"Divided"- is modern youth ministry really helping kids?

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.

[Brenda T] 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?

[Larry] 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.

[Greg Linscott]

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.

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.

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/

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.

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?

Susan: Of what relevance is this question?

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?

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

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).

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.

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?

I think these are excellent questions.

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] http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-fc/flowers.gif 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?

[Larry] 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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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%?