View the movie for free until September 2011.
Official Divided the Movie (HD Version) from NCFIC on Vimeo
Official Divided the Movie (HD Version) from NCFIC on Vimeo.
"Divided"- is modern youth ministry really helping kids?
Fri, 07/15/2011 - 4:51pm
Link
The main thesis is a view
The main thesis is a view that many have espoused for decades but have had their voices drowned out by those catering to juvenile demands and wants and who have ruled the day for ministry toward youth. However, it was odd to see portrayed, "Young Earth vs Old Earth" , as a measure of youth being faithful or serious about the Word of God with those taking an old earth view, even ones holding to a literal creation non-evolutionary old earth view, as falling into the category of those not where they should be theologically. Of course Ken Ham's influence may have something to do with that.
But apart from that, again, the thesis is accurate. In fact here is a http://vimeo.com/26098320 ]comment from the producer :
I went to Rick Warrens church to shoot a few scenes for this documentary with my friends who made the film and I was honestly shocked by what I found. They had an entire room full of video game consoles and a two story building full of huge video game units and pool tables.
Since when did the church have a need for this kind of gimmickry? I understand the desire to remain relevant to a culture that is lost but when youth come in due to the lights and sounds and receive a shoddy prep-talk they eventually leave.
Funny, as I think about it, isn't this the exact same principle that needs addressed with so many adult gatherings.
Fri, 07/15/2011 - 11:16pm
Link
Entertaining the Crowd
You don't have to go to Rick Warren's church to see this. We have abundant examples of churches in our mild "conservative" Midwest that draw large crowds with their music focus, their video game halls, and ongoing good-times events. It is truly hard to counter the crowd mentality ("compete" is the wrong word, but I almost used it, as we are on opposing sides in many ways). Parents go where the teens want, and they follow the crowd. We see it even in Bible college masses. Parents in most of our circles have ceded their responsibility to the church (including youth groups), and the church has failed at parenting, to a large degree.
My pastor of years ago used to say "whatever it takes to get people is whatever it takes to keep them." Churches either turn into "adult youth groups" following such practices, or the "adult youth" bail out from disinterest.
Sat, 07/16/2011 - 6:46am
Link
#1 question
When I talk to pastors, the #1 question they say they hear from visitors is "What programs do you have for children?" Since when should this be the primary consideration for attending a church?
Here's a program for you- "They sit their little bums down in the sanctuary and listen to the teaching and preaching."
The typical response to questions of whether or not a church should have children's programs is that the parents aren't doing the discipling, so the church must pick up the slack. Doesn't that just enable slacker parents to be more slack-ful?
Sat, 07/16/2011 - 8:00am
Link
Not always a bad question...
When I talk to pastors, the #1 question they say they hear from visitors is "What programs do you have for children?" Since when should this be the primary consideration for attending a church?
Here's a program for you- "They sit their little bums down in the sanctuary and listen to the teaching and preaching."
The typical response to questions of whether or not a church should have children's programs is that the parents aren't doing the discipling, so the church must pick up the slack. Doesn't that just enable slacker parents to be more slack-ful?
Someone could be asking the question because they want to avoid a church that entertains their kids. Just a thought.
Some parents in this day might not be "slacking" as much as they are needing direction on getting involved is discipling their children. A children's program of some nature, especially in a smaller church, could with the right focus and involvement actually incorporate children into the life of the church overall. I know that in our church, I have new convert parents with new convert children who are developing a great deal because we have had classes such as http://kids4truth.com/Clubs/Home.aspx ]Kids 4 Truth that have taught their children (and the parents, as they help them) in ways that we probably wouldn't have the same immediate opportunity otherwise. In this case, the children and parents were converted around the same general time frame, and the parents had virtually no background in spiritual things. On top of that, the father struggles with reading. K4T gives structure they would struggle to provide themselves.
Our K4T evenings have a "fun" component to them (games and activities), but I don't think anyone but the most critical would accuse them of being "entertainment." The kids learn to sing hymns, and learn and memorize core doctrinal terms and Scripture that many adults in our churches probably don't know. Adults not helping in the program sit in on discipleship-oriented Bible study with an opportunity to listen more intently than they would if they were focused on supervising their children during that time period.
I understand the concerns with the overt entertainment philosophy that dominates many church youth ministries. With that being said, I am concerned that there are people out there who conclude that there is essentially no room for the church to offer targeted instruction to young people because of concerns over "age segregation" and the like.
Sat, 07/16/2011 - 8:30am
Link
Questions
When I talk to pastors, the #1 question they say they hear from visitors is "What programs do you have for children?" Since when should this be the primary consideration for attending a church?
Here's a program for you- "They sit their little bums down in the sanctuary and listen to the teaching and preaching."
The typical response to questions of whether or not a church should have children's programs is that the parents aren't doing the discipling, so the church must pick up the slack. Doesn't that just enable slacker parents to be more slack-ful?
Someone could be asking the question because they want to avoid a church that entertains their kids. Just a thought.
In the context of this discussion, the parents were asking because the use of children's programs was their first priority in choosing a church. I didn't think I needed to clarify that.
Some parents in this day might not be "slacking" as much as they are needing direction on getting involved is discipling their children. A children's program of some nature, especially in a smaller church, could with the right focus and involvement actually incorporate children into the life of the church overall.
I agree that not all parents that desire age-targeted teaching for their kids are slackers, and there is obviously a place for discipling babes in Christ- but when parents who should be grounded already don't know how to disciple their own children, and are dependent on child-targeted programs, we are upside down. The bottom line is that there is no Scriptural mandate or clear support for age-segregated instruction. It is a pragmatic solution with roots in some very unGodly ideas, but we've adopted it without a blink.
Is pragmatism bad? Not always. Do unregenerate men and women have good ideas? Quite often- but why are SS and children's programs so sacred when there is so little evidence that it is beneficial or effective in the long term?
I remember my dad becoming concerned over the twaddle in the children's programs at our church, and he started having my brother and I sit in church with him and mom. We looked up the verses together, and would discuss the message on the way home (in a good way- we didn't wear the preacher's guts for garters, ever). We studied topics that were brought up in church at the dinner table. Church was one more way we bonded as a family.
It seems well nigh impossible to find a church that respects the choice of parents to enjoy Biblical instruction and worship as a family bonding experience. We'd have to drive about an hour away to attend a church that doesn't require or pressure parents to put their kids in every program they offer- SS, midweek kid's clubs, age-targeted activities, camp, and youth group. You wouldn't believe how many times my dh and I have been mocked because we attended an activity with our kids- "Don't you think you ought to cut the apron strings?" and blahblahblah. Well, with a nimrod like that in charge of children, you bet yer sweet taters we are going to go to oversee the influences on our kids.
I understand the concerns with the overt entertainment philosophy that dominates many church youth ministries. With that being said, I am concerned that there are people out there who conclude that there is essentially no room for the church to offer targeted instruction to young people because of concerns over "age segregation" and the like.
If age segregation has no Biblical roots, then it is good to be concerned when it becomes the default, and when parents who wish to worship as a family are viewed as extremists.
Sat, 07/16/2011 - 10:51am
Link
Quote:
Here's a program for
Here's a program for you- "They sit their little bums down in the sanctuary and listen to the teaching and preaching."
My guess is that most of those heads attached above the little bums come away with little to nothing from the teaching and preaching, compared to what they might get if they were being taught at their own level.
If discipling means anything, it means teaching people where they are at, not just throwing them into some meeting because "we honor family."
The typical response to questions of whether or not a church should have children's programs is that the parents aren't doing the discipling, so the church must pick up the slack. Doesn't that just enable slacker parents to be more slack-ful?
No. It actually fulfills the mandate to make disciples. There is no biblical reason that only parents can disciple children. That wasn't true in the OT or in the NT. And there is no biblical reason that if someone who should be doing it isn't doing it that everyone else can just wash their hands and let the little ones just go to hell, or at least go untaught. If someone is not doing, then someone else should.
The bottom line is that there is no Scriptural mandate or clear support for age-segregated instruction.
Actually, Titus 2 among other passages does indicate some form of division into older and younger. Hard to argue that's not age-graded at some point. You might think that people today have taken it too far, but having a "younger" group means that they are being set apart based on their age.
In addition, I think it is just common sense, rooted in common grace. One of the aforementioned is very common; the other is not. It seems like church is the only place that anyone suggests this. Even the most successful schools age grade their curriculum and classes for the most effective teaching.
It is a pragmatic solution with roots in some very unGodly ideas, but we've adopted it without a blink.
It is not pramatic; it is practical. And I don't know what "ungodly ideas" you speak of, but teaching people according to where they are at is clearly the instruction of Scripture in various places, such as Heb 5, where people should have moved on from certain things to other things.
why are SS and children's programs so sacred when there is so little evidence that it is beneficial or effective in the long term?
Not sure why you think there is "little evidence" that is it beneficial or effective. Seeing a generation of children who know the Bible seems evidence enough, to me. Why do we presume that children have the same interests or ability to understand the creation story as adults do? If children understand the same things in the same way as adults do, then you have either very precocious children or very ignorant and unthinking adults.
There's a reason why "age graded education" is almost universal. It is because we realize that education is a process, a journey, and not everyone is at the same place in that journey. You have to teach people according to their level. That's why "children" is used to designate a lower level of spiritual maturity in need of teaching. I think we are better off honoring that than fighting it. Chances are, Susan, that your education of your own children has convinced you that you have to be age graded in what you are teaching. I don't recall the ages of your children, but you can't teach a twelve year old the same things in the same way that you teach a six year old. The curriculum is graded and you don't teach everyone the same thing in the same way, right? We expect five year old to read Dick and Jane, not Jane Eyre. We expect six year old to learn to add simple numbers, not letters as in algebra. So why is that different in church? I know of no biblical reason it should be different.
The question of entertainment is an entirely different question than the question of age-grading. Let's not confuse them.
Sat, 07/16/2011 - 10:54am
Link
Here's another little short,
Here's another little short, somewhat random, list I wrote for another place that may help express my thinking on this. It is perhaps a bit repetitive of what I wrote above, but I don't want to take time to edit it.
1. I think teaching parents to teach (and teaching parents period) can, and should in most cases, take place alongside of age graded children’s teaching. There is no biblical reason not to, and the Bible clearly testifies to (1) multiple people having teaching gifts that should be used (cf. Rom 12), (2) that intergenerational teaching takes place (cf. Titus 2) that apparently is not limited to families, and (3) that people should be taught on the various levels according to their spiritual state (cf. Heb 5:12-6:1). The Bible does not specify the format that this should take place in; that is a wisdom issue for the church. So a church can have age graded and spiritually age graded formats for teaching. And I think they should. I teach my child at home every night. I routinely ask them about their lesson in church. So being age-graded has not removed my ability or responsibility to teach my child.
2. The age graded nature of general education (whether private, Christian, or public) is a common grace evidence that it is not only possible, but even necessary. Can you imagine trying to teach people to count and do calculus at the same time? It just doesn’t make sense to me to insist that there be no age graded teaching.
3. The whole FIC idea (in it various manifestations) seems to me to be based on OT teaching where religion was a family issue. In the NT church, family is less emphasized and you have a church made up of first generation Christians, which remains so until this day. There is no presumption that children are going to have Christian parents. Many do not. While I think the OT passages are instructive, I wonder if they are being made to bear a bit too much weight.
4. I think children can be taught to sit still in church, and that can be done in a children’s church lesson as well as (or perhaps better than) an adult lesson. It can also be accomplished at home. The question we have to ask is whether it is worth it to insist on kids being in the congregation and being taught to sit still at the expense of a mom or dad who does not get fed spiritually because they spend the preaching hour trying to keep junior quiet? To tell parents to take their child out of the service is asking them to leave the authoritative teaching and preaching of the Word, or the worship through song. And that is to say nothing of the people around who came to worship God and hear from him who instead are hearing from a child and a parent who is trying to keep the child quiet. In my ministry, I see no reason to place that burden on parents or those around them when we have other options, such as a man who is passionate about teaching children. Furthermore, if we removed age graded teaching, we would take away this man’s opportunity to minister out of his desire, which limits his spiritual usefulness and participation in the church.
5. It seems obvious that not all people are at the same level. That is why we have new members classes, new believers classes, classes such as Intro to the OT or NT, various books, or doctrines, etc. It is why we have classes for single adults who face very different challenges than senior adults. There is no reason that I can think of that that wouldn’t be extended to children. A child is unlikely to get much out of an hour long lesson on the message of the Pentateuch (or an hour long lesson on anything, though an adult certainly needs that).
6. We can do both intergenerational and age-graded, as we do here. Our community groups are intentionally intergenerational so we have that influence. Our age graded classes are intentionally teaching on the level of the student.
7. There is no need to teach as if everyone has the same spiritual maturity or level, and that therefore everyone’s spiritual needs can be met with the same teaching. Any pastor with some experience can testify as to how hard it is to teach to all levels at one time. That challenge is made easier by knowing that there are various levels of teaching offered for various groups of people. It is not about being cool or hip or trendy or giving watered-down teaching to younger kids or teens. It is about teaching them where they are at and moving them along.
8. To the issue of authority, I find it unconvincing to argue that age graded teaching somehow diminishes the authority of the parent. In our lives, under Scripture, we recognize varying levels of authority both in the church, in the home, and in civil society.
Bottom line is that I don't have a problem if parents keep their children in church with them. But they need to make sure their children are respectful both of the singing and preaching of the Word, and of the people around them.
Sat, 07/16/2011 - 11:10am
Link
I thought the link was just a
I thought the link was just a 5 minute intro to the topic. My wife and I ended up staying up til midnight watching and discussing. I think the movie made some excellent points, especially about the rise of "adolescence" at the beginning of the 20th century.
[QUOTE=Wikipedia ]In many societies, adolescence was not recognized as a phase of life. Most societies simply distinguished between childhood and adulthood. Stanley Hall is generally credited with "discovering" adolescence with his 1904 study "Adolescence" in which he describes the developmental phase now recognized as adolescence. Hall attributed the new stage to social changes at the turn of the 20th century. Child labor laws kept individuals under 16 out of the work force, and universal education laws kept them in secondary school, thus prolonging the period of dependence—a dependence that allowed them to address psychological tasks they might have ignored when they took on adult roles straight out of childhood.[/QUOTE ]
I think that modern Western society has granted humans the "right" to an irresponsible playboy stage in our teens and early 20s. We expect them to have interest in adult things, but we expect them to be irresponsible with adult things. We disallow work when they should be learning to work. We entertain them like children at church (not all churches) when we should be teaching them to serve and mature at church. We run the program. They observe, and maybe participate in the program.
Sometimes, you get what you expect.
Sat, 07/16/2011 - 11:18am
Link
I also thought that the movie
I also thought that the movie overstretched on the degree to which we apply the regulative principle to age-targeted programs in the church. Just because there was no nursery in Acts does not mean that nurseries are bad. Sometimes, it is good for adults to have respite from the distractions of young children in order that they might concentrate on sensitive or difficult topics. Likewise, sometimes it is good for children to come aside to ensure that they receive the basics of the faith (not all parents are capable of teaching their children well).
Sat, 07/16/2011 - 11:32am
Link
Even with age-graded classes
Even with age-graded classes and youth groups, there still is a lumping of everyone at the same level when they are not all at the same level. Some children and teens who have been well-taught at home and/or were saved at a younger age are well ahead of their peers. The teacher of 8 year olds or 13 year olds still has several spiritual/Bible knowledge levels to deal with in the same room, but yet they teach to only one level. Therefore, some kids don't understand what's being taught and others aren't learning anything new.
It seems to be implied in the Bible that not everyone will understand what's being preached, which is why women were told to ask questions of their husbands at home and fathers were told to teach their children. The solution to the problem was not to age-segregate the people, but to put in some extra time outside of the service.
Sat, 07/16/2011 - 11:43am
Link
Age or maturity
Does Titus 2 imply age segregation or spiritual maturity segregation? If so, then a woman who is 60 but got saved last week is going to be teaching a woman who is 30 but was saved at 15? Who is more spiritually mature? Nope- I don't buy the "Titus 2 teaches age segregation" argument.
Historically speaking, age segregation is relatively new and is not universal. You'd think from this conversation that no one has seen Anne of Green Gables. The video gives a nutshell version of the history and influence of SS and education in America.
Recognizing that parents are Scripturally the primary teachers of children does not negate other discipling methods, it prioritizes them. Otherwise, I'm not going to argue points I didn't make.
Sat, 07/16/2011 - 11:46am
Link
Quote:Even with age-graded
Even with age-graded classes and youth groups, there still is a lumping of everyone at the same level when they are not all at the same level. Some children and teens who have been well-taught at home and/or were saved at a younger age are well ahead of their peers. The teacher of 8 year olds or 13 year olds still has several spiritual/Bible knowledge levels to deal with in the same room, but yet they teach to only one level. Therefore, some kids don't understand what's being taught and others aren't learning anything new.
But they are generally at the same or similar intellectual level, and it will not take them as long to catch up. But some may need to be held back or pushed ahead. There are a variety of factors. Again, this is something that is not really controversial outside the church. I wonder why it is inside the church?
Furthermore, it is possible to teach to differing levels within a given span of ability/knowledge. But that gets harder as the span increases. For instance, in language, it is fairly easy to teach beginners together, even though you might have some stars who really push ahead. However, there is no real way to teach people the alphabet at the same time you are teaching other students the uses of a genitive. You could do it, I suppose, but you wouldn't be integrating the class. You would be teaching two different classes in the same room (the old one-room school house model ... or ACE model).
It seems to be implied in the Bible that not everyone will understand what's being preached, which is why women were told to ask questions of their husbands at home and fathers were told to teach their children. The solution to the problem was not to age-segregate the people, but to put in some extra time outside of the service.
Two things: (1) women and men were not to be segregated all the time, though they were at times (cf. Titus 2); (2) the mandate for fathers to teach their children does not exclude the possibility that others may teach their children. Again, the Bible clearly establishes teachers in the church, and there is no way to argue that the teachers were teaching only their own children (because there were different families present, and sometimes families without fathers, apparently). So the Bible never limits the teaching of people to the fathers. Why should we?
This seems to be an inconsistent thing. Even in the most staunchly FIC church, the pastor stands up and teaches people who are not his own children. So he cannot also say that children should be taught only by their own father. He has violated that by teaching people who are not his own children. So then it becomes an argument about who, other than the father, can teach the children. Is it just the pastor? Or the others with teaching gifts (Rom 12)? Or anyone older (Titus 2)?
If the argument is that teachers should be qualified, then absolutely. If the argument is that children's classes need to actually teach and train rather than simply play games and babysit, then absolutely. But I cannot see any argument from Scripture that only fathers should teach children.
Sat, 07/16/2011 - 11:49am
Link
Quote:Does Titus 2 imply age
Does Titus 2 imply age segregation or spiritual maturity segregation? If so, then a woman who is 60 but got saved last week is going to be teaching a woman who is 30 but was saved at 15?
The issues of Titus 2 that are being taught, are quite often common grace issues. And yes a newly saved 60 year old might have a thing or two to teach a 15 year old younger woman.
Nope- I don't buy the "Titus 2 teaches age segregation" argument.
I suppose you don't have to buy it, but to me (and perhaps only me), it seems hard to argue with "older" and "younger" as being something other than age.
Recognizing that parents are Scripturally the primary teachers of children does not negate other discipling methods, it prioritizes them.
Then you don't actually disagree with age grading discipleship methods?
Otherwise, I'm not going to argue points I didn't make.
No need to. My comments were directed at more than your comments. But there are some issues that I think you are perhaps minimizing, or perhaps even outright ignoring.
Let me ask you this: Is there a biblical mandate that only fathers can teach their only their own children? Or can someone disciple a person that is not a part of their own family?
Sat, 07/16/2011 - 12:10pm
Link
Erg
Does Titus 2 imply age segregation or spiritual maturity segregation? If so, then a woman who is 60 but got saved last week is going to be teaching a woman who is 30 but was saved at 15?
The issues of Titus 2 that are being taught, are quite often common grace issues. And yes a newly saved 60 year old might have a thing or two to teach a 15 year old younger woman.Re-read the comment. A 30 year old woman who has been saved for 15 years should not be in the position of needing spiritual mentorship by a 60 year old woman who has been saved for a week. Can we share what we've learned and be a blessing to each other, regardless of our age or length of time we've been saved? Yes- but we are talking about discipling.
Recognizing that parents are Scripturally the primary teachers of children does not negate other discipling methods, it prioritizes them.
Then you don't actually disagree with age grading discipleship methods?Yes, I do disagree, because age does not necessarily address spiritual maturity or even regeneration. Should unsaved kids be taught/discipled in the same way as saved kids? I don't think so.
It also doesn't address reading ability. I know 13 year olds that can barely read, while a 9 year old is fluently reading and comprehending Dickens.
Let me ask you this: Is there a biblical mandate that only fathers can teach their only their own children? Or can someone disciple a person that is not a part of their own family?
Of what relevance is this question? Of course a biologically unrelated person can teach and mentor. That hasn't been questioned. But if you review how many verses directly address parents as the child's primary teachers, you get a clear picture of where the responsibility should lie.
BTW, Larry, did you watch the video?
(I've edited this post a bazillion times because I keep seeing typos!)
Sat, 07/16/2011 - 12:25pm
Link
How?
Larry said:
But some may need to be held back or pushed ahead.
I've never seen anyone held back or pushed ahead in Sunday Schools or youth groups. What might that look like in a church setting? How would you do that?
Sat, 07/16/2011 - 12:32pm
Link
Not so sure...
A 30 year old woman who has been saved for 15 years should not be in the position of needing spiritual mentorship by a 60 year old woman who has been saved for a week.
What are the limits of "spiritual mentorship"? A 30 year old woman who was converted as a 15 year-old might nevertheless be very new to specific areas of her sanctification. For example, she could be a new wife or mother, or be dealing with death, or struggle with anger or bitterness. A newly converted 60 year-old might not be familiar with every relevant scriptural principle, yet her experience and perspective might still have spiritual value (even if it is "These were mistakes I made that you should try to avoid").
As a matter of fact, none of us ever should be in a position where we think we are above "spiritual mentorship" from someone "less" than us. Humility and the function of edifying other believers in a church setting means we all should be open to some degree from what God can teach us through one another. To that end, a church service may have value to a family unit, but it is not intended simply to be a "family bonding time"- we should all be there to some degree to connect with one another, looking beyond the boundaries of our immediate familial context and developing the unity we need to share in our ecclesiastical bonds. Primary responsibility is given to parents, just like primary responsibility for love and submission is in a marital context. That doesn't mean, however, that the church has no similar kind of responsibilities in its context.
Sat, 07/16/2011 - 12:37pm
Link
Exactly
Larry said:
But some may need to be held back or pushed ahead.
I've never seen anyone held back or pushed ahead in Sunday Schools or youth groups. What might that look like in a church setting? How would you do that?
this is something that is not really controversial outside the church. I wonder why it is inside the church?
Right- children are almost never segregated by ability in school, but by age. They are often promoted to the next grade without reaching proficiency in reading. For a church to hold a child back who is not being held back in school would cause WWIII.
But many points in the video are about why age-segregation is now the default when for hundreds of years it was not. We are talking about a practice (on the level that we see it now) that is in the neighborhood of 120 years old, and coincides with societal and education changes based on the teachings of Rousseau, John Dewey, and G. Stanley Hall, none of whom any of us would allow to teach our goldfish to swim. And Horace Mann was a Unitarian. Not someone whose philosophy and methodologies we should adopt without serious and strenuous consideration.
Sat, 07/16/2011 - 12:46pm
Link
???
A 30 year old woman who has been saved for 15 years should not be in the position of needing spiritual mentorship by a 60 year old woman who has been saved for a week.
What are the limits of "spiritual mentorship"? A 30 year old woman who was converted as a 15 year-old might nevertheless be very new to specific areas of her sanctification. For example, she could be a new wife or mother, or be dealing with death, or struggle with anger or bitterness. A newly converted 60 year-old might not be familiar with every relevant scriptural principle, yet her experience and perspective might still have spiritual value (even if it is "These were mistakes I made that you should try to avoid").
Bro. Linscott, that is TOTALLY not what my point was, and I clarified my statement by saying "Can we share what we've learned and be a blessing to each other, regardless of our age or length of time we've been saved? Yes- but we are talking about discipling."
Age does not guarantee spiritual maturity. Can we agree on that point? Titus 2 isn't a mandate that only women who are chronologically biologically older should teach women who are chronologically biologically younger. There are qualifications that they "be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things; That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed."
As a matter of fact, none of us ever should be in a position where we think we are above "spiritual mentorship" from someone "less" than us. Humility and the function of edifying other believers in a church setting means we all should be open to some degree from what God can teach us through one another. To that end, a church service may have value to a family unit, but it is not intended simply to be a "family bonding time"- we should all be there to some degree to connect with one another, looking beyond the boundaries of our immediate familial context and developing the unity we need to share in our ecclesiastical bonds. Primary responsibility is given to parents, just like primary responsibility for love and submission is in a marital context. That doesn't mean, however, that the church has no similar kind of responsibilities in its context.
I agree and haven't said anything to the contrary.
Sat, 07/16/2011 - 1:34pm
Link
Thanks for your response
Thanks for your response Susan. Let me, hopefully respectfully and helpfully, make a couple of propositions about what I believe. And then respond to you, and then try to bow out for the sake of other things. Hopefully we are not talking past each other here.
1. I believe the church is the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Tim 3:15), not the family. So why do we say stuff like “The church should support the parents in their teaching” as if the parents are the ones responsible to defend and propagate the truth? The home is not the primary guardian or propagator of the truth in the Scripture. I know in a society that idolizes family that will sound harsh. (BTW, I am concerned that the FIC movement actually increases the idolization of the family, and that is not a good thing, but that’s another issue.)
2. I believe that parents should raise their children in the discipline and instruction of the Lord (Eph 6:4), based on the truth they are being taught at church. How else would they know what the truth was? (Remember, they didn’t have Bibles to read over the dinner table or in daily quiet times.) Today, we have separated family and parenting from the church, and I think that is dangerous (though with some churches, it is probably better unfortunately).
3. I believe that the church’s mandate is the make disciples of all nations, and that includes all ages in those nations. The church should not abandon that mission. If they can do that with all ages together, then do it. But I haven’t seen any evidence that it greatly works. It certainly failed in Israel in the OT. I know my children are surpassed by my teaching. I don’t really even try to preach to them. They pick up a few things and repeat them, but it is not anything like actual understanding in most cases. And truth without understanding can lead to ritualistic repetition of true facts that do not affect the heart.
4. If someone differs from me, I am fine with that. Just make disciples as it works in your context.
Now, to your comments:
A 30 year old woman who has been saved for 15 years should not be in the position of needing spiritual mentorship by a 60 year old woman who has been saved for a week.
Do you think a 60 year old new believer, with a fresh gospel perspective, a 35 year marriage, and five grown and well-adjusted children has nothing to teach a 30 year old with a five year marriage and three toddlers about how to love her husband and children? I do. I think God’s common grace combined with special grace gives older women some input, whether “I did this right” or “I did this wrong.”
Can we share what we've learned and be a blessing to each other, regardless of our age or length of time we've been saved? Yes- but we are talking about discipling.
I wonder how you define discipling is if not sharing what we have learned? Isn’t that the primary definition of teaching (which is what discipling is)? Learn something and then teach it to someone else.
So yes, I think Titus 2 is primarily age related and I think that is why he uses older and younger. Given the categories of teaching, it would make sense that it is age related. That’s not a guarantee that every older woman is able to disciple a younger woman, and that no younger woman is unable to disciple an older woman. It is a general principle of how it works. And I think discipling is teaching. So I think a 60 year old new believer can disciple a 30 year old believer on some things in Titus 2.
Susan: Recognizing that parents are Scripturally the primary teachers of children does not negate other discipling methods, it prioritizes them.
Begging your pardon up front, I don’t want to burden you here, but I am seeking understanding of your position. For the sake of clarification for me, you affirm that there are other discipleship methods than parents teaching their own children, but then say that you disagree with grouping them together by age for age appropriate discipleship.
Larry: Then you don't actually disagree with age grading discipleship methods?
Susan: Yes, I do disagree, because age does not necessarily address spiritual maturity or even regeneration/
So in your position, in what contexts could a child be discipled by someone other than their parent? Is it ever appropriate to group six year olds together for teaching? Or twelve year olds? Or twenty-year olds? Must every gathering include all ages? (Again, I don’t want to be overly pedantic; I am simply trying to grasp your position because I don’t want to speak past you.)
For instance, if my five year old has a friend over to play, my wife is going to be discipling all afternoon, in a variety of ways. And it will be grouped by age (only five and six year olds) and it will not be parental (since the friend has other parents). Is that acceptable? What if we have three friends over? Or six friends and have a Bible story in the back yard? At what point have we crossed the line into something unacceptable? Again, I am not trying to be ridiculous here but trying to establish some sense of understanding of the boundaries of your position.
Should unsaved kids be taught/discipled in the same way as saved kids? I don't think so.
Not sure I agree here, but I don’t know why you say this and it’s off topic, but it would be an interesting discussion. I think the gospel is the same, and so you teach them the same way essentially.
Larry: Let me ask you this: Is there a biblical mandate that only fathers can teach their only their own children? Or can someone disciple a person that is not a part of their own family?
It is relevant to the discipling mission of the church. You admit that someone who is “biologically unrelated can teach and mentor,” so it is not parents only. So when and where and how can that take place? (See above questions.) How does the church fulfill the mission of making disciples of children? I think you have said it is not only parents, but others as well that can do this. So when/where/how?
Susan: Of what relevance is this question?
But if you review how many verses directly address parents as the child's primary teachers, you get a clear picture of where the responsibility should lie.
One? And it doesn’t even say anything similar to “primary” that I can recall. Where, in the NT, do you go after Ephesians 6:4? I realize there are some verses in the OT about it. And we have over half the OT that testifies to the success of that. But again, I don’t disagree that parents must teach their children, and in fact, always teach their children. But what about all the verses that place the teaching ministry in the church?
BTW, Larry, did you watch the video?
No, I don’t have an hour to spend on it right now. I have serious problems with the way a lot of youth programs are being carried on. I have problems with prolonged adolescence, though I am not sure that it is an artificial category in this day and age.
Thanks again, Susan
Sat, 07/16/2011 - 1:41pm
Link
Quote:
I've never seen anyone
I've never seen anyone held back or pushed ahead in Sunday Schools or youth groups. What might that look like in a church setting? How would you do that?
Very carefully!!! No, seriously, just judge whether or not someone is grasping the material or not.
Right- children are almost never segregated by ability in school, but by age. They are often promoted to the next grade without reaching proficiency in reading. For a church to hold a child back who is not being held back in school would cause WWIII.
But that's a problem with the school right, probably both in teaching and in promoting? It's not a problem of the system of age grading.
But what's the problem with moving them on? They are not ready. They are behind in their development for a normal person of that age. And that is the point: You teach people according to where they are, and generally, similar ages have similar characteristics. And if you move them on before they are ready, you actually hurt them in the long run. It's part of God's created order. So why isn't that true of church? Why should we teach people the more advanced things before they have learned to think properly? Why should teach them more advanced things before they learn the elementary things (Heb 5:11-6:1).
Sat, 07/16/2011 - 1:44pm
Link
Perspective
I'll say up front that I did not watch the entire film, but after about 15 mins. I believe I could see clearly the premise of the film.
I believe the film maker (and many, many others) are illustrating and verbalizing highly publicized research that young people are leaving the faith (although that percentage is widely debated). Yet, I still can not be convinced in my mind that the diagnosis presented is accurate, or at least complete.
My quick view of the film and a quick read of some of the comments might lead me to conclude that: youth pastors + youth ministry + Christian rock music + fun in church + Bible teaching = faith abandonment by young people
We're kidding ourselves if we think the issues are that simplistic. And, we might find ourselves in danger of throwing out the baby with the bath water.
I have a lot of questions.
Is faith abandonment by young people any different today than 100 years ago?
Is it any different than that of older demographics?
Has it radically increased in connection with the advent of youth ministry?
Why is "modern youth ministry" spiritually successful for a large percentage of young people?
Can anybody provide research to indicate that other models of ministry are reversing this trend? (not great anecdotal examples)
These are just things that are passing through my mind. I do believe these issues are significant and worth more discussion. I'm glad to see it posted here.
Full disclosure: I'm a "spiritually successful" (still growing and maturing) product of the "youth pastor + youth ministry + Christian rock music + church is fun + Bible teaching" model.
Sat, 07/16/2011 - 1:47pm
Link
Quote:
Is faith abandonment
Is faith abandonment by young people any different today than 100 years ago?
I think these are excellent questions.
Is it any different than that of older demographics?
Has it radically increased in connection with the advent of youth ministry?
Sat, 07/16/2011 - 3:01pm
Link
Yep
Larry, unfortunately it appears to me that we are either talking past each other or not speaking the same language. It happens.
Do you think a 60 year old new believer, with a fresh gospel perspective, a 35 year marriage, and five grown and well-adjusted children has nothing to teach a 30 year old with a five year marriage and three toddlers about how to love her husband and children? I do. I think God’s common grace combined with special grace gives older women some input, whether “I did this right” or “I did this wrong.”
And what if that 60 year old woman has blonde hair and drives a Volkswagen? http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php ][img ]http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-fc/flowers.gif[/img ] Seriously, did I ever indicate at any time that an older woman with experience in an area has NOTHING to teach a younger woman with less experience in that area?
Here is yet another clarification from my Handy Dandy Clarification Collection, available today for $19.95 plus shipping and handling- a younger woman who has been saved for 15 years should not be in the position to need formal spiritual instruction from someone who has been saved for a week. Formal spiritual instruction has been the context of this thread, because the premise is about church programs/classes, not just the everyday life and interactions of born again believers.
Of course, growth in Christ doesn't always occur as it should, so please view the above as an illustration for the purposes of exploring one aspect of a very complex matter.
As to the other points, I don't want to brush them off, but maybe I can give you An Answer In A Nutshell (which is 50% off when you buy Clarification Collection)- I believe the church in general has adopted practices without considering their sources, implications, or long term effects, or honestly comparing them to Scripture. As I said in another thread, we tend to take what we are already doing and squish it into the Bible somewhere. We need to truly examine what methodologies we employ and ask ourselves if what we are doing is Scriptural. If you have done so and think things are fine as they are, then that's wonderful. And about as rare as Francium.
Pointing out what one believes to be the inappropriate prevalence of a certain method doesn't make the method itself invalid. Just as you are concerned that the NCFIC idolizes the family, I am concerned that the family is too often viewed with disdain or despair. Non-biological persons are not disqualified from teaching children, but parents are not just breeders either. I hope for and work toward balance.
As to age segregation- because children cannot be accurately segregated by age, why is that the default? Why not segregate by ability and gender? After all, we do have a Biblical pattern of parents teaching their children, women teaching girls and men teaching boys, and the analogy of spiritual truth as milk and meat- so if we default, shouldn't it be more towards something that we see in Scripture vs. something that society has adopted that has unScriptural underpinnings?
You teach people according to where they are
I agree!and generally, similar ages have similar characteristics.
Intellectually, developmentally- maybe. Every parent knows the difference even 6 months can make in the developmental life of a child. And spiritually? That is totally not a function of age.
And if you move them on before they are ready, you actually hurt them in the long run. It's part of God's created order. So why isn't that true of church? Why should we teach people the more advanced things before they have learned to think properly? Why should teach them more advanced things before they learn the elementary things (Heb 5:11-6:1).
Exactly. We totally agree on that. But when's the last time you saw a church segregate for an understanding spiritual truths? It's usually by age or marital status, never (or should I say seldom?) by whether they are on milk or meat.
Larry, my dh and I have spent the last 25 years being SS Admin or YG leaders/workers. I don't think Sunday School is a device of Satan or anything like that. But I agree with the basic premise of the video, I believe that the church far too often adopts cultural practices without examining the source or comparing it with Scripture, and that the family unit is not respected to the degree that it should be.
I hope that helps explain my position a bit better. I am willing to acknowledge that we are both bringing our personal experiences and perceptions to the discussion, since there is not, even with the studies Ken Ham has been involved with, unassailable data on the subject.
Sat, 07/16/2011 - 3:15pm
Link
comment
My quick view of the film and a quick read of some of the comments might lead me to conclude that: youth pastors + youth ministry + Christian rock music + fun in church + Bible teaching = faith abandonment by young people
I did watch the entire video and I have read Ken Ham's book Already Gone. I'm not so sure the video was blaming youth ministry for the mass exodus of young people as much as it was trying to show that youth ministries do not keep people from abandoning church.
As far as someone being a "spiritually successful" product of the equation in the above quote, I am sure there were other factors in one's life other than youth group, rock music, fun, and Bible teaching at church. Therefore, the product does not necessarily sanctify select bits and pieces of ones past any more than it would sanctify everything in that person's past.
Sat, 07/16/2011 - 3:27pm
Link
Quote:
We need to truly
We need to truly examine what methodologies we employ and ask ourselves if what we are doing is Scriptural.
I agree with that completely.
But when's the last time you saw a church segregate for an understanding spiritual truths?
We do. It makes the age span in our children's class pretty broad, but I think it works for now.
Thanks again, Susan.
Sat, 07/16/2011 - 6:01pm
Link
Quote:
I did watch the entire
I did watch the entire video and I have read Ken Ham's book Already Gone. I'm not so sure the video was blaming youth ministry for the mass exodus of young people as much as it was trying to show that youth ministries do not keep people from abandoning church.
Brenda, I need to take some time and watch the entire program and I'm sure I would get a more complete picture. I think your highlighting an important distinction between cause and symptom. I think the issues run deeper than a program or methodology.
As far as someone being a "spiritually successful" product of the equation in the above quote, I am sure there were other factors in one's life other than youth group, rock music, fun, and Bible teaching at church. Therefore, the product does not necessarily sanctify select bits and pieces of ones past any more than it would sanctify everything in that person's past.
You are exactly right and that is really the idea that I seem to be coming to personally. It will be a mistake in our ministries if we over-simplify complex issues. (i.e. young people are abandoning the church - therefore - youth ministry is wrong)
I also think your logic works both ways. Just like a positive outcome, in my case, doesn't, necessarily, sanctify specific methods or ministries; a negative outcome does not, necessarily, condemn or invalidate specific methods or ministries either.
I appreciate your observations!
Sat, 07/16/2011 - 6:23pm
Link
Outcomes
Just like a positive outcome, in my case, doesn't, necessarily, sanctify specific methods or ministries; a negative outcome does not, necessarily, condemn or invalidate specific methods or ministries either.
True- in general, I think American Christianity is far too enamored of outcomes instead of clinging to Scripture for guidance and guidelines.
Sat, 07/16/2011 - 6:46pm
Link
Yes
I also think your logic works both ways. Just like a positive outcome, in my case, doesn't, necessarily, sanctify specific methods or ministries; a negative outcome does not, necessarily, condemn or invalidate specific methods or ministries either.
This is the other side of the coin that I should have mentioned. Thanks for pointing that out.
Perhaps we focus too much on analyzing outcomes (positive or negative) for the purpose of accepting or dismissing a program when we should first study Scripture before even considering a program, since it is Scripture rather than perceived outcomes that should determine what we do.
Sat, 07/16/2011 - 10:17pm
Link
Challenging Associations
The bias of the piece has some spurious roots in Church Dominion Theology. Having close associations with Vision Forum the writers, though hitting some key crisis points for the church, have roots in a theological position out of sync with sound hermeneutics. The recent trend by Barna to be an advocate for the home church movement swings the pendulum from the problem past the answers to another set of problems.
Sun, 07/17/2011 - 11:55am
Link
Divided over Divided
Two up fronts: 1. I am a Youth Pastor. 2. I did watch the entire movie. I also apologize for spelling errors, not my strong point. 
I watched this video and then waited a while before I responded. Without a doubt this video does address a need that is very prevalent in the church, the absentee parent, and especially the absentee father. It is absolutely true that no Youth Pastor could ever hope to be the influence that a parent could have. It is true that the church should be an active community of many fathers and mothers.
If there is honesty about this though, the reality is that they are putting forth a philosophy of ministry that is meant to address an issue all of us are aware of exist. What I do not like are some of the arguments used to support their philosophy.
“You will not find the position of Youth Pastor anywhere in the Bible.”
There are problems with that argument. The first they address, the number of things that are not directly addressed in scripture that are obviously Biblical, say like the Trinity. The second they do not:
If you are technical about what a Youth Pastor is you will find the idea in scripture: He is an Elder who has been given care over a specialized ministry in the church, in this case what our culture has defined as “youth.”
Do we find a multitude of Elders in NT Churches? Yes!
Do we find specialized ministries? Yes
A. The disbursement of resources to the poor. A specialized people group.
B. The care of widows, but not just any widows. There were parameters put around who, what, and where.
So the idea of a specialized ministry, and an elder over seeing that ministry is not completely absent in scripture.
“The invention of the Youth Pastor allowed parents to pass off their spiritual responsibility.”
This is not a sound argument against a ministry philosophy. A more correct statement would have been:
“The placement of unbiblical eldership responsibilities, and an elder accepting of those responsibilities, has open the door for parents to pass off their spiritual responsibilities.”
The problem here is not the creation of a ministry or a ministry position. As an elder I have to refuse to accept responsibilities that are outside my Biblical guidelines. I have received plenty of criticism for refusing to not “parent” the teens and children I work with. One guy said in this movie “The hearts of the teens were turned towards me, not their fathers.” Well that ones on you dude. You allowed yourself to take on a role that is outside eldership responsibilities.
We have heard enough stories of a Pastor turning the heart of a wife away from her husband. Is that an argument against having a Pastor?
I agree with just about 80% of this movie. Maybe someone can convince me of the other 20%?
Mon, 07/18/2011 - 4:00pm
Link
I must have missed something
I watched the movie, heard many claims, but I do not recall any actual scriptural passages that support the statements made. Bauchman states, Deut.6, Ps:78, Proverbs, Eph.6. All those passages affirm is that a father/parent should teach their children, and that children should obey their parents, agreed. They do not have a "clear pattern" of children worshipping whith their parents do they? Where is the scripture violated if some of the instruction is delegated to others as Mr. LeClerc claims? The term "Biblical" is used frequently but where are the actual scriptural refrences that support the "Biblical" claim? How is Luke 12:49-53 interpreted against the closing statement that Mr. LeClerc makes "Structure our Churches and families as God prescribes...reunited not divided? The problem stated at the beginning is that the youth are leaving the church or "falling away" from the faith and the answer at the end is that the Church needs to raise up families by discipling dads. Paul says in 1 Cor. 15:3 that of FIRST importance is that Christ died for our sins according the the scriptures, the GOSPEL. Isn't it the Gospel that restores relationships not a "youth ministry" nor a "family integrated church program". Maybe I missed it somewhere?
Wed, 07/20/2011 - 9:44am
Link
Tim Challies Blog
Tim Challies has written a critical review of the movie.
Wed, 07/20/2011 - 12:21pm
Link
Roots and agendas
With as much consideration as the 'agenda' of the NCFIC receives, one should also give some brain time to the roots and agenda of Sunday School, youth programs, and the age-segregated model. I think far too many are willing to strain at the gnat of "There are no family-integrated church models mandated in Scripture" and swallow the camel of a system created to address social issues, and founded in humanism, socialism, and evolutionary thinking.
For many years, the medical profession knew that tonsils were of no use, and it was SOP to take them out, regardless of whether or not they were diseased. Now we know that this was faulty thinking. We think we 'know' that children need to be age-segregated in order to be taught effectively, but the first age-graded school was when Quincy Grammar School in Boston, Massachusetts opened its doors in 1848. There were critics of this dynamic then, just as there are now. Fredrick Burke described it in 1912 as "an algebraic myth born of inanimate figures and an addled pedagogy". We need to stop thinking we can take this for granted simply because we've always taken it for granted and don't believe it needs to be thoroughly examined. I'll grant that it takes us out of our comfort zone and challenges everything we always 'knew' to be true, but why all the disdainful, disparaging reactions?
Further reading for the interested:
Rites of Passage: Adolescence in America 1790 to the Present by Joseph Kett
The Case Against Adolescence by Robert Epstein
Back to the Blackboard: Design for a Biblical Christian School by Jay Adams
Are age-segregation or youth programs forbidden in Scripture? Of course not. Neither is forgetting to floss. But we need to re-examine if there is any clear Scriptural support for modern 'accepted' methods. If there is not, then we need to think about how other options better fit a Biblical paradigm. We should also ask if current methods contribute in any way to unhealthy degree of peer dependency, adversarial attitudes between students and teachers, if it is a natural learning environment or artificial construct, if it nurtures spiritual/social development, and promotes leadership or inhibits it...
After reading Challies blog post, I think the idea of family-integrated churches puts a hot brand to the hiney end of some sacred cows- hence the loud mooooooing.....
Wed, 07/20/2011 - 1:15pm
Link
Not a defining characteristic...
Are age-segregation or youth programs forbidden in Scripture? Of course not. Neither is forgetting to floss. But we need to re-examine if there is any clear Scriptural support for modern 'accepted' methods. If there is not, then we need to think about how other options better fit a Biblical paradigm. We should also ask if current methods contribute in any way to unhealthy degree of peer dependency, adversarial attitudes between students and teachers, if it is a natural learning environment or artificial construct, if it nurtures spiritual/social development, and promotes leadership or inhibits it...
But if the approach is not Scripturally forbidden or mandated, does it legitimately elevate to the level of distinguishing congregations at an organization level like NCFIC? Asking questions and having a conversation is one thing. Being committed enough to certain methods to implement them into your own family's context is one thing (I say speaking as the only family in our church who educates our children at home). But elevating this matter of methodology to a defining ecclesiastical characteristic is, as I understand it, a problem. Challies' conclusion is right on when he observes:
It majors on the minors, making family integration the pivotal and central doctrine for the church. It identifies a genuine problem but attempts to solve it in a way that elevates methodology instead of the gospel message.
Churches deal with converted sinners at various stages in their spiritual maturity and development. Some homes may not be in a place where they could fully implement the ideas behind FIC for a very long time (if ever). I understand the need to call fathers to assuming responsibility over their homes. I understand the need for families to assert their influence far more than is typical in most of our churches. I also understand that our mission as a church includes care and inclusion of people like widows and orphans, and that the clearest and most specific NT examples of a child raised in a church context had no immediate father figure in his home functioning as his spiritual leader during his formative years (2 Tim. 1:5). We don't have a lot of detail, but I am assuming that men in the church outside of his immediate family had to play some level of importance in his development at some point in his young life, whether that involved a complete age-segregated system or not.
Wed, 07/20/2011 - 1:56pm
Link
Purpose
http://www.ncfic.org/FAQ#ncfic2 ]What is the NCFIC’s Purpose :
NCFIC’s purpose is to correctly understand God’s unified vision for church and family, rightly diagnose the problems that impede this vision, and effectively communicate biblical solutions that rebuild family-affirming churches. 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.
I think Mr. Challies might need to back up the truck on that one. And nothing in what I've read would preclude the church from ministering to widows and orphans. AAMOF, that is a command to all Christians to minister to the needy, fatherless, and widows- it is not a function reserved exclusively for the church.
I don't think the ideas behind the FIC are so strange that they couldn't be fully implemented at any time.
http://www.ncfic.org/articlemodule/view_article/id/142/src/@random49598e... If a church is not
1) usurping the role of parents in the evangelism and discipleship of their own children;
2) disregarding the importance of the husband/father as the spiritual leader of his home;
3) planning a calendar of events that leaves the family little time to be at home together as a family;
4) a ministry structure that is designed to separate the members of the family so that there is no shared experience of worship or study while at church; and,
5) harassing parents who have conscientiously sought to remove their sons and daughters from the church’s children’s ministries and youth programs.
then they don't have anything to be concerned about as far as the focus of the NCFIC goes.
#5 is a biggie. It is unconscionable for a church to disdain, undermine, or pressure parents who prefer to worship and learn together as a family, or to treat family integrated churches or proponents of the model like red-headed stepkids. Whether a church leadership does this in subtle or not-so-subtle ways, they are the ones who have elevated the issue as a defining doctrine.
Wed, 07/20/2011 - 2:28pm
Link
Susan, The NCFIC provides,
Susan,
- The NCFIC provides, not a list of like-minded individuals or families in geographic areas, but congregations that identify as "Family-Integrated." If they don't think it to be the primary issue, it certainly shapes and defines congregations they partner with for the sake of their organization.
- Ministering to widows and orphans is not limited to the church- but the church is certainly to incorporate such people into it.
- Reading your list, most FIC proponents would interpret having any "age-segregated" offerings as violating most if not all of the principles.
- Providing a something like an age-specific SS class or even childcare like nursery is seen by many as "usurping the role," even though there are countless other times during the rest of the week (or even that day) where such time could be spent with ones' family.
- With the high frequency of divorce/single parent situations in our culture today, churches have a need to uphold the Biblical norm, but also minister and incorporate in those who do not enjoy the benefits of living in such a context.
- I think churches ought to consider this- though I have heard such complaints applied even to normal Sunday service schedules. At the same time, families in these settings can often do more to adjust their time and be more efficient in adjusting their schedules so they have time to participate in occasional congregational events as a family- one doesn't have to preclude another.
- Most churches I have attended or belonged to have one primary time on Sunday where the children are provided with opportunities apart from their parents and other siblings- Sunday School. Morning and Evening Services are held together (or still are in our church, anyway). However, many FIC proponents will not be satisfied unless ALL such opportunities are streamlined to discard such separateness.
- What constitutes "harassment?" An invitation to a picnic? A card that says "we missed you"? Promotion from the pulpit or in the bulletin? At what point does such "conscientious" behavior actually mask a distaste for associating with people we find distasteful or objectionable? If we are in a church, isn't part of the deal is to consort with such people who are in the process of transformation? Does it ever occur to FIC-type proponents that if they are doing such a good job with their families, isn't avoiding these occasional group settings limiting the influence they could have on the rest of us unenlightened types?
Wed, 07/20/2011 - 3:13pm
Link
Fantastic post, Greg
Especially point 2.
Wed, 07/20/2011 - 3:13pm
Link
Identify
What's wrong with labels if they tell you up front what is in the jar? We use Presbyterian, Baptist, Independent,... and people find those things useful. It certainly saves time making phone calls trying to find a like-minded church. If we are going to go there, then dispense with the SBC and all other associations, and name every single church the same thing. Because we don't want anyone to think that the words on the sign define our church's primary concerns.
most FIC proponents would interpret having any "age-segregated" offerings as violating most if not all of the principles.
I don't know 'most' FIC proponents, but I do know what the NCFIC encourages, and it is not that any age-segregated class is a 'violation'.
Providing a something like an age-specific SS class or even childcare like nursery is seen by many as "usurping the role," even though there are countless other times during the rest of the week (or even that day) where such time could be spent with ones' family.
It isn't the presence of a nursery or class, but the dynamic. Is it mandated? Some churches do not allow mothers to sit in church with infants, even quiet ones. I know of a church that does not allow children under 8 in the auditorium during the morning service. It simply is not an option for parents to have their children in the service with them. EVER.
Now who is making this a doctrinal issue- the parents who want their kids in the service with them, or a church that requires they go to a class?
What if the church staffs its classes the way most do- by doing a background check and taking one's pulse? IOW, if you haven't committed a crime, you are breathing and slightly above room temperature, you can teach a class.
What if the service addresses a particular topic or the speaker is someone the parents want the kids to be exposed to?
Those 'countless other times' might work for you, but my dh works 55-60 hours 6 days a week. We don't have 'countless other times'.
With the high frequency of divorce/single parent situations in our culture today, churches have a need to uphold the Biblical norm, but also minister and incorporate in those who do not enjoy the benefits of living in such a context.
Already addressed that point. FIC churches actually tend to focus heavily on ministering to this demographic.
I think churches ought to consider this- though I have heard such complaints applied even to normal Sunday service schedules. At the same time, families in these settings can often do more to adjust their time and be more efficient in adjusting their schedules so they have time to participate in occasional congregational events as a family- one doesn't have to preclude another.
How many times in the typical Baptist church have you heard the phrase "You need to be in church every time the doors are open!" So- if there is a family conference and a missions conference and baby showers and weddings and funerals and fellowships and visitation and youth activities...
I don't think the NCFIC is talking about Sunday morning and Sunday night. Just peruse the online calendars of many churches, and there is something going on nearly every day of the week.
Most churches I have attended or belonged to have one primary time on Sunday where the children are provided with opportunities apart from their parents and other siblings- Sunday School. Morning and Evening Services are held together (or still are in our church, anyway). However, many FIC proponents will not be satisfied unless ALL such opportunities are streamlined to discard such separateness.
Most churches in our area have SS, Junior Church, Youth Group, and midweek AWANA/Master Club/Patch the Pirate... the family might all be together for one service a week.
What constitutes "harassment?" An invitation to a picnic? A card that says "we missed you"? Promotion from the pulpit or in the bulletin?
How about being told that keeping one's child out of this or that program, or not attending an activity is a lack of support for the ministries of the church? Or leadership questioning your motives and spiritual maturity? Or hearing smart-alek comments about 'hothouse kids' and 'apron strings'? Or walking into church with more than three kids and hearing "You know what causes that, don't you?" What's up with this kind of unabashed disdain for the family?
At what point does such "conscientious" behavior actually mask a distaste for associating with people we find distasteful or objectionable? If we are in a church, isn't part of the deal is to consort with such people who are in the process of transformation? Does it ever occur to FIC-type proponents that if they are doing such a good job with their families, isn't avoiding these occasional group settings limiting the influence they could have on the rest of us unenlightened types?
That delves into the realm of mind-reading and tea leaf gazing, and the issue has NEVER been about 'consorting' with people. Why would you assume that a family desiring to be together in church necessitates some kind of arrogance or snobbery? Or that attending a church where this dynamic is embraced is masking a secret distaste for 'objectionable' company? Like, wow. And you were wondering what constitutes harassment? How about your brothers and sisters in Christ making unfounded assumptions based on the fact that a family wants to sit together in church? I mean, of all the horrifying things I've heard going on in churches, the notion that families might want to worship and learn together is most threatening thing one could think of? The lions, the tigers, the bears. Oh my.
Wed, 07/20/2011 - 3:41pm
Link
Perspective
Susan,
Why would you assume that a family desiring to be together in church necessitates some kind of arrogance or snobbery? Or that attending a church where this dynamic is embraced is masking a secret distaste for 'objectionable' company? Like, wow.
Because, like I noted earlier, I have heard concerns as a pastor from people that having one session out of 3 on Sunday be "age-segregated" serves to usurp the role of parents. I have heard complaints from those same parents that their children become corrupted by other children whose parents don't take the same approach they do (or whose parents don't attend the church at all). You are working from the perspective of a parent who has had difficulty in this area, which I can appreciate. But please, then, appreciate that there are those of us in church leadership (who may even share some of the same concerns as expressed in this thread by FIC proponents) who also are trying to prioritize what needs to be emphasized and implemented in multi-faceted congregations. It isn't unheard of for a pastor to get complaints on one side from someone who thinks the church separates the family way too much, and the next moment hear the concern that the children's classes are too complicated and need to let the kids have more "fun." I am concerned with the "edutainment" philosophy that is so pervasive in churches like ours. I am also concerned with people who I have seen and known who ultimately aren't happy until every family in their church (and it remains to be seen if their church will ultimately be your church) has at least 8 children at any given time, homeschools, and recognizes bottle-feeding infants is a doctrine straight from the pit of hell (slight exaggeration, there).
I think there are principles worth considering, here, as I have said before. I also think that this movement is capable of (and actually has) dividing and destroying congregations in a way that is unscriptural and shameful.
Wed, 07/20/2011 - 4:00pm
Link
I can appreciate
the high-wire-without-a-net that many pastors walk to effectively shepherd their flock. I know the extremes that exist, having spent 41 of the last 45 years in church 'every time the doors were open'. And you are right- there are some on both sides of the issue who will not be happy until their spiritual DNA gets spliced into the whole congregation.
But in this discussion, instead of getting mired down in particulars, I think we need to address the overall model of children's ministry. If we are truly concerned about roots and agendas, then let us pay as much attention to the roots and results of age-grading and the traditional classroom model as we do the roots and results of the FIC movement.
Also- I'm not a card-carrying member of the NCFIC, or even an undercover operative. I have been stewing about this issue for over 15 years, before I even heard of the NCFIC or Voddie Baucham or even Doug Phillips. So when I started seeing some of this stuff, I nearly had a party- "Hurray, I'm not crazy! Someone else thinks like I do!" Of course, alien abductees probably feel the same way, but we won't go there. http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php ][img ]http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-alien004.gif[/img ]
I guess what I wish is that churches were more solidly grounded Biblical principle and less swayed by society and culture, until we've swung so far one way that there comes a need for someone to swing the pendulum back, which almost always results in an extremism of the opposite position... but whatever the masses are doing, all we can do is what we can, where we are. Does MY church need to re-examine children's ministry and teacher qualifications and the effectiveness of our methods to equip the family to disciple and minister to itself and others? Every church that I have personal knowledge of right at this minute needs to do so desperately.
Wed, 07/20/2011 - 7:28pm
Link
Balance
I see how both "sides" can fall to extremes
I am curious what a family integrated church "looks" like - how are those who are single, single-mom, kids from non churched families "integrated" into the church?
I have fears that these (and others groups) would feel left out .. I know as a "non-church family" kid I did .. and that was WITH age segregated Sunday School. Often I only WENT to Sunday School because I felt not part of a church .. so much so that I never JOINED a church until I was married - yet I plugged along ..
I am very curious as to the "structure" of teaching .. is it that Sunday School is basically eliminated? Are there "small groups" in place of Sunday School? How are they divided up .. and how is it decided who goes where?
I am concerned that there is a HUGE emphasis on "family" as opposed to growing individuals in their INDIVIDUAL walk with Christ.
I'd really like to know more if someone can point me to the "hows" of the FIC movement ..
Wed, 07/20/2011 - 8:00pm
Link
Hows
Churches that follow a 'family integrated' model do not implement the idea in the same way, nor are they all affiliated with the NCFIC. Many small church plants start out with everyone in the main service until there are enough kids and workers to warrant forming classes. Many house churches are FIC by default and logistics. Struggling churches have to 'give up' SS and YG because there are not enough children or there are not qualified workers. It's really OK for a church not to have SS/YG if they don't need it or find it useful.
The nutshell version is that during the regular Sunday services 'everyone' is together, with Bible studies/small groups taking place during the week more at the convenience of the members than the weirdly essential Wednesday night. Expository preaching is encouraged, and many FI churches observe the regulative principle of worship.
The use of the word 'family' seems to be putting people off, as if people who aren't married-with-2.4 kids-and-a-dog are somehow going to be left out, or that every service is about husbands/wives/kids. This is not the case, in my experience. If everyone sits in the main service, how is anyone left out? The usual separations of kids and youth group aren't there. That's really the extent of it. It isn't mysterious or threatening or bizarre. Parents often bring the neighbor kids and 'adopt' children who don't have saved/involved parents. Singles are treated like anyone else, and they don't have to hear lesson after lesson on 'waiting for their Isaac' or some such twaddle, as if their whole life should be bound in finding a mate. Oy vey. Old people get to know the young people because they are with them often enough to get to know them.
Many years ago, my dh and I attended a church with lots of classes and activities, and we had been there a year before some people knew we had 3 kids. That was a wake up call.
I know of a particular FI church that on Sunday night has all the kids sit up front, and a more relaxed-but-serious service with a teaching dynamic takes place. The kids find the needed verse references and read them out loud, and a Q&A takes place toward the end of the service, with additional materials handed out so that folks can continue the study at home. The pastor and other elders model discipleship for the whole church. It's pretty cool.
Wed, 07/20/2011 - 8:33pm
Link
Well I see it as another "gimmick"
Well maybe gimmick isn't the correct word.. not sure exactly what word I want to use.
I think that a church can have Sunday School / Youth or NOT have Sunday School or Youth depending on the nature of the church. It seems to me that churches are always trying to change to appeal to SOMEONE - and the fact of the matter is that individuals need to be fed. I'm concerned with a movement that has web pages devoted to "incremental approaches" to make your church a "family integrated church". Advising to use "households" instead of "family" .. sounds manipulative to me. THAT bothers me.
In areas that there is really NO scriptural basis for or against something I think is where we have that "Christian Liberty". I'm not convinced that FIC is all THAT scriptural. It's not AGAINST scripture - but once again it's not mandated by scripture that I can find. To me the arguments are odd. I understand home churches - in that case it would be age integrated. I do NOT see why a group would want to "change" their church.
These of course are my own musings and opinions..
Thu, 07/21/2011 - 6:45am
Link
Organizations and gimmicks
I agree to the extent that it seems Americans are obsessed with creating organizations for everything. Sometimes it's a good thing, so that people can connect with others in a similar situations, like parents who have kids with Retts Syndrome. But other times it makes what can and should just be a natural function of one's church meeting the needs of the flock and community into a 'movement' complete with CEO's and letterhead.
But the principle does have basis in Scripture, MUCH more than the traditional SS or YG. Paul's letters, for instance, were addressed to the church and were read in churches, right? So verses that have commands for children, wives, husbands, singles, servants, masters... are all part of a train of thought, not chopped up into 'age-appropriate' chunks. There is simply no Biblical or historical precedent until the mid-1800's for our current methodologies. The modern default is based on a current societal/cultural norm, which when it was being introduced into the education system and churches in the mid-late 1800's and early 1900's, caused great alarm and much protest. I provided links to sources earlier in the thread.
Age-segregation is still being opposed today by many education professionals and child psychologists. It isn't something the NCFIC cooked up last week or even last year.
http://jrre.psu.edu/articles/v3,n3,p111-115,Pratt.pdf ]On the Merits of Multiage Classrooms
DAVID PRATT, PH.D
Research in Rural Education, Volume 3, Number 3, 1986
This paper brings together evidence from a variety of fields which throws light on the practice of age segregation in schools.
Strict age segregation is essentially a phenomenon of the last century. Research studies show no consistent benefits to age segregation,
and some affective and social advantages from multiage grouping. It is concluded that multiage and multigrade classrooms
are socially and psychologically healthy environments.
page 2
The age-stratified culture in which we live is largely a product of the last two hundred years. In medieval Europe and in colonial America, children grew up surrounded by other children and adults of all different ages.
Families were larger, and infant mortality and a high fertility rate resulted in a wide variance in sibling age. Schools and classrooms contained considerable age diversity. In the dedicated one-room school building that emerged in the eighteenth century, a full-time teacher would use individual and tutorial methods to instruct a group of 10 to 30 pupils ranging in age from 6 to 14 years.
The death-knell, of the one-room school was sounded when Horace Mann, Secretary of the Massachusetts Board of Education, visited schools in Prussia in 1843 and reported that
the first element of superiority in a Prussian school ... consists
in the proper classification of the scholars. In all places where the
numbers are sufficiently large to allow it, the children are divided
according to ages and attainments, and a singleteacher has the charge
only of a single class ... There is a no obstacle whatever .... to
the introduction at once of this mode of dividing and classifying
scholars in all our 'large towns.
Within a decade, Mann's ideas were being widely accepted by administrators who saw in them a parallel with successful manufacturing practice:
The principle of the division of labor holds good in schools, as in
mechanical industry. One might as justly demand that all operations
of carding, spinning and weaving be carried out in the same
room, and by the same hands, as insist that children of different
ages and attainments should go to the same school 'and be instructed
by the same teacher.
It's ironic IMO how often I see Scripture demanded in support for certain positions, but don't touch SS or YG, or it's
[img ]http://keithpp.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/alice-red-queen.jpg?w=450&h=321[/img ]
Thu, 07/21/2011 - 11:47am
Link
Why should Christians play
Why should Christians play games? I do not see any video games in scripture. We also do not have cell phones or TV in scripture. These also are unGodly pastimes and communication. In scripture we see men walking and riding animals. However there is no authorization to build machines or to use machines to travel. Driving automobiles and men flying in machines are obvious attempts by man to be something other than what they were meant to be. These are all modern attempts to build our own tower of Babel.
As for churches divided into groups? This is obvious sin as there are no indications in scripture that this should be done, Actually this is a direct violation of Hebrews 10:25 which states we are not to forsake the assembling of ourselves "together." Thus we are to be together and not apart when assembling!! Churches are in obvious sin in most all that they do. They even provide parking lots for machines Christians are not authorized in scripture to use. And then they have rooms to cause people to divide when they assemble. They even have youth Pastors. Why? There, there obviously are no youth Pastors in scripture. They are just like these automobiles, parking lots, TVs, and those depraved video games. Away with fun! Away with ease and comfort! It is all SIN. 
We Funnymentalists must come together and fight the evil of our day!!!
REPENT!! AGAIN I SAY REPENT!!
WAIT! Where is that TV controller. Lets repent later my favorite program is on now. 
Thu, 07/21/2011 - 3:58pm
Link
Answer to some hows
Bob T., good point, you forgot the air conditioning, none of that either. PLewis, what you will find in describing the particulars in the FIC movement is that everyone will say "that is not how we do it" and "our church is not like that", "don't lump us all into one group". It is very similar in that way to the emergent church. I find it hard to believe that they can lump ALL youth groups, etc. into one monolithic evil in the movie divided, and then say, do not apply the same generality to us though! I was in a FIC church for a few years and exposed to them for several years before that. It is very attractive from the outset, families together, dads leading, all that stuff Susan R has listed. Here is how it looked where I was; only the Sunday AM service during the week so families had more time together, the fathers also called heads of households administered communion to their own families ( the father got the cup from the elder/pastor and then gave it to his family). If you did not have a father/head of household present you would need to be included with a family who did in order to participate. So to answer the question of how singles/widows/single moms would fit in, in theory a family from the church would "adopt" them and then through them participate, as a result there were very few, and there were no non churched kids there, those who did not have a family present. There was no S.S., the fathers were to do that at home. No nursery, no youth group, although in practice moms with fussy/crying children would all sit somewhere in a room together (it took me along time to figure out what's the difference if there are 5 moms in there and if they each took turns 1 week then the others could sit in the service) and after the service a group of youth (not THE youth group) would form and play various games or talk with each other. There was no outreach the the unsaved, I suppose it was up to each individual family. One the upside there was alot of very nice people, but if you think about it all were homeschooled and there were many things in common. On the downside there was no solid doctrine held as there were different views on all the "ologys" (soteriology, etc.) so there was not any solid preaching. I know this is where the FIC proponents will say not at our church. If you will look at the NCFIC list of churches they are all over the place doctrinally, so they may say we are Christ centered but their statements do not in effect show it to be so. Look at the NCFIC "confession" listed above, where is the Gospel? Homeschool and family are front and center, not Christ and the cross. Much more could be said.
Thu, 07/21/2011 - 4:16pm
Link
One more thing
I say the above to caution you before you either try to create division in your church or jump ship looking for the "perfect" church because it is not, and if you will carefully study it out with your Pastor/shepherds (your churches leaders) I think you will find it is not even the right model. Another comment on the movie divided, if you hold to a leadership structure in the church and you wish to see something changed should you not present it to the leadership/Pastors of a church first and not go around behind them to the congregation? What if, in a family, a group or individual wanted to change how your family does something and instead of going to the Father/parents they take it around behind them to the kids directly to bring about the change? Is that right, is it right in the church? Is that what this "movie" does? Only it is OK in the church right?????
Thu, 07/21/2011 - 4:50pm
Link
I have never attended an FIC
I have never attended an FIC church - have known a few families that have been involved in them. Even invited to one ( which honestly was granted as an honor of sorts). Though after much discussion and looking into it my husband and I decided not to visit. I live in South Central Texas .. home to Vision Forum (at least it WAS here) ..
I've been researching this for the past couple months because "age integrated Sunday School" has come up in our church conference .. it sounded strange as described and appears to be an attempt at some kind of compilation .. I am trying to see the pros/cons of both sides .. and since there is no straightforward "Thou shalt" or "Thou shalt not" on the subject am trying to come to an understanding.
Wed, 07/27/2011 - 10:13am
Link
Go back...
It will be profitable to go back and read the lengthy comment from Steve Doyle on the
Divided
Vimeo page...just before they closed comments. It is very thoughtful and balanced.
The film is a propaganda piece, not a documentary, with a series of very disturbing misuses of Scripture. One they didn't mention was Neh 8:2
Then Ezra the priest brought the law before the assembly of men, women and all who could listen with understanding, on the first day of the seventh month.
So, who was watching those without understanding?
Wed, 07/27/2011 - 1:49pm
Link
balanced?
Steve Doyle wrote 6 sentences describing what he "liked" [his word ] about the movie (4 of those sentences had to do with the videography, not the content) and then he wrote over 9 paragraphs detailing what he "didn't like" [his words ].
I'm not part of a family-integrated church and never have been. I went over to vimeo expecting a balanced review from this pastor whose church was formerly FIC, but was disappointed. His review was as balanced as the presentation in the Divided movie.
Thu, 07/28/2011 - 9:26am
Link
Yes, balanced
I went over to vimeo expecting a balanced review from this pastor whose church was formerly FIC, but was disappointed. His review was as balanced as the presentation in the Divided movie.
By balanced, I meant well thought out, reasonable, without invective. His comments were to the point, clear and accurate.
Here is a dictionary definition: "mental steadiness or emotional stability; habit of calm behavior, judgment..."
Thu, 07/28/2011 - 10:30am
Link
OK
If that's the preferred definition of balanced for this discussion, then the Divided documentary was balanced. It was well thought out (they spent months working on the movie; Steve Doyle spent a few minutes writing his comment) and reasonable (they clearly presented their argument, built their case from history, and interviewed a variety of people; Steve Doyle presented only his opinions and thoughts) and were not invective (it wasn't abusive or violent). I agree that Doyle's comment was without invective.
So, you believe that Doyle's points were accurate. I'm guessing the people who produced Divided believe their points are accurate as well. I'm not casting a vote one way or the other.
I was using balanced in terms of having weight equally distributed. As for Steve Doyle's mental steadiness or emotional stability, I really am not one to make a judgment regarding that based on reading only one comment from him.
Thu, 07/28/2011 - 11:20am
Link
Brenda, I have to disagree
I don't quite understand why you're so narrowly focused on that one word in my post. I thought Doyle brought to the subject, and the film, a mature judgment which was unfortunately lacking in the film itself. I thought his comments were more helpful than the article by Tim Challies recommended in an earlier post, though I had no problems with Challies. I think the strength of his persoective is that he knows the FIC world from having been part of it, and he agrees with key aspects of the criticisms of modern youth groups, etc.
In my opinion the film was not well balanced in either sense of the word, certainly not well reseasoned. The techniques used in the film were built on emotionally front-loading the subject with the (somewhat amatuerish) manipulation of images and disconnected ideas. These are methods that would disturb us greatly if they were used against something we believe in.
Yes, I believe Doyle's points were accurate and the film's points were often not accurate. That does factor in to my evaluation.
But I would call your attention to the more important matter of the misuse of Scripture in the film, which is a common problem in very insular movements. I am not against FIC. I am against claiming everyone else's way of doing church is clearly compromised by Darwinian, Socialistic, secular thinking.
As Doyle pointed out:
Having been inside FIC for a while I saw other problems, many of which are brought out in this film. These include, but are not limited to, a tendency to judge those who do church differently, and a tendency to make the Bible say much more than it really does about age-specific ministry.
Thu, 07/28/2011 - 12:00pm
Link
oh, easily answered
I don't quite understand why you're so narrowly focused on that one word in my post
It's because that was my point of disagreement.
Fri, 07/29/2011 - 7:45am
Link
longer answer to Wayne
I agree that the Divided documentary was not balanced (in the equally distributing weight sense of the word). But, neither was Steve Doyle's comment balanced (in that same sense of the word). The FIC has an agenda, if you will, and so does Steve. I've run into Steve's comments against FIC on other blogs (I think it might have been Justin Taylor's blog). He tends to show up in various places to refute the FIC when it is being promoted.
I wasn't trying to persuade you to agree with the FIC or Divided. I think we simply had a misunderstanding about the word "balanced."
Wed, 08/03/2011 - 9:48am
Link
Q A critique on FIC
Tim Challies tweeted this video. Might be helpful to the conversation.
Wed, 09/28/2011 - 9:53am
Link
banned from D6 Conference
The NCFIC was disinvited from the D6 Conference last week even though the purpose of the conference was "to explore biblical discipleship solutions that address the mass epidemic of today's youth leaving the church and abandoning the faith."
The sponsor of the conference who decided to disinvite them admitted "that he had not viewed the film."
http://www.charismanews.com/culture/32020-divided-film-banned-from-youth...
One of the interesting things is that Voddie Baucham (who appears in the Divided movie) was one of the speakers at the conference.
Wed, 09/28/2011 - 10:09am
Link
Sounds like
someone's toesies got an ouchie.