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

Susan,

I have a couple of thoughts. Most of us (that you are interacting with) are VERY far removed from the Hyles SS manual mentality. In fact, most of us detest that mentality and have never had anything to do with it. So your eperience is the general exception in a large part of IFB land, not the rule. I am not for hyper segregating of the family either. As far a SS teachers go, I pick mine. I have never advocated the warm body approach (although I was a in ONE church that did- and I was the warm body-15 yrs old- not wise). BTW, that one church was not a fundamental one.

We are all colored by our experiences. My direct contact with VF type families has not been good. The father’s demand to be the spiritual leader (great thing), but they also were not a spiritual as they wanted everyone to believe. In fact, they were often very rebellious (no one can tell me what to do). I don’t think you are that way, but sometimes you do come across that way. So here is the question. How do you balance your view of the family with the families obligation to “Obey those who have rule over you?”

[wbarkema]

[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.

I can’t prove the non-existence of something- burden of proof is on those who believe that age-segregation is supportable Biblically. I would like to repeat that I don’t believe it is forbidden- nor is air conditioning or driving a Honda- and it does have its uses- but the patterns are there in how people gathered, who the commands regarding teaching and training children were directed towards, and the directive to older men/women to teach younger men/women (which implies gender segregation, not age segregation).

[rogercarlson] Susan,

I have a couple of thoughts. Most of us (that you are interacting with) are VERY far removed from the Hyles SS manual mentality. In fact, most of us detest that mentality and have never had anything to do with it. So your experience is the general exception in a large part of IFB land, not the rule. I am not for hyper segregating of the family either. As far a SS teachers go, I pick mine. I have never advocated the warm body approach (although I was a in ONE church that did- and I was the warm body-15 yrs old- not wise). BTW, that one church was not a fundamental one.

I think we underestimate the impact that ‘cultural’ norms can have on church structure and practice. For example, the use of an altar and invitations- how many people who believe in and practice altar calls regularly have any idea where it originated? In like manner I believe that many things have affected church practices without realizing where it may have come from. I spent many formative years in SoL churches that lived by every breath that proceeded out of the mouth of Jack Hyles and John R. Rice, so I think maybe I recognize their influence where others may not…? I’ve visited churches that would say “Jack who?” but run their bus ministry right out of the Hammond playbook. Something to think about, anyway.

We are all colored by our experiences. My direct contact with VF type families has not been good. The father’s demand to be the spiritual leader (great thing), but they also were not a spiritual as they wanted everyone to believe. In fact, they were often very rebellious (no one can tell me what to do). I don’t think you are that way, but sometimes you do come across that way. So here is the question. How do you balance your view of the family with the families obligation to “Obey those who have rule over you?”

I think I’ve been honest about how my experiences have shaped my outlook, and I haven’t intended to diminish anyone else’s experiences in the process of explaining the why’s and wherefore’s of why and what I believe. Just because some of my experiences have been on the icky side of IFBism doesn’t mean that all Sunday Schools or YGs or Christian schools are poorly run, but just because others had a wonderful experience doesn’t mean I’m delusional.

I am truly sorry if I come across as a “No one can tell me what to do” person, because I am totally by-the-book - I’ve always been taunted with the Goody Two Shoes or Teacher’s Pet label. IRL I do what I am told and keep my mouth shut, but participating in a forum is a place where I can freely exchange ideas and receive valuable feedback. I hope passion isn’t being interpreted as arrogance, or a goofy sense of humor as being irreverent or harsh- but I don’t expect anyone else who has firmly held beliefs to apologize or back down when someone else has a different perspective.

My dh and I attempt to balance our view of family with church leadership, gov’t, and other authority structures by weighing their rules/standards/policies… how they affect the individual needs of our family… against the principles we perceive in the Word of God. IOW, we obey gov’t until they require something from us that would be in direct contradiction to a Biblical command. (Acts 5:29, for example) We obey and support church leadership, but if they began to mandate or practice something that we believed unScriptural or that interfered with our ability to effectively minister to our family, we would approach the pastor/teacher, discuss the problem, and find a solution. We have done this many times, usually with beneficial results. The ways that authority interacts and overlaps is sometimes difficult to balance, but the individual, the church and the family should support and compliment each other, not be in competition.

I recently heard a testimony by a woman whose husband died of a degenerative illness, and she had a problem dealing with the guilt of not being in church while she cared for her husband- why on earth would she feel guilty? Perhaps because of the misapplication of Hebrews 10:25- “If the church doors are open, you should be there or you’re not right with God!” ( I can’t be the only one who has heard that said.) I’ve listened to and read resignations by men who felt they needed to leave or step back from ministry duties to deal with family issues- this isn’t shameful, and it should be applauded, but it should make us ask why they were unable to do both? What happened that placed the needs of the family in apparent conflict with their ministry?

Thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt, Bro. Roger. http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php] http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-fc/flowers.gif

I am with you on many things. I still “do an invitation.’ But it is very soft sell - I never manipulate ANYMORE. BTW, That Preceeded Hyles —Charles Finney was probably the father of that wickedness. I recognize the influence….I grew up with the roots eventhough i wasnt in any of the churches. I have dealt with the attitude I described on more than one occassion. They would say they were doing what you and your family do. But they came to me (especially when I was younger). They would come to me to try to straighen the young preacher. And then their views of Scripture have often been down right silly. But such is life. I lovingly confront when it happens….and they usually leave b/c they don’t want to be confronted with their sin….they just want to feel spiritual without really being Godly. I am glad not all in the movement are that way. I have so far only had those that are come to me.

[Larry]
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.

Three words- one room schoolhouse, where the interaction between different age groups was a positive, where children could progress by ability instead of being held back by their age… and I posted the studies I did to show that I didn’t come up with all this stuff out of my pointy little head. I say that with a smile on my face, btw. I’m having fun, and I hope you are too.

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?

The studies I posted reveal that there is no reason for children or anyone else to be segregated until such a time as specialization is required, like seminary or engineering school. My 8 year old has learned so much math simply by watching his siblings that I am using a 5th grade math text, and he blew through the first 20 chapters. We underestimate what children learn simply by being with others, and they are better socialized by interacting with those older than they are instead of by their peers.

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 didn’t say that others teaching kids automatically undermines parental authority, but I do believe that when there are difference or questions, they should be addressed with the parent first, and not with the child. Teachers are often given too much authority by virtue of their position, whether or not they are qualified. For instance, there have been studies that show that teacher certification is not a good indicator of quality or ability, but yet we certify teachers in our public schools by the truckload, and bow to their ‘wisdom’. The aura of authority is also there in church- that the ‘teacher’ knows best because they are the ‘professional’. Well, if they truly are a qualified professional, there won’t be a problem with them understanding their role as a supportive partner to the parent. We agree there.

http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php] http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-fc/groupwave.gif

As for the rest, I’ve never said that the Bible refutes age segregation, but that if we were to prefer a Biblical pattern, the pattern evident is that of parents as primary teachers of their children, and that the only segregation given by clear directive is by gender, not age. That is where I believe churches should look for their ‘default’ position, not the recent dynamic created by such forces as child labor laws, G. Stanley Hall, and compulsory education… which is why I posted so many links earlier- to attempt to show that there is quite a body of research out there from which I have gleaned and that supports many of my suppositions. Age segregation doesn’t have to be a detriment to family unity, but it can and this should be considered when employing it in churches. We’ve been institutionalized to a great degree by the traditional classroom, and asking ourselves what repercussions we might be seeing in society and in our churches is IMO valid question.

[rogercarlson] I am with you on many things. I still “do an invitation.’ But it is very soft sell - I never manipulate ANYMORE. BTW, That Preceeded Hyles —Charles Finney was probably the father of that wickedness.

Exactly- most people don’t have a clue who Finney was or what he taught, but yet they practice an ‘invention’ of his all the time. And invitations are not a bad thing, it’s just that I think we should sometimes find out why we do what we do, know what I mean?

I recognize the influence….I grew up with the roots eventhough i wasnt in any of the churches. I have dealt with the attitude I described on more than one occassion. They would say they were doing what you and your family do. But they came to me (especially when I was younger). They would come to me to try to straighen the young preacher. And then their views of Scripture have often been down right silly. But such is life. I lovingly confront when it happens….and they usually leave b/c they don’t want to be confronted with their sin….they just want to feel spiritual without really being Godly. I am glad not all in the movement are that way. I have so far only had those that are come to me.

Ditto- I am wary of the patriarchy movement because of some things I’ve seen and heard, but I also know some pagan and atheistic homeschoolers… so I ask- regardless of what the person is doing with it, does what they believe/practice have any Scriptural validity and would it benefit my family?

It’s like quantum mechanics- I am totally fascinated by the subject, and as I read I see places where what they’ve discovered is perfectly consistent (or at least doesn’t contradict) what we understand about the universe from the Bible- but the conclusions the scientists reach are wrong because they’ve got their Godless evolutionary glasses on. The research is sound but their conclusions are faulty. Ditto the FIC and VF- they’ve reacted (my theory here) to some cultural extremes with extremes of their own, but that doesn’t make everything they suggest invalid.

BTW-My dh and I have never objected to our church leadership about any church-wide practice, but we have met with teachers about something they have presented in class, such as showing movies during class time (not a youth activity, and I’m not talking Sheffey), objecting to home education (not their place nor an appropriate venue), and the behind-our-back counseling of one of our children that was very critical of some of the choices we’d made (we let our 15 year old get a full time as an apprentice in an HVAC company and they felt we were wrong to do this). I think this is much different than trying to ‘straighten out the preacher’, and we always seek the counsel of our pastor when we are presented with this kind of conflict.

To those who manage to make the one room school model work, my hat’s off to you.
And I do think that sometimes age differences are exaggerated. But it does also depend on the size of the group.
Where I find a real tension is between challenging the older ones and keeping the attention of the younger ones. The younger ones require what I’ll call a higher stimulation-to-content ratio. I’m sure educational professionals have a better term. Anyway, what I mean by that is less data more engagement. The older ones have (usually… and hopefully!) longer attention spans and if we’re going to avoid wasting our time with time, they need more data and less energy on keeping it engaging.
(This pattern should pretty much continue until, say, seminary where you are expected to absorb vast quantities of data for hours on end without a break and absolutely nothing remotely approaching sensory stimulation… no physical interaction with the information, no peer interaction, and definitely no visuals! :D )

But there is another huge factor (somebody may have already mentioned) which is class size. At our church’s kids club, we now do a fair amount of teaching with them all together and we can generally keep them engaged from k to 6th grade. But it depends alot on the subject matter and how many of are in the room. There are things our 6th grades would benefit from getting more attention with but there is no way the K-2nd graders would keep listening to stuff that involves that much abstract thinking. So the result is teaching that is mostly concrete, involves alot of narrative, and you try to throw in some challenging stuff here and there for the older ones.
It really is not the ideal.
But we also divide up later and the kids who can read at a higher level are able to learn some things more at their level that way.

At our home school we have a 2 to 1 student to teacher ratio. So the “one room” works fine. I suspect it can work fine anywhere that a ratio like that can be maintained! Even up to 6 to 1 probably works pretty well if the teacher is really energetic and well prepared.
(Edit: I think some of these homeschools where they have 12 students—as well is the old one room school houses of yore—what really happens is that the older ones begin to serve as part time teachers as well. So the ratio still ends up lower than it might seem.)

[Susan R] 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.

1. Who here is saying that we should do this because “that’s the way we’ve always done it.” Statements like this are frustrating because I really don’t think that anyone on this thread would assert such a thing.

2. Sunday School was quite popular in the 1700’s and was certainly a big part of the ministry at Tab. under Charles Spurgeon. John “Chrysostom” (late 4th cen) conducted catechism classes for teens which preceded baptism. When you say segregation is very very recent, you must be talking about public education. The context of this thread is really education in the church.

I grew up in a three-room school (grades 1-8), with three grades in two of the rooms and the 7th and 8th graders in the highest room.

There were generally about 30 kids in in each of the lower rooms (about 10 kids per class).

I think we had the best of all worlds. Some classes were held jointly, but most were seperated by grade. The younger grades in the room were constantly learning from the instruction to the older grades, and each grade had lots of down time. So, I guess you could say it was a cross between age segregation and some level of integration.

I would say, however, (having taught in a Christian school for three years recently) that WHATEVER model you follow — it is infinitely harder today than it would have been 30 years ago. Unless your kids are from very diligent families, PowerPoint alone will not begin to hold their attention. Their have to be LOTS of moving parts (think video game), and even then you lose some.

Dan — I am not sure that catechism is a good example of age segregation (other than children from adults). If it is anything like the catechism I grew up with, it involves the objective study and memorization of large blocks of material by children of varying ages — seeming to prove more the idea that small children may be capable of more than we usually challenge them with today in our comfy PC world.

[Dan Miller]

[Susan R] 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.

1. Who here is saying that we should do this because “that’s the way we’ve always done it.” Statements like this are frustrating because I really don’t think that anyone on this thread would assert such a thing.

2. Sunday School was quite popular in the 1700’s and was certainly a big part of the ministry at Tab. under Charles Spurgeon. John “Chrysostom” (late 4th cen) conducted catechism classes for teens which preceded baptism. When you say segregation is very very recent, you must be talking about public education. The context of this thread is really education in the church.

Bro. Dan- I’m responding to what I perceive as incredulity that there was ever not such a thing as age segregation being incorporated to the degree it is today. That line is also from a song written by one of my favorite people, Harold Leake, so I’m sorry if it sounded snarky, as it was typed tongue-in-cheek.

Sunday Schools were originally organized to minister to and educate the poor, and people of all ages attended, because literacy was an issue for adults as well as children. They were not age segregated as they are today, due IMO to the advent of age segregated school classrooms. Now it all seems very normal and even intuitive, and as Aaron pointed out, some kind of segregation becomes necessary as the class size grows- but the ‘preferability’ of age segregation is in our heads, not in Scripture, the results, or the research. I’ve posted supportive documentation for anyone who cares to read it.

[Paul J. Scharf] Dan — I am not sure that catechism is a good example of age segregation (other than children from adults). If it is anything like the catechism I grew up with,

I do not believe that John’s curricula still exist. But he believed that one should be a young adult (early teens) before baptism so that they could learn the material first.

[Susan R] some kind of segregation becomes necessary as the class size grows- but the ‘preferability’ of age segregation is in our heads, not in Scripture

Susan, we can debate about what research and our human wisdom thinks is best. I am concerned right now about what Scripture requires, especially in light of the thinking of the individuals mentioned in the Opening Post.

So, if you want to argue that it’s a better idea to mix ages, go ahead. But it’s really off-topic, because that is not what Scott Brown is arguing.

(these quotes are from http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=31609151194, where both an audio and a pdf are available)

New Testament Commands, Patterns, and Principles

Now we don‘t need the Old Testament to prove this pattern as normative among God‘s people. People often say to me, ―Well, yes, I understand, age integration definitely is an Old Testament concept, but it has nothing to do with the New Testament.

I will quote more from the speaker on these NT references. I believe that if they showed what the speaker claims, they would have more present day application. And I believe that the speaker has done an appalling job of interpretaion and completely missed the point of them in significant ways.

1. 12-year-old Jesus
And so I would like for us to consider the New Testament. First of all, let‘s just acknowledge that as a 12-year-old boy, the Lord Jesus Christ was an active participant in spiritual life that included adults. He came with His parents to Jerusalem to participate in the Passover. And He, at age 12, was about his Father‘s business. He was comfortable being with the learned men in the community.
His parents found him in the temple courts sitting among the teachers listening to them and asking them questions.
Well, this was a normal occurrence. In our day, if you find 12-year-old boys mixing it up with the scholars and those who are in very serious conversations, it seems really weird. But it wasn‘t weird then because that wasn‘t the philosophy that was in play at that time. The Jews had an inflection point of appreciation and love toward the rising generation.

So Jesus was, as a 12-year-old boy, an active participant in the religious community.

Did the speaker miss the fact that Jesus, at age 12, was active in the religious community apart from his parents?
This is clearly not evidence for family-integrated education. If anything, it is support for splitting families up for education.
Or perhaps we should consider Jesus as special; would routine education policies apply to Him?

Of course, we must affirm that Jesus did not do wrong by seeking religious discussions and growth apart from his parents.

2. Children Present During Christ’s Preaching
Number two, children were present when Jesus taught. In some situations they were present even when Jesus was privately teaching His disciples.

Is there any evidence that their parents always accompanied them?
If not, this really doesn’t demonstrate anything, except, that Jesus taught age segregated Sunday school (Lucky kids!). And that God chose not to reveal whether parents were present.

3. Children in the Temple
We find children crying out in the temple in Matthew 21:15. ―But when the chief priests and the scribes saw the wonderful things that he did and the children crying out in the temple saying, ‘Hosanna to the Son of David,’ they were indignant. Children were crying out in the temple and there was indignation about it. But they were there. They were being included somehow in this experience.

Again, parents present? Nothing to learn here.

4. The Feeding of the Five Thousand
Then, number four, we see Jesus preaching to whole families on a number of different occasions, the feeding of the 5000, the feeding of the 4000, the Sermon on the Mount. These were very clearly age integrated settings. ―And they that had eaten were about five thousand men, beside women and children. You had a little boy with fish. Where did that little boy come from? Well, he was incorporated into the spiritual life of his whole family.

“He was incorporated into the spiritual life of his whole family.” Really, where does the Text say that?

5. Rhoda
One of the most delightful stories in the book of Acts is the story of Rhoda. The Church has gathered together and is praying for the release of Peter from prison. Then an angel comes and says, ―Peter, get up and tie on your sandals, put on your garment and follow me. So Peter put on his garment and followed him right out of the prison and he went back to where the Church was gathering. Peter knocks at the door of the gate and a girl named Rhoda comes to answer and she recognizes Peter‘s voice and, because of her gladness, she didn‘t open up the gate. Instead she ran back to tell the others that Peter was there, but they didn‘t believe her. ―Oh, I know, I know. Right, you are all excited. But Peter really was at the door.
This is just another example where there was a young person in the gathering of the church.

Descriptive.
But also, it’s descriptive of behavior that almost every church does. There are not many church movements that exclude kids from all church activities.

6. Paul’s Nephew
Number six, Paul‘s nephew and the 40 assassins. Now I actually put this one in just because I love this story. I don‘t really know what it proves, but I will tell you what I think it at least indicates.
Forty Jews banded together and took an oath that they would not eat until they had killed Paul. I love this story of the 40 assassins because you never hear about them again. Whatever happened to those guys? Well, there is this amazing scene where Paul‘s nephew, probably eight to 12 years old, overhears what the assassins are going to do. This little boy ends up getting interviewed by the commander and he becomes almost the center of this whole hubbub there and there.
Here is what I like about the story. The little boys were involved in the great conflicts and tumults of the Church. Fathers were taking their sons into the great conflicts and difficulties in the Church. They were there. I think they were training their sons. I think that boy was there because his mom and dad wanted him part of the action. They wanted him trained. They wanted him working and he ends up working for the rescue of the apostle Paul.
Well, I am not using this to prove that children should be in the meetings of the Church, I am just saying, ―Hey, the children were everywhere in the most unusual places you can imagine.

Yeah… (emphasis mine).

7. The Early Church
Well, number seven, children were present during the meetings of the early church as they met from house to house. In the early church, the home was the gathering place for the times of worship and celebration. There were no buildings until the third century. And so the church generally met in homes, though sometimes they met in open squares and places like that.

I didn’t even see any Scripture in this one.

8. Eutychus
Number eight, children were present during the church services in the book of Acts. We opened up this session reading about the presence of Eutychus in the church in Tyre.

[from the beginning]
The book of Acts has many delightful stories that involve young people in the Church. For example, this story here is about Eutychus, a young boy probably eight to 12 years old, who around midnight fell asleep in the meeting of the church and tumbled out the window.

Again, nobody is arguing that kids should be excluded from all church activities.

9. Ephesus and Colossae
Number nine, children were present in the Church gatherings in Ephesus and Colossae. The apostle Paul wrote a letter to each of these churches and those letters were read to the whole congregations. In these letters, Paul addresses specific types of people in the churches. He says, ―Husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the Church. He is talking to husbands. Then he talks to wives. ―Wives, submit to your own husbands as to the Lord. And then he turns to the children and says, ―Children. He is eyeball to eyeball now with these children, ―Obey your parents in the Lord for this is right. Then he turns to servants and he says, ―Servants, obey your masters.
So there obviously was this supposition in the mid of Paul that the children were going to be there when that letter was read. The apostle uses a very interesting term when he speaks to these children. He uses a Greek grammatical term called the vocative of direct address. He is directly addressing the children in the meeting of the Church.
To me it is obvious that children were present in the meetings of the early churches. That is why Bible commentators like William Hendrickson say this:
―The apostle assumes that among those who will be listening when his letter is read to the various congregations, the children will not be lacking. They are included in God‘s covenant and Jesus loves them.
―Were Paul to be present with us today he would be shocked at the spectacle of children attending the Sunday school and then going home just before the regular worship service. He has a word addressed directly and specifically to the children.
I think it is remarkable that William Hendrickson speaks of the spectacle of the idea of children going off to Sunday school. Well, why is that? Well, that is because we live in an era where something has been invented that did not exist before. Why in the world are we continuing it? Have we seen such great fruit from it? Has it honestly been such a blessing to our children?
So the meetings of the Church included young boys like Eutychus. They included young boys like Paul‘s nephew. They included young girls like Rhoda and they were obviously being addressed in the epistles. So we need to understand that children were not in age segregated Sunday schools, but they were in the midst of the meeting and they were taught side by side with everyone else. The meetings of the early Church were conducted with a full complement of relationships.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda#Repetition] Persuasive techniques aside, it really doesn’t matter how many times you say this shows something. Inclusion of various types of people in the letter does not mean that the author thought they MUST all be present at the same moment when it was read. Sections of Romans 16 indicate that the letter was expected to be read many times in various house churches and that some recipients would hear the message at different times.
The directives to wives, husbands, and children only prove that the author had a message for each and expected that, at some point, each would receive their message.

10. Older Women Commanded to Teach the Younger Women
Number ten, women are commanded to teach the younger women, Titus 2. This indicates an age integrated type of approach in the Church, that there is the presence of the old and the young together.

This certainly does not indicate age-integration.

In fact, I take this passage to mean that there are qualifications for effective older female teachers. And the church has a responsibility to note those women who are “honest, holy, and good teachers so that they can” teach the younger.

So, in summary, out of his 10 New Testament reasons, here’s the results:
7 of them do not make the point that he seems to think they do.
2 actually argue for segregation.
1 doesn’t contain any Scripture at all.
0 actually indicate what he says.

[Dan Miller] Susan, we can debate about what research and our human wisdom thinks is best. I am concerned right now about what Scripture requires, especially in light of the thinking of the individuals mentioned in the Opening Post.

So, if you want to argue that it’s a better idea to mix ages, go ahead. But it’s really off-topic, because that is not what Scott Brown is arguing.

Then I’ll bow out, because I’d rather discuss the viability and Scripturality of the idea. The OP does not indicate that the conversation should be restricted to Mr. Brown, but I will submit to what you think is the best direction for this thread.

[Susan R] I can’t prove the non-existence of something- burden of proof is on those who believe that age-segregation is supportable Biblically.

Susan I am not sure what that means “I can’t prove the non-existence of something.”

Burden of proof lies with one who is arguing for something as well as with one who is arguing against something. Both sides have the obligation to prove their position. I was simply asking you to provide your biblical arguments that support your notion that age segregation is not biblical. Not for me to argue with, but because this topic interests me and I would like to see a cogent, biblical argument, which I assume that you have.

[wbarkema]

[Susan R] I can’t prove the non-existence of something- burden of proof is on those who believe that age-segregation is supportable Biblically.

Susan I am not sure what that means “I can’t prove the non-existence of something.”

Burden of proof lies with one who is arguing for something as well as with one who is arguing against something. Both sides have the obligation to prove their position. I was simply asking you to provide your biblical arguments that support your notion that age segregation is not biblical. Not for me to argue with, but because this topic interests me and I would like to see a cogent, biblical argument, which I assume that you have.

I sent you a PM so as to not take this thread off topic.