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

http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=31609151194

I’m hesitant to put on my thoughts on this for a couple reasons:

1. Susan, and I like Susan, seems to be lending her support to these speakers. I really don’t want to be attacking her.
Note to Susan: I’ll PM you…

2. It is so bad that it feels like attacking a child.

[Dan Miller] http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=31609151194

I’m hesitant to put on my thoughts on this for a couple reasons:

1. Susan, and I like Susan, seems to be lending her support to these speakers. I really don’t want to be attacking her.
Note to Susan: I’ll PM you…

Please feel free to comment- my ‘support’ is not of these speakers or their organization, but for the idea that segregation should be limited instead of the ‘default’, so to speak, and that the church should emphasize the family as foundational, and those relationships nourished. The only speaker I’ve listened to is Voddie Baucham- I have read the FAQ at the NCFIC website and a few blog posts, so my knowledge of the NCFIC is very limited, and that of Mr. Brown practically non-existent. I think I’ve made it clear that I am not supportive of the wholesale abolishment of all segregated programs or ministries. I am quite confident that you would not attack me personally, and if I have posted something you disagree with, I would be happy to interact with you on those points.

Please note:
1. I’m not saying that this guy is wrong. (I’m not saying it, though I think it.)
2. I object more to the way he’s handling Scripture and leadership than I am to his position. (His position does have some wisdom in it, if not taken too far.)
3. I really object to the way he spends the first 10 minutes and the last minutes talking about sufficiency of Scripture. He implies very strongly that his position will be Biblically demanded and that those who choose to utilize segregation by age do so because they love men’s traditions over Scripture.
4. This is especially sickening given the way he treats God’s Word throughout this message.

1. The Passover

Descriptive.

2. The Feast of Weeks

- Prescriptive of this event. Not just families, but also include aliens and servants.

3. Feast of Tabernacles

- Prescriptive of this event. Not just families, but also include aliens and servants.

4. The Psalms of Ascent
“Fourth, in the psalms of ascent in the book of Psalms, the picture is of the family going to
worship and lifting up their praises to God. Those psalms were sung by the families as
the little ones were behind the father and the mother and the whole family was walking to
the temple to come and bring their sacrifices to God.”

- There is nothing in the text (Psalms 120-134) to support the speaker’s comments on God’s Word.

5. The Recitation of the Covenant

- Descriptive.

6. Family Integrated Worship in the Time of Joshua

- Descriptive.

7. Time of Confession in the Days of Ezra

- Descriptive.

8. Jehoshaphat’s Time of Prayer

- Descriptive.

9. The Revival in the Days of Ezra

- Descriptive.

10. The Sacred Assembly in the Book of Joel
Tenth, parents were commanded to bring their children to the sacred assembly in Joel chapter two. ―Blow the trumpet in Zion,‖ says Joel 2:15-16, ―declare a holy fast, call a sacred assembly. Gather the people, consecrate the assembly; bring together the elders, gather the children, those nursing at the breast. Let the bridegroom leave his room and the bride her chamber.

Well, this is just another mention of some kind of gathering, a holy fast, a sacred assembly in which even the nursing babes might be there. There is this idea that children really can‘t get anything out of these meetings that we have. Well, I would love to spend an hour talking to you about that because I absolutely believe that though children don‘t get everything out of big church, they do get something. Particularly they are on their fathers or their mother‘s shoulder and we are singing in their ears. They are seeing the people praise God and they are seeing the prayers. They are feeling the joy in the room. They are knowing the great and wonderful effects of having a Father in heaven and a holy Comforter to come among God‘s people and help them.

- Prescriptive of this event. But notice the extreme scope of the call. Everyone is supposed to come at that particular time. No one was to opt out of this particular call to the assembly. Even those preparing for marriage were to interrupt that to go right then.
Further, the reason for including the infant at the breast might be to make sure mom comes. It might be expected that the husband could go and she might stay home with the baby.

Every single one of these is either descriptive or prescriptive of particular, sometimes unusual, events. That is except for the Psalms of Ascent, where the speaker must be basing his conclusion on tradition or unmentioned Scripture.

(New Testament next.)

Dan,

With regard to your breakdown of this sermon, you are probably correct, especially on this brother’s handling of the OT. I am familiar with Scott Brown only by name. My assumption, reinforced by perusing his church’s Web site, is that he is probably a Reformed Baptist (Covenant Theologian). It is not my purpose to be an apologist for him.

In response, however, I would offer the following three servings of food for thought:

1) If it is difficult to prove family integration from Scripture, is it not even more difficult to prove age segregation? Certainly we could find examples of both in Scripture, and there is obviously a place for women teaching women (Tit. 2:4), the teaching of children (Matt. 19:14), etc. In accord with Susan’s comment, however, it would certainly seem that the default position of the church, especially for corporate worship, should be heavily weighted in favor of family integration.
For example, I have visited some mega-churches where you walk in the door and immediately you are overwhelmed with the “playland” area where all children are expected to stay while the adults move on to their destination. Are we really going to argue that this type of thinking is rooted in Scripture? It seems to me to be taken directly from the worldly model of Yuppie culture. I certainly understand why some families are offended by that type of arrangement, or at least would not feel comfortable worshipping in a church like that. As another example, I would say that the stafffed church nursery is a very recent invention in church history. (Has anyone written the definitive history of church nuseries? :>))

2) Do we deny that some of the streams which feed into age segregation come out of evolutionary-based educational theory as advanced historically by Dewey, Mann, et al? Again, that is not to say that you will not find some texts in both testaments where children were taught in group fashion. It is just saying that it is also not correct for the church to borrow all modern educational theory and baptize it into orthodoxy.

3) To me, the family integration people — at least to the extent that I give them a hearing — are not so much arguing against the specialized training of children, adults, etc., as much as they are reacting against a church culture gone mad. For an example of what I am talking about here, see the book Spiritual Junk Food by Cathy Mickels (www.amazon.com/Spiritual-Junk-Food-Cathy-Mickels/dp/1579211690#noop).

1) If it is difficult to prove family integration from Scripture, is it not even more difficult to prove age segregation?

But neither can either be proved by examining the unprovability of the other.

2) Do we deny that some of the streams which feed into age segregation come out of evolutionary-based educational theory as advanced historically by Dewey, Mann, et al?

I’m not sure it matters. Our behavior as a church should be based on Biblical principles. If someone did something previously for some other reason, that’s irrelevant. We must examine our own reasons for doing things.

3) To me, the family integration people — at least to the extent that I give them a hearing — are not so much arguing against the specialized training of children, adults, etc., as much as they are reacting against a church culture gone mad. For an example of what I am talking about here, see the book Spiritual Junk Food by Cathy Mickels (www.amazon.com/Spiritual-Junk-Food-Cathy-Mickels/dp/1579211690#noop).

That may or may not be true. But this guy is arguing against the specialized training of children.

You do have a point about the church gone mad. Or perhaps I should say social clubs posing as churches gone mad. The original article made reference to fun and entertainment and they have a point there.

I think the Biblical pattern is unmistakable- commands about the teaching and training of children are directed mostly to parents. The directive in Titus 2 ‘segregates’ by gender, but this does not necessary mean that older ladies corral younger ladies into a classroom to teach them, but IMO implies mentoring and modeling right behaviors. However, it does provide a blueprint IMO that is seldom applied and barely acknowledged.

The Biblical pattern does not preclude other means and methods, but other methods should be examined carefully for their consistency to Biblical principles, as well as possible ‘side effects’, which was part of my earlier rabbit trail about SS teachers. We tend to give those we label as ‘teachers’ in our society more respect when it comes to insight and subject knowledge- but, in general- how many SS teachers and YG leaders are 1) a model of good works 2) have their families in order 3) are skilled in the Word? I would be remiss as a parent to allow someone who is not really qualified to be a teacher to have authority or influence over my kids. We’re sheep, not a guinea pigs, and if I had a nickel for every YP I’ve met who ‘uses’ the YG as a stepping stone to the pastorate, or every milk-dependent volunteer that stood behind a podium in a SS class…

With those strongly held beliefs as part of my philosophical foundation, it isn’t surprising that some of the assertions of the family integration movement are very appealing to me.

BTW, Bro. Dan, I also object strenuously to the use of OT examples as comprehensively applicable to believers of this age. It is where I part ways with some of the theories of the patriarchy movement, and I’ve noted that some in the patriarchy movement are holding hands with the family integration folks, because they do tend to reinforce each other… just like you’ll probably find a lot of homeschoolers amongst the patriarchy and family integration crowd, because the underlying premise to all of these movements is the foundational importance of family.

I wrote this post once and then decided to let it go, but I decided to make a couple of quick comments in response to Susan,

in general- how many SS teachers and YG leaders are 1) a model of good works 2) have their families in order 3) are skilled in the Word?

Probably a greater percentage than parents. Many churches have standards for teachers as well as teacher training. The same cannot be said of parents. The requirements are far lower. Most parents are not models of good works who have their families in order and are skilled in the word. If you need evidence, just visit the youth group. Or children’s church. Or look around the auditorium in your FIC.

I would be remiss as a parent to allow someone who is not really qualified to be a teacher to have authority or influence over my kids.

Not to you directly, but in general, what makes one think he or she is better able to judge a qualified teacher than the pastor is? Given the woeful spiritual maturity of most parents, I would hesitate to let them judge who is qualified.

…if I had a nickel for every YP I’ve met who ‘uses’ the YG as a stepping stone to the pastorate,

I have seen this comment before, and I wonder about it. Very few people in any profession are “lifers” in their first position. So I am not sure why this is a problem. If a man wants to minister to youth specifically his whole life, that is certainly fine. But it seems hardly problemmatic if he doesn’t. Being on the pastoral staff as a youth pastor can be a very good place to learn how to be a pastor. I don’t know of anyone who thinks first graders are guinea pigs because the first grade teacher moves up to third grade the next year. I don’t know anyone who think that drivers are guinea pigs because the patrolman moves up to corporal. So I wonder if your glasses here are not a bit skewed by unreasonable and a-biblical expectations.

[Larry] I wrote this post once and then decided to let it go, but I decided to make a couple of quick comments in response to Susan,

in general- how many SS teachers and YG leaders are 1) a model of good works 2) have their families in order 3) are skilled in the Word?

Probably a greater percentage than parents. Many churches have standards for teachers as well as teacher training. The same cannot be said of parents. The requirements are far lower. Most parents are not models of good works who have their families in order and are skilled in the word. If you need evidence, just visit the youth group. Or children’s church. Or look around the auditorium in your FIC.

You’re right- all that is ‘required’ to become a parent is a working reproductive system. But parents do have qualifications they are supposed to meet, and if the parents in our churches are so pathetic as to not be able to adequately minister to and teach their children, it would seem to me that the leadership needs to get on the stick and start equipping them. The fact of the matter is that parents are commanded to be their children’s teachers, just as men are told they should be able to teach their wives. (1 Cor. 14:34-35) The solution isn’t to delegate our responsibilities to someone else who is more ‘qualified’, but to live up to God’s standards. We can and should receive knowledge and wisdom from others, but we can’t lay our children down on someone else’s doorstep- not the SS teacher, the Christian school, the pastor, or the church.

BTW, I don’t attend an FIC church.

I would be remiss as a parent to allow someone who is not really qualified to be a teacher to have authority or influence over my kids.

Not to you directly, but in general, what makes one think he or she is better able to judge a qualified teacher than the pastor is? Given the woeful spiritual maturity of most parents, I would hesitate to let them judge who is qualified.

I am the best judge because it is my responsibility. No matter how ‘qualified’ the parent is or isn’t, they are still going to be held accountable, so they must make these decisions, and the church’s focus should be to educate and admonish parents in their proper God-ordained roles. Most of the parents I know are faithful to read their Bibles, attend church, sacrifice to meet their children’s needs- and they pray and agonize over the decisions they have to make on a daily basis. Our church challenges and provides parents with tools to help them minister to their families. Many people attend our Bible Institute, not to get a degree, but just to become more skilled in the Word. And no matter how much a teacher loves kids, they are not going to love them with the same fervor as a parent. I’m sad to hear that most of the parents you know are so deficient.

If a pastor hand picks the SS teachers based on established criteria such as Bible knowledge, teacher training, and their own personal testimony, then that’s fabulous. However, I doubt very much that this is SOP in most churches, and that is what we are talking about here- the general state or the ‘norms’ of how families/children are ministered to.

I have seen this comment before, and I wonder about it. Very few people in any profession are “lifers” in their first position. So I am not sure why this is a problem. If a man wants to minister to youth specifically his whole life, that is certainly fine. But it seems hardly problemmatic if he doesn’t. Being on the pastoral staff as a youth pastor can be a very good place to learn how to be a pastor. I don’t know of anyone who thinks first graders are guinea pigs because the first grade teacher moves up to third grade the next year. I don’t know anyone who think that drivers are guinea pigs because the patrolman moves up to corporal. So I wonder if your glasses here are not a bit skewed by unreasonable and a-biblical expectations.

My glasses are skewed because there is this little screw loose on the left hinged corner…every once in awhile the lens just pops right out. If it does that while I’m driving, my Taurus is going to be wrapped around the nearest phone pole.

When I use the term ‘stepping stone’, I mean it exactly that way- that the person teaching the SS class or YG is using it with the intent to ‘climb the ladder’ to the pastorate. I understand and support people who are willing to do whatever is necessary to meet the needs of their local congregation, but I’m speaking to the crass business-like attitude that treats ministry as if it were a corporate structure to be conquered, and the pastorate as a desired position of power. There are some who would view moving from a first grade class to a third grade class as a ‘promotion’, and this mindset IMO reveals that those people do not value young children. I think the silly and shallow material often used in SS and Jr Church, and the youth-culture/entertainment obsessed nature of many YG programs complete with the young and totally hip YP are supportive evidence in this area. If I had a nickel for every YP who uses the word ‘dude’ as a regular part of his vocabulary… http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php] http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-cool11.gif

OK Larry, I am pulling your leg just a teeeeensy weensy bit.

I think the responses in the [URL=http://sharperiron.org/article/proto-fundamentalism-part-4] Proto-Fundamentalism Part 4 thread[/URL] about Bible colleges relates to this topic of qualified teachers and preparedness for ministry.

But parents do have qualifications they are supposed to meet, and if the parents in our churches are so pathetic as to not be able to adequately minister to and teach their children, it would seem to me that the leadership needs to get on the stick and start equipping them.

I agree. But I don’t think that means that there is no place in the church for qualified teachers to teach people other than their own children.

The solution isn’t to delegate our responsibilities to someone else who is more ‘qualified’, but to live up to God’s standards. We can and should receive knowledge and wisdom from others, but we can’t lay our children down on someone else’s doorstep- not the SS teacher, the Christian school, the pastor, or the church.

I agree with that. But I don’t see how age segregated teaching is laying our children down on someone else’s door step.

BTW, I don’t attend an FIC church.

I knew that. I was speakign generically. Sorry, didn’t mean to be unclear.

I am the best judge because it is my responsibility.

I don’t think being responsible makes one able.

No matter how ‘qualified’ the parent is or isn’t, they are still going to be held accountable, so they must make these decisions, and the church’s focus should be to educate and admonish parents in their proper God-ordained roles.

The church must care for all the people, and this includes providing teaching for all ages. I don’t think anyone can effectively teach all ages at the same time together.

Most of the parents I know are faithful to read their Bibles, attend church, sacrifice to meet their children’s needs- and they pray and agonize over the decisions they have to make on a daily basis.

I know of very few parents like this. If a church is reaching people, this will be the exception rather than the norm. Even in established churches, I bet this is less than half.

If a pastor hand picks the SS teachers based on established criteria such as Bible knowledge, teacher training, and their own personal testimony, then that’s fabulous. However, I doubt very much that this is SOP in most churches, and that is what we are talking about here- the general state or the ‘norms’ of how families/children are ministered to.

I don’t know of any exceptions to this. Depending on the size of the church, the pastor may not personally pick every teacher, but in most places there is a way that it is done where people plugged into teaching positions based on gifts and abilities.

When I use the term ‘stepping stone’, I mean it exactly that way- that the person teaching the SS class or YG is using it with the intent to ‘climb the ladder’ to the pastorate.

But I still don’t know what the problem is here.

… I’m speaking to the crass business-like attitude that treats ministry as if it were a corporate structure to be conquered, and the pastorate as a desired position of power.

Or perhaps the pastor as the desired position of calling. If a man has the attitude of conquering a corporate structure, he shouldn’t be a pastor, but it has nothing to do with stepping stones.

There are some who would view moving from a first grade class to a third grade class as a ‘promotion’, and this mindset IMO reveals that those people do not value young children.

It may indicate gifts and callings. If I thought I had to teach first grade every week, I would go jump off a bridge. It has nothing to do with the value of young children. It has to do with gifts. I have, however, in times past taught first grade (and younger).

I think the silly and shallow material often used in SS and Jr Church, and the youth-culture/entertainment obsessed nature of many YG programs complete with the young and totally hip YP are supportive evidence in this area.

Supportive of what? i agree that there are problems here, but that is not a problem with age graded program, but with curriculum.

So a couple of points.

1) I am not sure you have identified a problem with the actual idea or structure of age graded teaching. You have identified some problems with personnel and curriculum, which can be fixed.
2) I am not clear as to why a youth pastor cannot aspire to be a pastor. I just don’t follow your reasoning there. Again, if it is a pride issue, that’s one thing. But what if it’s calling?

I think the responses in the Proto-Fundamentalism Part 4 thread about Bible colleges relates to this topic of qualified teachers and preparedness for ministry.

Yes, I thought some of those responses were good reasons why people should obtain some education. :D

Interesting thread. Glad I finally got a chance to catch up a bit on it.
Three observations

1. Toward Daniel’s question about why young adults are leaving…. I don’t have an answer but wanted to point out that those who are using the exodus of YAs as proof that age grouping is a failure are doing some leaping. We do not have a similar sized “control group” who have not be grouping for multiple generations to compare the results. So it’s a little like saying it snowed yesterday and today I have a headache so I have snow-induced head pain. (Very possible, but I think you can see it’s just a guess… and not a very good one)

2. On the method of stacking up OT occurrences of families doing stuff together. If we had 900 of these it would not prove more than have half a dozen proves. That is, in interpretation you have to weigh texts, not count them. What’s needed to establish the idea that age grouping is wrong is just one clear text that is actually about age grouping and indicates that it is wrong. Piles of passages about other topics but which also mention whole families being present in the narrative details do not an obligation make. What they reveal is what was typically done. It’s not sound interpretation to extrapolate from that this is what must be done… and done exclusively.

3. I’m really not all that far from Susan’s position on this, which is not the same as Brown’s/VF’s. And Kevin’s is not far either, doesn’t look like to me. I think we’re all for:
a. Families taking their responsibilities seriously
b. Churches staying out of the way of families taking their resp. seriously
c. Churches actively encouraging & helping families to do this
d. Churches having a sufficient amount of “all together” time (w/ b and c in mind. We do differ on how much is “sufficient,” sounds like)
e. Scripture does not require that whole families be together 100% of the time in 100% of church meetings and activities
The differences mainly lie on what we’re comfortable emphasizing due to what we’ve personally experienced. Since Kevin & others (I’ll count myself here also) have had positive experiences in age grouped ministry (and seen most of our peers stay “in” church, too I might add), we are more comfortable emphasizing the validity of some age grouping. Since Susan and others (I’m guessing Brown is in this category given the passion he has on the subject at times), have seen pretty poorly implemented age grouped ministry, they are more comfortable emphasizing the need for more family-centeredness.

So the experience factor is where much of the energy comes from, seems to me.

I agree with Aaron’s summary here, including his comment about personal experience fueling the emotions behind this issue.

I do not believe “family integrated ministry” and “age appropriate teaching methods” are mutually exclusive. In fact, I think parents are the key to a well-run “traditional age grouping” youth ministry. My own view is that these two ideas are compatible. So I guess I tend to frame the issue in terms that are friendly to an integration of both ideas.

I’ll have to confess a natural suspicion regarding the hermeneutics of the Christian school movement and homeschool movement (Yes, I was part of these trends). And now I have similar suspicions—much like Dan’s—about the same hermeneutics offered from the FIC movement.

Odd observation here. We seem collectively willing to skewer ill-advised teaching when it comes from unskilled youth workers. And, to summarize this thread, some of us are willing to exclude the idea of youth workers on the basis of possible wrong teaching. But when a FIC leader spouts wrong theology, we graciously conclude “Yeah, but look at the good points he made.”

Sort of like a shoplifter saying, “Yeah, but look at all of the nifty stuff I got.”

If the issues center around how to teach Biblical principles in the New Testament church, the weight of our exegesis needs to come from the clearest and most important NT texts (Aaron says “the weight,” not the number). Likely, the Epistles. But if we use this approach, we’ve cut the legs off our “scriptural defense” of Christian schools, home schools, and the FIC (at least, the formal defense of FIC as articulated by its leaders). Please don’t read this too darkly: I believe that the NT epistles have loads to say about how to teach the Bible correctly. I’m just saying that (historically) our movement hasn’t always met our own high standard of exegesis.

Larry, you were posting so far past what I wrote that I don’t even know where to start. We need an interpreter, you and I, because we seem to do this ALOT.

There is a general lack of understanding about [URL=http://www.acclaim-math.org/docs/jrre_archives/v3,n3,p111-115,Pratt.pdf] the history of age segregation[/URL]. Ya’ll are talking like “That’s the way we do it, furthermore that’s the way we’ve always done it”, and it just ain’t so- age segregation is a very, very recent invention. I’ve been studying the effects of age segregation, the history [URL=http://books.google.com/books?id=TGyAy44bb10C&dq=heywood+A+History+of+C…] of childhood[/URL] and [URL=http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/chapters/index.htm public education[/URL] , and the [URL=http://drrobertepstein.com/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=10&Ite…] theories behind what we call ‘adolescence’[/URL] for years now, and most of the sound research available shows that 1) age segregation is a new-fangled invention that [URL=http://books.google.com/books?id=sDtMoSq93gAC&pg=PA127&lpg=PA127&dq=eff…] does more harm than good[/URL] , 2) [URL=http://uncenglishmat.weebly.com/uploads/1/4/3/4/1434319/arnett.pdf] adolescence has its roots in evolutionary theory and bad psychology[/URL] 3) neither age segregation or adolescence fit the Biblical patterns, principles, or commands when it comes to the teaching and training of children 4) age segregation is an artificial construct and is no longer used to the same degree when people reach adulthood (at which point other means of segregation are often employed, such as marital status, which is also not Biblically supportable, although not forbidden).

The Nature of Adolescent Peer Culture

James Coleman’s work on adolescent peer culture was extremely influential in shaping views on modern adolescent culture. In 1961 Coleman suggested that an adolescent subculture had emerged in industrialized societies that was distinct from that of more agrarian cultures (such as the Amish culture). According to Coleman, social and economic forces that encourage age segregation shape the socialization of adolescents in industrialized societies. In a rapidly changing society, parents’ skills easily become obsolete. Parents therefore cannot transmit their accumulated knowledge to their children, and hence they have fewer opportunities for direct influence over their children’s development. Education takes place in school settings, for longer periods, further reducing the influence that family-centered learning has on adolescents. The period of schooling required in modern societies is becoming lengthier, and even within schools, children are segregated according to age in separate grades. These age-segregation patterns, according to Coleman, precipitate the creation of a separate adolescent culture in which adolescents speak a “language” increasingly different from that of adults. Modern industrialized societies encourage this “separate adolescent culture” by creating specialized marketing that cultivates and targets the adolescents’ unique taste in music, clothes, and entertainment.

Such isolation from adults, Coleman claimed, results in the creation of adolescent societal standards and behavioral norms that are far removed from those of adult society. Adolescents look to their peers rather than to their parents and teachers for guidance and approval, thereby diminishing the ability of adults to influence adolescents’ development.

Read more: [URL=http://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/1738/Adolescent-Peer-Culture… Adolescent Peer Culture - Gangs, Parents’ Role[/URL]

I’ll say again for those who don’t want to read this whole thread that I am not against the occasional use of age segregation or having youth Bible studies and activities, but I am NOT supportive of age segregation done to the extent that it affects the church’s ability to nourish the family, interferes with the role of husbands and parents to be the primary leaders of their homes, prevents needed cross-generational relationships, contributes to the infantilization of young people, and inhibits the mentoring of the young men/women by the older men/women. These things can and do happen, and we should be on guard against them- most children are already separated from their parents into age-segregated classrooms during the week- IMO churches should think about providing a counteractive environment to these harmful dynamics.

Congratulations if none of these problems are familiar to you. But we can’t have it both ways. Example- http://sharperiron.org/forum/thread-some-guys-are-close-to-satire-of-yo… - parodies work because they are based on elements of fact. Many IFB churches have used the [URL=http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Books,%20Tracts%20&%20Preaching/Printed%… Hyles Sunday School Manual[/URL] , which does not concern itself with whether or not someone has any experience teaching large groups of children (which is much different than teaching your own). It would be better not to have a SS program or YG [URL=http://pastorandpeople.wordpress.com/2007/09/18/sunday-school-%E2%80%93… if one cannot provide teachers that are up-to-snuff and quality material to support their efforts[/URL]. It should also remain a principal goal to equip parents to be the primary teachers/ministers of their families.

[Susan R] When I use the term ‘stepping stone’, I mean it exactly that way- that the person teaching the SS class or YG is using it with the intent to ‘climb the ladder’ to the pastorate. I understand and support people who are willing to do whatever is necessary to meet the needs of their local congregation, but I’m speaking to the crass business-like attitude that treats ministry as if it were a corporate structure to be conquered, and the pastorate as a desired position of power.

We must run in completely different circles. I have NEVER met a youth pastor with this attitude…and I’ve met scores of them over the years.

Oh, when I was a YP, I remember hearing the exhortation, “Don’t you dare use your position as a stepping stone to the pastorate! If God’s called you to be YP, then plan on it for the rest of your life!” The source was the leader of an organization that publishes youth materials—he was in his 50s at the time, I believe. For a while, I bought into that, but I came to understand my sense of calling in not so specific an area—I was called to the ministry, not the youth pastorate. The youth pastorate was the ministry I was to be involved in at that time, for some indefinite period, and I was willing to serve in that capacity indefinitely. But I fully expected that someday I would pastor a church; nevertheless, where I was at the time was not viewed as some mere stopping point along the way. (Incidentally, the 63-year-old pastor I served under at the time told me, “You’re not going to do this forever. Someday, Bryan, you’ll get tired of McDonalds! And when it’s time to move on, you’ll know it.” He was right.)

Every youth pastor I’ve ever met has had a similar attitude. Furthermore, they’ve been godly young men with a passion for the church and for building godly young people. I guess I’ve been fortunate not to run into any of the crass creeps. :~

[Susan R] 3) neither age segregation or adolescence fit the Biblical patterns, principles, or commands when it comes to the teaching and training of children

Susan, I am sometimes just a simple person. Would love to read all of your psychological references (I perused some), but I am not at a point to make the time to read, nor do I have the same enthusiasm to read it all. So, with that in mind, could you briefly outline how your point #3 is supported? I am not arguing, I just would like to see what this looks like. Thank you.

Larry, you were posting so far past what I wrote that I don’t even know where to start.

Yes, it seems so, I don’t think that what you wrote addresses my point. I don’t mean that in a rude way, and I hope you understand that. I don’t have time to address all of it, and quite frankly don’t have the knowledge to address it.

Here’s my point in a nutshell.

1. People learn in different ways based on the age/mental maturity. This is so widely recognized that I don’t think anyone disputes it. It’s not a new and recent invention. The Bible testifies to this in different places. A three year old, an eight year old, and an eighteen year old learn in entirely different ways. As a home schooler (which I think you are if I recall correctly), you probably recognize this as much as any. Your older children learn differently and learn different things than your younger children do. And you might have them in the same room, but you teach them different things and with different methods based on where they are in life.

2. We should organize the way that we teach with that in mind. Again, this is so widely recognized I don’t think anyone disputes it. And I imagine as a home schooler, you do exactly this. We teach a three year old to recognize numbers. We teach a fifteen year old to do algebra. No one would think that a three year old and a fifteen year old (with normal mental development) should be the same math class. We say the same thing about reading class. A three year old is learning to read and write letters. A fifteen year old is reading classics and writing reports. So why doesn’t that apply to other areas of learning including the church? Why should a three year old be in a class all the time with fifteen year olds or forty year olds? I must be missing something in your argument because I honestly don’t understand how this is disputed?

3. It doesn’t require undermining parents and is not in opposition to teaching and training parents. As a home schooler you are having your children read and learn from other people, perhaps both in video as well as books. So you probably recognize that learning from another person does not undermine your authority. It doesn’t undermine your authority when you sit in church and have your children listen to the pastor. Again, it seems to widely evident that this type of thing we are talking about does not undermine parents, does not mean that we should not teach parents to parent, or some such. I think we can and should do both.

I don’t see any biblical principle that refutes any of those.

You say that age segregation is an artificial construct, but I don’t think that’s entirely true or problemmatic. Yes, not all six year olds are the same, but almost all six year olds are a lot more similar to each other than they are to twelve year olds. Why should we not recognize this and work with it? What biblical principle is compromised by this?

The reason segregation changes for adults (in some areas, not in all) is because it is generally recognized that by the time a person reaches a certain age, they have attained a certain background of knowledge and maturity. There is a leveling out of maturity and related issues.

So I am not convinced that you have presented any evidence that demands churches not age segregate as a general principle of teaching. (You agree only that it should be occasional, if I read you correctly, rather than week to week.) I don’t see any reason why it has to “affect the church’s ability to nourish the family, interferes with the role of husbands and parents to be the primary leaders of their homes, prevents needed cross-generational relationships, contributes to the infantilization of young people, and inhibits the mentoring of the young men/women by the older men/women.”

Age segregation can in fact help these things because each member of the church can be fed based on what they need and can handle, parents can be expected to teach their children at home, cross generational relationships can be fostered because most teachers come from a different generation than the parents, and therefore the older can teach the younger.

If the parent never saw the child, I would be much more concerned. But we are talking about 1-2 hours a week where a child is being taught the Scriptures by someone who is qualified and able to teach.

Thanks for the exchange Susan.