FIC Elder talks with Reformed Pastor

[southkogs]

Pastor Mathis:

Early impressions of the book (I'm most of the way through it) include some places where I think Scott Brown addresses a few of the very topics we've been discussing:

"… we are not blaming every problem in evangelicalism on modern youth ministry or age-segregation itself … What we are saying is that modern youth ministry can negatively influence the lives of youth in the church and family and subvert biblical discipleship." - ["A Weed in the Church" - Scott Brown, pg. 61]​

In the section of the book that I pulled that quote from, Scott Brown starts establishing some "qualifications" to the rest of the book. Earlier in the thread someone called the FIC approach a presumed "silver bullet." And I think this statement at least sets the ground work that what FIC churches have addressed is a major issue in the church, but not THE major issue in the church.

You wrote: "I'll take your term "responsibly used age-segregated Sunday School" to define a program that identifies and employs pastoral/elder teaching to young people in concert with parental responsibility to disciple children. If the children are broken up by age group to employ that, and parents are encouraged to participate and involve themselves AND there is a mutual respect between church and family - I'd almost tell you that's more family integrated than one might think. Most FIC leaders would jump for joy at that kind of thing. And in that context, you're correct - it is okay for someone else to teach our children."

I am glad you wrote this. I am not sure if the NCFIC could write it from the quotes I've read.

"A fifth qualification is that our rejection of systematic, age-segregated youth ministry is not a rejection of youth discipleship itself." - ["A Weed in the Church" - Scott Brown, pg. 62]​

Perhaps this statement (again from the "qualifications" of the book) helps clarify why I think the NCFIC would agree with my statement quoted above. This adds to it as well:

"… it is not our position that the whole family must always be together for celebration, instruction or discipleship … " - ["A Weed in the Church" - Scott Brown, pg. 63]​

Especially considering our earlier conversation about church leaders (or someone other than the father) teaching children, I think these statements make it clear that there are some forms of youth discipleship that are acceptable and they do not necessarily require that the father is the one instructing his children.


You used the statement "delegation is not abdication," and I think that Mr. Brown would agree with you:

"… this does not mean that a father cannot employ others in a limited fashion to help him carry out his discipleship responsibilities." - ["A Weed in the Church" - Scott Brown, pg. 65]​

And finally - to reinforce the idea that there are some forms of a "Sunday School" or other youth ministry that might be acceptable to the NCFIC or the FIC movement, one more quote:

"… while we believe that systematic, age-segregated youth ministry in the church is unbiblical, we want to be clear that we are not taking the worst forms of worldly youth ministry and superimposing them on all forms of youth ministry." - ["A Weed in the Church" - Scott Brown, pg. 62]​

Much of the discussion revolves around the term "systematic, age-segregated youth ministry." In all honesty, I don't think Mr. Brown did a good job establishing a working definition of the term in his book. I can impose a definition on the term due to familiarity with the movement as a whole, but a reader approaching the book without a frame of reference is likely to wonder exactly what the term means.

Let me try a post to start a discussion to define that term a little bit ...

 

[southkogs]

"Systematic, Age-Segregated Youth Ministry" - - Again, this is my imposition of a definition. But, I think it will make for a good place to start.

I think we agree on congregational worship, so we'll assume that we're talking within the realm of Sunday School or Weekly Youth Programs.

The common expression of age/grade segregation (see post #18) utilized in public schools is something that doesn't make sense to good education. The Bible recognizes terms that are a little more broad (young men, older women, little ones, nursing babes, etc.). Those more broad terms better fit how the church should segregate at appropriate times. Splitting hairs? Perhaps, but likely not when you consider how much better children learn when they are engaged with more mature (healthy use of the word) content. The intergenerational influence of a Titus 2 "older woman" teaching younger women is a wonderful example of good segregation. One can even see an older woman being able to explain being a godly wife to an 8 year old and a 22 year old in the same setting (obviously, there would be some things left out that the 8 year old shouldn't hear - but it's not crazy to include some things that would benefit the 22 year old, and the 8 year old would just "miss the point").

Additionally, the regularly dissecting of the congregation is not healthy to the "community" of saints in a local church. By this, I think that Mr. Brown's definition would suggest that segregation from time to time, in limited application is no problem. In other words, there might be a reason to have younger boys in a "class" of some sort for several weeks to learn a specific principle. However, that interaction of generations (again a Titus 2 type of application) has Biblical prescription and exceptional value. It should be more normative within the church.

The other factor in the definition is that it actively and intentionally supports the parent/child dynamic of discipleship. Can that be achieved in a Sunday School setting? Certainly it can. Is it typically achieved? No. More often than not, churches adopt a "leave discipleship to the professionals" attitude. And even the teachers override a parent's position in discipleship. An example might help out here: I have a family in my church who do not hold to the Calvinistic view of unconditional election. They understand that we will be teaching that doctrinal stance, and won't pull back simply because they've made their position known (and they are very gracious within that). Additionally, the father actually defends his position biblically (not convincingly to me, but none the less from a scriptural frame rather than an opinion of his own). His children hear me teach unconditional election regularly, but it's wrong for me to press his children to disagree with their father. I can openly teach the doctrine to the group because the father has voluntarily placed his children into that group knowing the doctrinal stance ... but I can't pit the children against their father's authority. Does that make sense?

Finally, biblically qualified teachers are a must. I said this elsewhere, but I reiterate. Many (if not most) Sunday School and youth ministry classes are taught by people who do not fit biblical qualifications to teach in the church. That is not the same thing as discipling, I understand. And, I will even go as far as to say that not every Sunday School teacher needs to be an elder/pastor (though I'll reserve the right to change that statement later). But, the church (at large) must do a better job at vetting out those who teach the congregation.

That doesn't define a "responsible age-segregated" Sunday school program as we discussed earlier in the thread, but does it help define the systematic, age-segregated term?

Pastor Mathis, I hope you have a wonderful and restful vacation. To you, your family and any of those reading the thread: I wish you all a blessed Christmas holiday, and a joyous New Year.

 

[Shawn Mathis]

Erik,

A few things of note re: Weed in Church

1. There is a definition (on page 47) of the "modern youth ministry" that either indicts all non-family integrated youth ministries or only the bad ones. Here is the relevant clause: "that usurp parents’ authority over their children.”

2. I never denied he admits there are times and occasions for the family to be separated (p.61, 231), yet never explains when and why such a time should be an “exception" (note the language). In contrast, he actually argues that even if fathers were properly instructing their children and youth groups were Bible-centered with only one-hour a week meetings, it would still be wrong (p.57, 218, 222, 225). What is given in one hand is taken by the other.

 

[southkogs]

I didn't expect a reply so quickly! Caught me off guard

There is a definition (on page 47) of the "modern youth ministry" that either indicts all non-family integrated youth ministries or only the bad ones. Here is the relevant clause: "that usurp parents’ authority over their children.”

This is the section that I was referring to when I said that I didn't think Mr. Brown did a good job. Perhaps that means that I disagree with him to some degree, but I believe I'm able to read a little into his definition.

We never defined what a "responsible age-segregated" youth ministry looked like, and for that reason I think it's difficult to contrast it against the "systematic, age-segregated" youth ministry.

I never denied he admits there are times and occasions for the family to be separated (p.61, 231), yet never explains when and why such a time should be an “exception" (note the language).

As a suggestion (again, my own "reading into it"): When should it be an exception? I think that is at the church's discretion based on apparent needs for a particular group. Why should it be an exception? As he suggests on pg. 63ff children typically don't learn differently than adults, so why split the congregation up for biblical instruction? An instant reaction is to say "that statement is preposterous, it's obvious that children learn differently than adults." But truly what we know about children is that they actually have a better ability than adults to gather in new information. A child can memorize catechism much easier than an adult can. Maturity doesn't speak so much to gathering information. Maturity speaks to processing information, and there may be times to separate out for that reason. However, that's more the exception than the rule, wouldn't you agree? Can't a child work through most (I understand not all) biblical concepts much like an adult would?

In contrast, he actually argues that even if fathers were properly instructing their children and youth groups were Bible-centered with only one-hour a week meetings, it would still be wrong (p.57, 218, 222, 225). What is given in one hand is taken by the other.

If I'm reading these sections properly, I would suggest that he's referring to the consistent "systematic" programs as opposed to the occasional segregated (again consider the biblical terms "younger women, little ones, old men, etc.") situations that he referenced around pg. 63.

"While this reform movement is accomplishing many good things ... many of its proponents continue to embrace age-segregated youth ministry - a concept that is in itself alien to Scripture." pg. 59​

Perhaps I'm wrong, but I think it's reasonable to assume that Mr. Brown is referring to the definition that he normally identifies as "systematic" age-segregation here. If so, then that wouldn't be a negation of his original qualification.

"There are four issues to consider in regard to this argument." - pg. 220​

This is the section your next reference comes from: The argument regarding a solid Bible-based youth ministry. Again, I don't think the argument negates his original qualification. He suggests considering 4 things against the idea that a particular systematic, age-segregated youth group is "healthy:"

1. it's an assumption that large group settings are the best method to minister to youth
2. age-segregated isolation of youth is not seen in Scripture
3. youth ministries are often established as an admission (or because) that fathers are being allowed by the church to be negligent in their duties - note his argument from Scripture that not confronting a brother is likened to hating him.
4. if the ministry is "healthy" what additional benefit is there to the congregation to split up?​

Those suggestions are not a defined denial of his original qualification. That would be more an implication from the reader's perspective, correct?

"We reject the pattern of age segregation in the church because God's Word does not give us precept, principle, or pattern for youth groups or age-segregated discipleship, as defined in this book." pg. 224​

I think my page numbers are slightly different from yours making it a little tough to be certain of the last reference you have (pg. 225), but I'm rather certain this section is one you're referring to. Doesn't his qualification at the end of the sentence ("as defined in this book") seem to uphold his original qualification that there are appropriate times and occasions to segregate (in a qualified context)?

I'm open to the idea that Mr. Brown isn't being consistent, but I'm not convinced of it.

 

[Shawn Mathis]

Erik,

Then the question is: if the definition on page 47 is not the idea behind phrases like "age-segregation," "youth ministries," "gathering youth" and other like phrases, then what is he exactly against?

1. If against bad youth ministries, who is not against such? If against "usurpation" who is not against such? The real question then becomes what is usurpation? Mr. Brown seems to clearly answer it in question 7: Why is age-segregation and Sunday school in the church so bad for children? (bottom pg. 225)

1.a. Note how the question is loaded with another answer to another question: Is age-seg. and SS bad for children. Yes. So, why is it so bad...

1.b. He says in this section that even as little as 1 hour a week is not being "faithful to the directives of the Word of God."

1.c. This clearly is not "systematic age-segregation" but 1 hour a week age-segregation! (It is of great note that Sunday school is not explicitly mentioned in the beginning when he sets up his definitions).

SO: My question to you is: do you agree with him?

 

[southkogs]

Then the question is: if the definition on page 47 is not the idea behind phrases like "age-segregation," "youth ministries," "gathering youth" and other like phrases, then what is he exactly against?

Mr. Brown is arguing against systematic, age-segregated discipleship models. The problem (or what I see as a problem) is that the term is not quite as clear as I believe his intent would be. As an example: an ongoing regular (weekly) program that divides children by age/grade (like the school system structure) and divides parents and children (children's classes and parents classes) would typically fall in the category of systematic, age-segregated. A class series that is designed for instruction of young boys (so, it's age segregated but probably more broadly so than the age/grade structure), that is regular (weekly/monthly/etc.) but not ongoing (has a definite term - 3 months/5 weeks/etc.) and is intentionally responsible to the parents (perhaps father and son sit in this class together, or perhaps the church leadership defines the goal of the class instruction so the parents know what their child will be taught) would probably be accepted by an FIC position.

If against bad youth ministries, who is not against such?

That's a little touchy isn't it? You and I would probably agree that "bad" youth ministry is one that sacrifices the gospel in order to be more broad in it's appeal. Others would see that "shrouding of the message of salvation" as effective and good. You and I would probably agree that youth ministry that assumes a young person can't handle hefty theological concepts is "bad." Others would say that kids can't handle that kind of depth, or that they "tune out" way too quickly and it doesn't draw them to engage Christ in a personal way. We're all against "bad" youth ministry … but the whole argument circles around what is bad.

If against "usurpation" who is not against such?

I have every confidence that you and your church have a true respect for parental authority. My family attended a PCA church here in TN that did a pretty good job of that as well - I don't believe that respect for the authority of parents is the exclusive ground of the FIC movement. However, there are MANY churches who approach discipleship in general (not just youth) from a "let the professionals handle this" position. And that can (and often does) usurp parent's authority quickly.

The real question then becomes what is usurpation?

Indeed: If a Sunday School teacher is instructing children without the parents, and hasn't been properly vetted out by church leadership - is that usurpation? If a Sunday School teacher engages a child on a primary doctrinal issue (say, penal substitution) and overrides a parent's instruction to that child - and NEVER engage the parents on the issue - is that usurpation? If a Sunday School teacher engages a child on a minor doctrinal debate (say, mode of baptism) and overrides a parent's instruction (regardless of contact with the parent) - is that usurpation? If the church isn't intentional to inform the parents of the plan and issues they will teach in Sunday School, and the church is comfortable operating with that kind of "blindness" - is that usurpation? It's not correct to blanket the entire church as regularly practicing this kind of "discipleship," however any of these situations is commonplace in many churches. And I think more often than not, a situation of this nature winds up usurping the parent's place as the primary agent of discipleship to their children.

From an FIC perspective, concentrating on discipling fathers and holding them accountable to disciple their families is a better and more biblically defined focus.

Note how the question is loaded with another answer to another question: Is age-seg. and SS bad for children. Yes. So, why is it so bad...

1.b. He says in this section that even as little as 1 hour a week is not being "faithful to the directives of the Word of God.

Again, keep that defined distinction of "systematic" age-segregated Sunday School. Perhaps, a church has a Sunday School program that is 1 hour per week of instruction. It age-segregates and gender segregates the congregation to drill into specifics of training (for younger boys, perhaps the focus is on honoring parents according to the command of scripture and for older girls, perhaps it's instruction on being a "completer" to a husband according to biblical principles, etc., etc.), and the structure, doctrine and texts are presented to the parents before the program engages. Additionally, the instructors all fit biblical qualifications to teach, and have been established by the church leadership - and parents are encouraged to participate in the Sunday School program.

One might argue that is a systematic age-segregated program that might not be so bad. And, I'm sure that there are some churches that do Sunday School this way, but quite frankly you would be hard pressed to convince me that even 25% of Sunday School programs meet that kind of structure. Especially, if a church is running this Sunday School program all year every year, it would be overbearing (though possible) to keep qualified instructors and keep published curriculum ahead of the program perpetually.

More often, Sunday School is taught by church members who volunteered and were available (and probably passed a background check against the sex-offender registry). The children are split up by age/grade and the adults are split by gender and/or marital status. The programs move from a purchased curriculum, to a topical specific (along side a sermon series) and eventually to what lessons the Sunday School teacher finds online (on file, or generates on their own). Parents have no real idea what little Johnny learned in Sunday School until they ask him after church, and if their little Johnny is much like mine - the answer is a little vague. Worse yet, the church leadership is not aware of what Mrs. Knowsabunch is teaching her 6th grade kids until a parent hears from little Johnny and consequently blew their stack at the pastor. That is not healthy discipleship at all (regardless of intentions), and I think it's fair to say an hour of that per week is not being faithful to the directives of the Word of God. - - and, it is not uncommon.

1.c. This clearly is not "systematic age-segregation" but 1 hour a week age-segregation! (It is of great note that Sunday school is not explicitly mentioned in the beginning when he sets up his definitions).

Not so clearly: Sytematic age-segregation can come in 1 hour doses. And, one hour per week of something unhealthy is not good (we could quickly establish a list of things we wouldn't allow our children to do for one hour per week). Sunday School (as a broad term) does not necessarily have to follow a systematic age-segregated structure, nor does it necessarily need to be constant (all year long). My church does segregate sometimes, even based on age. But it's in short doses (2 hours once a month for 7 months, as a recent example), has defined material that is available to all of the church (we actually purchased a book for each family that we intended to teach to young men over 12 in this series) and intentionally involves the parents and informs them of what we're doing (as a rule, most of the boys were there with their dads - occasionally a dad couldn't make it and sent his sons with another family). Perhaps that would be one hour per week for a while, but I suggest that Mr. Brown wouldn't be uncomfortable with that structure.

SO: My question to you is: do you agree with him?

Yes, I agree with him.

 

[Shawn Mathis]

Erik,

I've been more busy catching up after vacation then I realized.

I have simply quoted Mr. Brown. You have thrown in all the qualifications. Your qualifications are more helpful than answers given by Mr. Brown. Add the prima facia reading of Mr. Brown with the blog post (linked above) where he further digs his hermeneutical hole and my case stands.

Until he unequivocally denies a "regulative principle of education" (or whatever term you wish), I will take this as his position.

But I've only used him as a foil to better understand your position. I'll take some time now to digest what you wrote and interact more with your writings.

thank you for your patience

 

[southkogs]

But I've only used him as a foil to better understand your position. I'll take some time now to digest what you wrote and interact more with your writings.

Ouch. That sounds foreboding - - Out of curiosity, have you read (or are you familiar with) Dr. Baucham's latest book, "Family Shepherds?" I'd be interested in your opinion on that book as well.

thank you for your patience

No patience required. I hope you had a good vacation and enjoyed your holidays.

 

[Shawn Mathis]

Hello Erik,

I greatly apologize for the late answers. Let me go back to the last response by you in late December:

1. I asked if you agree with Mr. Brown that "little as one hour a week" of "age-segregation and Sunday school in the church [is] so bad for children?" (bottom pg. 225).

You answered "yes"--after several lines of detailed explanation. Such explanation I cannot find readily or clearly in his book. So if you could kindly back up your explanation with clear evidence in his book then we may be getting somewhere. Otherwise, I will have to simply believe that your "yes" is not founded upon the book but your own interpretation (or some secret, private knowledge of what Mr. Brown believes

2. Here is a quote from you:

Again, keep that defined distinction of "systematic" age-segregated Sunday School. Perhaps, a church has a Sunday School program that is 1 hour per week of instruction. It age-segregates and gender segregates the congregation to drill into specifics of training (for younger boys, perhaps the focus is on honoring parents according to the command of scripture and for older girls, perhaps it's instruction on being a "completer" to a husband according to biblical principles, etc., etc.), and the structure, doctrine and texts are presented to the parents before the program engages. Additionally, the instructors all fit biblical qualifications to teach, and have been established by the church leadership - and parents are encouraged to participate in the Sunday School program.
One might argue that is a systematic age-segregated program that might not be so bad.

My response: see above.

Or better yet: publicly call upon Mr. Brown to officially make just such qualifications. Then and only then will this whole brouhaha be settled.

Some things to think about,

in Christ,

shawn

 

[southkogs]

I greatly apologize for the late answers.

No apologies needed Pastor Mathis. You can see from my own delay that I understand being busy. I hope all is well with you and yours.

You answered "yes"--after several lines of detailed explanation. Such explanation I cannot find readily or clearly in his book. So if you could kindly back up your explanation with clear evidence in his book then we may be getting somewhere. Otherwise, I will have to simply believe that your "yes" is not founded upon the book but your own interpretation

Probably more the latter, and I would admit that I'm probably reading into things in the book based on what I've heard in recordings, at conferences and in conversations with the NCFIC and others. For example, in the statement you mention:

2. Here is a quote from you:

Again, keep that defined distinction of "systematic" age-segregated Sunday School. Perhaps, a church has a Sunday School program that is 1 hour per week of instruction. It age-segregates and gender segregates the congregation to drill into specifics of training (for younger boys, perhaps the focus is on honoring parents according to the command of scripture and for older girls, perhaps it's instruction on being a "completer" to a husband according to biblical principles, etc., etc.), and the structure, doctrine and texts are presented to the parents before the program engages. Additionally, the instructors all fit biblical qualifications to teach, and have been established by the church leadership - and parents are encouraged to participate in the Sunday School program.
One might argue that is a systematic age-segregated program that might not be so bad.

I think Mr. Brown admits this very idea in this way:

"A third qualification is that we realize that there is a reform movement spreading throughout traditional youth ministries ... while this reform movement is accomplishing many good things ... many of it's proponents continue to embrace age-segregated youth ministry ..." (pgs. 58-59 - shortened for brevity)​

That statement seems to admit that the content change that is happening in some ministries is a good thing, but the age-segregation is not. So, couple that to this concept:

"... We recognize there are different methods of youth ministry ... we are not lumping them all together ... " (pgs. 62-63 - shortened for brevity)​

Mr. Brown says shortly after this that the problem isn't necessarily the content. The problem is the age segregation. So, the train so far is there are some good things happening, but they are still occurring in the context of an unscriptural model (age-segregation). The conversation (by the second concept) is in general, and not lumping EVERYTHING in to one pile, leaving room for non-FIC ministries to be doing a good job. Add this concept as well:

"...it is not our position that the whole family must always be together ... For example, for gatherings inside the church, we do not believe that it would be wrong for elders in the church, with the blessings of the fathers, to teach matters of theology to young men in the church ..." (pg. 63 - shortened for brevity)​

That gets the progression pretty close to my statement: age & gender segregated (but not by age/grade like the schools use), regular (1 hour per week, for example), parents sanctioning the instruction, biblically qualified instructors. Strung together, those concepts support the potential for even a Sunday School program that would be favorable to Mr. Brown.

Again, I was definitely answering more from my personal opinions. So, I'm making some assumptions in those connections. However, I think Mr. Brown would agree with them.

(or some secret, private knowledge of what Mr. Brown believes

Would my world not be so very much easier if God granted me the spiritual gift of clairvoyance ... alas, I'm stuck with doing it the hard way

 

[Shawn Mathis]

Erik,

Thank you: my family is well.

Using Mr. Brown's book as a foil, I think, is proving fruitful for digging into specifics. You acknowledge: "Again, I was definitely answering more from my personal opinions. So, I'm making some assumptions in those connections. However, I think Mr. Brown would agree with them." The data below will (at least) demonstrate such inconsistent (if not clear) language in the book that such assumptions are unwarranted.

As a reminder to readers, I think you do acknowledge this in an earlier post, the word "systematic" is never defined in the book (nor, frankly is "age-segregation").

First, your initial quote acknowledging Mr. Brown's caveats is good (e.g. "change that is happening in some ministries is a good thing, but the age-segregation is not."). But that is not the full story or quote:

"What About God-Centered Youth Ministries"
"A third qualification is that we realize that there is a reform movement spreading throughout traditional youth ministries ... while this reform movement is accomplishing many good things... many of it's proponents continue to embrace age-segregated youth ministry--a concept that is in itself alien to Scripture. It creates a very different kind of community--one that we never see in Scripture and that contradicts the pattern of intergenerational participation that we do see in Scripture." (p.56, 57).

Note how it is not the youth ministry per se that he critiques (he gave a two paragraph description of the many good things in a "God-centered youth ministry" [his words]) but that it still uses age-segregation. Note that immediately following the full quote above he launches into the importance of method in instruction of youth (age-segregation is a method). Note his emphasis on "we never see in Scripture" and "contradicts the [supposed] pattern" [the Regulative Principle of Education I noted above]. Note what he does not say: these God-centered youth ministries still usurp parental authority (see his definition of "modern youth ministry", p.47). Presumably they do not. No. It is age-segregation as age-segregation that he opposes. At least as he writes in various sections of the book:

1. The beginning of the book states as much. The definition itself of "modern youth ministry" or "systematic, age-segregated youth ministry," to whit: "methods of youth discipleship that are absent from or contrary to the Word of God...that promote systematic, age-segregated worship, instruction, and fellowship...that separate youth from the rest of the church..."

2. The middle of the book states as much. "If we only had the Bible as our guide, would children be separated from their parents during the meetings of the church?...Did the apostles ever organize a Sunday school, a youth rally, or any kind of age-segregated gatherings? Are there any commands or examples to follow in Scripture for age segregation? Of course the answer to all of these questions is no." (p.167). His (poorly researched) history section (chapter 6) is premised on a generalized idea of age-segregation that is to be eschewed since "modern youth ministries" by definition are different in particulars from, say, Plato (note the caveat on p. 107, Parachurch Youth Organizations that were "stepping-stones" to modern youth ministries).

3. The end of the book states as much. "Systematic, age-segregated youth ministry certainly has become a vigorous and attractive plant...youth ministry is only a single variety of this age-segregation weed" (emphasis mine, p.241)

Now, I know about the the two caveats in the book because I incorporated them in my reviews:

"It is true: churches should stop abusing age- and family-segregated meetings like a drunkard abuses wine. And many families feel godly using the multitude of programs to bypass their own responsibilities. But the author simply throws all such meetings into the waste basket of evolution—almost. He admits there are times and occasions for the family to be separated (p.61, 231), yet never explains when and why such a time should be an “exception.” In contrast, he actually argues that even if fathers were properly instructing their children and youth groups were Bible-centered with only one-hour a week meetings, it would still be wrong (p.57, 218, 222, 225). What is given in one hand is taken by the other."

For the sake of the readers (FIC posts have been heavy hits for seven months straight):

p.57: see above in the first quote

p.218: [Question 3] "What if our youth group is Bible-based? Our church youth group is not about silliness and entertainment, but serious Bible study. Is that not the kind of youth group we want as an alternative to the modern, dumbed-down version of youth ministry?" "First, it promotes a false assumption that a group setting is the best means for ministering youth" (of worthy note is the pragmatic nature of this answer). "Second, by offering an age-segregated ministry that isolates youth into a subgroup, we are doing something that is not seen in Scripture" (note the Regulative Principle of Education). "Third, the establishment of children and youth ministries is often an admission that fathers are being allowed to walk in disobedience..."

p.222: [Question 5] "Why can we not have it both ways: age-specific ministry in the church and fathers teaching and leading their homes?" "The question we should be asking is the following: 'Why would we want it both ways when Scripture only presents on way?' Are we longing for something that God did not give? Scripture only presents elders as the primary leaders and teachers of age-integrated discipleship in the church and fathers [at home]..." "We reject the pattern of age-segregation in the church because God's Word does not give us a precept, principle, or pattern for youth groups or age-segregated discipleship, as defined in this book." (This is strange because he never differentiated "youth groups" from "age-segregated discipleship" as he does here with the word "or"--nor does he define the later term). Of more significance is the phrasing of the question and his resounding no.

p.225: [Question 7] "Why is age-segregated youth ministry and Sunday school in the church so bad for children?" "There are a number of important reasons why as little as one hour per week is problematic for those Christians who want to be faithful to the directives of the Word of God. First it communicates the wrong message...Second, it easily becomes an excuse for disobedient parents...Third, it open the door negative influence [from peers]...There are many ways that the age-segregated youth ministries undermine the father's role. The relative number of the hours spent in a class is not the issue. The real issue is what we are teaching our children when we segregate them.... Regardless of the time spent or the content delivered, the very practice of systematic age segregation undermines biblical teaching on a number of fronts" (emphasis mine). And he proceed through six reasons.

Now, it could be given all the above, Mr. Brown will still allow for your version of age-segregation. But that is not clear from the book itself. What is clear is that Mr. Brown is unclear. After all of the above, he answers another question with an answer that is opposite of the above:

p.231 [Question 9] "Is it ever right to gather youth together?" "While rejecting systematic, age-segregation in the patterns and practices of Christianity (worship, celebration, discipleship, and other practices), we are not suggesting that every function outside of regular worship must always include whole families. We recognize that there are times when it may be appropriate for various ages of people to meet for specific purposes. However, this is not to be the normative pattern of biblical youth discipleship, but rather an exception."

Quite mind-blowing if you ask me. He wrote a whole book to say bad youth groups are bad and age segregation is fine if it is an exception only. So, is 35% of the week for age-segregation an allowable exception (certainly not the norm statistically)? Or as I wrote in a rebuttal elsewhere:

"Now to sum up, why is "systematic age-segregation" rejected? Because all the commands and examples of the bible are age-integrated. But why does a Christian need to find explicit commands and examples of discipleship before using a method of discipleship? I do not know what their answer is. Somehow discipleship (however defined) has a separate moral interpretive tool than other moral fields of everyday life.

But the matter does not end there. 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).

Then what is the whole debate about? Why is this exception not placed at the beginning of the argument? Where is it in the NCFIC confession?

Has the entire decade long debate been over how much age-segregation is allowed? If so, how much does Mr. Brown think is allowable?

Very little it seems. "However, this is not to be the normative pattern of biblical youth discipleship, but rather an exception." A glimpse of how much is offered on page 225 where he contends that as "little as one hour a week" of age-segregation is "problematic" for those wishing biblical felicity.

In other words, 1/168 of a week is still too radical to contemplate. That is .006% of a child's week! What Mr. Brown gives in one hand is virtually taken away by the other."

Hopefully, the fuller quotes will help the reader better understand. And hopefully it will better explain what I am critiquing.

 

[Shawn Mathis]

Erik,

Let me Let me set Mr. Brown aside for now to try to better understand your position:

You wrote in an earlier post:

"No one can point chapter and verse to a directive to have a Sunday school based on how old children are. Likewise, no one can point chapter and verse to an explicit didactic command not to have a Sunday school based on how old children are. So, under Christian liberty (as I understand the concept) can a church have a Sunday school? I don't see why not. However, that Sunday school cannot damage any of the chapter and verse commands of Scripture."

I agree with this paragraph. You agree with this paragraph. So, where does that leave us?

thanks,

 

[southkogs]

Erik,

Let me Let me set Mr. Brown aside for now to try to better understand your position:

You wrote in an earlier post:

"No one can point chapter and verse to a directive to have a Sunday school based on how old children are. Likewise, no one can point chapter and verse to an explicit didactic command not to have a Sunday school based on how old children are. So, under Christian liberty (as I understand the concept) can a church have a Sunday school? I don't see why not. However, that Sunday school cannot damage any of the chapter and verse commands of Scripture."

I agree with this paragraph. You agree with this paragraph. So, where does that leave us?

thanks,

As an aside - I'm not positive that I'm in disagreement with your post from yesterday. I've been processing it, and am checking for my own inconsistencies. Part of the attraction to this conversation is your academic/apologetic skill (evident in your writing), and I can only assume that by engaging you my own ability to present a good argument will grow (even if I get systematically clobbered in the process). It was a good post, and thanks for being so thought provoking through this whole thread. I probably owe you some tuition ...

Actually, I was considering responding to your earlier post with a question that will perhaps take us in a similar direction to your question here. Suppose that through your critique of Scott Brown, I were to decide that his position on age-segregated worship/christian education is poorly defined and questionable (essentially concede your arguments). What would be the proper course of action for me as a leader in my church?

 

[Shawn Mathis]

Dear Erik,

I praise God for not only your honesty about this issue but the humility to express it publicly.

As for your question, for now let me say that God has blessed your church with a humble leader that will certainly help them grow in Christ,

your brother in Christ,

 

[Shawn Mathis]

Suppose that through your critique of Scott Brown, I were to decide that his position on age-segregated worship/christian education is poorly defined and questionable (essentially concede your arguments). What would be the proper course of action for me as a leader in my church?

Erik,

First of all, any good answer depends much on the local situation. So my answers will be provisional at best. It also depends upon how much the language, confession and leadership of this movement have been given prominence or emphasis at your church.

Now, to your question (answered in the first person): the first course would be to determine exactly what I believe about youth discipleship/education and how that matches with 1) the rest of the leadership and the 2) church families...both the principles and practices.

Of course, the paragraph quoted just above your post is a good start.

So, that means spending time, prayer (and maybe fasting) with the rest of the leadership to determine what you believe collectively and where you will publicly stand as leaders in the church. This may involve some compromise (in a good biblical sense . This could take several months. Some things to talk over:

1. If the president of the NCFIC (and by default the president of the NCFIC Confession) has "poorly defined and questionable" assertions that he carried with him into the creation of said confession should the church still be "signed on" to said confession? What does the bible say about signing confessions and public identification with such views. Or another way of looking at it: are you comfortable being so identified with this group and confession that the views brought up will not bother you?

2. Do the other leaders have any reservations about being identified with these views? I think Adams' emphasis on Romans 14:23 and decision making is germane: "23 But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because he does not eat from faith; for whatever is not from faith is sin." If any doubts, they ought not move forward.

3. What is the educational relationship between the church and members both organizationally and organically? Does the church have an explicit command to teach the members the entire Word of God not only in preaching (of course) but outside of formal worship? Does the bible allow non-church leaders the role of instruction to church members (perhaps Titus 2 women, etc.).

4. Where spiritually and educationally are the members of the church? Do they know why you do or do not have age-segregation? Do they need more instruction and help--some, most, all? I know of FICs that so stress parental teaching that they let them run Bible studies when they barely know the catechism and confessions. Do members want to learn from the church and from each other? Are they so enamored with age-segregated, niche-market thinking that they need better teaching on the subject (or the flip-side: so enamored with non-age-segregation that they fear other adults teaching their children).

Then you need a detailed plan to bring your congregation and/or leadership one direction or another. It could take much time and many small steps. I would strongly encourage love and longsuffering as a pastor. When this issue came up in my backyard many Christians contacted me eager or angry about this movement, they wanted something down now to correct the errors. I cautioned patience. I also would incorporate relevant material on the subject in Sunday school or sermons or writings at various times instead of having one long series on the topic. So when I hit Deut. 6:7 in the evening, I talked about it some in the sermon.

Lastly, the (worst) case scenario would be a public retraction.

I hope this sketch gives you some ideas of where I would go.

 

[southkogs]

Dear Erik,

I praise God for not only your honesty about this issue but the humility to express it publicly.

As for your question, for now let me say that God has blessed your church with a humble leader that will certainly help them grow in Christ,

your brother in Christ,

Thank you for that kindness. It's very encouraging.

 

[southkogs]

Considering the course of action you outline above:

If we set some parameters about a given church:

• There is a strong commitment to the gospel
• The church leadership is in agreement
• The church has healthy/good worship & preaching
• The church leadership holds to a confessional stance (Westminster/LBC/etc.)
• While not having youth group, Sunday school or similar programs, the church does have scheduled (though perhaps not regular) gatherings for instruction/teaching (including others in the congregation doing the teaching)
• The church leadership has confident assessments of individual households and how/how well they are discipling their families (including use of catechism) - and real honest discipling is happening or being addressed

And if we set aside the NCFIC for just a moment - the church in question has come to it's conclusions without encountering the NCFIC (therefore, it probably doesn't identify as an FIC but practically is one)...

And we eliminate the extremes that are present in some FIC churches (pure separatism, parents only teaching their children, etc.)...

<You can see I'm trying to eliminate some variables, and assume a reasonably healthy church.>

If this particular church doesn't employ age-segregated programs (not because of a Biblical prohibition), are there any dangers inherent to the lack of those programs? Is it problematic for the life of the church and the life of the believers?

 

[Shawn Mathis]

If this particular church doesn't employ age-segregated programs (not because of a Biblical prohibition), are there any dangers inherent to the lack of those programs? Is it problematic for the life of the church and the life of the believers?

I think any danger in the use (or none use) of viable options within Christian freedom depends on the sinful inclination of the people involved as well as the circumstances (less so though).

You mention: "While not having youth group, Sunday school or similar programs, the church does have scheduled (though perhaps not regular) gatherings for instruction/teaching (including others in the congregation doing the teaching)"

Then the only difference is that other churches may feel the need for regularly scheduled gatherings for instruction/teaching.

As a Presbyterian I believe that the church has an obligation to instruct not only heads of families but children as well. Catechism instruction is not only the parents' duty but the churches' duty.

I believe that we live in an age of great biblical ignorance even in the churches. So regular instruction is important from my standpoint. Does that mean the Dutch Reformed church down the street that shuts down Sunday school for the summer is wrong? Maybe. Or maybe their people don't need that much instruction.

I'll take another post to answer the specific question of age-segregation.

 

[Shawn Mathis]

If this particular church doesn't employ age-segregated programs (not because of a Biblical prohibition), are there any dangers inherent to the lack of those programs? Is it problematic for the life of the church and the life of the believers?

Erik,

Because of the host of assumptions behind this question, I beg your indulgence while I take space to expand upon the question and the answer in a hopefully systematic manner:

I. Background Considerations

A. Definitions​

1. Age distinctions: simple division of humans by age, whether by large or narrow age-segments​

a) Even Mr. Brown acknowledges some age differentiation (p.108)​

b) More importantly, the Bible acknowledges age divisions (elder, younger, child, little child, etc., even specific ages for the priesthood or soldiers)​

c) The light of nature testifies to this.​

2. Age segregation: The act of using age distinctions, whether in life or worship​

a) This definition does not mean actual physical separation but includes conceptual usage.
b) Even Mr. Brown (save for worship) acknowledges a time for this
c) The light of nature testifies to the need of this at various times and places
d) The Bible assumes this in places such as Titus 2:3ff.
e) Example: Apostle wrote to children directly (Eph. 5)​

3. Physical age-segregation: the act of using age distinctions to physically separate people​

a) This is more in line with what Mr. Brown writes about.
b) Again, the light of nature testifies to this necessity, e.g., young adults need separation from children when taught about sex ed.
c) The Bible does broadly write about this: census (Num. 1:3), priesthood (Num. 8:24ff)​

4. Systematic, physical age-segregation: an thought-out organized segregation as opposed to ad hoc segregation​

a) This is not the same as regular, systematic, physical age-segregation.
b) It has more reason to chose the ages it picks beyond whatever may work at the time
c) For example: a small church will pick age-groups (1-4, 5-8, 9-12) based on the available children and teachers and not because it believes in this division as "natural" or "required"
d) ad hoc example: all you younger kids over her for dodge ball.
e) Bible speaks of this in the priesthood and war census.​

5. Regular, systematic, physical age-segregation: need I write more?​

a) Yes, for regular could mean year-round, seasonal, etc.​

6. Principled, regular, systematic, physical age-segregation​

a) This means that some sort of age-segregation is a moral necessity for whatever the reason
b) This is the position of many secular authorities who tell us, e.g. 12-year olds must be with 12 year olds.​

7. Family segregation: separating family members from each other for whatever the reason​

a) NT temple designed this way (Court of the men, court of the women/children)
b) NT Jewish schools
c) Acts 16:13: Apostles teaching women; Titus 2:3; etc.
d) Christ separated the Disciples from their families for three years.​

8. Similar distinctions for family segregation as above.​

B. General Considerations​

1. By "program" I take it to mean regular, systematic, physical separation (not principled)
2. The question should be further refined to better understand my position:​

a) Age-segregation is not air-tight: there is nothing magical about 12 year olds as 12 year olds being in their own classrooms. Nor, by extension, 11-13 year olds together (I take this as a common assumption between us).
b) Also: age-segregation is not air-tight insofar as those who excel can advance beyond their "age-group" or those who are slow stay behind (this obviously fits more with a school model).​

4. Also: the question should be further refined given parental decisions:​

a) Some parents may prefer to have their child in another age-group.​

5. I am assuming a distinction between young adults (teen-agers) and those younger (children). The answer will be somewhat different for each.​

II. Answer:

A. The question is (I think) "are there inherent dangers" in not enacting regular, systematic, physical separation by age (and maybe of the family itself).​

1. There are possible dangers on two-fronts:​

a) Stifled spiritual growth because of little interaction with other adults.
b) Stifled spiritual growth because instruction not geared toward their learning level.​

B. Other Considerations:​

1. Regular is the key here: I never defined it as year-around.
2. Such concerns can happen (and obviously does) with the enacting of said programs.
3. Answers are not set in stone because it is a question of Christian liberty which has similar dangers for all sorts of moral activities that are allowed.​

C. Biblical Rationale: (forthcoming!)​

 

[Shawn Mathis]

Erik,

Rationale (from my Uniting Church and Family article):

"The unity of church and family begins with the Gospel. But it does not end there. It is a unity of a family, where those who do the will of God are brother, sister and mother (Mk. 3:25). Biological ties may be severed by the Gospel (Mat. 10:34), yet those spiritually united to Christ will still have the Church as “the house of God, which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15).This should not be a pie-in-the-sky idea but a truth with practical consequences. For instance, in 1 Timothy 5:1, Paul commands Timothy not to rebuke the older men and women of the Church but to come alongside and entreat or exhort (parakalei) them as members of the family–even the younger among them.

"Likewise, in Titus 2:3-4 Paul commends the older women to be “teachers of good things” and to train and admonish the young women of the Church—whether married or not. If this is true for women, it is true for men (cp. Paul’s mentoring of Timothy). And if this is true for ad hoc situations, then it is true for more structured situations (cp. LCQ 99).

"The children of the Church, by virtue of their baptism, must be instructed by the Church (Mat. 28:20). The content is the entire Word of God. The goal is for God’s glory and the salvation of their souls. And the method–whatever details may be employed—must include someone mature because instruction is not only taught but caught.

"Naturally, this does not mean supplanting parental responsibility but supplementing their work and exercising the Church’s own responsibility toward her covenant members.

"Ideally, parents would feel comfortable with a trusted, godly brother or sister instructing their child. In practice, the older men may meet at a restaurant to talk about life while the younger men listen and learn. Those mothers strong in English could instruct a group of children in the fine points of grammar. Such variations are neigh endless.

"The members of the family of God must never lose sight of how much they can influence the covenant child by their example alone: do they show love to each other? are they ready to restore the weak? are they quick to acknowledge sin? The covenant child should know that whatever adult he is in contact with has the same expectations as his parents."

 

[southkogs]

Pastor Mathis:

Now I can thank you for your patience with me. I've had a rather busy week as it turns out.

I'd like to check my understanding of one of your definitions:

6. Principled, regular, systematic, physical age-segregation​

a) This means that some sort of age-segregation is a moral necessity for whatever the reason
b) This is the position of many secular authorities who tell us, e.g. 12-year olds must be with 12 year olds.​

If I am reading correctly, it is by this definition we could describe a public school system structure. Is that correct?

This quote ...

a) Age-segregation is not air-tight: there is nothing magical about 12 year olds as 12 year olds being in their own classrooms. Nor, by extension, 11-13 year olds together (I take this as a common assumption between us).​

... led me to the question above.

Also, a couple of follow-up questions:
Accepting your definitions and assuming there is no age-segregated "regular, systematic, physical separation by age (and maybe of the family itself)" in a given church:
1.) Does it necessarily follow that the stifled spiritual growth (both types you wrote of) follow at some level? (I realize it may not be widespread or complete through the body)
2.) Is there existing data to support that spiritual growth is stifled within churches following the FIC model?

Your considerations listed in II B may be answer the first question, and I can accept that. I suppose I'm wondering if you consider it more likely to happen under an FIC model, and if that is validated through gathered data? (I'm unaware of any studies on FIC churches.)

 

[Shawn Mathis]

Erik, Take your time.

Before we proceed, I'd like to observe that the direction of the conversation has changed. Once you admitted that Sunday school falls under the rubric of Christian liberty, you are no longer actually debating my original position. My whole stance has been against the wrong-headed rationale of Mr. Brown and company (as summarized above).

Your original quote: "No one can point chapter and verse to a directive to have a Sunday school based on how old children are. Likewise, no one can point chapter and verse to an explicit didactic command not to have a Sunday school based on how old children are. So, under Christian liberty (as I understand the concept) can a church have a Sunday school? I don't see why not. However, that Sunday school cannot damage any of the chapter and verse commands of Scripture."

I'll next take your questions in order.

 

[Shawn Mathis]

Originally Posted by Shawn Mathis 6. Principled, regular, systematic, physical age-segregationa) This means that some sort of age-segregation is a moral necessity for whatever the reason
b) This is the position of many secular authorities who tell us, e.g. 12-year olds must be with 12 year olds. If I am reading correctly, it is by this definition we could describe a public school system structure. Is that correct?

Erik,

The answer is maybe. It may or may not refer to the public school system. There is a difference between why something is done and how it is done. Sometimes people (like unbelievers) enact the same activities as Christians but for different reasons. Similarly, merely having a public school system is not to have principled age-segregation (for short) per se if by public school system you simply mean a complex age-segregated approach to education.

Here's an example: Calvin's Geneva had public schools. No. They were not godless collections of the worst of society (as the connotation is today). But they took children in as young as seven. Sent them through classes for around 7 hours a day for the week and cycled them through one-year programs. Sound familiar? But who would argue that Calvin and Geneva believed in principled age-segregation. I think rather (like the actual development of age-segregated high schools in the early 1800s) it was enacted upon the observation that children in roughly the same age group have roughly the same intellect (ever notice that abstract thought (Algebra) begins around age 12?) coupled with the practical considerations of smaller classrooms and coupled with the simple fact that any meaningful society cannot have a one-to-one student-teacher ratio. [Other larger schools were similarly organized in France and Germany]

By principle age-segregation I mean some evolutionary idea that straight-jackets the unique development of children. That's the best I can come up with. But I am not arguing that a complex age-segregated approach to education is inherently wrong as a practice. Clearly Geneva enacted it and it is neither forbidden nor commanded in the Bible. Its usefulness is dependent upon the greater cultural and church milieu. It is the general health and exceptions of all those surrounding the children that makes a great difference in methods. Who would not want their child to be raised with the Reformers?

 

[Shawn Mathis]

Accepting your definitions and assuming there is no age-segregated "regular, systematic, physical separation by age (and maybe of the family itself)" in a given church:
1.) Does it necessarily follow that the stifled spiritual growth (both types you wrote of) follow at some level? (I realize it may not be widespread or complete through the body)
2.) Is there existing data to support that spiritual growth is stifled within churches following the FIC model?

Erik,

One thing I did not specify is that by the word church I mean especially the church organic but not excluding the church organized. Sunday school is under the oversight of the session (organization) but typically enacted by laymembers (organism).

1. It does not necessary follow anymore than having said structure leads to stifled growth or immaturity (see Calvin's Geneva).
2. The only data I have is either limited (one church) or second-hand eye-witnesses.

But with the emphasis in some circles upon the family, it may lead to an anemic use of the church leadership. In the old day, pastors taught much more than today and longer too and from house to house many times. Many families, I think, back then knew the pastor was more trained and generally more godly and accepted his teaching leadership. Today, the temptation with computer programs and the internet and lots of theology books is to think they need the pastor less--that is not only my observation but many pastors.

my two cents though',

 

[southkogs]

Pastor Mathis,

Thank you for your patience. Short version: I've been busy on a few different fronts. Most of it has been a good kind of busy but has kept my responses slow.

…I'd like to observe that the direction of the conversation has changed. Once you admitted that Sunday school falls under the rubric of Christian liberty, you are no longer actually debating my original position. My whole stance has been against the wrong-headed rationale of Mr. Brown and company (as summarized above).

Actually, while perhaps seeming off track, the questions I asked were in relation to this same topic.

Your original quote: "No one can point chapter and verse to a directive to have a Sunday school based on how old children are. Likewise, no one can point chapter and verse to an explicit didactic command not to have a Sunday school based on how old children are. So, under Christian liberty (as I understand the concept) can a church have a Sunday school? I don't see why not. However, that Sunday school cannot damage any of the chapter and verse commands of Scripture."

I still hold this position, and don't think I've betrayed it anywhere.

…with the emphasis in some circles upon the family, it may lead to an anemic use of the church leadership. In the old day, pastors taught much more than today and longer too and from house to house many times. Many families, I think, back then knew the pastor was more trained and generally more godly and accepted his teaching leadership. Today, the temptation with computer programs and the internet and lots of theology books is to think they need the pastor less--that is not only my observation but many pastors.

Just so I don't skip over it - I agree with you on this for the most part. Some in the FIC circles do overemphasize the family. To a dangerous degree, there are many families who have resorted to a "we'll handle this ourselves" position and are almost on guard even against their local assembly (in a somewhat hostile stance). There is another approach that is blossoming some in our area that emphasizes home fellowship and a forum type of teaching time (no formal sermon or preacher). We've encountered that and had to openly address the issue within our own assembly. And honestly, I would say the problem you outline is hardly unique to the FIC. Pastoral ministry over the last two decades has struggled against those who have decided to go completely "Lone Ranger" and those who've just completely given discipleship over to the "pros" and couldn't tell you the first thing about the Bible they claim to believe in.

1. It does not necessary follow anymore than having said structure leads to stifled growth or immaturity (see Calvin's Geneva).
2. The only data I have is either limited (one church) or second-hand eye-witnesses.

Considering the answers, I understand that the root of your contention is Scott Brown's inconsistency (or perhaps even error) regarding age-segregated ministry (generally Sunday School and Youth Ministry) being against scripture. But otherwise - if we remove the Scott Brown element of the discussion again for a moment - there is not necessarily a problem with an FIC assembly that wouldn't probably exist for any other type of ministry model. That may be over simplifying it to a degree (I realize there's plenty of nuance, as I've employed much myself), but that's the contest at it's base.

So even if we assume that Scott Brown is wrong in his assessment that age-segregated ministry is against scripture, if we consider the research of Ken Ham and Brit Beemer that Sunday School (at large - or what I've been calling the "common expression of…") is counter productive to longevity in the faith - doesn't 1 Cor. 10:23 come in to play at some level? Is it not wise for the church (at large) to step back from something that they have the liberty to do (but is not profitable to do) and re-assess and reform?

I believe that you would suggest that the failure of Sunday School is it's lack of the gospel. And, honestly (can't defend it from his book but …) I think Scott Brown would agree with that, but I think he would also add that there is a fault in the structure (the age segregation). I think Ken Ham would agree with your suggestion as well, but I think he would also add that there is a fault in a rejection of a young earth Genesis creation account. I don't believe that the addition of either of those two positions negates your position. I also don't think any of it undermines the core of an FIC structure - or the purpose behind one.

Unless I'm really missing something, we come right back around to if Mr. Brown's statement about age-segregated ministry being against scripture is correct.

So if an FIC has decided to structure itself as family integrated not because of Scott Brown's position, but rather because of how counter productive Sunday School and Youth Ministry seem to be (at large), is it still problematic?

 

[Shawn Mathis]

Erik,

The answer to your question is yes and no (my wife hates it when I say that!). Here's why: you state:

"So if an FIC has decided to structure itself as family integrated not because of Scott Brown's position, but rather because of how counter productive Sunday School and Youth Ministry seem to be (at large), is it still problematic?"

Given the explicit assumption that, "at large," [age-segregated] Sunday school and the like are "counter-productive" and given the unspoken assumption that FIC is the antidote, then the answer is yes.

But I deny both the explicit assumption and implicit assumption. The evidence for the former is limited to the anecdotal information (personal experience) and severely limited factual data (Ham).

1. Anecdotal information has two problems:

a) The obvious: anecdotal. I have counter-anecdotal information.
b) The less obvious: interpretation of said information​

(i) Is age-segregation the cause or effect of something deeper? Is it coincidental or integral to the problem?Pointing out the decline of the family and the West as occurring in parallel with the rise of age-segregated instruction is not the same as proving causation (as I'm sure you are aware).​

2. Limited factual data (Ken Ham and Brit Beemer)

a) Limited: This is the only data I know of on the topic other than an older SBC number suggesting 80% loss rate.
b) Used: How does Ham and Beemer use this data? Do they say "get rid of age-segregated ministries en toto"?
c) Interpretation: same issue as above, 1.b)(i)
d) Data itself: how exactly was the data derived? What were the parameters? I ask this (to some) insulting question because I know from personal experience how people read (or do not read) the actual study itself.​

(i) Case in point: the three main homeschooling studies do not prove the academic superiority of this movement as even Mr. Ray (of NHERI) admits (more here).
(ii) Yet many homeschooling leaders keep pushing the studies as proof.
​

I believe there will be no definitive study proving the issue either way. So, the real question is one of interpretation. This requires thinking in different terms of the data, more biblical terms, I believe.

Consider, the (supposed) superior results of FICs: Is it because of the method OR (minimally) because now the families are taking their responsibility more seriously? Excited parents can do wonderful things in the short term. A similar thing happens in homeschooling: by year 6 most original homeschoolers stop homechooling (Peabody study, 2007).

On the flip-side, it is historically demonstrative that many families, churches and communities enacted family-separated and even age-segregated educational methods with positive results (what Reformed person thinks Geneva and New England were bastions of evolutionary thought, using counter-productive tools?). The historical data are broader and more long-standing than the currently available data above.

If the method of instruction is within the realm of Christian liberty, then this means (to me at least) that a variety of methods are allowable--why? because God did not tell us any one method is the method. Some are more useful than others depending on the circumstances and the persons involved. It is the latter case that seems most significant to me.

The Bible places a premium on Christian character not Christian method. The only methods given in the word are (for lack of a better word) macro-methods: the major foundations (Christ, Bible), walls (responsible agents (family, church, community)). The layout of the rooms is not as significant or detailed in the Bible for a reason.

I'll stop for now. Next will be a positive presentation of the need for some (broadly) age-specific, regular, systematic instruction.

 

[Shawn Mathis]

Now, for the positive proof for the need of some age-specific, regular, systematic instruction, both age-segregation and non-domestic instruction by other adults both at church and out-side of Church

I. Background Considerations

A. See posting #49 above for necessary caveats and evidence for the allowance of systematic, physical age-segregation.
B. Allowance for Regular, systematic, physical age-segregation​

1. Light of nature (in general):​

a) Regularity is observed in the seasons, animals and plants of this creation.
b) Regularity is observed in the lives of humans, daily and weekly cycles of work and rest
c) Such regularity is based upon the Providence of God who is orderly and consistent
[d) If one were to teach a topic to a certain intellectual level, it is better to teach it in a quite environment (hence "separation")]
​

2. Light of nature (via WCF 1:6):​

a) "there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed."
b) Reasoning by a fortiori (from the greater to the lesser): if the light of nature (I.B.1.) is sufficient to order "some circumstances" of the public worship of God (which is strictly regulated by the Bible), how much more can those areas of life outside of the strictly regulated public worship of God be regulated by the light of nature?
c) "Government of the church:" Here we have debates between Baptist and Presbyterian government. Historically, however, neither side argued that all details of this government must have the same level of detail and restriction as required by the public worship of God (which can look very similar in both types of churches).
d) Reasoning by a fortiori: if God allows flexibility in the government of church (outside the question of which type), how much more does he allow in the realm of education which is not confessionally nor Biblically closely-regulated the way church government is.
​

3. Light of nature (via WCF 20:4)​

a) "And, for their publishing of such opinions, or maintaining of such practices, as are contrary to the light of nature, or to the known principles of Christianity (whether concerning faith, worship, or conversation), or to the power of godliness; or, such erroneous opinions or practices, as either in their own nature, or in the manner of publishing or maintaining them, are destructive to the external peace and order which Christ hath established in the church, they may lawfully be called to account, and proceeded against, by the censures of the church."
b) The seriousness with which the WCF takes the "light of nature" is demonstrated in this section with respect to moral activities (not merely God's existence).
c) Thus, the argument below will include the light of nature both as to common observations by many, if not all, humankind and...
d) specifically how the Church historically understood that light of nature and enacted Christian education ("Christian prudence").
​

C. Clarification​

1. Age-specific means any and all distinctions in age. If adults are separated from children, then this is age-specific.
2. Regular does not mean every day, or even every week (although it could) but certainly means some consistency as required by the need of instruction for individuals, families and churches as a whole.​

a) By the same token, regular with respect to teaching on most topics does not mean rarely.​

3. Church: specifically not public worship but times of instruction whether on Sunday or not.
4. This is not a defense of the niche-market oriented youth culture of today or principled age- and family-segregated methods in either the church or anywhere else.

​

to be continued!

 

[Shawn Mathis]

II. Proof

A.Clarification

1. The question is not merely age-segregation's usefulness but the moral allowance of instruction of children by other authorities than parents
2. The question is can such a method be used by the church (as an organization and/or organism) and by other institutions
3. Even though comprehension and godliness are the goal of education, a mixing of ages may arise during the course of instruction:​

a) Typically in new situations when the achievements of children are unknown age-segregation is a good start
b) As knowledge of the strengths and weaknesses of child are known then different advancements can commence
c) However, as moral character is important, parents and teachers should not be quick to advance a student because students should learn humility by being with those "slower" than them​

4. In short, I am not beholden to age-segregation, especially single-age segments (12 yr olds with 12 yr olds, etc.)
​

B. Light of Nature​

1. Common effort of mankind​

a) Children and adults typically separated during formal education taught by an adult (see Egypt, Sumarians, etc.)
b) Jews had schools during the time of Christ
c) Jewish schools actually divided by age (but likely oriented toward proficiency): House of Reading (6 till age 10); House of Learning (till age 13).
d) Jewish divisions of life by age (Eidersheim).
d) “From the two traditions mentioned [Babylonian and Palestinian], which are confirmed by many other sources, we are entitled to state that in the first century not only a basic knowledge of Jewish culture was widespread, but also that schools existed in all towns and even in the smaller settlements." S. Safrai, M. Stern, ed., The Jewish People in the First Century, vol. 2 of Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1976), 948.
e) The Herodian temple was divided the Jewish family: the court of the men and the court of the women (and children) during the time of Christ. This was never challenged by Christ or the Apostles.​

2. Common sense​

a) It is observable that a wide-enough age-difference hampers the number, degree and type of topics to be taught​

(1) Five-year olds will not learn almost all the topics a 13-year old can learn
(2) The same is true for Christian topics, although the type may be the same (who is God), the degree and amount (number) given is greatly different.​

b) It is observable that medium age-difference can hamper the number, degree and type of topics to be taught​

(1) Five-year olds will not learn many topics a ten-year old will​

c) It is observable that small age-difference may hamper the number, degree and type of topics to be taught​

(1) Ten year olds may not learn about sex ed as a 12 or 13 year old will
(2) Ten year olds may not learn algebra as well as 13 year olds (NOTE: historically, this was the age that many taught more abstract thoughts)
(3) This is part of the reason that the old Trivium method was used on younger children before access to the quadrivium (math, music, etc.)​

d) It is observable that if a teacher were to instruct a set group of children on a topic different than another set of children the teaching should be physically separated between the two groups when occurring simultaneously, eg. separate rooms or parts of the room
e) It is observable that there is great advantage in dividing classes into smaller units (contra family-integrated education which could have large units of people, all the families of one church) if the goal is comprehension at different levels (cp. Neh. 8)
f) Similarly, if small-group instruction is desirable, then separate classes are desirable (contra family-integrated education in some cases, such as a 70 member class)
g) It is observable that children and adults learn certain topics better from better communicators and/or those more knowledgeable​

(1) Parents are not all good communicators or knowledgeable on many topics
(2) Hence (in homeschooling, for instance) they employ non-domestic teachers, eg. books.
(3) If dead books can teach children why not living humans (teachers)? a fortiori.
​

h) Biological difference imply different learning ability: at least between suckling, toddler, young child (2 Chron. 20:13), puberty, full (biological) adulthood, old age (see II.D.)​

(1) Puberty means stronger boys (thus different instruction)
(2) Suckling has the minimal instruction as dictated by their limited physical (biological) abilities
(3) Toddlers have short attention spans (they cannot learn in long periods like adults or young adults)
(4) Biological considerations coupled with practical imply some sort of age-segregation, even of necessity (depending on circumstances, etc., II.D.1.c) )
​

3. Practical (common sense again)​

a) Allowance must be made for variation (advancement for instance); age-segregation should not be rigid.
b) The purpose of this method is practical not principled because comprehension is the goal not age-segregation.
c) But age-segregation is a functionally useful tool for larger groups of children
d) This may be so with smaller groups
e) The problem of distractions when everyone is placed into one large room is real​

(1) Biographies and eye-witness accounts of the "one-room schoolhouse" abound with such detail​

C. Christian Prudence (cp. I.B.2.) see my Very Short History of Christian Education​

1. Early church families mixed homeschooling, tutoring and outside family instruction or endorsed such as demonstrated in the lives of some of the well-known saints, Basil, Gregory of Nazianzon, Chrysostom, Tertullian (cp. see soon-to-be published work, A Short History of Christian Education)
2. Church councils endorsed the erection of schools or tutoring by local Bishops, e.g.:​

a) Council of Constantinople (381AD)
b) Council of Vaison (529 AD)​

c) Sixth General Council of Constantinople (680 AD)
d) Council of Savonnieres (859 AD)​

3. The Reformation was an intensive educational movement​

a) All the major Reformers endorsed, created or maintained schools, even by age (cp. Geneva) (see here too)
b) All the major Reformers practiced catechizing, including Sunday classes, sometimes by age (Geneva, Scotland, New England)
c) Major Protestant denominations built schooling into their church laws (Dutch, Scottish, French, Polish, etc.)
d) Cities and principalities and countries (like Scotland) passed laws for the erection of schools
e) Some laws for example​

(1) "In 1675 the...council of Rutherglen [Scotland], considering the great carelessness and neglect of duty of
divers parents by not keeping their children at school, so that they might become fit and useful instruments both for kirk and kingdom, [made a] statute that all the inhabitants of the burgh from henceforth shall send their children between six and twelve years or age to the common school..." p. 310
​

3. Lessons from history​

a) At times the Church believed that non-domestic oriented education was a necessity
b) At the least they saw the great usefulness of such an approach, especially for the future of the trained ministry
c) Part of the background (not detailed above but in my research) is the concern that the parents are not doing their job
d) However, the churches and Reformers believed the church had a duty to instruct the covenant children (at least religiously)​

​

to be Continued​

 

[Shawn Mathis]

D. Word of God​

1. General rules of the Word (cp. I.B.2.)​

a) Order: 1 Cor. 14:40: a general principle applied to a specific case: "Let all things be done decently and in order."​

(1) Organization and systematization are forms of orderliness
(2) Age-segregation is one tool of many that can be used in varying degrees of usefulness​

b) Regularity of instruction: Deut. 31:9-14:​

(1) Every seven years all the families are called together so that the children "who have not know it" may better learn the law
(2) If there is greater grace and knowledge in the NT (as prophesied in Is. 11:9)
(3) Then it must come through greater dispersion of that knowledge and greater regularity
(4) more than once every seven years--yeah weekly if not daily! (Acts 2:42, 46; 5:42)
(5) That knowledge is not only from parents but especially from the church (Mal. 4:5, 6, etc.)
(6) Thus Neh. 8 does not have to be an irregular activity but increased in regularity in fulfillment of Is. 11:9: "For the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD As the waters cover the sea."​

c) Usefulness: 1 Corinthians 10:23 "All things are lawful for me, but not all things are helpful; all things are lawful for me, but not all things edify."​

(1) Helpful/profitable/advantageous and edify (to build up a structure)
(2) The history of Christian education (esp. the Reformation) shows the power of traditional schooling, even to the judicious use of age-segregation​

d) Charity: Deuteronomy 22:1 "You shall not see your brother's ox or his sheep going astray, and hide yourself from them; you shall certainly bring them back to your brother."​

(1) It is an act of love to instruct the children of families in need of such​

e) Delegation: parents are implicitly allowed to delegate as seen by...​

(1) In general: Proverbs 31 woman: she had maidservants (v.15) presumably acting as agents to buy, sell and work around the house (cp. 1 Sam. 25:42, Abigail's maidservants)
(2) In general: Abraham has a responsibility to be involved in the choice of his children's spouse; yet he delegated that to his head servant (Gen. 24:2).
(3) Life of Christ: Luke 2:46-52 wherein Christ, as still under his parents authority (Lk. 2:51), was separated from his parents for three days while being instructed by the local authorities (see Morris commentary, here)
(4) Abraham was commanded to instruct his children and his household, Gen. 18:19: "For I have known him, in order that he may command his children and his household after him, that they keep the way of the LORD, to do righteousness and justice, that the LORD may bring to Abraham what He has spoken to him."​

(a) His household was numerous and wide-spread in distance and age and ability
(b) His household included non-biological descendants who were servant and fighters (Gen. 17:12, Gen. 14:14, 318 soldiers) whom had to be circumcised
(c) Such a large house-hold was more than any one father or wife could instruct on their own
(d) Therefore, Abraham was either supernaturally given speed, endurance and like qualities to instruct this massive household OR (minimally) he was expected to delegate said authority​

(5) Nursing: This activity was delegated to others (Naomi, Ruth 4:16, Ex. 2:7 suggests the Hebrew women would nurse other children)​

(a) Nursing in the ancient near east could include assistance in raising the child as in the case of Mephibosheth and a nurse he still had at the age of five (2 Sam. 4:4)
(b) That nursing likely included some work of a nanny (beyond the age of weaning) is implied in the honor paid to Rebekah's nursemaid​

(i) in late life, the nursemaid was still part of the household (Gen. 24:59)
(ii) in death, the nursemaid was honored (Gen. 35:8), where she was buried at the "oak of weeping" ('allon bakut)
(iii) such honor and attachment only makes sense if Rebekah had a relationship beyond weaning​

(c) If nursing (a very intimiate and important time in life as well as that which seems to be obvious the domain of the mother) can be delegated, certainly less intimate and obvious responsibilites may be delegated (eg. instruction)
(d) Nursing is part of the broader responsibility of nurturing by the parents. Instruction is part of this responsibility as well. So if nursing can be delegated without violation of the responsibility of nurture, so can instruction
(e) Nursing (in the narrow sense of the word) is an age-specific activity
(f) Nursing (in the broader sense of nanny or governess) is an age-specific activity
(g) Therefore, by like reasoning, age-specific activities can be used, even necessarily, for:​

(1) Necessity (see immediately below) can arise by virtue of the business of the wife of a household that is as large as Abraham (see above)
(2) Such necessity can be seen in the Proverbs 31 woman who runs the household and buys land like a business owner, while being in charge of maidservants
(3) The toll on her time is indicated by rising earlier than the servants (v.15)
(4) Such necessity coupled with the common observation of better instruction (in some circumstances and topics, II.B.2) necessitates, at least, some broad age-difference segregation​

(5) Necessity of circumstances: distance or time forces delegation (see above)
(6) Necessity of limited ability: no family is an island: need of food, clothing, shelter, etc. by other families with said abilities (cp. Pro. 31:14, 16).
(7) Such necessity may require some method of division of labor
(8) Such division of labor may include age-specific (II.B.2)
(9) Thus, necessity may include age-specific solutions​

2. Light of nature as exercised by unbelievers in the Bible​

a) Systematization of music and metal-usage, Gen. 4:21, 22 (common grace)
b) Also King Ahab used "governors" to help raise his 70 children (and grand-children) 2 Kings 10:1-6
c) Even the unbelievers without the Word recognize the need for organization and regularity of instruction (both of entire businesses and children)​

3. Light of nature as exercised by believers in the Bible​

a) Abraham [II.D.c)(3)] where the specifics of how to instruct the household are left to his discretion
b) King Jehoiada began his rule at age seven, clearly under the oversight and instruction (torah) of the priest (2 Kings 12:1-3) even while his mother still lived​

(1) Given no explicit command to set a priest over a young boy who could still learn from the mother
(2) It is likely, again, allowable (and as a ruler, necessary) to have the best teacher for the boy​

c) Similarly, Hannah sent her son to a fostor home after a specific age (weaning) (1 Sam. 1:21)
d) Jehoshaphat enacted the command of God (Lev. 10:11) by sending out the Levites along side other instructors of the King (2 Chron. 17:7-10) with good effect:​

(1) "And the fear of the LORD fell on all the kingdoms of the lands that were around Judah, so that they did not make war against Jehoshaphat."
(2) Yet Lev. 10:11 states the Levites are to teach; no mention is made of teachers from the King (v.7); likely sent other teachers by the light of nature and the general rules of the Word.​

4. Lessons from God's activities (our Divine Exemplar)​

a) God taught according to need, even by lack of experience (typically seen in biological differences and age): Judges 3:1: "These are the nations the LORD left to test all those Israelites who had not experienced any of the wars in Canaan."
b) God differentiated immediately by age for the priesthood (even changing the ages) and war (see below)
c) God regularly taught the people of God via the sacrifices and the holy days (cyclical)
​

5. Specific passages differentiating by age:​

a) Isaiah 28:9-13: commonly understood as the language of a young child learning via repetition; an insult given to the Jewish church (what adult would learn this way in all things?)
b) Eldest son given a double portion (implies greater responsibility at the least) Deut. 21:17; such unique responsibility implies instruction that may be unique (as the future, potential owner of the household)
c) Many passages that indicate age-differentiation (note: a common application of the Fifth Commandment is the duties owed to others by age, station and ability, LCQ 124)​

(1) sucklings, little ones, young ones, men, elder
(2) John 8:57: Age used as a generic division: Christ is not yet 50 (old)
(3) Lev. 27:1-8: different valuations according to age and sex: 5 and under; 5-20; 20-60; 60+​

(a) Presumably according to usefulness in the kingdom, with the prime of life given a greater price (20-60)
(b) If allowable to divided arbitrarily (are all 20 year olds equal in everything?), then allowable reasonably to divide by age in education​

(4) Num. 8:24-26: Arbitrary age of 50 set for retirement of priests (nothing inherent in that age)
​

(a) Same reasoning as above​

(5) The arbitrariness and assumed uniformity is highlighted in the change of age for the priesthood (Num. 8:24, 25 yrs old; 2 Chron. 31:17, 20 yrs old; Ezra 3:8, 20 yrs old)​

(a) NOTE: God's allowance for age-differentiation, even to moving the age in the service of God in the temple allows it outside the temple (I.B.2. by a fortiori)​

(6) Age 20 and older counted for war (Num. 1:3, etc.)​

(a) Arbitrary (unless people believe 18 yr olds are morally prohibited by this verse!)
(b) Thus in an important issue of life and death age is used as a standard of division (either from size of population, assumed training and size, etc.)
(c) Thus some form of age distinction can be used in education
​

(7) 1 Timothy 5:9 "Do not let a widow under sixty years old be taken into the number, and not unless she has been the wife of one man"​

(a) NOTE: An arbitrary age is used to set moral limits (probably representing an age typically old enough not to be able to work)​

c) Inter-dependence of age, moral responsibility and instruction taken for granted:​

(1) Deut. 1:39: "Moreover your little ones and your children, who you say will be victims, who today have no knowledge of good and evil, they shall go in there; to them I will give it, and they shall possess it." (cp. Jer. 4:22)
(2) Little ones (tap): "typically from age 0-20, with stress on younger ages" (as seen in the war census, Num. 14:29ff.), Theological Wordbook of the OT
(3) Age and knowledge coupled together; thus, instruction should take into consideration age​

d) John 9:21: "He is of age; ask him" Implies an acceptable age of public accountability common to the Jewish culture (13 years and one day for bar mitvah and ownership of the covenant).​

e) Job 32:7: "I said, 'Age should speak, And multitude of years should teach wisdom.'​

(1) This common sense truth coupled with practical concerns (II.B.2.) includes age-segregation​

f) Titus 2:4ff. Age-segregation of older teaching younger and a distinct class of younger:​

(1) Older women are to teach "younger women"
(2) "younger women" is neos not "married women"
(3) By exclusion: Paul does not write "little children" (paidion) or "baby" (brefos)
(4) By exclusion: Paul's topic is more oriented toward young women
(5) Thus a certain age is described and assumed: older than little children but younger than older women
(6) This instruction is not specified as ad hoc or systematic: both are allowable and one may be preferable according to circumstances
(7) This instruction is not limited to women but includes men by moral equivalence (LCQ99, see below)
(8) Thus some age-segregation is required (coupled with practical considerations noted above)​

g) Nehemiah 8:1ff.suggests some age-differentiation (as even admitted by Mr. Brown)​

(1) "all who could hear with understanding" being the goal (II.A.3) it follows that age-segregation occurred at least at the broadest level since little children could hardly understand much of the words or concepts (nor expected to like adults)
(2) Likely the sucklings were home with the servants
(3) From whence this division? It is not commanded; but follows the light of nature (II.B)
(4) If allowable and useful in OT, how much more in greatly illuminated NT? [cf. II.D.1.b)(6)]​

h) 1 Timothy 5:2: "Do not rebuke an older man, but exhort him as a father, younger men as brothers, 2 older women as mothers, younger as sisters, with all purity.​

(1) Clear age-differentiation conceptually
(2) Clear age-differentiation in practice: admonish older men differently than younger men
(3) Implies age-differentiation in practice, LCQ99.6​

(a) 3 "That under one sin or duty, all of the same kind are forbidden or commanded;
together with all the causes, means, occasions, and appearances thereof, and
provocations thereunto."
(b) Rebuke and exhorting are species of the genus Education/Instruction
(c) Therefore, if exhorting is commanded according to age, then instruction can be according to age.
(d) Exhorting is a generic term with the implication of some sort of instruction in this verse (one does not change someone's mind without some instruction)
(e) Exhortation can be either public or private according to one's station in life and the sin or concern; thus if exhortation is needed privately, then instruction can occur privately--physically separated from others (cp. Titus 2:4ff.)
(f) Exhortation can include multiple people (youn men, plural), even to private exhortation depending on the topic or practical considerations (see above)​

(4) Although a young pastor is commanded as such so too are all Christians (Heb. 10:25, Titus 2:4ff., above)​

E. Some non-parental, regular, age-segregation is not only allowable but when properly understood commanded (Titus 2:4 and 1 Tim. 5:2)

​

Thank you for your patience. This is my first crack at this, so I await any constructive feedback.
PS. As a reminder to readers: my first stance is Christian liberty concerning this question. I am attempting to answer a more specific question (see above).

 

[southkogs]

Pastor Mathis:

This will take me a few posts, I'm sure. And forgive the amount of time it's taken me to massage my response into something that makes some sense … or is at least ordered:

I'm not sure exactly how to understand your position that Sunday School and youth ministry "at large" are not counter productive. I want to clarify that I'm speaking in terms of the common scene of Sunday School and Youth Ministry that is employed in many (if not a majority) of evangelical churches in the United States. I say that because to say they are not counter productive, suggests that "at large" these models are either neutral (which I would suggest is not desirable) or productive. To say that the the bulk of these ministries are productive is odd to me especially considering your point about not defending niche-market youth ministry and principled age-segregation (I. C. 4.) - which (I think) is the term you use for the very ministries I have been identifying.

I can accept that the data from Ham and Beemer may be flawed to some degree, but I can't quite accept a total dismissal of it. Especially when one considers Barna's research, Willow Creek's statement on the effectiveness of their model of ministry (which has been so overwhelmingly employed across evangelicalism), the data that the SBC published, and Ham and Beemer's book together - there's at least smoke, even if one doesn't concede there's fire. Ham and Beemer don't call for the abolition of Sunday School or youth ministries, but they do call for radical reform. The data may not be perfect … but across the scope, it is at least pretty consistent.

Moreover, when we take data that is consistent over different reviews and then add anecdote; the suggestive begins to lean toward obvious. Sure, you can counter anecdotal evidence. But, it is difficult for me to deny my own observations. The norm of churches I encounter are programs that are very similar - and typically structured much the same way. I can accept that particular churches here and there have successful (and by that I mean faithful / biblical) age-segregated programs, but I struggle to accept that the evangelical church at large is successful in it's efforts. Again, this is not conclusive in and of itself, but it is very reflective of the data that is being published.

The data (maybe not clean and perfect) and anecdote together may not be completely conclusive, but they are at least compelling.

Consider, the (supposed) superior results of FICs: Is it because of the method OR (minimally) because now the families are taking their responsibility more seriously? Excited parents can do wonderful things in the short term. A similar thing happens in homeschooling: by year 6 most original homeschoolers stop homechooling (Peabody study, 2007).

This may be a failure of mine in this discussion. I would tell you that the methodology employed by FICs (at least the ones that I'm familiar with) is intentional to support/encourage/exhort parents to take their responsibility more seriously. So, the method is a tool to help put that responsibility on the "front burner," so to speak. "Superior results" are not an indicator of a parent being faithful to their Biblical responsibility, in much the same manner that the number of conversions isn't a good indicator to the faithfulness of a Gospel preacher.

My particular church had a family that was rearing their children in such a way that the kids were polite, well behaved and could quote memory verses left and right. To the eye - they were "superior results." That family had to face the music at one point though, that at least one of those kids had not as of yet really been grasped by the Gospel. It was a wakeup call to the parents to be diligent in feeding them the Word of God, preaching Christ day in and day (as you walk along the way) and praying for them. The methods in an FIC isn't about a parent getting amped from the outward results of inserting Tab "A" into Slot "B" and getting a well behaved kid. It's about parents being faithful to what scripture calls them to do.

The Bible places a premium on Christian character not Christian method. The only methods given in the word are (for lack of a better word) macro-methods: the major foundations (Christ, Bible), walls (responsible agents (family, church, community)). The layout of the rooms is not as significant or detailed in the Bible for a reason.

… but the Bible isn't ignorant of methods either. God prescribed precisely how the Ark would be transported, as a quick example. Additionally, the Bible does also suggest radical responses: "if your eye offends you, then pluck it out." Christian liberty allows you to drink alcohol, but if one is struggling with drunkeness … it's best to cast alcohol aside. Christian liberty may indeed allow for some methods. However, as those methods begin causing problems - it may be best to set them aside (at least for a time).

That, of course brings us back to the question of if there's a problem in the first place. A question upon which you and I seem to disagree.

It will take me some time to offer a response to your outline (I won't call it a refutation, there is much in there that I think we agree upon). With work and home it may be a bit slow going, so please forgive the time it takes me.