Yesterday, a reader, Hatushili, commented and inquired about something I referred to in yesterday’s post. I’m attempting to address his concern today. His comment was:
“Hey WW, as always I mostly agree with you. But I’ve got to admit that your paragraph on Sunday School, etc. made me a bit uncomfortable. Can you maybe expand on that section a bit, especially your parenthetical comment about the local church primarily existing to serve as a house of reverent worship?”
This is a very difficult post. Not only because of the controversy around it, but as I attempt to explain one aspect, it gets tangled up with another. It’s not a clear, cut and dry topic. There are many facets, and many “tentacles” of the issue. I will try to bring them together without utter confusion!
In general, I’m addressing Sunday School and Children’s Church simultaneously, since usually where there is one there is the other. Let me first say that I don’t know of a single church that does not have the best intentions by providing children’s classes and such, and I don’t want to be misunderstood as accusing the church of some evil intent. I simply believe that some worldly thinking has so meshed itself with the thinking inside the church, that we never question what we’re doing. (The ultimate goal of this blog: provocation to thought!)
So, like other issues discussed here, you have to unravel a whole string of thinking to properly understand what’s at the end. I must start with what I believe is the purpose of the church as far as Sabbath worship goes (the church has many purposes, but I won’t address them beyond the worship service).
I believe that the Sabbath morning service exists for the purpose of believers coming together to worship Almighty God, and to edify one another. (The admonition to not forsake the “assembly of yourselves together” was given to believers; the commission to win the lost was stated as a “go out” command. Therefore, the church, as modeled in Scripture, is primarily for believers.)
I believe that Sabbath worship is for HIM, not for us. And I believe that many churches have lost this very crucial, fundamental understanding. And if that understanding is lost, it changes the whole dynamic of the church, resulting in pragmatic approaches to accomplish its purposes .
Without writing a book on the topic, one of the biggest problems I see with the current church in our culture, is that of feeling the need to entertain its members, and “recruit” more. Certainly anyone desiring to know God and learn about truth should be welcomed to join our worship. But I will make a bold statement here and say that if a heathen, with no desire to change, can attend church Sunday after Sunday and feel “comfortable” there, something is not right. (“Darkness has no fellowship with the light” and “the light exposes the deeds of darkness”). Some churches have all but forsaken the equipping of the saints in the efforts to bring in the lost. I do not believe that is the purpose of the church. And because of this confusion, I see a weakening of believers, which ultimately weakens the Great Commission, and we inadvertently defeat our very own efforts by trying to do it our way instead of God’s way.
So in our desire to entertain and be entertained, we’ve not only lost complete understanding of holy worship, but we have altered its whole design to prevent distractions…which eventually involved removing the children from corporate worship. (I could turn here and discuss how the acceptance of birth control, which has undermined and devalued children, made it easier for us to isolate them..but I won’t.) There is a reason Scripture proclaims, “Out of the mouths of babes and nursing infants has God ordained praise”! We understand from the New Testament church model, that families worshipped together.
“We know from the Epistle to the Ephesians that children were present in the worship services of the apostolic church and even addressed from Paul’s epistles (Ephesians 6:1-3). Christians commonly speak of that time of worship when the church all comes together as ‘corporate’ worship. The word is an appropriate one. ‘Corporate’ when used in this sense means, ‘united or combined into one’. If we segregate our children from the worship service via programs like ‘children’s church’, how are we truly having ‘corporate’ worship. “There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call—one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.” (Ephesians 4:4-6)
Along with Christ’s prayer already cited, this passage in Ephesians speaks of the unity of the church. Thus we believe that true ‘corporate’ worship is biblical.” http://www.christreformedchurch.org/family-integrated.php
Another reason I hear for segregating the children, whether in Sunday School or Children’s Church, is the desire to teach them on “their level”. This, too, seems logical, but we do them such disservice! First of all, as the excerpt below so beautifully explains, it is important for children to observe their parents’ love of worship. (I highly recommend reading the rest of this article by clicking the link below it.)
“Parents have the responsibility to teach their children by their own example the meaning and value of worship. Therefore, parents should want their children with them in worship so the children can catch the spirit and form of their parents’ worship. Children should see how Mom and Dad bow their heads in earnest prayer during the prelude and other non-directed times. They should see how Mom and Dad sing praise to God with joy in their faces, and how they listen
hungrily to His Word. They should catch the spirit of their parents meeting the living God. Something seems wrong when parents want to take their children in the formative years and put them with other children and other adults to form their attitude and behavior in worship. Parents should be jealous to model for their children the tremendous value they put on reverence in the presence of Almighty God.” The Family: Together in God’s Presence by Noel Piper
I’ve described before the handicap a parent would inflict on his child if he didn’t speak the English language to him as a baby, because he couldn’t understand it. There’s a mystery in the learning of a child; no, he doesn’t understand what you are saying at 6 weeks old, and yet, he’s learning the language even then. He must hear it, over and over, long before he understands it, to eventually have a healthy grasp of the language.
So it is with Scripture, worship, and the things of God. Just because a child doesn’t understand every word that’s read or sung, doesn’t mean that mysterious power of learning isn’t taking place. Let’s not water down the precious message of the Gospel to our children! There is an entire generation of children, from Christian homes, who have very little grasp of Scripture, or anything spiritually deeper than common Bible stories.
Another rabbit trail could be inserted here about the lack of spiritual leadership in the home by the fathers. Partly due to his not being encouraged by the church (remember, our focus has shifted to enticing the lost rather than equipping the saints), and partly due to his assumption that his children are getting their spiritual feeding in Sunday School and Children’s Church, Youth Group, etc.
Another problem with separate church classes (Sunday School) is the sheer faultiness of segregation, as I discussed in yesterday’s post. There was a time in our history, where the elders (parents included) were exalted, reverenced, and esteemed. The youth walked alongside them, watching them, listening to them, and observing their lives in every area (especially in spiritual matters). Age-segregation has all but destroyed that beautiful element of life. Now the youth don’t “understand” or reverence the older generation, nor do they even desire to. There is such a breach, that often a young person can barely carry on a conversation with an older person.
Segregation of life has become so common, that we actually are prone to think it is good; I submit that it is not!
Scripture makes it clear the way children are to learn as they grow up…”he who walks with the wise becomes wise; but a companion of fools suffers harm.” We have segregated our little “fools” together and denied them the treasure of “walking with the wise”.
Again, I hope I’ve made it clear that it’s not the idea of Sunday School/Children’s church, per se, that is bad; rather it’s the underlying and cumulative effects.
And I realize there is a whole different discussion that involves children of nonbelievers…one could argue that Sunday Schools and such are needful for that group (which is actually where the creation of S.S. originated). That’s another post, on another day!
I hope to cause you to think about the general principles of segregation, the lack of biblical grounds for such, and the trickle-down effects it causes. And perhaps to reconsider the original purpose of church…a place where we take our sacrifice of praise and lay it down at our Savior’s feet..a place where we “foul to thy fountain fly”…a place where we receive grace and strength for our lives…. Shouldn’t this awesome experience be something we delight in sharing with our children?
Discussions, anyone?
25 comments
What a helpful post! A real two-for-one: you discuss the segregation of the church and you (lightly) address what could be called the dumbing down of worship. I’m still not ready to chuck Sunday school, but that may be because in the Anglican tradition our service is mostly devoted to prayer, reading of the word and worship. Our sermons are generally brief homilies. So Sunday school seems like a good place for further edifying of the saints, though not as segregated as they often are. Maybe children up to adolescence, then adolescents join the adults. But I’m not committed to Sunday school, either. I just see the benefits. Thanks again!
We’ve had an ongoing discussion in our church lately about how children’s church should be organized. Currently it’s for grades K-2 and many of the moms have been vocal about how “bored” their kids are. They don’t want to sit and listen, and the moms think that we all should get together and set up games and songs because learning about Jesus should be fun all the time! I’ve been really unsure about which way I feel- my kids aren’t big enough to participate yet. I want them to respect whatever kind of service is offered and not feel like church has to be a dog and pony show… but it does speak to what you were saying about how the focus is changing.
WW, thanks for addressing my question in its very own post – I feel special! : )
Now that I know where you’re coming from, I think I disagree with you less than I feared.
I agree with many of the points you raise: the over-stated value of children’s church, the (thankfully dying) bane of “Seeker services”, and the interconnectedness of so much of it.
Whether you’re into the whole Modern/Postmodern debate or not, much of what you’ve said here is part and parcel of that discussion, too [which is my primary interest in your blog, by the way].
While I agree to disagree on some minor points you made, I take particular issue with two of the specifics you mention.
First, if I’m reading you correctly, you’ve made Sunday into the Sabbath. It’s a minor point, ultimately, but the Sabbath is Saturday. Or perhaps you’re arguing for Saturday worship gatherings?
Second, and more importantly, I’ve noticed in many of your posts (this one included) that you tend to lean toward Primitivism – the belief that the Church of any generation should view the narrative accounts of the NT church as prescriptive, not just descriptive. Your point about the obvious fact that children were present in corporate worship during the NT period leans this way. Hermeneutically, I’m not comfortable making narrative texts jump into directly didactic texts.
Doing so leads to lots of unwarranted places: the “signs and wonder” crowd use this practice to justify their actions from the book of Acts, parts of the “house church” crowd use this practice to proclaim the “sinfulness” of church buildings, and guys like Doug Philips us this practice to justify fusing Victorian culture with “Biblical” Christianity.
Don’t get me wrong – I respectfully agree to disagree with these three positions (and others that stem from the same philosophy). I’m not trying to pick a fight. I’m just very interested in hearing someone as articulate as yourself address these issues.
So in general I agree with your grave concerns over the nature of corporate worship and the way we train up our children. And I appreciate your fervor in using Scripture (not sociology) to show us the right paths to travel.
Perhaps we’ll just have to agree to disagree about the rest, eh?
Hatushili
Thank you for your well-stated, and deeply thoughtful points…I was unfamiliar with my “Primitive” stance,as termed such, but I suppose you are right there. I understand your concerns with a prescritive view, but aren’t there equal dangers when we allow only the descriptive view? (If you get the chance to clarify, how does Primitivism differ from a literal interpretation of Scripture? I’m not sure I fully understand the difference…are we only talking about the accounts given in the gospels?)
Hmmmm….I’ll have to give that some more thought.
The Sabbath worship I referred to is basically just about our choosing to set aside Sunday, rather than Saturday, as our holy day. I know it’s not historically accurate, but I also don’t think it matters (yikes…I know some do, so that may cause a few hairs to raise.)
BUT, when all is said and done, I’m comfortable saying that the model of the NT church including children in their worship is a very minor part of why I disagree with segregating children anyway. (I just thought the added point was interesting to consider. And if it was right for Paul’s church, maybe it should be right for ours?)
Most of my reasons lie in the other explanations I gave in the post. So, the real debate here of church segregation doesn’t really lie in the interpretation of the NT church model.
Thanks so much for your thought-provoking observations…as “iron shapens iron”, it is a blessing that we can discuss these things as we all seek to understand God’s design for our lives!
Wow! You addressed my concerns in less than an hour – thanks.
I won’t quibble further over Sabbath versus Saturday. As we both agree, it’s a fairly minor point.
Primitivism is not synonymous with the hermeneutics of literal interpretation. A critical hinge pin in literal interpretation is interpreting texts in light of their genre. In other words, the didactic portions of (for example) the Epistles were written for entirely different reasons than (for example) the narrative sections of Acts (that would be pretty much all of Acts, I guess!).
With that in mind, it’s critical that we not interpret things in a “wooden” literal fashion. No one, for example, thinks that Jesus was actually claiming to be a vine, or a door, or a branch. We recognize that metaphors and similes must be interpretted differently than impertives and narratives. More to the point, though Luke describes the NT church as going from house to house, gathering together for devotion to the Apostles’ teaching,prayer, fellowship, and communion there is no command that we today also engage in house-to-house gatherings. There’s no command that we not, either – but the point here is that gathering from house to house is a description of what the early church did, not a command or prescription for us today. The critical distinction here is between form and function. We don’t have to follow the same form as the NT church; we do have to observe the same functions (worship, prayer, teaching, etc…).
I’m a huge advocate of literal hermeneutics, but only when issues of context and genre are considered too.
Otherwise we’d all be running around in robes and sandals, meeting in synagogues and having Scripture read to us (rather than reading it for ourselves).
Am I making sense?
Hatushili
Had I realized I could leave hyperlinks earlier, I would have also referred you to this old post of mine. It interacts with primitivism, albeit in a different context.
Thought you might find it helpful in the conversation.
Hatushili
I grew up in a family integrated church. My parents are the pastors and their church does not have children’s church.
I agree that children need to learn to be in the regular service. They CAN sit still and listen and participate if they are taught to do so. They need to see their parents worshipping. They need to be taught the tenets of the faith–not be babysat while the adults worship. Jesus called the little children to Himself in the temple.
On the other hand, I feel that services need to minister to the whole family. If everything is very abstract and formal and intellectual, children (as well as non-beleivers and new Christians) will have a difficult time grasping and enjoying.
Churches that wish to be family integrated should keep that in mind and adapt their services so that everyone can get something out of it. My children may not understand everything said in a sermon, but they can follow along in the Scriptures being read, they enthusiastically participate in singing, dancing, raising their hands, kneeling, giving tithes and offering, greeting others, etc.
My children very often attend the regular service AND they attend children’s ministry. I feel it’s OK because we go often enough that there are plenty of experienes to go around! We attend Sunday morning, Sunday evening renewal service, midweek cell group and often we attend conferences with them. So, if for one hour of all that they are with other children worshipping, I am fine with that.
Our church (we are so blessed) allows children to participate in the services. The service isn’t for the grownups, it is for the body of Christ of which they are equal memebers.
Here’s a recent post on my blog where my six year old shared her testimony at the Sunday evening service.
http://gombojav.blogspot.com/2007/08/blog-post.html
Thanks Hatushili, for clarifying those terms…it did make sense!
And just to come back full circle, and clarify for all the readers, this issue is not about Children’s ministries, in and of themselves, being bad. It goes deeper into a mindset of our culture, which has entered the church…that children are a distraction, that they need a “dumbed down” version of everything, that they fare better apart from parents with peers instead. Age segregation, generally speaking, opposes the cohesiveness of the family, and creates a slippery slope with adverse ends that are difficult to avoid.
There is just a faulty, underlying principle undergirding that philosophy of which we need to be keenly aware.
As with so many other issues, a small step in the wrong direction can eventually land us a world apart from where we should be. That’s why I often seem to “split hairs” over issues some may regard as trivial. Perhaps my blog should be named, “Nothing is Trivial”! (I have been told that I look at the whole world under a microscope…sometimes good, sometimes not, I suppose…but I still hold to my passionate belief that Christians don’t think enough!)
Who decides which passages of Scripture are strictly narrative, which are imperative, which are suggestive? Is the Bible so easily pigeon-holed?
I feel that some things are taught in principle through passages that seem narrative.
We cannot disregard promises or commands that are say, in the book of Acts, merely because Acts is a historical account and not a sermon or letter like the bulk of the NT.
Some passages are BOTH prescriptive and descriptive. We must tread carefully and not remove the mystery and paradoxes from the Word. There is still a lot our finite minds cannot yet grasp.
Gombojav tribe,
I agree with you that we must tread carefully…aren’t these the very issues (the basic hermeneutics of Scripture)that cause almost all division among believers?
And while some get all bent out of shape at the very discussions of theology and doctrine, viewing them as nit-picky, we are called to divide the word of truth, and study to show ourselves approved.
I suppose we could fall off the horse on either side…becoming too preoccupied with trying to nail down every point of doctrine OR disregarding the exercise all together.
In a nutshell, I’m glad we’re having these discussions, challenging our thoughts, and I appreciate all of your input and thoughtfulness and willingness to discuss such delicate matters!
re: gombojav tribe – You asked “Who decides which passages of Scripture are strictly narrative, which are imperative, which are suggestive? Is the Bible so easily pigeon-holed?”
At the risk of sounding silly, sometimes it is that easy. If the Bible uses an imperative mood, then it’s clearly a command. If the Bible is telling a story (narrative), it’s dangerous at best to try to take the details of the story and make much out of them in terms of principles for living (let alone commands for living).
Again, at the risk of sounding silly, the only book in the world that we have these sorts of arguments over is the Bible. Please don’t hear me saying that the Bible is just another book! But at the same time, it is literature, and unless we want to posit a God that would willfully confuse us by writing (for example) implied commands into narrative texts, we must always remember that the Bible is literature. God-breathed, fully inspired, and the only authority for faith and practice … and literature.
You also noted that “some things are taught in principle through passages that seem narrative.” It’s difficult for me to imagine a passage that merely seems to be narrative – can you give an example?
I agree with you fully when you say that “We cannot disregard promises or commands that are say, in the book of Acts, merely because Acts is a historical account and not a sermon or letter like the bulk of the NT.” The important distinction you make (and I’m zooming in on) is that we cannot disregard commands, regardless of what genre of literature they are in. “Promises” might be a different matter – God’s promising Israel (for example) in the OT that they would be lenders and not borrowers has no bearing as a promise on the life of a Christ follower today.
Again, I agree with you that “Some passages are BOTH prescriptive and descriptive. We must tread carefully and not remove the mystery and paradoxes from the Word. There is still a lot our finite minds cannot yet grasp.” But surely these truthes must not prevent us from trying fiercely to “rightly divide the Word”.
Trust me, I’m all in favour of restoring the rightful place of mystery to the Christian faith. Trying to explain the Trinity? I’m not interested; I like the mystery. But there are plenty of other things in Scripture that proper hermeneutics can make quite plain. Can you really imagine God penning His Word in such a way that we couldn’t normally make ready sense of it?
Thanks for your passion, and your reminders. I trust my position on “signs and wonders” (as noted in a previous comment) did not offend you. I respectfully agree to disagree with your position.
Hatushili
Hatushili wrote: “If the Bible is telling a story (narrative), it’s dangerous at best to try to take the details of the story and make much out of them in terms of principles for living (let alone commands for living)….But at the same time, it is literature, and unless we want to posit a God that would willfully confuse us by writing (for example) implied commands into narrative texts, we must always remember that the Bible is literature. God-breathed, fully inspired, and the only authority for faith and practice … and literature.
”
Really? Dangerous?
I seem to remember that the bulk of Jesus’ teaching was parables….He spoke to people in cryptic stories, which He did not explain to them, yet those stories held important, yet mysterious principles for living.
Mark 4:34 “But without a parable He did not speak to them. And when they were alone, He explained all things to His disciples.”
Think, too, of all the OT prophets. How many of them spoke in stories, parables, analogies, metaphors, and even drama. Their sermons were not three points and a poem. And yet in those precious prophecies are directives, warnings, and promises for us, even today!
To outsiders these are just stories, poems, just literature. To those to whom it has been given, it is life. Mark 4:11, “To you it has been given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God; but to those who are outside, all things come in parables.”
Daja
PS If we’re going to tackle the Bible as literature, it should be clear that the Bible is not, as you say, the only piece of literature over which there are literary arguments of this kind. There are many books that it is argued whether they are narrative or completely fictional, who the author actually is, whether it was supposed to be satiracal, etc. The Bible, as literature, is not alone in this sort of scrutiny.
The Bible, we know, is more than a piece of literature and so our view of it is much more important than say if Lord Byron wrote “The Prisoner of Chillon” based on inside information or a vivid imagination.
I’m going to say I “agree and disagree”. It is good for kids to see their parents in worship. However, I think it is also good to teach them separately.
In our church, we have three morning services due to the way that our population growth has outpaced our little country building. (Building plans in process.) Sunday School, including ‘Adult Sunday School’, is during the second service. So a good practice can be attending Sunday School and then a service, as the services generally stick to the fundamentals and the Sunday School addresses deeper spiritual thoughts… Anyways…
Our son, being an active four-year-old, sits with us for the first half of the service to pray and hear announcements and hear special music numbers, and then at the singing of the third hymn he goes down for Children’s Church during sermon time. Our Children’s Church puts all the children unable to sit through the service in the same room for a more active worship. He also attended VBS, which is age-oriented, and I may start him in Little Arrows, which is the Thursday night kid’s organization.
Christian adults, especially those who were raised in the faith, have already done a thorough study of the Bible and its associated stories and so rarely cover them comprehensively in the service. I’ve seen lifelong Christians who don’t know who Jonah is. I don’t support an atmosphere of isolation for children, but I do support the ‘elementary education’ that children receive in children-specific Bible study.
re: Daja – First, I apologize for taking this discussion entirely off the point that WW started with. In light of that fact, I’ll make my response brief.
Just a few things:
A) When I said that the Bible is the only sort of book about which we have these sorts of arguments, I was talking about scope and scale. Certainly there are arguments about various pieces of literature throughout history.
B) Yes, I stand by my conviction that taking texts out of context and genre is dangerous. You make mention of parables, but you’re actually proving my point because parables aren’t narratives, they’re parables. A parable, by definition, is a short story pulled from the realities of life that makes a spiritual point and must be interpretted accordingly. Plain old narrative texts do no such thing – they simply describe events.
Then you mention the OT prophets, and in so doing further prove my point because prophecies aren’t narratives either, they’re prophetic statements/stories/dreams/sermons/etc… and must be interpretted accordingly.
So, if you thought I was denying the spiritual meaning of parables, perhaps I wasn’t as clear as I could’ve been.
Hatushili
I don’t think WW minds rabbit trail discussions! 🙂 Thankfully!
I just don’t think that the Bible tells stories for stories’ sake. Narratives are also instructive or else the Bible would have left them out! There are many principles to learn in narratives. For example we learn that obedience is better than sacrifice from the narrative of Saul’s reign. It’s not just a story for the sake of a story. It shows us a key principle.
In the narrative of the Acts of the apostles we learn, “Neither is there salvation in any other for there is no other name given among men whereby we must be saved.” and not to lie to the Holy Spirit, and that non-Jews are part of God’s plan, and that religion itself is not enough to save us, and not speaking evil of leaders, and so on. These are Christian principles tucked away in a narrative, that would be completely missed if the book was glossed over as being historical but not imperative.
I do not feel that doing such is taking a passage out of context. Exegesis is important. We don’t read the word to find a verse to back-up a preconceived idea. Neither do we dismiss passages because that was written for them and not for us.
“I’m going to say I “agree and disagree”. It is good for kids to see their parents in worship. However, I think it is also good to teach them separately.”
Why not have both? At my church, we have two Communion services… 8:00 AM and 10:45 AM. Between them, at 9:30 we have education hour. The children can go to Sunday School while the adults can go to a variety of classes on specific topics. That way, the children can have the fun and activity of SS while also partaking in the worship and Sacraments.
re: Daja – I think perhaps we’re talking past one another. I’m not arguing that the narrative sections of the Bible are pointless, nor that there is nothing we can learn from them. This whole discussion started with the notion of Primitivism – we must do things exactly like the NT church did things. I disagree with that assertion, and used the topic of narrative genre and exegesis in the process.
Certainly it’s true that we can learn many principles from the Biblical narratives. But we dare not draw doctrine from them alone. Narrative can support doctrine or creed, but cannot bear the weight of such a load on its own.
Let me give a concrete example. Take the longer ending of Mark – the bit about handling snakes and drinking poison. There are those that say this narrative is prescriptive for us, that Christians today should be able (with enough faith) to pick up vipers and drink poison without being harmed. This is bad hermeneutics. The text is narrative, and therefore not so directly applicable.
There are, on the other hand, those that point out the narrative was referring specifically to the Apostles (all of whom are, of course, now dead) and that the narrative is therefore directly applicable to them but not us. In principle the text still has value and meaning for the Christ-follower today: God’s ultimate control of the normal/natural order of things, His perfect provision, etc… But to make the claim that Christians today should be snake-handlers based upon the (narrative) longer ending of Mark is hermeneutical folly.
I’m in that second camp of people – don’t ignore narrative or treat it as of secondary importance; do interpret narrative genre properly.
That’s my point, and I suspect you and I agree more than perhaps we at first thought, no?
Hatushili
I guess I fall into the crowd where I agree, yet disagree. Having spent the past 15 years engrossed in children’s ministries (you probably remember we just left full-time children’s ministry. There my husband and I taught children and taught teachers how to teach children appropriately…so forgive me if I’m a little biased…lol), I can see the relevance of it. However, I do believe the “fun” aspect is way overrated. I don’t send my children to SS or Children’s church so they can have fun. I don’t want to have to pay large amounts of money for VBS just so my children can come home with tiny trinkets and silly crafts…lol. I send them to these things so that they can learn more about Christ and be discipled. Yes, we do a lot at home. But I find that sometimes a well-trained teacher can be extremely beneficial. (And I think it should be the parents rotating in and out or working together). The problems arise when teachers are not trained to actually teach children and they are simply viewed as babysitters. What goes on (or should go on) in a children’s ministry should be FAR from babysitting. Children are perfectly capable of learning biblical principles and how to apply them to their lives. This can happen in SS or Children’s Church or even right from the pulpit. And you’re right, they don’t need it dumbed down. They don’t need trinkets or coloring pages…they need someone with a heart to minister to children and who can accurrately present the word of God. This can not happen through videos (don’t get me started on Veggie Tales…lol) or from someone reading the story out of fancy curriculum.
I feel it is an absolute MUST that all who are teaching the children be properly trained using a biblical model. Unfortunately, most churches are so desperate for help, they will take anyone.
Anyway, that’s my biased opinion…fwiw…lol!
Re:*******************
I undertand what you’re saying and can’t argue with it from an intellectual perspective; I guess it kind of follows the same lines as education. There are many wonderful, qualified teachers capable of imparting great knowledge to my children in the educational field.
BUT, I’m the parent. I have been given these children to primarily train up and nourish. Our relationship itself, and the way my children perceive my authority, depends largely on my acceptance or delegation of that training.
Back to SS…while there are parents who still participate heavily in the spiritual training of their children at home, thankfully, there are many who suffice it to rest on the brief lessons (mostly watered down and Veggie Tale versions) at church.
I’m more apprehensive because of the slippery slope I mentioned before. Not that there are never any circumstances where good can’t come out of SS, or that there aren’t any parents who still shoulder the weight of their children’s spiritual growth.
But nost of the time, I see the trickle down problems that occur…that’s what I’m addressing.
A brief comment re: gothelittlerose’s comment:
I have to disagree completely on the part about children too active who need a break during church (not that that’s exactly what you said, but…)
I’ve had enough experience with my own children, and witness a whole church full every Sunday, to know that any child can be easily trained to sit quietly through a service.
My 6 children range in age from 17 mo. to 13, and as of about 4 months ago, we rarely ever have to leave our two hour service (with NO entertaining qualities 🙂
That’s not a boastful comment, just a matter-of-fact one. With a little training at home during family worship, and some concentrated effort at church, it can be achieved.
One of the biggest problems I see with what you called a “more active worship service”, is that basically the children are being more entertained, to keep them busy, which, as I said, is not really necessary.
But I think the real danger is that the entertainment mindset doesn’t dissappear. The modern church is FULL of adults who want to be entertained; now we’ve come full circle again to what the meaning of worship is. God-centered worship is more and more rare, I believe, because we are more and more self-centered, (starts as children) desiring to be entertained more than desiring to offer up a sacrifice of praise.
And bottom line…we underestimate the importance in our lives of the true meaning of worshipping in spirit and in truth.
Inch by inch, we get away from it. I’m just trying to inch us back a little!
Hatushili wrote: “Certainly it’s true that we can learn many principles from the Biblical narratives. But we dare not draw doctrine from them alone. Narrative can support doctrine or creed, but cannot bear the weight of such a load on its own.”
Perhaps we are saying the same thing or we’ll just have to agree to disagree. I think doctrine can and should be taught from the books of history. “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness…” 2 Tim. 3:16
As for Mark 16:18, it’s not a command, it’s a promise. I’ve claimed it and I’ve seen it in action on the mission field. I’ve dealt with vipers and scorpions, even had to sleep in rooms with them. I’ve had to share a cup with someone whom I knew had a communicable disease. The Lord was faithful to His Word, as always, and I was protected. And I’ve also seen the sick recover after prayer, myself included. When there isn’t the option of modern medicine you’d be amazed what you’re willing to believe God for.
I probably am not able to convince you that the narrative is a promise. But, my position on it remains unchanged because I’ve seen it in action. I’ve held onto it and believed it as a lifeline.
As my dad always told me, “A man with an experience is never at the mercy of a man with a theory.”
Sorry it took me all day to respond to this. Homeschooling mommy of five…you can imagine my day! 🙂
Blessings,
Daja
re: Daja – If you’re interested, I’ve spawned our personal conversation about narrative hermeneutics into a post of its own over at my blog. You can find the post here.
Otherwise, thanks for your input.
Like you, I apologize for the time lag (we have six blessings ourselves!).
Hatushili
I am interested in the practical mechanics of training very young children (for example a walking 8 months old, or into-everything-13 month old) to sit through and be reverent during a church service.
I know my older children (3 and 7) would do just fine. But how do you train a baby to be quiet? I can’t even get her to be quiet while we thank the Lord for our food before a meal! And sit in one spot without being buckled… that would be torturous to her. She cries pitifully even in her car seat and her car seat is positioned between her two very entertaining siblings. I would like to lovingly train her to sit through church but I don’t know how to begin. I’d really appreciate some practical advice and tips.
(The church we attend now is completely age segregated but after we move to Japan we are planning on joining a reformed church which, I hope, will be more family oriented.)
I loved all my Sunday school classes to death. Sometimes sermons speak of things like marital intimacy that children don’t need to hear. My old SS classes took place before the main sermon, at the same time as my parents’ adult SS classes. Afterwards, we’d go to the sermon and sometimes I’d leave with the other children halfway through to go to another event similar to children’s church. Nothing wrong with teaching your kids in steps according to their age.
Kelly, this post is 3 years old, but i just read it and wanted to add my thoughts to it.
I think that the Lord is talking to me these days about this issue of integration vs. segregation in the church. (that is why i searched for this in your blog)
I see 2 big problems in having too many age-segregated programs in church:
1. we parents could become lazy and delegate the christian education of our children to the church.
2. children associate going to church with being entertained, having fun and visiting with their peers. When they reach the magical age of 18, guess what? church is not cool any more because there aren’t any special programs for them. So off they go. they may come back 10 yrs. later when they are married and have children, so they can place them in those special places for them to get pampered too.
i think kids are pampered too much in church. they never really integrate with the rest of the congregation, but only with their group. so, no group, no church.
I have never been in a FIC. there aren’t any around here. But my husband agrees that we should talk to our pastor about these things.
pray for us in that.