Is "age segregated" Sunday School unbiblical?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I have noticed the past few years that there seems to be a growing wing within “Vision Forum” and “Bill Gothard” types that is becoming very radical in their views. The statements above sounds like this movement.

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

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

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

One of the many challenges of age based education is that it is difficult for anyone to excell. Some do, but usually they can only go so far because of age restrictions. How much better to have youngsters influenced by godly adults so that they may mature more quickly and interact with adults more respectfully?
 
A few points to notice, and maybe they have been said already. In the modern church, it is usually those who DO NOT segregate children by age that are looked upon as "odd". This is strange to me in the Reformed world because every church on every corner (Methodists, Pentecostals, etc.) follows the same pattern for teaching children in Sunday School. If we accept the use of Sunday School, why wouldn't we expect our ways to be different? Why is it so weird to have families learning things together? If we can worship together, we can study together as well.
 
Just a quick comment, the Bible study I happen to attend at this time consists of only young people aged 32 and under (including the senior pastor). I am 31. Sometimes I think it would be a good thing to have the older folk present as well. And our congregation has many 'wise old saints'. I wonder what we are missing from the seniors and what they are missing from us 'youth'?
 
Please don't equate Vision Forum and the Gothard movment. They are poles apart.

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

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

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

This is an argument by inference from Scripture, as is acknowledged. It seems to me Scripture speaks of worship in several contexts- personal, family,corporate, and others. It does not seem this is teaching that within "worship" there is no basis ever for age-based, peer-based, maturity-based groupings.

In some cases, it appears whole families followed Jesus around as disciples. In others, it is not at all clear. When Jesus calmed the storm on the lake, Peter and the other Apostles did not have their families with them which might mean they were not always together in family units as they followed Jesus and sat at His feet for teaching.

Having said that, it is very important to make sure children are involved with the family in worship regularly, both inside and outside the church. The Reformers recognized that.


Paul’s teaching in Titus 2 again makes age interaction a focus of sound doctrine for churches. In fact, he begins the chapter saying “But speak thou the things which become sound doctrine), going on to tell him (and us) what they are. Older women are to encourage younger (v. 3-5), which means that they couldn’t be completely separated. 1 Timothy 5:1 indicates that the same is true of older and younger men.

Yes, there is a function for older women to teach younger women and it seems this is somewhat neglected. This is a ministry in itself and needful in the church. We could all benefit from this by the older women teaching modesty for all of life, how to relate to men, how to raise children biblically. Very important. If we paired off godly older women with younger women this is a peer-based grouping of sorts- and I am aware they are not contending against that.


Old Testament teachings confirm this model. It is noteworthy that Jesus, when asked for the greatest commandment, did not quote Exodus 20. He quoted Deuteronomy 6, which begins in verses 4 and 5 with “4Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD: 5and thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.” This is the part Jesus quoted. The part immediately following those verses give us the application of them: “6And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart: 7and thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up.” This is the model that every homeschool family should understand instinctively…that education is the task given to the family, and that it is an every-day thing. The church is built to encourage Christians, and by extension families, in the work that God has given them.

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


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

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

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

Just curious:

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

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

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

Education and Child Training | jeremiah 7
 
Tim's post:
Just a quick comment, the Bible study I happen to attend at this time consists of only young people aged 32 and under (including the senior pastor). I am 31. Sometimes I think it would be a good thing to have the older folk present as well. And our congregation has many 'wise old saints'. I wonder what we are missing from the seniors and what they are missing from us 'youth'?

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

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

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

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

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

Hall believed that it would be a mistake to intermingle the age groups, as doing so would depart from the "evolutionary model". His model would more closely parallel evolution, keeping the age groups together as one unit. Remember, there is no foundational prinicple of "the family" in evolution. Families are merely for producing offspring. The evolutionary model is one of supposed "ages and stages" which do not intermingle (Australopithecus did not learn what he had to learn by living with Neanderthal or homo sapiens).


Steve also has a more comprehensive response here:


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

Hall believed that it would be a mistake to intermingle the age groups, as doing so would depart from the "evolutionary model". His model would more closely parallel evolution, keeping the age groups together as one unit. Remember, there is no foundational prinicple of "the family" in evolution. Families are merely for producing offspring. The evolutionary model is one of supposed "ages and stages" which do not intermingle (Australopithecus did not learn what he had to learn by living with Neanderthal or homo sapiens).


Steve also has a more comprehensive response here:


An open letter about age segregation | jeremiah 7

Do you teach HS kids the catechisms along with preschoolers? :worms: Why or why not?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top