Christian Post: Modern Youth Ministry ‘Unbiblical,’ Ministry Leader Claims
“This slippery slope of age segregation leads to the isolation of an individual’s perspective to one that only looks outward from within the confines of their age group and excludes the lessons that can and should be learned from previous generations”
Based on the excerpts this article included, I agree with Mr. Brown. While ministries can be targeted to meet the needs of specific groups (the elderly, singles, widows, single parents, etc) the departmentalizing of people into age and family makeup does nothing to create the unity needed so that the body can better minister to itself.
Youth groups tend to fall into the trap of infantilizing young people and driving a wedge between child and parent, instead of turning the hearts of the youth toward their parents and challenging them to serve God instead of winning prizes for bobbing for apples in a vat of egg whites.
Youth groups tend to fall into the trap of infantilizing young people and driving a wedge between child and parent, instead of turning the hearts of the youth toward their parents and challenging them to serve God instead of winning prizes for bobbing for apples in a vat of egg whites.
It's certainly true that far too many youth groups are activity-oriented, promoting "fun" over just about anything else, but because a church has a time when teens meet--be it Sunday School, youth group, or both--does it have to be like that? Is it inevitable? Can one not have a youth ministry that seeks to turn the hearts of youth toward their parents and challenge them to serve God?
I don't see why objections are interpreted as either/or...we only have portions of Mr. Brown's message, but it seems to me that he is calling for balance, and an emphasis on family and discipleship, not the total eradication of any ministry aimed at young people. So what's not to love about that?
Susan,
I am all for calling for a balance in this area, but that is not what these family integrated people are doing. They call any kind of segregation in youth ministry as unBiblical and worldly and the product of Dewey, etc. They take the worst representations of youth ministry and present it as the norm. They connect it to Dewey and make it a product of humanism. They usually declare that Sunday School designed to help children understand the Bible at thier level is anathema and a sign of a bad church and a sign of a bad parent for letting your child go to Sunday School instead of keeping them with you in your class - and question why you even have them at a church that offers a class for them due to the obviously unBiblical philosophy taking place in the church (from their perspective).
These groups have correctly seen an error - the complete age-segregation of youth in some churches that results in the youth being essentially a separate group from the rest of the church - and in their desire to correct the error have went to the other extreme. (Kind of remind me of Camping finding liberalism and apostasy in many churches and deciding that the church age has ended.)
I think that there is definitely things that can be learned from this group, but I think they present an unBiblical view of the church. If they were just calling for balance in this area, I would stand up and agree and applaud. Unfortunately, this is not the case.
Thanks,
Frank
In his message, Scott Brown said: "We now have almost three generations of children who had no father who walked beside them but a youth group instead. It is obvious that half a decade of youth group does not produce young people who are passionate about the church." And you can't really read the article without drawing the conclusion that Brown is calling for the eradication of "youth group" (while still having ministry to youth). He further insists that "Modern youth ministry is also inherently destructive in its impact. It divides the church by creating generational division and multiple cultures instead of a unified 'body'."
Those are kind of "either/or" statements: either youth group or father...youth group & generational division or no youth group and a unified body.
I contend that a church can have a youth group that supports the father, strengthens the family, promotes a unified body, and seriously challenges young people to live a godly, committed Christian life, passionate for the church. Granted, in this culture, it won't likely be a large group, especially if one lives in an area with a competing party-time youth ministry philosophy.
I thought that referring to his subject as "philosophy and practice of comprehensive, age-segregated, programmatic youth ministry" and "modern youth ministry" qualified his statements. Because of that I didn't perceive that he was speaking of all youth ministries everywhere, or calling for churches to abolish all age targeted ministries.
Personally, I think there is generally too much in the way of segregation going on, and the Biblical pattern I've seen is gender segregation, not age segregation. That isn't to say that one shouldn't minister to children separately at times or using different methods/materials, but that the default seems to be to separate the older from the younger more often than not. This is IMO very harmful to all generations.
I agree with your post, Bro. Sansone, and I think that some family-integrated folks have taken a great idea (and IMO a Biblical one), slathered it in hyperbole, and started beating churches over the head with it. This is not necessary or helpful. I don't know anything about Mr. Brown except what I read in the article linked in the OP. What I know about the family integrated 'movement' has been from listening to a couple of messages by Voddie Baucham, so I admittedly have limited knowledge of this 'group' as a whole.
The article identifies Scott Brown as the director for the National Center for Family-Integrated Churches, so although this article in its brevity may not give all the nuances of his position, I believe it's safe to say that Pastor Sansone's assessment is fairly accurate. If you asked him directly, I think Scott Brown would call for churches everywhere "to abolish all age targeted ministries."
From the FAQ
We do not believe that family-integration is the only—or even the primary—issue in selecting or establishing a local church. But it is unquestionably a defining issue of our day as the modern church has lost the essential familistic culture that we see modeled in the New Testament...
...the NCFIC Confession is specifically a statement of beliefs about God's blueprint for unity between church and family... to recognize the church as a spiritual "family of families," to develop a multi-generational vision for preserving our spiritual posterity, to equip whole households for ministry through heart-level relationships rather than activity-based programs, and much more.
Although NCFIC is unabashedly opposed to the non-historical, non-biblical emphasis on youth culture, pragmatic reasoning, consumer-driven marketing and feminism in the modern church, we are NOT opposed to the existing church itself. Indeed, it is our purpose and privilege to serve the established churches that are open to reconsidering the value of family integration and father participation in the meetings of the church. We exhort all Christians everywhere to give proper submission and respect to their biblically constituted churches and leaders.
As I read over their site, I'm definitely perceiving their passion for their stand on the necessity of preserving the family structure. It is important, however, to make sure we are reading/hearing what these folks are saying in context. For instance-
Scripture delegates to the family, the church, and the state certain spheres of authority, and they can exercise no authority outside those spheres. Tragically, however, the church has usurped authority from the family by training youth through Sunday schools and youth groups, whereas the Bible commits the training of children to their parents. Relationships may be ‘slow’ and ‘inefficient,’ but discipleship is God’s method.
(The Sufficiency of Scripture and Family Integration)
This sounds very dogmatic, but then later on I read a blog entry named "Biblical Youth Ministry" from which the article in the OP quotes-
I grew up along with the culture of youth ministry—read all the books, tried all the methods. But I came to realize that the rise of programmatic, age-segregated youth ministry in the mid-twentieth century was actually a new invention in the history of the church. For the first time in history, trained youth ministers have been recruited in order to put the young people of the church in the hands of so-called experts. Now, at the beginning of the 21st century, churches are shelling out millions of dollars on programs, buildings, and entertainment for youth.The focus of these churches has been shifted from evangelism to entertainment under the name of evangelism and church leaders are setting aside the commands of God for church and family life in order to grow the church.
and then
By rejecting youth groups, we are not rejecting ministry to youth. On the contrary, we wholeheartedly embrace and promote generous investments in teaching Scripture to the youth of the church. But we must do it in God’s way! What are His commands and patterns? Every Christian is charged with making disciples of all nations including their youth.
He then calls for this 'weed' (and I've personally described youth groups in terms much worse than 'weeds') to be uprooted and destroyed, but it still appears to me that they are not talking about EVERY youth targeted ministry, but the current trend of youth culture/entertainment driven youth groups, which I abhor with every bone in my body.
I also agree with a blog post on page 2 about the abandonment of the sufficiency of Scripture, which IMO has led the church to embrace cultural practices that may not be 'inherently evil', but do not produce any quality or quantity of fruit... which would lead me to believe that some 'accepted' practices should at least be reconsidered, and at best tossed out.
...abandonment of the sufficiency of Scripture to the creativity of man is supported by five assumptions—assumptions widely held in the modern church:
False assumption #1. The red letters are the most important part.
False assumption #2. If it is not mentioned in the Bible, it is automatically lawful.
False assumption #3. If there is no command, it is not required.
False assumption #4: If it is not condemned in Scripture, it is authorized.
False assumption #5: The Old Testament is automatically void unless repeated in the New Testament.
The National Center for Family-Integrated Churches is heavily associated with Vision Forum Ministries.
I have heard Baptists excoriate VF for its stand on this issue.
While I do not agree with VF on everything (particularly dispensationalism), I do promote them and the wonderful materials they provide in areas such as creationism, worldview, history, etc. VF cooperates with a wide array of experts on various issues -- including the family-integrated church concept -- so of course one must use discernment when making use of their resources.
In that spirit, however, I do believe that there is great merit to the family-integrated church idea. At its heart, it offers a corrective to a church culture which is drunken with worldliness and anti-biblical methodology.
Ultimately, in my opinion, this is not a denominational or church governement issue as some have tried to paint it.
I have seen family-integration applied very skillfully in a larger Baptist church, and I have also seen the opposite in a smaller one. I believe that Biblical wisdon is the key to making use of these concepts in attempting to strike the Biblical balance.
(After all, we do not go to church to worship "the family" anymore than we do to be split up in age groups and do "fun stuff." Both of these have the wrong focus. And yet I made it all the way to adulthood without the benefit of even once having attended "kiddie church." :>) )
while I was perusing the site- Doug Phillips is a member of the board of NCFIC. I've 'heard stories' about VF and Doug Phillips, but a story does not evidence make. It is sometimes difficult to separate the issues- I've personally known one pastor who was very much a proponent of the patriarchy movement, and his family was a MESS- so when I see anything that looks like them, I become very cautious. Caution is always prudent, but it isn't fair to allow one dysfunctional family to affect my judgment. So I am going to be very careful not to color the NCFIC with any brush they haven't themselves provided.
My dad didn't allow my brother and I to attend many of the parties and frivolous activities our church provided, and I also have managed to survive- with what I believe is a healthy reverence for the time we set aside for worship, study, and edification. It's an attitude my dh and I plan to pass on to our kids, and if that means they don't attend rallies or youth group, then so be it.
Susan, I was part of a youth group that God used to plant within my heart a desire for full-time ministry through Christian service opportunities, teen-led church services, missions trips, and yes, even good, clean, Christian fellowship (read: fun).
Susan, I was part of a youth group that God used to plant within my heart a desire for full-time ministry through Christian service opportunities, teen-led church services, missions trips, and yes, even good, clean, Christian fellowship (read: fun).
I'm glad you had a good experience in YG, and I am sure there are others here who had wonderful time in their youth groups. I am not sure what your point is when you say and yes, even good, clean, Christian fellowship (read: fun)... did someone say we shouldn't ever have fun? Do you think that I or someone else here needs to have it pointed out that there is such a thing as good, clean Christian fellowship, which being interpreted means 'fun'? I mean, the obvious way for me to take this is that you are referring to someone who is completely stupid or terminally anal, which couldn't possibly be me, so I want to be clear as to your meaning. 
Bro. Greg, I was part of youth groups (yes- read that as more than one) where there was no spiritual emphasis- the female workers masked Mary Kay parties as an activity for the girls, and one of the other leaders was obsessed with playing Barry Manilow records backwards. The only thing we ever served was chips and dip. There were often two chaperones for about 30 kids, sexual promiscuity was the norm, and there was rampant substance abuse amongst the young people, to the point where the 'good' kids were being corrupted right under the trusting noses of their parents. I saw my first R-rated movie (An Officer and a Gentleman) on HBO at my youth leader's house, but I still managed to remain one of the 'good kids' who refused to get involved in all the filth that was going on, even though I was not a Christian at the time... and I recognize that both our experiences are anecdotal, proving nothing except that different youth groups can produce different results. Results are not the measure we use to decide if a practice is Scriptural, and I see no reason not to rethink how we minister to the folks- not just youth, but everyone.
For instance, churches that corral the singles together all the time- why is that? Would they not benefit from interacting with youth, newly married couples, the elderly, and established families? What about our senior citizens? How often do churches encourage younger people to seek the wisdom and insight of the older folks in the congregation, and provide opportunities for fellowship across the lines of age and experience?
Instead, the SOP is often for these groups to be segregated on a regular basis. I don't think it is beneficial or Biblical. If the Scriptural model is for the older men/women to teach the younger men/women, then that IMO should be the default, instead of consistently separating the older from the younger. Of course there are times for certain groups to be ministered to specifically- very few older folks would want to ride The Beast at King's Island... but I'm not trying to refute the idea that sometimes we split off into groups to study or have activities, but that the norm for nearly every facet of ministry is to separate into defined age groups.
It seems that when done right, age/gender/life-stage targeted ministries will complement the general ministry of the church. Singles will often have their own S.S. class, for example, because that's the most efficient means of consistently dealing with the issues of singleness. But when done right, these groups also consistently interact with the entire body in worship services, prayer meetings, church-wide fellowship events, and so on. Does it always work like this? Um...no.
From my observation of a variety of church settings, it seems things break down the larger a church gets. It becomes too unwieldy to have meaningful church-wide interaction in a church of, say, 500+. Everyone knows that interaction is helpful (iron sharpening iron, if you will), so to facilitate that, the larger church breaks itself down into a bunch of smaller "churches" that have their own meetings, but all get together once or twice a week in the Sunday services. However, the smaller "churches" become primary [sidebar: I know folks in large churches who attend only because of their S.S. class]. In fact, lots of folks in the larger church don't even know each other...nor is it possible for them to, really. So then, this big church has all kinds of age/gender/life-stage groups that, for all practical purposes, become an end unto themselves, and you're left with the "corralling the singles together all the time"...and the teens...and the kids...and the seniors.... In both of the large churches where I've served (600-900), this has been the case. And, by the way, if the big church didn't do that, it wouldn't be big very long, because most people want to feel like they belong to some kind of community where they know others and are known. Yes, I know, some attend the big church because they like the anonymity of being lost in a crowd. Well, they'd eventually leave too--the crowd wouldn't be so big anymore.
For the most part, my ministry experience has been in small churches of under 100. We've had age-graded Sunday schools & teen groups. My current church has a monthly seniors luncheon. But in none of these small churches have I seen the kind of group isolation that naturally occurs in the large church. The children are comfortable being with adults of all ages; the singles intermingle with the marrieds; the young couples relate well to the middle agers; the seniors love everyone! What I have seen in the smaller church is that the lack of relatively sizable target groups makes reaching and keeping people difficult. For example, the couple leading a Wed PM teen group moved out of the area, and we really have no one who could take their place. Consequently, the teens have joined the adults for Wed PM Bible study/prayer time. Yet, even though I tried to do some things to make the time more "teen friendly," only the teens from 1 family come. One of the teens from the church goes to another church's teen program on Wed. PM. Teens that used to come from outside the church have dropped out altogether. A couple more examples: we've had young married w/o kids couples visit the church, but don't come back--there aren't any others like them...families with young children don't return because there aren't enough of them....singles don't return because we only have a couple of other singles. So, not having the target groups has the benefit of avoiding group isolation and fostering church unity...but the downside is its much more difficult to reach and keep people.
For the record, S. Brown has been crystal clear in the past that he is against all age segregation. If you search on the phrase "kid times" here, for example, you'll find a couple of articles I wrote on the value of kid times in ministry and these contain some links to Brown's posts at Vision Forum.
But one thing keeps coming to mind again and again. How can what the church does for one or two hours a week really be doing so much damage to what parents are able able to do the other 80 some waking hours of the week?
I think the case can easily be made that churches to do not teach parents well enough what they ought to do during the 80 hours, but this is a problem of omission not a problem of inclusion. In other words, it's not what these churches have/do (youth min.) that is the problem, but what they do not do also.
But one thing keeps coming to mind again and again. How can what the church does for one or two hours a week really be doing so much damage to what parents are able able to do the other 80 some waking hours of the week?
I think the case can easily be made that churches to do not teach parents well enough what they ought to do during the 80 hours, but this is a problem of omission not a problem of inclusion. In other words, it's not what these churches have/do (youth min.) that is the problem, but what they do not do also.
I don't see it (personally) as being about a time quantity thing, but what are we doing during that time? What is our focus, our emphasis? We meet at church for various purposes that are intertwined- worship, thanksgiving, fellowship, edification, admonition... and I think when families are separated during these times, and the quality and attitude of the programs used with young people is lacking in depth and sobriety, young people will receive unintended messages- that serious worship is for the old fogies, that each group is so distinct as to not be able to minister to each other...
I'm not against ALL/ANY forms of segregation, but I am definitely concerned about the church catering to youth culture in a way that undermines their relationship with their parents, that usurps the authority of the husband/father, that encourages people to seek counsel amongst their peers instead of basing their choice of counselor on spiritual maturity... each church should evaluate their practices by what would best minister to that congregation, not what is popular or considered traditional. For instance, the churches I've seen with what appear to be good quality youth programs are those that hold YG meetings during times other than the regular worship service, because this allows parents to be more involved. When YG activities and meetings are scheduled at the same time as activities or services for 'the adults' it creates a conflict of interest. If a parent keeps their child with them so they can participate in a service as a family, the family is viewed as 'unsupportive' of the youth ministry, but if the parent chooses to attend an activity/meeting with their child, they are called 'helicopter' parents. I've heard with my own two God-given ears that it is good for kid to be separate from their parents at church so they can be exposed to a variety of ideas other than what their parents are teaching them.
Adjectives fail me.
Regarding the age based segregation, I echo both Bryan and Aaron's assessment. The church is the organized assembly of worshipers. I know that not all "family-integrated" people must be this way, but what I have seen is a pervading mindset that the family is more important than the church and in the end, those churches draw and attract young to middle-aged families. The abolition of age based ministry would completely destroy the work God is building in our church. Maybe that is because we are a new church and many of the ones attending are newly saved and are eating up the ministry of the word. Without a nursery, without a Bible time for their kids, they would not attend (yes I know that from their own testimonies). We are a small church and have no desire to become a large church (we would rather start many different small churches and widen our web, but that is a different topic). We begin age-based ministries because of need, not tradition. Sometimes we join the youth with the adults, for half of the year, our kid's program and youth program on Sunday nights gathers with the entire church. We encourage teachers to rotate through different age levels, We encourage youth activities where the parents are involved in the activities--different parents plan and organize both ministry and fun activities, under the supervision of youth leaders. IOW, there are ways to promote unity and age diversity without canceling "junior church", Kid's programs, and youth. The main priority must be the main priority. To edify the entire body by exalting Christ to the glory of God. As pastor, I seek to rotate through each group yearly both kids and adults. I just finished a series on Sunday nights with the teens, next I will be teaching a class on Bible interpretation with the adults, and after that, I will be helping with our kid's program (we call it grace builders). This way, I can help pastor the entire body. (sorry I got of rambling there).
What Susan describes as her experience is despicable in my eyes. I am not sure that churches root problem was the youth ministry or children's ministry, but rather a leadership problem. My anecdotal evidence is different. I have been involved in four churches in my life. Grew up in one, moved to another town after graduation, served in a church in college and now pastor a church (before pastoring, I was "all-around" guy--children, youth, music, etc. . . it was a small church). Each of these ministries, I thank God was nothing like what Susan describes, (I hope you know Susan, I am not impugning you but rather that youth ministry you mentioned sounds awful and if that is what I had. . . I don't know what I would think of youth groups today). Instead, we blended ministry to different age groups (the youth went to minister to the elderly of the church. The youth helped teach in the kid's programs. The youth helped in ministries of the church being paired with older Christians in the different functions). I guess I was raised in a bubble that was not afflicted with those program based youth and children's ministries.
Idolatry is idolatry whether that idol is the youth group or the family unit. Whether it is the pastors or the fathers, whether it is fun or feeling of superiority because we don't participate in that fun. We as servants of God are seeking to walk the right path down the center, not the one on the right side or left side.
My two cents. . . I haven't posted in SI for a long time, but had a few minutes today, God bless.
I've heard with my own two God-given ears that it is good for kid to be separate from their parents at church so they can be exposed to a variety of ideas other than what their parents are teaching them.
Actually, I think would agree w/the idea that kids benefit from learning things other than what their parents are teaching them.
I still have difficulty articulating this point when it comes up, but I'll give it a go. The church is a body (Rom.12, 1 Cor 12) in which the members edify one another and, therefore, the members need one another. The Body is not an extension of the home.
Add to that the fact that this one-another ministry (Col. 3.16 comes to mind, and Eph.4.11-16 or so) is not anywhere constricted to "one another among adults" or "one another within families." So my reasoning is that if we are commanded to do this for each other--kids too--it must cross family lines and it must be good for kids to have the benefit of this learning. On one hand, that rattles me as a parent because I'd love to be in control of everything my kids are learning. On the other hand, this appears to be God's model and I have to trust Him with the results.
...and it doesn't take a great deal of imagination for me to think of scenarios where others' teaching is making up for deficiencies in my own.
Edit: Matthew J... appreciate hearing your experience. Takes it out of the abstract a bit. My own experiences w/youth groups growing up were not quite so positive, but not terrible either.
I should probably also mention that I don't think it's good for youth to be always separated in ministry. There needs to be together time for sure and when we cannot do both at Grace, we are together.
Aaron- I agree, and I can see that I wasn't clear. What I heard was that it was good for kids to hear other ideas, as in beliefs that are in contradiction to what a parent is teaching their child. For instance, it's good for homeschooled kids to hear objections to homeschooling, for children who aren't allowed to watch tv to hear why tv viewing isn't bad, for kids whose families listen to CCM to hear why all CCM is bad, and so forth. Whatever you believe about those topics, it is not the place of the SS teacher to contradict the parents about their lifestyle choices that are not in direct contradiction to Scripture. Period.
But if we are talking about hearing truth in different formats or perspectives, then I'm all for that. I had a "Duh!" moment just awhile ago listening to Dr. Bauder talk about the temptation of Christ. I've heard that passage read and preached on about a gazillion times, and have read it myself over 100 times, and yet ideas occurred to me that had never dawned on me before hearing his perspective. But he is teaching undeniable truth, not how he feels about Christmas trees and movie theatres.
I suppose it is good to discuss this, so here is a little more of the material referenced in the article above.
http://www.ncfic.org/articlemodule/view_article/id/128/src/@random49598e...
Again, I think these issues need a good measure of balance and the artful implementation of Biblical wisdom, and are open to a great deal of misunderstanding if we get focused on semantics.
Most IFB'ers are not going to go the Vision Forum route on family-integration.
But can we agree that there are some gross distortions in our churches which need to be cleaned up?
What do the kids in my church learn from kiddie church? I do not know the complete answer to that -- but one thing I know they are learning for sure: Right before the sermon, you get up out of your seat and RUUUUUN for the door, pushing and shoving to get out as soon as possible!!!
Boy, there is a good and Godly life-lesson that will come in handy in adulthood!!!
I would've done that just one time as a kid... :>)
(P.S. - I remember a sermon by Allister Begg in which he talked about his dismay when this happened to him one time right before he preached. He told the story in a humorous way, but it illustrated the point of how absurd it is to dismiss all the young people just in time for the preaching of the Word of God.)
Susan, I was part of a youth group that God used to plant within my heart a desire for full-time ministry through Christian service opportunities, teen-led church services, missions trips, and yes, even good, clean, Christian fellowship (read: fun).
Greg--thanks for your testimony here. Until you posted this, I was worried that the the (inflated) rhetoric of this thread lacked balance, reporting only the the failures of "youth group" ministry. I agree with Greg's point. Done correctly, the "traditional" model of youth ministry can be an effective tool for discipleship, one that created unity among age groups rather than division. [Greg's family lived up the street from my family in Toledo.]
I hope we are not confusing Bible principles with Bible teaching methods. While it is helpful for teachers to "teach as Christ taught," we should be careful to emphasize that the New Testament does not mandate a particular method of teaching, neither does it mandate a particular age grouping. Different churches will answer this question differently, depending on the context of their own ministry.
Children learn differently than teens and adults learn. A wise teacher will become a student of the way people learn. And there is benefit to studying the order in which we teach the hierarchy of Biblical truth. In the process of moving from milk to meat, there are many good reasons to group the milk drinkers in one group and the meat eaters in another.
If we are able to agree on these relatively simple ideas, we can better understand what originally led to carefully-considered, age-appropriate curriculum groupings. Detractors may call this "age group segregation," but this strikes me as an emotionally-charged phrase designed to stifle discussion.
Aaron- I agree, and I can see that I wasn't clear. What I heard was that it was good for kids to hear other ideas, as in beliefs that are in contradiction to what a parent is teaching their child. For instance, it's good for homeschooled kids to hear objections to homeschooling, for children who aren't allowed to watch tv to hear why tv viewing isn't bad, for kids whose families listen to CCM to hear why all CCM is bad, and so forth. Whatever you believe about those topics, it is not the place of the SS teacher to contradict the parents about their lifestyle choices that are not in direct contradiction to Scripture. Period.
Susan, I feel that the possibility of parental "contradiction" by SS teachers is sometimes caused by unskilled parents who wrongly conflate family conviction with Biblical mandate. (Sometimes! I agree that in other cases, SS teachers dig themselves into holes.)
The SS teacher is sometimes painted into a corner by parents who disagree among themselves on what you call "lifestyle choices." Because the parents never figured out how to articulate and resolve these differences, the teacher is set up for failure. Any time a parent communicates a personal family conviction as if it is the only valid Biblical position for every family to take, the church body is headed for conflict. Gonna boil over somewhere, perhaps during youth time.
I'm okay with my kids hanging out with No TV Families, Harry Potter Families, No Plastic Weapons families, and even Culotte Families. And I would ask them to respect house rules whenever necessary. But when we start to mandate these rules at church (or prevent SS teachers from addressing them), I get itchy.
I was worried that the the (inflated) rhetoric of this thread lacked balance, reporting only the the failures of "youth group" ministry
Would you please point out the 'inflated rhetoric' of which you speak? I'm worried that we won't be able to discuss the issues at hand and be honest about our experiences, lest we be accused of insincerity or exaggeration.
Susan, I feel that the possibility of parental "contradiction" by SS teachers is sometimes caused by unskilled parents who wrongly conflate family conviction with Biblical mandate. (Sometimes! I agree that in other cases, SS teachers dig themselves into holes.)
The SS teacher is sometimes painted into a corner by parents who disagree among themselves on what you call "lifestyle choices." Because the parents never figured out how to articulate and resolve these differences, the teacher is set up for failure. Any time a parent communicates a personal family conviction as if it is the only valid Biblical position for every family to take, the church body is headed for conflict. Gonna boil over somewhere, perhaps during youth time.
Bro. Kevin, do you believe the average SS teacher in the average church is equipped to set themselves up as an authority that supersedes that of the parent? What skills do most SS teachers possess? Are they required to have divinity and education degrees in your church?
I believe there is a danger when a SS/YG teacher contradicts a directive from the parent, regardless of how the teacher might feel about it- as long what the children are being taught at home is not in violation of clear cut Bible doctrine, and isn't immoral, unethical, or illegal. If it is, then the teacher and the church leadership should address the issue with the parent, not the child.
Parents make all sorts of 'extra-Biblical' decisions- but are they always conflating family conviction with Biblical mandates, or expecting every other parent in the church to abide by their position? Can we not have mutual respect for other lifestyle choices (that aren't sinful)? Unless they are trying to cause division, it isn't anyone else's business whether they watch tv or not, wear cullottes or not, homeschool or not... and Sunday School or youth groups is not the appropriate venue for a teacher to present to children their personal beliefs on those discretionary topics. There is enough Bible for us to study without trying to invade or cause confusion in the private lives of families.
I'm okay with my kids hanging out with No TV Families, Harry Potter Families, No Plastic Weapons families, and even Culotte Families. And I would ask them to respect house rules whenever necessary. But when we start to mandate these rules at church (or prevent SS teachers from addressing them), I get itchy.
We hang out with a wide variety of people as well- but none of them have permission to undermine our authority with our children, not even the grandparents. That makes me itchy.
In summary- The Biblical pattern evident is gender segregation, not age segregation. I agree that age segregation is sometimes appropriate, but I believe it is too often the default.
Again, I think these issues need a good measure of balance and the artful implementation of Biblical wisdom, and are open to a great deal of misunderstanding if we get focused on semantics.
Most IFB'ers are not going to go the Vision Forum route on family-integration.
But can we agree that there are some gross distortions in our churches which need to be cleaned up?
What do the kids in my church learn from kiddie church? I do not know the complete answer to that -- but one thing I know they are learning for sure: Right before the sermon, you get up out of your seat and RUUUUUN for the door, pushing and shoving to get out as soon as possible!!!
Boy, there is a good and Godly life-lesson that will come in handy in adulthood!!!
I would've done that just one time as a kid... :>)
(P.S. - I remember a sermon by Allister Begg in which he talked about his dismay when this happened to him one time right before he preached. He told the story in a humorous way, but it illustrated the point of how absurd it is to dismiss all the young people just in time for the preaching of the Word of God.)
I agree, Bro. Paul, that there are some methodologies we've taken for granted that need to be seriously re-examined. For instance, many programs for young kids are primarily game oriented- but my 8 yob can sit still while I read a chapter out of Mere Christianity and even explain back to me what I've read. AAMOF, he recently got under conviction while I was reading from this book and received Christ as his Savior. I didn't even give him a lollipop. We SO underestimate our kids. They are bright and creative, and respond positively to challenges. We do them a disservice when we treat them as if all they can grasp are one-syllable words and nonsense songs.
Bro. Kevin, do you believe the average SS teacher in the average church is equipped to set themselves up as an authority that supersedes that of the parent? What skills do most SS teachers possess? Are they required to have divinity and education degrees in your church?
I believe there is a danger when a SS/YG teacher contradicts a directive from the parent, regardless of how the teacher might feel about it- as long what the children are being taught at home is not in violation of clear cut Bible doctrine, and isn't immoral, unethical, or illegal. If it is, then the teacher and the church leadership should address the issue with the parent, not the child.
I don't think that "setting up against authority" is what Kevin has in mind... or is very likely to happen. What I mean is, I don't really have authority over what my kids believe, only what they do. I teach them and hope they believe, but I don't have the authority to insist on belief (and belief being what it is, it can't be enforced). So in a classroom situation the worst case scenario is a teacher who says "I don't believe what your parents have taught you is true." In that case, what has happened is a problem of respect rather than a problem of authority. The SS teacher has the authority to teach what he/she believes is true, but it's simply not polite (biblically ungracious) to put it in those terms. [Edit: I'm talking about matters of conscience here... if a kids parents are denying the trinity I say "Teachers, straighten them out if you can."]
When I was teaching school I had to deal with some of these things a little bit. Usually, I would teach principles and applications and there was no opportunity for anything approaching "you have been taught but I say unto you..." in reference to parents. But sometimes we would do Q & A days and kids would say "My parents say this, is that right?" Immediately I know I have a delicate situation. Doubly so in the church setting when that happens.
What I encourage teachers to do when it comes up is put things in terms of "This is what I believe and why. I'm not going to tell you your parents are wrong."
In some cases, I just didn't go there at all. The question was not important. So the answer is simply "Things like that are for your family to decide and eventually you yourself. It doesn't matter what I think about that."
Even as a pastor I've done that a few times. Not my job to do everyone's thinking for them!
I think Kevin would agree--and it sounded so from his earlier posts--that in the vast majority of these 'house rules' situations, teachers do not need to go there. Stick to principles. Kids will make up their own minds about things either way.
Susan, I just want to make sure that you understand I'm not in favor of a Sunday school teacher who sets himself or herself up as an authority that supersedes that of a parent. I don't really think I suggested that in my original post.
And just to clarify, it was not my intention to say parents are "always" conflating family conviction with Biblical mandates. My intention was to suggest that this sometimes happens, and when it does happen, the Sunday school teacher finds himself in an awkward situation.
I think it was fair for me to suggest this thread suffers from inflated rhetoric. Susan--when I wrote about parents who "conflate family conviction with Biblical mandate," I surrounded it with two uses of the word "sometimes." But your response clipped these off and inserted the word "always."
Whew. I think there might be a ray of hope. How can we help our churches here?
I think the solution involves some sort of discipling and mentoring for Sunday school teachers AND parents. If both groups have a healthy dose of intellectual humility (recognizing that our fallen intellect is capable of errors in discernment), the relationship can be mutually beneficial. I hope that our Sunday school teachers can not only teach the Word, but also point the learner to valid Bible applications.
When all of this works well, it works VERY well, which is something Greg and I were trying to inject into the discussion. One would hope that in a church characterized by mutual respect, a teacher would be able to make specific Scriptural applications without fearing they have contradicted a parent's house rules.
(Small disclosure for Susan, since we have not met. My wife and I taught in Christian schools for twelve years and then I served as a worship/youth pastor for another ten. We now homeschool our children and attend a church with a "traditional" youth ministry that includes public, Christian, and homeschool kids. The parents get along pretty well. I spend my days cooped up in a small office, pounding out words for a company that offers a well-known line of "age appropriate" Sunday school curriculum.)
When I was teaching school I had to deal with some of these things a little bit. Usually, I would teach principles and applications and there was no opportunity for anything approaching "you have been taught but I say unto you..." in reference to parents. But sometimes we would do Q & A days and kids would say "My parents say this, is that right?" Immediately I know I have a delicate situation. Doubly so in the church setting when that happens. I think Kevin would agree--and it sounded so from his earlier posts--that in the vast majority of these 'house rules' situations, teachers do not need to go there. Stick to principles. Kids will make up their own minds about things either way.
Yes! And, kids being kids, sometimes they will ask the Sunday school teacher a tough question while conveniently forgetting to disclose the part about "My parents say this"! Wise Sunday school teachers learn to recognize these traps. Eventually. Hopefully, the teacher can emphasize parental obedience (now) while equipping the child to exercise spiritual discernment when they reach adulthood.
I think the solution involves some sort of discipling and mentoring for Sunday school teachers AND parents. If both groups have a healthy dose of intellectual humility (recognizing that our fallen intellect is capable of errors in discernment), the relationship can be mutually beneficial. I hope that our Sunday school teachers can not only teach the Word, but also point the learner to valid Bible applications.
I agree, but this is not the norm in my experience. What I've seen is "We need a teacher for the 4th grade boys- oh, you'd like to volunteer? Good- you can start next week." I think Ken Ham referred to it as the Warm Body Method- if you have a pulse and aren't drooling, you can teach a class. I would be very VERY supportive and excited about strict and positive standards becoming the norm for SS teachers and YG leaders. In another thread, Bro. Dave mentioned that they prefer couples that serve together to teach classes- I think this a helpful dynamic that solves quite a few problems and further encourages families to serve together. Equipping parents is not only essential but should also be a primary goal of our churches.
When it comes to questions from kids, even if they are trying to be 'tricky', the SS teacher or YG leader can still err on the side of respect and discretion, recognizing that children may try to pit the authority figures in their lives against each other. If a young person says "What do you think about ___?" then the teacher can ask "What do you parents think about ___?" Depending on the child's answer, the teacher can 1) encourage the child to talk to their parents first 2) support whatever the child says their parents are teaching them 3) if it is in error, say something like "I'll have to think about that" and talk to the parents first. It is never a good idea to answer when you have only heard 'one side' (Proverbs 18:13). I've handled questions this way for years, and have never had it not work out to the benefit of the family. Or, as Aaron suggested, say "Things like that are for your family to decide and eventually you yourself. It doesn't matter what I think about that." The Biblical commands about teaching children are overwhelmingly directed at parents, so that should remain the preeminent method in our homes and churches.
I know it is by now quite a bit off topic, but can I ask what people think about Young Adults ministries? What I mean is, as this author concludes, YG has failed, just look at the results. But isn't that hard to say without asking why Young Adults do not stay? The Young Adults ministry I am involved with is hovering right around 200. When my wife and I started attending around July/August, it was about 150, and 1 year ago, they said was about 100. Now I know part of it is a snow ball effect; once you get the momentum it gains speed. But why do some churches Young Adults groups grow and others do not. And I am not looking for, they are compromising, because I do not believe the YA community I am a part of is compromising. (They actually practiced church discipline earlier this year.)
Is the lack of youth involvement after HS due to age-segregation or a combination of bad age-segregation and no support for YA? (probably other things also, but those come to mind)
But why do some churches Young Adults groups grow and others do not.
Generally, if you live in a town where people come to for college and stick around afterward, you have a good YA ministry. If not, then you don't. I'm sure there are a few more spiritual reasons as well, but the primary need is a large pool of individuals without roots in the community looking to connect with other people through a church organization.
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=31609151194
I'm hesitant to put on my thoughts on this for a couple reasons:
1. Susan, and I like Susan, seems to be lending her support to these speakers. I really don't want to be attacking her.
Note to Susan: I'll PM you...
2. It is so bad that it feels like attacking a child.
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=31609151194
I'm hesitant to put on my thoughts on this for a couple reasons:
1. Susan, and I like Susan, seems to be lending her support to these speakers. I really don't want to be attacking her.
Note to Susan: I'll PM you...
Please feel free to comment- my 'support' is not of these speakers or their organization, but for the idea that segregation should be limited instead of the 'default', so to speak, and that the church should emphasize the family as foundational, and those relationships nourished. The only speaker I've listened to is Voddie Baucham- I have read the FAQ at the NCFIC website and a few blog posts, so my knowledge of the NCFIC is very limited, and that of Mr. Brown practically non-existent. I think I've made it clear that I am not supportive of the wholesale abolishment of all segregated programs or ministries. I am quite confident that you would not attack me personally, and if I have posted something you disagree with, I would be happy to interact with you on those points.
Please note:
1. I'm not saying that this guy is wrong. (I'm not saying it, though I think it.)
2. I object more to the way he's handling Scripture and leadership than I am to his position. (His position does have some wisdom in it, if not taken too far.)
3. I really object to the way he spends the first 10 minutes and the last minutes talking about sufficiency of Scripture. He implies very strongly that his position will be Biblically demanded and that those who choose to utilize segregation by age do so because they love men's traditions over Scripture.
4. This is especially sickening given the way he treats God's Word throughout this message.
1. The Passover
Descriptive.
2. The Feast of Weeks
- Prescriptive of this event. Not just families, but also include aliens and servants.
3. Feast of Tabernacles
- Prescriptive of this event. Not just families, but also include aliens and servants.
4. The Psalms of Ascent
"Fourth, in the psalms of ascent in the book of Psalms, the picture is of the family going to
worship and lifting up their praises to God. Those psalms were sung by the families as
the little ones were behind the father and the mother and the whole family was walking to
the temple to come and bring their sacrifices to God."
- There is nothing in the text (Psalms 120-134) to support the speaker's comments on God's Word.
5. The Recitation of the Covenant
- Descriptive.
6. Family Integrated Worship in the Time of Joshua
- Descriptive.
7. Time of Confession in the Days of Ezra
- Descriptive.
8. Jehoshaphat’s Time of Prayer
- Descriptive.
9. The Revival in the Days of Ezra
- Descriptive.
10. The Sacred Assembly in the Book of Joel
Tenth, parents were commanded to bring their children to the sacred assembly in Joel chapter two. ―Blow the trumpet in Zion,‖ says Joel 2:15-16, ―declare a holy fast, call a sacred assembly. Gather the people, consecrate the assembly; bring together the elders, gather the children, those nursing at the breast. Let the bridegroom leave his room and the bride her chamber.
Well, this is just another mention of some kind of gathering, a holy fast, a sacred assembly in which even the nursing babes might be there. There is this idea that children really can‘t get anything out of these meetings that we have. Well, I would love to spend an hour talking to you about that because I absolutely believe that though children don‘t get everything out of big church, they do get something. Particularly they are on their fathers or their mother‘s shoulder and we are singing in their ears. They are seeing the people praise God and they are seeing the prayers. They are feeling the joy in the room. They are knowing the great and wonderful effects of having a Father in heaven and a holy Comforter to come among God‘s people and help them.
- Prescriptive of this event. But notice the extreme scope of the call. Everyone is supposed to come at that particular time. No one was to opt out of this particular call to the assembly. Even those preparing for marriage were to interrupt that to go right then.
Further, the reason for including the infant at the breast might be to make sure mom comes. It might be expected that the husband could go and she might stay home with the baby.
Every single one of these is either descriptive or prescriptive of particular, sometimes unusual, events. That is except for the Psalms of Ascent, where the speaker must be basing his conclusion on tradition or unmentioned Scripture.
(New Testament next.)
Dan,
With regard to your breakdown of this sermon, you are probably correct, especially on this brother's handling of the OT. I am familiar with Scott Brown only by name. My assumption, reinforced by perusing his church's Web site, is that he is probably a Reformed Baptist (Covenant Theologian). It is not my purpose to be an apologist for him.
In response, however, I would offer the following three servings of food for thought:
1) If it is difficult to prove family integration from Scripture, is it not even more difficult to prove age segregation? Certainly we could find examples of both in Scripture, and there is obviously a place for women teaching women (Tit. 2:4), the teaching of children (Matt. 19:14), etc. In accord with Susan's comment, however, it would certainly seem that the default position of the church, especially for corporate worship, should be heavily weighted in favor of family integration.
For example, I have visited some mega-churches where you walk in the door and immediately you are overwhelmed with the "playland" area where all children are expected to stay while the adults move on to their destination. Are we really going to argue that this type of thinking is rooted in Scripture? It seems to me to be taken directly from the worldly model of Yuppie culture. I certainly understand why some families are offended by that type of arrangement, or at least would not feel comfortable worshipping in a church like that. As another example, I would say that the stafffed church nursery is a very recent invention in church history. (Has anyone written the definitive history of church nuseries? :>))
2) Do we deny that some of the streams which feed into age segregation come out of evolutionary-based educational theory as advanced historically by Dewey, Mann, et al? Again, that is not to say that you will not find some texts in both testaments where children were taught in group fashion. It is just saying that it is also not correct for the church to borrow all modern educational theory and baptize it into orthodoxy.
3) To me, the family integration people -- at least to the extent that I give them a hearing -- are not so much arguing against the specialized training of children, adults, etc., as much as they are reacting against a church culture gone mad. For an example of what I am talking about here, see the book Spiritual Junk Food by Cathy Mickels (www.amazon.com/Spiritual-Junk-Food-Cathy-Mickels/dp/1579211690#noop).
1) If it is difficult to prove family integration from Scripture, is it not even more difficult to prove age segregation?
But neither can either be proved by examining the unprovability of the other.
2) Do we deny that some of the streams which feed into age segregation come out of evolutionary-based educational theory as advanced historically by Dewey, Mann, et al?
I'm not sure it matters. Our behavior as a church should be based on Biblical principles. If someone did something previously for some other reason, that's irrelevant. We must examine our own reasons for doing things.
3) To me, the family integration people -- at least to the extent that I give them a hearing -- are not so much arguing against the specialized training of children, adults, etc., as much as they are reacting against a church culture gone mad. For an example of what I am talking about here, see the book Spiritual Junk Food by Cathy Mickels (www.amazon.com/Spiritual-Junk-Food-Cathy-Mickels/dp/1579211690#noop).
That may or may not be true. But this guy is arguing against the specialized training of children.
You do have a point about the church gone mad. Or perhaps I should say social clubs posing as churches gone mad. The original article made reference to fun and entertainment and they have a point there.
I think the Biblical pattern is unmistakable- commands about the teaching and training of children are directed mostly to parents. The directive in Titus 2 'segregates' by gender, but this does not necessary mean that older ladies corral younger ladies into a classroom to teach them, but IMO implies mentoring and modeling right behaviors. However, it does provide a blueprint IMO that is seldom applied and barely acknowledged.
The Biblical pattern does not preclude other means and methods, but other methods should be examined carefully for their consistency to Biblical principles, as well as possible 'side effects', which was part of my earlier rabbit trail about SS teachers. We tend to give those we label as 'teachers' in our society more respect when it comes to insight and subject knowledge- but, in general- how many SS teachers and YG leaders are 1) a model of good works 2) have their families in order 3) are skilled in the Word? I would be remiss as a parent to allow someone who is not really qualified to be a teacher to have authority or influence over my kids. We're sheep, not a guinea pigs, and if I had a nickel for every YP I've met who 'uses' the YG as a stepping stone to the pastorate, or every milk-dependent volunteer that stood behind a podium in a SS class...
With those strongly held beliefs as part of my philosophical foundation, it isn't surprising that some of the assertions of the family integration movement are very appealing to me.
BTW, Bro. Dan, I also object strenuously to the use of OT examples as comprehensively applicable to believers of this age. It is where I part ways with some of the theories of the patriarchy movement, and I've noted that some in the patriarchy movement are holding hands with the family integration folks, because they do tend to reinforce each other... just like you'll probably find a lot of homeschoolers amongst the patriarchy and family integration crowd, because the underlying premise to all of these movements is the foundational importance of family.
I wrote this post once and then decided to let it go, but I decided to make a couple of quick comments in response to Susan,
in general- how many SS teachers and YG leaders are 1) a model of good works 2) have their families in order 3) are skilled in the Word?
Probably a greater percentage than parents. Many churches have standards for teachers as well as teacher training. The same cannot be said of parents. The requirements are far lower. Most parents are not models of good works who have their families in order and are skilled in the word. If you need evidence, just visit the youth group. Or children's church. Or look around the auditorium in your FIC.
I would be remiss as a parent to allow someone who is not really qualified to be a teacher to have authority or influence over my kids.
Not to you directly, but in general, what makes one think he or she is better able to judge a qualified teacher than the pastor is? Given the woeful spiritual maturity of most parents, I would hesitate to let them judge who is qualified.
...if I had a nickel for every YP I've met who 'uses' the YG as a stepping stone to the pastorate,
I have seen this comment before, and I wonder about it. Very few people in any profession are "lifers" in their first position. So I am not sure why this is a problem. If a man wants to minister to youth specifically his whole life, that is certainly fine. But it seems hardly problemmatic if he doesn't. Being on the pastoral staff as a youth pastor can be a very good place to learn how to be a pastor. I don't know of anyone who thinks first graders are guinea pigs because the first grade teacher moves up to third grade the next year. I don't know anyone who think that drivers are guinea pigs because the patrolman moves up to corporal. So I wonder if your glasses here are not a bit skewed by unreasonable and a-biblical expectations.
I wrote this post once and then decided to let it go, but I decided to make a couple of quick comments in response to Susan,
in general- how many SS teachers and YG leaders are 1) a model of good works 2) have their families in order 3) are skilled in the Word?
Probably a greater percentage than parents. Many churches have standards for teachers as well as teacher training. The same cannot be said of parents. The requirements are far lower. Most parents are not models of good works who have their families in order and are skilled in the word. If you need evidence, just visit the youth group. Or children's church. Or look around the auditorium in your FIC.
You're right- all that is 'required' to become a parent is a working reproductive system. But parents do have qualifications they are supposed to meet, and if the parents in our churches are so pathetic as to not be able to adequately minister to and teach their children, it would seem to me that the leadership needs to get on the stick and start equipping them. The fact of the matter is that parents are commanded to be their children's teachers, just as men are told they should be able to teach their wives. (1 Cor. 14:34-35) The solution isn't to delegate our responsibilities to someone else who is more 'qualified', but to live up to God's standards. We can and should receive knowledge and wisdom from others, but we can't lay our children down on someone else's doorstep- not the SS teacher, the Christian school, the pastor, or the church.
BTW, I don't attend an FIC church.
I would be remiss as a parent to allow someone who is not really qualified to be a teacher to have authority or influence over my kids.
Not to you directly, but in general, what makes one think he or she is better able to judge a qualified teacher than the pastor is? Given the woeful spiritual maturity of most parents, I would hesitate to let them judge who is qualified.
I am the best judge because it is my responsibility. No matter how 'qualified' the parent is or isn't, they are still going to be held accountable, so they must make these decisions, and the church's focus should be to educate and admonish parents in their proper God-ordained roles. Most of the parents I know are faithful to read their Bibles, attend church, sacrifice to meet their children's needs- and they pray and agonize over the decisions they have to make on a daily basis. Our church challenges and provides parents with tools to help them minister to their families. Many people attend our Bible Institute, not to get a degree, but just to become more skilled in the Word. And no matter how much a teacher loves kids, they are not going to love them with the same fervor as a parent. I'm sad to hear that most of the parents you know are so deficient.
If a pastor hand picks the SS teachers based on established criteria such as Bible knowledge, teacher training, and their own personal testimony, then that's fabulous. However, I doubt very much that this is SOP in most churches, and that is what we are talking about here- the general state or the 'norms' of how families/children are ministered to.
I have seen this comment before, and I wonder about it. Very few people in any profession are "lifers" in their first position. So I am not sure why this is a problem. If a man wants to minister to youth specifically his whole life, that is certainly fine. But it seems hardly problemmatic if he doesn't. Being on the pastoral staff as a youth pastor can be a very good place to learn how to be a pastor. I don't know of anyone who thinks first graders are guinea pigs because the first grade teacher moves up to third grade the next year. I don't know anyone who think that drivers are guinea pigs because the patrolman moves up to corporal. So I wonder if your glasses here are not a bit skewed by unreasonable and a-biblical expectations.
My glasses are skewed because there is this little screw loose on the left hinged corner...every once in awhile the lens just pops right out. If it does that while I'm driving, my Taurus is going to be wrapped around the nearest phone pole.
When I use the term 'stepping stone', I mean it exactly that way- that the person teaching the SS class or YG is using it with the intent to 'climb the ladder' to the pastorate. I understand and support people who are willing to do whatever is necessary to meet the needs of their local congregation, but I'm speaking to the crass business-like attitude that treats ministry as if it were a corporate structure to be conquered, and the pastorate as a desired position of power. There are some who would view moving from a first grade class to a third grade class as a 'promotion', and this mindset IMO reveals that those people do not value young children. I think the silly and shallow material often used in SS and Jr Church, and the youth-culture/entertainment obsessed nature of many YG programs complete with the young and totally hip YP are supportive evidence in this area. If I had a nickel for every YP who uses the word 'dude' as a regular part of his vocabulary...
OK Larry, I am pulling your leg just a teeeeensy weensy bit.
I think the responses in the Proto-Fundamentalism Part 4 thread about Bible colleges relates to this topic of qualified teachers and preparedness for ministry.
But parents do have qualifications they are supposed to meet, and if the parents in our churches are so pathetic as to not be able to adequately minister to and teach their children, it would seem to me that the leadership needs to get on the stick and start equipping them.
I agree. But I don't think that means that there is no place in the church for qualified teachers to teach people other than their own children.
The solution isn't to delegate our responsibilities to someone else who is more 'qualified', but to live up to God's standards. We can and should receive knowledge and wisdom from others, but we can't lay our children down on someone else's doorstep- not the SS teacher, the Christian school, the pastor, or the church.
I agree with that. But I don't see how age segregated teaching is laying our children down on someone else's door step.
BTW, I don't attend an FIC church.
I knew that. I was speakign generically. Sorry, didn't mean to be unclear.
I am the best judge because it is my responsibility.
I don't think being responsible makes one able.
No matter how 'qualified' the parent is or isn't, they are still going to be held accountable, so they must make these decisions, and the church's focus should be to educate and admonish parents in their proper God-ordained roles.
The church must care for all the people, and this includes providing teaching for all ages. I don't think anyone can effectively teach all ages at the same time together.
Most of the parents I know are faithful to read their Bibles, attend church, sacrifice to meet their children's needs- and they pray and agonize over the decisions they have to make on a daily basis.
I know of very few parents like this. If a church is reaching people, this will be the exception rather than the norm. Even in established churches, I bet this is less than half.
If a pastor hand picks the SS teachers based on established criteria such as Bible knowledge, teacher training, and their own personal testimony, then that's fabulous. However, I doubt very much that this is SOP in most churches, and that is what we are talking about here- the general state or the 'norms' of how families/children are ministered to.
I don't know of any exceptions to this. Depending on the size of the church, the pastor may not personally pick every teacher, but in most places there is a way that it is done where people plugged into teaching positions based on gifts and abilities.
When I use the term 'stepping stone', I mean it exactly that way- that the person teaching the SS class or YG is using it with the intent to 'climb the ladder' to the pastorate.
But I still don't know what the problem is here.
... I'm speaking to the crass business-like attitude that treats ministry as if it were a corporate structure to be conquered, and the pastorate as a desired position of power.
Or perhaps the pastor as the desired position of calling. If a man has the attitude of conquering a corporate structure, he shouldn't be a pastor, but it has nothing to do with stepping stones.
There are some who would view moving from a first grade class to a third grade class as a 'promotion', and this mindset IMO reveals that those people do not value young children.
It may indicate gifts and callings. If I thought I had to teach first grade every week, I would go jump off a bridge. It has nothing to do with the value of young children. It has to do with gifts. I have, however, in times past taught first grade (and younger).
I think the silly and shallow material often used in SS and Jr Church, and the youth-culture/entertainment obsessed nature of many YG programs complete with the young and totally hip YP are supportive evidence in this area.
Supportive of what? i agree that there are problems here, but that is not a problem with age graded program, but with curriculum.
So a couple of points.
1) I am not sure you have identified a problem with the actual idea or structure of age graded teaching. You have identified some problems with personnel and curriculum, which can be fixed.
2) I am not clear as to why a youth pastor cannot aspire to be a pastor. I just don't follow your reasoning there. Again, if it is a pride issue, that's one thing. But what if it's calling?
I think the responses in the Proto-Fundamentalism Part 4 thread about Bible colleges relates to this topic of qualified teachers and preparedness for ministry.
Yes, I thought some of those responses were good reasons why people should obtain some education. 
Interesting thread. Glad I finally got a chance to catch up a bit on it.
Three observations
1. Toward Daniel's question about why young adults are leaving.... I don't have an answer but wanted to point out that those who are using the exodus of YAs as proof that age grouping is a failure are doing some leaping. We do not have a similar sized "control group" who have not be grouping for multiple generations to compare the results. So it's a little like saying it snowed yesterday and today I have a headache so I have snow-induced head pain. (Very possible, but I think you can see it's just a guess... and not a very good one)
2. On the method of stacking up OT occurrences of families doing stuff together. If we had 900 of these it would not prove more than have half a dozen proves. That is, in interpretation you have to weigh texts, not count them. What's needed to establish the idea that age grouping is wrong is just one clear text that is actually about age grouping and indicates that it is wrong. Piles of passages about other topics but which also mention whole families being present in the narrative details do not an obligation make. What they reveal is what was typically done. It's not sound interpretation to extrapolate from that this is what must be done... and done exclusively.
3. I'm really not all that far from Susan's position on this, which is not the same as Brown's/VF's. And Kevin's is not far either, doesn't look like to me. I think we're all for:
a. Families taking their responsibilities seriously
b. Churches staying out of the way of families taking their resp. seriously
c. Churches actively encouraging & helping families to do this
d. Churches having a sufficient amount of "all together" time (w/ b and c in mind. We do differ on how much is "sufficient," sounds like)
e. Scripture does not require that whole families be together 100% of the time in 100% of church meetings and activities
The differences mainly lie on what we're comfortable emphasizing due to what we've personally experienced. Since Kevin & others (I'll count myself here also) have had positive experiences in age grouped ministry (and seen most of our peers stay "in" church, too I might add), we are more comfortable emphasizing the validity of some age grouping. Since Susan and others (I'm guessing Brown is in this category given the passion he has on the subject at times), have seen pretty poorly implemented age grouped ministry, they are more comfortable emphasizing the need for more family-centeredness.
So the experience factor is where much of the energy comes from, seems to me.
I agree with Aaron's summary here, including his comment about personal experience fueling the emotions behind this issue.
I do not believe "family integrated ministry" and "age appropriate teaching methods" are mutually exclusive. In fact, I think parents are the key to a well-run "traditional age grouping" youth ministry. My own view is that these two ideas are compatible. So I guess I tend to frame the issue in terms that are friendly to an integration of both ideas.
I'll have to confess a natural suspicion regarding the hermeneutics of the Christian school movement and homeschool movement (Yes, I was part of these trends). And now I have similar suspicions--much like Dan's--about the same hermeneutics offered from the FIC movement.
Odd observation here. We seem collectively willing to skewer ill-advised teaching when it comes from unskilled youth workers. And, to summarize this thread, some of us are willing to exclude the idea of youth workers on the basis of possible wrong teaching. But when a FIC leader spouts wrong theology, we graciously conclude "Yeah, but look at the good points he made."
Sort of like a shoplifter saying, "Yeah, but look at all of the nifty stuff I got."
If the issues center around how to teach Biblical principles in the New Testament church, the weight of our exegesis needs to come from the clearest and most important NT texts (Aaron says "the weight," not the number). Likely, the Epistles. But if we use this approach, we've cut the legs off our "scriptural defense" of Christian schools, home schools, and the FIC (at least, the formal defense of FIC as articulated by its leaders). Please don't read this too darkly: I believe that the NT epistles have loads to say about how to teach the Bible correctly. I'm just saying that (historically) our movement hasn't always met our own high standard of exegesis.
Larry, you were posting so far past what I wrote that I don't even know where to start. We need an interpreter, you and I, because we seem to do this ALOT.
There is a general lack of understanding about the history of age segregation. Ya'll are talking like "That's the way we do it, furthermore that's the way we've always done it", and it just ain't so- age segregation is a very, very recent invention. I've been studying the effects of age segregation, the history of childhood and public education, and the theories behind what we call 'adolescence' for years now, and most of the sound research available shows that 1) age segregation is a new-fangled invention that does more harm than good, 2) adolescence has its roots in evolutionary theory and bad psychology 3) neither age segregation or adolescence fit the Biblical patterns, principles, or commands when it comes to the teaching and training of children 4) age segregation is an artificial construct and is no longer used to the same degree when people reach adulthood (at which point other means of segregation are often employed, such as marital status, which is also not Biblically supportable, although not forbidden).
The Nature of Adolescent Peer Culture
James Coleman's work on adolescent peer culture was extremely influential in shaping views on modern adolescent culture. In 1961 Coleman suggested that an adolescent subculture had emerged in industrialized societies that was distinct from that of more agrarian cultures (such as the Amish culture). According to Coleman, social and economic forces that encourage age segregation shape the socialization of adolescents in industrialized societies. In a rapidly changing society, parents' skills easily become obsolete. Parents therefore cannot transmit their accumulated knowledge to their children, and hence they have fewer opportunities for direct influence over their children's development. Education takes place in school settings, for longer periods, further reducing the influence that family-centered learning has on adolescents. The period of schooling required in modern societies is becoming lengthier, and even within schools, children are segregated according to age in separate grades. These age-segregation patterns, according to Coleman, precipitate the creation of a separate adolescent culture in which adolescents speak a "language" increasingly different from that of adults. Modern industrialized societies encourage this "separate adolescent culture" by creating specialized marketing that cultivates and targets the adolescents' unique taste in music, clothes, and entertainment.
Such isolation from adults, Coleman claimed, results in the creation of adolescent societal standards and behavioral norms that are far removed from those of adult society. Adolescents look to their peers rather than to their parents and teachers for guidance and approval, thereby diminishing the ability of adults to influence adolescents' development.
I'll say again for those who don't want to read this whole thread that I am not against the occasional use of age segregation or having youth Bible studies and activities, but I am NOT supportive of age segregation done to the extent that it affects the church's ability to nourish the family, interferes with the role of husbands and parents to be the primary leaders of their homes, prevents needed cross-generational relationships, contributes to the infantilization of young people, and inhibits the mentoring of the young men/women by the older men/women. These things can and do happen, and we should be on guard against them- most children are already separated from their parents into age-segregated classrooms during the week- IMO churches should think about providing a counteractive environment to these harmful dynamics.
Congratulations if none of these problems are familiar to you. But we can't have it both ways. Example- http://sharperiron.org/forum/thread-some-guys-are-close-to-satire-of-you... - parodies work because they are based on elements of fact. Many IFB churches have used the Hyles Sunday School Manual, which does not concern itself with whether or not someone has any experience teaching large groups of children (which is much different than teaching your own). It would be better not to have a SS program or YG if one cannot provide teachers that are up-to-snuff and quality material to support their efforts. It should also remain a principal goal to equip parents to be the primary teachers/ministers of their families.
When I use the term 'stepping stone', I mean it exactly that way- that the person teaching the SS class or YG is using it with the intent to 'climb the ladder' to the pastorate. I understand and support people who are willing to do whatever is necessary to meet the needs of their local congregation, but I'm speaking to the crass business-like attitude that treats ministry as if it were a corporate structure to be conquered, and the pastorate as a desired position of power.
We must run in completely different circles. I have NEVER met a youth pastor with this attitude...and I've met scores of them over the years.
Oh, when I was a YP, I remember hearing the exhortation, "Don't you dare use your position as a stepping stone to the pastorate! If God's called you to be YP, then plan on it for the rest of your life!" The source was the leader of an organization that publishes youth materials--he was in his 50s at the time, I believe. For a while, I bought into that, but I came to understand my sense of calling in not so specific an area--I was called to the ministry, not the youth pastorate. The youth pastorate was the ministry I was to be involved in at that time, for some indefinite period, and I was willing to serve in that capacity indefinitely. But I fully expected that someday I would pastor a church; nevertheless, where I was at the time was not viewed as some mere stopping point along the way. (Incidentally, the 63-year-old pastor I served under at the time told me, "You're not going to do this forever. Someday, Bryan, you'll get tired of McDonalds! And when it's time to move on, you'll know it." He was right.)
Every youth pastor I've ever met has had a similar attitude. Furthermore, they've been godly young men with a passion for the church and for building godly young people. I guess I've been fortunate not to run into any of the crass creeps. 
3) neither age segregation or adolescence fit the Biblical patterns, principles, or commands when it comes to the teaching and training of children
Susan, I am sometimes just a simple person. Would love to read all of your psychological references (I perused some), but I am not at a point to make the time to read, nor do I have the same enthusiasm to read it all. So, with that in mind, could you briefly outline how your point #3 is supported? I am not arguing, I just would like to see what this looks like. Thank you.
Larry, you were posting so far past what I wrote that I don't even know where to start.
Yes, it seems so, I don't think that what you wrote addresses my point. I don't mean that in a rude way, and I hope you understand that. I don't have time to address all of it, and quite frankly don't have the knowledge to address it.
Here's my point in a nutshell.
1. People learn in different ways based on the age/mental maturity. This is so widely recognized that I don't think anyone disputes it. It's not a new and recent invention. The Bible testifies to this in different places. A three year old, an eight year old, and an eighteen year old learn in entirely different ways. As a home schooler (which I think you are if I recall correctly), you probably recognize this as much as any. Your older children learn differently and learn different things than your younger children do. And you might have them in the same room, but you teach them different things and with different methods based on where they are in life.
2. We should organize the way that we teach with that in mind. Again, this is so widely recognized I don't think anyone disputes it. And I imagine as a home schooler, you do exactly this. We teach a three year old to recognize numbers. We teach a fifteen year old to do algebra. No one would think that a three year old and a fifteen year old (with normal mental development) should be the same math class. We say the same thing about reading class. A three year old is learning to read and write letters. A fifteen year old is reading classics and writing reports. So why doesn't that apply to other areas of learning including the church? Why should a three year old be in a class all the time with fifteen year olds or forty year olds? I must be missing something in your argument because I honestly don't understand how this is disputed?
3. It doesn't require undermining parents and is not in opposition to teaching and training parents. As a home schooler you are having your children read and learn from other people, perhaps both in video as well as books. So you probably recognize that learning from another person does not undermine your authority. It doesn't undermine your authority when you sit in church and have your children listen to the pastor. Again, it seems to widely evident that this type of thing we are talking about does not undermine parents, does not mean that we should not teach parents to parent, or some such. I think we can and should do both.
I don't see any biblical principle that refutes any of those.
You say that age segregation is an artificial construct, but I don't think that's entirely true or problemmatic. Yes, not all six year olds are the same, but almost all six year olds are a lot more similar to each other than they are to twelve year olds. Why should we not recognize this and work with it? What biblical principle is compromised by this?
The reason segregation changes for adults (in some areas, not in all) is because it is generally recognized that by the time a person reaches a certain age, they have attained a certain background of knowledge and maturity. There is a leveling out of maturity and related issues.
So I am not convinced that you have presented any evidence that demands churches not age segregate as a general principle of teaching. (You agree only that it should be occasional, if I read you correctly, rather than week to week.) I don't see any reason why it has to "affect the church's ability to nourish the family, interferes with the role of husbands and parents to be the primary leaders of their homes, prevents needed cross-generational relationships, contributes to the infantilization of young people, and inhibits the mentoring of the young men/women by the older men/women."
Age segregation can in fact help these things because each member of the church can be fed based on what they need and can handle, parents can be expected to teach their children at home, cross generational relationships can be fostered because most teachers come from a different generation than the parents, and therefore the older can teach the younger.
If the parent never saw the child, I would be much more concerned. But we are talking about 1-2 hours a week where a child is being taught the Scriptures by someone who is qualified and able to teach.
Thanks for the exchange Susan.
Susan,
I have a couple of thoughts. Most of us (that you are interacting with) are VERY far removed from the Hyles SS manual mentality. In fact, most of us detest that mentality and have never had anything to do with it. So your eperience is the general exception in a large part of IFB land, not the rule. I am not for hyper segregating of the family either. As far a SS teachers go, I pick mine. I have never advocated the warm body approach (although I was a in ONE church that did- and I was the warm body-15 yrs old- not wise). BTW, that one church was not a fundamental one.
We are all colored by our experiences. My direct contact with VF type families has not been good. The father's demand to be the spiritual leader (great thing), but they also were not a spiritual as they wanted everyone to believe. In fact, they were often very rebellious (no one can tell me what to do). I don't think you are that way, but sometimes you do come across that way. So here is the question. How do you balance your view of the family with the families obligation to "Obey those who have rule over you?"
3) neither age segregation or adolescence fit the Biblical patterns, principles, or commands when it comes to the teaching and training of children
Susan, I am sometimes just a simple person. Would love to read all of your psychological references (I perused some), but I am not at a point to make the time to read, nor do I have the same enthusiasm to read it all. So, with that in mind, could you briefly outline how your point #3 is supported? I am not arguing, I just would like to see what this looks like. Thank you.
I can't prove the non-existence of something- burden of proof is on those who believe that age-segregation is supportable Biblically. I would like to repeat that I don't believe it is forbidden- nor is air conditioning or driving a Honda- and it does have its uses- but the patterns are there in how people gathered, who the commands regarding teaching and training children were directed towards, and the directive to older men/women to teach younger men/women (which implies gender segregation, not age segregation).
Susan,
I have a couple of thoughts. Most of us (that you are interacting with) are VERY far removed from the Hyles SS manual mentality. In fact, most of us detest that mentality and have never had anything to do with it. So your experience is the general exception in a large part of IFB land, not the rule. I am not for hyper segregating of the family either. As far a SS teachers go, I pick mine. I have never advocated the warm body approach (although I was a in ONE church that did- and I was the warm body-15 yrs old- not wise). BTW, that one church was not a fundamental one.
I think we underestimate the impact that 'cultural' norms can have on church structure and practice. For example, the use of an altar and invitations- how many people who believe in and practice altar calls regularly have any idea where it originated? In like manner I believe that many things have affected church practices without realizing where it may have come from. I spent many formative years in SoL churches that lived by every breath that proceeded out of the mouth of Jack Hyles and John R. Rice, so I think maybe I recognize their influence where others may not...? I've visited churches that would say "Jack who?" but run their bus ministry right out of the Hammond playbook. Something to think about, anyway.
We are all colored by our experiences. My direct contact with VF type families has not been good. The father's demand to be the spiritual leader (great thing), but they also were not a spiritual as they wanted everyone to believe. In fact, they were often very rebellious (no one can tell me what to do). I don't think you are that way, but sometimes you do come across that way. So here is the question. How do you balance your view of the family with the families obligation to "Obey those who have rule over you?"
I think I've been honest about how my experiences have shaped my outlook, and I haven't intended to diminish anyone else's experiences in the process of explaining the why's and wherefore's of why and what I believe. Just because some of my experiences have been on the icky side of IFBism doesn't mean that all Sunday Schools or YGs or Christian schools are poorly run, but just because others had a wonderful experience doesn't mean I'm delusional.
I am truly sorry if I come across as a "No one can tell me what to do" person, because I am totally by-the-book - I've always been taunted with the Goody Two Shoes or Teacher's Pet label. IRL I do what I am told and keep my mouth shut, but participating in a forum is a place where I can freely exchange ideas and receive valuable feedback. I hope passion isn't being interpreted as arrogance, or a goofy sense of humor as being irreverent or harsh- but I don't expect anyone else who has firmly held beliefs to apologize or back down when someone else has a different perspective.
My dh and I attempt to balance our view of family with church leadership, gov't, and other authority structures by weighing their rules/standards/policies... how they affect the individual needs of our family... against the principles we perceive in the Word of God. IOW, we obey gov't until they require something from us that would be in direct contradiction to a Biblical command. (Acts 5:29, for example) We obey and support church leadership, but if they began to mandate or practice something that we believed unScriptural or that interfered with our ability to effectively minister to our family, we would approach the pastor/teacher, discuss the problem, and find a solution. We have done this many times, usually with beneficial results. The ways that authority interacts and overlaps is sometimes difficult to balance, but the individual, the church and the family should support and compliment each other, not be in competition.
I recently heard a testimony by a woman whose husband died of a degenerative illness, and she had a problem dealing with the guilt of not being in church while she cared for her husband- why on earth would she feel guilty? Perhaps because of the misapplication of Hebrews 10:25- "If the church doors are open, you should be there or you're not right with God!" ( I can't be the only one who has heard that said.) I've listened to and read resignations by men who felt they needed to leave or step back from ministry duties to deal with family issues- this isn't shameful, and it should be applauded, but it should make us ask why they were unable to do both? What happened that placed the needs of the family in apparent conflict with their ministry?
Thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt, Bro. Roger.
I am with you on many things. I still "do an invitation.' But it is very soft sell - I never manipulate ANYMORE. BTW, That Preceeded Hyles --Charles Finney was probably the father of that wickedness. I recognize the influence....I grew up with the roots eventhough i wasnt in any of the churches. I have dealt with the attitude I described on more than one occassion. They would say they were doing what you and your family do. But they came to me (especially when I was younger). They would come to me to try to straighen the young preacher. And then their views of Scripture have often been down right silly. But such is life. I lovingly confront when it happens....and they usually leave b/c they don't want to be confronted with their sin....they just want to feel spiritual without really being Godly. I am glad not all in the movement are that way. I have so far only had those that are come to me.
1. People learn in different ways based on the age/mental maturity. This is so widely recognized that I don't think anyone disputes it. It's not a new and recent invention. The Bible testifies to this in different places. A three year old, an eight year old, and an eighteen year old learn in entirely different ways. As a home schooler (which I think you are if I recall correctly), you probably recognize this as much as any. Your older children learn differently and learn different things than your younger children do. And you might have them in the same room, but you teach them different things and with different methods based on where they are in life.
Three words- one room schoolhouse, where the interaction between different age groups was a positive, where children could progress by ability instead of being held back by their age... and I posted the studies I did to show that I didn't come up with all this stuff out of my pointy little head. I say that with a smile on my face, btw. I'm having fun, and I hope you are too.
2. We should organize the way that we teach with that in mind. Again, this is so widely recognized I don't think anyone disputes it. And I imagine as a home schooler, you do exactly this. We teach a three year old to recognize numbers. We teach a fifteen year old to do algebra. No one would think that a three year old and a fifteen year old (with normal mental development) should be the same math class. We say the same thing about reading class. A three year old is learning to read and write letters. A fifteen year old is reading classics and writing reports. So why doesn't that apply to other areas of learning including the church? Why should a three year old be in a class all the time with fifteen year olds or forty year olds? I must be missing something in your argument because I honestly don't understand how this is disputed?
The studies I posted reveal that there is no reason for children or anyone else to be segregated until such a time as specialization is required, like seminary or engineering school. My 8 year old has learned so much math simply by watching his siblings that I am using a 5th grade math text, and he blew through the first 20 chapters. We underestimate what children learn simply by being with others, and they are better socialized by interacting with those older than they are instead of by their peers.
3. It doesn't require undermining parents and is not in opposition to teaching and training parents. As a home schooler you are having your children read and learn from other people, perhaps both in video as well as books. So you probably recognize that learning from another person does not undermine your authority. It doesn't undermine your authority when you sit in church and have your children listen to the pastor. Again, it seems to widely evident that this type of thing we are talking about does not undermine parents, does not mean that we should not teach parents to parent, or some such. I think we can and should do both.
I didn't say that others teaching kids automatically undermines parental authority, but I do believe that when there are difference or questions, they should be addressed with the parent first, and not with the child. Teachers are often given too much authority by virtue of their position, whether or not they are qualified. For instance, there have been studies that show that teacher certification is not a good indicator of quality or ability, but yet we certify teachers in our public schools by the truckload, and bow to their 'wisdom'. The aura of authority is also there in church- that the 'teacher' knows best because they are the 'professional'. Well, if they truly are a qualified professional, there won't be a problem with them understanding their role as a supportive partner to the parent. We agree there.
As for the rest, I've never said that the Bible refutes age segregation, but that if we were to prefer a Biblical pattern, the pattern evident is that of parents as primary teachers of their children, and that the only segregation given by clear directive is by gender, not age. That is where I believe churches should look for their 'default' position, not the recent dynamic created by such forces as child labor laws, G. Stanley Hall, and compulsory education... which is why I posted so many links earlier- to attempt to show that there is quite a body of research out there from which I have gleaned and that supports many of my suppositions. Age segregation doesn't have to be a detriment to family unity, but it can and this should be considered when employing it in churches. We've been institutionalized to a great degree by the traditional classroom, and asking ourselves what repercussions we might be seeing in society and in our churches is IMO valid question.
I am with you on many things. I still "do an invitation.' But it is very soft sell - I never manipulate ANYMORE. BTW, That Preceeded Hyles --Charles Finney was probably the father of that wickedness.
Exactly- most people don't have a clue who Finney was or what he taught, but yet they practice an 'invention' of his all the time. And invitations are not a bad thing, it's just that I think we should sometimes find out why we do what we do, know what I mean?
I recognize the influence....I grew up with the roots eventhough i wasnt in any of the churches. I have dealt with the attitude I described on more than one occassion. They would say they were doing what you and your family do. But they came to me (especially when I was younger). They would come to me to try to straighen the young preacher. And then their views of Scripture have often been down right silly. But such is life. I lovingly confront when it happens....and they usually leave b/c they don't want to be confronted with their sin....they just want to feel spiritual without really being Godly. I am glad not all in the movement are that way. I have so far only had those that are come to me.
Ditto- I am wary of the patriarchy movement because of some things I've seen and heard, but I also know some pagan and atheistic homeschoolers... so I ask- regardless of what the person is doing with it, does what they believe/practice have any Scriptural validity and would it benefit my family?
It's like quantum mechanics- I am totally fascinated by the subject, and as I read I see places where what they've discovered is perfectly consistent (or at least doesn't contradict) what we understand about the universe from the Bible- but the conclusions the scientists reach are wrong because they've got their Godless evolutionary glasses on. The research is sound but their conclusions are faulty. Ditto the FIC and VF- they've reacted (my theory here) to some cultural extremes with extremes of their own, but that doesn't make everything they suggest invalid.
BTW-My dh and I have never objected to our church leadership about any church-wide practice, but we have met with teachers about something they have presented in class, such as showing movies during class time (not a youth activity, and I'm not talking Sheffey), objecting to home education (not their place nor an appropriate venue), and the behind-our-back counseling of one of our children that was very critical of some of the choices we'd made (we let our 15 year old get a full time as an apprentice in an HVAC company and they felt we were wrong to do this). I think this is much different than trying to 'straighten out the preacher', and we always seek the counsel of our pastor when we are presented with this kind of conflict.
To those who manage to make the one room school model work, my hat's off to you.
And I do think that sometimes age differences are exaggerated. But it does also depend on the size of the group.
Where I find a real tension is between challenging the older ones and keeping the attention of the younger ones. The younger ones require what I'll call a higher stimulation-to-content ratio. I'm sure educational professionals have a better term. Anyway, what I mean by that is less data more engagement. The older ones have (usually... and hopefully!) longer attention spans and if we're going to avoid wasting our time with time, they need more data and less energy on keeping it engaging.
(This pattern should pretty much continue until, say, seminary where you are expected to absorb vast quantities of data for hours on end without a break and absolutely nothing remotely approaching sensory stimulation... no physical interaction with the information, no peer interaction, and definitely no visuals! )
But there is another huge factor (somebody may have already mentioned) which is class size. At our church's kids club, we now do a fair amount of teaching with them all together and we can generally keep them engaged from k to 6th grade. But it depends alot on the subject matter and how many of are in the room. There are things our 6th grades would benefit from getting more attention with but there is no way the K-2nd graders would keep listening to stuff that involves that much abstract thinking. So the result is teaching that is mostly concrete, involves alot of narrative, and you try to throw in some challenging stuff here and there for the older ones.
It really is not the ideal.
But we also divide up later and the kids who can read at a higher level are able to learn some things more at their level that way.
At our home school we have a 2 to 1 student to teacher ratio. So the "one room" works fine. I suspect it can work fine anywhere that a ratio like that can be maintained! Even up to 6 to 1 probably works pretty well if the teacher is really energetic and well prepared.
(Edit: I think some of these homeschools where they have 12 students--as well is the old one room school houses of yore--what really happens is that the older ones begin to serve as part time teachers as well. So the ratio still ends up lower than it might seem.)
Ya'll are talking like "That's the way we do it, furthermore that's the way we've always done it", and it just ain't so- age segregation is a very, very recent invention.
1. Who here is saying that we should do this because "that's the way we've always done it." Statements like this are frustrating because I really don't think that anyone on this thread would assert such a thing.
2. Sunday School was quite popular in the 1700's and was certainly a big part of the ministry at Tab. under Charles Spurgeon. John "Chrysostom" (late 4th cen) conducted catechism classes for teens which preceded baptism. When you say segregation is very very recent, you must be talking about public education. The context of this thread is really education in the church.
I grew up in a three-room school (grades 1-8), with three grades in two of the rooms and the 7th and 8th graders in the highest room.
There were generally about 30 kids in in each of the lower rooms (about 10 kids per class).
I think we had the best of all worlds. Some classes were held jointly, but most were seperated by grade. The younger grades in the room were constantly learning from the instruction to the older grades, and each grade had lots of down time. So, I guess you could say it was a cross between age segregation and some level of integration.
I would say, however, (having taught in a Christian school for three years recently) that WHATEVER model you follow -- it is infinitely harder today than it would have been 30 years ago. Unless your kids are from very diligent families, PowerPoint alone will not begin to hold their attention. Their have to be LOTS of moving parts (think video game), and even then you lose some.
Dan -- I am not sure that catechism is a good example of age segregation (other than children from adults). If it is anything like the catechism I grew up with, it involves the objective study and memorization of large blocks of material by children of varying ages -- seeming to prove more the idea that small children may be capable of more than we usually challenge them with today in our comfy PC world.
Ya'll are talking like "That's the way we do it, furthermore that's the way we've always done it", and it just ain't so- age segregation is a very, very recent invention.
1. Who here is saying that we should do this because "that's the way we've always done it." Statements like this are frustrating because I really don't think that anyone on this thread would assert such a thing.
2. Sunday School was quite popular in the 1700's and was certainly a big part of the ministry at Tab. under Charles Spurgeon. John "Chrysostom" (late 4th cen) conducted catechism classes for teens which preceded baptism. When you say segregation is very very recent, you must be talking about public education. The context of this thread is really education in the church.
Bro. Dan- I'm responding to what I perceive as incredulity that there was ever not such a thing as age segregation being incorporated to the degree it is today. That line is also from a song written by one of my favorite people, Harold Leake, so I'm sorry if it sounded snarky, as it was typed tongue-in-cheek.
Sunday Schools were originally organized to minister to and educate the poor, and people of all ages attended, because literacy was an issue for adults as well as children. They were not age segregated as they are today, due IMO to the advent of age segregated school classrooms. Now it all seems very normal and even intuitive, and as Aaron pointed out, some kind of segregation becomes necessary as the class size grows- but the 'preferability' of age segregation is in our heads, not in Scripture, the results, or the research. I've posted supportive documentation for anyone who cares to read it.
Dan -- I am not sure that catechism is a good example of age segregation (other than children from adults). If it is anything like the catechism I grew up with,
I do not believe that John's curricula still exist. But he believed that one should be a young adult (early teens) before baptism so that they could learn the material first.
some kind of segregation becomes necessary as the class size grows- but the 'preferability' of age segregation is in our heads, not in Scripture
Susan, we can debate about what research and our human wisdom thinks is best. I am concerned right now about what Scripture requires, especially in light of the thinking of the individuals mentioned in the Opening Post.
So, if you want to argue that it's a better idea to mix ages, go ahead. But it's really off-topic, because that is not what Scott Brown is arguing.
(these quotes are from http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=31609151194, where both an audio and a pdf are available)
New Testament Commands, Patterns, and Principles
Now we don‘t need the Old Testament to prove this pattern as normative among God‘s people. People often say to me, ―Well, yes, I understand, age integration definitely is an Old Testament concept, but it has nothing to do with the New Testament.
I will quote more from the speaker on these NT references. I believe that if they showed what the speaker claims, they would have more present day application. And I believe that the speaker has done an appalling job of interpretaion and completely missed the point of them in significant ways.
1. 12-year-old Jesus
And so I would like for us to consider the New Testament. First of all, let‘s just acknowledge that as a 12-year-old boy, the Lord Jesus Christ was an active participant in spiritual life that included adults. He came with His parents to Jerusalem to participate in the Passover. And He, at age 12, was about his Father‘s business. He was comfortable being with the learned men in the community.
His parents found him in the temple courts sitting among the teachers listening to them and asking them questions.
Well, this was a normal occurrence. In our day, if you find 12-year-old boys mixing it up with the scholars and those who are in very serious conversations, it seems really weird. But it wasn‘t weird then because that wasn‘t the philosophy that was in play at that time. The Jews had an inflection point of appreciation and love toward the rising generation.
So Jesus was, as a 12-year-old boy, an active participant in the religious community.
Did the speaker miss the fact that Jesus, at age 12, was active in the religious community apart from his parents?
This is clearly not evidence for family-integrated education. If anything, it is support for splitting families up for education.
Or perhaps we should consider Jesus as special; would routine education policies apply to Him?
Of course, we must affirm that Jesus did not do wrong by seeking religious discussions and growth apart from his parents.
2. Children Present During Christ’s Preaching
Number two, children were present when Jesus taught. In some situations they were present even when Jesus was privately teaching His disciples.
Is there any evidence that their parents always accompanied them?
If not, this really doesn't demonstrate anything, except, that Jesus taught age segregated Sunday school (Lucky kids!). And that God chose not to reveal whether parents were present.
3. Children in the Temple
We find children crying out in the temple in Matthew 21:15. ―But when the chief priests and the scribes saw the wonderful things that he did and the children crying out in the temple saying, 'Hosanna to the Son of David,' they were indignant. Children were crying out in the temple and there was indignation about it. But they were there. They were being included somehow in this experience.
Again, parents present? Nothing to learn here.
4. The Feeding of the Five Thousand
Then, number four, we see Jesus preaching to whole families on a number of different occasions, the feeding of the 5000, the feeding of the 4000, the Sermon on the Mount. These were very clearly age integrated settings. ―And they that had eaten were about five thousand men, beside women and children. You had a little boy with fish. Where did that little boy come from? Well, he was incorporated into the spiritual life of his whole family.
"He was incorporated into the spiritual life of his whole family." Really, where does the Text say that?
5. Rhoda
One of the most delightful stories in the book of Acts is the story of Rhoda. The Church has gathered together and is praying for the release of Peter from prison. Then an angel comes and says, ―Peter, get up and tie on your sandals, put on your garment and follow me. So Peter put on his garment and followed him right out of the prison and he went back to where the Church was gathering. Peter knocks at the door of the gate and a girl named Rhoda comes to answer and she recognizes Peter‘s voice and, because of her gladness, she didn‘t open up the gate. Instead she ran back to tell the others that Peter was there, but they didn‘t believe her. ―Oh, I know, I know. Right, you are all excited. But Peter really was at the door.
This is just another example where there was a young person in the gathering of the church.
Descriptive.
But also, it's descriptive of behavior that almost every church does. There are not many church movements that exclude kids from all church activities.
6. Paul’s Nephew
Number six, Paul‘s nephew and the 40 assassins. Now I actually put this one in just because I love this story. I don‘t really know what it proves, but I will tell you what I think it at least indicates.
Forty Jews banded together and took an oath that they would not eat until they had killed Paul. I love this story of the 40 assassins because you never hear about them again. Whatever happened to those guys? Well, there is this amazing scene where Paul‘s nephew, probably eight to 12 years old, overhears what the assassins are going to do. This little boy ends up getting interviewed by the commander and he becomes almost the center of this whole hubbub there and there.
Here is what I like about the story. The little boys were involved in the great conflicts and tumults of the Church. Fathers were taking their sons into the great conflicts and difficulties in the Church. They were there. I think they were training their sons. I think that boy was there because his mom and dad wanted him part of the action. They wanted him trained. They wanted him working and he ends up working for the rescue of the apostle Paul.
Well, I am not using this to prove that children should be in the meetings of the Church, I am just saying, ―Hey, the children were everywhere in the most unusual places you can imagine.
Yeah... (emphasis mine).
7. The Early Church
Well, number seven, children were present during the meetings of the early church as they met from house to house. In the early church, the home was the gathering place for the times of worship and celebration. There were no buildings until the third century. And so the church generally met in homes, though sometimes they met in open squares and places like that.
I didn't even see any Scripture in this one.
8. Eutychus
Number eight, children were present during the church services in the book of Acts. We opened up this session reading about the presence of Eutychus in the church in Tyre.
[from the beginning]
The book of Acts has many delightful stories that involve young people in the Church. For example, this story here is about Eutychus, a young boy probably eight to 12 years old, who around midnight fell asleep in the meeting of the church and tumbled out the window.
Again, nobody is arguing that kids should be excluded from all church activities.
9. Ephesus and Colossae
Number nine, children were present in the Church gatherings in Ephesus and Colossae. The apostle Paul wrote a letter to each of these churches and those letters were read to the whole congregations. In these letters, Paul addresses specific types of people in the churches. He says, ―Husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the Church. He is talking to husbands. Then he talks to wives. ―Wives, submit to your own husbands as to the Lord. And then he turns to the children and says, ―Children. He is eyeball to eyeball now with these children, ―Obey your parents in the Lord for this is right. Then he turns to servants and he says, ―Servants, obey your masters.
So there obviously was this supposition in the mid of Paul that the children were going to be there when that letter was read. The apostle uses a very interesting term when he speaks to these children. He uses a Greek grammatical term called the vocative of direct address. He is directly addressing the children in the meeting of the Church.
To me it is obvious that children were present in the meetings of the early churches. That is why Bible commentators like William Hendrickson say this:
―The apostle assumes that among those who will be listening when his letter is read to the various congregations, the children will not be lacking. They are included in God‘s covenant and Jesus loves them.
―Were Paul to be present with us today he would be shocked at the spectacle of children attending the Sunday school and then going home just before the regular worship service. He has a word addressed directly and specifically to the children.
I think it is remarkable that William Hendrickson speaks of the spectacle of the idea of children going off to Sunday school. Well, why is that? Well, that is because we live in an era where something has been invented that did not exist before. Why in the world are we continuing it? Have we seen such great fruit from it? Has it honestly been such a blessing to our children?
So the meetings of the Church included young boys like Eutychus. They included young boys like Paul‘s nephew. They included young girls like Rhoda and they were obviously being addressed in the epistles. So we need to understand that children were not in age segregated Sunday schools, but they were in the midst of the meeting and they were taught side by side with everyone else. The meetings of the early Church were conducted with a full complement of relationships.
Persuasive techniques aside, it really doesn't matter how many times you say this shows something. Inclusion of various types of people in the letter does not mean that the author thought they MUST all be present at the same moment when it was read. Sections of Romans 16 indicate that the letter was expected to be read many times in various house churches and that some recipients would hear the message at different times.
The directives to wives, husbands, and children only prove that the author had a message for each and expected that, at some point, each would receive their message.
10. Older Women Commanded to Teach the Younger Women
Number ten, women are commanded to teach the younger women, Titus 2. This indicates an age integrated type of approach in the Church, that there is the presence of the old and the young together.
This certainly does not indicate age-integration.
In fact, I take this passage to mean that there are qualifications for effective older female teachers. And the church has a responsibility to note those women who are "honest, holy, and good teachers so that they can" teach the younger.
So, in summary, out of his 10 New Testament reasons, here's the results:
7 of them do not make the point that he seems to think they do.
2 actually argue for segregation.
1 doesn't contain any Scripture at all.
0 actually indicate what he says.
Susan, we can debate about what research and our human wisdom thinks is best. I am concerned right now about what Scripture requires, especially in light of the thinking of the individuals mentioned in the Opening Post.
So, if you want to argue that it's a better idea to mix ages, go ahead. But it's really off-topic, because that is not what Scott Brown is arguing.
Then I'll bow out, because I'd rather discuss the viability and Scripturality of the idea. The OP does not indicate that the conversation should be restricted to Mr. Brown, but I will submit to what you think is the best direction for this thread.
I can't prove the non-existence of something- burden of proof is on those who believe that age-segregation is supportable Biblically.
Susan I am not sure what that means "I can't prove the non-existence of something."
Burden of proof lies with one who is arguing for something as well as with one who is arguing against something. Both sides have the obligation to prove their position. I was simply asking you to provide your biblical arguments that support your notion that age segregation is not biblical. Not for me to argue with, but because this topic interests me and I would like to see a cogent, biblical argument, which I assume that you have.
I can't prove the non-existence of something- burden of proof is on those who believe that age-segregation is supportable Biblically.
Susan I am not sure what that means "I can't prove the non-existence of something."
Burden of proof lies with one who is arguing for something as well as with one who is arguing against something. Both sides have the obligation to prove their position. I was simply asking you to provide your biblical arguments that support your notion that age segregation is not biblical. Not for me to argue with, but because this topic interests me and I would like to see a cogent, biblical argument, which I assume that you have.
I sent you a PM so as to not take this thread off topic.
Wow Dan. Thanks for listening to the Scott Brown sermon and posting your breakdown. Made me curious enough to give it a listen. Scary. Not sure that Scott is one of us.
This is still an interesting discussion--hasn't sunk quite to the level of a music discussion yet--even though it has been well discussed here at SI, at Ryan Martin's blog, and in Aaron B's Baptist Bulletin article.
I guess I want to say I'm nervous. We fundy types don't have a good track record at sniffing out errors in educational philosophy. We went through the Youth for Christ thing and the Bill Gothard thing and the James Dobson thing and the Growing Kids God’s Way thing...and we didn't discern the bad exegesis until relatively late in the game.
So, if these new ideas about family ministry (true believers would say “old ideas”) are to be helpful, I hope we will be willing to disavow the hermeneutical approach of Scott Brown (even if we are attracted to to his ideas). While I don't agree with aspects of his position, I think guys like Greg Steikes have handled the word more capably when defending a family-integrated church model. If we're going to suggest listening to sermon audio, I think Greg's sermons are posted somewhere. Can't remember where. But these would be a better place to jump in that Scott Brown. Whew.
But we probably won't make progress if we continue to use the current terminology--right? This thread seems to frame the issue so that one side is in favor of the family and the other side is in favor of segregation! Hmmmm....
I try to refer to it as "age grouping" instead of "segregating." It is indeed an intentionally loaded term. Much of Brown's case relies on that sort of demagoguery.
Seems the links I thought were in my "kid times" article at SI are not there. I must have been thinking of the earlier series I did on FIC back in '05 or '06... lost in the crash or something.
Anyway, if you want to read up more on Brown's views...
http://www.visionforumministries.org/issues/uniting_church_and_family/th...
http://www.visionforumministries.org/issues/uniting_church_and_family/ch...
And especially
http://www.visionforumministries.org/issues/uniting_church_and_family/ch...
The one above basically says if we want to work with kids separately we are just "anti-child."
I think Dan's points regarding age grouping as far back as Chrysostom and SS in the 17th century are important. Dan do you have links to where that might be documented?
I want to take a look at the research Susan linked to also, though I'll admit I'm not super interested. The reason is that I don't need research to tell me what I've observed first hand, so my belief in the value of age grouping is not research based... and similarly, I'm not likely to be persuaded by research that what I've seen over and over isn't really happening. But sometimes we do misinterpret our experiences and are not seeing what we think we are seeing, so... should take a look.
About burden of proof, which was bouncing around earlier a bit. It's pretty hard to lay that one on either side. Of course, some want to look at the narrative details in many passages and then assert that age groupers have the burden of proof, but if the question is "Does Scripture teach anywhere that we must group or not group, exclusively?" The narrative details do not speak to burden of proof at all. It's almost entirely in the realm of application so experience is going to way heavily either way.
As for off topc/on topic... Not sure what you were trying to say there, Dan. Seems like the question of whether the practice of age grouping is biblically allowable or not is pretty closely related to the question of whether age grouping is responsible for YAs walking away from the faith. Maybe you can clarify what you were aiming for there.
About burden of proof, which was bouncing around earlier a bit. It's pretty hard to lay that one on either side. Of course, some want to look at the narrative details in many passages and then assert that age groupers have the burden of proof, but if the question is "Does Scripture teach anywhere that we must group or not group, exclusively?" The narrative details do not speak to burden of proof at all. It's almost entirely in the realm of application so experience is going to way heavily either way.
As for off topc/on topic... Not sure what you were trying to say there, Dan. Seems like the question of whether the practice of age grouping is biblically allowable or not is pretty closely related to the question of whether age grouping is responsible for YAs walking away from the faith. Maybe you can clarify what you were aiming for there.
First, the article linked in the OP quoted Brown: "philosophy and practice of comprehensive, age-segregated, programmatic youth ministry" is "contrary to the ministry patterns of Christ."
Second, the title of this thread is "Modern Youth Ministry 'Unbiblical,' Ministry Leader Claims."
I do think that we need to be careful with the term "unbiblical." It technically means not found or authorized by Scripture. But it is more often used to mean "anti-Biblical" (contrary to what is revealed in Scripture). I assumed it was intended to mean "anti-Biblical" in this case. I think that Scott Brown's other words strongly suggest my assumption is right.
Given these, the topic of the OP is that someone claims that Youth Min and Sunday School are Anti-Biblical.
I think clearly they are not anti-Biblical and I've tried to show that Brown's earlier speech fails to make that case. Unfortunately, the speech referenced in the OP is not available as far as I can tell.
If we reject that age-grouping is anti-biblical, then I think that two other threads would be useful:
1. Is age-grouping in church ministry Biblically supported?
I think a case can be made that they are Biblically supported.
2. Is age-grouping in church ministry wise or unwise?
I actually think they are wise; Susan, I believe, thinks that they are not supported in Scripture and are unwise. I would be interested in discussing that.
Of course, if the Bible either demands or forbids grouping, then we don't even need to discuss wisdom, so I think it's best to examine these first.
... Greg Steikes ...
Is this him? I remember him from college. He was in the Speech department with Jenny.
http://bethanybiblechurch.net/sermons/download.php
Susan's research links: I don't see much there that is relevant. One piece is about adolescence and how the "storm" characteristics of it are exaggerated. Another is actually about the loneliness of the elderly due to "age segregation." Another is an entire book on the history of childhood. (I always find that one interesting. Niel Postman argued in The Disappearance of Childhood that childhood is a modern invention. But Scripture is clear that this is not the case. "When I was a child I acted as a child... but when I became a man I put away childish things." etc.).
Dr Pratt's article on The Merits of Multiage Classrooms is relevant and has some good data in it. But it still deals mainly with studies of what happens and doesn't happen in school settings where large numbers of children interact almost exclusively with people at or very near their own age. This is not really what any of us here are recommending.
In any case, I've read several versions of the "age segregating is an ineffective new idea spawned by Darwin, Dewey and Rosseau" many times. They are all essentially guilt-by-association arguments. That is, they fail to show that age grouping derives exclusively from these philosophies (to do that, there would have to be no use of age grouping before them. This we know is not the case).
Second, the argument assumes that if group B does any of the same things as group A, they must have gotten the idea from group A and must share other qualities with group A as well.
Since Darwin ate breakfast, am I embracing a new-fangled unbiblical idea if I eat breakfast? Even if it could be shown that without Darwin's influence I would not eat breakfast, does it follow that I shouldn't eat breakfast or that I have any other ideas in common w/ol' Chuck?
My point w/the extreme example is that overlap between bad philosophies and good ones happens all the time. When it happens, it:
It's just really not a solid argument to say that age grouping is bad b/c it kind of smells like Darwin and Dewey.
As for adolescence, age grouping doesn't require a belief in any particular version of the idea of "adolescence" or that it even exists. To believe there are important benefits for sometimes teaching/interacting with older kids apart from younger ones, you only have to believe they are different in important ways.
For that, you don't need Dewey or anyone else. My daughter turned 11 several months ago. The changes in her over the last year have been amazing. I no longer talk to her like I did when she was 10 because she no longer thinks like she did at age 10... and this change is not a learned thing due to social pressures.
She's home schooled (though not as isolated as the stereotype). I'm just saying kids are different from adults and different from eachother and that is not a new idea.
Edit: Dan, I see how you're thinking and mostly agree. I'd add though that "wise or unwise" overlaps with "biblical or unbiblical" because Scripture calls us to behave wisely. So the two cannot be all that cleanly separated. Something can be 'unbiblical' because it is 'unwise,' no?
Edit: Dan, I see how you're thinking and mostly agree. I'd add though that "wise or unwise" overlaps with "biblical or unbiblical" because Scripture calls us to behave wisely. So the two cannot be all that cleanly separated. Something can be 'unbiblical' because it is 'unwise,' no?
Well, for the "truly wise," I suppose you're right. But we only have the "Miller believes X is wise, Brown believes Y is wise."
The same goes for (actually, it probably is the same thing) application of what are perceived to be general Biblical principles.
Aaron- I'll reply because you addressed the relevance of my post-
I think the research in this area is relevant if you acknowledge that when certain practices are adopted, they can lead to various attitudes, just as an attitude can lead to new behaviors. Age grouping is dependent on the idea that different age groups need to be treated differently- which is absolutely valid- but the more different you believe they are, the more you will tend to separate them. Society and culture affect the way we view youth and family, and we must separate our practices from the elements in our societal/cultural norms that result in misguided notions with harmful effects. I believe, hence the supportive documentation in the link I provided, that this is a factor in the surge of retirement communities and nursing homes. The gray head used to be revered, adult children cared for their parents and they continued to be part of the family and an integral part of the 'neighborhood' into their old age. Now the tendency is to push them aside. Acceptance of age grouping is also a factor in how we view the teen years- the adoption of the idea of adolescence has resulted in the infantilization of our young people, a brand new sub-culture, and mega-million dollar industries that were unheard of 100 years ago. I think we have to ask ourselves why these changes have occurred, and whether or not the forces that provoked these changes are practices we should bring into our churches. Basically I'm playing connect-the-dots, and I think they make a picture. To me this is a bigger issue than whether or not we should have a class for 3 year olds.
I can't find any Biblical evidence that would support age grouping in the way we do it today- I don't see classrooms, I don't see commands directed at professional teachers, I don't see families being separated during worship times... we do see men and women separated, and children remaining with their mothers, as well as the directives for the older men/women to teach young men/women... and I'm not trying to build a Bible doctrine out of all this the way Mr. Brown has. I'm also not going to toss out the entire idea of integrating family because some people are taking it and jumping off a cliff with it- that whole "guilt by association" thing. Why can't we take his theory apart, show what is wrong with it, but also acknowledge what elements of it are based in facts or Biblical principles? The NCFIC, Doug Phillips, and Mr. Brown didn't invent and don't own the idea of families being foundational, important, and unified.
When we make choices of conscience or adopt behavioral standards in areas like modesty, music, entertainment, time management... we are looking for Scriptural examples and principles on which to base and build those areas. We ALL draw lines and create boundaries based on our experiences and what we believe to be supported Biblically. As was discussed in another thread- can we say it is wrong to lay down on train tracks and get up in time not to get run over? Are we commanded not to lay down on train tracks? Are there examples of people in the Bible laying down in the middle of the road, waiting for the next chariot to come along? No- but we don't need it in skywriting to know that foolishness is sin, and laying down on train tracks is foolish... unless one of your contacts fell out...
If the modern (and I'd like to see some supportive documentation that our methods of age grouping are not recent) widespread practice of age grouping has led to some very undesirable effects (such as peer dependency, infantilized youth, a decadent youth culture, adversarial relationships between youth and parents, the neglect of parents in nursing homes...), I think we do have to question its desirability for use in the church (to the degree that it is currently practiced). I mentioned before that most kids are age grouped every day in most classrooms, and if they are experiencing some of the problems that age grouping causes, why wouldn't the church become a counter-acting agent to undo some of the harm that has been done? Are there factors other than age grouping that can lead to the effects I've listed? Absolutely- our sinful hearts don't need a whole lotta encouragement to do wrong. Yet if the research indicates that there are no advantages whatsoever to age grouping, but that multi-age grouping has significant affective and social advantages, and if the patterns and practices in God's Word don't reveal a preference for age grouping, why would we adopt age grouping as the default for church ministries?
If you don't believe that a couple of hours on Sunday and Wednesday really matter, that separating families regularly at church in addition to the separations that happen all week aren't going to have any noticeable effect on the lives and thinking patterns of the congregation, and that if it does have an effect, it will be a positive one, then I accept that as your opinion, and I don't think any less of you- everyone's perspective is different. But I personally believe it does have an effect, I've presented reasons and supportive research as to why I think it can be detrimental, and I am convinced that making age grouping the default in church reinforces a very wrong-headed idea that society has adopted as normal- and it is absolutely not 'normal'- not in history, not in the Bible, and not in literature. Just a thought- but I wonder what David, Daniel, Josiah, Timothy, Clara Barton, George Washington, Anne Frank, Claudette Colvin, John Clem, David Farragut and Calvin Graham would think of our kids today... as in, how many of our kids could be so courageous, steadfast, creative, and bold, and if not- Why?
I can't find any Biblical evidence that would support age grouping in the way we do it today...
I pause over "in the way we do it today." The OP article refers to YMs that "draw and entertain youth." I agree that sometimes YMs are guilty of over-valuing entertainment, though I do not believe that entertainment is all bad, either.
Your comment here illustrates what I see as a lack of focus on ideas.
In other posts, you've said a lot of negative things about youth pastors in your experience. I wonder if you've thrown out an entire ministry category largely because you've had bad experience with it. That puts you at risk of being pragmatic.
When you look at a problematic youth ministry, the question is whether you should fix what is wrong with it or discard it.
This is partly why I would like to see this thread (or another thread maybe) limited strictly to the question of whether Scripture forbids grouping. If it doesn't, then it's a practical question, and then we can have a different sort of debate about what is most useful and wise.
If you don't believe that a couple of hours on Sunday and Wednesday really matter, that separating families regularly at church in addition to the separations that happen all week aren't going to have any noticeable effect on the lives and thinking patterns of the congregation, and that if it does have an effect, it will be a positive one, then I accept that as your opinion, and I don't think any less of you- everyone's perspective is different. But I personally believe it does have an effect, I've presented reasons and supportive research as to why I think it can be detrimental, and I am convinced that making age grouping the default in church reinforces a very wrong-headed idea that society has adopted as normal- and it is absolutely not 'normal'- not in history, not in the Bible, and not in literature. Just a thought- but I wonder what David, Daniel, Josiah, Timothy, Clara Barton, George Washington, Anne Frank, Claudette Colvin, John Clem, David Farragut and Calvin Graham would think of our kids today... as in, how many of our kids could be so courageous, steadfast, creative, and bold, and if not- Why?
A lot of the teens in my youth group have been very courageous, steadfast, creative, and bold. Some home schoolers, some public schoolers, and some Christian schoolers.
On this note, Susan, I think you might like the book, Do Hard Things. It isn't necessarily a Bible-study book. But it does encourage teens to consider that they can and should be doing difficult things instead of floating along in their not-child-not-adult stage.
