# Divided the Movie



## caoclan

Has anyone watched this? If not, please take an hour and watch Divided the Movie. It is a documentary examining the age-segregated church. Voddie Baucham, Paul Washer, and Scott Brown are interviewd among others. This documentary is exploring the same issues as Scott Brown's book _A Weed in the Church_. I would really appreciate y'all's thoughts.


----------



## Jack K

I'm tempted to comment before I see it. But I probably should watch it. Maybe I can make time after some breakfast. I'll get back to you.


----------



## LawrenceU

It's worth the watch.


----------



## Andres

I just finished watching it. It was very good. Perhaps I am assuming too much here, but I believe that most of our reformed churches already buy into this understanding, that youth ministry as the evangelical church is predominantly doing it, is not biblical, but youth ministry where the father is the head of the household and he takes responsibility for training his children in the faith, is biblical. Again, it was a very good film and I think it would do much to at least get the modern evangelical church to re-think it's understanding of what youth ministry should be.


----------



## LawrenceU

One of the problems that I have observed in churches, Reformed and otherwise, is that they are beginning to see the need to return to Father led family discipleship, but as mentioned in the film, try and create a hybrid of age / stage ministry and father led discipleship. That hybrid is still synchrestic in nature and ultimately fails. In essence that is what the 19th century church did with the integration of Sunday schools into the ministry of the local church.


----------



## Joseph Scibbe

This film is great (so far). I think the problem with youth ministry is that youh pastors are only in that slot waiting until they can become "real" pastors so they become glorified baby sitter. That leads to a total lack of discipleship as a focus and leads to entertainment. Youth groups need to be focused on training teens in discipleship and creating a generation of people who truely love Jesus. This has to involve parents as well. Training parents to train their children in godliness is key to sucess in the church. However, some children don't have Christian parents and they need training in godliness as well.


----------



## Jack K

It's consistent with most material from the NCFIC. It makes very good and necessary points like:

- Fathers need to take responsibility for the spiritual training of their kids.

- Families should worship together, and the whole church should worship together.

- Youth ministries easily supplant the spiritual role of parents, doing damage to kids and to the church.

- Many, many youth/kids programs are just bad programs.

- Pandering to youth culture and allowing a youth sub-culture to grow within the church is divisive and hurts kids. 

But then it goes on to claim that teaching church kids in age groups is an idea that derives 100% from people who hate God. And without citing any Scripture, it claims that ANY age segregated activity in the church is forbidden by Scripture (because the Bible doesn't mention such things), and it accuses churches that do anything age segregated of sinning against God and deserving his judgment. This is where an otherwise excellent message goes off track by overreaching.

It may indeed be a wise move for many churches to abandon all age segregated activities. We can discuss this. Perhaps I can learn from you. But please don't take a bad principle of biblical application and use it to accuse me of sinning if my church does things somewhat differently.


----------



## Andres

Joseph Scibbe said:


> Youth groups need to be focused on training teens in discipleship and creating a generation of people who truely love Jesus. This has to involve parents as well. Training parents to train their children in godliness is key to success in the church. However, some children don't have Christian parents and they need training in godliness as well.



Here is where I (and I think the film) will respectfully disagree with you brother. Youth groups aren't to be focused on training teens in discipleship, but rather this is the father's job. When the youth groups try to do this, they, sometimes unknowingly, usurp the father's authority. As for children in our churches that don't have Christian parents, is this really a statistic? With the exception of possibly a few older teens, are there really children that are attending our churches and their parents aren't? I can think of a few scenarios where this would be possible and that is with things like bus ministry and VBS. My old church used to do both. At one point we were even busing in upwards of 60 youth on Wednesday nights. The problem was we never reached their parents and even though those kids came week after week, we rarely saw any fruit in their lives. An hour or two a week is just not enough time to impact change, when the remainder of the week is spent in pagan households.

---------- Post added at 12:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:54 PM ----------




Jack K said:


> But then it goes on to claim that teaching church kids in age groups is an idea that derives 100% from people who hate God. And without citing any Scripture, it claims that ANY age segregated activity in the church is forbidden by Scripture (because the Bible doesn't mention such things), and it accuses churches that do anything age segregated of sinning against God and deserving his judgment. This is where an otherwise excellent message goes off track by overreaching.



I watched the whole film and I don't remember this being mentioned. I do remember when they discussed Plato, so I do remember something about your first sentence being true, but I don't recall the rest of what you said. Could you maybe give some specific reference from the film or tell us at what part in the documentary this comes out?


----------



## Notthemama1984

Andrew,

Unfortunately the scenario of kids coming and not the parents is not that uncommon in rural churches. When I was in high school, all of my friends would come to church on Wednesday night mainly to hang out with friends. There simply wasn't anything else to do. We would all come to church an hour or so early, play basketball in the church parking lot, and then go have youth service. 

You also can't just stop having these services either. Our church decided to do this (for a host of goofy reasons). When the church stopped providing spiritual support for these kids, the kids just went off the deep end. Without getting into details, I can look back and see where the lives of several of my friends turned for the worse shortly after the church abandoned them. Although we may not like how those services were conducted, we cannot deny that these Wed. Bible studies provided spiritual guidance to kids who were not going to get it anywhere else.

I don't know what the right answer should be, but the answer, "Let the Fathers take control" doesn't always work.

PS. I still plan on watching the video later tonight.


----------



## Joseph Scibbe

> Here is where I (and I think the film) will respectfully disagree with you brother. Youth groups aren't to be focused on training teens in discipleship, but rather this is the father's job. When the youth groups try to do this, they, sometimes unknowingly, usurp the father's authority.



And, as you will note, I mentioned that the parents need to be involved too. Is it really sinful to use as many means as possible to equip young people to reach their culture? The parents and the church, working hand in hand, can be a great tool in raising up Godly men and women from our youth.


----------



## Andres

Boliver, excellent points as always friend. I too know first-hand what evangelical youth groups are like, except, I wasn't in one, rather I helped lead one. You're probably right that it wouldn't be wise to just completely abandon all the youth whose parents don't come to our church. So what I would try my best to do would be to reach out to those children's parents. Then I would also gradually assimilate my youth into our Wednesday evening classes with the adults. If they youth were still showing up at this point, then I am going to be encouraged because it would seem at this point they are being drawn to something other than loud music, free food, and flirting with the opposite sex. Again, although I was a bit older, I started attending church when I was 18 all by myself. I had pagan parents but God was truly doing a work in my heart and eventually I brought my siblings and my mother into the church too. Fast forward though, my sibling enjoyed the church and youth group while it served them, but once they became adults, none of them are in church now. So I would say, while it's heartbreaking that your friends abandoned the faith when the church abandoned them, I hate to say it, but it's most likely they would have abandoned the faith anyway once they out-grew the youth group.

---------- Post added at 01:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:11 PM ----------




Joseph Scibbe said:


> Here is where I (and I think the film) will respectfully disagree with you brother. Youth groups aren't to be focused on training teens in discipleship, but rather this is the father's job. When the youth groups try to do this, they, sometimes unknowingly, usurp the father's authority.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And, as you will note, I mentioned that the parents need to be involved too. Is it really sinful to use as many means as possible to equip young people to reach their culture? The parents and the church, working hand in hand, can be a great tool in raising up Godly men and women from our youth.
Click to expand...


I don't know if it's sinful to use as many means as possible to reach youth, but it's definitely counter-productive at times. Again, often times youth groups usurp the authority of the father in training his children in godliness. Second, divides the church. We tell the younger people that "real church" isn't for them and they won't relate, that's why we send out the little ones on Sunday mornings to watered down church. I fully believe our kids receive this underlying message and take it to heart.


----------



## Notthemama1984

Andrew,

Good points. I like the idea of slowly integrating the two groups (not quite sure how to put it into action yet, but conceptually it is good). I am also glad to see that you are not advocating shutting down all youth ministries tomorrow.


----------



## Jack K

Andres said:


> Jack K said:
> 
> 
> 
> But then it goes on to claim that teaching church kids in age groups is an idea that derives 100% from people who hate God. And without citing any Scripture, it claims that ANY age segregated activity in the church is forbidden by Scripture (because the Bible doesn't mention such things), and it accuses churches that do anything age segregated of sinning against God and deserving his judgment. This is where an otherwise excellent message goes off track by overreaching.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I watched the whole film and I don't remember this being mentioned. I do remember when they discussed Plato, so I do remember something about your first sentence being true, but I don't recall the rest of what you said. Could you maybe give some specific reference from the film or tell us at what part in the documentary this comes out?
Click to expand...


It was toward the end. I don't have time to watch again right now. I will admit it's possible these things were mentioned rather briefly but I picked up on them because I'm wary of them and was looking for them.

I don't want to be too critical of the film. Again, there are many good points that need to be heard. But I start to turn a deaf ear towards the good stuff when I sense some overreaching. Please take that comment more as a disappointment than a complaint.


----------



## LawrenceU

If one is looking for a pastor who wrote, " I was reading Plato and Dewey the other day and I think that I will use their thinking about child training and development in implementing my new youth/Sunday School programme.', or something similar in internal church documentation to prove that Platonic - evolutionary philosophy is behind much of the reason for the modern model of youth discipleship you may be disappointed. 

If however, one looks at the way those philosophies have shaped modern Western thought and culture and how the church has incorporated the educational models developed by those philosophies it becomes rather obvious where the roots of the practice lie.


----------



## Herald

Jack K said:


> But then it goes on to claim that teaching church kids in age groups is an idea that derives 100% from people who hate God. And _*without citing any Scripture*_, it claims that ANY age segregated activity in the church is forbidden by Scripture (because the Bible doesn't mention such things), and it accuses churches that do anything age segregated of sinning against God and deserving his judgment. This is where an otherwise excellent message goes off track by overreaching.



Jack, excellent point. That is my main problem with NCFIC. If you're going to make the case that the NCFIC makes, do so on the basis of sound exegesis. Display conclusive evidence from Scripture that all age segregated activities are sinful. I'm not saying the video, or the NCFIC in general, fails to make a compelling and logical case, however that's not enough. 

For the record, I am not NCFIC friendly (for a lot of reasons) but I am against age segregation in worship and Sunday School. My church does not segregate in either.


----------



## Joseph Scibbe

Joseph Scibbe said:


> Here is where I (and I think the film) will respectfully disagree with you brother. Youth groups aren't to be focused on training teens in discipleship, but rather this is the father's job. When the youth groups try to do this, they, sometimes unknowingly, usurp the father's authority.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And, as you will note, I mentioned that the parents need to be involved too. Is it really sinful to use as many means as possible to equip young people to reach their culture? The parents and the church, working hand in hand, can be a great tool in raising up Godly men and women from our youth.
Click to expand...




> I don't know if it's sinful to use as many means as possible to reach youth, but it's definitely counter-productive at times. Again, often times youth groups usurp the authority of the father in training his children in godliness. Second, divides the church. We tell the younger people that "real church" isn't for them and they won't relate, that's why we send out the little ones on Sunday mornings to watered down church. I fully believe our kids receive this underlying message and take it to heart.



i agree. I am an advocate for changing the way we do student ministries. I think we might have misunderstood each other.


----------



## nasa30

> If however, one looks at the way those philosophies have shaped modern Western thought and culture and how the church has incorporated the educational models developed by those philosophies it becomes rather obvious where the roots of the practice lie.


Very well said!

---------- Post added at 04:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:45 PM ----------




> conclusive evidence from Scripture that all age segregated activities are sinful


How are you defining the "all" in this statement? Do you mean in the context of the the meeting of the Church or all as in everything? I just want to better understand your position.


----------



## caoclan

I appreciate the comments thus far. I am compelled by the arguments presented in the film, but don't want to make hasty judgements.


----------



## Joseph Scibbe

To start with asking kids about a literalistic Genesis 1 vs something else is to assume that everyone who loves Jesus believes in a literal 6 day 24 hour creation account. In my opinion that is polarizing to a point that is unnecessary.


----------



## LawrenceU

It is not polarising. It is a question that determines whether or not a person views Scripture as ultimately authoritative in spite of cultural or 'scientific' proof to the contrary.


----------



## Joseph Scibbe

But there are still different ways to read Genesis 1 other than a literal 6 day 24 hour creation account and still be orthodox.


----------



## LawrenceU

True, but in all honesty that was not really an issue of any significance in the Church until recent 'science' demanded it.


----------



## Joseph Scibbe

LawrenceU said:


> True, but in all honesty that was not really an issue of any significance in the Church until recent 'science' demanded it.



And justification wasn't an issue big issue until the Reformation. The Church responds to things that challenge it.


----------



## LawrenceU

Joseph, I know this is not a debate about origins, but I want to point out that the justification was the issue of the Reformation. It was not a reaction to the Roman discovery of 'new evidence'. Justification was a return to the original. The sensed need to reconcile the plain reading of Genesis with scientific 'evidence' is the exact opposite of what the Reformers did regarding justification. The move toward long eras, millions of years, theistic evolution, Gap Theory, etc. was a capitulation to the new evidence, not a defense of the accepted interpretation.


----------



## extolHIM

Watched the movie last night with my wife. We recently changed churches (from AOG/Baptist to Reformed Baptist) and we told the kids that we had decided to not allow them to participate in youth groups anymore once we left our old church. This has been our conviction for quite a while and when we switched churches to one that lined up with our beliefs, we figured this was the best time to put an end to the youth group with our kids as we had started noticing some very disturbing trends in their attitudes and actions because of some of the influences in the youth group from their peers. Anyways...they have taken it pretty well actually and seemed to understand our explanations. We also let them watch the video tonight and ask questions, etc. I would've changed a few things about how the video was made, and there may have been a few instances of overreaching, but really....I was very impressed with how this was done and the overall message of fathers taking responsibility, the churches training the fathers, and the fathers no longer neglecting their responsibilities and letting someone else disciple their kids was presented extremely well.


----------



## kvanlaan

I think that one of the key points is that we expect our children to be exposed to the culture of the world, wade through it knee-deep, and come out unchanged. In this movie, we see 'youth ministry' geared to the music and entertainment of this world; so who wants to comb through scripture and see what the truth is when instead we can rock things out at a concert followed by pizza and a movie. That's fun, that's cool. Being serious is not cool.

Also, the chasing after 'relevance' is frightening. How do we be 'relevant' to a fallen world and retain our integrity in Christ? The Gospel is not relevant to the lives of most of the youth today because they live the lives the World wants them to. Yes, there are exceptions, but find me a teen male who spends more time in the Word than on his X-Box in general. X-Box is relevant, the Bible is not, but only because we have let the X-Box fill that void completely instead of filling it with the Word.

One other thought here: why is it that the cool guy is the one my son wants to go to instead of me? Giving him that avenue simply perpetuates a misunderstanding of whose authority he is under.

Moral of the story: don't go down to Egypt for help.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Well, Pastor Mathis weighed in with this on his blog June 23rd. I like what he perceives. 
Christian Nurture: Divided the movie




> *Divided the movie*
> 
> Why are churches losing upwards of 80% of the youth?
> Why are Christian youth increasing in childishness?
> What can be done to stop the demise of the next generation?
> 
> 
> A new, provocative movie, _Divided_, seeks to give an answer. The movie was shown on June 17th at the Christian Home Educators of Colorado conference in north Denver.
> 
> 
> _Summary_
> The movie was fifty minutes long. The producer, Mr. LeClerk, takes the viewer on a grim journey into the heart of youth ministries. He interviews church kids, youth ministry experts, statisticians, and pastors.
> 
> 
> In an ever-spiraling descent into marketing madness, the film ably portrays the deep-seated pragmatism of the teenagers and their would-be pied-pipers. One youth leader bluntly told the camera that the youth did not need more Biblical truth but more practical things, more relationships, more fun.
> 
> 
> Mr. LeClerk then "discovers the shockingly sinister roots of modern, age-segregated church programs..." The roots do not begin with Mr. Raikes of late eighteenth-century England but with Plato and Rousseau. And even more, there is no biblical precedent for such programs. Therefore, the solution is to tear down the entire youth ministry--branch, root and all.
> 
> 
> To rescue a lost generation it will take churches and families following the Word of God. Churches should stop usurping parental responsibilities. And parents should take back their God-given duty to train and nurture their own children. This will rescue the next generation.
> 
> 
> _Analysis_
> The movie was created in conjunction with the National Center for Family Integrated Churches (NCFIC). The president of this organisation, Mr. Brown, figures predominately in the movie.
> 
> 
> The photography, mood and music were spot-on. This is obviously a professionally made film. The pacing was good. Its presentation was not over-the-top or in-your-face, but subtle and dramatic. Aesthetically, the movie deserves full marks.
> 
> 
> But presentation aside, what of the content? Given the applause at the end of the Friday night showing in Denver, it grabbed the audience. Setting the problem up with multiple teen-interviews, peppered with real-time video of Christian "rock concerts," LeClerk masterfully guides the audience through the entertainment-minded youth ministries of today.
> 
> 
> This _is _a serious problem. Children, teenagers and youth alike are baptized in a sea of childish entertainment all for the sake of "relevance." If the statistics are only partially accurate, they are astounding enough. Too many youth _are _leaving the church.
> 
> 
> And the parental problem is equally heinous: too many parents feel godly sending their children off to youth camp while neglecting family worship, home discipleship and basic doctrinal fidelity. Added to this problem are too many churches willing to accept the status quo.
> 
> 
> In fact, a Pew study shows 57% of confessing Evangelicals deny that Christ is the only way to heaven. Barna numbers suggest that being a homeschooler is no sure defense either: half of those polled believe that salvation is not by faith alone.
> 
> 
> Although the show does a good job presenting the youth problem, it misses the wider context of that problem. With such wide-spread doctrinal ignorance, is it any wonder the youth leave the shallow churches?
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, the history section leaves much to be desired. Pointing out that Plato wished to send children to the state schools is not the same as proving this as the intellectual source of today's age-segregation. The omission of the fact that the Reformers and Puritans practiced age-segregation is another problem.
> 
> 
> What of the solution: to demolish youth ministries and incorporate family discipleship?
> 
> 
> The solution is wonderful...if understood correctly. But proper understanding cannot come from the movie since it leaves out important pieces of information. For instance, Mr. Brown believes there are times and occasions for the family to be separated (see his book, _A Weed in the Church_). Likewise, Mr. Phillips thinks there are times to speak to teenagers as teenagers.
> 
> 
> In other words, the rhetoric of the movie would forbid any and all age-segregation. When in actuality the leading proponents have a more nuanced position. If the film were twenty-minutes long this lack of nuance could be tolerated.
> 
> 
> What family discipleship entails was lightly touched upon. But the proper role of the church was not clearly articulated. In contrast, Mr. Brown's book helpfully clarifies that the pastors and laymen have a role in the life of the youth.
> 
> 
> 
> Overall, the movie delivers the content and delivers it well. The problem is that the content is one-sided. There is a youth problem but there is a larger problem of Gospel ignorance. It would be better to read the book, but at least the movie will challenge Christians to rethink the role of youth ministries.
> 
> [More about the NCFIC organization here. More about Mr. Phillips here. A Review of Mr. Brown's book here.].


[/h]


----------



## Jack K

Agreed. That's a fair assessment.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I thought the movie was well done and had some good points. I personally think one of the big problems is that parents aren't concerned with orthodoxy. And poor teaching whether or not you are NFIC or not will ever benefit anyone. Good teaching and Covenantal Parenting will usually win whether or not you have segregated stuff or not. And that is just my opinion. And I am correct. Just ask me. LOL


----------



## Shawn Mathis

"Youth groups aren't to be focused on training teens in discipleship, but rather this is the father's job. When the youth groups try to do this, they, sometimes unknowingly, usurp the father's authority."

Andrew, I believe I understand the gist of your statement. But for clarity I would point out to those who have not considered that other people in the church (both as an organization (officers) and organism) have a duty to "disciple" the youth--if by _disciple _one means exercising the duties of one's office or station in life toward the youth. 

For instance, Titus 2:3 states clearly that the older woman (it does not say mothers) have a duty to be "teachers of good things [in general]" and in particular to "train/teach/advise" the "younger woman" [neos--younger]. In this sense they are discipling the youth (younger) of the church. Men have the same duty, _mutatis mutandis_. 

And, naturally, the church officers have a duty (hence catechizing, etc.). 

So, if by _youth group_ people mean any and every bad sense of the term, then it should be abolished. But if it means simply fulfilling Titus 2:3, etc. --in a systematic form (a mature man meeting with some young men monthly for lunch) for instance--then it should not be abolished but encouraged!

---------- Post added at 03:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:46 PM ----------




caoclan said:


> I appreciate the comments thus far. I am compelled by the arguments presented in the film, but don't want to make hasty judgements.



Sean, I am happy to see you wish to be cautious in your evaluation. To that end, I present the following articles for your consideration:

1. What is a Family Integrated Church?

2. A Rejoinder to Recent Family Integrated Church Comments

3. Uniting Church and Family (a positive presentation of my views)

4. A Weed in the Church: A Review

(If interested in the real history of Christian education, check out the blog, Christian Nurture )

---------- Post added at 03:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:51 PM ----------




LawrenceU said:


> If however, one looks at the way those philosophies have shaped modern Western thought and culture and how the church has incorporated the educational models developed by those philosophies it becomes rather obvious where the roots of the practice lie.



Mr. Underwood,

Could you please prove this broad sweeping claim? Or at least point to resources that do?

thanks,


----------



## Joseph Scibbe

I think a good youth ministry would have 2 goals of training parents to disciple their children and to allow fellowship, discipleship, and outreach with their peers.


----------



## T.A.G.

Having worshipped with these guys for a few months, Jack you hit it right on the head


----------



## kvanlaan

> Mr. Underwood,
> 
> Could you please prove this broad sweeping claim? Or at least point to resources that do?
> 
> thanks,



I think the video itself did that, did it not? The talk of Dewey, etc. is where I saw this in evidence...


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

kvanlaan said:


> Mr. Underwood,
> 
> Could you please prove this broad sweeping claim? Or at least point to resources that do?
> 
> thanks,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think the video itself did that, did it not? The talk of Dewey, etc. is where I saw this in evidence...
Click to expand...


It was asserted and named maybe. I can say things off handed and accusatory and still be incorrect. References and Resources are very beneficial. The Berean's were more noble. Why? They checked the resources. Pastor Mathis is very good and patient about doing this I believe. He doesn't want to be incorrect. So help him out.


----------



## Shawn Mathis

Kevin,

I think the video stringed together unsubstantiated assertions masquerading as proof--unless I forgot something pertinent. 

It is one thing to say: "hey, some particular methods used today are the same as ones used by culture/person/belief-system X. Therefore, that method must come from that culture, etc. And since that culture, etc. is unbiblical (i.e., sinful, wrong, etc.), then all methods from that culture, etc. are wrong. Ergo, the same methods used by Christians that are the same methods used by non-Christians are wrong."

Now, fill in the word "method" with: picture-books, memorization, computer-usage, etc. and one will readily see the fallacious nature of such reasoning. The other way to say this is: common grace. People use medical, engineering, etc. methods discovered or created by unbelievers _all the time_. Its origin is irrelevant (the genetic fallacy). 

What it comes down to is that the makers of this movie (NCFIC in particular) believe such methods already wrong in light of their view of the Bible--which is the very thing in debate. I encourage you to read my What is a Family-integrated Church?


----------



## kvanlaan

Pastor Mathis, I think what makes this a little more difficult to nail down is that the video puts forward as examples practises that most here on the PB are viscerally opposed to. It is not that the method is really so evil in and of itself but that the manifestations thereof as laid out in the video is indeed beyond the pale to almost everyone - we are only given examples in the extreme. And certain examples, such as that of Dewey's organization of schools, do indeed invoke a spectre of human secularism in the classrooms of the church, another viscerally opposable example. But realistically, most churches (especially of the reformed tradition), though they cater in some ways to the youth, would never use as an evangelism tool most of what was shown in the film, and that is perhaps where the movie crosses a line that most of us would never get to in the first place.

That being said, I've read a lot of Kevin Swanson's material (full books, not just articles) and greatly appreciate Pastor Baucham's views on the family and the church, and consider Paul Washer the hard medicine that much of the church is desperately in need of today. So I wouldn't say I am prematurely coming to a favorable judgment of these gentlemen based on a sound bite here and there; I know much of their material through and through, and the idea of 'going down to Egypt' for aid in teaching our youth is something that makes me throw up a little in my mouth. I know that here on the PB, Rick Warren's seeker sensitive methodology is roundly discounted as unbiblical, etc. and yet when we see a very similar creature, in many ways, unleashed upon our youth (as we did in this movie), we are hard-pressed to go as hard on it, since we too have youth programs in our churches (but would *never* have Saddleback ministry materials in our libraries). I hate looking in the mirror on this issue, there are too many things we do wrong but have solidly ensconsed in our personal practises, traditions that are sacrosanct for the sake of tradition and not for Berean reasons. 

While I would agree that not all this born of secular culture are intrinsically evil, I think discernment is often tossed aside. When Adolf Hitler tells me that it is 3:15pm and the sky is blue, I will believe him, not subject him to vigorous examination, nor dismiss his answer due to the fact that his wristwatch that told him the time has a swastika on it. However, I will not take his advice on social planning or political thought, and I am afraid that we in some cases are allowing the clergy of another religion into our classrooms when we implement a lot of the world's methodology, as much of their method and material are inseparably intertwined. Pragmatism for the sake of 'efficiently' reaching youth has no place in the church. 

Also, when we look to scripture as the Bereans did, do we really see clear ordinances for male/female separation in worship as per Jewish tradition, or was it just a continuation of Jewish tradition and nothing more which simply carried on to the days of the Puritans (and this I ask from ignorance)? Again, this is likely my ignorance at work, and not solid scholarship, so please do enlighten me.

All in all, I really enjoyed the movie. I'd like to send that boy a vest.


----------



## LawrenceU

Shawn, I am not sure what you are asking. Do you deny that Platonic philosophy influenced Rousseau? If so, then you are in disagreement the standard view of educational philosophy. Surely that is not what you ask. Dewey himself frequently praises Rousseau. (Have you read much Dewey? If not I would recommend it. It is very enlightening to read the work of such a devious mind.) Dewey, in essence, is the synthesis of three very intelligent apostates: Charles Pierce, G. Stanley Hall, and George Morris. 

Dewey's philosophy has become predominant in America, not just in the classroom. It is part and parcel of standard educational theory. Asking whether one is in an educational setting, religious or secular, that has been influenced in large part by Dewey is a bit like asking a fish if he is wet.


----------



## Shawn Mathis

kvanlaan said:


> Pastor Mathis, I think what makes this a little more difficult to nail down is that the video puts forward as examples practises that most here on the PB are viscerally opposed to.



Hello Kevin,

Let me back up here. I think I presumed too much in my answer, thinking you read my review. I do state unequivocally that there is a problem and that the movie properly and effectively paint this problem among the youth. And I also unequivocally state that the solution offered--parental discipleship--is part of the biblical solution. So, you and Doug and I agree on a large amount of things than perhaps my short response let on.

As for the practices put forward, I was specifically referring to formal meetings of the youth with mature oversight--something that the movie heavily implied (if not outright denied) as _wrong_. But the leaders of the movement actually think such meetings, at times, can be acceptable--something the movie _never pointed out_. That is why my review noted that reading the book would be better.




kvanlaan said:


> And certain examples, such as that of Dewey's organization of schools, do indeed invoke a spectre of human secularism in the classrooms of the church, another viscerally opposable example.



Please remind me what "Dewey's organization of the schools" looks like? Thanks.




kvanlaan said:


> So I wouldn't say I am prematurely coming to a favorable judgment of these gentlemen based on a sound bite here and there;



That is good to know. I am only commenting on the movie as the movie presents itself. I do encourage you to read my What is a Family Integrated Church to find out what the NCFIC believes (Mr. Brown and Mr. Phillips) because what they believe many sound Reformed-minded people would reject. And it is _not _the emphasis on family or responsibility or the like that all parties agree upon.



kvanlaan said:


> I know much of their material through and through, and the idea of 'going down to Egypt' for aid in teaching our youth is something that makes me throw up a little in my mouth. I know that here on the PB, Rick Warren's seeker sensitive methodology is roundly discounted as unbiblical, etc. and yet when we see a very similar creature, in many ways, unleashed upon our youth (as we did in this movie), we are hard-pressed to go as hard on it, since we too have youth programs in our churches



Kevin, perhaps this is where the confusion lies: I do agree that many of the methods documented in the movie are a "going down to Egypt"--I never denied that. But the assumption seems to be that _all _youth groups use such deplorable methods (eg. "we too have youth programs"). My church does nothing of the kind. By the same token, my church does not have a youth "program" anyway. 



kvanlaan said:


> Also, when we look to scripture as the Bereans did, do we really see clear ordinances for male/female separation in worship as per Jewish tradition, or was it just a continuation of Jewish tradition and nothing more which simply carried on to the days of the Puritans (and this I ask from ignorance)? Again, this is likely my ignorance at work, and not solid scholarship, so please do enlighten me.



I would make a distinction between public worship which elements must be proscribed (commanded) by the Word of God. And Christian liberty outside of worship (Sunday school, for instance). [And unfortunately the movie makes no such distinction and leaves the listener thinking it is an all or nothing proposition (eg., remember Voddie's allusion to the ark? Biblically that refers to the holy worship of God not youth groups)]. Furthermore, the examples in the Bible of public worship (which includes the entire family) do not (as I recall) specify exactly the physical arrangement of the family. It is an historical fact that the Temple during Christ's time was separated by sexes (court of the men and court of the women (and children)). The synagogues followed the same pattern. (The NE Puritans separated similarly). What is of note is that Jesus did not stand up and condemn said practice. He went after the false Gospel of the day. And I believe we must do the same given the huge ignorance of the truth in the American churches (see my review above for statistical details). 



kvanlaan said:


> When Adolf Hitler tells me that it is 3:15pm and the sky is blue, I will believe him, not subject him to vigorous examination, nor dismiss his answer due to the fact that his wristwatch that told him the time has a swastika on it. However, I will not take his advice on social planning or political thought, and I am afraid that we in some cases are allowing the clergy of another religion into our classrooms when we implement a lot of the world's methodology, as much of their method and material are inseparably intertwined. Pragmatism for the sake of 'efficiently' reaching youth has no place in the church.



There is truth in what you say but it is still vague. I think using words such as "methodology" is unclear because there may be _means _that an unbeliever uses or discovers that Christians can employ without imbibing the "methodology" or spirit of their worldview. Let me quote Jay Adams:

"Sometimes people think that while rejecting the philosophies of worldly counselors...they can adopt their methods. They say "Well, Freud used talk in counseling; so can I' That is wrongheaded idea. Think about it. You see, talk is a _means_, not a _method_. What is the difference between the two? A means is uncommitted to the principles and practices of a system. To use talk is not to say how you use talk. Freud used free association as a method in counseling. Free association is a means committed to the ends of his system; it is not a method that Christians may use to achieve the ends that they have in view. Rogers used listening; so does the Christian. Listening, per se, is not a method but a means. If listening is to gather no facts but feelings alone, then that sort of listening is not the sort that Christian may use. That is listening committed to the ends of a false system...." (Commentary on John, p.91)

But since the co-producer of the movie, NCFIC, believes that age-segregation can be used, the real issue has become obscured by the movie (since the listener never knew that). The issue is not, "Is age-segregation unbiblical?" but "when and how can age-segregation be best used in accordance to the general rules of the Bible?"

I hope this clarifies things.


----------



## nasa30

Very well said Kevin and you make great points.

Thanks


----------



## JM

I watched it last night and enjoyed it, got to work and recommended to some folks. The Primitive Baptists were right about this one.

http://www.puritanboard.com/f18/black-rock-address-35123/

Sunday Schools

Sunday Schools come next under consideration. These assume the same high stand as do Tract Societies. They claim the honor of converting their tens of thousands; of leading the tender minds of children to the knowledge of Jesus; of being as properly the instituted means of bringing children to the knowledge of salvation, as the preaching of the gospel that of bringing adults to the same knowledge, &c. Such arrogant pretensions we feel bound to oppose. First, because these as well as the pretensions of the Tract Societies are grounded upon the notion that conversion or regeneration is produced by impressions made upon the natural mind by means of religious sentiments instilled into it; and if the Holy Ghost is allowed to be at all concerned in the thing, it is in a way which implies his being somehow blended with the instruction, or necessarily attendant upon it; all of which we know to be wrong.

Secondly, because such schools were never established by the apostles, nor commanded by Christ. There were children in the days of the apostles. The apostles possessed as great a desire for the salvation of souls, as much love to the cause of Christ, and knew as well what God would own for bringing persons to the knowledge of salvation, as any do at this day. We therefore must believe that if these schools were of God, we should find some account of them in the New Testament.

Thirdly. We have exemplified in the case of the Pharisees, the evil consequences of instructing children in the letter of the Scripture, under the notion that this instruction constitutes a saving acquaintance with the word of God. We see in that instance it only made hypocrites of the Jews; and as the Scriptures declare that Christ's words are spirit and life, and that the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, we cannot believe it will have any better effect on the children in our day.

The Scriptures enjoin upon parents to bring up their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord; but this, instead of countenancing, forbids the idea of parents entrusting the religious education of their children to giddy, unregenerated young persons, who know no better than to build them up in the belief that they are learning the religion of Christ, and to confirm them in their natural notions of their own goodness.

But whilst we thus stand opposed to the plan and use of these Sunday Schools, and the S.S. Union, in every point, we wish to be distinctly understood that we consider Sunday Schools for the purpose of teaching poor children to read, whereby they may be enabled to read the Scriptures for themselves, in neighborhoods where there is occasion for them, and when properly conducted, without that ostentation so commonly connected with them, to be useful and benevolent institutions, worthy of the patronage of all the friends of civil liberty.​


----------



## Shawn Mathis

LawrenceU said:


> Shawn, I am not sure what you are asking.



Mr. Underwood, The assertion you made I took in the context of the movie which was about youth groups in general and age-segregation in particular. Perhaps when you wrote about the church "incorporating" such philosophies into their education of the youth you were not referring to such? What specific methods do you believe come from unbelieving philosophies (please see my quote of Jay Adams in my last posting above). 



LawrenceU said:


> Dewey, in essence, is the synthesis of three very intelligent apostates: Charles Pierce, G. Stanley Hall, and George Morris.



That may be but schools, youth meetings and age-segregation existed centuries before Dewey. Thus if the movie was claiming that Dewey is the root of Sunday school, youth group and age-segregation in particular it was wrong. Now, Dewey may have accelerated their bad usage--that's probably true. Maybe Dewey warped the simpler usage of these tools (as practiced in Calvin's Geneva for instance) into evil tools? Neither more nuanced claims were offered in the film as I recall.



LawrenceU said:


> Asking whether one is in an educational setting, religious or secular, that has been influenced in large part by Dewey is a bit like asking a fish if he is wet.



Agreed. 

The movie clearly asserts that modern youth ministries (not clearly defined or differentiated from, say, Reformed youth meetings) came from Plato and Rousseau. Yet it did not prove it. Similarity is not the same as identity. And Rousseau's only book-length work on education actually endorsed homeschooling (see here).


----------



## Hebrew Student

I have had very deep concerns about this movie, and I hope no one will mind if I share them. I was given a link to the movie, and I watched it, and I felt like it was a tale of two movies.

The first part did a very good job at pointing out that there is a real problem in youth ministries today. Youth simply are not learning the Bible; they are having their fleshly desires gratified, and if the Bible is studied at all, it is done on a very surface level, without much in the way of detailed exegesis, or even training in how to do detailed exegesis from an English Bible.

That being said, the second and third parts were what concerned me. My concern was that there was very heavy reductionism in the second and third portions of this movie. With regards to the second part of the movie, the claim that there are similarities between age specific education and what Plato, Dewey, and Rousseau taught does _not_ mean that you can therefore say that this is the origin of age specific education.

Using that same logic, you can prove that the Bible is pagan in origin. For example, In the Epic of Gilgamesh, there is a story about a man who built a boat to survive a flood. After the flood waters stopped, he sent out a raven and a dove in order to see if the waters had receded. Then, he offered up a sacrifice as a southing aroma to the gods. Also, in the Egyptian Memphite theology, there is one creator, Ptah, who rests after he had completed creation. Also, in the Ugaritic Baal epic, Baal fights and defeats a monster called Leviathan [c.f. Isaiah 27:1].

Using the logic of this movie, this must mean, because of the similarities between these pagan sources and the Bible, that the Bible is actually pagan in origin. Now, I do not believe that, and I think that there are rational reasons for why these parallels exist that do not involve saying that the Bible is pagan in origin. However, if you are going to use that argument to say that age specific ministries are pagan in origin, why don't you be consistent, and say that the Bible is pagan in origin?

The third section is what most concerned me. I am not sure why though. I don't know if it is because my main area of study and research is in Biblical exegesis and linguistics, or what. I was deeply concerned about the argument, "Age specific ministries are not found in scripture, so, therefore, they must be wrong." The problem is that there are some ambiguities with using the term "Biblical" regarding anything. What exactly is meant by that? To illustrate this ambiguity, let me quote a humorous anecdote that I found online the other day:



> *Top 10 Biblical Ways to Acquire a Wife*
> 10. Find a Prostitute and marry her. (Hosea 1:1-3)
> 9. Purchase a piece of property, and get a woman as part of the deal. (Ruth 4:5-10)
> 8. Find an attractive prisoner of war, bring her home, shave her head, trim her nails, and give her new clothes. Then she’s yours. (Deuteronomy 21:11-13)
> 7. Go to a party and hide. When the women come out to dance, grab one and carry her off to be your wife. (Judges 21:19-25)
> 6. Cut 200 foreskins off of your future father-in-law’s enemies and get his daughter for a wife. (1 Samuel 18:27)
> 5. Become the emperor of a huge nation and hold a beauty contest. (Esther 2:3-4)
> 4. Find a man with seven daughters, and impress him by watering his flock. (Exodus 2:16-21)
> 3. When you see someone you like, go home and tell your parents, “I have seen a woman; now get her for me.” If your parents question your decision, simply say, “Get her for me. She’s the one for me.” (Judges 14:1-3)
> 2. Agree to work seven years in exchange for a woman’s hand in marriage. Get tricked into marrying the wrong woman. Then work another seven years for the woman you wanted to marry in the first place. That’s right. Fourteen years of toil for a woman. (Genesis 29:15-30)
> 1. Have God create a wife for you while you sleep. Note: this will cost you a rib. (Genesis 2:19-24)



Now, very clearly, these ways are "Biblical," but would anyone suggest that you must find a wife in one of these ways? Some of them [i.e., what Samson did] are wrong. Not only that, but there are some things that we would say *are* Biblical that you will not find in the Bible. For example, just recently, at a Texas Rangers game, a man died when he fell over a railing twenty feet to his eventual death. My mind immediately jumped to a game a year ago when my favorite baseball team, the Cleveland Indians, went to Texas to play the Rangers. In that game, a man fell from the upper deck into the lower deck. The problem is that the railings at the stadium are not very high, and it is very dangerous.

Now, there is nothing in scripture that talks about sufficiently high railings at the end of the upper decks of baseball stadiums. However, there *is* something in scripture that directly applies to this situation:

*Deuteronomy 22:8* "When you build a new house, you shall make a parapet for your roof, so that you will not bring bloodguilt on your house if anyone falls from it.

Now, very clearly, this talking about houses, not baseball stadiums, and it is talking about the roof, not the upper deck. However, the point of this law [and others like it] is that we need to take every precaution to avoid accidental death.

In other words, I don't think this is an issue of semantics [meaning in language]; I, instead, think it is an issue of pragmatics, [meaning in relation to language use]. For example, it is true that, if you look in the Bible, you will not find an example youth groups or sunday schools, just as you will not find an example of upper decks of baseball stadiums, and fences at the edge of the upper deck. In that sense, you can call youth groups, sunday schools, and fences at the edge of the upper decks of baseball stadiums "unbiblical." The intention of the law in Deuteronomy 22:8 is to get people to take care to protect against accidental death, and the intention of the command to the church to teach is to get the church to teach. In the case of the railing at the edge of the upper deck, you are preventing accidental death, and in the case of youth groups and sunday schools, you are obeying the command to teach.

What I am referring to here is the classic pragmatic theory known as Speech Act Theory. You have the locution, which is the text itself, and its meaning. You have the illocution, which is what the speech act is seeking to accomplish, and you have the perlocution, what the speech act actually accomplishes. In the case of the law of Deuteronomy 22:8, you would have:


*Locution*: Build a parapet around the roof of your house, so you won't be guilty of a person's death if they fall off.

*Illocution*: to get people to protect human life from accidental death.

*Perlocution*: people build a railing at the edge of the upper deck of a baseball stadium sufficiently high so that no one falls off.


However, that leaves open the possibility of this relationship of the command to teach:


*Locution*: You, church officers, need to teach the Bible to all people.

*Illocution*: To get church officers to teach the Bible.

*Perlocution*: The church sets up sunday schools and youth groups in order to teach the Bible.


If this is the case, then there is a relationship between the language of scripture, sunday schools, and youth groups, but it is at the level of illocution and perlocution, not at the level of locution. Hence, there is no reason why youth groups and sunday schools should be considered "contrary to scripture," as the title page to the movie says.

Hence, the issue comes down to the intent of scripture. Do the scriptures give significance to the age of the participants involved when we teach? The movie talked about patterns of "age integration." The problem is that there are many instances in which you have crowds being taught, and the ages of the people who are there are not even mentioned. I would say this casts serious doubt on whether the author intends to make the age of the participants of any significance. Furthermore, even if there were only examples of "age integration" in the Bible, it wouldn't prove that the text is trying to say that Christian education must always be age integrated.

For example, the Bible also presents a pattern of people gathering water in buckets. Does that mean that it is somehow sin to set up pipes to bring water into a sink in your house? The Bible also has a pattern of the Lord's Supper being served as a whole meal. Does that mean that only having bread and wine is a "modern invention" contrary to scripture? The issue, of course, is what the text intends to accomplish [its illocution]. Does this alleged pattern, even if it exists, intend to command us to do something? That is the issue.

My other concern is that this kind of hermeneutic leads to syncretism. Why? Because, if we can’t find baseball stadiums in the Bible, we must get rid of them altogether, not just the railings at the edge of the upper deck. All things that are not part of the culture in which the Biblical text was found must be gotten rid of, and hence, you end up with syncretism. Eventually, if you are consistent with this hermeneutic, you will have to go out into the middle of the wilderness, and implement Ancient Near Eastern culture-you will have to speak in the pronounciation of ancient Hebrew, wear robes of animal skin, make houses of fired brick, eat only foods that you would find in the Bible, etc. Other things are “unbiblical,” and simply a result of our modern culture, and must be rejected, right? That is how I believe this position leads, logically, to syncretism.

God Bless,
Adam


----------



## kvanlaan

> Please remind me what "Dewey's organization of the schools" looks like? Thanks.



Let's say instead, what was his philosophy of approaching education?



> John Dewey's focus on education was a unique element of his philosopical thinking and writing. Although he did not coin the phrase progressive education, it has come to be associated with Dewey.
> 
> Dewey believed there is an intimate connection between education and social action in a democracy. "Democracy has to be born anew every generation, and education is its midwife," Dewey wrote in School and Society, published in 1889. Dewey recognized that schools, particularly elementary and secondary schools, often were repressive institutions that did not promote exploration and growth. He wrote about, and helped to implement, a number of reforms that would allow schools to be "major agencies for the development of free personalities" (Sidorsky, p. xxx). Dewey's ideas were put into practice in 1896 at the University of Chicago's experimental school.
> 
> Dewey believed that school should teach students how to be problem-solvers by helping students learn how to think rather than simply learning rote lessons about large amounts of information. In Dewey's view, schools should focus on judgment rather than knowledge so that school children become adults who can "pass judgments pertinently and discriminateingly on the problems of human living" (Campbell, 1995, p. 215-216). Dewey also believed that schools should help students learn to live and to work cooperatively with others. In School and Society he wrote, "In a complex society, ability to understand and sympathize with the operations and lot of others is a condition of common purpose which only education can procure."
> 
> Dewey believed that students should participate in decisions that affect their learning, but he was also very concerned with the rights and academic autonomy of teachers. Dewey was a member of the first teacher's union in New York City, and his interest in and concern with academic freedom in universities led to his role as a founder of the American Association of University Professors.



Biblical education is not a democracy, it is a benevolent dictatorship. When we introduce secular philosophies into our theological education, we are standing in manure-covered sandals on Holy ground.

How does this play in to modern youth programs? We see so much of 'how do you feel' entering the mainstream of our theological education, I think that pretty much encapsulates the Emergent movement, and the youth movement that was exemplified in the movie. The body of evidence is monstrous; it is as though our youth must validate the scripture through their faith so if we have to feed it this way or that to get them to agree with it, then that's what we'll do. That it is watered down and hardly bears any resemblance to gospel (it is more about what I want to do and how I feel) makes it all the worse, because sinful men won't drink but the most watered down and twisted gospel without repentance.



> Kevin, perhaps this is where the confusion lies: I do agree that many of the methods documented in the movie are a "going down to Egypt"--I never denied that. But the assumption seems to be that _all _youth groups use such deplorable methods (eg. "we too have youth programs"). My church does nothing of the kind. By the same token, my church does not have a youth "program" anyway.



We have a youth program, for lack of a better term, overseen by a man who previously served as an elder along with his wife. It is biblical training for sending our youth out into the world with its pitfalls and siren songs. Parents are encouraged to teach their children catechism, though the church provides the curriculum. Perhaps the OPC does not use these worldly methods as laid out in the movie, I know that the URC does not. However, put the combined membership of the URC and OPC beside that of the SBC and broad evangelicalism, and you have a tick on the backside of an elephant. 'Divided' is a true depiction of (nearly all of) American Christianity's fall into a secular mode of thinking.



> There is truth in what you say but it is still vague. I think using words such as "methodology" is unclear because there may be _means _that an unbeliever uses or discovers that Christians can employ without imbibing the "methodology" or spirit of their worldview. Let me quote Jay Adams:
> 
> "Sometimes people think that while rejecting the philosophies of worldly counselors...they can adopt their methods. They say "Well, Freud used talk in counseling; so can I' That is wrongheaded idea. Think about it. You see, talk is a _means_, not a _method_. What is the difference between the two? A means is uncommitted to the principles and practices of a system. To use talk is not to say how you use talk. Freud used free association as a method in counseling. Free association is a means committed to the ends of his system; it is not a method that Christians may use to achieve the ends that they have in view. Rogers used listening; so does the Christian. Listening, per se, is not a method but a means. If listening is to gather no facts but feelings alone, then that sort of listening is not the sort that Christian may use. That is listening committed to the ends of a false system...." (Commentary on John, p.91)






> But since the co-producer of the movie, NCFIC, believes that age-segregation can be used, the real issue has become obscured by the movie (since the listener never knew that). The issue is not, "Is age-segregation unbiblical?" but "when and how can age-segregation be best used in accordance to the general rules of the Bible?"
> 
> I hope this clarifies things.



Sorry, but I think a lot of the reason for this sort of movie is the simple creation of a previously unknown segment of society: the teenager. We created Frankenstein, this is how you best reach him. NO! Frankenstein should not exist, stop taking cues from the world and re-integrate these miscreants into young-man-hood. Don't try to fix what the world broke with the world's methodology, they broke it and segmented it in the first place. It should not exist. We don't deal with divorce in the church by teaching how to deal with it to everyone, since it is an inevitability (or at least htat is what the world teaches us), we strive to teach that divorce is not an option and that we have a covenant before God until death.

Trying to 'reach youth' as the world has created 'youth' denigrates God's creation.


----------



## Shawn Mathis

kvanlaan said:


> I know that the URC does not. However, put the combined membership of the URC and OPC beside that of the SBC and broad evangelicalism, and you have a tick on the backside of an elephant. 'Divided' is a true depiction of (nearly all of) American Christianity's fall into a secular mode of thinking.



Kevin, Thank you for jogging my memory about Dewey. 

As for the rest, I think we are talking past each other.

Your concern seems to focus on the elephant. That is fine. Mine is about the solution for the elephant and the solution's fidelity to Scripture. The movie did not highlight your observation that there were churches faithful in teaching families and youth (as youth). And then say, "that is a good model." or "that is a good model and here is another." Instead they bypass the option (I know they are against even good youth "programs" from the literature and lectures and books) and promote their historically odd approach as _the _biblical answer.

I suppose part of the problem is that the viewer of the movie has no idea exactly what the NCFIC believes. I do. I have researched and read upon on it and strongly encourage you to (see below). In short, the NCFIC publicly calls into question the fidelity of churches that use age-segregation as in Sunday school, actually asserting "that age segregated practices are based on unbiblical, evolutionary and secular thinking which have invaded the church." (here). 

So, from the broader perspective of the agenda of NCFIC and their public confession, the movie ends up being a propaganda piece that easily captures the audiences sentiments with the overt and obviously rotten fruit of modern youth programs (in the worst sense of the term). Then, by verbal slight of hand, feeds the audience a solution with little to no real exegesis (and poor history) and poor definitions for that matter (eg., _youth group_ is never clearly differentiated from good instructions as you described at your churches). 

Again, see my review, the do a good job of presenting the problem and emphasizing the importance of family discipleship.

Does this mean I am for the Frankenstein? or using the world's methodology? Only if one accepts the premise of the movie. Otherwise, there are many ways churches and families together can help youth (I never used the word "teenager") become young adults without asserting one particular method.

1. What is a Family Integrated Church?

2. A Rejoinder to Recent Family Integrated Church Comments

3. Uniting Church and Family (a positive presentation of my views)

Again, you and I and the NCFIC have many things in common and I think that should be emphasized in helping the American families fight against secular thinking. And the number one weapon is not another method but the Message that is the Gospel of sovereign grace. 

have a blessed Sabbath,


----------



## Herald

Adam, your post is too long to quote, so let me just say that it was very well written and makes a number of good points. I am going to borrow your post and share it with others.


----------



## kvanlaan

Pastor Mathis,

I do not wish to focus on the elephant, not at all. The elephant is a sad fact. The point is the need for change. But I do wish to thoroughly discredit the 'typical' youth group setup so that no-one can walk away from this thread saying 'well, it just doesn't work for _them_, but our pierced and tattooed youth facilitator is _totally_ different, he doesn't show R-rated movies on pizza night'. 

The danger is that we are simply developing another iteration of a failed model in that we don't make a departure from this one. We see that in our own program, with some of the youth pulling in the direction of what is perhaps more creative and 'relevant' to their lives, when instead we should be encouraging a growth in maturity and moving away from these childish things, and a pull towards biblical manhood and womanhood. The pull is strong to identify with the white noise of the world, and most youth groups, even faithful models, still don't have that separation from the world that should be taught. Perhaps it is indeed better to just put it back in the hands of those that it came from: the parents. There is nothing revolutionary about this thinking, and nothing controversial about this move. Telling others they are godless pagans for having their youth meet on Saturday nights is wrong, there is no question about it. But there is so much right about what is presented - let the fathers teach their children.


----------



## Hebrew Student

Thanks, Herald!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

God Bless,
Adam


----------



## Shawn Mathis

kvanlaan said:


> But I do wish to thoroughly discredit the 'typical' youth group setup so that no-one can walk away from this thread saying 'well, it just doesn't work for _them_, but our pierced and tattooed youth facilitator is _totally_ different, he doesn't show R-rated movies on pizza night'.



Amen.



kvanlaan said:


> Telling others they are godless pagans for having their youth meet on Saturday nights is wrong, there is no question about it. But there is so much right about what is presented - let the fathers teach their children.



Hear. Hear. 

And because the movie lays it thick and directs people to a "ministry" (NCFIC) that virtually "tells others they are godless pagans for having their youth meet on Saturdays" I cannot unequivocally endorse the movie. There are many good critiques (White Horse Inn for example) of the failed Evangelical church. Those are the ones I can in good conscience endorse.

I'm glad we are both zealous to guard the Reformed churches from "baptizing" pagan youth groups with a few catechisms. The churches should reinforce parental authority and individuals should be positive examples for the youth. Youth should learn to be young adults not children. All the ways in which this can be done probably would need another thread (but see my Uniting Church and Family).

take care,


----------



## Josh Williamson

The church I pastor has both Sunday School, Youth Group, and also a weekly Kids Program. The way in which we do things is a bit different though. For instance, the youth group meets Sunday night after church, but before they meet they are with their with family for the evening service. After the evening service the young people get together and have fellowship, fun, and even more teaching, while the parents fellowship. Sadly, many of the youth who come to youth group, and to our weekly kids program come from homes that have no fathers, he is either in prison, abandoned them or they are wards of the state. This has provided a very fruitful ministry for one of our elders, who has basically become a dad to them all. He spends hours each week ministering to those kids without dads, and encouraging other dads to step up. 

The danger I see with something like the Divided movie and the FIC in general is that it can damage these kinds of ministries, as it creates a blanket statement of "youth group is bad" and as a result many will not support a ministry that is not taking away from the fathers, and is becoming fathers for those without dads. I think the youth group, sunday school, kids programs should all compliment the teaching of parents, not stand alone.


----------



## JoyFullMom

Thank you Pastor Mathis and Adam for your posts and info. You both have helped to solidify where I and my husband already stand.


----------



## Shawn Mathis

Jason,

The first question I would ask is where in the bible does it say that one must find sunday school in order to use sunday school? Even the Primitive baptists below give no answer, just assertions.

Secondly, let us look carefully at what they wrote:



JM said:


> Secondly, because such schools were never established by the apostles, nor commanded by Christ. There were children in the days of the apostles. The apostles possessed as great a desire for the salvation of souls, as much love to the cause of Christ, and knew as well what God would own for bringing persons to the knowledge of salvation, as any do at this day. We therefore must believe that if these schools were of God, we should find some account of them in the New Testament.



Many things were not "established" or "commanded" by Christ that are legitimately done today: teaching logic (gasp! Aristotle discovered that didn't he?), using church buildings, elder meetings for a local church, homeschooling.

Thirdly, do you agree that teaching the Scriptures necessarily leads to hypocrites or that any instruction outside of (presumably) preaching or parental "cannot...have any better effect on the children in our day"?

Fourth, the historical parallel in inaccurate: 



JM said:


> The Scriptures enjoin upon parents to bring up their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord; but this, instead of countenancing, forbids the idea of parents entrusting the religious education of their children to giddy, unregenerated young persons, who know no better than to build them up in the belief that they are learning the religion of Christ, and to confirm them in their natural notions of their own goodness.



I agree that parents should not entrust their children to giddy unregenerates. But what about mature Christians in small doses? Even Mr. Brown believes age-segregation and separation from families acceptable at times (never once mentioned in the movie).

Lastly, either the Primitive Baptists of the day were grossly inept or people using this text misunderstand their original intention. The last part of the quote you gave states that Sunday Schools are acceptable!



JM said:


> But whilst we thus stand opposed to the plan and use of these Sunday Schools, and the S.S. Union, in every point, we wish to be distinctly understood that we consider Sunday Schools for the purpose of teaching poor children to read, whereby they may be enabled to read the Scriptures for themselves, in neighborhoods where there is occasion for them, and when properly conducted, without that ostentation so commonly connected with them, to be useful and benevolent institutions, worthy of the patronage of all the friends of civil liberty.



Of course, they state that it has to be for a specific purpose and under certain conditions. Which brings the reader to wonder how the previous arguments used by the same Primitive Baptists ("not commanded" by the NT) makes any sense since they were willing to ignore it in this use of Sunday school. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. 

I think there is a reason why Mr. Brown and company do not use this historical document for their public rhetoric. It cannot stand scrutiny.

yours in Christ,


----------



## Pilgrim Standard

Watched the movie last night. I thought the movie was decent. It really needed to focus much more on the scripture though. There were very little scriptural references. Leaving out any reference to the doctrinal ignorance of the parents was rather shocking. Some good points in the move but considering the nature of the subject it left out much to be said. I do not recall any mention of lack of family devotions either. 

That being said, I for one am glad that the subject is moving around through the churches for discussion.


----------



## ericfromcowtown

I'm watching the movie in small chunks with my morning coffee. Good points here and there, but frustrating in parts too. 

I found the portion where it's stated that age-segregated education (whether secular or religious) is based on acceptance of evolutionary theory mind-boggling.


----------



## Shawn Mathis

ericfromcowtown said:


> I'm watching the movie in small chunks with my morning coffee. Good points here and there, but frustrating in parts too.
> 
> I found the portion where it's stated that age-segregated education (whether secular or religious) is based on acceptance of evolutionary theory mind-boggling.



Eric, have you seen the whole thing yet?


----------



## JM

Hey Shawn, thanks for writing a reply but you misunderstood the last portion of the quote and the context in which it was written. I'd say you misunderstand a lot about this issue and how it relates to the local church and scripture but I haven't the energy to argue. 

We both have convictions, we both believe our convictions are grounded in scripture. Go with your convictions and I'll go with mine.


----------



## MarieP

But these issues are present even in family-integrated churches, no? Youth seem prone to segregating themselves off from the rest of the church even in those churches. So the problem isn't entirely solved by family-integration.


----------



## ericfromcowtown

Shawn Mathis said:


> ericfromcowtown said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm watching the movie in small chunks with my morning coffee. Good points here and there, but frustrating in parts too.
> 
> I found the portion where it's stated that age-segregated education (whether secular or religious) is based on acceptance of evolutionary theory mind-boggling.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eric, have you seen the whole thing yet?
Click to expand...


Yes, I've now watched the whole movie. Lots of good points. I think that the fact that so many young people are turning their back on the faith even before leaving high school should be troublesome and should raise questions about how things are currently being done. However, I found the movie making, what I consider, a number of questionable / unjustifiable conclusions. One example of an unjustifiable conclusion, that I mentioned in my previous post, was the attempt to connect an acceptance of evolutionary theory to an acceptance of age-segregated education.

I'm not prepared to throw the baby (any and all age-segregated Sunday School) out with the bath water (shallow, worldly youth groups).


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

JM said:


> Hey Shawn, thanks for writing a reply but you misunderstood the last portion of the quote and the context in which it was written. I'd say you misunderstand a lot about this issue and how it relates to the local church and scripture but I haven't the energy to argue.
> 
> We both have convictions, we both believe our convictions are grounded in scripture. Go with your convictions and I'll go with mine.



Jason, 
You just took a swipe at an Elder about context. a quote, and misunderstanding a major portion of this issue. I can probably guarantee Pastor Mathis has spent more hours studying this issue than you have. I am going to ask you to back up your comments please or apologize. I would be ashamed to argue like this and get away with it. It would eleviate a lot of my having to deal with comments I make though. I could just tarnish a lot of people with that kind of reply. So please take the time prove your assertions when you have the energy or just leave the comments as they stand without these kinds of accusations. Be accountable for your convictions and please don't accuse someone of providing a falseness unless you are willing to back it up. 

After all I could just start painting you in this light without any back up. That is just a violation of the ninth commandment as a stand alone statement. Please stop this. Drive by assertions are not going to be accepted here.


----------



## Herald

I second what Randy said. On this board you don't get to accuse without backing it up. If you don't want to back it up then don't post it.


----------



## Damon Rambo

I watched the movie and was very impressed. Yet I do see some pretty glaring problems...

First, speaking in terms of people in the scriptures, "teens" or "youth" (which in most churches are high schoolers), these are not children. They are young men and women. 

Second, scripture specifically commands the older men and women, _of the church_ to train the younger. NOT just the parents.

Third, I wonder if those churches who claim there should be NO age segregated activities, have parents that allow there children to go hang out with friends, go to the mall, movies, etc.? Because it would be idiotic in the extreme, to say the church can't provide wholesome "teen only" activities, but then allow other, less wholesome, non-church "teen only" activities. If a parent allows their teen(s) to go out and doing something with their friends, but attacks teen only church activities, this would appear to be highly hypocritical.

Now, as far as the Lord's day gathering, the point is well taken. The scriptures command us to gather together (not in 5 different groups), so I believe we should corporately worship together. But as far as special Wednesday night gatherings, which are regulated by the elder(s) of the church, I see no problem with this. The problem comes when the elder(s) abandon their leadership responsibility, and the "youth guy" is allowed to go off on his own way, without oversight.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

There is a problem in some of the scenarios between Pastors and Youth Leaders that need to be addressed. Sometimes these people steal away the affections and respect of the kids from the place the children ought to have them. The children's affections and respect are turned toward their Church leaders instead of directed toward their parents. The goal of the Church should be to direct the affections and admiration of children back toward the Parents. After all that is God's plan. 



> (Mal 4:6) And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.


----------



## JM

Kevin has already shown in posts #36, #43, #46 some of the dangers of extra biblical traditions but I'll add a point or two for clarity of my quote of the Black Rock Address.

Shawn, 

Not one of the things you mentioned, logic or home schooling, are done instead of worship in any church I know of but Sunday school is. You would not skip a Lord's Day service to attend a logic class, a home schooling conference, etc which is what parents are doing when they send their children off to play Bible hangman in the Sunday school room. So that dog don't hunt, the comparison is unfair... Parents are essentially allowing their children to skip a worship service. You have asked about hypocrisy, hypocrisy is a plague of all sinners, with some institutions aiding in its spread more then others. The institutions that surrounded the Pharisees were extra biblical and designed to aid the sinner but were in the end a determent. 

Shawn wrote, 

_If any sunday school, youth group or family for that matter asserted this then they should be publicly denounced._ 

Really? 

Shawn you wrote that people should be _denounced_ for not entrusting "the religious education of their children to giddy, unregenerated young persons, who know no better than to build them up in the belief that they are learning the religion of Christ, and to confirm them in their natural notions of their own goodness." 

I disagree Shawn. I'm not a Pastor and Randy "can probably guarantee" you have studied this subject more then I and perhaps you have but to denounce someone for not allowing their children to be instructed in moralistic or pietistic Christianity by inexperienced or unbelieving people should be a point we agree upon. 

I hope I have misunderstood you but the force with which you write tells me otherwise.

Shawn wrote, _Lastly, either the Primitive Baptists of the day were grossly inept or people using this text misunderstand their original intention. The last part of the quote you gave states that Sunday Schools are acceptable!_

Absolutely not and you have misunderstood the context. School on Sunday, that does not take place instead of worship, is permissible. You have misunderstood the quote. As posted, "teaching poor children to read, whereby they may be enabled to read the Scriptures for themselves, in neighborhoods where there is occasion for them, and when properly conducted, without that ostentation so commonly connected with them, to be useful and benevolent institutions..." 

Shawn, you have brushed aside the context with "they state that it has to be for a specific purpose and under certain conditions." Of course school should have a specific purpose and conducted under certain conditions and these conditions would remove it from taking the place of Sunday morning worship.


----------



## Damon Rambo

PuritanCovenanter said:


> There is a problem in some of the scenarios between Pastors and Youth Leaders that need to be addressed. Sometimes these people steal away the affections and respect of the kids from the place the children ought to have them. The children's affections and respect are turned toward their Church leaders instead of directed toward their parents. The goal of the Church should be to direct the affections and admiration of children back toward the Parents. After all that is God's plan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Mal 4:6) And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.
Click to expand...


Since this is the case, I guess we should keep our children from studying John Calvin, or Martin Luther, and we should keep them from listening to great preachers like Al Mohler, Ligon Duncan, etc. After all, we would not want the affection of the children turned to these men....

What you present is an either/or scenario, but this is facetious. I love my wife. But I also love my children, and I have some very dear, special friends in the ministry as well. Robbing the children from their scripturally mandated mentors (the scriptures command the older men to train the younger, in the church, NOT just the parents...), is not the answer. If the Youth Pastor is a godly man, and brother in Christ, the youth SHOULD love him...and love their parents as well. The two do not oppose one another.


----------



## SRoper

Adam, your post gets a thumbs up not only because it is well reasoned but also because your favorite baseball team is the Cleveland Indians.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Damon Rambo said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is a problem in some of the scenarios between Pastors and Youth Leaders that need to be addressed. Sometimes these people steal away the affections and respect of the kids from the place the children ought to have them. The children's affections and respect are turned toward their Church leaders instead of directed toward their parents. The goal of the Church should be to direct the affections and admiration of children back toward the Parents. After all that is God's plan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Mal 4:6) And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since this is the case, I guess we should keep our children from studying John Calvin, or Martin Luther, and we should keep them from listening to great preachers like Al Mohler, Ligon Duncan, etc. After all, we would not want the affection of the children turned to these men....
> 
> What you present is an either/or scenario, but this is facetious. I love my wife. But I also love my children, and I have some very dear, special friends in the ministry as well. Robbing the children from their scripturally mandated mentors (the scriptures command the older men to train the younger, in the church, NOT just the parents...), is not the answer. If the Youth Pastor is a godly man, and brother in Christ, the youth SHOULD love him...and love their parents as well. The two do not oppose one another.
Click to expand...


I never implied that we shouldn't have our children love to read and appreciate God ordained means. I am just suggesting that the teens sometimes start to become more enamored by their teachers and youth ministers because they are cool in their eyes and their parents become secondary. The commandment is to first honour one's parents and with that there is promise. I noted that *sometimes* these people steal the affections of the teens away from the parent when that shouldn't be. These offices are suppose to be supporting roles in developing the affections of Children toward their parents. That is all I was getting at. I know. I have seen it happen way to many times. And with many bad consequences. A great example of a family that generationally honoured parents with a great promise because of it is Jeremiah 35. The prophet could have told them they were being legalistic but he didn't. He was told to commend them and said because they honoured and valued the wishes of their Great Grandfather they would always have someone standing before Him.


----------



## Jack K

JM said:


> You would not skip a Lord's Day service to attend a logic class, a home schooling conference, etc which is what parents are doing when they send their children off to play Bible hangman in the Sunday school room.



Um... I just have to respond to that comment.

Why do you throw in an unfair jab by assuming worst practices? Of course we're against _bad_ kids' classes that teach fluff or are scheduled to interfere with corporate worship.

To generalize kids' classes as "playing Bible hangman during the service" is unkind to those faithful teachers who, for instance, might lead kids through the catechism after church while their parents are studying something else. If you want to tell me why kids' classes are wrong, then tell why _that_ sort of "good" class is still wrong. We already know bad classes are bad.


----------



## JM

Jack K said:


> Um... I just have to respond to that comment.
> 
> Why do you throw in an unfair jab by assuming worst practices? Of course we're against bad kids' classes that teach fluff or are scheduled to interfere with corporate worship.



I was following Shawn's lead. He tossed out "logic and home schooling" so I tossed out Bible hangman. 



> To generalize kids' classes...



...and to generalize kids' classes as generally good is different?



Jack K said:


> is unkind to those faithful teachers who, for instance, might lead kids through the catechism after church while their parents are studying something else.



This isn't even on the table. Sunday school class runs _during_ regular worship services and those faithful teaches you have in mind are not what is being discussed in the Black Rock Address or what I've been commenting on.


----------



## JoyFullMom

JM said:


> Sunday school class runs _during_ regular worship services and those faithful teaches you have in mind are not what is being discussed in the Black Rock Address or what I've been commenting on.



This is interesting to me. We have moved a LOT. We were Baptist, Calvinist Baptist, a few independant churches and now we are Presbyterian. I have *never* been to a church that had Sunday School during regular worship. Are you perhaps referring to *children's church*?


----------



## JM

Really? 

Polly, you have moved a lot, in many different churches and denominations and never seen a Sunday school curriculum being used in a "children's church?" What is a children's church anyway and is it biblical? 

I've seen the opposite. I haven't moved around as much as you have, visit three Baptist churches and stayed in one. The children's service was run in all three of these churches with a Sunday school curriculum in mind. A few songs, a reading and teaching from a Sunday curriculum, some games and snacks. It was the same pattern in all three churches.

I'll defer to you Polly since you have more experience then I. I'll retract my comment about Sunday school running at the same time as regular worship but I think it is a moot point. I am concerned about this "children's church" idea though.


----------



## Jack K

JM said:


> Jack K said:
> 
> 
> 
> Um... I just have to respond to that comment.
> 
> Why do you throw in an unfair jab by assuming worst practices? Of course we're against bad kids' classes that teach fluff or are scheduled to interfere with corporate worship.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was following Shawn's lead. He tossed out "logic and home schooling" so I tossed out Bible hangman.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To generalize kids' classes...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ...and to generalize kids' classes as generally good is different?
> 
> 
> 
> Jack K said:
> 
> 
> 
> is unkind to those faithful teachers who, for instance, might lead kids through the catechism after church while their parents are studying something else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This isn't even on the table. Sunday school class runs _during_ regular worship services and those faithful teaches you have in mind are not what is being discussed in the Black Rock Address or what I've been commenting on.
Click to expand...


Okay. I had to read back through the thread and reaquaint myself with the discussion because I'd assumed we were still talking about the ideas from the movie "Divided." I actually don't see where the Black Rock Address section you quoted is only about kids' classes that take the place of worship services. But if that's the only practice you meant to comment on, I understand that now.

We all need to avoid generalizations, specify what we're talking about and acknowledge what is good even among those on the other "side." My main point is that if we toss around phrases like "Bible hangman" as if it represents ALL kids' classes, then any good arguments we might make will not be heard because our wording is both uncharitable and clearly untrue.


----------



## Damon Rambo

JM said:


> Really?
> 
> Polly, you have moved a lot, in many different churches and denominations and never seen a Sunday school curriculum being used in a "children's church?" What is a children's church anyway and is it biblical?
> 
> I've seen the opposite. I haven't moved around as much as you have, visit three Baptist churches and stayed in one. The children's service was run in all three of these churches with a Sunday school curriculum in mind. A few songs, a reading and teaching from a Sunday curriculum, some games and snacks. It was the same pattern in all three churches.
> 
> I'll defer to you Polly since you have more experience then I. I'll retract my comment about Sunday school running at the same time as regular worship. I am concerned about this "children's church" idea though.



I personally don't have a problem with a nursery (for 0-3 years), in order to give parents a break during the service, and allow them to focus on the message, and even a class for 4-5 year olds who are not yet able to communicate and listen enough to even understand the words the pastor/elder is speaking. Beyond that, though, I am in general agreement with you. My church has "Children's church" for kids under 9, and I am NOT a fan. Even though the ladies who do it are Christ loving, God honoring women, my general thoughts on it is that it is detrimental to ongoing discipleship in the home. I also do not like Youth programs, preteen classes, etc., which separate the kids from the parents during the normal Sunday Worship services.

I do NOT have a problem with extra activities, such as Wednesday night programs for youth and children, as long as they are either #1 Taught by an elder of the church, or #2 Taught under the close supervision of an elder of the church.


----------



## JM

Polly, Damon and Jack...thank you for your patience. 

Some of the comments I've made are based on my (bad) experiences with Sunday school and kids church practices. Some of the comments I've made are based on biblical convictions.

I'm going to take a break and think this over before posting again.


----------



## Frosty

JoyFullMom said:


> I have *never* been to a church that had Sunday School during regular worship. Are you perhaps referring to *children's church*?



This was the case at our old church. Reason 14 on why we needed to leave on our list of 15.

I see it really is quite rare, though.


----------



## JoyFullMom

JM said:


> Really?
> 
> Polly, you have moved a lot, in many different churches and denominations and never seen a Sunday school curriculum being used in a "children's church?" What is a children's church anyway and is it biblical?
> 
> I've seen the opposite. I haven't moved around as much as you have, visit three Baptist churches and stayed in one. The children's service was run in all three of these churches with a Sunday school curriculum in mind. A few songs, a reading and teaching from a Sunday curriculum, some games and snacks. It was the same pattern in all three churches.
> 
> I'll defer to you Polly since you have more experience then I. I'll retract my comment about Sunday school running at the same time as regular worship but I think it is a moot point. I am concerned about this "children's church" idea though.



I am puzzled by this response. I will attempt to answer your question but I was only qualifying that, unlike some folks who attend the same church for years, we have not. Therefore, it mattered to my post. I was NOT saying I am more experienced. 

No, I have never seen a church use Sunday School material in Children's Church, because 1. they use it in SS and 2. while we attended churches with CC before we had kids, we don't participate in CC so we have not chosen those churches as parents. That said, we don't have an issue with SS done well. 

If one group is saying they don't have an issue with Sunday School and others in the thread are interpreting that to mean Children's Church, that is not even on the same page. One has their children present during worship, the other doesn't. That was all I was pointing out...that maybe we aren't even all addressing the same issue.


----------



## Shawn Mathis

Damon Rambo said:


> The problem comes when the elder(s) abandon their leadership responsibility, and the "youth guy" is allowed to go off on his own way, without oversight.



Well said Mr. Rambo.

You ought to know that Mr. Brown allows for age-segregation: ""There are times when it may be appropriate for various ages of people to meet for specific purposes" (A Weed in the Church, p.231, cp.61)!!

So why all the agitation and arguments? Well, what Mr. Brown offers in one hand he virtually takes away in the next: on page 225 where he contends that as "little as one hour a week" of age-segregation is dangerous! 

One hour of age-segregated Sunday school, 1/168 of the total hours of a week are unbearable!

Quite amazing. I wonder what Calvin would have thought about this...oh, wait the Geneva school he created had up to 10 grade levels, each a year long with testing at the end (sound familiar?). And these children went to school during the day, segregated from their parents. Bad Calvin. Following evolutionary thought and all that...

---------- Post added at 04:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:02 PM ----------




JM said:


> Shawn you wrote that people should be denounced for not entrusting "the religious education of their children to giddy, unregenerated young persons



Greetings Jason,

Having seen what error you are pointing to, I can see why you would be quite flustered!

*I erred in my reading of the original quote*. I took it exactly backwards (that SS would encourage such awful things--that I denounce!)

*I agree with them* that the bible "forbids the idea of parents entrusting the religious education of their children to giddy, unregenerated young persons"!

than you again for pointing out my error.


----------



## JM

Shawn, I was not trying to take a "swipe" at you personally and if you have perceived it as such I do apologize. 

I do not apologize for disagreeing with you and I'm further convinced of my position. 

Thanks again for the patience of the thread posters and readers.


----------



## kvanlaan

Wow. You step away for a few days and _wham_!

I think after reading the last bits here, I am indeed further convinced that I myself should take the education of my sons and daughters in theological matters much more gravely than I do. I am not saying that the youth group has no place in the church, but further investigation of this has shown me that without a nearly iron grip by the elders of the church, passions and immaturity of the youth group board can threaten to pull the group apart, destroying one of the most valuable contributions of the group: the Christian fellowship amongst the youth of the church. I desperately WANT for my children to have their best friends _within_ the church, and not without. To say that the most important part of the experience is the doctrinal/theological training they receive would be to solidify many of the arguments set forth by those who do not appreciate youth programs. If they are getting fed primarily at that table, then where is the pastor? where is the father? That they are perhaps 'better' fed in the Spirit at youth group because of the peer environment, etc. seems to me to point to an unwillingness to submit to their primary God-given authority, their father. God forbid we feed or enable this tendancy. I am not saying that that is the basis for the arguments of the pro-group side here, I'm just thinking out loud to one of its logical conclusions.

Though I don't want to make this the foundation of my argument (as it may be fallicious), I am still of the opinion that fathers in today's world have by and large abdicated their responsibility. We have thrown our young men and women to the world in so very many ways, not guarding their hearts and minds from secular thinking, music, entertainment, etc. and have spent too much time on careers and things of a more temporal nature than the souls of our children. May God forgive me for my own inadequecies in this department, I know they are many. But I don't think that this is a singular, personal confession. Some men abdicated generations ago, some are doing it even today. But the global pendulum is swinging to a feminist leadership bent primarily because we as men have put down our swords and shields (in the sense of leadership, not necessarily war) and picked up our Xboxes, prime-time TV favorites, our fishing poles (not beside our sons, but beside other immature men-children to the neglect of our family), and an interest in sports to the degree where football stats can flow from a mouth and mind without effort and yet those same mouths and minds cannot recite Psalm 23 to save their lives. What do we give our youth as fatherly role models? Homer Simpson, Hank Hill, John Goodman in Roseanne, etc. This is what the world presents to us as the father's role and many believers eat it up along with the pagans who create it. Then they emulate it. I know WE don't do that, but many, many do. We need to step back into our role as high priest of our family and truly LEAD with God-given authority. As we were meant to. And this is all to say that we as fathers should be taking on this burden of education, especially of our boys, and keeping it out of the hands of a youth pastor.

My apologies. Rant off.


----------



## Shawn Mathis

Dear Jason,

I did not perceive your original post as a personal offense.

As a clarification, I do not believe that Sunday school should occur during worship; nor should it be a substitute for family discipleship; that worship should include the entire family; and that children's worship services are wrong.

As for your original "position" I still do not know what it is but if you do not wish to speak about it that is fine.

in Christ,


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

All I have to say is go ask Alice. Stupid is as stupid does. I would only recommend it on a basis. JM, I thought you said you said you had studied it much more than Elder Mathis possibly. Maybe I was wrong. Maybe there has been an edited version.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Okay, I retract. I retract. You said, "I disagree Shawn. I'm not a Pastor and Randy "can probably guarantee" you have studied this subject more then I, and perhaps you have but to denounce someone for not allowing their children to be instructed in moralistic or pietistic Christianity by inexperienced or unbelieving people should be a point we agree upon."

But do you really want to say what you said? Inexperience and unbelieving.?" I would never leave my kids in this situation.


----------



## Shawn Mathis

I want to make my correction clear since it was embedded with another response:

Originally Posted by JM "Shawn you wrote that people should be denounced for not entrusting "the religious education of their children to giddy, unregenerated young persons"

Greetings Jason,

Having seen what error you are pointing to, I can see why you would be quite flustered!

*I erred in my reading of the original quote*. I took it exactly backwards (that SS would encourage such awful things--that I denounce!)

*I agree with them* that the bible "forbids the idea of parents entrusting the religious education of their children to giddy, unregenerated young persons"!

than you again for pointing out my error.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I am sorry too if I read you in a poor light also Jason. I am not above that.


----------



## J. Dean

I've only just started watching it, but so far it's pretty spot on. Heavy metal is entertainment; not worship.

---------- Post added at 01:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:31 PM ----------

Addendum: Ken Ham is absolutely right. When you mythologize or allegorize the first three chapters of the Bible, you're taking a stepping stone in the direction of heresy.


----------



## Damon Rambo

J. Dean said:


> I've only just started watching it, but so far it's pretty spot on. Heavy metal is entertainment; not worship.



Where is THAT in the scriptures?


----------



## JM

lol, this whole thread is a MESS! lol There has been a lot of misunderstanding wrapped up in our disagreements. 

I hope we all walk away friends.


----------



## Shawn Mathis

Jason,

I do call you a friend in Christ.

And I thank you for your courage to point out my mistake. That is what Christian friends do.


----------



## JM

Thank you Shawn.

Peace brother.


----------



## Shawn Mathis

For those interested in this movement, there is a dialogue between myself and an FIC proponent, Mr. Wolfe, here.


----------

