author did not completely undermine the importance of training, parents must partner with “professionals”!

This is a truth that my community should discuss and consider how to apply. The first and second points in the “common ground” section are ideas that our congregants already affirm. We all believe that Scripture should be our standard and that parents have the primary role in their children’s spiritual formation—at least in theory. However, the idea that we should intentionally seek ways to live out our faith together across generations is, in my opinion, still far from being a reality. Currently, after our corporate time of worship, children and teenagers are dismissed for Sunday school. They return at the end of the service, bringing papers or crafts that show the topic they studied during their separate time. So far, there has been no effort to align the theme of the sermon with what the children are learning.

This reading made me reflect on the importance of addressing this gap. Since parents are primarily responsible for their children’s discipleship, aligning the themes could help them have meaningful D6 conversations at home and find practical ways to live out what they have learned together.

I believe it could be relatively easy to implement such a change at this stage of our journey, as our church is still growing and shaping its identity. What we need is simply to be intentional—to bring this matter into our conversations, make a clear plan, and act promptly while our structure and habits are still forming.

This claim raises important questions about the nature of the church. Is the church a family of families, a body of believers (in the universal church sense), or even a body composed of both believers and unbelievers meeting together in the same local congregation? According to this claim, the church’s worship and discipleship depend on embracing this particular model. Which sounds a bit too much.

It would be interesting to see concrete examples of how this approach works in practice. How are children integrated into the worship service? Are they expected to participate in the same way adults do? While the term age-integrated sounds inclusive and unifying, if certain elements of worship are designed primarily for adults—even when children are present—the experience may not be truly inclusive for them. I am curious to see how worship and discipleship are genuinely restored simply by following this model.