# Age Segregated Worship



## Huntinfool (Dec 8, 2009)

I'm currently "wrestling" with the topic of age-segregated worship in churches.  

I am a LONG time believer that it is silly to try to include children (especially very small ones) in corporate worship.  In the past, I would have argued you to the wall about it.  They don't get anything out of it, they are a distraction, etc would have been my thoughts in the past.

But, honestly, I'm becoming increasingly convinced that family integrated worship is just biblical (even though I honestly don't want it to be).

So, what I'm here today asking for is for somebody to give me a solid biblical argument (scripture supported) FOR age segregated worship where we send the children to nursery, or children's church and send our youth off to their own service on Sunday's, Wed, etc.

Can anyone help me out on this?  I want to be informed IF there is actually a good biblically based argument that can be made for it.

Don't give me the "convenience" argument or something that says "Well, people won't come if you don't provide nursery".  That's not good enough.  

I said some pretty strong things in an old thread about this topic....going to other direction.  Here's one of them:



> I, honestly, don't want to sit through church with a bunch of screaming babies and kids rustling through coloring books. Why not have them in a place that they actually enjoy, with a biblical lesson being taught? If we have to "keep them busy" during church, then they are not paying attention and are not getting anything out of it other than seeing their parents sit in church (which is a great thing...don't get me wrong). But my kids will see me worship every day at home. They don't need one more day on Sunday. I'd rather them come to me and say "Daddy, I LOVED church today. We learned about Jesus. What did you guys learn?"



But I'm just increasingly convinced that there may not be a good biblical argument for age segregation and I'm hoping some of you guys might have one that I can't find.

Speaking of all of this....WHERE IN THE HECK IS BANJO?????????????


----------



## rjcruiser (Dec 8, 2009)

Huntinfool said:


> I'm currently "wrestling" with the topic of age-segregated worship in churches.
> 
> I am a LONG time believer that it is silly to try to include children (especially very small ones) in corporate worship.  In the past, I would have argued you to the wall about it.  They don't get anything out of it, they are a distraction, etc would have been my thoughts in the past.
> 
> ...






I think she'd pass out if she saw this post.


When I saw the title, I thought you were going to be talking about worship with old people and young couples  You know...the "traditional service and the contemporary service."  Boy...I was wrong.


I think Sunday School/Nursery is important to a certain age...after that, I think that the kids should sit in with the parents.  Biblical basis...hmmm...hard to really say...probably a bit of a stretch, but when were kids allowed in the Temple to worship?  Not until later in life...remember the story of Jesus when he was a young boy?  Teaching the scribes and pharisees in the temple at the age of 8?  They were amazed that he was even there.

Reason I think it is important is that it does two things.  Not only does it give the kids/children a lesson at their own level, but it gives the parents (mostly the mom's) a break and a time to worship.  If they're trying to nurse or feed or keep track of little johnny, they're not focusing on Christ.  I think around the age that the kids can sit still, they should come in.  My daughter at the age of 3 or 4 can color and keep herself occupied.  My son, at the age of 2, is all over the place.  He is just starting to get into coloring and keeping himself busy, but no way could make it 45 minutes.

Lastly, I'll add.  While it is important for kids to learn about God at church, they learn far more in the home.  I'll add more later.


----------



## Randy (Dec 8, 2009)

I have no problem wiht seperation of really young kids.  Thye can be a distraction.  But once a lid is old enough to understan it is time for them to join the adults and learn from the elders.  This new traditional church and contemporary church at the same time in diffrent rooms for different ages is a ploy by the devil to divide the church.  And I see more and more churches dividing themselves doing it.


----------



## earl (Dec 8, 2009)

Suffer the little children...

I guess it is traditional to have God come between parent and child. God first in all things,Right ?


----------



## Huntinfool (Dec 8, 2009)

rjcruiser said:


> Reason I think it is important is that it does two things.  Not only does it give the kids/children a lesson at their own level, but it gives the parents (mostly the mom's) a break and a time to worship.  If they're trying to nurse or feed or keep track of little johnny, they're not focusing on Christ.



I totally agree that kids should be learning about Christ at home and that it is OUR responsibility as parents to disciple them and discipline them.

That's part of why I asked the question.  The argument "Well they are a distraction", while true....shouldn't be, should it?  If we are doing our jobs as parents well, they will already know how and be trained to sit still and NOT be a distraction.  

I mean, let's be honest.  We're not asking them to sit still for 8 hours in a deer stand.  We're really asking them to sit quietly for 20-25 minutes after music, announcements, etc.  That's really how long the sermon is in most churches.  

The question is why is that too much to ask...even of a two year old?

The other primary argument that I hear (and have used) is that they won't get anything out of the "adult" sermon and should be exposed to a more age-appropriate message.

I agree, they probably won't get much out of the sermon.  But that does not mean that they are not getting something ENORMOUSLY valuable out of that time.  They are watching mom and dad worship Christ in a corporate setting.  They are being taught that THIS is important and they are learning how to worship first hand...and that, I would argue, is more important than a short lesson downstairs.

If they are being discipled at home via their parents through family worship time, then they get that age-appropriate stuff where they should get it.  Why deny them the priviledge or learning first hand how corporate worship is done?  Why not reinforce that mom and dad are committed to each other and to Christ?  Why not teach them that "honor your father and mother" means obeying, sitting quietly and listening when told to?

Just thoughts that I'm working through.  The bottom line is that the reality of these thoughts is VERY tough.  It's requires MUCH more than I've given toward being a parent and it requires MUCH more than most folks are willing to do.  It's much easier to send them downstairs and pick them up an hour later....I'm just not sure that it's the biblical thing to do...and that, quite honestly, scares me a little because I don't WANT to require my 2yo to sit still...it's hard.


----------



## Jeff Raines (Dec 8, 2009)

My Pastor has always told us if he can't preach louder than the kids cry,he'll let them have the pulpit.Where else are they gonna learn how to behave,but to sit with their parents and watch them.
He even gets all the kids on Wednesday service to take up the collection.


----------



## rjcruiser (Dec 8, 2009)

Huntinfool said:


> I totally agree that kids should be learning about Christ at home and that it is OUR responsibility as parents to disciple them and discipline them.
> 
> That's part of why I asked the question.  The argument "Well they are a distraction", while true....shouldn't be, should it?  If we are doing our jobs as parents well, they will already know how and be trained to sit still and NOT be a distraction.
> 
> ...



What...your preacher only preaches for 20-25 minutes?






Jeff Raines said:


> My Pastor has always told us if he can't preach louder than the kids cry,he'll let them have the pulpit.Where else are they gonna learn how to behave,but to sit with their parents and watch them.
> He even gets all the kids on Wednesday service to take up the collection.



Again, I would say, for little little ones, it is more of a distraction to the parent than to others.  Grandma can get over herself and learn to pay attention to the pastor than to turn around and give dirty looks to the young mother trying to keep her child occupied.


Like I said before, at what age?  I don't know.  I think my daughter could handle sitting with us (she is 4.5).  My son (2.5) could not make it 45 minutes thru the sermon.  Consequently, my wife (and I, but more my wife) could not get anything out of the sermon.

As such, I believe a nursery-k3 is appropriate...outside of that, it is up to the church.  I think it is more a preference issue than a principal issue and am not going to get all hung up on it.

Currently, the church I go to has the kids all together.  My daughter is the oldest one...on a full sunday, there are only a handful of young ones.  They do a craft, they sing some songs, and sometimes they'll watch a vegietales or other Bible movie.  Do they learn about Jesus?  Yes.  Does it give my wife the opportunity to focus on the Sermon? Yes.  As a stay at home mom, I feel that this is most important as she pours her heart and soul into our kids during the week.


----------



## Banjo (Dec 8, 2009)

Here I is........Hello everyone!



> Suffer the little children...
> 
> I guess it is traditional to have God come between parent and child.



I find it EXTREMELY interesting that non-believing Earl "gets it" somewhat.  (No offense, Earl.)

As believers, the corporate worship of God is the most important thing that we do on earth.  WHY... would we want to be segregated from our children when doing it?  How better for our Covenant children to learn how to worship, than to see their parents engaged in it?  

"Ye stand this day all of you before the LORD your God; your captains of your tribes, your elders, and your officers, with all the men of Israel, your little ones, your wives, and thy stranger that is in thy camp, from the hewer of thy wood unto the drawer of thy water: that thou shouldest enter into covenant with the LORD thy God, and into his oath, which the LORD thy God maketh with thee this day: That He may establish thee today for a people unto Himself, and that He may be unto thee a God, as He hath said unto thee, and as He hath sworn unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob. Neither with you only do I make this covenant and this oath;but with him that standeth here with us this day before the LORD our God, and also with him that is not here with us this day (Deut. 29:10-15)."

***God includes the children standing their...and the Covenant children even yet to be born.  

This has NEVER changed.....God has always included the children of believers in the Covenant and this included the external signs of the Covenant  (circumcision....now baptism). If you are interested, start studying Covenantal Theology.....that is where you will get the basis for including your children in the corporate worship of God. 

Many churches have "cry rooms."  This room has a big sound proof glass that separates it from the sanctuary.  The sermon is piped in, and parents can train their little ones without being a distraction.  

Is training your children to sit through the service and listen hard work.....YES....but it should not only take place at church.  One should begin by training their children in the home....through family worship, reading the Bible, singing hymns etc.  

Can it be done?  YES.....I see it lived out in the lives of young families every Lord's Day.  (And man our preacher is long winded....the sermon alone usually lasts over 60 minutes ) When the little ones lift up their sweet voices to recite the Lord's Prayer or to sing God's praises, I can't help but remember:

"Out of the mouths of babes...."

Keep reading, Huntin......next you will be baptizing your babies  and reciting the Westminster Confession of Faith.

RJ.....I remember the days when I felt like I would never make it through an entire service due to my squirming children.  My husband was an elder at the time, and couldn't offer much help because of his responsibilities.  YET....I lived to tell about it, and my children have never known a time that they were not worshiping with God's people.

Want to talk about public education next???


----------



## rjcruiser (Dec 8, 2009)

Banjo said:


> Here I is........Hello everyone!
> 
> 
> 
> ...






No...we're not going to get into the public education thing again.  Don't want to get into a covenant theology debate  again either.

Just curious as to why you point to the OT for your support, when we see that Women and Children weren't even allowed into the Temple to Worship

Maybe we should just have the men sit for the sermons and the women and the kids in the nursery/patio.


----------



## Huntinfool (Dec 8, 2009)

rj,

references man....references!  I'm trying to find the case you're making.  Tell me where it is and why you think it supports segregated corporate worship.

Plus, I have to say, your original arguments were just the convenience ones.  Which is it?  Biblical or convenience?


Oh, and Banjo...just for your enjoyment...I think we're leaning toward homeschool for a good long while too.  My wife is too good of a teacher to deny them the access to her skills.  Plus, I just think that's deeply integrated into this whole discussion.  Why am I sending my kids to someone else to disciple?  Why am I sending them to someone else to educate?


----------



## Randy (Dec 8, 2009)

rjcruiser said:


> Maybe we should just have the men sit for the sermons and the women and the kids in the nursery/patio.



A most excellent suggestion.  The women are not suppose to talk anyway.  The husband can just tell them what the sermon was about.  And if it was one of those sermons where the pastor was preaching to the man then we can lie about the sermon sicen they did not hear it.


----------



## Huntinfool (Dec 8, 2009)

What does not talking have to do with listening to a sermon?


----------



## ddd-shooter (Dec 8, 2009)

I think we have segregated the kids so it is "easier" for the parents. 
There is a severe lack of discipline across the board.


----------



## Randy (Dec 8, 2009)

Huntinfool said:


> What does not talking have to do with listening to a sermon?



You know how women are........they always want to get in on the conversation.


----------



## Jeffriesw (Dec 8, 2009)

Huntinfool said:


> rj,
> 
> references man....references!  I'm trying to find the case you're making.  Tell me where it is and why you think it supports segregated corporate worship.
> 
> ...





HF, I would also echo your concerns, Raising, teaching and educating our Children whether it is traditional education or Teaching them the ways and commandments of God is a responsibility given to us by God and we probably should not be just turning them over to the goverment to educate.
I wish I had it do all over again, My children (19&25) would never step foot in a public school again for any reason.

I heard a good quote by a Man named Voddie Bauchum that goes something like this..

"If we continue to send our Children to Caesar to raise, why are we suprised when we get romans back?"



Banjo, Good to see you around..


----------



## Huntinfool (Dec 8, 2009)

Swamp Runner said:


> [/COLOR]
> 
> I heard a good quote by a Man named Voddie Bauchum that goes something like this..
> 
> ...



Funny you say that....that's actually where a lot of this is coming from.  There's a group of us reading through "Family Driven Faith" which he wrote.  

While I don't agree with everything he says, he makes some very compelling arguments that I just cannot get around even if I want to.


----------



## rjcruiser (Dec 8, 2009)

Huntinfool said:


> rj,
> 
> references man....references!  I'm trying to find the case you're making.  Tell me where it is and why you think it supports segregated corporate worship.
> 
> Plus, I have to say, your original arguments were just the convenience ones.  Which is it?  Biblical or convenience?



Sorry...busy at work today so I'm trying to hit hard and quick.  Plus, I've had this pledge thread going on where I'm arguing with an irrational person....but I digress.

As far as examples/references...I give the example of Christ in Luke 2:39-52.  This was the first time that the Bible gives us a story of Jesus going to the temple.  So, does that mean that we have SS for children until 12?  No...I'm not saying that.  But it is interesting that he wasn't in the Temple before that.

Again, I see both sides.  I agree with you and Banjo on a lot (less Covenant Theology), but I can't see how you can make an argument that one way is Biblical and one way isn't.  Preference issue.  Kinda like the public school/private school/home school issue.  To have a blanket statement, there is just too much variation.


----------



## Huntinfool (Dec 8, 2009)

I don't know the answer for sure.  I do know that there is clear biblical support for integrated worship.  I just don't see that same clear case in the other direction.  

I'm not saying the model "unbiblibcal" per se.  I'm just saying that it definitely seems as though the primary "reasons" why churches segregate it are NOT biblical ones.  They are reasons of convenience or lack of biblical parental responsibility.  Follow me?

It's not that you have to have kids in or out of worship.  My beef right now is that churches segregate because they don't want to deal with the hassle.  They don't want to deal with undisciplined children and do not want to hold parents to the level of accountability that they should when it comes to the behavior and discipleship of their children.  THAT, to me, is where the unbiblical part comes in.  

It's not the "model" of worship.  It's the reasons behind that model.  WHY are you segregating?  If you see biblical and godly benefit, then by all means, have at it!  But if you are segregating because you do not want to require "christian" men and women in your church to accept their God given responsibilities to discipline and disciple their children, then yes...I'm starting to see and issue with that.

Am I wrong somewhere?


----------



## rjcruiser (Dec 8, 2009)

Huntinfool said:


> I don't know the answer for sure.  I do know that there is clear biblical support for integrated worship.  I just don't see that same clear case in the other direction.
> 
> I'm not saying the model "unbiblibcal" per se.  I'm just saying that it definitely seems as though the primary "reasons" why churches segregate it are NOT biblical ones.  They are reasons of convenience or lack of biblical parental responsibility.  Follow me?
> 
> ...




Gotcha...and yes I'd agree with that.  That is one nice thing about the size of church I currently go to.  We don't have the "Children's programs."  It actually keeps those whose kids are out of control from coming to our church.  Keeps these bad influences from coming in contact with my own children.

Is that a bad thing


----------



## rjcruiser (Dec 8, 2009)

HF,
One more thing to add....I'm just interested in how this integrated worship fits in with your view of getting people into Church.


----------



## Huntinfool (Dec 8, 2009)

I'm starting to think no....


----------



## Ronnie T (Dec 8, 2009)

Where I live, we have an inactive nursery.  Our children go to SS classes and then they sit with their parents during worship.  From the day they are born, the children sit with their parents during worship time.  Throughout those weeks, months and years, they learn and become accustomed to being in there and being quiet.  

If it becomes necessary for a parent to take a child out for one reason or another, there's a "quiet room" available with rocking chairs and toys and the parent still is able to hear the sermon/lesson through the speaker system.

As someone else has said, children never bother me from the pulpit.  All children, from time to time, will make a little noise.  But an astute Christian will be able to enjoy and be blessed by the service even with the children there.

I don't believe it's up to the church leaders to decide if your children are going to be in worship or some place else.

Worship time can become a wonderful family time.  Mom and Dad and all the kids there together.  It's a great occasion to hold and get close to your kids.


----------



## ddd-shooter (Dec 8, 2009)

Maybe I am crazy, but don't those "bad influences" need Christ just as badly?


----------



## Huntinfool (Dec 8, 2009)

rjcruiser said:


> HF,
> One more thing to add....I'm just interested in how this integrated worship fits in with your view of getting people into Church.



I'm not sure.  I suppose, it would mean that many people would automatically be turned off from our church if we did it this way.  

They don't want the responsibility....understandably.

But rj, it still wouldn't change how loud the drums were 

It would just mean more kids in there dancing!

Seriously, I don't know.  I do think that seeking the lost is important.  I've never wavered in saying that churches should compromise nothing when seeking the lost.  I think it's possible to attract people and stay true to the gospel.  Many don't agree.


----------



## Huntinfool (Dec 8, 2009)

ddd-shooter said:


> Maybe I am crazy, but don't those "bad influences" need Christ just as badly?



They do.  I agree.  

However, I suppose that would be another reason to favor integrated worship.  Those kids cannot influence my kids in bad ways if I am standing right next to them.


----------



## Huntinfool (Dec 8, 2009)

Ronnie T said:


> Where I live, we have an inactive nursery.  Our children go to SS classes and then they sit with their parents during worship.  From the day they are born, the children sit with their parents during worship time.  Throughout those weeks, months and years, they learn and become accustomed to being in there and being quiet.
> 
> If it becomes necessary for a parent to take a child out for one reason or another, there's a "quiet room" available with rocking chairs and toys and the parent still is able to hear the sermon/lesson through the speaker system.
> 
> ...



I do think, though, that part of the problem is that there is a "stigma" attached to children in worship.  If you bring your kids, you are stressed out trying to keep then absolutely quiet...and so people don't bother with it.

If, like RT's church, it is just expected that they will be there and sometimes make a little noise, I don't think it's quite as stressful.


----------



## Banjo (Dec 8, 2009)

rjcruiser said:


> No...we're not going to get into the public education thing again.  Don't want to get into a covenant theology debate  again either.
> 
> Just curious as to why you point to the OT for your support, when we see that Women and Children weren't even allowed into the Temple to Worship
> 
> Maybe we should just have the men sit for the sermons and the women and the kids in the nursery/patio.



You know I love that Old Testament....it is almost 2/3 of the Bible after all.....

You are going to have to help me out on the Temple thing....which part of the Temple....I do know that only priests were allowed in certain areas, and they were always men.

How do you argue around the Deut. 29 verse?  God commands the men, women and children to be present...and come into this Covenant.  

How about Joshua 8:35:  "There was not a word of all that Moses commanded, which Joshua read not before all the congregation of Israel, with the WOMEN and the LITTLE ONES, and the strangers that were conversant among them."

Chronicles 20:13:  "And all Judah stood before the Lord, with their LITTLE ONES, their WIVES, and their CHILDREN." (toddlers)

Nehemiah 12:43:  "Also that day they offered great sacrifices and rejoiced: for God had made them rejoice with great joy:  the WIVES also and the CHILDREN." (infant...in Hebrew)

Joel 2:15-16:  "Blow the trumpet in Zion, sactify a fast, call a solemn ASSEMBLY:  Gather the people, sanctify the CONGREGATION, assemble the elders, gather the CHILDREN, and those that SUCK THE BREASTS:  let the bridegroom go forth out of his chamber, and the bride out of her closet."  

In the NT the only solemn assembly now is the Lord's Day....are we to understand that Covenant children are now to be excluded from such congregations?  

The overall view of Scripture toward Covenant children is one of INCLUSION...not exclusion.  

Remember what Christ said to His disciples concerning their attitude about receiving Covenant children.  Covenant children are to be received both in corporate worship and through baptism  (sorry....just had to get that in there).  

This is what our Lord had to say about excluding His little ones:

"But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea."  JESUS


----------



## Banjo (Dec 8, 2009)

Huntinfool said:


> rj,
> 
> references man....references!  I'm trying to find the case you're making.  Tell me where it is and why you think it supports segregated corporate worship.
> 
> ...



I wish my computer had a camera on it so I could snap a picture of my old face and post it......I have a grin on it from ear to ear.  

Your children will benefit from this greatly....and your wife will too.  

Huntin.....you have really made my day!!


----------



## Banjo (Dec 8, 2009)

Hey Swamp....
Hope you and yours are well.




Swamp Runner said:


> [/COLOR]
> "If we continue to send our Children to Caesar to raise, why are we suprised when we get romans back?"



This is so true.


----------



## Ronnie T (Dec 8, 2009)

Huntinfool said:


> I do think, though, that part of the problem is that there is a "stigma" attached to children in worship.  If you bring your kids, you are stressed out trying to keep then absolutely quiet...and so people don't bother with it.
> 
> If, like RT's church, it is just expected that they will be there and sometimes make a little noise, I don't think it's quite as stressful.



We also help each other out with our children during worship.
If mother has one child who has fallen asleep in her lap but another child needs attention, some lady near her will eagerly hold her baby for her.

But there are problems with visitors at times.  Occasionally, someone will visit who is accustomed to having their 4 and 6 year old in nursery during worship.  It becomes obvious that someone is going to have to stay outside with their children.  They simply have not been trained to sit quietly.

A few years ago one of our mothers was in the process of carrying her little girl out for a spanking.  As they reached the back door we heard the little girl yell out, "everybody please pray for me".


----------



## Huntinfool (Dec 8, 2009)




----------



## Huntinfool (Dec 8, 2009)

Interesting story from the book...

Voddie tells a story about how his family accompanied him when he was to speak at THREE services one Sunday.  

As they entered the church with their four kids (the youngest being three), a lady tried repeatedly to steer his wife to the nursery for the three year old.  She simply said "no thanks, he'll be just fine with us".  The lady almost got beligerent with her, but finaly let her go in.

The kid sat next to his mom for over three hours and did not make a peep.

I only tell that story to illustrate that discipline is important and is potentially on the same level of importance as discipleship when it comes to parents relating to children.

He didn't just learn it on Sundays.  They have family worship time twice a day where he is expected to do the same.  That child saw no difference between what they were doing on Sunday and what they do at home.

They have corporate worship at home every day...and I believe that there is a strong biblical mandate for us to do the same.

If we model corporate worship at home...and include them....what are we saying to them when we go to church on Sunday for corporate worship...and exclude them?



I'll be the first to admit...ain't NO WAY my two year old is sitting quietly through a service right now.  We're not there yet.  So please don't think I'm preaching down to anybody.  I'm in the same boat with most everybody else.  We do require her to obey.  But we are definitely not to the point that she would sit like that.  It's something we're working through right now.


----------



## rjcruiser (Dec 8, 2009)

Banjo said:


> You know I love that Old Testament....it is almost 2/3 of the Bible after all.....
> 
> You are going to have to help me out on the Temple thing....which part of the Temple....I do know that only priests were allowed in certain areas, and they were always men.
> 
> ...




A little out of context with that last verse, Jesus was not talking about exclusion of little ones, but rather leading them astray with false teaching/doctrine (aka infant baptism just dishing it back)

As far as the reading of the law, yes, the whole nation of Israel was to be included in it.  But another example besides the one given earlier about Christ in the Temple.

Why did Samuel live with his Mother (Hannah) for a while before going up to the Temple for service?  Obviously, when he did go, he was weaned and old enough to not be a burden to Eli. (See I Samual 1-3).


----------



## Ronnie T (Dec 8, 2009)

Huntinfool said:


> Interesting story from the book...
> 
> Voddie tells a story about how his family accompanied him when he was to speak at THREE services one Sunday.
> 
> ...



My sister and her husband had a rough time with their small son being quiet during worship.  I thought they would beat him to death before he got it right.
Truth is, for their sake, we probably should have kept that kid in a nursery someplace.  He was full of the devil.


----------



## thedeacon (Dec 8, 2009)

You know God did a strange thing for us, he gave us common sense.

Can you imagine a group of grown men sitting out in the woods and made to sit on a stump directly behind a big tree and a man standing 20, 30, 40 or even 50 feet from them and they are unable to see him. He speaks in a language that you can pick up only a few words every once in awhile. You are told that you must sit there and pay attention for at least one hour sometimes much longer.

How much would you learn? Not much. That is what we are asking our kids to do.

 We have a special program for the kids where we go to church. We don't have just a nursery but they have there own church service, with there own age group, something they can take part in and understand. 

Jesus did say let the little children come unto me but when he said that, Jesus had some of them in his lap some on the ground around him and he taught them. They were not hid behind an old bald man or an old lady with teased hair sticking out everywhere.

We can use differant ways to train our kids. Every parent must make up their own minds what the best way is.

My kids always sit with me and was quiet and respectful. We had no other option open to us. Some kids are just not capable of doing that. I was lucky. Spanking a kid in church just makes the situation worse most of the time. When you hit a kid most of the time he chooses to yell our disturbing everyone around him.

Just my opinion.


----------



## Banjo (Dec 8, 2009)

rjcruiser said:


> A little out of context with that last verse, Jesus was not talking about exclusion of little ones, but rather leading them astray with false teaching/doctrine (aka infant baptism just dishing it back)
> 
> As far as the reading of the law, yes, the whole nation of Israel was to be included in it.  But another example besides the one given earlier about Christ in the Temple.
> 
> Why did Samuel live with his Mother (Hannah) for a while before going up to the Temple for service?  Obviously, when he did go, he was weaned and old enough to not be a burden to Eli. (See I Samual 1-3).



Contraire mon frere....

"And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me."

Jesus is not addressing who will be greatest in His kingdom, but now speaking about the attitude the disciples SHOULD HAVE displayed towards the Covenant child He had placed in their midst.  This attitude is one of reception....received in Christ's name.    In other words, the disciples should have received the Covenant child as though they were receiving Christ Himself.....

The opposite to that is offending him....or not receiving him.  You know....kind of like not baptizing the Covenant children that God sovereignly placed in your Christian home....  

As for Samuel....when he was weaned, he went and worshiped in the House of the Lord.  How old do you think children were when they were weaned?  He was still a child.

"Therefore also I have lent him to the LORD; as long as he liveth he shall be lent to the LORD. And he worshipped the LORD there." I Samuel 1:28


----------



## earl (Dec 8, 2009)

Banjo, HOWDY !!  No offense taken. I used to be a kid.  lol
rj, you bring up the laws of the temple,but I don't recall JC preaching to his folks in temple.  Early Christians didn't have Sunday Schools and nurseries to the best of my limited knowledge. 
On another note,I don't know of anywhere I need to go that I can't take my two gandbabies.


----------



## leroy (Dec 9, 2009)

thedeacon said:


> You know God did a strange thing for us, he gave us common sense.



Makes u wonder if some have any with some of the posts and threads started on this forum!


----------



## Huntinfool (Dec 9, 2009)

thedeacon said:


> Some kids are just not capable of doing that.



I cannot disagree with this statement more.

They are not capable ONLY because they have parents who have not taken the time to train them at home.


----------



## Huntinfool (Dec 9, 2009)

leroy said:


> Makes u wonder if some have any with some of the posts and threads started on this forum!



Such as?????????


----------



## Ronnie T (Dec 9, 2009)

So, at some churches, a child never sits with their family during worship until they graduate from high school???????


----------



## tell sackett (Dec 9, 2009)

While I believe a half dozen squalling infants is a distraction to worship, if a child is old enough to learn to behave at home they're old enough to learn to behave in church (or face the consequences).

My daddy or mama didn't have to frog march me out the back door a whole lot before I got the idea. Alright already, maybe it did take quite a few times, but I eventually learned.


----------



## rjcruiser (Dec 16, 2009)

I'm going to try and resurect this thread a bit.

Heard a great message/seminar on why the church is losing its youth.  Thought there were some good points...these were the main two that I got from it.  There were more, but this was the emphasis.

1.  Family worship (ie no segregration) is not a Biblical principal, but a Biblical preference.  (where it appears that Dr. Voddie Bauchum teaches it is principal)

2.  Age Segregated Worship needs to be Biblically based (ie Doctrine needs to be taught, not just fun & games).


Again, the key is for the children/youth ministry to come along side the parents in teaching the Word of God...not replace them.  If anyone wants the link to the sermon, I can get it.  It is a free download.....was a seminar from the the 2009 Shepherds Conference at Grace Community Church (Dr. MacArthur's Church).


----------



## Huntinfool (Dec 16, 2009)

Voddie, I think, would argue that it is not a biblical mandate.  BUT, he would argue that it is the only model that is clearly laid out in the Bible...and he makes a distinction there.

He challenges people (and says he's never seen it done) to make the case for age-segregated worship "from an open Bible".

At the end of the book, he acknowledges that it will not work for every church.

Here's my thing...

Family integrated worship is the solution that he has found.  It is the solution that his and other churches have found to effectively deal with a problem.  AND, it is a clearly laid out and acceptable model for churches, biblically speaking.

I think the problem is that the focus is on the wrong thing in this discussion (and I'm probably at fault for that since I started the darn thread).  The issue is NOT how you do church.  The issue is that parents, and dads in particular, are not fulfilling their God-given responsibilities to lead, mentor, disciple and discipine their children and families.

THAT is the issue here.  Family integrated worship is just one way that has proven effective in dealing with that.  It should!  It's a biblically based model!

Family integrated worship exposes the "failings", for lack of a better word, within families.  Many churches don't actually say things like "We're professionals, don't try this at home."  But they send that message to families every single Sunday.

They send that message when the pervassive attitude is that, yes, you SHOULD lead, disciple and discipline your kids because that's what God expects.  "But we know that's very hard and we understand that you probably won't do it.....so we've  got you covered!  Bring them to church.  We'll hide the behavior problems downstairs AND disciple them for you!  What a deal!"

You see what I'm getting at?  It's not whether the way you do church is right or wrong.  I do believe that there are lots of ways to operate a church.  BUT, I also believe there are lots of models in place right now that are simply devastating to families and to encouraging fathers to lead their families.

Bottom line is that I think many churches (mine included) are simply "enablers".  We enable families to hide the fact that they don't disciple at home and they don't discipline at home.  We enable them to just go about their lives without anybody really knowing them and that is heartbreaking to me.

We have churches FULL of parents who simply refuse to do what God expects of them as parents and leaders.  Family integrated worship just brings that into the light quickly and holds parents accountable for what is going on in their families.


----------



## Huntinfool (Dec 16, 2009)

What I find interesting is that, almost exclusively, what you'll find written about family integrated worship is a "defense" of "Why we DON'T do it".

You very rarely (if ever) will see an counter-argument from an "open Bible" as Voddie says.  Most counter information is just a justification of why other churches don't do it.  Most of the time they are arguments from convenience from what I can tell.

If your church does what most do, I don't have an issue with it.  What I have an issue with is WHY most churches do it that way.  It's because it's convenient...not because it's biblical (in most cases).


----------



## rjcruiser (Dec 16, 2009)

Huntinfool said:


> Voddie, I think, would argue that it is not a biblical mandate.  BUT, he would argue that it is the only model that is clearly laid out in the Bible...and he makes a distinction there.



And that is where I'd disagree.  I don't think it is "clearly laid out in the Bible."  Really, the only references given so far have been OT references (which I know is still part of the Bible ).  As I'm studying through Acts...it just isn't there.  Not saying that it is wrong, but is the Church really a "Family of Families?"  I'd say no.  It is the Family of Christ.




			
				Huntinfool said:
			
		

> Here's my thing...
> 
> Family integrated worship is the solution that he has found.  It is the solution that his and other churches have found to effectively deal with a problem.  AND, it is a clearly laid out and acceptable model for churches, biblically speaking.
> 
> ...



While it is a solution...another solution is Preaching the Word...in season and out of season.  I think that is where so many churches have gotten off base....especially in the youth group.  The youth pastor is picked based on his knowledge of pop culture and not his understanding of the Word.  



			
				Huntinfool said:
			
		

> You see what I'm getting at?  It's not whether the way you do church is right or wrong.  I do believe that there are lots of ways to operate a church.  BUT, I also believe there are lots of models in place right now that are simply devastating to families and to encouraging fathers to lead their families.
> 
> Bottom line is that I think many churches (mine included) are simply "enablers".  We enable families to hide the fact that they don't disciple at home and they don't discipline at home.  We enable them to just go about their lives without anybody really knowing them and that is heartbreaking to me.
> 
> We have churches FULL of parents who simply refuse to do what God expects of them as parents and leaders.  Family integrated worship just brings that into the light quickly and holds parents accountable for what is going on in their families.



Hmmm...which do you think would bring to light sin faster?  A model of church worship that is/isn't expressed in the Bible or faithful Biblical preaching?  



Huntinfool said:


> What I find interesting is that, almost exclusively, what you'll find written about family integrated worship is a "defense" of "Why we DON'T do it".
> 
> You very rarely (if ever) will see an counter-argument from an "open Bible" as Voddie says.  Most counter information is just a justification of why other churches don't do it.  Most of the time they are arguments from convenience from what I can tell.
> 
> If your church does what most do, I don't have an issue with it.  What I have an issue with is WHY most churches do it that way.  It's because it's convenient...not because it's biblical (in most cases).



I gotcha...and to be truthful, most churches don't have a youth program where the Word is preached.  Where Doctrine is exposed....and this model is a threat to the spikey haired youth pastor that knows more about Warcraft and video games than the Bible.

So...again, the seminar that was given didn't say the family integrated worship was the solution...didn't say it was the problem.  Just said that it fell short of reaching/influencing the youth compared to a youth ministry that teaches the Word and comes alongside the family.


----------



## Huntinfool (Dec 16, 2009)

> but is the Church really a "Family of Families?"  I'd say no.  It is the Family of Christ.



Really?  You'd disagree with that?  I guess I'd say, yes, it's the family of Christ.  But the family of Christ is made up of families and it's MY responsibility to disciple MY family....it's not yours and it's not the pastor's job either.  The building block of the family of Christ is families.

I still don't get your issue with OT passages on this issue.  There is nothing laid out in the NT regarding it and I don't think God has changed his opinion on the order of families since the OT.



> While it is a solution...another solution is Preaching the Word...in season and out of season.  I think that is where so many churches have gotten off base....especially in the youth group.  The youth pastor is picked based on his knowledge of pop culture and not his understanding of the Word.



Agreed.  But the bottom line is that will not IMO solve anything unless there is also some accountability within the church to put that preaching into practice.  And that is exactly what the current model does NOT do in most cases.

My problem is that most churches that do preach the word do not do anything to make sure that it is being taken to heart and practiced within homes.  BELIEVE me....Voddie preaches the word.  It's not like they are doing Osteen type services...but with kids in there.




> Hmmm...which do you think would bring to light sin faster?  A model of church worship that is/isn't expressed in the Bible or faithful Biblical preaching?



See above....




> So...again, the seminar that was given didn't say the family integrated worship was the solution...didn't say it was the problem.  Just said that it fell short of reaching/influencing the youth compared to a youth ministry that teaches the Word and comes alongside the family.



Right, and like I said it's only a model....but one that works.  My thing is that I've never seen nor heard of a youth group that actually works like that and I'll say this again.  If fathers are doing their jobs at home, you do not NEED a youth group to disciple teenagers.  I think the concept of the church taking that job is so deeply ingrained in our culture that we cannot fathom entire communities of fathers actually discipling their children and wives on a daily basis.  We cannot fathom those communities existing.  But what if?


----------



## rjcruiser (Dec 16, 2009)

Huntinfool said:


> Really?  You'd disagree with that?  I guess I'd say, yes, it's the family of Christ.  But the family of Christ is made up of families and it's MY responsibility to disciple MY family....it's not yours and it's not the pastor's job either.  The building block of the family of Christ is families.



So what about all the single folks

Okay...yes it is my responsibility...but it is the responsibility of the pastor as well.  They can work together...and one does not void the other.




			
				Huntinfool said:
			
		

> I still don't get your issue with OT passages on this issue.  There is nothing laid out in the NT regarding it and I don't think God has changed his opinion on the order of families since the OT.



yes and no.  Big differences in worship and how to worship between the OT and NT.  ie...no temple.  no offerings.  Christ was our perfect offering.  We can go to Him wherever and whenever.



			
				Huntinfool said:
			
		

> Agreed.  But the bottom line is that will not IMO solve anything unless there is also some accountability within the church to put that preaching into practice.  And that is exactly what the current model does NOT do in most cases.
> 
> My problem is that most churches that do preach the word do not do anything to make sure that it is being taken to heart and practiced within homes.  BELIEVE me....Voddie preaches the word.  It's not like they are doing Osteen type services...but with kids in there.



You're right.  Problem with most churches is that so much focus is on the works and exterior (insert BJU here) rather than focusing on the heart and motives behind the actions.  And no...never thought Voddie was one to preach like Osteen.



			
				Huntinfool said:
			
		

> Right, and like I said it's only a model....but one that works.  My thing is that I've never seen nor heard of a youth group that actually works like that and I'll say this again.



You're right...it is rare.  Fortunately, I was able to grow up in a church that did just this.




			
				Huntinfool said:
			
		

> If fathers are doing their jobs at home, you do not NEED a youth group to disciple teenagers.  I think the concept of the church taking that job is so deeply ingrained in our culture that we cannot fathom entire communities of fathers actually discipling their children and wives on a daily basis.  We cannot fathom those communities existing.  But what if?



True...you don't NEED it, but what is wrong with having it?  Is it a bad thing to have kids receiving instruction at home from their parents and receiving instruction at church from the youth pastor and the senior pastor?


----------



## Huntinfool (Dec 16, 2009)

rjcruiser said:


> Okay...yes it is my responsibility...but it is the responsibility of the pastor as well.  They can work together...and one does not void the other.



Ah!  But so often one DOES void the other....at the request of the "other"....don't you think?


----------



## Huntinfool (Dec 16, 2009)

rjcruiser said:


> True...you don't NEED it, but what is wrong with having it?  Is it a bad thing to have kids receiving instruction at home from their parents and receiving instruction at church from the youth pastor and the senior pastor?



No, but the problem is that it is viewed as a substitute rather than a compliment by most people...agreed?

I think you're missing me a little.  I'm not advocating getting rid of youth groups or age seperated worship or anything else for that matter. 

What I'm saying through this whole thing is that the current typical model enables families on a GRAND scale to quietly abdicate their biblical responsibilies.  The current model almost encourages families to leave the discipleship work up to the "professionals" at church.

You see this all the time when 20 and 30-somethings mysteriously "come back" to church.  Why do they come back?  Did they suddenly have a change of heart and now have a passion for Christ?  NO!  THEY CAME BACK FOR THEIR KIDS!

They come back because they think their kids should be in church and know God.  The implication of that is that they are coming back so that the church can lead them to Christ and train them.  What they really want many times is just for the church to turn their kids into "good people".  Most of the time, they don't really care if they actually come to Christ.

What I'm advocating here is a return to holding people accountable for what goes on in their homes....and, IMO, we are a LONG way from that right now in most churches.


----------



## Jeffriesw (Dec 16, 2009)

Huntinfool said:


> Voddie, I think, would argue that it is not a biblical mandate.  BUT, he would argue that it is the only model that is clearly laid out in the Bible...and he makes a distinction there.
> 
> 
> Agreed
> ...








Huntinfool said:


> If your church does what most do, I don't have an issue with it.  What I have an issue with is WHY most churches do it that way.  It's because it's convenient...not because it's biblical (in most cases).




Agreed





rjcruiser said:


> While it is a solution...another solution is Preaching the Word...in season and out of season. * I think that is where so many churches have gotten off base....especially in the youth group.  The youth pastor is picked based on his knowledge of pop culture and not his understanding of the Word.  *
> 
> Couldn't agree more, The Church I left this past year that had a youth "minister" that was not theologically trained at all and when I was in conversations with him, it was a little scary what he held to.
> 
> ...







Huntinfool said:


> I still don't get your issue with OT passages on this issue.  There is nothing laid out in the NT regarding it and I don't think God has changed his opinion on the order of families since the OT.
> 
> Agreed,I think it was a given that most discipleship would be from home, Got to think on this a bit more though
> 
> ...


----------



## rjcruiser (Dec 17, 2009)

Huntinfool said:


> Ah!  But so often one DOES void the other....at the request of the "other"....don't you think?



Good question.  When you say "other" do you mean church or family?  I'm thinking you mean family.  I've never been to a church where the church is trying to take over the parent's responsibility.

And if the parent comes with that in mind....


You know...I really think that this has to do with the breakdown of solid expositional Biblical preaching day in and day out.  If you have solid Preaching in the pulpit, the parents are going to get what they need or they'll feel convicted.  If you have solid preaching in the youth group, the kids are going to get what they need or they'll feel convicted.  The two will work in harmony.  The family will disciple their kids, the church will disciple the family (both in the youth group and in the main worship service).




Huntinfool said:


> No, but the problem is that it is viewed as a substitute rather than a compliment by most people...agreed?



Possibly...I've never had the luxury of being able to think of it that way.  Ever since my daughter was born (she's almost 5 now) the church situations that I've been through have been shaky at best.  I've received some godly counsel from my dad and from the start of these situations...he's said...it isn't the church that teaches your kids about God.  It is you.  Your kids will learn from you.  The church can and should come along side and assist, but it will never teach your kids what you and your wife teach them.

Bragging on my dad...but those were wise words.  And I see it too.  Wish I could say it was me, but it really is my wife.  She is with the kids all day long and they learn so much from her.  Funny story...my daughter asked the lady running the kids room at the gym if she knew Jesus  I don't think the lady really knew what to say



			
				Huntinfool said:
			
		

> I think you're missing me a little.  I'm not advocating getting rid of youth groups or age seperated worship or anything else for that matter.



Gotcha...I guess I thought that a little.  



			
				Huntinfool said:
			
		

> What I'm saying through this whole thing is that the current typical model enables families on a GRAND scale to quietly abdicate their biblical responsibilies.  The current model almost encourages families to leave the discipleship work up to the "professionals" at church.
> 
> You see this all the time when 20 and 30-somethings mysteriously "come back" to church.  Why do they come back?  Did they suddenly have a change of heart and now have a passion for Christ?  NO!  THEY CAME BACK FOR THEIR KIDS!
> 
> ...



I gotcha...I agree.  We need to hold people accountable for what goes on in their homes.  Just not sure that having the young kids in the worship service is the best way of doing that.  When do kids start coming in the main service?  Not sure.  

Last thing you want to do is have kids in there that are merely robots and parents that have focused on the outside actions rather than on changing the heart (I know...I know you're not abdicating this...I've just seen it creep into some churches and then,when the kids go to college, they don't know how to act).



Swamp Runner said:


> My Pastor taught a sermon several weeks ago on Sunday night that used some of the same verses and Biblical teaching the Voddie used for some of his stuff.
> 
> The gist of it was that there were 3 institutions ordained by God,
> 
> ...



Yes...I agree with this for the most part.  However, I'm not sure if it is all the family's fault.  I'd say, the failure of the family is due in large part to the failure of the church.  We've got the church modifying its teachings to fit in the the culture of today.  We've got women running around as pastors :ke:that is for you HF) which is the church's way of endorsing the feministic movement.  Society is ripping the family apart and we've got the church going along with it.

Where is the preaching on the Submission of Women?  Where is the preaching on Men, loving their wives as Christ loved the Church?  Where is the preaching on children obeying their parents?  

There aren't many churches out there that will preach on the roles and responsibilities of the family so that they don't "offend" anyone.  No wonder our we've got a bunch of "girly-men" running around in the church.  No wonder the divorce rate in the church is no better than that outside the church.

So....I guess I can wrap it all up in this.  Rather than trying to band-aid the problem by incorporating family worship into the church...why not fix the root problem?  Start preaching the Word.  Start preaching doctrine.  Start preaching the "meat & potatoes" of the Bible.  And teach it to the old and the young.


----------



## Huntinfool (Dec 17, 2009)

Don't worry RJ....I'm coming around on the women pastors thing too....maybe.


----------



## rjcruiser (Dec 17, 2009)

Huntinfool said:


> Don't worry RJ....I'm coming around on the women pastors thing too....maybe.





Wow...good thing Voddie doesn't say anything about drums being from the devil.


You know...it is amazing how when one starts to stray from the truth...how it affects so much more than we ever expect.


----------



## Huntinfool (Dec 17, 2009)

Voddie isn't convincing me of that.  It's all a product of this realization of the importance of fathers and what they really are supposed to do.  

I still don't read those passages exactly the way you do.  BUT....we are in agreement on the fact that the father is the leader and the wife should not take that role away....even if he is an unbeliever.

I don't see how I can jive that with women pastors (unless, of course they are single...haven't gotten there yet).


----------



## Huntinfool (Dec 17, 2009)

If Voddie had said the drummers were of the devil....it would have gone in the trash!


----------



## Jeffriesw (Dec 17, 2009)

rjcruiser said:


> Yes...I agree with this for the most part.  However, I'm not sure if it is all the family's fault.  I'd say, the failure of the family is due in large part to the failure of the church.  We've got the church modifying its teachings to fit in the the culture of today.  We've got women running around as pastors :ke:that is for you HF) which is the church's way of endorsing the feministic movement.  Society is ripping the family apart and we've got the church going along with it.
> 
> I think we are on the same page, The reason He lays most of it the feet of Fathers and I agree is that if the were serious students of the Word and were being discipled and discipling the families the way the ought to, the would not stand for a "church" or pastor that did not preach the whole Word like we are talking about, not just the fluff..
> 
> ...


----------



## Dr_Science (Dec 22, 2009)

You know, given the fact that Jesus SUFFERED and DIED on the cross for our sins, I think that it's a pretty sad commentary on the people who make up HIS church if they can't endure a little suffering in the form of having to head someone else's children make a peep during Sunday services. If that is all it takes to distract an ADULT from hearing and absorbing the word of God, then I'd think that maybe that adult has as big a problem as the child making the noise or the parent struggling to discipline.


----------



## Ronnie T (Dec 22, 2009)

Dr_Science said:


> You know, given the fact that Jesus SUFFERED and DIED on the cross for our sins, I think that it's a pretty sad commentary on the people who make up HIS church if they can't endure a little suffering in the form of having to head someone else's children make a peep during Sunday services. If that is all it takes to distract an ADULT from hearing and absorbing the word of God, then I'd think that maybe that adult has as big a problem as the child making the noise or the parent struggling to discipline.



Everything you said!


----------

