# Is "age segregated" Sunday School unbiblical?



## Scott1 (Aug 19, 2008)

Recently, I encountered a Christian activist group (admirably contending for life issues in the public square) that had on one of its hand-outs regarding the topic of "evolution" for the public:



> "...if your church, Sunday School, Christian school, or youth group is age-segregated (organized into peer groups), you have adopted an evolutionary model."



It concludes:


> If your church is age-segreagted, it is because they have bought into an evolutionary model, not a Biblical one.



I have never considered this... and can't see how this will help their otherwise commendable cause. What do you all think about this- biblically?


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon (Aug 19, 2008)

Scott1 said:


> ...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



 I think it's as non-sensical as advocating giving pork chops to a new born. Spiritual food, as phsyical food ought to be given to those "who are able to bear it." You will teach older children at a "deeper" level than toddlers ( who can bear only the "milk of the word"), and Adult classes are presumably geared a bit higher (as for those who can bear strong meat).

I see nothing of evolution in it, simply common sense in training up children and young people.

Most ten year old children are capable of understanding more than most 5 year olds, most Teenagers can (or should) be instructed at a level higher than 10 year olds.

As for 'biblical," well, the real question is where do we find "Sunday School" in the Bible?

But, in that we do have Sunday School in our churches, we ought to use the best approach we can to teach God's Word to the students.


----------



## Grace Alone (Aug 19, 2008)

I couldn't say whether it is unbiblical, but I have always had the inclination to favor broader age groups in a church of covenant families. I like the kids in worship with their family instead of in "children's church". And I think our youngest child has benefited from being in Sunday school with children a couple of years older and younger than she is. I tend to think the extreme age segregation comes from the public school mindset, but I could be wrong.

(I'll clarify that I certainly wouldn't put 5 year olds and teenagers together, though. Our older teens sit in the adult class.)


----------



## Casey (Aug 19, 2008)

A non-age-segregated Christian school? That's hard to imagine.


----------



## Kenneth_Murphy (Aug 19, 2008)

Didn't God reveal his plan of salvation in stages and accommodate his revelation to the people in the various dispensations? Don't we first have to drink milk before we can eat meat? I think there are lots of biblical examples of things coming in stages. So I don't see any reason why teaching of children can't come in a different form than adults etc. That's not evolution just maturation. Just some quick thoughts off the top.


----------



## JBaldwin (Aug 19, 2008)

As our church is relatively new, we will be having Sunday School for the first time this fall. The elders (at the unanimous request of the congregation) have decided to divide Sunday school like this: Children who can't read in one class, elementary school age children who can read in another class, everyone else in one of two classes (all ages above elementary school). The classes will sometimes be divided with all men in one class and all women in another. Other times it will be divided by topic. In either case, the elders felt it would benefit the teenagers to be learning the scriptures with the adults. The teens will have a youth Bible study and fellowship time on Sunday evenings. 

I am thrilled that my teenage daughter will be studying the Scriptures with some of the older godly women in my church who've walked with the Lord for a long time. I am also delighted to see that there is a place for the single adults who sometimes get lost in the crowd because there is no Sunday school or group for them.


----------



## jwithnell (Aug 19, 2008)

I'm not comfortable being dogmatic on the point -- in fact, I'd say the age-segregation in the church is likely a reflection of the public school system. I've noticed this tends to break down in home schooling circles with kids equally comfortable dealing with adults AND kids younger than themselves. 

That said, I think there is much to be gained by broader age ranges in churches, recognizing the intellectual and spiritual differences within reason. This is especially true as children begin passing into their young-adult years where they can be greatly encouraged by those who are more mature in their faith and life experiences.

I also think it's sad when churches segregate adults, particularly on Sunday mornings. The young, married couple can benefit greatly from the older widow who can benefit from the intellectual stimulation of those in their mid-career years, etc., etc ....


----------



## Tim (Aug 20, 2008)

One thing I am sure: age segregated church worship services ("children's church") = BAD NEWS.


----------



## jwithnell (Aug 20, 2008)

We recently had a family that started coming to our church from a tradition that kept kids out of regular worship until they were young teens. This family was rather amazed at the young children in our services and then again amazed when their own kids responded so well to the opportunity to worship. While I have left a worship service with my face flaming red and one of my children screeching at the top of his lungs, I find for the most part that the young'uns are a real blessing in worship and I pray that God is greatly glorified by their praise.


----------



## refbaptdude (Aug 20, 2008)

I have noticed the past few years that there seems to be a growing wing within “Vision Forum” and “Bill Gothard” types that is becoming very radical in their views. The statements above sounds like this movement.


----------



## Tim (Aug 20, 2008)

If we assume that it is proper to have a Sunday school at all, then should it be different from the corporate worship service? I have mentioned above that I think it wrong to segregate the worship service (families should stay together). However, based on this principle (corporate means corporate), I would have difficulty saying why it might be permissible to segregate the Sunday school.

At the risk of entering into a paedo/credo argument, is it possible that part of this issue stems from people's view of whether children are "part of the church"? 

By the way, I have witnessed a 2 year old correctly answering an age-appropriate question on a sermon. This had a great impact on my view of the appropriate level at which to teach children. I must admit, though, that this little one was my pastor's son; not all children are similarly brought up.


----------



## Tim (Aug 20, 2008)

After re-reading the OP, it seems that the quotes encompassed both corporate worship _and_ Sunday school. Shall we assume that this was intended to mean a Sunday school held at a different time from the corporate worship service?

If not, then to me it is a no-brainer that you would not separate children from their parents during the most important hour(s) of the week.


----------



## KenPierce (Aug 20, 2008)

Scott1 said:


> Recently, I encountered a Christian activist group (admirably contending for life issues in the public square) that had on one of its hand-outs regarding the topic of "evolution" for the public:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I would ask them if they give Berkhof to a toddler to read. I agree that the chruch ought to have significant times together as a whole family. Does this mean it is never appropriate to separate out people according to where they are in terms of cognitive development and maturity? That's insane.

Followed to its logical conclusion, it would mean you could never read the Hardy Boys with your preteens separate from reading Where the Wild Things Are to your toddlers. 

Or, if you homeschooled, you should be teaching your 2 year old twelfth grade math.

Let's remember that the Shorter Catechism was written TO INSTRUCT CHILDREN, so there is even an acknowledgement of this amongst our fathers.

SOrry to be adamant, I just get tired of some of the Reformed wackiness out there.


----------



## JBaldwin (Aug 20, 2008)

refbaptdude said:


> I have noticed the past few years that there seems to be a growing wing within “Vision Forum” and “Bill Gothard” types that is becoming very radical in their views. The statements above sounds like this movement.



I don't know of anyone in our church who is involved in the Vision Forum or Gothard Movement. In fact, we would be a congregation who frowns on most of what they do. However, I think that along with the homeschooling movement comes the renewed idea that there really is no generation gap. Years ago, when we first considered homeschooling our children, it was the positivie way we saw teenagers interacting with young children that made us realize the benefits of homeschooling. 


I love this quote (I don't know where it originated) "Put a group of children who are the same age in a classroom together and everything quickly degenerates to the lowest common denominator."


----------



## LawrenceU (Aug 20, 2008)

Please don't equate Vision Forum and the Gothard movment. They are poles apart.

BTW, not everything in the Family Integrated movement can be painted with a single brush.


----------



## Pilgrim (Aug 20, 2008)

LawrenceU said:


> Please don't equate Vision Forum and the Gothard movment. They are poles apart.
> 
> BTW, not everything in the Family Integrated movement can be painted with a single brush.



I am trying to get a handle on it myself and agree that everything can't be painted with a broad brush. I think in general it represents a proper reaction against secular trends that have crept into the church, but as with any movement there is a lunatic fringe that harps on their pet doctrine to the exclusion of almost everything else, sometimes even ending up in heresy themselves because they've overreacted and swung over to the other extreme. in my opinion the FV is an example of this kind of overreaction. I think we see that with this family integrated/homeschool movement with those in it who adopt stances like homeschool or the highway i.e. that see Christian schools as being as bad as public schools, would like to impose church discipline against those who do not homeschool and attempt to derive a biblical requirement for homeschooling from Deut. 6, which is as persuasive to me as the Romanist attempts to prove the papacy from Matt. 16. 

That being said, I am not against homeschooling or family integration and I also realize some Christian schools are basically Christian in name only and that some are little better than many public schools.


----------



## Pilgrim (Aug 20, 2008)

Tim said:


> After re-reading the OP, it seems that the quotes encompassed both corporate worship _and_ Sunday school. Shall we assume that this was intended to mean a Sunday school held at a different time from the corporate worship service?
> 
> If not, then to me it is a no-brainer that you would not separate children from their parents during the most important hour(s) of the week.



It seems that the quotes Scott1 was asking about in the OP are expressing the idea that _any_ kind of age segregation whatsovever is from the pit of hell. And that idea is out there.


----------



## Pilgrim (Aug 20, 2008)

Tim said:


> At the risk of entering into a paedo/credo argument, is it possible that part of this issue stems from people's view of whether children are "part of the church"?



That would seem to be a reasonable assumption, but the extremes in this movement in my admittedly somewhat limited experience are typically found in some Reformed Baptist circles (see the previous thread about the ARBCA ministers raising concerns about this movement at their recent GA) as well as FV types, and less so in more mainstream NAPARC type circles. But your mileage may vary.


----------



## BertMulder (Aug 20, 2008)

In our congregation we do not have a sunday school.

Our children are, as soon as they are physically able to participate, included in our corporate worship.

That being said, we do not ignore the milk to the children. We have catechism classes, broken up in 6 different groups, based on age. However, those classes are held during the week, not on the Lord's day, and as such, do not interfere with corporate worship.

Those catechism classes are normally taught by the pastor, and in his absence by an elder. Those classes are the official work of the church, just as preaching. As a matter of fact, we do consider them preaching.


----------



## CharlieJ (Aug 20, 2008)

Scott1 said:


> Recently, I encountered a Christian activist group (admirably contending for life issues in the public square) that had on one of its hand-outs regarding the topic of "evolution" for the public:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Evolution doesn't seem to be in the picture. The age-segregated model comes from two motivations:

1) Size - Everyone knows that as class size increases, learning decreases. So, if you have 300 children infant-12 years in your church, you have to break them up somehow. You could do it by weight . You could try gender, but that only halves the class. Age is a convenient marking point. There is also another reason age is preferred....

2) Theory of Cognitive Development - that's right Jean Piaget. Look it up on Wikipedia. He did extensive testing to see what _kind_ of thought processes children carried out and at what ages. Then people started structuring education to take advantage of the theory. So, there is a connection to the public schools in a sense. Piaget only suggested broad categories, so demarcating every single year is once again due to size. 

Conclusion: If you only have 10 6-10 yr olds in your church, you probably don't need to divide them by year. Also, even if you disagree with details in Piaget, he had a point in there somewhere. Evolution does not even enter the picture.


----------



## gene_mingo (Aug 20, 2008)

Is training our children in theological matters even the duty of the church?

I have personally struggled with this very issue and still have not made a decision about sunday school.

When it comes to sunday worship then I firmly believe that the children must be included with the adults. To separate them would be a violation of the RPW.

I wonder if sunday school should be considered worship and be viewed through the RPW? If so, then I don't see the how you could age separate. Is sunday school even appropriate within the bounds of the RPW?

Don't most children go to school mon - fri. and if so would school on sunday be a violation of the 4th commandment? 

I guess the more I think about it, I lean towards teaching children in the home rather than it being the duty of the church. I think a lot of times people tend to use children's sunday school as an excuse not to have to teach their children the bible themselves. (I used to feel this way myself.)


----------



## BertMulder (Aug 20, 2008)

You mean 4th commandment?

Catechising our children is a joint and several responsibility of church and home. They complement each other, if each of them work from their position of strength.


----------



## gene_mingo (Aug 20, 2008)

BertMulder said:


> You mean 4th commandment?
> 
> Catechising our children is a joint and several responsibility of church and home. They complement each other, if each of them work from their position of strength.



Yep, sorry just changed it.

Can you show me from the bible where the responsibility of training our children rests with the church?

I see a positive command in Ephesians 6:4 for fathers to do this work.


----------



## JBaldwin (Aug 20, 2008)

gene_mingo said:


> BertMulder said:
> 
> 
> > You mean 4th commandment?
> ...



Sunday school grew out of industrialism and originally was designed to teach children how to read and write because they were stuck in the factories working 6 days a week, and it was deemed important that children learn to read. Sunday was the only day to do that, and it gave churches an opportunity to reach out to the unreached children in the community at the same time. 

While I would agree that it is the father's responsibility to train up the children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, the church is also responsible to teach, otherwise the Holy Spirit would not have given the church teachers. There is also the fact that not every child in the church has a father who can teach them. For that reason, I see nothing wrong with Sunday school as long as it doesn't get in the way of corporate worship.


----------



## Grace Alone (Aug 20, 2008)

I consider Sunday School basically a Bible study. So I certainly see the need for children to have a Bible study appropriate for their level of understanding. I certainly believe that Bible study in addition to the worship service is a very good thing. After all, there may be people within the church who are gifted to teach aside from the pastor, and I am thankful to receive extra instruction!

(It looks like J Baldwin and I were thinking along the same lines!)


----------



## blhowes (Aug 20, 2008)

Scott1 said:


> It concludes:
> 
> 
> > If your church is age-segreagted, it is because they have bought into an evolutionary model, not a Biblical one.


At the risk of revealing too much of my ignorance, what are they talking about? How is having an age-segregated Sunday School buying into some evolutionary model?


----------



## gene_mingo (Aug 20, 2008)

> While I would agree that it is the father's responsibility to train up the children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, the church is also responsible to teach, otherwise the Holy Spirit would not have given the church teachers. There is also the fact that not every child in the church has a father who can teach them. For that reason, I see nothing wrong with Sunday school as long as it doesn't get in the way of corporate worship.



I fully agree that it is the duty of the church to teach. My reservation comes from separating children out for a different lesson. Should we have the children leave when it comes time for the pastor to give his sermon since it is generally put together for a more adult audience?


----------



## calgal (Aug 20, 2008)

The question is how big of a church are you talking about? In a small church, to have a bunch of SS classes would be impractical but a midsized or large church certainly has gifted lay teachers who love the kids and can teach them the Gospel in words they can understand clearly. There are parents who "gasp" are new to the Lord and to the Reformed faith. They may appreciate the kids being taught principles they were never shown.  And to the "SS is evil" crowd, why is it a bad thing to have your kid taught an *hour* a week by a member of your church who volunteers to teach when you train the child up in the way that they should go? If the teacher has some goofy ideas, then the Elders/deacons would be able to gently correct them.


----------



## Scott1 (Aug 20, 2008)

UPDATE

I have permission from Steve Beckman, with the group Jeremiah 7 to exerpt some of his explanation about the biblical case for not "age segregating" people in worship and Sunday School. As he graciously explains it:



> First, it is important to note that the Bible doesn't specifically say "thou shalt not age segregate". What it does, though, is teach us to age integrate by giving us doctrine that specifically points to various ages existing together. Paul's letters to the Ephesians and Colossians make it clear that children were present in their gatherings. It is reasonable to assume that the whole church would gather to read Paul's letters. It is noteworthy, then, to note that Paul addresses specific age groups in his letters, including children in particular (meaning that they were then present during the reading, together, in one group). In Ephesians 5, Paul finishes the chapter talking specifically to wives and husbands, and immediately after addresses children in 6:1 (Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right.). Again, in Colossians 3 Paul addresses husbands and wives, and again, he moves immediately to children in 3:20 (Children, obey your parents in all things: for this is well pleasing unto the Lord.).
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Mr. Beckman says this is not an "article of faith" in his view, so I'm not sure all the practical parameters of this (e.g. would a fifth grade catechism class for membership be an example of age-segregated, or a youth group, etc.)


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon (Aug 20, 2008)

Scott1 said:


> UPDATE
> 
> I have permission from Steve Beckman, with the group Jeremiah 7 to exerpt some of his explanation about the biblical case for not "age segregating" people in worship and Sunday School. As he graciously explains it:
> 
> ...



Just curious:

Does he have anything to say about John and Paul's use of "babes," "little children," "young men" and "fathers in I Corinthians and I John?


----------



## Wannabee (Aug 20, 2008)

refbaptdude said:


> I have noticed the past few years that there seems to be a growing wing within “Vision Forum” and “Bill Gothard” types that is becoming very radical in their views. The statements above sounds like this movement.



As Lawrence mentioned, these two are on different pages. Often proponents of one will appreciate the other. But they are two distinctly different animals.

As for evolution and our school system, there is a historical significance here, though it may be tenuous. The idea comes from the influence of John Dewey on the educational system. I've read that he saw human development (from the womb to the grave) as a model of the evolutionary process. Therefore, since children of a given age are at a certain stage in the process, they should be grouped with those who are at the same stage of evolution, so to speak. Many claim that this is the source of our age based education model. 

We consider Sunday School as an equipping ministry, focusing on growing in our walk and ministering to one another. As such, the families attend together and the fathers are encouraged to use it as an opportunity to pursue training their families, using what we're learning as a springboard whenever possible. For children we simply have a catechism and Bible survey curriculum. Once they learn it they join everyone else - sort of like a promotion. 

One of the many challenges of age based education is that it is difficult for anyone to excell. Some do, but usually they can only go so far because of age restrictions. How much better to have youngsters influenced by godly adults so that they may mature more quickly and interact with adults more respectfully?


----------



## markkoller (Aug 20, 2008)

A few points to notice, and maybe they have been said already. In the modern church, it is usually those who DO NOT segregate children by age that are looked upon as "odd". This is strange to me in the Reformed world because every church on every corner (Methodists, Pentecostals, etc.) follows the same pattern for teaching children in Sunday School. If we accept the use of Sunday School, why wouldn't we expect our ways to be different? Why is it so weird to have families learning things together? If we can worship together, we can study together as well.


----------



## Tim (Aug 21, 2008)

Just a quick comment, the Bible study I happen to attend at this time consists of only young people aged 32 and under (including the senior pastor). I am 31. Sometimes I think it would be a good thing to have the older folk present as well. And our congregation has many 'wise old saints'. I wonder what we are missing from the seniors and what they are missing from us 'youth'?


----------



## refbaptdude (Aug 21, 2008)

LawrenceU said:


> Please don't equate Vision Forum and the Gothard movment. They are poles apart.



The emphasis in my post was upon a growing “wing” within those movements, not everyone participating in Vision Forum or Gothard ministries. Though I commend these ministries in attempting to strengthen the family, in general I truly believe they are off course.



> BTW, not everything in the Family Integrated movement can be painted with a single brush.



I hope everyone participating in family integration is not painted with a single brush, because our church is for the most part family integrated


----------



## Scott1 (Aug 21, 2008)

> First, it is important to note that the Bible doesn't specifically say "thou shalt not age segregate". What it does, though, is teach us to age integrate by giving us doctrine that specifically points to various ages existing together. Paul's letters to the Ephesians and Colossians make it clear that children were present in their gatherings. It is reasonable to assume that the whole church would gather to read Paul's letters. It is noteworthy, then, to note that Paul addresses specific age groups in his letters, including children in particular (meaning that they were then present during the reading, together, in one group). In Ephesians 5, Paul finishes the chapter talking specifically to wives and husbands, and immediately after addresses children in 6:1 (Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right.). Again, in Colossians 3 Paul addresses husbands and wives, and again, he moves immediately to children in 3:20 (Children, obey your parents in all things: for this is well pleasing unto the Lord.).
> 
> This is an argument by inference from Scripture, as is acknowledged. It seems to me Scripture speaks of worship in several contexts- personal, family,corporate, and others. It does not seem this is teaching that within "worship" there is no basis ever for age-based, peer-based, maturity-based groupings.
> 
> ...



Yes, parents are ultimately responsible for raising their children in the nuture and admonition of the Lord. I think the Scriptures also teach the concept that men, ordinarily, are to lead in this and are responsible for this. This is a tough job, only by God's grace, but we are called to it. Part of that is worship in all it's aspects- I would certainly think that would include catechism class, a youth group, etc. at the appropriate time, also.


Tim's post:


Tim said:


> Just a quick comment, the Bible study I happen to attend at this time consists of only young people aged 32 and under (including the senior pastor). I am 31. Sometimes I think it would be a good thing to have the older folk present as well. And our congregation has many 'wise old saints'. I wonder what we are missing from the seniors and what they are missing from us 'youth'?



One of the things I like about you, Tim is that you are a deep thinker and committed to doing things right in God's sight.

You have mentioned how your temporary assignment overseas has put you in place where it is difficult to even find one "true church" to worship in. I would not burden yourself further- God has provided you a peer group where you are being discipled in God's Word rightly. Be faithful in that and give God honor and glory for the circumstance He has temporarily placed you in. In His Providence, other groupings will come up.


----------



## Scott1 (Aug 21, 2008)

Presbyterian Deacon 
Puritanboard Senior



> Just curious:
> 
> Does he have anything to say about John and Paul's use of "babes," "little children," "young men" and "fathers in I Corinthians and I John?



I get the sense that in their zeal to reject evolution and its logical implications, they infer a whole lot of practices are based on, or rest upon them alone. My interactions with these folks have been cordial and they are doing yeoman's work contending for life issues and Creation in the public square.

The Scriptural support cited, it seems to me, is based mostly on inference regarding age-based separation or peer group association. They make many valid points regarding the need to raise children in the right way, involve them in worship individually and as a family unit, etc. Here is their link that may touch on the use of the terms Paul and John use in addressing Christians you mention:

Education and Child Training | jeremiah 7


----------



## Tim (Aug 21, 2008)

Scott1 said:


> Tim's post:
> 
> 
> Tim said:
> ...



Thanks for your compliment, Scott. I actually wasn't complaining this time!  

I didn't mean to sound critical at all or suggest that my Bible study was being done wrong. I have just never been in a Bible study that included senior citizens and I was wondering about what it would be like to interact at length with someone of that age/maturity/wisdom. But am not in any way burdened with my Bible study situation. After all, I picked the group knowing that it was homogenous. I did this because I specifically wanted to meet people my age.

Thanks for picking up on this and giving me an opportunity to clarify.


----------



## brandonadams (Aug 25, 2008)

I didn't have a chance to read all these posts, but thought you might find a post on my blog about this topic to be of interest

The Myth of Adolescence « Contrast


----------



## Wannabee (Aug 25, 2008)

"The average age of going to Princeton during the Revolutionary War was 13."

Interesting quote.


----------



## Scott1 (Sep 1, 2008)

Steve, from Jeremiah 7 offers the following response:


> There are some minor roots outside his work, but in 1904 when psychologist G. Stanley Hall (an evolutionist and contemporary of Darwin) published a book called Adolescence: Us Psychology and its Relations to Physiology, Anthropology, Sociology, Sex, Crime, Religion and Education, he advocated a new theory of childhood development based on evolutionary recapitulation, meaning that the stages in a child’s development mirror biological evolution and the ancestry of man. This theory almost immediately was accepted and applied to classrooms across America. He also invented the term "adolescence", referencing a stage in a child's development mirroring the “stormy early civilization” stage, an age where he felt children were pre-programmed to rebel against authority, and finally then to grow into full civilization. Hall's theories formed the basis for age-segregated education, a model still in effect today in schools both government and Christian, and also in most churches.
> 
> Hall believed that it would be a mistake to intermingle the age groups, as doing so would depart from the "evolutionary model". His model would more closely parallel evolution, keeping the age groups together as one unit. Remember, there is no foundational prinicple of "the family" in evolution. Families are merely for producing offspring. The evolutionary model is one of supposed "ages and stages" which do not intermingle (Australopithecus did not learn what he had to learn by living with Neanderthal or homo sapiens).




Steve also has a more comprehensive response here:


An open letter about age segregation | jeremiah 7


----------



## calgal (Sep 1, 2008)

Scott1 said:


> Steve, from Jeremiah 7 offers the following response:
> 
> 
> > There are some minor roots outside his work, but in 1904 when psychologist G. Stanley Hall (an evolutionist and contemporary of Darwin) published a book called Adolescence: Us Psychology and its Relations to Physiology, Anthropology, Sociology, Sex, Crime, Religion and Education, he advocated a new theory of childhood development based on evolutionary recapitulation, meaning that the stages in a child’s development mirror biological evolution and the ancestry of man. This theory almost immediately was accepted and applied to classrooms across America. He also invented the term "adolescence", referencing a stage in a child's development mirroring the “stormy early civilization” stage, an age where he felt children were pre-programmed to rebel against authority, and finally then to grow into full civilization. Hall's theories formed the basis for age-segregated education, a model still in effect today in schools both government and Christian, and also in most churches.
> ...



Do you teach HS kids the catechisms along with preschoolers?  Why or why not?


----------

