REFORMED IN DOCTRINE. BAPTIST BY CONVICTION. PASTORAL AT HEART.

SINCE 2006 · ROOTED IN THE 1689

, , , , ,

Is Age Segregated Sunday School Biblical? – Part 2

Keith Throop
In Part 1 of this series, I discussed how it is that we may discern whether or not a ministry practice is Biblical. I hope all would agree with me that we may deem a practice to be Biblical not only if it is in keeping with Biblical prescriptions or precedents, while avoiding running afoul of Biblical prohibitions, but that a practice may also be deemed to be Biblical if it is in keeping with the wise and faithful application of Biblical principles. I also pointed out that it is precisely when we are discussing Biblical principles that we can say that age segregated instruction of children by the Church is indeed a Biblical concept, since this practice does, in fact, comport with the wise application of such principles. In setting forth these principles, it seems best to begin with the Biblical teaching about the nature of the Church as a spiritual family and how this relates to the Biblical teaching about the biological family.

A Biblical Perspective on the Church as a Family

First, we need to understand the difference between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant with respect to one’s biological family.

Under the Old Covenant children were included in the covenant community by virtue of the fact that their parents were members of the covenant community. This is, at least in part, what circumcision signified:
NKJ Genesis 17:10-14 This is My covenant which you shall keep, between Me and you and your descendants after you: Every male child among you shall be circumcised; 11and you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between Me and you. 12He who is eight days old among you shall be circumcised, every male child in your generations, he who is born in your house or bought with money from any foreigner who is not your descendant. 13He who is born in your house and he who is bought with your money must be circumcised, and My covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. 14And the uncircumcised male child, who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant.
Notice that the children of Abraham and his descendants were considered to be part of the covenant community by virtue of their having been born into this community and their having received the sign of the covenant, namely circumcision. This same idea was carried over into the Mosaic Covenant:
NKJ Leviticus 12:1 Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, 2 “Speak to the children of Israel, saying: ‘If a woman has conceived, and borne a male child, then she shall be unclean seven days; as in the days of her customary impurity she shall be unclean. 3 And on the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.’”
Under the New Covenant, however, one is a member of the New Covenant community – the Church – only by means of regeneration. Since this covenant is foundational for understanding the nature of the Church, it is appropriate first to briefly consider the meaning of the Jeremiah prophecy, in which God promised that He would one day establish a New Covenant with His people, a promise which found its fulfillment in Jesus Christ:
NKJ Jeremiah 31:31-32 Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah — 32not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the LORD.
Here the Lord says that the New Covenant will be different than the Old Covenant which the the people of Israel broke, and He implies that the difference will be that it will be an unbreakable covenant. That this is so – and how it is so – becomes clear in the following verses:
NKJJeremiah 31:33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.
The New Covenant will not be like the old, breakable covenant because God will ensure that those who participate in the New Covenant have the law within their hearts. Indeed, there will be no one who has partaken of the New Covenant who does not have a new heart. Ezekiel put it this way:
NKJEzekiel 36:26-27 I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them.
So, we can have assurance that we will be preserved in covenant faithfulness such that we will never lose the blessings of the New Covenant, and this will come about through the gift of the Holy Spirit and the transformation of our hearts. But there is more:
NKJ Jeremiah 31:34 No more shall every man teach his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, “Know the LORD,” for they all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.
There are two New Covenant blessings mentioned here:
First, unlike the Old Covenant, everyonewho is a member of the New Covenant community knows the Lord.
Second, unlike the Old Covenant, everyonewho is a member of the New Covenant has his sins forgiven.
It is also clear that, when God says that all those who participate in the New Covenant will know Him, He does not just mean that they will know about Him, but rather that they will have a personal relationship with Him as believers who have been forgiven by Him. And thus we understand the great difference between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant and why the Old Covenant was only temporary. In fact, the author of Hebrews cites this passage from Jeremiah and concludes, “In that He says, ‘A new covenant,’ He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away” (Heb. 8:13).

So, given that the New Covenant has come (e.g. Matt. 26:28; 2 Cor. 3:5-6) and the Old Covenant has been abrogated (Heb. 8:13), we are not surprised to find in the New Testament that circumcision has been abrogated as well (e.g. Gal. 5:1-6). But the main point here is that only the regenerate, only those who have received the gift of the Holy Spirit, whose sins have been forgiven and who know the Lord, are members of the New Covenant community, which is the Church. No one becomes a member of the spiritual family that is the Church by means of physical birth into a biological family, but only through the spiritual birth that is the work of the Holy Spirit. This leads to my next point.

Second, we need to understand the nature of the Church as a spiritual Family.

The church is not a “family of families,” as the misleading language of some might indicate (as addressed here). In fact, Jesus warns us that New Covenant membership may often destroy biological families. For example:
NKJ Matthew 10:35-37 For I have come to “set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law”; 36 and “a man’s enemies will be those of his own household.” 37 He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me.
NKJ Matthew 12:46-50 While He was still talking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers stood outside, seeking to speak with Him. 47 Then one said to Him, “Look, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, seeking to speak with You.”48 But He answered and said to the one who told Him, “Who is My mother and who are My brothers?” 49 And He stretched out His hand toward His disciples and said, “Here are My mother and My brothers! 50 For whoever does the will of My Father in heaven is My brother and sister and mother.”
NKJ Luke 14:26 If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple.
Clearly Jesus viewed as His true family those who are of the faith, and He called for a commitment to Himself that required the same understanding of His followers. So, there is a sense in which our Church family has priority even over our biological family. It is a blessed thing indeed when these overlap, with the members of our biological family being also members of our spiritual family, but when they do not, I do not see how we can avoid the implication that we have a loyalty and an obligation to Christ and His Church that supersedes the devotion and loyalty we should have to our biological families.

Thankfully, however, even if we are put in a position in which we must lose our biological family relationships for the sake of Christ, we are promised by Him that we have another family among the faithful. Consider, for example, Jesus’ reassuring words to Peter:
NKJ Mark 10:28-30 Then Peter began to say to Him, “See, we have left all and followed You.” 29 So Jesus answered and said, “Assuredly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife or children or lands, for My sake and the gospel’s, 30 who shall not receive a hundredfold now in this time – houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and lands, with persecutions – and in the age to come, eternal life.”
It is no wonder, then, that the New Testament consistently refers to the church as “the brethren” and that the Apostle Paul likened the church not only to the body of Christ, but also to a family. For example:
NKJ Galatians 6:10 Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all, especially to those who are of the household of faith.
NKJ Ephesians 2:19 Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God ….
NKJ Ephesians 3:14-15 For this reason I bow my knees to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, 15from whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named, 16that He would grant you, according to the riches of His glory, to be strengthened with might through His Spirit in the inner man ….
Also, when Paul described the qualifications for elders he said that an elder must be “one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence (for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?)” (1 Tim. 3:4-5). Because the Church is a spiritual family, one can see who will be most qualified to rule in it by seeing how he rules his own biological family.

This understanding of the church as a spiritual family also helps to explain why Paul tells Timothy, “Do not rebuke an older man, but exhort him as a father, younger men as brothers, older women as mothers, younger women as sisters, with all purity” (1 Tim. 5:1-2). In other words, treat others in the body of Christ as though they are family, because, as we have seen, they are family.

In my experience, those who appose the age segregated teaching of children in the churches rarely think deeply enough about the implications of such New Testament teaching. Yet I think it does have some important implications. For example, when we come together as the family of God in Christ Jesus, I see no reason why other spiritual fathers, mothers, sisters, and brothers cannot teach my children as I would (so long as they are gifted by God for such a role in the church). Why can’t a woman take some of the children apart, for example, and teach them the things of God, much as a mother in a biological family might do with her children? Shouldn’t my believing children be able to be recipients of the gifts God has given to their spiritual family? Are they not every bit as much members of this spiritual family as I am? And, if I have unbelieving children, why wouldn’t I want them to meet my spiritual family, hear the Gospel from them, and experience their witness to Christ as I have?

This is a crucial issue with a number of the families I have encountered over the years who claim to be part of the Family Integrated Church Movement (FICM). Not only do they often minimize the role of the church body in the lives of their children, but they also very often minimize any authority the local church may have with regard to their family members as well. Sam Waldron has done a good job addressing this issue in his article entitled The Relation of Church and Family, in which he deals with the relationship of the authority of the local church to that of the family. For example, after listing some “praiseworthy features” of the FICM (and there are several), Dr. Waldron warns:
All this being said, there are significant philosophical and practical issues raised by this movement that contradict a biblical ecclesiology and infringe on the rights and authority of the church ….
The church is not a collection of families, but a collection of believers. It is not an extension of the family, but a completely different and sovereign institution. The family was instituted at creation and is a creation institution, while the church in its present and final form was instituted after the work of redemption accomplished by Christ and is a redemptive institution. This means that the head of the household in virtue of his being the head of the household has no authority in the church. His rights and liberties as to church membership and as a church member are no different than those of his 20 year old son who lives at home but is also a member of the church. The family-based church idea makes some sense from a paedobaptist and Presbyterian standpoint. They often have held that only heads of households should vote in the church. They have always held that the membership in the church is family-based and composed of families. But family-based churches are a specific contradiction of a Baptist view of the church and make no sense within a Baptist viewpoint ….
When the church is seen as a distinct and sovereign institution under God, then its right and duty to fulfill the Great Commission in many ways beside the meeting of the church becomes clear. The elders of the church and their appointed delegates have the right to instruct the men, the children, and the women of the church in age-segregated situations. The Great Commission gives the church the right to evangelize and instruct the entire world and so certainly the children and wives of believers. It does not limit this instruction to church services. Only a specific, scriptural prohibition would warrant a man in refusing as a matter of principleto cooperate with the church in such attempts to evangelize and edify all those to whom the church is sent by the Great Commission. No such prohibition exists. In principle the choice to join a church is a choice to subject one’s wife and one’s children to its instruction. This is what church membership means—subjection to the authority of a specific, local church to fulfill its commission with regard to one’s children and one’s wife. In principle refusal to allow this in one’s absence represents a misconception of the nature of the church and her authority.
To sum up the church does not exercise authority over its members through the mediation of heads of household or as families, but as individual believers. Its authority over the women of the church is not exercised, for instance, through the head of the family. Its authority is direct. While children are under the care and authority of the family, parents of children who are members ought to be grateful for and recognize the right of the church to evangelize their children with their consent. (Italics mine)
I think Dr. Waldron is correct. Nowhere in the New Testament is the authority over the church given to fathers by virtue of their role as fathers. Authority is given only to a plurality of elders and to the larger local church body in cases of discipline that may require excommunication. The church is not a “family of families”; it is a family in itself, a spiritual family, and devotion to this family in some ways supersedes the obligation to one’s biological family. And those who have authority in this family do not have to mediate that authority through the father as the head of the biological family. However, this does not mean that the elders of local churches may simply ignore the God-given authority that fathers have over their families, to which we will now turn our attention.

A Biblical Perspective on the Family

I suppose the first thing we can say about the Biblical teaching on the family for the New Covenant people of God is based upon what we have already seen concerning the Church, namely that the family provides one of the dominant metaphors for describing the nature of the church. This means that biological family relationships, when at their best, are a picture of the church. But there are also some key passages we should consider when discussing the Biblical teaching on the importance of family relationships. For example:
NKJ Genesis 1:27-28 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”
NKJ Genesis 2:23-24 And Adam said: “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.”24Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.
Most commentators and theologians would agree that these passages provide the foundational texts regarding the institution of the family. Later in Scripture we find that family relationships were a crucial part of God’s plan for Israel and that He placed great significance upon the role of parents in training their children about His ways. For example:
NKJ Deuteronomy 6:1-9 Now this is the commandment, and these are the statutes and judgments which the LORD your God has commanded to teach you, that you may observe them in the land which you are crossing over to possess, 2that you may fear the LORD your God, to keep all His statutes and His commandments which I command you, you and your son and your grandson, all the days of your life, and that your days may be prolonged. 3Therefore hear, O Israel, and be careful to observe it, that it may be well with you, and that you may multiply greatly as the LORD God of your fathers has promised you– “a land flowing with milk and honey.” 4Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one! 5You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength. 6And these words which I command you today shall be in your heart. 7You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, when you walk by the way, when you lie down, and when you rise up. 8You shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes. 9You shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates.
NKJ Malachi 2:13-15 And this is the second thing you do: You cover the altar of the LORD with tears, with weeping and crying; so He does not regard the offering anymore, nor receive it with goodwill from your hands. 14Yet you say, “For what reason?” Because the LORD has been witness between you and the wife of your youth, with whom you have dealt treacherously; yet she is your companion and your wife by covenant. 15 But did He not make them one, having a remnant of the Spirit? [RecallGen. 2:23-24] And why one? He seeks godly offspring. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously with the wife of his youth.
It is clear from such passages that God expects believing parents to have a role in teaching their children spiritual things. When we turn to the New Testament, we find that this stress on the importance of family relationships, including the importance of believing parents teaching their children, continues. For example, Paul demonstrates the importance of family in a key passage in his epistle to the Ephesians:
NKJ Ephesians 5:25-6:4 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, 26that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, 27that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish. 28So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself. 29For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord does the church. 30For we are members of His body, of His flesh and of His bones. 31 “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” 32This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church. 33Nevertheless let each one of you in particular so love his own wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband. 6:1Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. 2“Honor your father and mother,” which is the first commandment with promise: 3 “that it may be well with you and you may live long on the earth.” 4And you, fathers, do not provoke your children to wrath, but bring them up in the training and admonition of the Lord. (See also Col. 3:18-21; 1 Pet. 3:1-7.)
Here Paul clearly sees a crucial role for believing parents in the spiritual instruction of their children. As members of the Church they have been given the Great Commission (Matt. 28:18-20) and are responsible to carry it out first of all in their own families. If Christian parents are to raise their children “in the training and admonition of the Lord,” as Paul says, then aren’t they called upon to evangelize their unbelieving children and to disciple their believing children? And aren’t they called to do so not simply because they are parents who have a biological family but because they are Christian parents who are members of the spiritual family that is the Church of Jesus Christ? Clearly one primary aim of believing parents is to seek to bring their children into the family of God.

Later, in the first epistle to Timothy, Paul also reflects Jesus’ concern (cf. Mark 7:9-13) that one should take care of his biological family:
NKJ 1 Timothy 5:3-8 Honor widows who are really widows. 4But if any widow has children or grandchildren, let them first learn to show piety at home and to repay their parents; for this is good and acceptable before God. 5Now she who is really a widow, and left alone, trusts in God and continues in supplications and prayers night and day. 6But she who lives in pleasure is dead while she lives. 7And these things command, that they may be blameless. 8 But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.
Thus it is clear that Christians are still to have a deep and abiding love and concern for the welfare of their biological family members, whether or not they are fellow members of their spiritual family. But to such passages we may also add one cited earlier concerning the qualifications for elders in the Church, namely that an elder must be “one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence (for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?)” (1 Tim. 3:4-5). The biological family is so important that – at least in the case of men with families – one may not rule in the Church unless he has first demonstrated the ability to rule his own home in a Christlike manner.

Clearly, then, both the Old and New Testaments view the biological family as extremely important. And clearly the Church must seek to support the unity and strength of the biological family to the extent that this is possible without undermining or ignoring the importance of the spiritual family that is the Church.

However, as important as the biological family continues to be in the New Testament, we must also consider a couple of passages which indicate the temporary nature of family relationships and of priorities that may be more important than having a family. Consider, for example, the following teaching of Jesus:
NKJ Matthew 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels of God in heaven.
Here we see that there will not be the same kind of family relationships in Heaven that we experience now. After all, if marriage is the cornerstone and heart of the family – which it is – and marriage will no longer be applicable in Heaven – and it won’t – then surely families as we know them now will not exist. As a matter of fact, this temporary nature of earthly family relationships may provide part of the reasoning for Paul’s later encouragement to the Corinthian church:
NKJ 1 Corinthians 7:6-9; 32-35 But I say this as a concession, not as a commandment. 7For I wish that all men were even as I myself. But each one has his own gift from God, one in this manner and another in that. 8But I say to the unmarried and to the widows: It is good for them if they remain even as I am; 9but if they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion … 32But I want you to be without care. He who is unmarried cares for the things of the Lord– how he may please the Lord. 33But he who is married cares about the things of the world– how he may please his wife. 34There is a difference between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman cares about the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit. But she who is married cares about the things of the world– how she may please her husband. 35And this I say for your own profit, not that I may put a leash on you, but for what is proper, and that you may serve the Lord without distraction.
So, as important as the family mandate of Genesis 1:27-28 and Gen. 2:23-24 is, Paul indicates that serving the Lord for the sake of the kingdom is even more important. We might say, then, that as good as marriage and producing a biological family is, devoting oneself to the propagation of the spiritual family that is the Church is even more important. So, even when Paul teaches on marriage and family, he always places the Church on a higher plane, just as Jesus did.

 Application of Principles

Having thus briefly surveyed the foundational teaching of Scripture, perhaps we can highlight a few principles concerning the relationship of the Church and the family:
First, the local church should not shift its responsibility to evangelize and edify the saints to the family. The elders of the churches have a responsibility to teach and equip the body that supersedes that which is given to fathers with regard to their families. Although Christian fathers – as heads of their households – have been given a responsibility to evangelize and instruct their families, this must be done in submission to the elders of the church and in cooperation with their overall church family. And it should be done in a way that welcomes the involvement of the larger church family in the lives of their children. In fact, an approach that in effect does the opposite, and leaves one’s children with the impression that the biological family is the most important priority in one’s life – even more important than the family of God – fails to adequately “bring them up in the training and admonition of the Lord” (Eph. 6:4).
Second, on the other hand, the church family should not seek to overwhelm the biological family such that these relationships are viewed as less important than Scripture teaches. It is a tragedy when a person’s commitment to Christ leads to the destruction of family relationships, a tragedy that is sometimes unavoidable (as we have seen above in the teaching of Jesus), and the church should seek to avoid such destruction whenever and wherever possible.
Third, as a part of their God-given task to teach the Church (e.g. Acts 20:17-32; Eph. 4:11-12; 1 Tim. 3:1-7; Tit. 1:5-11) and to serve as examples to flock (1 Pet. 5:1-4), elders must model a strong family life and seek to help families learn to live according to Scriptural principles. But they must also stress the priority of one’s relationship to Christ and the implications of being members of the spiritual family that is His church.
Thus the church and family must not be pitted against one another. They must work together, as much as is possible, appropriately recognizing their God-given spheres of authority and priority of obligation. And they must avoid succumbing to the false choice that says that either parents are responsible for evangelizing and training their children as believers or that the local church is responsible for evangelizing and training the children in their midst. Clearly God has given a certain authority both to parents and to local churches to perform these tasks, and they must work together to carry them out.

So, is it true that “the church is a family of families” as some have rather badly put it? No, it isn’t. The church itself is a family, and it is the most important family to which one can ever belong. Is it true that “families are the building blocks of the Church” as some might suggest? No, it isn’t. The church consists of individual believers, and thus it is individual believers who are the building blocks of the church. Although biological family relationships are extremely important, and we should seek to evangelize our family members as well as reach out to families, only those who are children of Abraham by faith are a part of the New Covenant community. Any distortion of these facts leads ultimately to the destruction and not to the building up of the church.

 But what does all of this tell us about the specific issue under discussion? In what way do these Biblical principles inform our decision regarding the practice of age segregated instruction of children in the churches? Well, we can assert at the beginning that the complaint in some circles that involving our believing children in age segregated Sunday school classes means that we are somehow undermining or dividing families is simply not true. When we bring our believing children to church and allow them to be instructed by other believers – in addition to, not instead of, our instruction of them – they are not being separated from their family because they are actually with the most important family they could ever belong to, their spiritual family, the family of God. It is really no different than when parents take their children to a large family reunion and allow a trusted uncle or aunt, or perhaps an older cousin, to take a group of children to play on the swings or to do some kind of constructive activity while the adults are catching up with one another. No one I have met would complain in such a case that the children are not with their family, or that the family was being undermined or divided, since the whole point is to introduce the children to their larger family so that they might get to know and appreciate them. The same holds for allowing one’s children to take part in an age segregated Sunday school class in the local church. When we allow our children to take part, we are not only introducing them to our spiritual family so that they may get to know them, but we are allowing them to be the recipients of the gifts and blessings God has bestowed on the various members of our church family. We are allowing our unbelieving children to be evangelized by others in the church who may be more gifted than we are, and we are allowing our believing children to be taught by others in our church family who may be even more gifted in teaching spiritual things to our children than we are. As a matter of fact, this is but one way in which we can fulfill our obligation as parents to our children to “bring them up in the training and admonition of the Lord” (Eph. 6:4).

 Having said of all of this, however, I do not wish to imply that I think every parent must avail themselves of age segregated education for their children if offered by their local church. I am merely seeking to demonstrate that the practice is indeed a Biblical one, not that it is the only Biblical way to do things.

 Conclusion

In conclusion, I would simply assert that the Bible’s teaching concerning both the Church and the family under the New Covenant demonstrates that there is no reason at all to assume that age segregated instruction of children is not Biblical. In fact, as I see it, if anything such teaching would lead us to assume the opposite, at least if we want to maintain a Biblically balanced perspective concerning the distinctive roles both of local churches and of believing parents who are members of such churches.

However, we still have further to go in our endeavor to discover whether or not the age segregated education of our children is in keeping with Biblical principles. I have thus far only laid a foundation. I need to build upon that foundation by relating some other important principles found in Scripture. This I will seek to do in my next post on this subject.
 
See Part 3 here.

13 responses to “Is Age Segregated Sunday School Biblical? – Part 2”

  1. Buna Bunch

    Keith, you wrote that Dr. Waldron states…

    “To sum up the church does not exercise authority over its members through the mediation of heads of household or as families, but as individual believers. Its authority over the women of the church is not exercised, for instance, through the head of the family. Its authority is direct. While children are under the care and authority of the family, parents of children who are members ought to be grateful for and recognize the right of the church to evangelize their children with their consent.” (Italics mine)

    Gary responds…

    Our ‘gratitude’ that we supposedly ought to express to these supposed godly ‘elders’ would indeed be possible IF their own children and indeed their own values and convictions are truly godly, holy and pursuing righteousness. But historically, we have not seen this in many, many decades in the local church. The pattern of most men in leadership in most Baptist churches, including ‘reformed’, is far from the kind that we concerned fathers who take up this neglected church leadership responsibility, thus to train our children in Christ, are willing to embrace. It is no wonder that the FICM has arisen. Even at this very hour, there are virtually no churches in the 250,000 people in our area that we would want our children to be trained by. They are hardly godly. Biblically compromised and gospel compromised and usually quite worldly. That is obvious to all of us with concern. It is a truth that few ‘elders’ will admit, included ‘reformed Baptist’ churches. But we concern men are supposed to allow our children to be trained (corrupted) by their poor leadership and poor/errant instruction? Really?

    Reply
  2. Buna Bunch

    Keith writes:

    Is it true that “families are the building blocks of the Church” as some might suggest? No, it isn't. The church consists of individual believers, and thus it is individual believers who are the building blocks of the church.

    Gary responds:

    Keith, technically you are correct in this statement, but the reality is that the church is comprised of the structural unit that God established long before the Jews existed ( Old Covenant) and before the Church ( New Covenant) . The family. Every church that is stable and thriving has stable and thriving families. A reality check is here – truth. To run to the ‘individual’ argument is to deny reality of life in the Scriptures. Of course we are saying that individuals make up the body of Christ! But this body is structurally and integrally related to family units. These units of younger children are the first and foremost care of the parents in the local body of Christ. Of course, to the degree that the elders are godly men, then they have a sense of authority in the lives of these children – that is true. But as it is the parent who daily nurtures the child, feeds them, directs their daily upbringing, you are pressing an unrealistic portrait of eldership. God uses elders to feed the parents in the Word of God so that in turn the parents can provide the daily care and nurture of the children. This is not in competition with the local church, but supportive of it, again with the assumption (rare) that the men who lead are godly and have their own families in order. Reality is that it is families that largely comprise and build up the local church. Just remove your all your own and keep only the singles – then you will see the truth.

    Reply
  3. Buna Bunch

    Keith writes…

    Thus the church and family must not be pitted against one another. They must work together, as much as is possible, appropriately recognizing their God-given spheres of authority and priority of obligation. And they must avoid succumbing to the false choice that says that either parents are responsible for evangelizing and training their children as believers or that the local church is responsible for evangelizing and training the children in their midst. Clearly God has given a certain authority both to parents and to local churches to perform these tasks, and they must work together to carry them out.

    Gary responds:

    Keith, you are right here: a mutual working together is right. However, that mutual working together does not again define the necessity of fragmenting the church up with myriads of classes, programs, etc. What is lacking is godly men and churches that are not fad followers, but Christ followers. When local Baptist churches ever return to this, we may see that many a participant of FICM will embrace such churches. Until these churches and their leaders get their biblical act together, we will not put our children under their poor and often corrupting influence. They are men who are often not qualified to lead and their lives, their families and their church fruit clearly displays their disqualification to teach our children with authority.

    Reply
  4. Keith Throop

    Gary,

    While I can sympathize with your concern about the worldliness that has entered into many professing evangelical churches in our country, I can't help but think that you are making a generalization here that is far too sweeping in its scope. For example, my own experience of Reformed Baptist churches is definitely not what you describe here. But, then, you offer no specific description of what you would perceive to be godly elders or churches anyway, so I really have no clear idea what you would perceive to be a godly church or not. Is the mere fact that a church has age segregated Sunday school or a youth program enough in itself to evoke such criticism from you? One is left wondering — given your testimony about the churches in your area — whether you are a part of a local church at all.

    I would also observe that I could just as easily offer generalizations about how most professing Christian parents are not godly and fail to take their responsibilities as parents under God seriously, but that would hardly amount to a reason for refusing to honor Biblical teaching concerning the role of parents. And it would hardly warrant a refusal to encourage parents in their role and to cooperate with them as they raise their children.

    Frankly, your response here sounds quite reactionary and unfair to many of your brothers in Christ, especially elders in local churches, for you seem to automatically assume that most of us, if not all of us, are not godly men and are not worthy to train any children in the Lord. Such rhetoric is most definitely not a good way to promote constructive dialog. You know, for example, that I am an elder in a Reformed Baptist church, so you are sure to include Reformed Baptist pastors in your charges. This is unnecessarily insulting and disrespectful, given that you don't know me — and I suspect you don't know very many other Reformed Baptist elders either. But, even if you did know many of us, I would wonder if you could fairly assess our character in the first place.

    Reply
  5. Keith Throop

    Gary,

    As you might have expected, I take issue with what you have written here in several respects.

    Your assertions: Keith, technically you are correct in this statement, but the reality is that the church is comprised of the structural unit that God established long before the Jews existed ( Old Covenant) and before the Church ( New Covenant) . The family.

    My response: I have to admit that I cannot understand why you would agree that I am Biblically correct in asserting that the church is made up of individual believers rather than families and yet in the next breath say that “the reality is that the church is comprised of the structural unit that God established long before the Jews existed ( Old Covenant) and before the Church ( New Covenant) . The family.” Good grief! Either my position is correct or it isn't. You can't logically say it is “technically” correct but that the “reality” of the situation is different, i.e. that my position isn't “in reality” correct. That makes no sense.

    I would also point out that I dealt in some depth with the Biblical teaching on the importance of the family under both the Old and New Covenants and that nothing you have said demonstrates why my view of the matter is not Biblical. You simply assert that the reality of the situation is otherwise and offer as a reason the mere fact that the family was established in Scripture before either the Old or the New Covenants were historically given. Yet this fails to acknowledge my having dealt with these very matters, and it fails to offer an argument as to why this fact should overturn what you admit the New Testament actually teaches about the makeup of the church. You simply make the assertion that the “reality” is what you say it is. But, Gary, an assertion is not an argument, and an argument is what you need to offer the readers of this blog if your comments are to be taken seriously.

    Your assertions: Every church that is stable and thriving has stable and thriving families. A reality check is here – truth.

    My response: As anyone can see after reading my article, of course I agree that stable families are extremely important. But I would just point out here that your assumption that the church is made up of such families seems to be behind this assertion, but this is not the case. As you have said, “A reality check is here – truth.” This is why I wrote this article, to clarify the truth about the true nature of the church as a spiritual family. Sadly, however, after agreeing that my view is “technically correct” — meaning that it actually is what the Bible says? — you disregard it anyway.

    My response will be continued in the next comment.

    Reply
  6. Keith Throop

    Your assertions: To run to the ‘individual’ argument is to deny reality of life in the Scriptures. Of course we are saying that individuals make up the body of Christ! But this body is structurally and integrally related to family units. These units of younger children are the first and foremost care of the parents in the local body of Christ.

    My response: I did not “run” to an “'individual' argument” brother. I presented what the Bible says about the nature of the New Covenant Church. And I fail to see how to present the Biblical teaching on the matter is “to deny reality of life in the Scriptures,” especially since I spent so much time relating how the church is a spiritual family made up of individual believers and stressing the importance of mutual ministry in the church, something about which I will speak more in Part 3 (whenever I can find some time to write it).

    I also want to point out that I have trouble making sense of your asserting that the church is “structurally and integrally related to family units” immediately after having agreed that “of course we are saying that individuals make up the body of Christ!” I wonder how, then, families are structurally a part of the church if the church is not made up of families but of individual believers. Such confusing language is one of the real problems I have consistently encountered among those in the FICM.

    As for your further assertion that “These units of younger children are the first and foremost care of the parents in the local body of Christ,” I would simply point out that you have failed to grasp the Biblical distinction between parental and pastoral care, a distinction that is at the heart of my position and that is clearly taught in Scripture. As I observed in my article, these are two God-given spheres of authority that must not be pitted against one another but rather must work together.

    Your assertions: Of course, to the degree that the elders are godly men, then they have a sense of authority in the lives of these children – that is true. But as it is the parent who daily nurtures the child, feeds them, directs their daily upbringing, you are pressing an unrealistic portrait of eldership. God uses elders to feed the parents in the Word of God so that in turn the parents can provide the daily care and nurture of the children. This is not in competition with the local church, but supportive of it, again with the assumption (rare) that the men who lead are godly and have their own families in order. Reality is that it is families that largely comprise and build up the local church. Just remove your all your own and keep only the singles – then you will see the truth.

    My response: Frankly, after reading this I have to wonder if you even understood most of what I wrote. Since I have already responded to some of what you assert here in a previous comment, I will simply say in closing that you still haven't grasped the fact that elders are given the authority and responsibility to shepherd every member of the flock, regardless of age, and that nowhere does the Bible mediate that authority through a third party any more than it mediates parental authority through a third party. Both parents and pastors receive their respective authority directly from god, and they must each honor the other. This is another matter I intend to address a bit more fully in Part 3, Lord willing.

    Reply
  7. Keith Throop

    Having previously addressed your penchant for over-generalizing when speaking of the lack of godly elders in the churches, I will leave that issue aside here and simply observe that you still haven't offered any Biblical arguments against the Biblical case I have been making. You haven't bothered to spend any time dealing with what Scripture actually says or how my understanding of what Scripture says is incorrect. In fact, you earlier admitted that my position was “technically correct” and then spent the rest of your time saying why you won't accept it anyway, essentially attacking the character of those who might disagree with you as your sole line of argumentation. I thus won't bother responding any more fully to such insulting over-generalizations, except to say that further comments like these will simply be ignored. Either give us Biblical arguments or go and vent somewhere else.

    I will conclude by responding to your assertion that “mutual working together does not again define the necessity of fragmenting the church up with myriads of classes, programs, etc.” First, given that the word myriad is typically used to refer to a countless number and at minimum is used to refer a thousand in number, I would like to point out that such hyperbole doesn't help your cause, since it mischaracterizes the true situation and gives the impression that we are all about “fragmenting” the church as much as we possibly can. Second, it is unfair to mischaracterize our endeavors to train our children in such a way that they get to know their spiritual family even better as “fragmenting” the church in the first place. Again I wonder if you even understood much of what I wrote. If not, I suggest you read it again. If so, then you are deliberately misrepresenting my view. In either case, I urge you to make an effort to be more fair and less insulting in any additional comments you may offer here. If you fail to do so, I will soon simply begin to ignore them, i.e. I will simply delete them.

    Reply
  8. Buna Bunch

    Keith wrote:

    …you still haven't grasped the fact that elders are given the authority and responsibility to shepherd every member of the flock, regardless of age, and that nowhere does the Bible mediate that authority through a third party any more than it mediates parental authority through a third party. Both parents and pastors receive their respective authority directly from god, and they must each honor the other.

    Gary replies…( somewhat to all your afore comments)

    Yes Keith, elders have authority over ALL of the flock – I agree.
    However, there are certain realities in how this is worked out. An elder does not have authority to direct to parents how they daily must physically care for their children – what foods to feed them, when they awaken, when they sleep, etc. How they educate their children, etc.

    Elder authority is mediated through the parents to the children – this is clear from Chris's teaching through Paul in Ephesians. Now, lest you misunderstand, I am talking about children that are not yet “grown” and still live and remain under the authority of the parents in daily life. A 23 year old child is now an adult and thus the elders can relate to them directly, though grace and wisdom would not deliberately sidestep the parents, if that child is still living at home until marriage, for example, except in the event of serious doctrinal error, etc.

    The whole discussion about age-segregated instruction is largely geared and directed at those who are “children” still under the daily direction of parents. This is the crux of disagreement.

    These 'young' children are commanded directly in Scripture to obey their parents, first and foremost. Sure, there is a sense that they are to obey their elders who watch over their souls, but in the daily and practical sense, Christ commands children to obey their parents, not the elders. The parents are then to obey the elders – assuming they are godly qualified elders. I find not direct commands to children to “obey the elders”, but instead to obey the parents, who then as parents submit to godly eldership.
    Yes, I clearly understand what you have written in the “Part 2” article. God has given the functional and spiritual DIRECT upbringing responsibility to train children to the parents. These parents then mature through the leadership of godly elders. Indirectly the elders are leading the children.

    Actually, this is the problem in a nutshell for those of us who have difficulty with the pressure to conform to “age-segregated” instruction. We know that the leaders of a local church DO infact directly influence the children either for good or bad. This fruit of influence has been clearly demonstrated by the fruit in the young people of the last 30+ years. It does not speak well of these 'godly' elders' supposed leadership. That is why many of us as fathers and mothers refuse to buy into the “authority” argument that you and others try to press upon us to the detriment of our children's heart affections and eternal focus.

    Continued in next post…

    (Gary)

    Reply
  9. Buna Bunch

    Gary continues…

    I actually do know some reformed type baptist pastors, elders and laymen. Many of them are doctrinally precise, but in practice, they are worldly in daily life – they are not holy in practice. From what you have written, I would not expect you to be one of these; I would expect you to be a pleasant exception. There are no titled 'reformed' baptist churches in our immediate area of SE Texas. There are some who long for this, but again, their lives are not those we would want influencing our children very much. Their doctrine is sound in form, but not their lifestyle of godliness.

    And just to be clear – we are very much a part, very committed to a baptist local church– there at all the events, bible studies, outreach, etc. We teach the Scriptures there, lead worship some, preach some and our children are most active. We have a godly pastor that I think would say we are a blessing to be in fellowship with. We are not a FIC church, but we do not press parents to put their children in settings that they are uncomfortable with in principle or content. I would like to think that we are like some of those families in your church who are not supporters of age-segregated instruction, but are very supportive of the church and are definitely pursuing godliness, through grace, not works. If you want to ask my pastor, send me an email to “manypizzalovers@yahoo.com” and I will forward you his address – you are free to ask what you wish.

    Finally, for years I have told my wife and children that it is the church that lasts into eternity, not the family. But, it is families that functionally and practically comprise the substance of the local church, not merely a collection of individuals – God relates daily life in the NT to this daily outworking of Christlikeness in families that live together, eat together multiple times a day, etc… The Scriptures do not call the church to commune life with elders as the daily leaders over the physical commune. cults do this, but not the ture church. Instead, all of us live in houses as families for the most part of life while we serve together in local churches. This fact is not family idolatry, but simply realism. The family unit is the means that God uses under the leadership of godly men in the local church to rear the next generation to know and serve Christ. These children grow up to be individual members of churches, who then in turn become families to do the same work in the next generation, so that someday, the Church will be complete in Christ.

    The Lord bless you, Keith.

    Reply
  10. Keith Throop

    Sorry it took so long to get to these comments, Gary, but I will try to respond now as thoroughly as time allows.

    You assertions: Yes Keith, elders have authority over ALL of the flock – I agree. However, there are certain realities in how this is worked out. An elder does not have authority to direct to parents how they daily must physically care for their children – what foods to feed them, when they awaken, when they sleep, etc. How they educate their children, etc.

    My response: Where have I argued that elders have direct authority over such things? My arguments are all directed at the evangelization and spiritual instruction of children and the spiritual maturity of the Church. You are simply introducing a red herring here.

    You assertions: Elder authority is mediated through the parents to the children – this is clear from Chris's teaching through Paul in Ephesians. Now, lest you misunderstand, I am talking about children that are not yet “grown” and still live and remain under the authority of the parents in daily life. A 23 year old child is now an adult and thus the elders can relate to them directly, though grace and wisdom would not deliberately sidestep the parents, if that child is still living at home until marriage, for example, except in the event of serious doctrinal error, etc.

    The whole discussion about age-segregated instruction is largely geared and directed at those who are “children” still under the daily direction of parents. This is the crux of disagreement.

    My response: Brother, you cannot simply assume that, since Paul commands parents to train their children in spiritual matters, this means that the elders' authority to teach them in such matters is therefore “mediated through the parents to the children” any more than someone could credibly assume that, since Paul commands elders to teach every member of the Church — including children — this means that their parental authority in such matters is therefore mediated through the elders to the children. And, by the way, you are simply assuming that your position on this matter is correct; you haven't actually offered an argument that it should be accepted as such.

    My response will be continued below …

    Reply
  11. Keith Throop

    You assertions: These 'young' children are commanded directly in Scripture to obey their parents, first and foremost. Sure, there is a sense that they are to obey their elders who watch over their souls, but in the daily and practical sense, Christ commands children to obey their parents, not the elders. The parents are then to obey the elders – assuming they are godly qualified elders. I find not direct commands to children to “obey the elders”, but instead to obey the parents, who then as parents submit to godly eldership.

    My response: When Scripture speaks of the authority of elders, where does it any way restrict this authority to adult believers rather than children? And on what basis do you set aside the command of the author of Hebrews, for example, as applying only to adults rather than to all believers (Heb. 13:17)? Where do you find the Scriptural limitation that you are assuming? The mere fact that Paul commands children to obey their parents does nothing more to remove their responsibility to obey the authority of the elders than does his command to wives to submit to their husbands or slaves to obey their masters.

    You assertions: Yes, I clearly understand what you have written in the “Part 2” article. God has given the functional and spiritual DIRECT upbringing responsibility to train children to the parents. These parents then mature through the leadership of godly elders. Indirectly the elders are leading the children.

    My response: No, I respectfully submit that you are still missing the point and that this can be seen in the fact that you are simply reading your own preferences into the text without actually arguing for them in a manner consistent with the immediate context and the totality of Scripture.

    You assertions: Actually, this is the problem in a nutshell for those of us who have difficulty with the pressure to conform to “age-segregated” instruction. We know that the leaders of a local church DO infact directly influence the children either for good or bad. This fruit of influence has been clearly demonstrated by the fruit in the young people of the last 30+ years. It does not speak well of these 'godly' elders' supposed leadership. That is why many of us as fathers and mothers refuse to buy into the “authority” argument that you and others try to press upon us to the detriment of our children's heart affections and eternal focus.

    My response: Well, I certainly don't doubt that many churches have done a terrible job teaching. Period. But this does not mean that they aren't called to do so. Citing examples of churches that do a poor job of ministry — although you have yet to offer anything more than generalities — does not amount to an argument that such a ministry is wrong. A ministry may be done poorly even if the ministry itself is Biblical. One couldn't argue, for example, that since so many professing Christian fathers abdicate their responsibility to properly train their children that they therefore are not called to do so in Scripture.

    On to your next comment …

    Reply
  12. Keith Throop

    I am glad to hear that you are a committed member of a local church, brother, but I am sorry to see that you still don't want to accept what you have already agreed is “technically … correct,” namely my argument that “The church consists of individual believers, and thus it is individual believers who are the building blocks of the church.” You persist, then, in essentially agreeing that I have arrived at a Scripturally correct conclusion, yet refusing to accept it.

    And you persist in misrepresenting my view. Where, for example, have I argued for anything like a “commune life with elders as the daily leaders over the physical commune?” For this is the basis upon which you go on to compare my view with that of a “cult.”

    You know what, with that I am going to simply delete the rest of your unpublished comments without bothering to respond to them. You have shown a persistent refusal to accept even a crucial point that you agree has been derived correctly from Scripture, while you have persisted in misrepresenting my view and engaging in one way or another in a personal attack. I am therefore finished interacting with you on the matter any further.

    Reply
  13. Is Age Segregated Sunday School Biblical? – Part 1 – Reformed Baptist Blog

    […] For example, I have heard many people from within the Family Integrated Church Movement (FICM) adamantly assert that age segregated Sunday school is most definitely not Biblical, but I don’t think they mean what I mean when I speak about whether or not something is Biblical. For the most part they seem to mean that the practice of age segregated education of our children is not Biblical because it is not specifically prescribed in the Bible. That is, they often appear to operate with the assumption that the local church needs a specific command in Scripture in order to justify a ministry practice as Biblical. But I do not think that we should restrict our assessment of whether or not a practice is Biblical to such a narrow parameter, even if it is a very important parameter. So, in this post I would like to begin to set forth a more complete set of parameters under four main headings: 1. Biblical Prescriptions To begin, I certainly agree that a practice should be accepted as Biblical if we have a Biblical prescription to do it – that is, if we have a positive command to do it. Examples of such prescriptions would be the practice of baptizing believers (Matt. 28:19) and the observance of the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor. 11:23-26). We know these practices are Biblical because the Bible clearly teaches that we must do them. This is not the case, however, with the practice of age segregated instruction of our children on Sunday mornings, as opponents of the practice are quite fond of pointing out. But, as I have already indicated, I do not think the discussion should end here. 2. Biblical Prohibitions Just as we know with certainty that a ministry practice isBiblical if we have a positive command in the Bible to do it, we know with just as much certainty that a ministry practice is not Biblical if we have a prohibitionin the Bible against it. One example of such a prohibition would be women teaching or having authority over men in the churches. The Apostle Paul clearly says, “I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence” (1 Tim. 2:12). Yet we have no such prohibition against age segregated instruction of children. In fact, if we are seeking either a prescription or a prohibition for the practice, we find that the Bible is silent on the matter. 3. Biblical Precedents But there is yet another way in which we can discern whether or not a ministry practice is Biblical, for we can look to see if a practice has a Biblical precedent. One example of such a precedent would be the practice of worshiping on Sunday (Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:1-2). Another example of such a precedent would be the inclusion of children in the worship gatherings of the church. It would appear obvious, for instance, that the apostle Paul assumed that children would be present with their parents at church gatherings when he included instructions for them in at least two of his epistles (Eph. 6:1-3; Col. 3:20), epistles which he expected to be publicly read when the church gathered for worship (Col. 4:16). So, we have a clear precedent for age integrated instruction of children in the churches, but in the case of age segregated instruction of children we find no such clear precedent in the Bible (although there does seem to be a precedent for the general concept and practice of age segregated instruction, which I will address in part three of this series). 4. Biblical Principles However, we still haven’t exhausted our means of ascertaining whether or not a practice may be considered to be Biblical, for we haven’t yet addressed the matter of whether or not a practice is in keeping with Biblical principles. Yet it is through the application of Biblical principles that we ascertain whether or not many practices are to be accepted as Biblical. Indeed, the Church throughout her history has recognized that much of what we do is informed not by clear Biblical prescriptions, prohibitions, or precedents, but rather by the thoughtful application of Biblical principles. Consider what the Baptist Confession of 1689 says in this regard: The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down or necessarily contained in the Holy Scripture, to which nothing is to be added at any time, either by new revelation of the Spirit, or by the traditions of men. Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word. There are some circumstances concerning the worship of God and church government which are common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Wordwhich are always to be observed. (Chapter 1.6, italics mine) Notice that the Confessionfirst of all refers to those things which are essential and which are either expressly taught in Scripture or may be derived therefrom by way of good and necessary inference (the meaning of “necessarily contained” in the first sentence of the text cited). Yet it also recognizes that not all matters faced by the Church are so directly addressed. Thus, when we are dealing with an issue or practice for which we have no explicit teaching in Scripture, the Confessionrecognizes that we are to rely on our wisdom and experience as informed by “the general rules of the Word,” which in this context must refer to the application of the general teaching or principles of the Word. One example of such an issue or practice that is not addressed directly in Scripture would be the type of music used in corporate worship in the churches. The Bible simply doesn’t indicate a particular style of music or song writing that should be utilized by Christians when they meet to worship. But that doesn’t mean that we must be silent about the matter, does it? Absolutely not! For there are a number of principles that we may employ in addressing the issue. Thus we would want to see what the Bible says about God, about how God works in His people through the Word, about the role of the Word in worship, about the nature of the Church as the body of Christ, about attitudes we should display in worship and how music might affect these, about the unity we should seek as we worship God together, etc. So, for example, if we believe that we should seek to worship God in a unified way and with one voice (as Jesus and His disciples apparently did, Matt. 26:30), we will want to choose a style of music that is written to better enable and enhance congregational singing rather than a style of music that is written to be performed for an audience. At any rate, I think we should all be able to agree that there are any number of ministry practices that may not be directly addressed in Scripture in terms of a prescription, a prohibition, or a precedent, but for which we may find many principles that apply. And insofar as we seek to faithfully, wisely, and prayerfully apply these principles, we may indeed say that our practice is Biblical. It is precisely here, it seems to me, where we can say that age segregated instruction of children by the Church is indeed a Biblical concept, since I think that this practice it is in keeping with the wise application of Biblical principles. In setting forth these principles, perhaps it would be best to begin with the Biblical teaching about the nature of the Church as a spiritual family and how this relates to the Biblical teaching about the biological family. This I will attempt to do in the next post in this series, followed by a third post that will focus more specifically on Scriptural teaching about the nature of physical, mental, and spiritual maturation and even the idea of age segregated instruction itself. I will just say in conclusion that it was not my intent in this post to be exhaustive in delineating criteria for how to determine whether or not a particular ministry practice is Biblical. My intention was merely to demonstrate that the matter is not so simple as some appear to think and, hopefully, to help many of my brothers and sisters in Christ to think a little more clearly about this important issue. See Part 2 here. […]

    Reply

Leave a Reply