The "philosophy and practice of comprehensive, age-segregated, programmatic youth ministry" is "contrary to the ministry patterns of Christ"

It's certainly true that far too many youth groups are activity-oriented, promoting "fun" over just about anything else, but because a church has a time when teens meet--be it Sunday School, youth group, or both--does it have to be like that? Is it inevitable? Can one not have a youth ministry that seeks to turn the hearts of youth toward their parents and challenge them to serve God?

Susan,

I am all for calling for a balance in this area, but that is not what these family integrated people are doing. They call any kind of segregation in youth ministry as unBiblical and worldly and the product of Dewey, etc. They take the worst representations of youth ministry and present it as the norm. They connect it to Dewey and make it a product of humanism. They usually declare that Sunday School designed to help children understand the Bible at thier level is anathema and a sign of a bad church and a sign of a bad parent for letting your child go to Sunday School instead of keeping them with you in your class - and question why you even have them at a church that offers a class for them due to the obviously unBiblical philosophy taking place in the church (from their perspective).

These groups have correctly seen an error - the complete age-segregation of youth in some churches that results in the youth being essentially a separate group from the rest of the church - and in their desire to correct the error have went to the other extreme. (Kind of remind me of Camping finding liberalism and apostasy in many churches and deciding that the church age has ended.)

I think that there is definitely things that can be learned from this group, but I think they present an unBiblical view of the church. If they were just calling for balance in this area, I would stand up and agree and applaud. Unfortunately, this is not the case.

Thanks,

Frank

I thought that referring to his subject as "philosophy and practice of comprehensive, age-segregated, programmatic youth ministry" and "modern youth ministry" qualified his statements. Because of that I didn't perceive that he was speaking of all youth ministries everywhere, or calling for churches to abolish all age targeted ministries.

Personally, I think there is generally too much in the way of segregation going on, and the Biblical pattern I've seen is gender segregation, not age segregation. That isn't to say that one shouldn't minister to children separately at times or using different methods/materials, but that the default seems to be to separate the older from the younger more often than not. This is IMO very harmful to all generations.

I agree with your post, Bro. Sansone, and I think that some family-integrated folks have taken a great idea (and IMO a Biblical one), slathered it in hyperbole, and started beating churches over the head with it. This is not necessary or helpful. I don't know anything about Mr. Brown except what I read in the article linked in the OP. What I know about the family integrated 'movement' has been from listening to a couple of messages by Voddie Baucham, so I admittedly have limited knowledge of this 'group' as a whole.

From the FAQ

As I read over their site, I'm definitely perceiving their passion for their stand on the necessity of preserving the family structure. It is important, however, to make sure we are reading/hearing what these folks are saying in context. For instance-

(The Sufficiency of Scripture and Family Integration)

This sounds very dogmatic, but then later on I read a blog entry named "Biblical Youth Ministry" from which the article in the OP quotes-

and then

He then calls for this 'weed' (and I've personally described youth groups in terms much worse than 'weeds') to be uprooted and destroyed, but it still appears to me that they are not talking about EVERY youth targeted ministry, but the current trend of youth culture/entertainment driven youth groups, which I abhor with every bone in my body.

I also agree with a blog post on page 2 about the abandonment of the sufficiency of Scripture, which IMO has led the church to embrace cultural practices that may not be 'inherently evil', but do not produce any quality or quantity of fruit... which would lead me to believe that some 'accepted' practices should at least be reconsidered, and at best tossed out.

while I was perusing the site- Doug Phillips is a member of the board of NCFIC. I've 'heard stories' about VF and Doug Phillips, but a story does not evidence make. It is sometimes difficult to separate the issues- I've personally known one pastor who was very much a proponent of the patriarchy movement, and his family was a MESS- so when I see anything that looks like them, I become very cautious. Caution is always prudent, but it isn't fair to allow one dysfunctional family to affect my judgment. So I am going to be very careful not to color the NCFIC with any brush they haven't themselves provided.

My dad didn't allow my brother and I to attend many of the parties and frivolous activities our church provided, and I also have managed to survive- with what I believe is a healthy reverence for the time we set aside for worship, study, and edification. It's an attitude my dh and I plan to pass on to our kids, and if that means they don't attend rallies or youth group, then so be it.

I'm glad you had a good experience in YG, and I am sure there are others here who had wonderful time in their youth groups. I am not sure what your point is when you say and yes, even good, clean, Christian fellowship (read: fun)... did someone say we shouldn't ever have fun? Do you think that I or someone else here needs to have it pointed out that there is such a thing as good, clean Christian fellowship, which being interpreted means 'fun'? I mean, the obvious way for me to take this is that you are referring to someone who is completely stupid or terminally anal, which couldn't possibly be me, so I want to be clear as to your meaning.

Bro. Greg, I was part of youth groups (yes- read that as more than one) where there was no spiritual emphasis- the female workers masked Mary Kay parties as an activity for the girls, and one of the other leaders was obsessed with playing Barry Manilow records backwards. The only thing we ever served was chips and dip. There were often two chaperones for about 30 kids, sexual promiscuity was the norm, and there was rampant substance abuse amongst the young people, to the point where the 'good' kids were being corrupted right under the trusting noses of their parents. I saw my first R-rated movie (An Officer and a Gentleman) on HBO at my youth leader's house, but I still managed to remain one of the 'good kids' who refused to get involved in all the filth that was going on, even though I was not a Christian at the time... and I recognize that both our experiences are anecdotal, proving nothing except that different youth groups can produce different results. Results are not the measure we use to decide if a practice is Scriptural, and I see no reason not to rethink how we minister to the folks- not just youth, but everyone.

For instance, churches that corral the singles together all the time- why is that? Would they not benefit from interacting with youth, newly married couples, the elderly, and established families? What about our senior citizens? How often do churches encourage younger people to seek the wisdom and insight of the older folks in the congregation, and provide opportunities for fellowship across the lines of age and experience?

Instead, the SOP is often for these groups to be segregated on a regular basis. I don't think it is beneficial or Biblical. If the Scriptural model is for the older men/women to teach the younger men/women, then that IMO should be the default, instead of consistently separating the older from the younger. Of course there are times for certain groups to be ministered to specifically- very few older folks would want to ride The Beast at King's Island... but I'm not trying to refute the idea that sometimes we split off into groups to study or have activities, but that the norm for nearly every facet of ministry is to separate into defined age groups.

For the record, S. Brown has been crystal clear in the past that he is against all age segregation. If you search on the phrase "kid times" here, for example, you'll find a couple of articles I wrote on the value of kid times in ministry and these contain some links to Brown's posts at Vision Forum.

But one thing keeps coming to mind again and again. How can what the church does for one or two hours a week really be doing so much damage to what parents are able able to do the other 80 some waking hours of the week?
I think the case can easily be made that churches to do not teach parents well enough what they ought to do during the 80 hours, but this is a problem of omission not a problem of inclusion. In other words, it's not what these churches have/do (youth min.) that is the problem, but what they do not do also.

Regarding the age based segregation, I echo both Bryan and Aaron's assessment. The church is the organized assembly of worshipers. I know that not all "family-integrated" people must be this way, but what I have seen is a pervading mindset that the family is more important than the church and in the end, those churches draw and attract young to middle-aged families. The abolition of age based ministry would completely destroy the work God is building in our church. Maybe that is because we are a new church and many of the ones attending are newly saved and are eating up the ministry of the word. Without a nursery, without a Bible time for their kids, they would not attend (yes I know that from their own testimonies). We are a small church and have no desire to become a large church (we would rather start many different small churches and widen our web, but that is a different topic). We begin age-based ministries because of need, not tradition. Sometimes we join the youth with the adults, for half of the year, our kid's program and youth program on Sunday nights gathers with the entire church. We encourage teachers to rotate through different age levels, We encourage youth activities where the parents are involved in the activities--different parents plan and organize both ministry and fun activities, under the supervision of youth leaders. IOW, there are ways to promote unity and age diversity without canceling "junior church", Kid's programs, and youth. The main priority must be the main priority. To edify the entire body by exalting Christ to the glory of God. As pastor, I seek to rotate through each group yearly both kids and adults. I just finished a series on Sunday nights with the teens, next I will be teaching a class on Bible interpretation with the adults, and after that, I will be helping with our kid's program (we call it grace builders). This way, I can help pastor the entire body. (sorry I got of rambling there).

What Susan describes as her experience is despicable in my eyes. I am not sure that churches root problem was the youth ministry or children's ministry, but rather a leadership problem. My anecdotal evidence is different. I have been involved in four churches in my life. Grew up in one, moved to another town after graduation, served in a church in college and now pastor a church (before pastoring, I was "all-around" guy--children, youth, music, etc. . . it was a small church). Each of these ministries, I thank God was nothing like what Susan describes, (I hope you know Susan, I am not impugning you but rather that youth ministry you mentioned sounds awful and if that is what I had. . . I don't know what I would think of youth groups today). Instead, we blended ministry to different age groups (the youth went to minister to the elderly of the church. The youth helped teach in the kid's programs. The youth helped in ministries of the church being paired with older Christians in the different functions). I guess I was raised in a bubble that was not afflicted with those program based youth and children's ministries.

Idolatry is idolatry whether that idol is the youth group or the family unit. Whether it is the pastors or the fathers, whether it is fun or feeling of superiority because we don't participate in that fun. We as servants of God are seeking to walk the right path down the center, not the one on the right side or left side.

My two cents. . . I haven't posted in SI for a long time, but had a few minutes today, God bless.

Aaron- I agree, and I can see that I wasn't clear. What I heard was that it was good for kids to hear other ideas, as in beliefs that are in contradiction to what a parent is teaching their child. For instance, it's good for homeschooled kids to hear objections to homeschooling, for children who aren't allowed to watch tv to hear why tv viewing isn't bad, for kids whose families listen to CCM to hear why all CCM is bad, and so forth. Whatever you believe about those topics, it is not the place of the SS teacher to contradict the parents about their lifestyle choices that are not in direct contradiction to Scripture. Period.

But if we are talking about hearing truth in different formats or perspectives, then I'm all for that. I had a "Duh!" moment just awhile ago listening to Dr. Bauder talk about the temptation of Christ. I've heard that passage read and preached on about a gazillion times, and have read it myself over 100 times, and yet ideas occurred to me that had never dawned on me before hearing his perspective. But he is teaching undeniable truth, not how he feels about Christmas trees and movie theatres.

Again, I think these issues need a good measure of balance and the artful implementation of Biblical wisdom, and are open to a great deal of misunderstanding if we get focused on semantics.

Most IFB'ers are not going to go the Vision Forum route on family-integration.

But can we agree that there are some gross distortions in our churches which need to be cleaned up?

What do the kids in my church learn from kiddie church? I do not know the complete answer to that -- but one thing I know they are learning for sure: Right before the sermon, you get up out of your seat and RUUUUUN for the door, pushing and shoving to get out as soon as possible!!!

Boy, there is a good and Godly life-lesson that will come in handy in adulthood!!!

I would've done that just one time as a kid... :>)

(P.S. - I remember a sermon by Allister Begg in which he talked about his dismay when this happened to him one time right before he preached. He told the story in a humorous way, but it illustrated the point of how absurd it is to dismiss all the young people just in time for the preaching of the Word of God.)

Susan, I feel that the possibility of parental "contradiction" by SS teachers is sometimes caused by unskilled parents who wrongly conflate family conviction with Biblical mandate. (Sometimes! I agree that in other cases, SS teachers dig themselves into holes.)

The SS teacher is sometimes painted into a corner by parents who disagree among themselves on what you call "lifestyle choices." Because the parents never figured out how to articulate and resolve these differences, the teacher is set up for failure. Any time a parent communicates a personal family conviction as if it is the only valid Biblical position for every family to take, the church body is headed for conflict. Gonna boil over somewhere, perhaps during youth time.

I'm okay with my kids hanging out with No TV Families, Harry Potter Families, No Plastic Weapons families, and even Culotte Families. And I would ask them to respect house rules whenever necessary. But when we start to mandate these rules at church (or prevent SS teachers from addressing them), I get itchy.

I agree, Bro. Paul, that there are some methodologies we've taken for granted that need to be seriously re-examined. For instance, many programs for young kids are primarily game oriented- but my 8 yob can sit still while I read a chapter out of Mere Christianity and even explain back to me what I've read. AAMOF, he recently got under conviction while I was reading from this book and received Christ as his Savior. I didn't even give him a lollipop. We SO underestimate our kids. They are bright and creative, and respond positively to challenges. We do them a disservice when we treat them as if all they can grasp are one-syllable words and nonsense songs.

Susan, I just want to make sure that you understand I'm not in favor of a Sunday school teacher who sets himself or herself up as an authority that supersedes that of a parent. I don't really think I suggested that in my original post.

And just to clarify, it was not my intention to say parents are "always" conflating family conviction with Biblical mandates. My intention was to suggest that this sometimes happens, and when it does happen, the Sunday school teacher finds himself in an awkward situation.

I think it was fair for me to suggest this thread suffers from inflated rhetoric. Susan--when I wrote about parents who "conflate family conviction with Biblical mandate," I surrounded it with two uses of the word "sometimes." But your response clipped these off and inserted the word "always."

Whew. I think there might be a ray of hope. How can we help our churches here?

I think the solution involves some sort of discipling and mentoring for Sunday school teachers AND parents. If both groups have a healthy dose of intellectual humility (recognizing that our fallen intellect is capable of errors in discernment), the relationship can be mutually beneficial. I hope that our Sunday school teachers can not only teach the Word, but also point the learner to valid Bible applications.

When all of this works well, it works VERY well, which is something Greg and I were trying to inject into the discussion. One would hope that in a church characterized by mutual respect, a teacher would be able to make specific Scriptural applications without fearing they have contradicted a parent's house rules.

(Small disclosure for Susan, since we have not met. My wife and I taught in Christian schools for twelve years and then I served as a worship/youth pastor for another ten. We now homeschool our children and attend a church with a "traditional" youth ministry that includes public, Christian, and homeschool kids. The parents get along pretty well. I spend my days cooped up in a small office, pounding out words for a company that offers a well-known line of "age appropriate" Sunday school curriculum.)

I agree, but this is not the norm in my experience. What I've seen is "We need a teacher for the 4th grade boys- oh, you'd like to volunteer? Good- you can start next week." I think Ken Ham referred to it as the Warm Body Method- if you have a pulse and aren't drooling, you can teach a class. I would be very VERY supportive and excited about strict and positive standards becoming the norm for SS teachers and YG leaders. In another thread, Bro. Dave mentioned that they prefer couples that serve together to teach classes- I think this a helpful dynamic that solves quite a few problems and further encourages families to serve together. Equipping parents is not only essential but should also be a primary goal of our churches.

When it comes to questions from kids, even if they are trying to be 'tricky', the SS teacher or YG leader can still err on the side of respect and discretion, recognizing that children may try to pit the authority figures in their lives against each other. If a young person says "What do you think about ___?" then the teacher can ask "What do you parents think about ___?" Depending on the child's answer, the teacher can 1) encourage the child to talk to their parents first 2) support whatever the child says their parents are teaching them 3) if it is in error, say something like "I'll have to think about that" and talk to the parents first. It is never a good idea to answer when you have only heard 'one side' (Proverbs 18:13). I've handled questions this way for years, and have never had it not work out to the benefit of the family. Or, as Aaron suggested, say "Things like that are for your family to decide and eventually you yourself. It doesn't matter what I think about that." The Biblical commands about teaching children are overwhelmingly directed at parents, so that should remain the preeminent method in our homes and churches.

Generally, if you live in a town where people come to for college and stick around afterward, you have a good YA ministry. If not, then you don't. I'm sure there are a few more spiritual reasons as well, but the primary need is a large pool of individuals without roots in the community looking to connect with other people through a church organization.

Please feel free to comment- my 'support' is not of these speakers or their organization, but for the idea that segregation should be limited instead of the 'default', so to speak, and that the church should emphasize the family as foundational, and those relationships nourished. The only speaker I've listened to is Voddie Baucham- I have read the FAQ at the NCFIC website and a few blog posts, so my knowledge of the NCFIC is very limited, and that of Mr. Brown practically non-existent. I think I've made it clear that I am not supportive of the wholesale abolishment of all segregated programs or ministries. I am quite confident that you would not attack me personally, and if I have posted something you disagree with, I would be happy to interact with you on those points.

Dan,

With regard to your breakdown of this sermon, you are probably correct, especially on this brother's handling of the OT. I am familiar with Scott Brown only by name. My assumption, reinforced by perusing his church's Web site, is that he is probably a Reformed Baptist (Covenant Theologian). It is not my purpose to be an apologist for him.

In response, however, I would offer the following three servings of food for thought:

1) If it is difficult to prove family integration from Scripture, is it not even more difficult to prove age segregation? Certainly we could find examples of both in Scripture, and there is obviously a place for women teaching women (Tit. 2:4), the teaching of children (Matt. 19:14), etc. In accord with Susan's comment, however, it would certainly seem that the default position of the church, especially for corporate worship, should be heavily weighted in favor of family integration.
For example, I have visited some mega-churches where you walk in the door and immediately you are overwhelmed with the "playland" area where all children are expected to stay while the adults move on to their destination. Are we really going to argue that this type of thinking is rooted in Scripture? It seems to me to be taken directly from the worldly model of Yuppie culture. I certainly understand why some families are offended by that type of arrangement, or at least would not feel comfortable worshipping in a church like that. As another example, I would say that the stafffed church nursery is a very recent invention in church history. (Has anyone written the definitive history of church nuseries? :>))

2) Do we deny that some of the streams which feed into age segregation come out of evolutionary-based educational theory as advanced historically by Dewey, Mann, et al? Again, that is not to say that you will not find some texts in both testaments where children were taught in group fashion. It is just saying that it is also not correct for the church to borrow all modern educational theory and baptize it into orthodoxy.

3) To me, the family integration people -- at least to the extent that I give them a hearing -- are not so much arguing against the specialized training of children, adults, etc., as much as they are reacting against a church culture gone mad. For an example of what I am talking about here, see the book Spiritual Junk Food by Cathy Mickels (www.amazon.com/Spiritual-Junk-Food-Cathy-Mickels/dp/1579211690#noop).

I think the Biblical pattern is unmistakable- commands about the teaching and training of children are directed mostly to parents. The directive in Titus 2 'segregates' by gender, but this does not necessary mean that older ladies corral younger ladies into a classroom to teach them, but IMO implies mentoring and modeling right behaviors. However, it does provide a blueprint IMO that is seldom applied and barely acknowledged.

The Biblical pattern does not preclude other means and methods, but other methods should be examined carefully for their consistency to Biblical principles, as well as possible 'side effects', which was part of my earlier rabbit trail about SS teachers. We tend to give those we label as 'teachers' in our society more respect when it comes to insight and subject knowledge- but, in general- how many SS teachers and YG leaders are 1) a model of good works 2) have their families in order 3) are skilled in the Word? I would be remiss as a parent to allow someone who is not really qualified to be a teacher to have authority or influence over my kids. We're sheep, not a guinea pigs, and if I had a nickel for every YP I've met who 'uses' the YG as a stepping stone to the pastorate, or every milk-dependent volunteer that stood behind a podium in a SS class...

With those strongly held beliefs as part of my philosophical foundation, it isn't surprising that some of the assertions of the family integration movement are very appealing to me.

BTW, Bro. Dan, I also object strenuously to the use of OT examples as comprehensively applicable to believers of this age. It is where I part ways with some of the theories of the patriarchy movement, and I've noted that some in the patriarchy movement are holding hands with the family integration folks, because they do tend to reinforce each other... just like you'll probably find a lot of homeschoolers amongst the patriarchy and family integration crowd, because the underlying premise to all of these movements is the foundational importance of family.

You're right- all that is 'required' to become a parent is a working reproductive system. But parents do have qualifications they are supposed to meet, and if the parents in our churches are so pathetic as to not be able to adequately minister to and teach their children, it would seem to me that the leadership needs to get on the stick and start equipping them. The fact of the matter is that parents are commanded to be their children's teachers, just as men are told they should be able to teach their wives. (1 Cor. 14:34-35) The solution isn't to delegate our responsibilities to someone else who is more 'qualified', but to live up to God's standards. We can and should receive knowledge and wisdom from others, but we can't lay our children down on someone else's doorstep- not the SS teacher, the Christian school, the pastor, or the church.

BTW, I don't attend an FIC church.

I am the best judge because it is my responsibility. No matter how 'qualified' the parent is or isn't, they are still going to be held accountable, so they must make these decisions, and the church's focus should be to educate and admonish parents in their proper God-ordained roles. Most of the parents I know are faithful to read their Bibles, attend church, sacrifice to meet their children's needs- and they pray and agonize over the decisions they have to make on a daily basis. Our church challenges and provides parents with tools to help them minister to their families. Many people attend our Bible Institute, not to get a degree, but just to become more skilled in the Word. And no matter how much a teacher loves kids, they are not going to love them with the same fervor as a parent. I'm sad to hear that most of the parents you know are so deficient.

If a pastor hand picks the SS teachers based on established criteria such as Bible knowledge, teacher training, and their own personal testimony, then that's fabulous. However, I doubt very much that this is SOP in most churches, and that is what we are talking about here- the general state or the 'norms' of how families/children are ministered to.

My glasses are skewed because there is this little screw loose on the left hinged corner...every once in awhile the lens just pops right out. If it does that while I'm driving, my Taurus is going to be wrapped around the nearest phone pole.

When I use the term 'stepping stone', I mean it exactly that way- that the person teaching the SS class or YG is using it with the intent to 'climb the ladder' to the pastorate. I understand and support people who are willing to do whatever is necessary to meet the needs of their local congregation, but I'm speaking to the crass business-like attitude that treats ministry as if it were a corporate structure to be conquered, and the pastorate as a desired position of power. There are some who would view moving from a first grade class to a third grade class as a 'promotion', and this mindset IMO reveals that those people do not value young children. I think the silly and shallow material often used in SS and Jr Church, and the youth-culture/entertainment obsessed nature of many YG programs complete with the young and totally hip YP are supportive evidence in this area. If I had a nickel for every YP who uses the word 'dude' as a regular part of his vocabulary...

OK Larry, I am pulling your leg just a teeeeensy weensy bit.

I think the responses in the Proto-Fundamentalism Part 4 thread about Bible colleges relates to this topic of qualified teachers and preparedness for ministry.

Interesting thread. Glad I finally got a chance to catch up a bit on it.
Three observations

1. Toward Daniel's question about why young adults are leaving.... I don't have an answer but wanted to point out that those who are using the exodus of YAs as proof that age grouping is a failure are doing some leaping. We do not have a similar sized "control group" who have not be grouping for multiple generations to compare the results. So it's a little like saying it snowed yesterday and today I have a headache so I have snow-induced head pain. (Very possible, but I think you can see it's just a guess... and not a very good one)

2. On the method of stacking up OT occurrences of families doing stuff together. If we had 900 of these it would not prove more than have half a dozen proves. That is, in interpretation you have to weigh texts, not count them. What's needed to establish the idea that age grouping is wrong is just one clear text that is actually about age grouping and indicates that it is wrong. Piles of passages about other topics but which also mention whole families being present in the narrative details do not an obligation make. What they reveal is what was typically done. It's not sound interpretation to extrapolate from that this is what must be done... and done exclusively.

3. I'm really not all that far from Susan's position on this, which is not the same as Brown's/VF's. And Kevin's is not far either, doesn't look like to me. I think we're all for:
a. Families taking their responsibilities seriously
b. Churches staying out of the way of families taking their resp. seriously
c. Churches actively encouraging & helping families to do this
d. Churches having a sufficient amount of "all together" time (w/ b and c in mind. We do differ on how much is "sufficient," sounds like)
e. Scripture does not require that whole families be together 100% of the time in 100% of church meetings and activities
The differences mainly lie on what we're comfortable emphasizing due to what we've personally experienced. Since Kevin & others (I'll count myself here also) have had positive experiences in age grouped ministry (and seen most of our peers stay "in" church, too I might add), we are more comfortable emphasizing the validity of some age grouping. Since Susan and others (I'm guessing Brown is in this category given the passion he has on the subject at times), have seen pretty poorly implemented age grouped ministry, they are more comfortable emphasizing the need for more family-centeredness.

So the experience factor is where much of the energy comes from, seems to me.

Larry, you were posting so far past what I wrote that I don't even know where to start. We need an interpreter, you and I, because we seem to do this ALOT.

There is a general lack of understanding about the history of age segregation. Ya'll are talking like "That's the way we do it, furthermore that's the way we've always done it", and it just ain't so- age segregation is a very, very recent invention. I've been studying the effects of age segregation, the history of childhood and public education, and the theories behind what we call 'adolescence' for years now, and most of the sound research available shows that 1) age segregation is a new-fangled invention that does more harm than good, 2) adolescence has its roots in evolutionary theory and bad psychology 3) neither age segregation or adolescence fit the Biblical patterns, principles, or commands when it comes to the teaching and training of children 4) age segregation is an artificial construct and is no longer used to the same degree when people reach adulthood (at which point other means of segregation are often employed, such as marital status, which is also not Biblically supportable, although not forbidden).

I'll say again for those who don't want to read this whole thread that I am not against the occasional use of age segregation or having youth Bible studies and activities, but I am NOT supportive of age segregation done to the extent that it affects the church's ability to nourish the family, interferes with the role of husbands and parents to be the primary leaders of their homes, prevents needed cross-generational relationships, contributes to the infantilization of young people, and inhibits the mentoring of the young men/women by the older men/women. These things can and do happen, and we should be on guard against them- most children are already separated from their parents into age-segregated classrooms during the week- IMO churches should think about providing a counteractive environment to these harmful dynamics.

Congratulations if none of these problems are familiar to you. But we can't have it both ways. Example- http://sharperiron.org/forum/thread-some-guys-are-close-to-satire-of-you... - parodies work because they are based on elements of fact. Many IFB churches have used the Hyles Sunday School Manual, which does not concern itself with whether or not someone has any experience teaching large groups of children (which is much different than teaching your own). It would be better not to have a SS program or YG if one cannot provide teachers that are up-to-snuff and quality material to support their efforts. It should also remain a principal goal to equip parents to be the primary teachers/ministers of their families.

Susan, I am sometimes just a simple person. Would love to read all of your psychological references (I perused some), but I am not at a point to make the time to read, nor do I have the same enthusiasm to read it all. So, with that in mind, could you briefly outline how your point #3 is supported? I am not arguing, I just would like to see what this looks like. Thank you.

Susan,

I have a couple of thoughts. Most of us (that you are interacting with) are VERY far removed from the Hyles SS manual mentality. In fact, most of us detest that mentality and have never had anything to do with it. So your eperience is the general exception in a large part of IFB land, not the rule. I am not for hyper segregating of the family either. As far a SS teachers go, I pick mine. I have never advocated the warm body approach (although I was a in ONE church that did- and I was the warm body-15 yrs old- not wise). BTW, that one church was not a fundamental one.

We are all colored by our experiences. My direct contact with VF type families has not been good. The father's demand to be the spiritual leader (great thing), but they also were not a spiritual as they wanted everyone to believe. In fact, they were often very rebellious (no one can tell me what to do). I don't think you are that way, but sometimes you do come across that way. So here is the question. How do you balance your view of the family with the families obligation to "Obey those who have rule over you?"

I think we underestimate the impact that 'cultural' norms can have on church structure and practice. For example, the use of an altar and invitations- how many people who believe in and practice altar calls regularly have any idea where it originated? In like manner I believe that many things have affected church practices without realizing where it may have come from. I spent many formative years in SoL churches that lived by every breath that proceeded out of the mouth of Jack Hyles and John R. Rice, so I think maybe I recognize their influence where others may not...? I've visited churches that would say "Jack who?" but run their bus ministry right out of the Hammond playbook. Something to think about, anyway.

I think I've been honest about how my experiences have shaped my outlook, and I haven't intended to diminish anyone else's experiences in the process of explaining the why's and wherefore's of why and what I believe. Just because some of my experiences have been on the icky side of IFBism doesn't mean that all Sunday Schools or YGs or Christian schools are poorly run, but just because others had a wonderful experience doesn't mean I'm delusional.

I am truly sorry if I come across as a "No one can tell me what to do" person, because I am totally by-the-book - I've always been taunted with the Goody Two Shoes or Teacher's Pet label. IRL I do what I am told and keep my mouth shut, but participating in a forum is a place where I can freely exchange ideas and receive valuable feedback. I hope passion isn't being interpreted as arrogance, or a goofy sense of humor as being irreverent or harsh- but I don't expect anyone else who has firmly held beliefs to apologize or back down when someone else has a different perspective.

My dh and I attempt to balance our view of family with church leadership, gov't, and other authority structures by weighing their rules/standards/policies... how they affect the individual needs of our family... against the principles we perceive in the Word of God. IOW, we obey gov't until they require something from us that would be in direct contradiction to a Biblical command. (Acts 5:29, for example) We obey and support church leadership, but if they began to mandate or practice something that we believed unScriptural or that interfered with our ability to effectively minister to our family, we would approach the pastor/teacher, discuss the problem, and find a solution. We have done this many times, usually with beneficial results. The ways that authority interacts and overlaps is sometimes difficult to balance, but the individual, the church and the family should support and compliment each other, not be in competition.

I recently heard a testimony by a woman whose husband died of a degenerative illness, and she had a problem dealing with the guilt of not being in church while she cared for her husband- why on earth would she feel guilty? Perhaps because of the misapplication of Hebrews 10:25- "If the church doors are open, you should be there or you're not right with God!" ( I can't be the only one who has heard that said.) I've listened to and read resignations by men who felt they needed to leave or step back from ministry duties to deal with family issues- this isn't shameful, and it should be applauded, but it should make us ask why they were unable to do both? What happened that placed the needs of the family in apparent conflict with their ministry?

Thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt, Bro. Roger.

Three words- one room schoolhouse, where the interaction between different age groups was a positive, where children could progress by ability instead of being held back by their age... and I posted the studies I did to show that I didn't come up with all this stuff out of my pointy little head. I say that with a smile on my face, btw. I'm having fun, and I hope you are too.

The studies I posted reveal that there is no reason for children or anyone else to be segregated until such a time as specialization is required, like seminary or engineering school. My 8 year old has learned so much math simply by watching his siblings that I am using a 5th grade math text, and he blew through the first 20 chapters. We underestimate what children learn simply by being with others, and they are better socialized by interacting with those older than they are instead of by their peers.

I didn't say that others teaching kids automatically undermines parental authority, but I do believe that when there are difference or questions, they should be addressed with the parent first, and not with the child. Teachers are often given too much authority by virtue of their position, whether or not they are qualified. For instance, there have been studies that show that teacher certification is not a good indicator of quality or ability, but yet we certify teachers in our public schools by the truckload, and bow to their 'wisdom'. The aura of authority is also there in church- that the 'teacher' knows best because they are the 'professional'. Well, if they truly are a qualified professional, there won't be a problem with them understanding their role as a supportive partner to the parent. We agree there.

As for the rest, I've never said that the Bible refutes age segregation, but that if we were to prefer a Biblical pattern, the pattern evident is that of parents as primary teachers of their children, and that the only segregation given by clear directive is by gender, not age. That is where I believe churches should look for their 'default' position, not the recent dynamic created by such forces as child labor laws, G. Stanley Hall, and compulsory education... which is why I posted so many links earlier- to attempt to show that there is quite a body of research out there from which I have gleaned and that supports many of my suppositions. Age segregation doesn't have to be a detriment to family unity, but it can and this should be considered when employing it in churches. We've been institutionalized to a great degree by the traditional classroom, and asking ourselves what repercussions we might be seeing in society and in our churches is IMO valid question.

To those who manage to make the one room school model work, my hat's off to you.
And I do think that sometimes age differences are exaggerated. But it does also depend on the size of the group.
Where I find a real tension is between challenging the older ones and keeping the attention of the younger ones. The younger ones require what I'll call a higher stimulation-to-content ratio. I'm sure educational professionals have a better term. Anyway, what I mean by that is less data more engagement. The older ones have (usually... and hopefully!) longer attention spans and if we're going to avoid wasting our time with time, they need more data and less energy on keeping it engaging.
(This pattern should pretty much continue until, say, seminary where you are expected to absorb vast quantities of data for hours on end without a break and absolutely nothing remotely approaching sensory stimulation... no physical interaction with the information, no peer interaction, and definitely no visuals! )

But there is another huge factor (somebody may have already mentioned) which is class size. At our church's kids club, we now do a fair amount of teaching with them all together and we can generally keep them engaged from k to 6th grade. But it depends alot on the subject matter and how many of are in the room. There are things our 6th grades would benefit from getting more attention with but there is no way the K-2nd graders would keep listening to stuff that involves that much abstract thinking. So the result is teaching that is mostly concrete, involves alot of narrative, and you try to throw in some challenging stuff here and there for the older ones.
It really is not the ideal.
But we also divide up later and the kids who can read at a higher level are able to learn some things more at their level that way.

At our home school we have a 2 to 1 student to teacher ratio. So the "one room" works fine. I suspect it can work fine anywhere that a ratio like that can be maintained! Even up to 6 to 1 probably works pretty well if the teacher is really energetic and well prepared.
(Edit: I think some of these homeschools where they have 12 students--as well is the old one room school houses of yore--what really happens is that the older ones begin to serve as part time teachers as well. So the ratio still ends up lower than it might seem.)

I grew up in a three-room school (grades 1-8), with three grades in two of the rooms and the 7th and 8th graders in the highest room.

There were generally about 30 kids in in each of the lower rooms (about 10 kids per class).

I think we had the best of all worlds. Some classes were held jointly, but most were seperated by grade. The younger grades in the room were constantly learning from the instruction to the older grades, and each grade had lots of down time. So, I guess you could say it was a cross between age segregation and some level of integration.

I would say, however, (having taught in a Christian school for three years recently) that WHATEVER model you follow -- it is infinitely harder today than it would have been 30 years ago. Unless your kids are from very diligent families, PowerPoint alone will not begin to hold their attention. Their have to be LOTS of moving parts (think video game), and even then you lose some.

Dan -- I am not sure that catechism is a good example of age segregation (other than children from adults). If it is anything like the catechism I grew up with, it involves the objective study and memorization of large blocks of material by children of varying ages -- seeming to prove more the idea that small children may be capable of more than we usually challenge them with today in our comfy PC world.

I do not believe that John's curricula still exist. But he believed that one should be a young adult (early teens) before baptism so that they could learn the material first.

Susan, we can debate about what research and our human wisdom thinks is best. I am concerned right now about what Scripture requires, especially in light of the thinking of the individuals mentioned in the Opening Post.

So, if you want to argue that it's a better idea to mix ages, go ahead. But it's really off-topic, because that is not what Scott Brown is arguing.

Then I'll bow out, because I'd rather discuss the viability and Scripturality of the idea. The OP does not indicate that the conversation should be restricted to Mr. Brown, but I will submit to what you think is the best direction for this thread.

I sent you a PM so as to not take this thread off topic.

I try to refer to it as "age grouping" instead of "segregating." It is indeed an intentionally loaded term. Much of Brown's case relies on that sort of demagoguery.
Seems the links I thought were in my "kid times" article at SI are not there. I must have been thinking of the earlier series I did on FIC back in '05 or '06... lost in the crash or something.
Anyway, if you want to read up more on Brown's views...
http://www.visionforumministries.org/issues/uniting_church_and_family/th...
http://www.visionforumministries.org/issues/uniting_church_and_family/ch...
And especially
http://www.visionforumministries.org/issues/uniting_church_and_family/ch...
The one above basically says if we want to work with kids separately we are just "anti-child."

I think Dan's points regarding age grouping as far back as Chrysostom and SS in the 17th century are important. Dan do you have links to where that might be documented?

I want to take a look at the research Susan linked to also, though I'll admit I'm not super interested. The reason is that I don't need research to tell me what I've observed first hand, so my belief in the value of age grouping is not research based... and similarly, I'm not likely to be persuaded by research that what I've seen over and over isn't really happening. But sometimes we do misinterpret our experiences and are not seeing what we think we are seeing, so... should take a look.

About burden of proof, which was bouncing around earlier a bit. It's pretty hard to lay that one on either side. Of course, some want to look at the narrative details in many passages and then assert that age groupers have the burden of proof, but if the question is "Does Scripture teach anywhere that we must group or not group, exclusively?" The narrative details do not speak to burden of proof at all. It's almost entirely in the realm of application so experience is going to way heavily either way.

As for off topc/on topic... Not sure what you were trying to say there, Dan. Seems like the question of whether the practice of age grouping is biblically allowable or not is pretty closely related to the question of whether age grouping is responsible for YAs walking away from the faith. Maybe you can clarify what you were aiming for there.

Susan's research links: I don't see much there that is relevant. One piece is about adolescence and how the "storm" characteristics of it are exaggerated. Another is actually about the loneliness of the elderly due to "age segregation." Another is an entire book on the history of childhood. (I always find that one interesting. Niel Postman argued in The Disappearance of Childhood that childhood is a modern invention. But Scripture is clear that this is not the case. "When I was a child I acted as a child... but when I became a man I put away childish things." etc.).

Dr Pratt's article on The Merits of Multiage Classrooms is relevant and has some good data in it. But it still deals mainly with studies of what happens and doesn't happen in school settings where large numbers of children interact almost exclusively with people at or very near their own age. This is not really what any of us here are recommending.

In any case, I've read several versions of the "age segregating is an ineffective new idea spawned by Darwin, Dewey and Rosseau" many times. They are all essentially guilt-by-association arguments. That is, they fail to show that age grouping derives exclusively from these philosophies (to do that, there would have to be no use of age grouping before them. This we know is not the case).
Second, the argument assumes that if group B does any of the same things as group A, they must have gotten the idea from group A and must share other qualities with group A as well.

Since Darwin ate breakfast, am I embracing a new-fangled unbiblical idea if I eat breakfast? Even if it could be shown that without Darwin's influence I would not eat breakfast, does it follow that I shouldn't eat breakfast or that I have any other ideas in common w/ol' Chuck?

My point w/the extreme example is that overlap between bad philosophies and good ones happens all the time. When it happens, it:

It's just really not a solid argument to say that age grouping is bad b/c it kind of smells like Darwin and Dewey.

As for adolescence, age grouping doesn't require a belief in any particular version of the idea of "adolescence" or that it even exists. To believe there are important benefits for sometimes teaching/interacting with older kids apart from younger ones, you only have to believe they are different in important ways.
For that, you don't need Dewey or anyone else. My daughter turned 11 several months ago. The changes in her over the last year have been amazing. I no longer talk to her like I did when she was 10 because she no longer thinks like she did at age 10... and this change is not a learned thing due to social pressures.
She's home schooled (though not as isolated as the stereotype). I'm just saying kids are different from adults and different from eachother and that is not a new idea.

Edit: Dan, I see how you're thinking and mostly agree. I'd add though that "wise or unwise" overlaps with "biblical or unbiblical" because Scripture calls us to behave wisely. So the two cannot be all that cleanly separated. Something can be 'unbiblical' because it is 'unwise,' no?

Aaron- I'll reply because you addressed the relevance of my post-

I think the research in this area is relevant if you acknowledge that when certain practices are adopted, they can lead to various attitudes, just as an attitude can lead to new behaviors. Age grouping is dependent on the idea that different age groups need to be treated differently- which is absolutely valid- but the more different you believe they are, the more you will tend to separate them. Society and culture affect the way we view youth and family, and we must separate our practices from the elements in our societal/cultural norms that result in misguided notions with harmful effects. I believe, hence the supportive documentation in the link I provided, that this is a factor in the surge of retirement communities and nursing homes. The gray head used to be revered, adult children cared for their parents and they continued to be part of the family and an integral part of the 'neighborhood' into their old age. Now the tendency is to push them aside. Acceptance of age grouping is also a factor in how we view the teen years- the adoption of the idea of adolescence has resulted in the infantilization of our young people, a brand new sub-culture, and mega-million dollar industries that were unheard of 100 years ago. I think we have to ask ourselves why these changes have occurred, and whether or not the forces that provoked these changes are practices we should bring into our churches. Basically I'm playing connect-the-dots, and I think they make a picture. To me this is a bigger issue than whether or not we should have a class for 3 year olds.

I can't find any Biblical evidence that would support age grouping in the way we do it today- I don't see classrooms, I don't see commands directed at professional teachers, I don't see families being separated during worship times... we do see men and women separated, and children remaining with their mothers, as well as the directives for the older men/women to teach young men/women... and I'm not trying to build a Bible doctrine out of all this the way Mr. Brown has. I'm also not going to toss out the entire idea of integrating family because some people are taking it and jumping off a cliff with it- that whole "guilt by association" thing. Why can't we take his theory apart, show what is wrong with it, but also acknowledge what elements of it are based in facts or Biblical principles? The NCFIC, Doug Phillips, and Mr. Brown didn't invent and don't own the idea of families being foundational, important, and unified.

When we make choices of conscience or adopt behavioral standards in areas like modesty, music, entertainment, time management... we are looking for Scriptural examples and principles on which to base and build those areas. We ALL draw lines and create boundaries based on our experiences and what we believe to be supported Biblically. As was discussed in another thread- can we say it is wrong to lay down on train tracks and get up in time not to get run over? Are we commanded not to lay down on train tracks? Are there examples of people in the Bible laying down in the middle of the road, waiting for the next chariot to come along? No- but we don't need it in skywriting to know that foolishness is sin, and laying down on train tracks is foolish... unless one of your contacts fell out...

If the modern (and I'd like to see some supportive documentation that our methods of age grouping are not recent) widespread practice of age grouping has led to some very undesirable effects (such as peer dependency, infantilized youth, a decadent youth culture, adversarial relationships between youth and parents, the neglect of parents in nursing homes...), I think we do have to question its desirability for use in the church (to the degree that it is currently practiced). I mentioned before that most kids are age grouped every day in most classrooms, and if they are experiencing some of the problems that age grouping causes, why wouldn't the church become a counter-acting agent to undo some of the harm that has been done? Are there factors other than age grouping that can lead to the effects I've listed? Absolutely- our sinful hearts don't need a whole lotta encouragement to do wrong. Yet if the research indicates that there are no advantages whatsoever to age grouping, but that multi-age grouping has significant affective and social advantages, and if the patterns and practices in God's Word don't reveal a preference for age grouping, why would we adopt age grouping as the default for church ministries?

If you don't believe that a couple of hours on Sunday and Wednesday really matter, that separating families regularly at church in addition to the separations that happen all week aren't going to have any noticeable effect on the lives and thinking patterns of the congregation, and that if it does have an effect, it will be a positive one, then I accept that as your opinion, and I don't think any less of you- everyone's perspective is different. But I personally believe it does have an effect, I've presented reasons and supportive research as to why I think it can be detrimental, and I am convinced that making age grouping the default in church reinforces a very wrong-headed idea that society has adopted as normal- and it is absolutely not 'normal'- not in history, not in the Bible, and not in literature. Just a thought- but I wonder what David, Daniel, Josiah, Timothy, Clara Barton, George Washington, Anne Frank, Claudette Colvin, John Clem, David Farragut and Calvin Graham would think of our kids today... as in, how many of our kids could be so courageous, steadfast, creative, and bold, and if not- Why?