children's Church

I concur 100%

Methods must change while the message must remain constant.

Paul says "I became all things to all men that I might save some." Who gave the church the right not to change???

 

Now I'll know to watch your posts for out of context proof texts. In fact..."Paul says 'I became all things to all men that I might save some.'" Sorry, I could have resisted, but chose not to.

 

The best curriculum for 'children's church' is the Scriptures. Someone said the Bible is written on a 4th grade level. I don't really know, but God's Spirit can cause stones to praise him I know he can do it for children.(Lk19:40)

The Best method to teach them is PREACHING - remember that...It used to be the God ordained means to instruct the 'children' of God and save them that believe. But I guess we need to improve on that. Thats how we do it at our church. Methods used in a typical Day Care is not appropriate for a NT church.

In reality, children love to mimic (1Thess1:6, followers = mimic) the adults. They love to reach for those things that are ahead of them.(Ph3:13) Why not encourage our children to partake of what every adult experiences in church. I think by doing that we will really build for the future.

As for me, Children's church is just another departure from Scripture. It might very well be a sign of our times.

Jeptha

[ March 13, 2003, 07:06 AM: Message edited by: Jeptha ]

 

What a well thought out plan to reach those around you. Sounds great!

 

I wonder why the Lord forgot to tell us all this stuff about how to minister to children?

Mark Osgatharp

 

We bring all 6 kids into church with us.
I would stand my 9 yr old theologically against most 18yr old who grew up in sunday school.

 

The church I grew up in had nursery provided during the service for children 3 and younger with older children attending service with their parents. The pastor would have a children's lesson prior to the offertory; depending on the current pastor it would range from so-so to being even better than the "real" sermon (i.e., the adults got even more from it than the kids).

One church I've visited did the following for its children in third grade and under (I realize this would work only if you had a larger church with multiple morning services and Sunday schools): The Sunday school classes for preschool and elementary age children were held during the second block of Sunday school classes and as such the children and parents would attend the first service. Following the children's lesson (also right before offertory), the children would be excused to their Sunday school classes which as they started earlier include additional teaching for them.

As for issue of young children becoming somewhat fidgety and not "getting" the point of worship services, I'll admit that as a preschooler I wasn't always that excited about big church. I did love other activities at church -- choir, Sunday school, etc., and as I grew older I began to appreciate the purpose of the service more. The key point was that my whole concept of church at that time wasn't based on my experiences in worship service as I'd had many positive experiences with other church activities.

I still do really miss the kool-aid though.

 

This is not true in our context though I can't speak for others. We see the children as both believers and unbelievers. I am not sure why you are so bent on the fact that children cannot be believers and be a part of teh church. That seems your constant theme, that these are unbelievers. I don't accept that at all.

See above. Also, our adult church sees the adults as "big believers in training" in accordance with the biblical texts such as Eph 4:11-15, Matt 28:19-20, etc. I can't see why training children to be disciples of Christ is somehow sinful or wrong.

We address it. Some of these children are a part of the body. We edify them and teach them. Some are not a part of the body and, just like in adult church, we evangelize them. The test of a NT church is not "does the whole body meet in one room at one time."

I have seen the ruckus that develops when these children are in church. Perhaps in your church, you have all model children. We don't. We have a number of children that come without their parents, who would not come and hear the gospel at all if they were in the adult service. They would be bored. They would be distracting. They would be not growing at all. I do not wish to treat children that way. I think there is a great value to teaching and discipling them on their level.

Why is it that this concept is completely accepted in schools, workplaces, etc. but rejected in church?

 

Why imply that the children's church is not an actual service?? Ours is. I have instructed our children's church leaders to make it church, not entertainment and games and food. They have songbooks, take offerings, have ushers, lead in prayer, preach, etc.

You ask What better way than include them in the actual service? I answer: Teach them on their own level. Why do we have grades in school?? Why not just throw 6 six olds into high school physics? After all, they will get there someday. What better way to teach them then just throw them in there.

 

I don't think he did. He said, "Let the little children come to me." He said to minister to the whole body, not just the adults. He said to preach tot he gospel to everyone, not just the adults. With your perspective, God did not tell us how to do a lot of things. But we don't argue against them. We use common sense to answer those questions. We should here as well.

 

Or it could be another method of training and instructing our children in biblical truth in a manner that is clear and understandable.

Perhaps because there is freedom in methods.

He also forgot to tell us what color pews in which to sit. Ready to throw them out as well?

 

PastorLarry,

You use the Scripture,

"Let the little children come to me"

as a justification for children's church. That is the same text that the Protestants and Catholics use to justify infant baptism - and I suppose it says as much about infant baptism as it does about children's church, namely, nothing.

Mark Osgatharp

 

I don't think he did. He said, "Let the little children come to me." He said to minister to the whole body, not just the adults. He said to preach tot he gospel to everyone, not just the adults. With your perspective, God did not tell us how to do a lot of things. But we don't argue against them. We use common sense to answer those questions. We should here as well. </font>[/QUOTE]Amen, Brother Pastor Larry -- Preach it!

 

No I didn't. I used it to say that we should be ministering to children.

Their wrong usage of it does not justify abandoning what the verse says.

Probably. But that won't affect my point.

My point is much more succinct: We are to minister to all the body and to unbelievers through evangelism. Children's church is a ministry of the church where that is done at an age appropriate level. If you have a problem ministering to children appropriately, then perhaps it is you who needs to readjust your thinking.

 

We cannot find satisfaction in your answer because it simply doesn't work. You say that children's church is a departure from Scripture but then you fail to show any Scripture that addresses children's church. How can something be a departure from Scripture when it is 1) not forbidden in Scripture and 2) wholly compatible with everything Scripture teaches about ministry? Scripture says we are to teach the whole body, not just the adults. Children's church is a way that we can do that effectively.

No one is arguing that we should anything other than Scripture to teach children. Curriculum is not a departure from Scripture. It is a lesson plan for the teaching of Scripture. It gives those who are untrained in planning and preparing or those who cannot devote enough time to planning and preparing a direction to go. I do not know if you are aware of how much time it takes to plan and prepare a service. Curriculum serves a vital role in that by allowing people to be involved in the ministry who may not know or may not have time to do that work. Curriculum is a sermon outline prepared by someone else. In that respect, there is no major difference between that and what your pastor should be doing every week. But the curriculum used must be Bible centered.

And as we have said, children's church should include the preaching of the word. We don't disagree with that. But you have failed to recognize the distinction between adults and children. Their needs are different; their levels of understanding and attention spans are different. With children, you must use different illustrations and make different applications.

As I have pointed out, we recognize this in every area of life. But there are some unwilling to recognize it in church. Why do you insist that children have to learn on an adult level? Everything about them is different. A children's church provides an opportunity to maximize the teaching and learning potential of the children by giving them God's word on their level.

If you want to prove children's church unbiblical, then you will have to use the Bible. Up to now, you have simply showed that you disagree with it for invalid reasons (i.e., that we should use Scripture and preach to them rather than having children's church).

 

We have an excellent children's church ministry! It is structured so kids are learning and their parents can sit in adult church and learn, too. In fact, our children's church is drawing more young couples to our church.

rufus

 

I am sure that you believe that some children are believers and that some are unbelievers. I don't question that. That does not negate point no. 1, and perhaps actually reinforces it. Is this group (children's church) segregated because they are believers? No. Is this group segregated because they are unbelievers? No. Are they segregated because they are children? Yes. That is why I say the children's church concept does not really look at children as believers or unbelievers, but as children. It is because of the fact that they are children that this group exists as a separate meeting, is it not? I realize that you do not think that is a bad thing, but it is a "thing" nonetheless.

This doesn't address anything I said in statement no. 1, but I am bent on practicing whatever I believe the Bible teaches. I expect the same of you. But relative to your statement, I do not necessarily think all people under the age of 18 are unbelievers, if that is what you are implying. I do not tend to accept as credible professions any of those by young children, and I am also concerned that minors cannot actually consent to really covenant together with others as a body of believers. It is also readily apparent that there was no active child evangelism program in the New Testament church.

I did not express myself well with the terminology "little believers in training." It is a term I use, and it is understood in certain circles in which I move, but it probably means little to you. By the term "little believers in training," I do not mean believers who are children or minors. But I mean by it that some churches tacitly create three categories of people: (1) believers, (2) unbelievers, and (3) "little-believers-in-training" - children who are brought up in the church, and it is understood they will become Christians through this training. I believe there are two categories of people - believers and unbelievers - and that unbelievers only become believers by being born again. I further believe that the Bible teaches that until one becomes a believer, he/she is "natural man," is without the Spirit of God, and does not receive the things of the Spirit of God. This renders the unbeliever/natural man out of step with the nature of instruction/edification that takes place in a gathering of the people of God.

Though you say some of the children are part of the church body, yet by segregating them you make them more a part of a mixed body of believers and unbelievers (not on the basis of spiritual condition, but on the basis of their status as children) - not by coincidence, but by choice. An adult gathering we understand may be mixed, but the actual gathering - church - is a gathering of believers. Some unbelievers may happen to be there for various reasons. The design of church meeting is not to get lost people to come so we can evangelize them. The design of the church meeting is to prepare the church for ministry so they can go out and evangelize. This does not mean that we reject what providentially takes place. It just means that we accept as normal and obey that which we are commanded to do - go into the world and preach the gospel - and we praise God for whatever He arranges beyond that. It doesn't mean we should rearrange what He has commanded us to do. I don't expect this applies to your church, Pastor Larry (since you are a Calvinist), but many churches have turned God's plan over on its head. They gather at church and the preacher spends all his time evangelizing what few unbelievers show up (sometimes even when no unbelievers show up!), and the church is not trained to minister to the multitudes of unbelievers that they encounter in their lives.

Don't know of any model children here, either. But I also don't know of any instances involving children in church that I would use the word "ruckus" to describe. That doesn't mean I haven't seen any of them misbehave. Perhaps it's somewhat a matter of perspective, the difference in the kinds of people among whom we move, and other factors. We are country people, so the services move along at a slower more informal pace, and a baby crying and a parent dealing with it or taking it out would not be considered distracting (except to the parent of course). I was in a good-size country church last Sunday, with a large number of small children - no children's church, no nursery - and two families have a lot of foster children. Everything went off quite well without any hitches. But ultimately, our experiences do not set the standard for church practice, the Bible does.

It is good that you have children that come without parents - not good that they come without parents, but good that they come anyway. I don't think we have to assume that children's church is the sole way to handle that situation. Nor do I see any reason to suppose that they are bored simply because they are children. Should we not consider all the factors that might contribute to the problem? I have seen children attentive to "adult" sermons, and I have seen adults bored by some wonderful orators.

What concept, age segregation? Certainly it is accepted in public schools, but I wouldn't be too quick to hold the public school up as a model. The fact is that all people the same age do not learn at the same pace, whether they are 2, or 12, or 20, or 80. Should we segregate every individual into their own class so that they learn at their own rate? And why is no one suggesting "unbeliever's church"? Certainly the unbeliever without the Spirit of God can't learn in the same environment and at the same rate as believers! Why not develop a special "church" for them? Lastly, I don't know why we should expect the church to follow the teaching standards set down by the world, whether in schools, workplaces, or wherever.

Finally, I would add that in our age God has (at least) two training institutions in place - the family and the church - which have specific tasks and areas of labour. The family is the primary place of child rearing and instruction. The church has been given no specific charge in that area, although the ministry to the saints should support the work and goals of the parents. The gathered church is a place of mutual edification and preparation for ministry. Scriptural order in the family should enhance this church goal. To some extent in our day the family has abdicated much of the role of "training up a child" in "the nurture and admonition of the Lord" to the church, bogged the church down in a ministry for which it is not suited, and diminished the primary work of the church. On the other hand, the church has often accepted the role of "child rearing," failed to charge the family with fulfilling it's primary responsibilty, and mired itself in programs which eventually will prove to have been oriented more toward entertaining and pacifying the children that it has taken under its charge. I do not state this lightly, nor do I mean this specifically applies to every case, but time will prove this has been the general trend.

 

Maybe it is because God hates children, Mark.

In fact, it was His Son that chased his rabid disciples away for bringing the children to him, wasn't it? Let that be an example to us.

 

Why imply that the children's church is not an actual service?? Ours is. I have instructed our children's church leaders to make it church, not entertainment and games and food. They have songbooks, take offerings, have ushers, lead in prayer, preach, etc.

You ask What better way than include them in the actual service? I answer: Teach them on their own level. Why do we have grades in school?? Why not just throw 6 six olds into high school physics? After all, they will get there someday. What better way to teach them then just throw them in there. </font>[/QUOTE]I am not the enemy. Really.

I believe children should be and can be involved in corporate worship. But, I think we can separate them, also.