# Family Integrated Church Movement



## PuritanCovenanter

I read an article today that I thought addressed some pointed concerns and charges that the Family-Integrated Church Movement has tried to address and charge the Church as a whole about. And since it isn't all long I asked the author if I could repost it here on the Puritanboard. I received his permission. It really encouraged me that we might not be doing Church in such a bad way as the FICM has charged the whole Church with. Anyways tell me what you think. 



> What Is a Family Integrated Church?
> By Pastor Shawn C. Mathis
> 
> Is your Christian education based upon evolutionary and secular thinking? It is if your church practices the usual age-segregated Sunday school according to a new church movement.
> 
> The family-integrated church movement, primarily within the homeschooling community, is a self-conscious challenge to classic Christian nurture. It has already affected some Reformed churches. This paper will explain what it is and examine its assertions by the Word of God and church history.
> 
> Many such churches are associated with the National Center for Family Integrated Churches (NCFIC). The center was publicly part of the Vision Forum organization until 2009.[1] The NCFIC, among other things, is about “uniting church and home,” inveighing against the typical Evangelical church’s abundance of age-segregated, special-interest programs. It unequivocally rejects age- and family-segregation that separates children from parents.
> 
> Churches interested in associating with this organization must be in “substantial agreement” with the NCFIC confession, a “working document.” Churches are not officially endorsed and denominational affiliation is no barrier to enrollment.[2] Although not a church planting agency, it wants to “encourage new church plants” based upon this model.
> 
> The confession includes a laudable rejection of children’s worship services and affirmations of parental responsibility; it also includes some questionable assertions. For instance, it rejects “family-fragmenting, age-segregated, peer-oriented, youth driven, and special-interest programs” (Article VII). This is another way of rejecting typical Sunday schools, youth groups and the like.
> 
> The core challenge of the confession is Article XI:
> 
> We affirm that there is no scriptural pattern for comprehensive age segregated discipleship, and that age segregated practices are based on unbiblical, evolutionary and secular thinking which have invaded the church.
> 
> This affirmation uses unqualified language beyond the vague adjective comprehensive. While the confession never uses the words “Sunday school” and the like, the unqualified language and logic is clear: “age segregated practices are based on unbiblical, evolutionary and secular thinking”; modern Sunday schools are age segregated; therefore, they are based on “evolutionary and secular thinking.” This serious charge is also publicly asserted by the leaders of this organization.
> 
> In his lecture about the history of Sunday schools, the founder and current board member, Mr. Phillips, declares these schools a “modern invention without biblical and historical precedent—period.” He also asserts that today’s church has “ . . . an entirely new hierarchy of social groups based on age: . . . dayschools . . . adolescence . . . PMS for women of certain age . . . these are all variations of evolutionary hellish thinking.”[3] Mr. Phillips claims that such special-interest thinking resulted from Greek thinking (youth and efficiency) instead of Hebraic thinking (discipleship and relationships). In fact, the “modern classroom . . . is a distinctly Greek and pagan approach to education”—an approach initiated by the Devil himself.[4]
> 
> It is certainly true that age-segregated programs (and special-interest programs in general) have been abused by churches and become crutches for too many families. Too many churches readily regulate the family into niche-market “ministries,” keeping the families busy while teaching them little of God’s Word. And too many families like it that way: there is less responsibility for them and they feel godly. Even so, do such abuses warrant rejection of any type of special-interest programs or age-segregation? Are all age-segregated approaches unbiblical, even evolutionary?
> 
> Such a serious charge is supported with three main claims: the “desert island test” of the Bible, the evolutionary roots of modern education, and the revival of families.
> 
> First there is the novel “desert island test”:
> 
> “[If all you had was the Bible on a desert island] . . . would you naturally conclude that you should fragment children along age-groups and put them in grade-based classroom . . . would you see a foundation . . . would you see a pattern, would there be any ground, any refuge in God’s Word that leads you to mimic this approach?”[5]
> 
> In other words, if the education method cannot be found in the Bible (by command or example), then it is forbidden (cp. Articles II, XI). In contrast, the Reformers stood upon the liberty of the Word of God (Rom. 14:4). For example, Christian liberty allows believers and churches to use note-taking, picture-books, and catechisms. They are neither commanded nor forbidden, yet are perfectly allowable if used correctly.
> 
> In fact, Luke (2:42ff.) explains that as a boy, Jesus was separated (segregated) from His family while under their authority. Furthermore, the temple layout at that time was family segregated: there was a court of the men and a court of the women (and children). The synagogue, regularly attended by Jesus, the Apostles and the early church similarly divided the family.
> 
> Moreover, the apostles preached to women and children without the presence of their male heads (Acts 16:13). Nehemiah 8:2 records the public meeting of the men and women of Israel, “all that could hear with understanding.” It appears that those of mature understanding attended, leaving those not able to understand (smaller children) at home or with the servants.
> 
> Next, it is asserted that many methods of education are evolutionary in origin. Yet, historically, children were separated from family, even age-segregated, before Darwin’s book published in 1859.[6] During the time of Christ many a young Jewish boy attended age-segregated day schools. The early church fathers and councils encouraged the creations of schools. New England worship services segregated the women from the men, and the children sat together elsewhere with adult supervision. Catechizing by ministers or elders could include separating children from parents and boys from girls. Larger schools, such as at Calvin’s Geneva, included seven grade levels with a typical child in a grade for about a year before testing for the next grade-level.
> 
> Lastly, there is the claim of revival:
> 
> Home educators, almost by definition, have turned their heart to their children [Mal. 4] . . . So there’s been a revival that’s taking place in the heart of these homeschool families. And this revival works itself out to the local church . . . our prayer: every Christian in the world is in a family integrated church. And there should be nothing but that, but you know what that is going to lead to? That’s going to lead to people homeschooling! . . . [7]
> 
> Three points will demonstrate this as a misguided prayer: 1. The Malachi four passage involves the family and the church with the minister (the prophet) as an instrument of revival in the family. 2. Luke 1:16ff. interprets “fathers” and “sons” in moral or spiritual terms. 3. Why pray for more such churches instead of more Reformed churches?
> 
> In summary, even though this confession’s emphasis on family is commendable, its unqualified rejection of age-segregation is biblically unfounded and contrary to historical facts. There is no Biblical “desert island test”; there is no biblical prohibition against properly practiced segregation; and there is no revival that focuses on family-integrated churches.
> 
> The church does not need another movement. In today’s climate of Christian darkness, churches and families do not need another method; what they need is the old message. A 2008 Pew Research Center study notes that fifty-seven percent of confessing Evangelicals believe in other ways to heaven than through Christ.[8] Ignorance about basic Law and Gospel is wide-spread as well.
> 
> And in an already fragmented church landscape, an emphasis upon this narrow issue only creates another sub-culture that weakens Christian unity. It also diminishes the role of the church in nurturing the children (Matt. 28:19, 20; Deut. 31:12ff.).
> 
> The views documented here are integral to the NCFIC’s very existence. To sign the confession is to publicly associate with these public sentiments. In spite of the leaders’ strong denunciations, it is hopeful that open dialogue can move beyond methods to uniting over the message of the Gospel.
> _______________________
> 
> [1] In January 2009 the NCFIC changed their site from Vision Forum to Welcome to NCFIC.org - Promoting Biblical Harmony Between Churches and Families. The confession was expanded too. Mr. Phillips (president of Vision Forum), is on the NCFIC board; his articles and lectures are used by the center.
> 
> [2] The registered Colorado churches include Dispensationalists, Presbyterians, Seventh Day Adventists, a range of worship styles and infant, child and father-led communion (as of Spring, 2011).
> 
> [3] Track 2, The History of the Sunday School Movement, Doug Phillips; track 13, post-Civil War era. Emphasis mine.
> 
> [4] Vision Forum about-page, 2010; History, track 3.
> 
> [5] Ibid, emphasis original, track 13; cp. track 2. Scott Brown, the center’s director, makes a similar argument, “Yet this structure [Sunday school] cannot be found anywhere in the Bible. It is not commanded in Scripture.” The Sufficiency of Scripture at Work in the Family Integrated Church, Scott Brown, NCFIC online, Jan. 2011
> 
> >[6] Such facts and more are documented at ChristianNurture.blogspot.com or in good history books.
> 
> [7] Phillips, quoted from “The Family-Integrated Church Movement,” interview, Generations Radio, sermonaudio.com, June 12, 2006. This broadcast is favorably referenced by the NCFIC blog, January 21, 2009.
> 
> [8] Pew Research Center Publications, Religion in America, Religion in America: Non-Dogmatic, Diverse and Politically Relevant - Pew Research Center



Pastor Shawn Mathis is an Orthodox Presbyterian Minister in Denver. I have appreciated a few things he writes for 'The Examiner' in Denver Colorado.

Christian Nurture

Aspiring PolyMathis


----------



## Bethel

PuritanCovenanter said:


> The family-integrated church movement, primarily within the homeschooling community, is a self-conscious challenge to classic Christian nurture. It has already affected some Reformed churches. This paper will explain what it is and examine its assertions by the Word of God and church history.



I found this statement a bit surprising. Even though we've been homeschooling since 2003, I only recently became aware of the NCFIC and their family-integrated church movement right here on the PB...maybe we don't get out enough.


----------



## LawrenceU

I would recommend the author spend a bit more time researching the reasoning behind those who are proponents of age-inclusive worship and education before attempting to debunk the notion with a simplified essay. I am not looking to enter into _another_ debate. That has been done ad nauseum on the PB.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

There are many of us who are members of family integrated churches that do not associate with the NCFIC. While we agree that an age integrated model is best, we disagree with the NCFIC that all other models of ministry constitute sin. The problem that most of us have with the current church model is not so much the concept of it, but rather the execution of it. Most Sunday School classes for children consist of coloring and eating crackers for an hour, while the youth ministry consists of a twenty year old with spiked hair and ripped jeans playing basketball and listening to rock music with my teenager. I'm sorry, but my teenager already has plenty of friends he can do that with. What he needs is someone to guide him into manhood. Ultimately it is the responsibility of the parents to ensure that their children are raised in the fear and adminition of the Lord. That is all we are doing, fulfilling our God given responsibility in a manner that is most efficient and effective.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

The article was originally posted here, where folks have commented,
What Is a Family Integrated Church? « Johannes Weslianus


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

LawrenceU said:


> I would recommend the author spend a bit more time researching the reasoning behind those who are proponents of age-inclusive worship and education before attempting to debunk the notion with a simplified essay. I am not looking to enter into _another_ debate. That has been done ad nauseum on the PB.



I understand Lawrence. I was just a bit impressed by his address of some of the strongest pronouncements and charges that were made and referenced. I know the movement as a whole is not monolithic. But the root has some problems and I think he addressed some of them pretty good.


----------



## Jack K

The article made some good points. Those on the extreme edge of the family-integrated side of things sometimes get overly dogmatic and claim that any hint of the other method is automatically damaging and unbiblical. That actually hurts the good points in the movement because they are rightly dismissed for being extremists.

The fact of the situation is that a MIX of family-integrated and age-separated ministries is fast becoming the most popular model in evangelical America. If you go to any of the big children's/youth ministry conferences you'll find half or more of the sessions are about mixing whole-family ministry into the old age-separated model. Ditto if you look at the new curricula coming from the publishing houses. It is THE big trend, rapidly being embraced. Churches that used to be very age-segregated are seeing the problems in that and are looking to change, but without giving up the old model completely.

Now, there are many, many problems with the typical evangelical children's/youth ministry conferences, publishers and such. Don't get me started. But the trend toward more parental involvement in the old method is a good trend.

This is, in fact, what I do. We have age-separated Sunday school classes. But we also have all-family worship services. We invite parents to sit in on their kids' classes whenever they like and urge them to do so at least once a year. We replace the regular classes with a special mixed-age class one week a month. We have periodic family events. And we insist teachers give parents a weekly report on what their kids are being taught.

As a teacher of kids, I work with parents regularly about being involved in my class, and I probably spend at least an hour every week writing up detailed notes of my lessons to hand out to parents so they can know what's being taught and can follow up. So if I read something from one of these hard-core family-integrated guys who says that because I allow kids into my classroom at all without a parent in hand, I am a bad, bad Christian who is a enemy of God's pattern for family life... I want to say "give me a break!"

There are advantages to kids and parents being separated sometimes, especially for learning that's particularly suited to their age level. And there are great things about kids and parents learning and worshipping together. BOTH are good, and it's a godly thing to be able to do both.


----------



## puritanpilgrim

> Nehemiah 8:2 records the public meeting of the men and women of Israel, “all that could hear with understanding.” It appears that those of mature understanding attended, leaving those not able to understand (smaller children) at home or with the servants.



You can't make that assumption from that passage.

What really matters is not whether or not your children are in Sunday School for and hour on Sunday, but rather that you daily take time to instruct from the word of God in family worship. Sunday School makes very little impact in the life of a child in comparison to a father daily leading them in prayer, singing, scripture, catechism and exposition. Don't leave this task up to someone else to accomplish in one hour a week amonst 10-30 other children. Be a man and do it yourself.


----------



## jogri17

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Pastor Shawn Mathis is an Orthodox Presbyterian Minister in Denver. I have appreciated a few things he writes for 'The Examiner' in Denver Colorado.



Hmm... this article makes me wonder if a presbytery investigation is necessary?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

An investigation probably isn't necessary. It seems to run in Congregational Churches a bit more from what I am seeing.


----------



## Shawn Mathis

LawrenceU said:


> I would recommend the author spend a bit more time researching the reasoning behind those who are proponents of age-inclusive worship and education before attempting to debunk the notion with a simplified essay.



Hello Lawrence,

I welcome any helpful resources or summaries that you would recommend (not to debate you of course). I have not had the privilege to be part of this bulletin board so for me (and many others) this is not new.

The research I did (and it was extensive) is behind this essay and may be brought forward as circumstances dictate. I picked the arguments used repeatedly by this group. If they have better or deeper arguments I would be interested in knowing about them.

thank you,

---------- Post added at 10:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:09 PM ----------




puritanpilgrim said:


> What really matters is not whether or not your children are in Sunday School for and hour on Sunday, but rather that you daily take time to instruct from the word of God in family worship. Sunday School makes very little impact in the life of a child in comparison to a father daily leading them in prayer, singing, scripture, catechism and exposition.



Hello PuritanPilgrim,

I agree: men should man-up and instruct and lead their families. They should not withdraw and think others can do it for him. And you are correct: time-wise Sunday School makes little impact. Yet qualitatively, it may have a strong impact. I'm sure you would agree that quantity time is not always quality time. Just think of a powerful sermon.


----------



## Shawn Mathis

Bill The Baptist said:


> There are many of us who are members of family integrated churches that do not associate with the NCFIC



Hello Bill,

I am aware of that fact. My essay only stipulates that many churches join the NCFIC and proceed to analyze the confession. I know there are other organizations (or were). It is unfortunate that one group gets all the focus. I look at the situation as similar to someone writing a short paper on conservative Presbyterian churches--it will leave out many of the micro-presbyteries and focus on the bigger denominations. In a similar fashion, what the big Presbyterian denominations do reflect upon the others. When the reflection gets ugly enough the smaller churches may take public action to differentiate themselves.

Similarly, I wonder if any of the other leaders or organizations have or would be willing to differentiate themselves from the questionable parts of the NCFIC? Frankly, if they dropped the evolutionary, etc. assertions I could probably sign their confession.

---------- Post added at 11:05 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:57 PM ----------




Bill The Baptist said:


> The problem that most of us have with the current church model is not so much the concept of it, but rather the execution of it. Most Sunday School classes for children consist of coloring and eating crackers for an hour, while the youth ministry consists of a twenty year old with spiked hair and ripped jeans playing basketball and listening to rock music with my teenager. I'm sorry, but my teenager already has plenty of friends he can do that with. What he needs is someone to guide him into manhood.



Bill, 

Amen! 
Unfortunately, some FIC talk in black-and-white language about the "current church model." Distinctions are lost in rhetoric. Can their not be a mature use of age-segregation? (Calvin thought so!) Cannot other mature men besides the fathers be an influence upon the young men (ala Titus 2?)? That is the model I followed beginning as a deacon. I found, and with the knowledge of their fathers, two young men to spend time with as men (not as children/teenagers). 

The question I kept asking myself in my research (and you may help me out here): Why cannot churches simply argue this approach instead of using buzz words, blanket assertions and negative denunciations? Just say: we are Reformed and take the church and family seriously! I suspect part of it is because some of these leaders/groups wish to reach out to the non-Reformed. 

(BTW: Spurgeon had Sunday school...)


----------



## Bill The Baptist

Shawn Mathis said:


> (BTW: Spurgeon had Sunday school...)



I personally have no problem with Sunday School if it is done right. The problem people like myself face is that it is virtually impossible to find a Baptist church that does it right, so our only real option is to go family integrated. Hopefully one day people will wake up and do it right again.


----------



## Shawn Mathis

Jack K said:


> There are advantages to kids and parents being separated sometimes, especially for learning that's particularly suited to their age level.



Hello Jack,

What you describe about getting the parents involved is a good thing. And kid's learning at their age level is something some signers of the NCFIC confession of told me--but the confession does _not _say that but says the opposite. Again, distinctions are lost in rhetoric.

For those who do not know, your mature mix approach is wholly denied by Scott Brown in his latest book, _A Weed in the Church_ (yes, I have a review of that one too.): "There are a number of important reasons why as little as one hour per week [Sunday School] is problematic for those Christians who want to be faithful to the directives of the Word of God. (225, cp. 222). Although in one section he reverses himself by stating, "there are times when it may be appropriate for various ages of people to meet for specific purposes...[this is] not to be the normative pattern...rather an exception" (p.232). 

I just recently discovered this exception which is not found in their confession or other articles. Maybe they should put that in their confession. Of course, then everyone asks: what is "normative" mean? what does "exception" look like?


----------



## Damon Rambo

Bill The Baptist said:


> There are many of us who are members of family integrated churches that do not associate with the NCFIC. While we agree that an age integrated model is best, we disagree with the NCFIC that all other models of ministry constitute sin. The problem that most of us have with the current church model is not so much the concept of it, but rather the execution of it. Most Sunday School classes for children consist of coloring and eating crackers for an hour, while the youth ministry consists of a twenty year old with spiked hair and ripped jeans playing basketball and listening to rock music with my teenager. I'm sorry, but my teenager already has plenty of friends he can do that with. What he needs is someone to guide him into manhood. Ultimately it is the responsibility of the parents to ensure that their children are raised in the fear and adminition of the Lord. That is all we are doing, fulfilling our God given responsibility in a manner that is most efficient and effective.


 
This is an excellent post, and points to the real problem. I am a Student Minister, and I have to say I am looked at strangely by other Youth guys, when I tell them that we play very little games, that our meetings center around expository preaching, etc. 

I have to say BOTH extremes are wrong. The NCFIC version of "Integrated worship," that basically tells the teens "Shut up, sit with us, and do things the way we like them done," is wrong, in my opinion. Students need individual discipleship; they need the chance to serve, and the chance to lead. One of my teens leads worship every Wednesday. He is being trained to minister, etc. This would be impossible if we were integrated to such a point that we were not allowed to do ANYTHING segregated. Discipleship demands segregation at some point! Sitting around listening to someone talk, even preach, is not discipleship in and of itself. Discipleship involves training, and training demands some type of segregation.

On the other hand, nothing bugs me worse than parents that just send their youth out to the Youth building, and are completely uninvolved in their students lives. It also bugs me that the church in general (especially the really old and the teens), seems to be caught in a mentality that EVERYTHING must be segregated. There is time and need for both.


----------



## Jack K

Bill The Baptist said:


> I personally have no problem with Sunday School if it is done right. The problem people like myself face is that it is virtually impossible to find a Baptist church that does it right, so our only real option is to go family integrated. Hopefully one day people will wake up and do it right again.



Yeah, I'd say this is what's behind things for many parents who end up rejecting any separate classes for kids. They've been burned by bad Sunday School or bad youth groups. If churches put more work into making sure all of these classes were good and worthwhile classes spiritually and doctrinally, rather than just fun and convenient classes, fewer folks would be tempted to reject kids' classes outright.


----------



## lynnie

_When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me._

It is silly to think that children reason like adults. Up to age 7-8 they certainly are childish and up to age 12 or so they often continue to reason in childish ways. To try and say the sort of renewing of the mind that happens with a sermon is the same for an adult and a five year old ignores developmental reality. I know people that didn't want their four year old in a class with a simple bible story and craft and songs, because somehow the mystical anointing on the preached word in the big adult room was better. By 7th grade I am personally all for having them hear the sermon, and certainly I'd want even toddlers in for the first half with songs and bible reading and prayer. But what is it about " reasoning as a child" that the FICM can't accept? I have never figured them out except to write it off as legalism.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

I find this kind of reasoning fallacious that only looks to the problems in education since the introduction of evolutionary thinking and throws the baby out with the bathwater.

What does the author suppose the court of women and children was for in the Temple? Furthermore, a study of Edersheim's works on Jewish social life will see a longstanding "segregation" of age groups for education. Whatever else you might say about the Jewish community in Christ's time they had not divided up the ages for education due to evolutionary theory.

Obviously there are problems with the methods of instruction that have arisen in our days but recognizing the cognitive level of different age groups and instructing them accordingly is something that the light of nature teaches us and not Darwin.


----------



## Scot

SermonAudio.com - Answering Critics of the Family-Integrated Church Movement


----------



## Shawn Mathis

Lynnie,

That is an excellent verse. It would be great if the NCFIC confession actually made such a distinction (Brown's new book does but only mentioned in passing without significantly impacting his system).

And for clarify: I agree with the NCFIC that children's worship services are wrong. That children (as much as they are able) should stay in public worship. But Sunday school is not public worship.


----------



## Herald

One of the problems in discussing this topic is defining exactly what is meant by the Family Integrated Church Movement. How does one define it? Is it primarily theologically based or methodologically based? Is it an all or nothing proposition or can churches/individuals cherry pick the best components? I consider myself FICM friendly in that I see the benefit of having the family together during corporate worship. However, I am not in favor of sweeping mandates and generalizations that may not work in every situation. In defense of those who advocate FICM it is not fair to label them using fringe definitions. Not every FICM advocate believes in house churches or a general disdain for traditional churches. Not every FICM female dresses as though they're living in the era of Little House on the Prairie. But the same is true of those who do not agree with the FICM. Just because a church has age segregated Sunday School or a youth group doesn't mean they are doing Satan's work or that father's have abandoned their children to the world. I think genuine charity is called for on both sides.


----------



## Shawn Mathis

Hello Scot,

Thank you kindly for bringing that talk to my attention. I think I would recommend that as a good summary of what NCFIC does not believe. And a good model of men wanting to unite with those in disagreement. 

He stressed the lack of charity and scholarship found among the bulk (apparently all of them) of the critics. The overt and gross errors should be embarrassing. That is one reason why I wrote what I did: I could not find any none emotional and scholarly (read: footnotes!) papers.

That brings me to the assertions made in various articles (both Mr. Brown's and Phillips and others) making questionable historical claims without clear and detailed documentations. I do not plan to dwell on those problems but they have been answered in my detailed essays on Christian education history (or will be). The assumption is that they are following the Reformed model (24"). But no evidence is forthwith. The one common unfounded claim in this lecture was that home education is the "original" and most prevalent method. I've never seen any documented evidence of such a sweeping claim. 

The theologically unclear assumption (the "desert island test") that a precept, principle or practice must be found in the word of God before implementing a method has been asserted over and over yet never exegetically proven other than some proof-texting and the broad assumption of sola Scriptura (in all my research anyway). The regulative principle of worship is different than Christian liberty. I think that is a constant confusion (see Brown's latest book, chapter five).

In answering the critics (answers I already knew), he did not answer any of my concerns (unless I missed something). Perhaps these concerns are answered elsewhere?

Lastly, he bemoans that lack of even one "faithful critic...an honorable critique" (but seems to think this involves meeting him in an interview.) That is something to bemoan indeed.


Scot said:


> SermonAudio.com - Answering Critics of the Family-Integrated Church Movement


----------



## Shawn Mathis

Herald said:


> I consider myself FICM friendly in that I see the benefit of having the family together during corporate worship



Greetings Herald,

That descriptive is not the defining mark of FIC; it is Reformed. The FIC believes that (and I mentioned in my essay) but it believes more: age-segregation is evolutionary (even hellish). 

I think churches that encourage children to attend public worship should state as much. The problem is using a new word. In my humble opinion, it is too late to reclaim this word. It is like the Republican party: you join it, you get stuck with the good and the bad...or you join a third party.

I also understand that some critical of the movement have been uncharitable and unfair. But historically, this group came out first guns-a-blaz'n as the quotes I used prove (c.2003). Certainly my essay never claimed they practiced "hellish" thinking and ended on a positive note.

---------- Post added at 03:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:31 PM ----------




Herald said:


> I consider myself FICM friendly in that I see the benefit of having the family together during corporate worship



Greetings Herald,

I hope you understand that descriptive is not the defining mark of the NCFIC; it is Reformed. Certainly the NCFIC believes that (as I mentioned in my essay) but it believes more: age-segregation is evolutionary (even hellish). 

I think churches that encourage children to attend public worship should state as much. They don't need a new word. In my humble opinion, it is too late to reclaim this new word anyway. It is like the Republican party: you join it, you get stuck with the good and the bad...or you join a third party.

I also understand that some critical of the movement have been uncharitable and unfair. But historically, this group came out first guns-a-blaz'n as the quotes I used prove (c.2003). Certainly my essay never claimed they practiced "hellish" thinking and ended on a positive note.


----------



## Herald

Shawn,

Hence the phrase "FICM friendly". I am sympathetic with some of it's goals, but I am would not call myself and FICM adherent. Also, I am not about to slap the Reformed label on the FICM. FICM churches/individuals may be Reformed, but they don't define the Reformed faith. The Reformed faith is defined by set theological beliefs. If any movement is in concert with those beliefs that is all well and good, but it doesn't mean the movement is Reformed.


----------



## Shawn Mathis

Bill, That was my mistake: I took friendly as akin to adherent.

Of course, I meant Reformed "practice"--children in public worship is the historical practice--not Reformed theology. I think that many people are sympathetic (I am!) but just don't know what the large organization believes. I hope more do now.


----------



## Herald

Shawn Mathis said:


> Bill, That was my mistake: I took friendly as akin to adherent.



Shawn, no problem. 



Shawn Mathis said:


> Of course, I meant Reformed "practice"--children in public worship is the historical practice--not Reformed theology. I think that many people are sympathetic (I am!) but just don't know what the large organization believes. I hope more do now.



Clarification is of utmost importance; especially on an interactive message board. When I first joined the Puritan Board I assumed that my words were clear and concise. If you learn anything during your first few months on the board it'll be that it's impossible to over-clarify.

Blessings, brother.


----------



## Shawn Mathis

For those interested in an actual dialogue about this movement, a young NCFIC intern with connections to Scott Brown has responded to my article at Wes's site, here. I shall be writing an article response, Lord willing.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Do I smell a book?

Wow, Did he even attempt to address your solid quotes and references? It doesn't appear he did. He did seem to suggest that his rebuke or calling the church back (via the call of Semper Reformanda) from your erroneous ways of segregation was done in the correct Spirit of Christ. But he didn't even give a defense or a reason why those who practice it were in error. Did I read it correctly Pastor? He sure quoted a lot of scripture and made some charges but didn't really respond to your article. At least that is what I read. Maybe I was just trying to hard to cut through all the stuff to find out what he was really saying in relation to what you wrote.


----------



## Shawn Mathis

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Did he even attempt to address your solid quotes and references?



Snyder, I am not sure which guy you are referring to. But either way, no one has defended or explained the "desert island test"--the principle underlining the entire debate. The closest is Ryan's new post which quotes some early 1800s particular Baptists--but then I'm a Presbyterian


----------



## Curt

As usual, our own Fred T. Greco is right on:



> Fred Greco writes: “I appreciate your article. I believe that the fundamental problem with the FIC movement is that it is centered around a view of the family, and not the gospel. That is why on the list of recommended churches (“Find a Church” “Network of Churches”) you can find listed: Mennonite, Dispensational, Charismatic, Reformed, Calvary Bible, Primitive Baptist and more.”



I believe in families worshipping together when possible. We also have a "Family Sunday School" class and a "Family Bible Study." But we have not turned "Family" into a denomination, encompassing all manner of theological distinctives (or non-distinctives, as the case may be).

Thanks, Fred.


----------



## Ne Oublie

Amen, Curt!

I commented on the blog post Shawn mentioned for my 2 cents.

The philosophy is really not far from Anabaptist, Fundamental Baptist, why not use the references there to show historical precedence? AUTONOMY! 

The sufficiency of Scripture is cited much, but the interpretation/hermeneutics is the issue here. Rhetoric and eisigesis is used to manipulate the agenda, as always.


----------



## Herald

Shawn, one aspect of your post-blog post dialogue that I appreciate is your attempt at properly framing the debate. It bothers me that those who speak on behalf of the NCFIC accuse those they disagree with of misinterpreting their words (both published and spoken). Why is that?

sent from my most excellent Motorola Atrix.


----------



## Shawn Mathis

LawrenceU said:


> would recommend the author spend a bit more time researching the reasoning behind those who are proponents of age-inclusive worship and education before attempting to debunk the notion with a simplified essay.



"So, in answer to your question, overall, the description was accurate and I greatly appreciate all the references. Some have slammed us and not even attempted to prove that it was so."
--Ryan Glick, current part-time worker for NCFIC, member at a church plant of Scott Brown, one-time intern for Mr. Brown and showed my essay to Mr. Brown as well. See comment section of my essay at Wes White's site.


----------



## LawrenceU

Shawn, I apologise for not returning to this. I have been very busy and really have only ducked into the PB for a few moments at a time when I had a spare bit of it. Perhaps the Lord will allow me more time and I can address the issue to which I was referring, to wit: the root of modern age-segregated education. (Just so you know, I am not a proponent of the Patriarchy Movement, am not a hardline NCFIC sort, but I do agree that the age segregated education as it has developed is unwise at best and is often un-Biblical.) Note: I did not merely refer to modern age-segregated education in the church, but the principle over all. 

Historically age-segregation in the church was not the warp and woof of discipleship as it has become. It was only after adopting the same reasoning as secular educational institutions that it began to become entrenched in the church. The contrast between the origins of Sunday School and what they are today is a good illustration.

I agree that your article is one of the better ones I have read. I sincerely appreciate the tone of the article. It was refreshing to read a rebuttal that was charitable. In the end I, even though we may disagree, we are still brothers. That is often lost in many debates / discussions. I commend you for your love and concern for Christ and his Bride.


----------



## Shawn Mathis

Lawrence,

Thank you for your kind reply.

I had looked around in the archives here but found little among the debates on this issue that is relevant to what I wrote. This is important because I think I have brought something germane and important to the table with my paper. I think if the leaders carefully read it and the follow up comments they would re-evaluate their rhetoric and even the language of their confession and still maintain a strong stance in favor of parental nurture and against abuse of nurturing tools. 

When you state, "Historically age-segregation in the church was not the warp and woof of discipleship as it has become" that is the kind of public reasoning that is winsome and helpful. And I agree with that statement. All my counter-examples were against the broad-sweeping language of not merely the quotes offered (which were but representative of the broader range of articles and speeches) but the confession itself. Age-segregation is best used if understood only as a tool to whittle down large groups of youth for smaller class sizes [the thinking of some during the 19 century] or for broader distinctions of development in general cases (eg. 5 year-olds not learning about sex-ed!)--and then, as with any enculturation tool, to be used or not within the context of familial and churchly strengths and weaknesses. In other words, just the same as all other things in Christian liberty.

If that is what NCFIC is saying, then they are failing at communicating those facts. 

I would be greatly interested in what you think the roots are and specifically what you think age-segregated education really is [again, something not clearly and consistently offered by NCFIC except in two instances I could find and those definitions seemed so negative as to exclude more than they probably intended]. I have studied the history of Christian education, now with over 124 articles, essays, magazine, bibliographies, histories, autobiographies, collections, specialty histories, encyclopedia and almanacs. That does not mean I know it all! But I have so much in my head I would like to test it against alternate views of those with a winsome disposition such as yours.

I hope to write a positive piece explaining the historical practice of youth nurture. Maybe that will bring divided parties closer together.

for the peace and unity of the church,


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Here is Pastor Mathis' response (rejoinder) per Wes White's blog.

A Rejoinder to Recent Family Integrated Church Comments « Johannes Weslianus


----------



## deleteduser99

As one friend said to me, "If someone wants to help me in teaching my children the Bible, why should I turn them down?"


----------



## Esther W.

[FONT=&quot]The idea that someone would become a member of a church that was not equipped or poorly equipped to teach their children makes no sense to me. It seems at odds with the notion that said concerned person would, after becoming a member, insist that children not be separated from them. If indeed they are careful enough to have a concern for what is being taught would they not refuse membership to a church that was not equipped to handle God’s word adequately for their children?[/FONT]


----------



## au5t1n

Esther W. said:


> [FONT=&quot]The idea that someone would become a member of a church that was not equipped or poorly equipped to teach their children makes no sense to me. It seems at odds with the notion that said concerned person would, after becoming a member, insist that children not be separated from them. If indeed they are careful enough to have a concern for what is being taught would they not refuse membership to a church that was not equipped to handle God’s word adequately for their children?[/FONT]


 
This rests on the assumption that a church without age-segregated services and ministries is poorly equipped for the education of children. I think the NT church would beg to differ. The question is not, Are the children taught?, but, How are the children taught? Some churches think it can be done better with parental teaching at home and a combined service on Sundays. 

Bear in mind that the Church at large has an 85% apostasy rate among church kids. Whatever we're doing, it isn't working. The argument has been made (and I think it's a good one) that separating kids from the worship service (and also giving the youth their own worship services) teaches kids that "Church isn't for me. It's for old, boring people. It's not interesting and has nothing to say to me." They grow up being taught this by practice, and then their parents are surprised when they still believe it after 18.


----------



## Esther W.

austinww said:


> Esther W. said:
> 
> 
> 
> [FONT=&quot]The idea that someone would become a member of a church that was not equipped or poorly equipped to teach their children makes no sense to me. It seems at odds with the notion that said concerned person would, after becoming a member, insist that children not be separated from them. If indeed they are careful enough to have a concern for what is being taught would they not refuse membership to a church that was not equipped to handle God’s word adequately for their children?[/FONT]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This rests on the assumption that a church without age-segregated services and ministries is poorly equipped for the education of children. I think the NT church would beg to differ. The question is not, Are the children taught?, but, How are the children taught? Some churches think it can be done better with parental teaching at home and a combined service on Sundays. Bear in mind that the Church at large has an 85% apostasy rate among church kids. Whatever we're doing, it isn't working.
Click to expand...


I have no problem if a parent seeks out a church that does not have age segregated education- I think that that doing so as a preference is fine. My point was with the idea that churches ought not to offer this for the children of members-as if it were somehow unbiblical. Is the 85% apostasy rate among Reformed churches or mainstream?


----------



## LawrenceU

That 60 - 85% rate cuts pretty much across the board with those churches that use age-segretated discipleship programmes. Granted, not all churches will be that high, some are much worse.


----------



## Esther W.

LawrenceU said:


> That 60 - 85% rate cuts pretty much across the board with those churches that use age-segretated discipleship programmes. Granted, not all churches will be that high, some are much worse.



Where can I read these stats? Is it online? I know in our own Presbytery I have not seen it-quite the opposite actually.


----------



## Esther W.

The reason I think it is important to ask where the stats come from is because I have confidence that how children are instructed in a reformed church does differ from how they are instructed in an Armenian church. I found this statistical resource which I find illuminating to the discussion only partly-it does not tell us from which kind of churches these kids come from.


----------



## Herald

I don't trust these stats. All they do is tempt Christians to compare themselves with others. Suffice to say that apostasy is high among professed child believers because of a number of mitigating factors. The fact that there is a number of parents that use programs as an exstention of their parenting is well established. But on the flip side are those parents who run a tight "family integrated" ship. I'm sure quite a few children rebel against such "regimentation." The Christian family is not about best practices, it's about raising children in the fear and admonition of the Lord. 

sent from my most excellent Motorola Atrix.


----------



## LawrenceU

Esther W. said:


> LawrenceU said:
> 
> 
> 
> That 60 - 85% rate cuts pretty much across the board with those churches that use age-segretated discipleship programmes. Granted, not all churches will be that high, some are much worse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where can I read these stats? Is it online? I know in our own Presbytery I have not seen it-quite the opposite actually.
Click to expand...

 
Esther, the stats are from many sources. They are fairly consistent, too. Barna has done them. Gallup has them. Lifeway has them. I have seen some by various denoms as well. Having said that it is not about statistics. There are, as Bill said, many factors in why children apostatize, leave church, drop out, or whatever else one wants to call it. The real point is the philosophy behind age-segregated programs and how they are operated in most churches today is very new, has no precedent in Scripture, and is not producing stable disciples on the whole. Parents are ultimately responsible for their children and must labour in that responsibility. It will look differently in every family. The church should support not supplant that task.


----------



## Damon Rambo

austinww said:


> Esther W. said:
> 
> 
> 
> [FONT=&quot]The idea that someone would become a member of a church that was not equipped or poorly equipped to teach their children makes no sense to me. It seems at odds with the notion that said concerned person would, after becoming a member, insist that children not be separated from them. If indeed they are careful enough to have a concern for what is being taught would they not refuse membership to a church that was not equipped to handle God’s word adequately for their children?[/FONT]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This rests on the assumption that a church without age-segregated services and ministries is poorly equipped for the education of children. I think the NT church would beg to differ. The question is not, Are the children taught?, but, How are the children taught? Some churches think it can be done better with parental teaching at home and a combined service on Sundays.
> 
> Bear in mind that the Church at large has an 85% apostasy rate among church kids. Whatever we're doing, it isn't working. The argument has been made (and I think it's a good one) that separating kids from the worship service (and also giving the youth their own worship services) teaches kids that "Church isn't for me. It's for old, boring people. It's not interesting and has nothing to say to me." They grow up being taught this by practice, and then their parents are surprised when they still believe it after 18.
Click to expand...

 

As a youth minister, I say phooey. This is not what happens at all. What actually happens, especially with church's that do not have youth/children programs, is the youth end up trying to take a leadership role in something simple (such as playing a contemporary worship song during the service), and they get scowls from a bunch of people, because they aren't doing it "their" way.

The segregated system is not the problem. Education NEEDS to be segregated. The Church is already stupid enough. The majority of the people in most churches, even reformed churches, are completely theologically ignorant. Now you would like us to dumb down the message MORE to a 6 year old level? I don't think that is a good idea. You don't teach a 6 year old Algebra...nor do you try to teach them the complexities of the eschatological debate, or presuppositional apologetics. Adult believers, on the other hand, SHOULD be learning these things.

No question the parents should be more involved. They should be holding the people teaching their children accountable. They, along with the elders of the church, should be closely examining, and providing oversight over, the children's classes. And of course they should be instructing them at home. 

One last thing; comparing the first century church to the modern church, is really unhelpful. First, there is no evidence that the children were not instructed separately. That they "gathered together" could just as well be the same way we gather together at my house...and yet the children are still doing their own thing. An argument from silence does not a biblical law make.

Again, the problem is not the methodology, the problem is content. Too many Youth and children's minister's make Sunday School/Worship about "fun."


----------



## Grimmson

Damon Rambo said:


> austinww said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Esther W. said:
> 
> 
> 
> [FONT=&quot]The idea that someone would become a member of a church that was not equipped or poorly equipped to teach their children makes no sense to me. It seems at odds with the notion that said concerned person would, after becoming a member, insist that children not be separated from them. If indeed they are careful enough to have a concern for what is being taught would they not refuse membership to a church that was not equipped to handle God’s word adequately for their children?[/FONT]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This rests on the assumption that a church without age-segregated services and ministries is poorly equipped for the education of children. I think the NT church would beg to differ. The question is not, Are the children taught?, but, How are the children taught? Some churches think it can be done better with parental teaching at home and a combined service on Sundays.
> 
> Bear in mind that the Church at large has an 85% apostasy rate among church kids. Whatever we're doing, it isn't working. The argument has been made (and I think it's a good one) that separating kids from the worship service (and also giving the youth their own worship services) teaches kids that "Church isn't for me. It's for old, boring people. It's not interesting and has nothing to say to me." They grow up being taught this by practice, and then their parents are surprised when they still believe it after 18.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> As a youth minister, I say phooey. This is not what happens at all. What actually happens, especially with church's that do not have youth/children programs, is the youth end up trying to take a leadership role in something simple (such as playing a contemporary worship song during the service), and they get scowls from a bunch of people, because they aren't doing it "their" way.
> 
> The segregated system is not the problem. Education NEEDS to be segregated. The Church is already stupid enough. The majority of the people in most churches, even reformed churches, are completely theologically ignorant. Now you would like us to dumb down the message MORE to a 6 year old level? I don't think that is a good idea. You don't teach a 6 year old Algebra...nor do you try to teach them the complexities of the eschatological debate, or presuppositional apologetics. Adult believers, on the other hand, SHOULD be learning these things.
> 
> No question the parents should be more involved. They should be holding the people teaching their children accountable. They, along with the elders of the church, should be closely examining, and providing oversight over, the children's classes. And of course they should be instructing them at home.
> 
> One last thing; comparing the first century church to the modern church, is really unhelpful. First, there is no evidence that the children were not instructed separately. That they "gathered together" could just as well be the same way we gather together at my house...and yet the children are still doing their own thing. An argument from silence does not a biblical law make.
> 
> Again, the problem is not the methodology, the problem is content. Too many Youth and children's minister's make Sunday School/Worship about "fun."
Click to expand...

 
As a guy involved in college ministry, the stats are not “phooey.” 

Education does not need to be segregated. There is no rule that states that they can not learn with a mixed age. The mixture of age groups could actually help reinforce positive learning in a “one-school-room environment.” Plus with more adult present then that encourages even more positive behavior and learning. 

The reason why children and adults are so dumb is because their not being taught the scriptures, period. Many churches have turned children’s church and the Sunday school hour into glorified play time, without any church oversight and accountability. If things are taught then they are not the gospel. Typically it just something moral like “no sex before marriage,” “don’t smoke,” you need to believe “creationlism”, invite people to church, and “ give your testimony because there no way someone disagree with your experience.” By the way I have major issues with the latter statement because of the subjective nature of testimonies, but that besides the point. There is little gospel that goes on and I specially see it in the SBC. Other denominations are just as guilty based on the fact that the MAJORITY of incoming MDIV students cannot pass a basic Bible exam. The fault overall the lack of knowledge of these kids and their parents falls to us as teachers and ministers of the Word. There is little theology that is actually taught from the cradle to the grave, which reflects the reason why so many kids have left mainline churches across the board. 

Things that must be taught are textual criticisms, outlines of entire books of the Bible (there no excuse for a kid to grow up in the church and not have the entire Bible taught to them), the Proverbs and Psalms, basic systematic theological categories and their application, church history from Acts to the present, and lastly Apologetics. The most important thing being able to communicating the gospel. The biblical languages would also be nice. 

The lack of what being taught in our churches communicates to the young people that theology is not important. Especially when parents are not engaged in learning it. 

I also think creating a children’s service, a children’s church, is dangerous because it purposely during the worship of God divides the unity of the ages to worship God. The worship service is just as much for the 3 year old and the seven year old as compared to the 77 year old. They can learn from the adults how one worships, which includes the hearing of the sermon, and if they didn’t understand the sermon then the child’s father must explain the sermon. If the father did not understand the main points then he needs to talk to the pastor so he can understand and be able to teach his children. 

And for the folks that complain about kids making noise in church, they need to learn how to be gracious and interact with the kids. 

The result of the segregation of children from church will result in the segregation of teenage and young adult worship services. And if you think this isn’t true, then let me say this. It is already happening. I can name in the SBC and in non-denominational churches where that the case is actually occurring.


----------



## Herald

The last two posts make my point. Thank you for saving me from wasting vowels and consonants. Children can be adequately taught in both church models. Re-engineering a church from segregated to non-segregated (or vice versa) should not be the goal. What is important is to declare the whole counsel of God. I don't think either side is against the authority the father in the home. The issue is one of ecclesiology. Is there no room for charity on this issue or is every retort in this thread worth falling on one's sword?

sent from my most excellent Motorola Atrix.


----------



## Esther W.

LawrenceU said:


> Esther W. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LawrenceU said:
> 
> 
> 
> That 60 - 85% rate cuts pretty much across the board with those churches that use age-segretated discipleship programmes. Granted, not all churches will be that high, some are much worse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where can I read these stats? Is it online? I know in our own Presbytery I have not seen it-quite the opposite actually.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Esther, the stats are from many sources. They are fairly consistent, too. Barna has done them. Gallup has them. Lifeway has them. I have seen some by various denoms as well. Having said that it is not about statistics. There are, as Bill said, many factors in why children apostatize, leave church, drop out, or whatever else one wants to call it. The real point is the philosophy behind age-segregated programs and how they are operated in most churches today is very new, has no precedent in Scripture, and is not producing stable disciples on the whole. Parents are ultimately responsible for their children and must labour in that responsibility. It will look differently in every family. The church should support not supplant that task.
Click to expand...


I can only speak to personal experience- In our presbytery I am not seeing statistically high numbers of youth going apostate. If you are going to make the claim that it is due to "segregated Sunday School classes" then the stats are important and relevant to making that claim-especially if we apply mega mainline churches to reformed churches (I suspect the stats I posted are not in any way relevant to reformed churches). The most obvious reason children are apostate is God's call on their life in this particular age of history. I am certain that mainline teachings like "Jesus loves the sinner and not the sin" or "what would Jesus do" types of emotional and works focused teachings have taken there toll. In reformed churches legalism does just as much damage. The problem in my opinion is not segregated Sunday Schools- but bad Sunday Schools.

---------- Post added at 06:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:43 PM ----------




Damon Rambo said:


> austinww said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Esther W. said:
> 
> 
> 
> [FONT=&quot]The idea that someone would become a member of a church that was not equipped or poorly equipped to teach their children makes no sense to me. It seems at odds with the notion that said concerned person would, after becoming a member, insist that children not be separated from them. If indeed they are careful enough to have a concern for what is being taught would they not refuse membership to a church that was not equipped to handle God’s word adequately for their children?[/FONT]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This rests on the assumption that a church without age-segregated services and ministries is poorly equipped for the education of children. I think the NT church would beg to differ. The question is not, Are the children taught?, but, How are the children taught? Some churches think it can be done better with parental teaching at home and a combined service on Sundays.
> 
> Bear in mind that the Church at large has an 85% apostasy rate among church kids. Whatever we're doing, it isn't working. The argument has been made (and I think it's a good one) that separating kids from the worship service (and also giving the youth their own worship services) teaches kids that "Church isn't for me. It's for old, boring people. It's not interesting and has nothing to say to me." They grow up being taught this by practice, and then their parents are surprised when they still believe it after 18.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> As a youth minister, I say phooey. This is not what happens at all. What actually happens, especially with church's that do not have youth/children programs, is the youth end up trying to take a leadership role in something simple (such as playing a contemporary worship song during the service), and they get scowls from a bunch of people, because they aren't doing it "their" way.
> 
> The segregated system is not the problem. Education NEEDS to be segregated. The Church is already stupid enough. The majority of the people in most churches, even reformed churches, are completely theologically ignorant. Now you would like us to dumb down the message MORE to a 6 year old level? I don't think that is a good idea. You don't teach a 6 year old Algebra...nor do you try to teach them the complexities of the eschatological debate, or presuppositional apologetics. Adult believers, on the other hand, SHOULD be learning these things.
> 
> No question the parents should be more involved. They should be holding the people teaching their children accountable. They, along with the elders of the church, should be closely examining, and providing oversight over, the children's classes. And of course they should be instructing them at home.
> 
> One last thing; comparing the first century church to the modern church, is really unhelpful. First, there is no evidence that the children were not instructed separately. That they "gathered together" could just as well be the same way we gather together at my house...and yet the children are still doing their own thing. An argument from silence does not a biblical law make.
> 
> Again, the problem is not the methodology, the problem is content. Too many Youth and children's minister's make Sunday School/Worship about "fun."
Click to expand...


I have yet to be in attendance in an OPC that tries to make Sunday School for children only about being "fun". And never has an integrated Sunday School been "dumbed down" for children who are in attendance.


----------



## Damon Rambo

Grimmson said:


> Damon Rambo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> austinww said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Esther W. said:
> 
> 
> 
> [FONT=&quot]The idea that someone would become a member of a church that was not equipped or poorly equipped to teach their children makes no sense to me. It seems at odds with the notion that said concerned person would, after becoming a member, insist that children not be separated from them. If indeed they are careful enough to have a concern for what is being taught would they not refuse membership to a church that was not equipped to handle God’s word adequately for their children?[/FONT]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This rests on the assumption that a church without age-segregated services and ministries is poorly equipped for the education of children. I think the NT church would beg to differ. The question is not, Are the children taught?, but, How are the children taught? Some churches think it can be done better with parental teaching at home and a combined service on Sundays.
> 
> Bear in mind that the Church at large has an 85% apostasy rate among church kids. Whatever we're doing, it isn't working. The argument has been made (and I think it's a good one) that separating kids from the worship service (and also giving the youth their own worship services) teaches kids that "Church isn't for me. It's for old, boring people. It's not interesting and has nothing to say to me." They grow up being taught this by practice, and then their parents are surprised when they still believe it after 18.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> As a youth minister, I say phooey. This is not what happens at all. What actually happens, especially with church's that do not have youth/children programs, is the youth end up trying to take a leadership role in something simple (such as playing a contemporary worship song during the service), and they get scowls from a bunch of people, because they aren't doing it "their" way.
> 
> The segregated system is not the problem. Education NEEDS to be segregated. The Church is already stupid enough. The majority of the people in most churches, even reformed churches, are completely theologically ignorant. Now you would like us to dumb down the message MORE to a 6 year old level? I don't think that is a good idea. You don't teach a 6 year old Algebra...nor do you try to teach them the complexities of the eschatological debate, or presuppositional apologetics. Adult believers, on the other hand, SHOULD be learning these things.
> 
> No question the parents should be more involved. They should be holding the people teaching their children accountable. They, along with the elders of the church, should be closely examining, and providing oversight over, the children's classes. And of course they should be instructing them at home.
> 
> One last thing; comparing the first century church to the modern church, is really unhelpful. First, there is no evidence that the children were not instructed separately. That they "gathered together" could just as well be the same way we gather together at my house...and yet the children are still doing their own thing. An argument from silence does not a biblical law make.
> 
> Again, the problem is not the methodology, the problem is content. Too many Youth and children's minister's make Sunday School/Worship about "fun."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As a guy involved in college ministry, the stats are not “phooey.”
> 
> Education does not need to be segregated. There is no rule that states that they can not learn with a mixed age. The mixture of age groups could actually help reinforce positive learning in a “one-school-room environment.” Plus with more adult present then that encourages even more positive behavior and learning.
> 
> The reason why children and adults are so dumb is because their not being taught the scriptures, period. Many churches have turned children’s church and the Sunday school hour into glorified play time, without any church oversight and accountability. If things are taught then they are not the gospel. Typically it just something moral like “no sex before marriage,” “don’t smoke,” you need to believe “creationlism”, invite people to church, and “ give your testimony because there no way someone disagree with your experience.” By the way I have major issues with the latter statement because of the subjective nature of testimonies, but that besides the point. There is little gospel that goes on and I specially see it in the SBC. Other denominations are just as guilty based on the fact that the MAJORITY of incoming MDIV students cannot pass a basic Bible exam. The fault overall the lack of knowledge of these kids and their parents falls to us as teachers and ministers of the Word. There is little theology that is actually taught from the cradle to the grave, which reflects the reason why so many kids have left mainline churches across the board.
> 
> Things that must be taught are textual criticisms, outlines of entire books of the Bible (there no excuse for a kid to grow up in the church and not have the entire Bible taught to them), the Proverbs and Psalms, basic systematic theological categories and their application, church history from Acts to the present, and lastly Apologetics. The most important thing being able to communicating the gospel. The biblical languages would also be nice.
> 
> The lack of what being taught in our churches communicates to the young people that theology is not important. Especially when parents are not engaged in learning it.
> 
> I also think creating a children’s service, a children’s church, is dangerous because it purposely during the worship of God divides the unity of the ages to worship God. The worship service is just as much for the 3 year old and the seven year old as compared to the 77 year old. They can learn from the adults how one worships, which includes the hearing of the sermon, and if they didn’t understand the sermon then the child’s father must explain the sermon. If the father did not understand the main points then he needs to talk to the pastor so he can understand and be able to teach his children.
> 
> And for the folks that complain about kids making noise in church, they need to learn how to be gracious and interact with the kids.
> 
> The result of the segregation of children from church will result in the segregation of teenage and young adult worship services. And if you think this isn’t true, then let me say this. It is already happening. I can name in the SBC and in non-denominational churches where that the case is actually occurring.
Click to expand...

 
brother, if you read back over my post, I agree with much of what you said. You and I agree more than you think. 

However, making a 6 year old sit through an adult sermon, is either #1 A complete waste of time for the child, or #2 The sermon is so dumbed down and basic, that it does not actually instruct the adults.

I agree with you that children need to be heavily theologically and biblically educated. But it works just like teaching anything else; you start with the basics, and build upon it. You don't throw a 6 year old in a class full of College Algebra students. It is a waste of the child's time. Nor do you take a group of College algebra students, and put them in a class with kindergartners learning basic addition. Each group needs instruction at their level.

The best methodology for this, is to have separate classes based upon their level of development. The answer then, is not to just throw everyone in together, and eliminate the children's classes. The answer is to _change the focus_ of the class. Quit making the classes about games and fun, and start making them about Biblical truth (and yes, absolutely an understanding of the Gospel!).


----------



## fredtgreco

Damon Rambo said:


> However, making a 6 year old sit through an adult sermon, is either #1 A complete waste of time for the child, or #2 The sermon is so dumbed down and basic, that it does not actually instruct the adults.



You are obviously not a preacher. This statement is so foolish as to be nearly unbelievable.


----------



## nicnap

fredtgreco said:


> You are obviously not a preacher. This statement is so foolish as to be nearly unbelievable.


----------



## Esther W.

Damon Rambo said:


> brother, if you read back over my post, I agree with much of what you said. You and I agree more than you think.
> 
> However, making a 6 year old sit through an adult sermon, is either #1 A complete waste of time for the child, or #2 The sermon is so dumbed down and basic, that it does not actually instruct the adults.
> 
> I agree with you that children need to be heavily theologically and biblically educated. But it works just like teaching anything else; you start with the basics, and build upon it. You don't throw a 6 year old in a class full of College Algebra students. It is a waste of the child's time. Nor do you take a group of College algebra students, and put them in a class with kindergartners learning basic addition. Each group needs instruction at their level.
> 
> The best methodology for this, is to have separate classes based upon their level of development. The answer then, is not to just throw everyone in together, and eliminate the children's classes. The answer is to _change the focus_ of the class. Quit making the classes about games and fun, and start making them about Biblical truth (and yes, absolutely an understanding of the Gospel!).



The sermon alone, is not what children are being taught on, when they sit in worship. They are also learning to sit still and that God is deserving of our attention and respect-they learn how to worship God in prayer; praise; and admonition-they learn how to tithe. They are learning to be served as they watch the Lord's Supper being given and their pastor serving them God's Word-they are learning how to be a corporate member of the Body of Christ. I support segregated Sunday school but segregated worship-no way.


----------



## Damon Rambo

fredtgreco said:


> Damon Rambo said:
> 
> 
> 
> However, making a 6 year old sit through an adult sermon, is either #1 A complete waste of time for the child, or #2 The sermon is so dumbed down and basic, that it does not actually instruct the adults.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are obviously not a preacher. This statement is so foolish as to be nearly unbelievable.
Click to expand...

 
Actually I am. And I have seen children sit under some of the best reformed preachers today, and asked them afterward what the preacher was speaking of...and they couldn't tell me. I am NOT saying that children cannot understand these concepts. I have taught my children catechisms, my little girl can even explain some pretty complex doctrine. But she didn't do it listening to John Macarthur.

And I cannot believe you would make such an offensive statement. Please do not belittle me because I don't agree with you.

---------- Post added at 09:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:02 PM ----------




Esther W. said:


> Damon Rambo said:
> 
> 
> 
> brother, if you read back over my post, I agree with much of what you said. You and I agree more than you think.
> 
> However, making a 6 year old sit through an adult sermon, is either #1 A complete waste of time for the child, or #2 The sermon is so dumbed down and basic, that it does not actually instruct the adults.
> 
> I agree with you that children need to be heavily theologically and biblically educated. But it works just like teaching anything else; you start with the basics, and build upon it. You don't throw a 6 year old in a class full of College Algebra students. It is a waste of the child's time. Nor do you take a group of College algebra students, and put them in a class with kindergartners learning basic addition. Each group needs instruction at their level.
> 
> The best methodology for this, is to have separate classes based upon their level of development. The answer then, is not to just throw everyone in together, and eliminate the children's classes. The answer is to _change the focus_ of the class. Quit making the classes about games and fun, and start making them about Biblical truth (and yes, absolutely an understanding of the Gospel!).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The sermon alone, is not what children are being taught on, when they sit in worship. They are also learning to sit still and that God is deserving of our attention and respect-they learn how to worship God in prayer; praise; and admonition-they learn how to tithe. They are learning to be served as they watch the Lord's Supper being given and their pastor serving them God's Word-they are learning how to be a corporate member of the Body of Christ. I support segregated Sunday school but segregated worship-no way.
Click to expand...

 
In our church, we have three services per week. Sunday Morning, Sunday Night, and a Wednesday night prayer service and Bible study. 

In the Sunday morning worship, everyone is together for the music, tithing, and when it is done, the Lord's Supper. During the actual sermon, everyone is together except for nursery age (0-3) and very young children (Kindergarten, first grade), who go to Children's church.

In the Sunday evening church, everyone is together for all of it.

In the Wednesday night service, the classes are completely divided according to age groups. 

This model, to me, seems ideal. The children get some of everything.


----------



## au5t1n

To clarify, I would not assert that age-segregated ministries in their various forms are the direct cause of a high falling out rate. What I meant (and should have said) was that the mindset toward church that many of these environments create and foster (in mine and others' experience) is a mindset that contributes heavily to the problem. That's all.

I'll admit I'm very unfond of the concept of having youth worship services and a youth minister, partly because of the above problem and partly because I do not see them as warranted by Scripture, however, I do not know if this is what you do, Damon, so I am in no place to speak to your position. I know that model is common in the SBC (where I grew up) and I have seen the damage it tends to do, but if you are redeeming the situation and discipling youth well then godspeed! I was only speaking of overall trends.

I am not so interested in convincing people to eliminate age segregation in every form. What I care about most is the worship service. THAT, at the very least, should be for everybody. My main concern here is to make sure we don't throw out long-standing traditional worship practices (where they have better Scriptural warrant) as a reaction to the extremes of a particular organization.


----------



## Herald

Damon, you made a dogmatic statement. Fred was within bounds in his response. You certainly are entitled to your opinion but you are not the authority on the topic. For that matter.neither am I. However, your statement slammed the door on any child who sits through a sermon at their church. Perhaps you.didn't mean to come across that way but that's how it's been received. 

sent from my most excellent Motorola Atrix.


----------



## Grimmson

Damon, I am not against age appropriate education, but you be surprised what a child can learn in the service if you allow them to engage with the adults in corporate worship (keep in mind the high level of education one could obtain in the one room school house model, which would be superior to modern approaches to education). The education is not just theological, but also in regards to appropriate behavior. So that they learn worship is not about themselves, but God. This is a major issue that many adults need to learn, and it must start with the children. Besides the preacher should not be preaching with just adults at a particular maturity or age in mind, but his entire audience which would include teens and young children. And if a child does not get a point then the parents must instruct him, which implies on the Lord’s Day the parent is examining and discussing the sermon with the child/children. I can almost guarantee that in most homes such a discussion is not taking place in our homes, instead its social time with eating a Denny’s, watch sports, or some other non-religious and non-educational activity.


----------



## Esther W.

Damon Rambo said:


> Esther W. said:
> 
> 
> 
> The sermon alone, is not what children are being taught on, when they sit in worship. They are also learning to sit still and that God is deserving of our attention and respect-they learn how to worship God in prayer; praise; and admonition-they learn how to tithe. They are learning to be served as they watch the Lord's Supper being given and their pastor serving them God's Word-they are learning how to be a corporate member of the Body of Christ. I support segregated Sunday school but segregated worship-no way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In our church, we have three services per week. Sunday Morning, Sunday Night, and a Wednesday night prayer service and Bible study.
> 
> In the Sunday morning worship, everyone is together for the music, tithing, and when it is done, the Lord's Supper. During the actual sermon, everyone is together except for nursery age (0-3) and very young children (Kindergarten, first grade), who go to Children's church.
> 
> In the Sunday evening church, everyone is together for all of it.
> 
> In the Wednesday night service, the classes are completely divided according to age groups.
> 
> This model, to me, seems ideal. The children get some of everything.
Click to expand...


I understand having a nursery for young children and nursing moms. Your basic set up sounds reasonable- Wednesday prayer is great-so long as it is not being used as a more convenient substitute for worship. Children need to learn how to worship God. The best way for them to do that is by being in worship. Our pastor is good at directing at least a portion of almost every sermon to the children and youth. Children do not get everything that is being taught, but that is where after church on the drive home or over lunch we as parents bring up the sermon and find a way to make it relevant to our children, so that they do get it.


----------



## Damon Rambo

austinww said:


> To clarify, I would not assert that age-segregated ministries in their various forms are the direct cause of a high falling out rate. What I meant (and should have said) was that the mindset toward church that many of these environments create and foster (in mine and others' experience) is a mindset that contributes heavily to the problem. That's all.
> 
> I'll admit I'm very unfond of the concept of having youth worship services and a youth minister, partly because of the above problem and partly because I do not see them as warranted by Scripture, however, I do not know if this is what you do, Damon, so I am in no place to speak to your position. I know that model is common in the SBC (where I grew up) and I have seen the damage it tends to do, but if you are redeeming the situation and discipling youth well then godspeed! I was only speaking of overall trends.
> 
> I am not so interested in convincing people to eliminate age segregation in every form. What I care about most is the worship service. THAT, at the very least, should be for everybody. My main concern here is to make sure we don't throw out long-standing traditional worship practices (where they have better Scriptural warrant) as a reaction to the extremes of a particular organization.


 
Thank you for your gracious reply brother. In all honesty, I am not sure of my feelings on my own position. I know the separate Youth services on Wednesday night allows me the opportunity to preach, allows the youth an opportunity to be trained in leading worship, and allows the youth a voice that I think they would not otherwise have. 

Of course, services other than the Lord's day services are additional, anyway.


----------



## kvanlaan

> However, making a 6 year old sit through an adult sermon, is either #1 A complete waste of time for the child, or #2 The sermon is so dumbed down and basic, that it does not actually instruct the adults.



They get it. They can handle it. Wasn't the WSC written to teach children their catechism? If that is not too tough for a 6 year old, then surely a sermon wouldn't be. A lot depends on the environment at home. A lot.


----------



## Jack K

Some facts:

The stats cited on kids who do not stay faithful are correct and well documented. The interpretation that this must be due to age-segregated programs is speculation, though some of the research does suggest it might be a factor.

The research (Barna's in particular) does show that the extent of parental involvement in a kid's spiritual upbringing is a big factor. Kids who participate in things like regular family devotions buck the trend. But this does not mean all age-segrageated programs at church are bad programs. They only become part of the problem _if_ they contribute to parents becoming uninvolved in their kids' spiritual upbringing. I do not believe, though, that having some age segregation automatically makes parents uninvolved.

In fact, the research specifically suggests it's home life, not church life, that is the deciding factor.

Finally, to blame the youth crisis on how church programs are designed is to place way to much significance on programs. This is a spiritual crisis. If kids are not staying faithful it means they're not being converted. And where kids are not being converted it's a safe bet this is because the gospel has been lost. The gospel is not gettting preached in the church, and it's not getting taught at home.

The problem with churches today, and the reason young people are dropping out, has far less to do with how programs are arranged and more to do with how faithfully the gospel is taught.


----------



## Damon Rambo

Jack K said:


> Some facts:
> 
> The stats cited on kids who do not stay faithful are correct and well documented. The interpretation that this must be due to age-segregated programs is speculation, though some of the research does suggest it might be a factor.
> 
> The research (Barna's in particular) does show that the extent of parental involvement in a kid's spiritual upbringing is a big factor. Kids who participate in things like regular family devotions buck the trend. But this does not mean all age-segrageated programs at church are bad programs. They only become part of the problem _if_ they contribute to parents becoming uninvolved in their kids' spiritual upbringing. I do not believe, though, that having some age segregation automatically makes parents uninvolved.
> 
> In fact, the research specifically suggests it's home life, not church life, that is the deciding factor.
> 
> Finally, to blame the youth crisis on how church programs are designed is to place way to much significance on programs. This is a spiritual crisis. If kids are not staying faithful it means they're not being converted. And where kids are not being converted it's a safe bet this is because the gospel has been lost. The gospel is not gettting preached in the church, and it's not getting taught at home.
> 
> The problem with churches today, and the reason young people are dropping out, has far less to do with how programs are arranged and more to do with how faithfully the gospel is taught.


 
Now that is something I can agree with.


----------



## Grimmson

kvanlaan said:


> However, making a 6 year old sit through an adult sermon, is either #1 A complete waste of time for the child, or #2 The sermon is so dumbed down and basic, that it does not actually instruct the adults.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They get it. They can handle it. Wasn't the WSC written to teach children their catechism? If that is not too tough for a 6 year old, then surely a sermon wouldn't be. A lot depends on the environment at home. A lot.
Click to expand...

 
They may not necessarily get it. It depends on not just family life and training, but also age and developmental reasoning skills. It would be great for a six year old to know the Shorter Catechism, but that takes devotion and time that currently doesn’t exist. In fact I would be impressed with an adult was familiar with it. I think part of the reason why children may find learning the WSC difficult may also be due to our current cultural environment, since neither our society nor our churches reinforce positively and actively the teaching of the WSC. Also another factor of course is the lack of parent interest in the WSC, which in turn is transferred to the child.

---------- Post added at 07:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:53 PM ----------




Jack K said:


> In fact, the research specifically suggests it's home life, not church life, that is the deciding factor.


 
I wouldnt agree more.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Jack K said:


> The problem with churches today, and the reason young people are dropping out, has far less to do with how programs are arranged and more to do with how faithfully the gospel is taught.



One sows, another one waters, but the LORD gives the increase. End results belong to the Lord. We can program and devise all we want. We can catechize and disciple all we want and the end result still lands upon the Lord. I am not advocating that we shouldn't do things correctly. God commands and we teach, disciple, and raise our kids. We can love and act perfectly but it still won't make a hill of beans without the Lord. My hope isn't in a program. My hope is in the Lord. That is why I pray. 



> (1Co 3:6) I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.
> 
> (1Co 3:7) So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.
> 
> (1Co 3:8) Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour.
> 
> (1Co 3:9) For we are labourers together with God: ye are God's husbandry, ye are God's building.



The means is important. I am not denying that. We have to do things the way the Lord told us to. 

BTW, Kids from age 3 to 10 are really sponges and a lot of their foundations in life are planted during that time. And they do understand more and can relate a lot more than most people give them credit for. I know I am drawing from experience but I think I can prove this by the kids I know and have raised. The kids at my church have a high retention rate. Apostasy is basically unheard of. We have Sabbath School and the kids can stay or leave after the first part of the worship service. They are placed in good hands either way.


----------



## Pilgrim

Damon Rambo said:


> As a youth minister, I say phooey. This is not what happens at all.



Really? I think your experience in these matters may be somewhat limited if that's really what you think. 

Not long ago I got to see this play out in an independent evangelical church that in many respects is probably more conservative and is certainly more Calvinistic leaning than most Southern Baptist Churches. Several years ago, their youth pastor wanted to begin holding a youth worship service for 7th-12th grades and the elders agreed to let him do it. Thus those of those ages were not in the worship service 3/4 of the time. Eventually the elders saw the problems with this and after about a year of study, eliminated this service. The response was that some families threatened to leave and argued that people of that age would not be able to understand the sermons! I heard it stated several times that the pastor would have to start dumbing down his sermons. This preacher puts meat on the table but also puts the cookies on the bottom shelf. By the way, this is a church that has contemporary worship and is doing good to sing one hymn per service. One man told me that his 16 year old son didn't want to come to church anymore and that if necessary they would go to another church that had a youth service so that he would want to go to church again and not be bored. I asked him what he thought his son's attitude would be at 18 and the response was basically to give a shrug of the shoulders. 

This is all too typical of the evangelical mentality today, and this was in a congregation that is more biblically literate than most. 

By the way, while generally speaking I think they represent a correction to the type of youth ministry that we've seen in evangelical churches over the past generation or so, I'm in no way an adherent of FIC and share some of the concerns about it that have been noted here and elsewhere.

---------- Post added at 10:23 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:14 PM ----------




PuritanCovenanter said:


> BTW, Kids from age 3 to 10 are really sponges and a lot of their foundations in life are planted during that time. And they do understand more and can relate a lot more than most people give them credit for.



I couldn't agree more. The families I know whose children are in worship from a very early age have children that are usually far better behaved and generally are far more spiritually minded and sober minded than those who spend a lot of time in youth groups. That's not to say that there are no good youth groups. I think they can in particular be an effective outreach to unchurched kids, especially when the Bible is front and center instead of recreation. But too many parents have too low expectations for their children. 

As for me, the first church we attended when I was growing up was a Presbyterian church that was PCA at the time. We went there for a year or two, when I was about 6-7 years old. Later we joined a liberal United Methodist Church.

When I later went to a Catholic high school, once I learned of things like their views on auricular confession and prayer to Mary and the saints, I rejected them. I knew the Bible taught there was only one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus. I can guarantee you I didn't pick that up at the liberal UMC where we were told there was no literal hell. It wasn't from a childhood spent reading theology or the Bible either. I have to conclude that it was a result of sitting under the preaching at that evangelical Presbyterian church as a child. The pastor at that church then and now is Bob Vincent, who is often featured on Sermon Audio. I would say that he often preaches at a "higher level" than the preacher who parents said their High School age kids would not be able to understand. I think a lot of adults probably can't grasp a lot of what Bob preaches. But I was able to pick up enough to understand at least some of the essentials of the faith although I was not converted until much later.


----------



## Pergamum

Jack K said:


> Some facts:
> 
> The stats cited on kids who do not stay faithful are correct and well documented. The interpretation that this must be due to age-segregated programs is speculation, though some of the research does suggest it might be a factor.
> 
> The research (Barna's in particular) does show that the extent of parental involvement in a kid's spiritual upbringing is a big factor. Kids who participate in things like regular family devotions buck the trend. But this does not mean all age-segrageated programs at church are bad programs. They only become part of the problem _if_ they contribute to parents becoming uninvolved in their kids' spiritual upbringing. I do not believe, though, that having some age segregation automatically makes parents uninvolved.
> 
> In fact, the research specifically suggests it's home life, not church life, that is the deciding factor.
> 
> Finally, to blame the youth crisis on how church programs are designed is to place way to much significance on programs. This is a spiritual crisis. If kids are not staying faithful it means they're not being converted. And where kids are not being converted it's a safe bet this is because the gospel has been lost. The gospel is not gettting preached in the church, and it's not getting taught at home.
> 
> The problem with churches today, and the reason young people are dropping out, has far less to do with how programs are arranged and more to do with how faithfully the gospel is taught.


 






> The research (Barna's in particular) does show that the extent of parental involvement in a kid's spiritual upbringing is a big factor.
> ...
> In fact, the research specifically suggests it's home life, not church life, that is the deciding factor.



Amen.


----------



## Shawn Mathis

Grimmson said:


> Things that must be taught are textual criticisms, outlines of entire books of the Bible (there no excuse for a kid to grow up in the church and not have the entire Bible taught to them), the Proverbs and Psalms, basic systematic theological categories and their application, church history from Acts to the present, and lastly Apologetics. The most important thing being able to communicating the gospel. The biblical languages would also be nice.
> 
> The lack of what being taught in our churches communicates to the young people that theology is not important. Especially when parents are not engaged in learning it.



Amen brother! Preach it!

---------- Post added at 10:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:18 PM ----------




Esther W. said:


> Where can I read these stats? Is it online? I know in our own Presbytery I have not seen it-quite the opposite actually.



Esther,

It is refreshing to see some critical thinking. I know the 80ish% number has been thrown around in my neck of the woods but it is an SBC number (as I found out later). The Barna numbers should be easy to find by going to their website (I think they are lower but still alarming). 

The consistent statics that get closer to the heart of the issue are the Barn numbers over the last 20 years. The book unChristian summarizes their work, pointing out that only 3-9% of professing Christians have a nominal (if that) Christian worldview (as defined by Barna, which includes a vague view of salvation and no Holy Spirit!). Now, is it any wonder that the youth leave?

---------- Post added at 10:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:24 PM ----------




Damon Rambo said:


> However, making a 6 year old sit through an adult sermon, is either #1 A complete waste of time for the child, or #2 The sermon is so dumbed down and basic, that it does not actually instruct the adults.



Greetings Damon,

Just so you know, your concern will not move some readers since we believe in the regulative principle of worship, which means that God requires the children in worship (short of disrupting everyone). Otherwise, I think your observations are helpful.

---------- Post added at 10:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:28 PM ----------




Jack K said:


> The gospel is not gettting preached in the church, and it's not getting taught at home.



Amen. Amen.


----------



## fredtgreco

Damon Rambo said:


> fredtgreco said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damon Rambo said:
> 
> 
> 
> However, making a 6 year old sit through an adult sermon, is either #1 A complete waste of time for the child, or #2 The sermon is so dumbed down and basic, that it does not actually instruct the adults.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are obviously not a preacher. This statement is so foolish as to be nearly unbelievable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually I am. And I have seen children sit under some of the best reformed preachers today, and asked them afterward what the preacher was speaking of...and they couldn't tell me. I am NOT saying that children cannot understand these concepts. I have taught my children catechisms, my little girl can even explain some pretty complex doctrine. But she didn't do it listening to John Macarthur.
> 
> And I cannot believe you would make such an offensive statement. Please do not belittle me because I don't agree with you.
Click to expand...

 
Think about what you wrote. You made a blanket statement that the ONLY two alternatives to having a six year old in worship is that it is a waste, or a worthless sermon. Really? So before the early 20th century, no children EVER got the benefit of worship? Really? I preach every week to people from ages 5 (or so) to 85. I work hard (by God's grace) to make sure that the text connects with all of them. I get questions from the sermon on a regular basis from kids as young as six. I have in my inbox right now two good questions from an 8 year old and a 10 year old. 

It is not that children cannot benefit from some age segregated teaching. It is not that all age segregated teaching is forbidden by the Bible. But the preacher that cannot connect with all of his congregation on some level at least some of the time in his preaching is not preaching properly.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Amen Fred. I agree with Fred as I usually do. I know... I am a player. JK


----------



## Rev. Todd Ruddell

Our children learn much more than what is being taught/preached. They learn that they too are Covenant children and have a right to the means of grace. They learn what is expected of them, and will be their whole lives as Christians--that they belong in the worshipping assembly. I try to make it a point in each of my sermons to define more difficult terms, to speak to the children, etc. And, whatever increase the Lord gives is cause for rejoicing. However, as was said above, the Lord has prescribed these means--let us not be wiser than Him. When I see our toddlers singing with us, oh, not in words we might understand, I see that they understand that their place is with the rest of God's people, doing what we do, sitting during the sermon, listening for things they can recognize--they understand at least that they too belong with us, for they are God's people as well. To separate them out of the service is to break that bond to which they have a right with the Covenant people.


----------



## toddpedlar

Damon Rambo said:


> austinww said:
> 
> 
> 
> To clarify, I would not assert that age-segregated ministries in their various forms are the direct cause of a high falling out rate. What I meant (and should have said) was that the mindset toward church that many of these environments create and foster (in mine and others' experience) is a mindset that contributes heavily to the problem. That's all.
> 
> I'll admit I'm very unfond of the concept of having youth worship services and a youth minister, partly because of the above problem and partly because I do not see them as warranted by Scripture, however, I do not know if this is what you do, Damon, so I am in no place to speak to your position. I know that model is common in the SBC (where I grew up) and I have seen the damage it tends to do, but if you are redeeming the situation and discipling youth well then godspeed! I was only speaking of overall trends.
> 
> I am not so interested in convincing people to eliminate age segregation in every form. What I care about most is the worship service. THAT, at the very least, should be for everybody. My main concern here is to make sure we don't throw out long-standing traditional worship practices (where they have better Scriptural warrant) as a reaction to the extremes of a particular organization.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for your gracious reply brother. In all honesty, I am not sure of my feelings on my own position. I know the separate Youth services on Wednesday night allows me the opportunity to preach, allows the youth an opportunity to be trained in leading worship, and allows the youth a voice that I think they would not otherwise have. .
Click to expand...

 
Why in the world do the youth need to have "an opportunity to be trained in leading worship"? What "voice" do they need besides the ability to sing with the rest of the congregation? Your model presupposes a non-RPW, modern-era egalitarian form of church practice that seems to smack of the idea that if one isn't "up front" being "part of the show" then one isn't participating in worship. Such a notion is unbiblical hogwash.


----------



## Fly Caster

Damon Rambo said:


> However, making a 6 year old sit through an adult sermon, is either #1 A complete waste of time for the child, or #2 The sermon is so dumbed down and basic, that it does not actually instruct the adults.


 
Brother, I don't mean to pile on, but I too have to take strong exception to that. How can it be a complete waste of time for a child to sit and receive instruction by observing the proper manner of worshipping God? If Calvin was correct in that oft-quoted phrase (and I believe he was) that a knowledge of the proper way of worshipping God is of greater priority than all else, what that child learns by observation before he can understand a word will have a tremendous impact on his undertstanding of "Church" for the reat of his life. We've got to get that impressed upon young minds before anything else.

Furthermore, I've watched my children's spiritual progress with other kids their age. Mine sit with me through long and heavy sermons. Others do the children's church and youth program route. I've seen the difference, and it has no resemblance to anything that can be called a "waste of time."


----------



## Damon Rambo

fredtgreco said:


> Damon Rambo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fredtgreco said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damon Rambo said:
> 
> 
> 
> However, making a 6 year old sit through an adult sermon, is either #1 A complete waste of time for the child, or #2 The sermon is so dumbed down and basic, that it does not actually instruct the adults.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are obviously not a preacher. This statement is so foolish as to be nearly unbelievable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually I am. And I have seen children sit under some of the best reformed preachers today, and asked them afterward what the preacher was speaking of...and they couldn't tell me. I am NOT saying that children cannot understand these concepts. I have taught my children catechisms, my little girl can even explain some pretty complex doctrine. But she didn't do it listening to John Macarthur.
> 
> And I cannot believe you would make such an offensive statement. Please do not belittle me because I don't agree with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Think about what you wrote. You made a blanket statement that the ONLY two alternatives to having a six year old in worship is that it is a waste, or a worthless sermon. Really? So before the early 20th century, no children EVER got the benefit of worship? Really? I preach every week to people from ages 5 (or so) to 85. I work hard (by God's grace) to make sure that the text connects with all of them. I get questions from the sermon on a regular basis from kids as young as six. I have in my inbox right now two good questions from an 8 year old and a 10 year old.
> 
> It is not that children cannot benefit from some age segregated teaching. It is not that all age segregated teaching is forbidden by the Bible. But the preacher that cannot connect with all of his congregation on some level at least some of the time in his preaching is not preaching properly.
Click to expand...

 
I am sorry. You are right; I have overstated my case, and that was not my intent. 

However, I stand by my statement that Children are much better off learning Biblical doctrine at their own level. Instruction is a building process. Adult believer's should be deep in the Word of God, not swimming in the shallow end. Young children, that have perhaps only recently begun to talk, and take their first inching steps into reading, get lost quickly when listening to an instructional John Macarthur/ Ligon Duncan type sermon.

---------- Post added at 10:27 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:25 AM ----------




toddpedlar said:


> Damon Rambo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> austinww said:
> 
> 
> 
> To clarify, I would not assert that age-segregated ministries in their various forms are the direct cause of a high falling out rate. What I meant (and should have said) was that the mindset toward church that many of these environments create and foster (in mine and others' experience) is a mindset that contributes heavily to the problem. That's all.
> 
> I'll admit I'm very unfond of the concept of having youth worship services and a youth minister, partly because of the above problem and partly because I do not see them as warranted by Scripture, however, I do not know if this is what you do, Damon, so I am in no place to speak to your position. I know that model is common in the SBC (where I grew up) and I have seen the damage it tends to do, but if you are redeeming the situation and discipling youth well then godspeed! I was only speaking of overall trends.
> 
> I am not so interested in convincing people to eliminate age segregation in every form. What I care about most is the worship service. THAT, at the very least, should be for everybody. My main concern here is to make sure we don't throw out long-standing traditional worship practices (where they have better Scriptural warrant) as a reaction to the extremes of a particular organization.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for your gracious reply brother. In all honesty, I am not sure of my feelings on my own position. I know the separate Youth services on Wednesday night allows me the opportunity to preach, allows the youth an opportunity to be trained in leading worship, and allows the youth a voice that I think they would not otherwise have. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why in the world do the youth need to have "an opportunity to be trained in leading worship"? What "voice" do they need besides the ability to sing with the rest of the congregation? Your model presupposes a non-RPW, modern-era egalitarian form of church practice that seems to smack of the idea that if one isn't "up front" being "part of the show" then one isn't participating in worship. Such a notion is unbiblical hogwash.
Click to expand...

 
You do not think we should be training our young men called into the ministry to lead worship, preach, teach, etc.? Tell me, who do you think SHOULD do such things then?


----------



## Fly Caster

Damon Rambo said:


> You do not think we should be training our young men called into the ministry to lead worship, preach, teach, etc.?


 
I don't think that's what he said.


----------



## Damon Rambo

Fly Caster said:


> Damon Rambo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do not think we should be training our young men called into the ministry to lead worship, preach, teach, etc.?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that's what he said.
Click to expand...

 
Uh, but that's what *I *said. And I am assuming he was legitimately responding to my question, not just taking a jab at me. Our youth group is about training our young folks in their roles, in proper doctrine, and teaching them to be leaders and proclaimers of the Gospel. I think that is precisely what we are called to do.


----------



## toddpedlar

Damon Rambo said:


> Fly Caster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damon Rambo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do not think we should be training our young men called into the ministry to lead worship, preach, teach, etc.?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that's what he said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh, but that's what *I *said. And I am assuming he was legitimately responding to my question, not just taking a jab at me. Our youth group is about training our young folks in their roles, in proper doctrine, and teaching them to be leaders and proclaimers of the Gospel. I think that is precisely what we are called to do.
Click to expand...

 
That is absolutely NOT what you said. Here is your statement:



> allows the youth an opportunity to be trained in leading worship, and allows the youth a voice that I think they would not otherwise have. .



You said "the youth" are to be trained in leading worship, and given a voice they would not otherwise have. Members of the "youth group" is what anyone would reasonably have heard you to be saying. Nowhere did you limit this discussion to "young men called into the ministry" - you just specified an undifferentiated "youth". I can't see how anyone would get from the whole of what you have been saying, least of all the particular statement I was reacting to, to your claimed intent of "our young men who are called to ministry".


----------



## Jack K

Damon Rambo said:


> In all honesty, I am not sure of my feelings on my own position. I know the separate Youth services on Wednesday night allows me the opportunity to preach, allows the youth an opportunity to be trained in leading worship, and allows the youth a voice that I think they would not otherwise have.



Damon:

I wonder if some of us have missed the fact that you yourself are unsure about the youth worship service thing you do. This is a place to learn and challenge each other, so I'm glad you were willing to bring it up... especially as it involves something at the heart of your ministry work. It's never easy to open up one's own ministry—with the satisfaction and sense of value it gives—to critique.

You know I am on your side, so to speak, in terms of believing that age-segregated programs can be helpful if done well and in moderation. But I too am immediately wary when you speak of your weekly youth worship service. The potential pitfalls would seem to be numerous:

- It might add to a belief that good worship is mostly defined by how meaningful it feels to the worshiper—how it resonates with his cultural and generational tastes—rather than by how well it resonates with what God has revealed of himself. If the youth start to feel that the youth service is the main weekly service they look forward to, then it is not only threatening the unity of the church but is reinforcing a self-directed view of worship and a self-directed approach to faith in God. That threatens the gospel, so it's a big problem. If they feel they can't worship as well in a service that style-wise mirrors the larger culture rather than pandering to their own youth culture, that's a clear symptom of an underlying misunderstanding of worship.

- It might add to a sense that the faith life of the kids and that of their parents ought to take different tracks. This is a tricky one because we _want_ kids at this age to be developing a faith that thrives on its own, even when parents aren't around. And we need to give them opportunities to serve the church and learn independently. But home life is still the the most important influence in a kid's life, even during the teen years, and we must be careful not to let a youth service displace whole-church and with-your-parents worship. It _is_ easy for both parents and kids to see the kid trotting off to the youth service and think, "good, the spiritual thing is taken care of." This too is dangerous.

- It might add to a sense that leadership skills are to be developed only within one's own generational enclave. It's good to start training leaders when they're young. But is this a situation where you, either by yourself or with a team of designated "youth leaders", are alone the mentor for a whole bunch of leader-to-be young people? And is it a situation where these young leaders are only leading other young people? If so, before long they will see that whatever leadership or service they develop has little to do with the rest of the church. And then we could hardly blame them if, down the road, they see no reason to be involved in any church except one made up of other people just like themselves.

So... I too encourage you to think about how to make sure these problems don't occur, or how they can be reversed. How might the current program be turned into one that serves the whole church, better integrated with both parents and the church at large? How might budding leaders among the youth be paired with true mentors throughout the congregation who're doing meaningful work for the whole church? How might kids' thirst for independence be channeled into serving in meaningful ways in the corporate Sunday worship service, so that it becomes _the_ church event they look forward to all week? And how might they be encouraged that when they worship alongside people who're both older and younger, offering praise and listening to sermons that style-wise aren't catered specifically to themselves, they are in so doing honoring God?

These are not easy questions to answer. My church struggles with them too. And as both a children's ministry leader and a parent I struggle with them. It's important that we do.


----------



## Damon Rambo

toddpedlar said:


> Damon Rambo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fly Caster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damon Rambo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do not think we should be training our young men called into the ministry to lead worship, preach, teach, etc.?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that's what he said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh, but that's what *I *said. And I am assuming he was legitimately responding to my question, not just taking a jab at me. Our youth group is about training our young folks in their roles, in proper doctrine, and teaching them to be leaders and proclaimers of the Gospel. I think that is precisely what we are called to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is absolutely NOT what you said. Here is your statement:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> allows the youth an opportunity to be trained in leading worship, and allows the youth a voice that I think they would not otherwise have. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You said "the youth" are to be trained in leading worship, and given a voice they would not otherwise have. Members of the "youth group" is what anyone would reasonably have heard you to be saying. Nowhere did you limit this discussion to "young men called into the ministry" - you just specified an undifferentiated "youth". I can't see how anyone would get from the whole of what you have been saying, least of all the particular statement I was reacting to, to your claimed intent of "our young men who are called to ministry".
Click to expand...

 
It IS what I said...its just not what you HEARD. First off, no, I did not limit the discussion to only those called to ministry. But I (I guess wrongly) assumed that I would be given the benefit of the doubt about certain things. Why on earth would I allow someone not called to ministry to lead our worship service? I think you are just looking for a fight.

As far as having a "voice," yes, I think the youth being able to integrate their faith into their lives, instead of having to be just like mom and dad in all things, is a positive. In the main worship service, at least at our church, certain practices are looked down on, though not banned. These things are positive and worshipful things, that deserve to be expressed. But they make some older folks uncomfortable. Nothing wrong with giving the youth a means of expressing these things.


----------



## Fly Caster

Damon Rambo said:


> Fly Caster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damon Rambo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do not think we should be training our young men called into the ministry to lead worship, preach, teach, etc.?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that's what he said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh, but that's what *I *said. And I am assuming he was legitimately responding to my question, not just taking a jab at me. Our youth group is about training our young folks in their roles, in proper doctrine, and teaching them to be leaders and proclaimers of the Gospel. I think that is precisely what we are called to do.
Click to expand...


Has the Church been bereft of adequate ministerial/leadership training before the recent development of the Youth Program?


----------



## KMK

Damon Rambo said:


> It IS what I said...its just not what you HEARD. First off, no, I did not limit the discussion to only those called to ministry. But I (I guess wrongly) assumed that I would be given the benefit of the doubt about certain things. Why on earth would I allow someone not called to ministry to lead our worship service? *I think you are just looking for a fight.*



The purpose of these discussions is to clarify our views and perspectives. Asking for clarification is not 'picking a fight'. You are assigning motives of the heart to Todd and I think you need to apologize.


----------



## Damon Rambo

Jack K said:


> Damon Rambo said:
> 
> 
> 
> In all honesty, I am not sure of my feelings on my own position. I know the separate Youth services on Wednesday night allows me the opportunity to preach, allows the youth an opportunity to be trained in leading worship, and allows the youth a voice that I think they would not otherwise have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damon:
> 
> I wonder if some of us have missed the fact that you yourself are unsure about the youth worship service thing you do. This is a place to learn and challenge each other, so I'm glad you were willing to bring it up... especially as it involves something at the heart of your ministry work. It's never easy to open up one's own ministry—with the satisfaction and sense of value it gives—to critique.
> 
> You know I am on your side, so to speak, in terms of believing that age-segregated programs can be helpful if done well and in moderation. But I too am immediately wary when you speak of your weekly youth worship service. The potential pitfalls would seem to be numerous:
> 
> - It might add to a belief that good worship is mostly defined by how meaningful it feels to the worshiper—how it resonates with his cultural and generational tastes—rather than by how well it resonates with what God has revealed of himself. If the youth start to feel that the youth service is the main weekly service they look forward to, then it is not only threatening the unity of the church but is reinforcing a self-directed view of worship and a self-directed approach to faith in God. That threatens the gospel, so it's a big problem. If they feel they can't worship as well in a service that style-wise mirrors the larger culture rather than pandering to their own youth culture, that's a clear symptom of an underlying misunderstanding of worship.
> 
> - It might add to a sense that the faith life of the kids and that of their parents ought to take different tracks. This is a tricky one because we _want_ kids at this age to be developing a faith that thrives on its own, even when parents aren't around. And we need to give them opportunities to serve the church and learn independently. But home life is still the the most important influence in a kid's life, even during the teen years, and we must be careful not to let a youth service displace whole-church and with-your-parents worship. It _is_ easy for both parents and kids to see the kid trotting off to the youth service and think, "good, the spiritual thing is taken care of." This too is dangerous.
> 
> - It might add to a sense that leadership skills are to be developed only within one's own generational enclave. It's good to start training leaders when they're young. But is this a situation where you, either by yourself or with a team of designated "youth leaders", are alone the mentor for a whole bunch of leader-to-be young people? And is it a situation where these young leaders are only leading other young people? If so, before long they will see that whatever leadership or service they develop has little to do with the rest of the church. And then we could hardly blame them if, down the road, they see no reason to be involved in any church except one made up of other people just like themselves.
> 
> So... I too encourage you to think about how to make sure these problems don't occur, or how they can be reversed. How might the current program be turned into one that serves the whole church, better integrated with both parents and the church at large? How might budding leaders among the youth be paired with true mentors throughout the congregation who're doing meaningful work for the whole church? How might kids' thirst for independence be channeled into serving in meaningful ways in the corporate Sunday worship service, so that it becomes _the_ church event they look forward to all week? And how might they be encouraged that when they worship alongside people who're both older and younger, offering praise and listening to sermons that style-wise aren't catered specifically to themselves, they are in so doing honoring God?
> 
> These are not easy questions to answer. My church struggles with them too. And as both a children's ministry leader and a parent I struggle with them. It's important that we do.
Click to expand...

 
Brother, I agree. These issues are difficult. They are made difficult not only by the youth, who tend to make worship about their personal preferences and desires, but by the older people who do the same. If certain older individuals in the church did not complain over everything that the youth did, or try to constantly enforce their own preferences at every turn (at the exclusion of the younger's preference), these things would not even be extant.

I realize your Presbyterian, so this might not be as much of an issue for you. But try to empathize here. Imagine you moved to a new town. There were two churches in town, both of which had excellent preaching, correct doctrine, and an equal emphasis on the Gospel. All things were equal, BUT: at one of these churches, you were not allowed to express your worship of God in any way except quietly singing. Even becoming emotional over what your savior had done for you, and causing you to sing loudly, would literally have people glaring at you, and upset. The people their were always pointing out your smallest faults. Among them (actual complaints that I have gotten about my youth)

> Writing a scripture verse down on their hand ("That is just so distracting" the man told me).
> Placing one's hand over one's heart while singing ("Bunch of 'Holy Rollers'")
> Opening the door to the sanctuary so a little one could go to the bathroom.
> Singing too loud.
> Raising hands.
> Standing up during singing (which is actually a normal practice at our church)
> Saying "amen" (which is also a normal practice at our church...but how dare a youth get into the sermon, right?)
> Sitting in front of someone (only when it is youth...it can be a 6 foot 6 basketball player, and that's perfectly O.K.)

Now, the other church allowed you to express yourself in all of those ways, without complaint. No one was ever "out to get you." Same sermons were preached, same doctrine taught. But one group made you feel wanted, and the other didn't. 

Which church would YOU want to go to? Now, how can you expect any different from the youth? The key to changing the "status quo" does not reside with the youth, who have little say in the matter. The key to changing it, is with the older men and women recognizing and encouraging the youth, instead of acting like the "pulpit police."

---------- Post added at 12:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:33 PM ----------




KMK said:


> Damon Rambo said:
> 
> 
> 
> It IS what I said...its just not what you HEARD. First off, no, I did not limit the discussion to only those called to ministry. But I (I guess wrongly) assumed that I would be given the benefit of the doubt about certain things. Why on earth would I allow someone not called to ministry to lead our worship service? *I think you are just looking for a fight.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The purpose of these discussions is to clarify our views and perspectives. Asking for clarification is not 'picking a fight'. You are assigning motives of the heart to Todd and I think you need to apologize.
Click to expand...

 
Brother, I appreciate that I am on the wrong side of this discussion in many people's minds here. But I don't think that gives people the right to come at me "all guns blazing," in the rudest way possible. The gentleman is being extremely abrasive in his approach. Why would he not ask for clarification, instead of attacking me and calling my ministerial efforts "un-biblical hogwash?"


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Damon Rambo said:


> It IS what I said...its just not what you HEARD. First off, no, I did not limit the discussion to only those called to ministry. But I (I guess wrongly) assumed that I would be given the benefit of the doubt about certain things. Why on earth would I allow someone not called to ministry to lead our worship service? I think you are just looking for a fight.
> 
> As far as having a "voice," yes, I think the youth being able to integrate their faith into their lives, instead of having to be just like mom and dad in all things, is a positive. In the main worship service, at least at our church, certain practices are looked down on, though not banned. These things are positive and worshipful things, that deserve to be expressed. But they make some older folks uncomfortable. Nothing wrong with giving the youth a means of expressing these things.




Funny thing. My Papa in the faith Pastor Joe Gwynn posted something that relates to what you are saying here Damon. 



> Part of the reason young men are so prone to foolishness is that our culture places so little value on the wisdom of its elders. Children are often taught in government school curricula to mock the values of preceding generations, thus turning the "teach them to your children's children" program of God (and sanity) on its head.



Let me ask you a question. Because I don't know what your Churches procedure is for determining whether a young man is called into leadership, can you give us some kind of hint on how you all determine this? Are these young teens examined? I am asking as a Reformed Baptist let me remind you. I also think you were read in context. Context does have place in life when you reading someone's thoughts. Maybe you weren't clear enough. I don't think anyone is trying to pic a fight. I think we all want to protect the youth and the Church here. Please read us in context and not impune false motive to us.


----------



## kodos

Why do the youth get to have their own service? That boggles my mind.

I've come out of churches that have the youth programs. My family has been in an integrated worship service for 3 months now (with age-appropriate Sunday School before the service) and I will never put them back in a youth program. My kids range from 6yrs down to 6months.

They have absorbed so much in the last 3 months (particularly the 4 year old and the 6 year old) because they get to see Church in action. They get to see Word, Sacrament and Prayer. They see that infants to 90 year olds are there enraptured, and that Christ is relevant no matter what age or station in life you happen to be in.

They got to pray along about our Pastor's son's facial surgery, about the Firefighters battling a blaze in West Texas, they get to hear about the challenges of old age, and of youth. They get to see what goes on in the Lord's Supper, they get to see baptism, and congregational vows.

They pick up on _many_ aspects of the sermons. They hear the 'technical' jargon. They'll understand it soon.

They see their mom and dad on their knees confessing our sins. That we are _not_ holier than them. They see that we will prostrate ourselves before the Lord _publicly_. That we deserve death. But that God through His great love and mercy has made us alive in Christ.

They get to hear about our Lord's broken body and spilt blood every time we go to the Lord's Table (weekly). They see that the Lord is Good.

They see that mom and dad love to go and be part of what God is doing. They see that the community of Christ is more than a single age range, sex, or race.

They see the love that their uncles and aunts in Christ have for them when they offer to sit with them because my wife is having a tough time. They see their friends in the service, paying attention. 

And it gives us so much to talk about after the sermon, and it gives _me_ the opportunity to distill down what our Pastor preached on for them. And yes, parents are the biggest issue in the church today - we do not sit down and spend time teaching them and showing our kids how much we value the Lord.

Anyhow, why would I give up any of that to send them back to the youth program?

---------- Post added at 01:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:52 PM ----------




Damon Rambo said:


> Brother, I agree. These issues are difficult. They are made difficult not only by the youth, who tend to make worship about their personal preferences and desires, but by the older people who do the same. If certain older individuals in the church did not complain over everything that the youth did, or try to constantly enforce their own preferences at every turn (at the exclusion of the younger's preference), these things would not even be extant.



That is so sad to hear Damon, but not unexpected. We had a similar problem (though not as bad!) at the last church we were in (before we became Presbyterian). What does the Pastor of the Church think about this? Is he supportive of having the youth in the service? Can he address this issue with the congregation?

I really feel for you and the youth you are ministering to. As a parent of younger kids, we'd often get the "stare" from those who thought we were interrupting their private time with God while in the middle of corporate worship.


----------



## Damon Rambo

I am done with this thread. If you wish, you may P.M. me for further questions.


----------



## Jack K

Damon Rambo said:


> If certain older individuals in the church did not complain over everything that the youth did, or try to constantly enforce their own preferences at every turn (at the exclusion of the younger's preference), these things would not even be extant.




Yup. In my experience it's usually a whole-church issue. The "older" people are likely missing something, too, and often are just as committed to style preferences and generational traditions as are the younger set. Don't get me started on how children and young people are, in little ways, sometimes not made to feel welcome in the churches I've been part of.

But I still think separating from each other is not the biblical answer, nor one that's healthy for the church. Learning to live with each other and pursuing reconciliation (though admittedly difficult) reaps great rewards.


----------



## fredtgreco

Jack K said:


> Damon Rambo said:
> 
> 
> 
> If certain older individuals in the church did not complain over everything that the youth did, or try to constantly enforce their own preferences at every turn (at the exclusion of the younger's preference), these things would not even be extant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup. In my experience it's usually a whole-church issue. The "older" people are likely missing something, too, and often are just as committed to style preferences and generational traditions as are the younger set. Don't get me started on how children and young people are, in little ways, sometimes not made to feel welcome in the churches I've been part of.
> 
> But I still think separating from each other is not the biblical answer, nor one that's healthy for the church. Learning to live with each other and pursuing reconciliation (though admittedly difficult) reaps great rewards.
Click to expand...

 
Age separation tends to cause these problems for older people. They are not used to dealing with such issues.


----------



## KMK

Damon Rambo said:


> Why would he not ask for clarification, instead of attacking me and calling my ministerial efforts "un-biblical hogwash?"



He wasn't attacking your ministerial efforts as hogwash. He was attacking the unreformed view you appeared to be promoting which you have since clarified somewhat.


----------



## smhbbag

> Don't get me started on how children and young people are, in little ways, sometimes not made to feel welcome in the churches I've been part of.



I know you told me not to, but can I get you started on it?  

What are these ways?


----------



## Bill The Baptist

smhbbag said:


> Don't get me started on how children and young people are, in little ways, sometimes not made to feel welcome in the churches I've been part of.
> I know you told me not to, but can I get you started on it?
> 
> What are these ways?



They probably call the kids by the wrong name. Sorry, I couldn't resist.


----------



## Shawn Mathis

kodos said:


> I've come out of churches that have the youth programs. My family has been in an integrated worship service for 3 months now (with age-appropriate Sunday School before the service) and I will never put them back in a youth program.



Rom, et.al., 

I am glad to hear that. It does seem the majority on this thread believe that age-segregated (appropriate--I like that usage) Sunday school is, well, appropriate. Presumably if used rightly and in a church that fosters parental authority.

But what do the readers think about:
a) The "desert island test"
b) That family-integrated churches and homeschoolers are "almost by definition" part of a revival?

thanks again for reading my essay,


----------



## Esther W.

Shawn Mathis said:


> kodos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've come out of churches that have the youth programs. My family has been in an integrated worship service for 3 months now (with age-appropriate Sunday School before the service) and I will never put them back in a youth program.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rom, et.al.,
> 
> I am glad to hear that. It does seem the majority on this thread believe that age-segregated (appropriate--I like that usage) Sunday school is, well, appropriate. Presumably if used rightly and in a church that fosters parental authority.
> 
> But what do the readers think about:
> a) The "desert island test"
> b) That family-integrated churches and homeschoolers are "almost by definition" part of a revival?
> 
> thanks again for reading my essay,
Click to expand...


I'm sorry pastor Shawn for my late arrival and ignorance into this debate-but what is the "dessert test"? Having read through different articles on your blog I was so relieved to read the practical, thoroughly biblical, common sense of them. 

On Home Schooling: I public educated my kids; home schooled them; private schooled them-and used various public programs in educating them- I even founded 2 public programs that allowed parents who wanted more structure to assist them in home based education. I have experienced well meaning, but nonetheless legalistic families who openly fought against programs I started/supported. They have directed at me, sometimes fierce hostility, at public policy meetings. I have witnessed first hand how disapproval directed at anyone who did not tow the home school line, has had tragic consequences on fellow believers, who are over burdened with guilt because they did not home school. So my proverbial hat is off to you for this much needed discussion.


----------



## Shawn Mathis

Esther,

This thread started with my short paper on the family integrated church movement. Here is part of the issue:

"In his lecture about the history of Sunday schools, the founder and current board member, Mr. Phillips, declares these schools a “modern invention without biblical and historical precedent—period.” He also asserts that today’s church has “ . . . an entirely new hierarchy of social groups based on age: . . . dayschools . . . adolescence . . . PMS for women of certain age . . . these are all variations of evolutionary hellish thinking.”[3] Mr. Phillips claims that such special-interest thinking resulted from Greek thinking (youth and efficiency) instead of Hebraic thinking (discipleship and relationships). In fact, the “modern classroom . . . is a distinctly Greek and pagan approach to education”—an approach initiated by the Devil himself.[4]"

Part of his reasoning against comprehensive age-segregation is the following:
“[If all you had was the Bible on a desert island] . . . would you naturally conclude that you should fragment children along age-groups and put them in grade-based classroom . . . would you see a foundation . . . would you see a pattern, would there be any ground, any refuge in God’s Word that leads you to mimic this approach?”[5]

Hope that helps.


----------



## Esther W.

Shawn Mathis said:


> Esther,
> 
> This thread started with my short paper on the family integrated church movement. Here is part of the issue:
> 
> "In his lecture about the history of Sunday schools, the founder and current board member, Mr. Phillips, declares these schools a “modern invention without biblical and historical precedent—period.” He also asserts that today’s church has “ . . . an entirely new hierarchy of social groups based on age: . . . dayschools . . . adolescence . . . PMS for women of certain age . . . these are all variations of evolutionary hellish thinking.”[3] Mr. Phillips claims that such special-interest thinking resulted from Greek thinking (youth and efficiency) instead of Hebraic thinking (discipleship and relationships). In fact, the “modern classroom . . . is a distinctly Greek and pagan approach to education”—an approach initiated by the Devil himself.[4]"
> 
> Part of his reasoning against comprehensive age-segregation is the following:
> “[If all you had was the Bible on a desert island] . . . would you naturally conclude that you should fragment children along age-groups and put them in grade-based classroom . . . would you see a foundation . . . would you see a pattern, would there be any ground, any refuge in God’s Word that leads you to mimic this approach?”[5]
> 
> Hope that helps.



Got it-thanks.

I have one thought that comes instantly to mind to his desert island question- For worship no- for other activities yes, I might.


----------



## Shawn Mathis

Esther W. said:


> Having read through different articles on your blog I was so relieved to read the practical, thoroughly biblical, common sense of them.



Thank you.



Esther W. said:


> I public educated my kids; home schooled them; private schooled them-and used various public programs in educating them



In my research, my own experience and others testimonies, I think this happens more than many homeschooling leaders would know. Homeschooling is a tool, an option, for many parents (sometimes the only option!). With the rise of distant learning (virtual academies, etc.) the definition of homeschooling is being stretched, which is a good thing in general.


----------



## Shawn Mathis

Esther W. said:


> I have witnessed first hand how disapproval directed at anyone who did not tow the home school line, has had tragic consequences on fellow believers, who are over burdened with guilt because they did not home school.



Esther, and others,

This is exactly why I began my journey into the study of homeschooling and Christian nurture four years ago. People were claiming (and hearing from many self-proclaimed homeschooling leaders) that if they want godly families and saved children they should follow the old paths: homeschool like early America! family-integrate your church! 

Historically they have no leg to stand on. For instance, I've heard it said (usually by innuendo): "Want another Patrick Henry? Homeschool!" Talk about laying on the guilt! Patrick Henry was not homeschooled. See my Famous Homeschoolers in History...? 

That is just the tip of the iceberg. They don't even tell you that early American culture was predominately Calvinistic. So, I encourage you and other to pass around my articles directly challenging these historical errors such as A Very Short History of Christian Education--all documented of course!

And speaking of guilt, some of these leaders want that guilt: "Of course, my prayer is that every family would homeschool from birth. If that's not you, my prayer is that you will homeschool from now on. It may require difficult changes. It may require the awkward work of repenting to your wife and to your children for how you have abdicated your responsibility." R. C. Sproul, Jr. (p.133, When You Rise Up)


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Excellent expose' on Famous Homeschoolers in History.


----------



## Esther W.

Shawn Mathis said:


> Esther W. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have witnessed first hand how disapproval directed at anyone who did not tow the home school line, has had tragic consequences on fellow believers, who are over burdened with guilt because they did not home school.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Esther, and others,
> 
> This is exactly why I began my journey into the study of homeschooling and Christian nurture four years ago. People were claiming (and hearing from many self-proclaimed homeschooling leaders) that if they want godly families and saved children they should follow the old paths: homeschool like early America! family-integrate your church!
> 
> Historically they have no leg to stand on. For instance, I've heard it said (usually by innuendo): "Want another Patrick Henry? Homeschool!" Talk about laying on the guilt! Patrick Henry was not homeschooled. See my Famous Homeschoolers in History...?
> 
> That is just the tip of the iceberg. They don't even tell you that early American culture was predominately Calvinistic. So, I encourage you and other to pass around my articles directly challenging these historical errors such as A Very Short History of Christian Education--all documented of course!
> 
> And speaking of guilt, some of these leaders want that guilt: "Of course, my prayer is that every family would homeschool from birth. If that's not you, my prayer is that you will homeschool from now on. It may require difficult changes. It may require the awkward work of repenting to your wife and to your children for how you have abdicated your responsibility." R. C. Sproul, Jr. (p.133, When You Rise Up)
Click to expand...



RC Jr and I exchanged a few brief emails back in 2002, regarding Patriarchy and its divisiveness, which included the idea that home schooling was a biblical practice. It is my contention that if home schooling is a good fit for you and your family it is a worthy endeavor. Things, that make it a bad fit, range from financial ability to emotional ability and all kinds of circumstances in between and or coupled together. Some women are just simply not emotionally equipped to home school-honest statement for you husbands out there. If your wife does not believe she can do this-protect her by supporting an alternative to home schooling. The guilt and self loathing that women can experience because they can't be as "holy" as their counterparts is tragic. I was a member of a local body that saw families leave over the teachings of Patriarchy happening outside the church by some families. It presents itself as pious and godly-and in a practical sense it is-but when it is used as a bully pulpit it becomes a tool of Satan. To say that scripture teaches that parents must home school their children is not in evidence. It is a preference that can benefit, but as I have also seen, it can have bad results too.


----------



## Shawn Mathis

Esther,

I agree that there are many factors involved in the private decisions of parents about how best to educate their children--no less an old-school, hard-nosed conservative Presbyterian, Dabney, agreed as much. 

The good thing about Sproul Jr. is that he publicly states this legalistic position whereas the likes of Mr. Phillips and others use different language that points in the same direction: 

"Most men are gripped by fear. They fear the loss of job security. They fear the unknown. They fear the opinions of others. This fear prevents many fathers from beginning home education — the educational approach most consistent with both the methodology and goals of education as articulated in Scripture. This fear prevents other fathers from making lifestyle changes which will allow them to spend more time walking beside their children, as God commands...Methods are not neutral. The rise of the home education movement is not merely a response to the failure of government education; it is an affirmation of a distinctively Biblical approach to both the methods and the objectives of Christian education." Vision Forum about page, online.

The more people like you and others know these views, the more quickly they can lose their public positions as homeschooling leaders.


----------



## Shawn Mathis

Hello all,

Below are some follow up articles about family-integrated churches. I think those strongly in favor of this movement may find much common ground with the first article:

1. Uniting Church and Family (weswhite.net)

2. A Weed in the Church: A Review (this is a short book review of Mr. Brown's new book (he is president of the NCFIC)) This should be a must read (unless you want to read the whole book) for those looking for more nuance out of the movement. 

3. An extended analysis of the claims of Mr. Phillips (at examiner.com where I write as the Denver Christian Perspective writer [pastors should look into examiner.com for their city]). 

4. More articles here.

For peace and unity in the church,


----------

