children's Church

Mark,
I understand that you question the validity of "children's church." This is understandable. The fact that you do not approve of it is also understandable. What is not understandable is you almost attacking anyone who disagrees with your position.

For your church to decide that you will not have a children's church is certainly well and good. For you to then assume that any church that disagrees with you is obviously doing so out of disobediance is wrong.

There are so many different types of baptist churches sometimes it is confusing. One problem that we baptists face is assuming that all the other baptist churches are the ones who have deviated from us because, after all, we are the ones who are right. Maybe we are the ones who have changed over the years.

 

Since assertion 2 contradicts assertion 1, I will not spend a lot of time refuting your illogical reasoning here.

I will simply say that you not only add your own interpretation to the 1 Cor 1-3 text but you also prescribe God a paradigm that is not defined in Scripture. Whether you admit it or not, even the method of preaching that you prefer (whatever that is -- I will assume it is expository) is not prescribed in the NT. Preaching styles themselves are human methods of interpretation, so unless you are simply standing and reading the Bible from the original languages, you are transposing a preferred method of communication upon the text. Paul employed different methods to communicate the gospel. The proclamation of the gospel (preaching) comes in many forms. As long as the method does not alter the message, it is permissable.

Think again.

 

Brother Bob,

I would just make a couple of comments.

First I do not consider the children's church a different body any more than I consider ss classes a different body. It is a way that the church fulfills her mission.

Second, I do not view the children's church as "littel believers in training." I view it like I do the adult service, a time for teaching and preaching teh truth about God with a call to an appropriate response. I do believe that when people are taught the truth of God's word that they will be saved. Obviously, I believe the HOly Spirit is the one at work in that. But I wouldn't argue with the statement that you made.

Third, I understand the term "church" technically speaking is only those who are saved. But colloquically used, it is the gathering of people in one place, whether saved or unsaved. If someone asks, how many did you have in church, I do not count just the believers; I count them all.

Fourth, as for "age segregation," I am not holding up the public school as a model. This fact is true whether public, private, home school, technical training, etc. You train people at their age group and ability. We have special ed classes. I have two kids that come every week, 19 and 14, who have the mind of a lower to middle elementary school student. We include them with kids who are on their level because they need to learn to.

Fifth, as for disruption, I am not sure what your church is like. Mine is more of a lower class community, and when the children who come sit in the service, they get nothing out of it and they cause disruption. I see the looks on people's faces trying to figure out what is going on. We have a solution for that. What works in other churches is fine. It doesn't bother me.

My only point is that if we are going to say that ministering to a particular agegroup at their level is unbiblical, then we should use Scripture to make that point. So far, no one has. You say that child evangelism is not seen in the NT but that is an argument from silence at best, ignoring that passages that talk of households being saved at worst. Was child evangelism a task of the early church? Absolutely. How did they go about it? We have no idea ... so IMO we should not speculate.

Let's ask, What is the mission fo the church? And then let's find a way to carry it out in line with what Scripture teaches.

 

i found this (sorry if someone has already shared it):

Deu 31:12 Gather the people together, men, and women, and children, and thy stranger that [is] within thy gates, that they may hear, and that they may learn, and fear the LORD your God, and observe to do all the words of this law:
Deu 31:13 And [that] their children, which have not known [any thing], may hear, and learn to fear the LORD your God, as long as ye live in the land whither ye go over Jordan to possess it.

 

Saggy,

In response to my question as to why the Lord did not put all this philosphy about "children's church" in the Bible, you said,

"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."

If that statement says anything, it says that I hate children because I don't advocate children's church. That is a glowing example of the type of hysterical reasoning which caused the Lord to put men, and not women, in charge of the church.

Jesus, indeed, said to allow the children to come to Him. Since He promised to be present when one of His churches is gathered for worship, I contend if anyone here is hindering little children from coming to Jesus, it is those who yank them out and separate them when the Lord's church is gathered for worship.

Mark Osgatharp

 

Timothy,

Pertinent passage, to which I might add the words of Joel:

"Gather the people, sanctify the congregation, assemble the elders, gather the children, and those that suck the breasts."

That doesn't even call for a nursery, much less a "children's church."

Mark Osgatharp

 

I think you missed the not so subtle sarcasm there, Mark. It is hardly hysterical reasoning and it has nothing to do with why God put men in charge of the church. That reason was the headship principle in creation, not sarcasm.

So if the children gather for worship in their age group, is God not present there?? Or are they not a part of the Lord's church? I think they are a part of hte Lord's church and I think that God is present when they worship. Children's church is not "yanking them out of the Lord's church." If they are saved, they are a part of the Lord's church no matter where they meet.

I can assure you that your philosophy in my church would prevent children from coming to Jesus. I have seen it with my own eyes.

 

Pastor,

With her subtle sarcasm, Saggy accused me of hating children because I don't advocate childrens church. That is hysterical reasoning, reflective of the sort to which women are more prone than men, which is why the Lord put men in charge (see I Timothy chapter 2).

You said,

"I can assure you that your philosophy in my church would prevent children from coming to Jesus. I have seen it with my own eyes."

Oh, so for above 19 hundred years it was OK for adults and children to worship together, but now the salvation of the little children's souls depends on us separating them? If your statement here means anything, it means that, not only is it OK to have children's church, those who do not are being disobedient to God. How truly the words of Christ apply:

"In vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men."

Brother, the ones responsible for keeping little children from coming to the Lord are those who are too sorry to take them to church and to administer the discipline needed to cause them to respect the worship of God. As God said by the mouth of Solomon,

"Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell."

Mark Osgatharp

 

Thank you, Pastor Larry, for sharing your stand on Children's Church. I totally agree with your ideas and I am sure that the children in your church are growing and glowing in their love for the Lord Jesus.

(I'm trying very hard not to write anything about hysterical women.... I think I made it. )

It is a glorious Lord's Day here in Oklahoma. Sun is shining and next week is Spring Break and I am looking forward to having grandchildren visit and my little 5 year old granddaughter, just beams when she gets to leave the big church for children's church.

 

As I already said, "hysterial reasoning" is not the reason that God put man in charge of the church. Stick with the text. You will search 1 Tim 2 in vain for "hysterial reasoning." The reasons given are 1) God created man first and 2) the woman was deceived. STick with that.

The did not worship together for 1900 years. And the salvation of souls does not depend on separating them and I never said that someone who does not have it is diobedient. There is enough to discuss here without making stuff up.

I am telling you in my context, that our children's attendance would less than 25% of what it now is were it not for us teaching children on their own level.

I have not taught a commandment of men as a doctrine. It seems that you have, suggesting that it is sin to have children's church when you have proven nothing of the sort from Scripture. You have taught a "doctrine" that is in reality a "commandment of men."

I agree but these kids have spiritual lives and they are not less a part of teh church because their parents don't come. i wish their parents would come and I have worked with many of their parents to get them to come. But I am not about to drive off the children simply because their parents don't comes

I am pretty sure that Solomon did not have children's church in mind when he wrote this.

Again, I suggest that is the issue is the responsibility of the church. We are to teach people the word of God with a corresponding expectation of obedience. Therefore, we need to teach people what they need to know. Elementary school kids do not need lessons on marriage and the husband wife relationship. They get married way too early as it is. Parents do not need lessons on obeying their parents. You see, different life contexts need different lessons and messages. The church is required to minister to all, not just the ones that can fit in one room or that can pay attention to a 45 minute sermon.

Minister to people scripturally where they are at. This is the most important rule of ministry, IMO.

 

And for the same period of time the church did without air-conditioning, padded pews, and PA systems.

"Children's church" is a method to reach and minister to children on their own level. If one chooses to "yank" their kids out of children's church and place them in adult worship, that is their perogative. But please do not justify such actions as more biblical or right. Methods are methods.

As Larry has implied, I can substantiate with numbers how God has used this method effectively in our ministry to teach and train children (many who would not have the opportunity otherwise).

 

Pastor Larry, I will come back to some other things later this evening, Lord willing, but I ran across this and wonder - how does that statement square with the belief of irresistible grace and effectual call (for I understand you hold those positions). Will someone's philosophy prevent Christ from calling His elect people and them from coming to Him?

 

Though we have long since ceased to address Mike's question, if the moderators will continue to indulge us, I propose to go back to some very basic issues, because I think those basic issues divide us and are some of what determine that we will disagree on things like children's church.

The existence and nature of divine institutions. I am assuming that we agree that there are certain institutions established by God - government, the family, the church. God has established these and have placed them in their sphere of authority. When we begin to tamper with the spheres that belong to these institutions, we are tampering with something God has established, and changing its nature. Government is to operate in the realm of law, especially against evil. The family operates in the realm of authority over children (and other areas). For example, I do not oppose mandatory public school education because I am against education, but because it involves the government overstepping its bounds into the family's realm. The church operates in the realm of the Great Commission - to evangelize, to baptize those who are made believers by evangelization, and to teach those baptized believers. The government and/or the family would overstep their bounds by taking on the job of baptizing. The church would overstep its own bounds if it decided to make disciples by baptizing rather than baptizing made disciples. The spheres of authority of these divine institutions should be considered. In many of the changes of "modes and methods," many of us would profess to see an altering of these institutions as established by God. Some of you may not agree that you are altering them, but hopefully we share the same concerns about changing something God has instituted.

The great commission or commandment to the church. The church is limited in its essential function, "And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. [1] Go ye therefore, and teach (euaggelion, make disciples of) all nations, [2] baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: [3] Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen." The making disciples is done while and by means of going, not sitting down and waiting for them to come to us. The baptizing is of those made disciples, not in order to make disciples. The teaching all things commanded is for those made baptized disciples, not in order to make disciples. We do not deny that there may be peripheral results accomplished while the church is in process of fulfilling this commission GOD'S WAY; but we decry any attempt to rearrange, refurbish, or relegate as non-essential any part of the commission as given by the direct authority of the Lord Jesus Christ. This some of see in the many programs and methods adopted by the modern church. Again, some of you may not agree with us on the details, but hopefully you do not take the issue lightly.

The nature of the church as a body. Some Baptists accept the general idea that church is about the pastor and/or staff doing the leading and teaching, and the rest of the flock simply doing the following. The New Testament concept of church is that of a body, in which every part has function, meaning, and ministry within the body: "For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ...For the body is not one member, but many...And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling? But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him. And if they were all one member, where were the body? But now are they many members, yet but one body...the members should have the same care one for another. Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular." This is a concern if some of these participants in children's church are members of the body of believers, they are whisked away to be taught or entertained (whichever the case, I know some churches that do one or the other and some do both), with no apparent consideration that they could have some contribution to the body in the general meeting. This is probably of little concern in worship structures were the vast majority of the "participants" in the general meeting are merely spectators.

The nature of spiritual discernment. We believe that there is a definite nature and requirement for spiritual discernment - being born again - and that spiritual discernment seems to not be given full consideration in church meeting structures that follow secular education models. "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." We believe this applies at least in this sense, that if a child is born again and an adult is not, then the believing child has the capacity to receive the things of the Spirit, while the unbelieving adult does not! Yet we see the believing children removed from the general meeting, while the adult unbelievers remain. That appears to be inconsistent with this scriptural truth.

The nature of New Testament practice. Many of us who reject the move toward new methods and programs (quite a few of them now consumer-based), do so because we accept New Testament practice as normative. In other words, we believe that the apostles were not merely following expedient, preference, and/or cultural principles, but that they were deliberately and actively establishing a pattern for the churches (as in "And so ordain I in all churches...we have no such custom, neither the churches of God...as in all churches of the saints, etc.) I assume that most of you who have children's church probably differ with us on the nature of New Testament practice. These are some things of which I can think that we predetermine that we reach a different approach in methodology. Perhaps some of you can think of others.

[divided here into two parts because the post got so long; see next post]

 

[continued]

We are not attempting to supply a "thou shalt not have children's church" proof-text. Some have suggested that no scriptural arguments have been made against "Children's Church." That is true only if you are setting the standard that someone must supply a "thou shalt not have children's church." We believe it is forbidden in scripture not by a "thou shalt not" - no more so than there is a "thou shalt not baptize infants" - but because it is contrary to the way God commanded. Because the majority of modern Baptists appear to have adopted the "program-oriented" mentality, they seem to think that it is our burden to prove them wrong. Rather, since you are suggesting a thing unapproved by, or at least outside of, Scripture, we believe the burden of proof rests on you.

We are not satisfied that "results" or "success" proves children's church (or anything else) to be correct. The fastest growing "most successful" church in our little town is a charismatic church. They are "meeting the needs" of the people. We desire scriptural evidence, not statistics.

We are not content that you attempt to appear magnanimous by saying it's alright to do children's church or not do anything, while implying that we are failing to reach the children. Some sample quotes from this thread: "For the church to be 30-50 years behind modern culture in their means of communicating to children is a disgrace...We have no excuse not to reach children on their level in a way that is relevant and effective...if the kids aren't learning and are bored, then they are having their time wasted...They would be not growing at all. I do not wish to treat children that way." If these statements are right, we are not simply practicing our freedom to choose how to minister, but we are an outdated culture like Neil Young said of Alabama - with a wheel in the ditch and a wheel on the track. Come on, say it, we can take it! If not, leave off the two-sided rhetoric.

We are not impressed that you equate cultural issues such as air-conditioning and wearing sandals with issues that stand or fall on scriptural principles. You may not believe that principles are on our side, but we hope you will address them rather than making light of our position.

While we agree that the history and practice of the church for 1800 or 1900 years does not establish scriptural practice, we see great continuity of practice until recent years, and feel that gives some reason to put a question mark on the changes, and we seek to understand why the changes have been made.