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

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?

Tim Challies has written a critical review of the movie.

http://www.challies.com/dvd-reviews/divided-the-movie

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…..

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.

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/@random49598… 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.

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.
  
  
  
  1. 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.
     
  2. 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.
     
  3. 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.
     
  4. 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.
     
  5. 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?
     

Especially point 2.

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.

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.

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] http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-alien004.gif

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.

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 ..

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.

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..

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
http://keithpp.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/alice-red-queen.jpg?w=450&h=…

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. :O

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. ;)