The "philosophy and practice of comprehensive, age-segregated, programmatic youth ministry" is "contrary to the ministry patterns of Christ"

Based on the excerpts this article included, I agree with Mr. Brown. While ministries can be targeted to meet the needs of specific groups (the elderly, singles, widows, single parents, etc) the departmentalizing of people into age and family makeup does nothing to create the unity needed so that the body can better minister to itself.

Youth groups tend to fall into the trap of infantilizing young people and driving a wedge between child and parent, instead of turning the hearts of the youth toward their parents and challenging them to serve God instead of winning prizes for bobbing for apples in a vat of egg whites.

[Susan R] Youth groups tend to fall into the trap of infantilizing young people and driving a wedge between child and parent, instead of turning the hearts of the youth toward their parents and challenging them to serve God instead of winning prizes for bobbing for apples in a vat of egg whites.

It’s certainly true that far too many youth groups are activity-oriented, promoting “fun” over just about anything else, but because a church has a time when teens meet—be it Sunday School, youth group, or both—does it have to be like that? Is it inevitable? Can one not have a youth ministry that seeks to turn the hearts of youth toward their parents and challenge them to serve God?

I don’t see why objections are interpreted as either/or…we only have portions of Mr. Brown’s message, but it seems to me that he is calling for balance, and an emphasis on family and discipleship, not the total eradication of any ministry aimed at young people. So what’s not to love about that?

Susan,

I am all for calling for a balance in this area, but that is not what these family integrated people are doing. They call any kind of segregation in youth ministry as unBiblical and worldly and the product of Dewey, etc. They take the worst representations of youth ministry and present it as the norm. They connect it to Dewey and make it a product of humanism. They usually declare that Sunday School designed to help children understand the Bible at thier level is anathema and a sign of a bad church and a sign of a bad parent for letting your child go to Sunday School instead of keeping them with you in your class - and question why you even have them at a church that offers a class for them due to the obviously unBiblical philosophy taking place in the church (from their perspective).

These groups have correctly seen an error - the complete age-segregation of youth in some churches that results in the youth being essentially a separate group from the rest of the church - and in their desire to correct the error have went to the other extreme. (Kind of remind me of Camping finding liberalism and apostasy in many churches and deciding that the church age has ended.)

I think that there is definitely things that can be learned from this group, but I think they present an unBiblical view of the church. If they were just calling for balance in this area, I would stand up and agree and applaud. Unfortunately, this is not the case.

Thanks,

Frank

In his message, Scott Brown said: “We now have almost three generations of children who had no father who walked beside them but a youth group instead. It is obvious that half a decade of youth group does not produce young people who are passionate about the church.” And you can’t really read the article without drawing the conclusion that Brown is calling for the eradication of “youth group” (while still having ministry to youth). He further insists that “Modern youth ministry is also inherently destructive in its impact. It divides the church by creating generational division and multiple cultures instead of a unified ‘body’.”

Those are kind of “either/or” statements: either youth group or father…youth group & generational division or no youth group and a unified body.

I contend that a church can have a youth group that supports the father, strengthens the family, promotes a unified body, and seriously challenges young people to live a godly, committed Christian life, passionate for the church. Granted, in this culture, it won’t likely be a large group, especially if one lives in an area with a competing party-time youth ministry philosophy.

I thought that referring to his subject as “philosophy and practice of comprehensive, age-segregated, programmatic youth ministry” and “modern youth ministry” qualified his statements. Because of that I didn’t perceive that he was speaking of all youth ministries everywhere, or calling for churches to abolish all age targeted ministries.

Personally, I think there is generally too much in the way of segregation going on, and the Biblical pattern I’ve seen is gender segregation, not age segregation. That isn’t to say that one shouldn’t minister to children separately at times or using different methods/materials, but that the default seems to be to separate the older from the younger more often than not. This is IMO very harmful to all generations.

I agree with your post, Bro. Sansone, and I think that some family-integrated folks have taken a great idea (and IMO a Biblical one), slathered it in hyperbole, and started beating churches over the head with it. This is not necessary or helpful. I don’t know anything about Mr. Brown except what I read in the article linked in the OP. What I know about the family integrated ‘movement’ has been from listening to a couple of messages by Voddie Baucham, so I admittedly have limited knowledge of this ‘group’ as a whole.

The article identifies Scott Brown as the director for the National Center for Family-Integrated Churches, so although this article in its brevity may not give all the nuances of his position, I believe it’s safe to say that Pastor Sansone’s assessment is fairly accurate. If you asked him directly, I think Scott Brown would call for churches everywhere “to abolish all age targeted ministries.”

From the http://www.ncfic.org/FAQ] FAQ

We do not believe that family-integration is the only—or even the primary—issue in selecting or establishing a local church. But it is unquestionably a defining issue of our day as the modern church has lost the essential familistic culture that we see modeled in the New Testament…

…the NCFIC Confession is specifically a statement of beliefs about God’s blueprint for unity between church and family… to recognize the church as a spiritual “family of families,” to develop a multi-generational vision for preserving our spiritual posterity, to equip whole households for ministry through heart-level relationships rather than activity-based programs, and much more.

Although NCFIC is unabashedly opposed to the non-historical, non-biblical emphasis on youth culture, pragmatic reasoning, consumer-driven marketing and feminism in the modern church, we are NOT opposed to the existing church itself. Indeed, it is our purpose and privilege to serve the established churches that are open to reconsidering the value of family integration and father participation in the meetings of the church. We exhort all Christians everywhere to give proper submission and respect to their biblically constituted churches and leaders.

As I read over their site, I’m definitely perceiving their passion for their stand on the necessity of preserving the family structure. It is important, however, to make sure we are reading/hearing what these folks are saying in context.[URL=http://www.ncfic.org/blog] For instance[/URL] -

Scripture delegates to the family, the church, and the state certain spheres of authority, and they can exercise no authority outside those spheres. Tragically, however, the church has usurped authority from the family by training youth through Sunday schools and youth groups, whereas the Bible commits the training of children to their parents. Relationships may be ‘slow’ and ‘inefficient,’ but discipleship is God’s method.

(The Sufficiency of Scripture and Family Integration)

This sounds very dogmatic, but then later on I read a blog entry named “Biblical Youth Ministry” from which the article in the OP quotes-

I grew up along with the culture of youth ministry—read all the books, tried all the methods. But I came to realize that the rise of programmatic, age-segregated youth ministry in the mid-twentieth century was actually a new invention in the history of the church. For the first time in history, trained youth ministers have been recruited in order to put the young people of the church in the hands of so-called experts. Now, at the beginning of the 21st century, churches are shelling out millions of dollars on programs, buildings, and entertainment for youth.The focus of these churches has been shifted from evangelism to entertainment under the name of evangelism and church leaders are setting aside the commands of God for church and family life in order to grow the church.

and then

By rejecting youth groups, we are not rejecting ministry to youth. On the contrary, we wholeheartedly embrace and promote generous investments in teaching Scripture to the youth of the church. But we must do it in God’s way! What are His commands and patterns? Every Christian is charged with making disciples of all nations including their youth.

He then calls for this ‘weed’ (and I’ve personally described youth groups in terms much worse than ‘weeds’) to be uprooted and destroyed, but it still appears to me that they are not talking about EVERY youth targeted ministry, but the current trend of youth culture/entertainment driven youth groups, which I abhor with every bone in my body.

I also agree with a blog post on page 2 about the abandonment of the sufficiency of Scripture, which IMO has led the church to embrace cultural practices that may not be ‘inherently evil’, but do not produce any quality or quantity of fruit… which would lead me to believe that some ‘accepted’ practices should at least be reconsidered, and at best tossed out.

…abandonment of the sufficiency of Scripture to the creativity of man is supported by five assumptions—assumptions widely held in the modern church:

False assumption #1. The red letters are the most important part.
False assumption #2. If it is not mentioned in the Bible, it is automatically lawful.
False assumption #3. If there is no command, it is not required.
False assumption #4: If it is not condemned in Scripture, it is authorized.
False assumption #5: The Old Testament is automatically void unless repeated in the New Testament.

The National Center for Family-Integrated Churches is heavily associated with Vision Forum Ministries.
I have heard Baptists excoriate VF for its stand on this issue.
While I do not agree with VF on everything (particularly dispensationalism), I do promote them and the wonderful materials they provide in areas such as creationism, worldview, history, etc. VF cooperates with a wide array of experts on various issues — including the family-integrated church concept — so of course one must use discernment when making use of their resources.
In that spirit, however, I do believe that there is great merit to the family-integrated church idea. At its heart, it offers a corrective to a church culture which is drunken with worldliness and anti-biblical methodology.
Ultimately, in my opinion, this is not a denominational or church governement issue as some have tried to paint it.
I have seen family-integration applied very skillfully in a larger Baptist church, and I have also seen the opposite in a smaller one. I believe that Biblical wisdon is the key to making use of these concepts in attempting to strike the Biblical balance.
(After all, we do not go to church to worship “the family” anymore than we do to be split up in age groups and do “fun stuff.” Both of these have the wrong focus. And yet I made it all the way to adulthood without the benefit of even once having attended “kiddie church.” :>) )

while I was perusing the site- Doug Phillips is a member of the board of NCFIC. I’ve ‘heard stories’ about VF and Doug Phillips, but a story does not evidence make. It is sometimes difficult to separate the issues- I’ve personally known one pastor who was very much a proponent of the patriarchy movement, and his family was a MESS- so when I see anything that looks like them, I become very cautious. Caution is always prudent, but it isn’t fair to allow one dysfunctional family to affect my judgment. So I am going to be very careful not to color the NCFIC with any brush they haven’t themselves provided.

My dad didn’t allow my brother and I to attend many of the parties and frivolous activities our church provided, and I also have managed to survive- with what I believe is a healthy reverence for the time we set aside for worship, study, and edification. It’s an attitude my dh and I plan to pass on to our kids, and if that means they don’t attend rallies or youth group, then so be it.

Susan, I was part of a youth group that God used to plant within my heart a desire for full-time ministry through Christian service opportunities, teen-led church services, missions trips, and yes, even good, clean, Christian fellowship (read: fun).

[Greg Long] Susan, I was part of a youth group that God used to plant within my heart a desire for full-time ministry through Christian service opportunities, teen-led church services, missions trips, and yes, even good, clean, Christian fellowship (read: fun).

I’m glad you had a good experience in YG, and I am sure there are others here who had wonderful time in their youth groups. I am not sure what your point is when you say and yes, even good, clean, Christian fellowship (read: fun)… did someone say we shouldn’t ever have fun? Do you think that I or someone else here needs to have it pointed out that there is such a thing as good, clean Christian fellowship, which being interpreted means ‘fun’? I mean, the obvious way for me to take this is that you are referring to someone who is completely stupid or terminally anal, which couldn’t possibly be me, so I want to be clear as to your meaning. http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php] http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-fc/flowers.gif

Bro. Greg, I was part of youth groups (yes- read that as more than one) where there was no spiritual emphasis- the female workers masked Mary Kay parties as an activity for the girls, and one of the other leaders was obsessed with playing Barry Manilow records backwards. The only thing we ever served was chips and dip. There were often two chaperones for about 30 kids, sexual promiscuity was the norm, and there was rampant substance abuse amongst the young people, to the point where the ‘good’ kids were being corrupted right under the trusting noses of their parents. I saw my first R-rated movie (An Officer and a Gentleman) on HBO at my youth leader’s house, but I still managed to remain one of the ‘good kids’ who refused to get involved in all the filth that was going on, even though I was not a Christian at the time… and I recognize that both our experiences are anecdotal, proving nothing except that different youth groups can produce different results. Results are not the measure we use to decide if a practice is Scriptural, and I see no reason not to rethink how we minister to the folks- not just youth, but everyone.

For instance, churches that corral the singles together all the time- why is that? Would they not benefit from interacting with youth, newly married couples, the elderly, and established families? What about our senior citizens? How often do churches encourage younger people to seek the wisdom and insight of the older folks in the congregation, and provide opportunities for fellowship across the lines of age and experience?

Instead, the SOP is often for these groups to be segregated on a regular basis. I don’t think it is beneficial or Biblical. If the Scriptural model is for the older men/women to teach the younger men/women, then that IMO should be the default, instead of consistently separating the older from the younger. Of course there are times for certain groups to be ministered to specifically- very few older folks would want to ride The Beast at King’s Island… but I’m not trying to refute the idea that sometimes we split off into groups to study or have activities, but that the norm for nearly every facet of ministry is to separate into defined age groups.

It seems that when done right, age/gender/life-stage targeted ministries will complement the general ministry of the church. Singles will often have their own S.S. class, for example, because that’s the most efficient means of consistently dealing with the issues of singleness. But when done right, these groups also consistently interact with the entire body in worship services, prayer meetings, church-wide fellowship events, and so on. Does it always work like this? Um…no.

From my observation of a variety of church settings, it seems things break down the larger a church gets. It becomes too unwieldy to have meaningful church-wide interaction in a church of, say, 500+. Everyone knows that interaction is helpful (iron sharpening iron, if you will), so to facilitate that, the larger church breaks itself down into a bunch of smaller “churches” that have their own meetings, but all get together once or twice a week in the Sunday services. However, the smaller “churches” become primary [sidebar: I know folks in large churches who attend only because of their S.S. class]. In fact, lots of folks in the larger church don’t even know each other…nor is it possible for them to, really. So then, this big church has all kinds of age/gender/life-stage groups that, for all practical purposes, become an end unto themselves, and you’re left with the “corralling the singles together all the time”…and the teens…and the kids…and the seniors…. In both of the large churches where I’ve served (600-900), this has been the case. And, by the way, if the big church didn’t do that, it wouldn’t be big very long, because most people want to feel like they belong to some kind of community where they know others and are known. Yes, I know, some attend the big church because they like the anonymity of being lost in a crowd. Well, they’d eventually leave too—the crowd wouldn’t be so big anymore.

For the most part, my ministry experience has been in small churches of under 100. We’ve had age-graded Sunday schools & teen groups. My current church has a monthly seniors luncheon. But in none of these small churches have I seen the kind of group isolation that naturally occurs in the large church. The children are comfortable being with adults of all ages; the singles intermingle with the marrieds; the young couples relate well to the middle agers; the seniors love everyone! What I have seen in the smaller church is that the lack of relatively sizable target groups makes reaching and keeping people difficult. For example, the couple leading a Wed PM teen group moved out of the area, and we really have no one who could take their place. Consequently, the teens have joined the adults for Wed PM Bible study/prayer time. Yet, even though I tried to do some things to make the time more “teen friendly,” only the teens from 1 family come. One of the teens from the church goes to another church’s teen program on Wed. PM. Teens that used to come from outside the church have dropped out altogether. A couple more examples: we’ve had young married w/o kids couples visit the church, but don’t come back—there aren’t any others like them…families with young children don’t return because there aren’t enough of them….singles don’t return because we only have a couple of other singles. So, not having the target groups has the benefit of avoiding group isolation and fostering church unity…but the downside is its much more difficult to reach and keep people.

For the record, S. Brown has been crystal clear in the past that he is against all age segregation. If you search on the phrase “kid times” here, for example, you’ll find a couple of articles I wrote on the value of kid times in ministry and these contain some links to Brown’s posts at Vision Forum.

But one thing keeps coming to mind again and again. How can what the church does for one or two hours a week really be doing so much damage to what parents are able able to do the other 80 some waking hours of the week?
I think the case can easily be made that churches to do not teach parents well enough what they ought to do during the 80 hours, but this is a problem of omission not a problem of inclusion. In other words, it’s not what these churches have/do (youth min.) that is the problem, but what they do not do also.

[Aaron Blumer] But one thing keeps coming to mind again and again. How can what the church does for one or two hours a week really be doing so much damage to what parents are able able to do the other 80 some waking hours of the week?
I think the case can easily be made that churches to do not teach parents well enough what they ought to do during the 80 hours, but this is a problem of omission not a problem of inclusion. In other words, it’s not what these churches have/do (youth min.) that is the problem, but what they do not do also.

I don’t see it (personally) as being about a time quantity thing, but what are we doing during that time? What is our focus, our emphasis? We meet at church for various purposes that are intertwined- worship, thanksgiving, fellowship, edification, admonition… and I think when families are separated during these times, and the quality and attitude of the programs used with young people is lacking in depth and sobriety, young people will receive unintended messages- that serious worship is for the old fogies, that each group is so distinct as to not be able to minister to each other…

I’m not against ALL/ANY forms of segregation, but I am definitely concerned about the church catering to youth culture in a way that undermines their relationship with their parents, that usurps the authority of the husband/father, that encourages people to seek counsel amongst their peers instead of basing their choice of counselor on spiritual maturity… each church should evaluate their practices by what would best minister to that congregation, not what is popular or considered traditional. For instance, the churches I’ve seen with what appear to be good quality youth programs are those that hold YG meetings during times other than the regular worship service, because this allows parents to be more involved. When YG activities and meetings are scheduled at the same time as activities or services for ‘the adults’ it creates a conflict of interest. If a parent keeps their child with them so they can participate in a service as a family, the family is viewed as ‘unsupportive’ of the youth ministry, but if the parent chooses to attend an activity/meeting with their child, they are called ‘helicopter’ parents. I’ve heard with my own two God-given ears that it is good for kid to be separate from their parents at church so they can be exposed to a variety of ideas other than what their parents are teaching them.

Adjectives fail me. http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php] http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-shocked017.gif