# Seeking Biblical basis for who is to teach children.



## Username3000 (Jun 2, 2015)

Brothers, 

My church has recently begun a children's class on Wednesday nights, during which time is the church Bible Study. 

I have been asked to help, but I must first work through my personal conviction on the matter. 

My current position is that a *father* is to teach his children. This I can see in Scripture (ex. Eph. 6:4). What I cannot see is where another man is to teach my child (apart from elders during public worship). Nor do I see where other church volunteers are to teach my child. 

I do not actually have children yet, but am speaking as if I did. I currently would not put them in this class, but would strive to raise them to be able to remain with the rest of the church as we study God's Word. 

What am I missing? Where can you point me in the Word of God that can shed some light on this matter? The only responses I have received that are pro-children's class are those which essentially use tradition, other ministries as examples, and pragmatism as their arguments. 

I know there are many who hold a different position than I, so please help me to see the other side. 

Thank you.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jun 2, 2015)

2Chr.15:3 "Now for a long season Israel hath been without the true God, and without a *teaching priest*, and without law." Dt.24:8 points to the Levites and the priests as the ordained teachers of the OT people. Mic.3:11 mentions perversion of this role by the taking of money (other than ordained giving) for this service.

There is no qualification of who should be taught by them, whether "only men" or "only adults." The fact that fathers are commanded to teach their children in Dt.6:7 (or Eph.6:4) does not restrain them from using the gifts of others in said instruction. In fact, it can be a species of pride to assume the full and unaided responsibility, when better teachers are available, or better-prepared, or available when the father is not.

What I think is needful from your standpoint is a truly biblical rationale for thinking that for practically any legitimate action, there must be a prior biblically defined category in which it may conscientiously placed; and a positive commandment given in Scripture for what is permissible. This sounds to me like a RPW for all of life.

Scripture tells us that women may teach other women not necessarily of their own offspring, Tit.2:4. Mothers teach their sons, Prv.1:8. Historically, the church has recognized the propriety of qualified female instructors in Christian education settings (like Sunday School) even over boys, if they are already still in subjection to their own mothers.

That submitting to another teacher (perhaps only in religious matters?) than a specifically divinely appointed judge--like a father or a pastor--is either rebellious or dangerous: this idea is unfounded. It is rationalistic. It certainly is radically controlling, and I hope you can let it go.

If you are well-qualified to teach, or to assist, wouldn't the position in question be a natural place to test your gifts? To see if you are "apt to teach," 1Tim.3:2, and possibly elder-material in days to come? Are those who might consider someday electing you to church office only study your children, trying to see how acutely you have taught them?

Is it the church's interest to see children instructed in the faith? Who can doubt it? Could there be a conceivable "downside" to whatever avenue they select, and whatever means they employ? Of course, but to do nothing because some ill could result is foolish; and to claim to know for sure that some potential problem is inevitable is borderline blasphemous. How can you know that, except by revelation or omniscience?

This is no endorsement of thoughtless implementation of any old idea, just because it sounds good. But I think you should reexamine the basis of your own instinct for caution. If you cannot see the benefits of both joint (all ages) instruction and developmentally appropriate instruction, well... I hope you change your mind for the betterment of your own (future) children, and others'.


----------



## Username3000 (Jun 2, 2015)

Thank you, brother. That is much food for thought this morning.


----------



## Jack K (Jun 2, 2015)

I teach kids in the church. Many of their fathers are appreciative because I bring things to the table they might miss, as they do when they help me instruct my own children. Not only is the family a family, but the church is a family too. We help each other. I don't have a proof text for that so much as it's something I get from the whole of Scripture. The mutually encouraging/instructing community of God's people is a huge principle that we ignore to our peril.

Our children are not just our own; they are God's and members of his community.

Think through Luke 2:41-52. Jesus allowed himself, when he was still considered a child at the age of twelve, to be taught by expert teachers who were not his dad. That pretty much settles the issue for me, and it fits the principles found in the rest of the Bible. Clearly Jesus believed in making use of the wisdom of other teachers in the larger family of God. He was obedient to his parents and lived with them, yet knew that his place was not with them alone.


----------



## chuckd (Jun 2, 2015)

E.R. CROSS said:


> Brothers,
> 
> My church has recently begun a children's class on Wednesday nights, during which time is the church Bible Study.
> 
> ...



You are missing the fact that you are seeking answers from people other than your father.


----------



## Username3000 (Jun 2, 2015)

Thank you Jack, I will certainly dig into these things when I am home from work today.


----------



## jwithnell (Jun 2, 2015)

I appreciate your concern about who teaches children and the gentleman above give able answers. In Presbyterian circles officers must subscribe to the Westminster Confession. I am grateful that in our church, the pastor teaches the communicants class, an elder takes the high school class and one of the deacons teaches an elementary class. But a healthy church will have members at all stages of life who have been steeped in the scriptures, and they can be a great addition as long as they follow the Biblical restrictions and submit to the denomination's teaching. Having men teaching sends a powerful message about how men should be leading in their own homes, and you could be a good example in that regard.


----------



## reaganmarsh (Jun 2, 2015)

chuckd said:


> E.R. CROSS said:
> 
> 
> > Brothers,
> ...



Nice. 

Elijah, you've been given some very good reasons -- which theologically grounded, not merely pragmatically -- in this thread.


----------

