# Evangelizing Children



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 20, 2005)

My wife and I live in Okinawa and are attending a Southern Baptist Church. We are blessed to attend and worship with the body but attend because there are no Presbyterian options.

I came to a strange realization today. I've attended a number of Baptist Churches (or credobaptist variants) in my time. Universally, the Churches I've attended seem to go after children in their efforts to seek and save the lost.

Whether it's a vacation Bible school or a harvest festival I've noted a fairly common theme that they go after the children in the hopes of later attracting the adults as well.

Now I realize that the Reformed Baptists are a distinct bunch among the larger credo-baptist community so my point here is not to pick on baptists in general. Nevertheless, is it not a strange irony that credo-Baptists seem to evangelize young children so aggressively? Also, I've always had a fundamental problem with the whole approach that a child will lead the adult to Christ rather than the normal Covenantal order of children following their parents into faith.

Thoughts?


----------



## gwine (Nov 20, 2005)

I guess I don't see the irony in it but I do see it as a marketing technique. While our church here in Janesville doesn't have a VBS, I always thought it was due to our size and lack of enough willing volunteers. I'll have to ask our pastor about this. I wonder if this is true (no VBS) across the board for Presbyterian churches.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by gwine_
> I guess I don't see the irony in it but I do see it as a marketing technique. While our church here in Janesville doesn't have a VBS, I always thought it was due to our size and lack of enough willing volunteers. I'll have to ask our pastor about this. I wonder if this is true (no VBS) across the board for Presbyterian churches.


The irony I find is their commitment to believer baptism and their exclusion of young children from the Covenant until they express mature faith. Most of the kids that show up for events are usually younger than the "age of accountability". That many Churches focus most, if not all, of their evangelical energy on young children vice adults is very strange when you ponder it.

I'm not talking so much about the children of the Church members as much as those they are hoping to attract from the community at large and do fun stuff with a Gospel message at the end.

[Edited on 11-20-2005 by SemperFideles]


----------



## Casey (Nov 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by gwine_
> I guess I don't see the irony in it but I do see it as a marketing technique. While our church here in Janesville doesn't have a VBS, I always thought it was due to our size and lack of enough willing volunteers. I'll have to ask our pastor about this. I wonder if this is true (no VBS) across the board for Presbyterian churches.


GCP has VBS material available--the Presbyterian church I interned at this summer ran a VBS program. I see VBS as an evangelism reaching parents, too--in that parents may gain an interest in the church running the program. Is VBS an absolute necessity? I don't think so--but, done right, I don't see it being a bad thing either. If a church has run a VBS program and few children attended, it might be better to seek a different method of evangelism, yes?  I wonder if C. Finney had anything to say on the topic (that is, where did VBS originate?).


----------



## Wannabee (Nov 20, 2005)

I think it's purely pragmatic Rich. On one hand, they are to be congratulated because they are doing something. This is not a claim that every church can make, especially among Calvinists. Also, exposure to the Gospel at a young age does tend to stick with us and "haunt" us, even if we don't get saved. If done right, it also instills a respect for Christianity as a whole and a knowledge that the Christian faith is not the vile threat that much of society makes it out to be.

On the other hand, this is a backwards way to reach families. Children are easier "customers." Parents are happy to have their children go have a "fun time," and learn some Bible verses. Evangelizing children is much easier because they are so impressionable. These methods can hit a sizable number at once. Of course, in many cases the Gospel that's presented is the gospel of easy-believism and the seeker friendly movement. This brings up the theory behind the whole youth movement... which has been hashed out here before.

Casey's statements are good I think.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Nov 20, 2005)

Most of the presbyterian churches I've been in all my life have had a VBS program, if they were a big enough church to put one on. It is a method of outreach.

I for one am glad to see clear gospel presentations. Start when the kids are young, at home (always), in SS, VBS, whatever. What I don't like, and do not support are getting decisions. That is the Finney approach. What we want to see are young people coming of age, and desirous to join the church, making public declaration of faith. The session examines a catechumen's basic Christian knowledge, and if they are satisfied, then the child may become fully communing.

In a Baptist setting, that will certainly include a baptism. In a presbyterian setting, if a child is not in church, nor coming from a Christian family, he may never have been baptized, but if he is allowed to become a member, he would be bapized then too. Otherwise, what we look for is a credible profession of faith.

"Getting someone saved" is not the goal of evangelism. "Seeing" a newbirth isn't even actually possible, and what passes for "visible evidence" is often not very convincing to a knowledgable observer.

Bold, clear gospel declarations. What we want to "see" is a person who doesn't lose his "hunger" for Jesus, once he's tasted and seen how good he is.

[Edited on 11-20-2005 by Contra_Mundum]


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> Most of the presbyterian churches I've been in all my life have had a VBS program, if they were a big enough church to put one on. It is a method of outreach.
> 
> I for one am glad to see clear gospel presentations. Start when the kids are young, at home (always), in SS, VBS, whatever. What I don't like, and do not support are getting decisions. That is the Finney approach. What we want to see are young people coming of age, and desirous to join the church, making public declaration of faith. The session examines a catechumen's basic Christian knowledge, and if they are satisfied, then the child may become fully communing.
> ...


I don't disagree with VBS programs in general. I think the use of a VBS to teach Covenant Children is a good thing. It's a method of discipleship to help them grow in grace but they are already part of a Church generally.

I was trying to deal with the specific peculiarity in the approach as a tool for Evangelism. Trying to reach unbelieving parents primarily by converting their kids as a primary means is just not a biblical pattern.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Nov 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> Trying to reach unbelieving parents primarily by converting their kids as a primary means is just not a biblical pattern.



But you assume that the pattern we see in Scripture is intended to be a binding prescription, from which any deviation is wrong.
The fact is that our culture's values are different from the values of the Greco-Roman world. In our day it is simply a matter of fact that people often choose churches on the basis of where their kids will be best cared for. While their values may be wrong, I would say that it is wise for us to use their values to get them to hear the Gospel.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by SolaScriptura_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by SemperFideles_
> ...


I always get nervous when people say that patterns in Scripture are cultural condescension but I understand where you are coming from.

The issue, again, has to do with _priority_. I don't exclude it as a means but when it is _primary_ to evangelism efforts it becomes problematic. If a Church further believes that a child can be a disciple in an unbelieving household that never again takes that child to Church there are other issues as well. Even if you're trying to get the parents to show up based on something neat that the kids want to do, the aim ought to be at converting the family and not just the children as children tend to follow their parents into the faith.

If the emphasis or the goal is wrong and merely aimed at the children then the visiting unbeliever concludes from the "kiddie message" that Christianity is for the kids and not something I need to be worrried about.

I'm being careful not to denigrate efforts to teach or reach kids in general but merely dealing with emphasis. Certainly there are saved adults today because a child was picked up every Sunday by a bus and their parents sent the kid there. How might households be saved if the parents were the principal aim vice the children?

[Edited on 11-21-2005 by SemperFideles]


----------



## ReformedWretch (Nov 20, 2005)

I work with children for a living. They are less stubborn than adults and much more willing to listen as well. While I have learned this does not mean they will be "saved" it does indeed make reaching out to them so much simpler and rewarding.


----------



## Steve Owen (Nov 21, 2005)

For a text to justify evangelizing children, how about Num 14:30-32?  I might add that none of these children were circumcised until they came to cross the Jordan, but let that pass. 

Actually, Prov 22:6 will do just as well: *'Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it.'* The child is not specified. I wouldn't deny for a moment that it is the parents' primary responsibility to teach their children about the Lord, but the text doesn't say, '_your'_ child, it says effectively _'any'_ child.

I agree with Rich that a church should not focus on children to the exclusion of adults; that would be a strange way to operate, but here are a few reasons to hold an 'outreach' junior Sunday School.

1. As one who has done a fair bit of door-to-door work recently, I can tell you that, in England at least, it is desperately hard and dispiriting work. People's hearts are terribly hard. But many middle-class parents have a bad conscience that they are not looking after their children's spiritual welfare, so they will be willing to send their little darlings off to Sunday School. Then you can hold a special service, where the children will sing a song or something and the parents will show up and you can hit them with the Gospel. Before anyone pours scorn on this, let me say that this is _precisely_ how my wife and I were converted along with several others in our village. In my experince, working class parents are glad to get their kids off their hands for an hour or two, but won't come to church to see them do anything. I know one shouldn't generalize, but this is what I have found.

2. It is difficult for a child to be a disciple of Christ against his parents' wishes, but by no means impossible. Don't limit God. It is going on all the time in moslem and atheist countries (cf. Matt 16:18 ).

3. We need to tell children about Christ, whether or not they come to faith at the time. I think Matt 19:14 is relevant here. In Mark 5:39 & 41, the word _Paidion_, 'little child' is used of a 12 year old. Christ can bring new life to such a child who is dead in trespasses and sin. However, even if they do not come to faith at the time, the child has absorbed something of what he has heard. Many years later perhaps, when times of stress or illness come, he may think back to what he heard at Sunday School and the Lord will draw him to Himself. But with the collapse in Sunday School attendance in Britain, an adult seeking spiritual truth is now as likely to turn to Wicca or Spiritualism as to Christ, because he has not been taught about Him as a child.

Two worthwhile books on junior Sunday Schools:-

_The Necessity of Sunday Schools_ by Peter Masters & Malcolm Watts (_Wakeman_,1992. ISBN 1 870855 13 2 )

_Building an Outreach Sunday School_ by Jill Masters (_ Wakeman_, 2005. ISBN 1 87055 44 2 )

Both available from the Met Tab.
www.metropolitantabernacle.org 

Martin


[Edited on 11-21-2005 by Martin Marprelate]


----------



## johnrsorrell (Nov 21, 2005)

As I am a minister to children myself, I would say that childhood evangelism is the hardest part, and most dangerous part of my ministry.
Too often churches target children for salvation simply for the sake of numbers. Children are the least resistant and in the baptist world are the most likely to follow that decision in baptism. 
I personally experienced an evangelist who came to our church and targeted chidren in his message. We had scores of children, ages 3-10, come forward to make a "public profession. In our follow up we quickly realized that these children did not have the slighest idea as to the decision they made.
Training up I child means being patient in the saving work of Christ. I get very upset with those who rush their children into a "false decision" and leave them wandering through a life with questions and doubts. Many parents get worried when their children have not made a decision by the age of 7 or 8 and often want to schedule meetings with me so that I can "lead them to Christ." It puts me in a bind and raises more questions for the children than are answered.
A great book for childhood evangelism is "How to Bring Your Children to Christ: and keep them there" by Ray Comfort. It deals with every issue of childhood evangelism and false conversions.


----------



## pastorway (Nov 22, 2005)

Ditto to Martin.

I would also add, in reading this:



> Also, I've always had a fundamental problem with the whole approach that a child will lead the adult to Christ rather than *the normal Covenantal order *of children following their parents into faith.



This is peculiar to me. Are you saying that the Bible would have us preach the gospel to parents first and not evangelize children unless the parents are converted? Maybe I am just misreading you, but it sounds like you would not preach the gospel to a child from a "heathen" household.

What of those children who are saved even though their parents never are? Many here come from such a family, where their parents remain lost (though fervently prayed for) and God saved them in the midst of that upbringing. If we took the supposed "covenantal" approach, would we only evangelize fathers? Or only parents? Or only adults? What is the problem with preaching to kids? Are we not to preach the gospel to EVERYONE??

I just do not see any such "normal covenantal order" in the command to preach the gospel to the lost. Praise God that the Baptists will preach to kids who otherwise may never be exposed to the gospel of Jesus Christ.

The truly fundamental problem here should be the problem of so many churches failing to work HARD at fulfilling the Great Commission an failing to take the Gospel to anyone we come into contact with! 

Phillip


----------



## Peters (Nov 22, 2005)

Sunday-school *material* exists because capable teachers of the Scriptures do not. The church has become so obsessed with methods and materials from books that she no longer produces *men* who can teach the Scriptures well. I love it when I see a man in the church faithfully teaching the 5-8 year olds through 1 Kings or Acts. Children are not stupid - if you explain something well to them they will understand it.

I don´t like it when other people do the work of the local church for them.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 22, 2005)

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> Ditto to Martin.
> 
> I would also add, in reading this:
> ...


I think you need to read the entire content of my posts in order to understand that I'm not saying we ought to neglect children in evangelism. It is an issue of _priority_.

When it comes to sharing the Gospel, one should never hesitate to share it with the audience at hand. If it is children then share it with the children present.

The issue becomes one of energy. If all the Church's evangelical energy is aimed at Children's programs and evangelizing children then it does so, in many cases, at the expense of effective programs aimed at adults. In fact, the problem is not that only fathers or mothers are evangelized and not the children in many Churches but that fathers and mothers are practically excluded in the evangelism efforts because of priority and energy.

In fact, in some Reformed Churches I've attended, they had fantastic Sunday School programs for all age groups but had perhaps two adult Sunday School classes with a new members class and a very advanced Sunday school class with practically no training of immature adult believers in between.

I love training children. I've taught various Sunday School programs to kids of all age groups. I usually don't use the materials provided because they're pretty lame at times but I take the responsibility that has been given me both seriously and with great joy.

Again, if you read my post, you'll see I don't disagree with outreaches per se but the approach in many Churches is very flawed. I do believe that only Biblical examples we're given of evangelism is to the adults, which resulted in household conversions. We don't read of Paul setting up a puppet show outside the Synagogue because the Jewish adults are too darn stubborn to hear the message. It's not to say that young children were not evangelized but we ought not ignore the examples given either. 

I also think that Churches that focus on children at the exclusion of the adults, or miss the opportunity to give an adult message when they've attracted the adults through their children, are evangelizing very inefficiently for lack of a better term. You cannot divorce God's election and grace from the practical means that He uses to acheive them. While He certainly elects out of season, He also very typically works within the family structure as a means and has a lot to say to parents toward that end. That strong covenantal structure cannot be dismissed. It is no coincidence that the vast majority of adult Christians grew up in Christian homes of one kind or another. It is a powerful means and parents have a profound influence on their children.

Many Churches have a decidedly "decision" focus to their outreaches that ignores the very practical implications of providing not only a incubator for faith within the home, but also a guard against putting that child back into a home that has no interest in a religion that was presented by a puppet show and a clown that makes the kid happy but is "for the kids" after all.

I'm not throwing babies and bathwater out here. I just want the parents included.

[Edited on 11-22-2005 by SemperFideles]


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 22, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Peters_
> Sunday-school *material* exists because capable teachers of the Scriptures do not. The church has become so obsessed with methods and materials from books that she no longer produces *men* who can teach the Scriptures well. I love it when I see a man in the church faithfully teaching the 5-8 year olds through 1 Kings or Acts. Children are not stupid - if you explain something well to them they will understand it.
> 
> I don´t like it when other people do the work of the local church for them.



I love teaching childen about God and am shocked at the quality of even Reformed curricula at times.


----------



## Steve Owen (Nov 22, 2005)

Rich wrote:-


> It is no coincidence that the vast majority of adult Christians grew up in Christian homes of one kind or another.



You say this as if it were an uncontested fact. It probably is in Britain and the USA. However, I doubt very much if it is world-wide. I certainly hope not, anyway. It is a sure sign of a Christianity that has lost sight of its mandate, will lose God's blessing as a result and therefore will be easy meat for a resurgent, missionary-minded Islam.

In the Government Census carried out in Britain in the year 2000, 71% of the population, filling out the forms in their own homes, and with an available choice of 'no religion', declared themselves to be Christian. To anyone with the slightest knowledge of my country this result is positively grotesque. Only about 8% of the population ever darken the doors of a church of any description and very few indeed know anything of the Bible or have any time for Christian morality.

Why then do so many Britons think they are Christian? Because they think they live in a Christian country, because their parents or grandparents were outwardly Christian, and because many of them were 'christened' into the Church of England. The terrible state of Christianity in Britain can be put down partly to the almost total apostasy of the major denominations and partly to the legal entitlement of any parent to have his child baptized into the Anglican Church. Thousands, if not millions of Britons imagine that they are some sort of Christians because someone has mumbled some prayers over them when they were little, and splashed water on them. I know, because I was one of them.

And because the Anglicans have always counted baptisms instead of counting conversions, precious little effective evangelism has been attempted until quite recently, when they have suddenly woken up to realise that their churches are empty. 

I know that the churches in America are nowhere near in this condition yet, but they soon will be if they think that they will be replenished by the children of their current congregation. They won't!

*'And He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature!"'* That's men, women and children.

Martin


----------



## pastorway (Nov 22, 2005)




----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 22, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> Rich wrote:-
> 
> 
> ...


I don't know how you can take a single sentence of my argument within a context of showing the importance of family to a child's development and use that as a vaulting point to make the argument you delivered. 

Is the implication that it is *unimportant* to evangelize the adults? Is the implication that it matters not the least bit whether we concern ourselves with the parents of the children we are evangelizing?

Where did I imply or encourage any kind of dead orthodoxy or mere cultural Christianity in anything I wrote?

Again, where did I say not to preach to children? Please impugn somebody else for claiming we ought not to worry about them.

You rightly lament the passing of Christianity from your country. It is a concern here as well. There is much zeal without knowledge here. Is the solution to that to neglect adult evangelism and focus on children's ministries? Is the solution to focus even more of our efforts to children and make sure our Christianity is tailored to ages 10 and below? How does that lead to a _mature_ and vibrant Church?

I'm trying to understand, substantively what you're disagreeing with in my argument. I don't expect answers to the above questions because I know you're intelligent and mature enough to know the answers. This is why I was frankly dismayed at your response as if there were any connection between what I said and your implied argument against it.

[Edited on 11-23-2005 by SemperFideles]


----------



## Steve Owen (Nov 23, 2005)

Rich,
I don't think we're in disagreement that there needs to be Gospel outreach to people of all ages and that this outreach needs to be serious and Bible-centred.

But when you write:-


> It is no coincidence that the vast majority of adult Christians grew up in Christian homes of one kind or another.



You seem to be saying that this is a good thing, and I don't think that it is. I think it would be much more healthy if the vast majority of adult Christians were converts from atheism or false religions and if we concentrated our children's outreach on the offspring of unbelievers. After all, believers can teach their own children.

Martin


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> Rich,
> I don't think we're in disagreement that there needs to be Gospel outreach to people of all ages and that this outreach needs to be serious and Bible-centred.
> 
> ...


No, I'm not passing judgment on it. In the context of the statement, I was noting the strong correlation between a child's faith and the adult for good or ill. Even dead Christianity is learned and passed down within the home but then so can a vibrant faith by God's Grace. If it were not so then we ought not even bother training our children and all the commands to do so by God are insincere. I don't want to get in a debate about paedobaptism here. My focus is on which population, children or adult, should be the _principle_ aim of evangelism efforts.

I do believe we ought to be Evangelizing to the lost but what I'm saying is to concentrate our evangelical efforts on adult atheists and false relgionists who will, in turn, bring their children and teach them. That can even be done at outreaches designed for kids as long as the Church has a message that is suitable for adults.

As for a Church's long term "healthiness" the issue of children following in the faith or a Church becoming a haven for cultural Christianity, no Church is immune. That becomes an issue of Church discipline and instruction and is less a matter of Evangelism per se. There are plenty of Churches that have stron adult and children "evangelism" but do nothing to nurture that faith once they're in the body.

[Edited on 11-23-2005 by SemperFideles]


----------



## Steve Owen (Nov 23, 2005)

> I do believe we ought to be Evangelizing to the lost but what I'm saying is to concentrate our evangelical efforts on adult atheists and false relgionists who will, in turn, bring their children and teach them. That can even be done at outreaches designed for kids as long as the Church has a message that is suitable for adults.



Fair enough, Rich  I'll only add that reaching adults with the Gospel is _desperately_ hard work here in Britain. That is, of course, no excuse for not attempting it, but reaching the adults via their children does seem to be more successful in my experience. You are correct that churches need to have an adult message, and also that, having made converts, we need to 'nuture their faith'. The content of both preaching and teaching in many 'evangelical' churches is horribly thin.

Martin


----------

