Does America hate children? Worse ... do Christians hate children? Of course we don't! I doubt you'll find anyone who would admit that we do. In fact, they will argue that what we're seeing is a love for kids. I really have to wonder.
Since I am fully aware that the world is under the bondage of sin, I'm going to focus my attention primarily on Christians. And I'm going to go first to the place that this should be happening the least -- in church. How many churches today do not allow little children in the service? If they do, it is only for the "worship time" and then they are released to "children's church." Why is that? It's a relatively new phenomenon. We didn't have children's church when I was a kid. We sat in church. What changed?
The reasoning will tell you what changed. The reason that young children are either wholly or partially excluded from the church service is that they are disruptive. It's as simple as that. They yell and scream and squirm and run around. They distract people. Depending on your particular conviction, their distraction is possibly enough to upset worship and definitely sufficient to divert attention from the sermon. People go to church to worship and learn; children prevent that. Therefore, it is obvious that youngsters must go.
We're paying a heavy price for this fact. In the world, children lack discipline. As a result, teachers cannot teach. Education declines. A single teacher could once easily manage a class of 35 well-behaved children, but such children today are almost non-existent. So education suffers. And it's not just education. People tend to cringe when children show up because they're disruptive everywhere. They scream at movies. They yell in grocery stores. Parents are wrestling with them in the aisles at WalMart (or whatever other store you care to name). They're disturbing the meal at the restaurant that you're already paying too much for. Children gone wild are disrupting not merely the church services -- they're disrupting the world.
What happened? When I was a kid we didn't get the option of yelling in the grocery store or running in the aisles at church or screaming at the teacher. But generations of parents have step by step surrendered control to their offspring. They think it is "loving" somehow to let their children reign. They bemoan their plight. "What am I supposed to do? I can't get them to do what I want." And I scratch my head and wonder "Aren't you the adult?"
I don't think I'm surprising anyone here or saying anything controversial. I think we're all aware that children are not as well-disciplined as they were two or three generations ago. But what about my accusation: Does America hate children? I would argue that what we're doing to our kids today is modern child abuse. They need to be taught morals and we abdicate the job. They need to be taught self-discipline and we decline. They need to be given rules -- how to get along with others in a civilized society -- and we refuse. Why? Primarily because it's just too much work. We buy the lie that parents are supposed to be their kids' best friends. It's a lie. We agree with the nonsense that kids shouldn't have guidance. We think that godly discipline in narrow minded and archaic. (It isn't just the world that is arguing that corporal punishment is child abuse ... despite what the Bible says.) And we think, for some unknown reason, that our children should always like us. So we -- the ones that are supposed to be older and wiser -- surrender to the "wisdom" of the child. We Christians know that discipline is necessary and discipline is uncomfortable (Heb. 12:11), but we absolutely refuse. And children continue to decline. They know more than we did when we were their age, but they mature much, much later ... if at all ... because parents, including Christian parents, abuse their children with neglect, fear, and self-centeredness. Is it any wonder that fewer and fewer couples are interested in having children?
Training our children is one of the singularly most important jobs as Christians. It ought to be one of the primary tasks of the Church to be teaching parents how to do that, involving themselves in the process, and holding them accountable. Instead, churches cater to their failures and create ... children's church, the tip of a very, very big iceberg that threatens to sink the unsinkable Titanic we call "civilization".
24 comments:
Not to detract at all from your point about training, which is well taken, I would disagree slightly with the statement:
The reason that young children are either wholly or partially excluded from the church service is that they are disruptive. It's as simple as that.
In many cases our modern churches actually make the case for the seperation of families, into groups such as childrens church, for other reasons.
One of which is that they are then able to 'focus' the message on these children, giving them 'age appropriate' worship.
This destruction of the family is a signifigant problem. Have you seen the National Family Integrated Church site?
No, I haven't seen the site you mentioned, but I have heard the concept of "age-appropriate" worship. In fact, you will find that all over Scripture where they ... oh, wait ... no you don't.
When I was young and my parents "dragged" me to church I would complain, "I don't get it." So they provided me with "age-appropriate" instructions. "Write down what you don't get and we'll talk about it afterward." Great, now I was forced to listen, take notes, and discuss it when it was done.
But, I suppose that's too much work for most parents today ...
:) :)
Here is a timely blog on this topic. Thought you might find it interesting.
Thanks. Interesting points. I'm not entirely sure at this point in our society (Christians included) that we could survive a church service where the kids were there full time. The kids aren't trained. In my day it was no big deal at all because we were trained. We were trained to behave and to be quiet when it was required and all the necessary things that parents no longer teach their kids (as evidenced in the aisles at the grocery store or in the theater when the movie is playing or ...). The problem, I think, begins at home and is not fixed at church.
And then there is this interesting little piece.
Disclaimer: We attend a Family Integrated church, mostly full quiver, average family size 8 (six children), 100% homeschooled. Our families, in addition to their homeschooling Bible activities, would have daily family worship led by the patriarch. We almost never have problems with disruptive children in church; and I don't recall ever seeing a child taken out to be spanked... perhaps the parents are very discreet. We have a room in the back for 'nursing mothers and small children'.
One of the main reasons for family integrated churches is to re-form the family... or at least to stop the destruction of that formation by the church. The Biblical family is designed as a body, a body with different members each with different roles, but designed to work together.
The husband/father is meant to serve as the family spiritual leader ('priest' in Biblical language). He is meant to be daily teaching the Word to his wife and children, training them in Godliness, and answering their questions on Biblical matters (Chapter and verse suppliable on request).
By dividing the family up into seperate groups, the church destroys this role. The son is being taught by his 'youth pastor'... who usurps the role of his father. The father may have no idea what he is being taught... and (as all who have children will testify) there is no way for him to adequatly extract that inforation from his children 'afterwards'.
The Biblical church focuses its efforts on the husband/father. The father is then equipped to lead and guide his family.
One of the most dramatic illustrations of this is in the qualifications for elders. A large portion of the qualifications focus on their role as patriarch. If a man cannot lead his family well, the apostle queries, how can he expect to lead the church of God?!
Sounds (in most ways) to be ideal. I like the entire concept ("like" as in "seems to be the biblical norm").
I DO have a question, not about the concept, but about practical application. If a father operates as you describe and leads his family well and, in fact, is an elder (or deacon -- same requirements), and a child, when he leaves the house, rejects God ... does that elder/deacon need to step down? Is the father held responsible for the child-turned-adult who rejects Christ?
Based on my understanding of Scripture, yes, and for two reasons:
1) You state they led well, but the results don't back that up. Who can know our own sins, let alone anothers? Who can truly know how another parented?
2) They now have issues that they need to deal with, and should not have to do double duty by also being an elder.
Our society has treated elders as 'jobs'... and thus we are reluctant to 'fire' people for their mistakes unless they are 'particuarly grevious'. Seeing elder not as a job, but as a church responsibility, makes things clearer.
The apostles stated that they shouldn't be waiting on tables. They saw their responsibilities as large enough that it couldn't survive that distraction. How much, infinitely much, more so when one is struggling with an aspostate child?
Seeing "elder" as church responsibility is correct (as opposed to "job") ... I understand that. However, the suggestion here is 1) all fathers who properly raise their families will always have saved children, and 2) all fathers are always responsible for their sons for their sons' entire lives. In other words, 1) the father determines if God chooses their children, and 2) the sons are never ultimately responsible for their own sins. That's how it looks. Can you shed some light as to how it's not so?
You flipped what I said on its head.... probably because that is the way it is usually framed:
1) We can *never* know how well a father did with his children, never know his true heart and the intimate details of his actions... even when we were the children. Who knows what he knew he should have done that he didn't do?
Thus we can *only* use as our guide the results. That is all we have, and that is what Scripture calls us to use. Thus a father with an apostate child must be treated as a father with an apostate child... ineligible to be an elder.
2) It has nothing to do with the responsibility of the son. We are each responsible for our own sins. But the father is *also* responsibile. At no time in a sons life is the father *off the hook*. Neither the word nor the concept 'adult' is found in Scripture. Remember the sons of Eli... grown men, priests in thier own right. Remember Jeremiah 35... generations of obedient men, obedient to the commands of a long, long dead 'father'.
It still seems like you said the same thing (the first thing). We cannot know how well a father did with his children. If he has an apostate child he is the father of an apostate child. He cannot be an elder because he has failed to lead his family well. In other words, all fathers who lead their families well will not ever have an apostate child. Cannot happen. Or, in reverse, any father with an apostate child is proof that the father has failed to lead his family well. The two seem interchangeable. (By the way, I'm asking because my father believes as you do, so when I moved out and strayed away, my father resigned as Deacon at his church. You think he did the right thing. I think that it is impossible to determine that all fathers who lead well must produce all saved children.)
Titus 1:
6If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.
I Timothy 3:
4One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
5(For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
I am not saying that all fathers who lead well must produce all saved children.
I am saying that elders and deacons must have all saved children.
We determine 'leading well' from the results: not because we are *sure*, but because that is what we have to go on.
God will eventually (or has) tell your father if he led well. I would imagine that the conversation will go much deeper than that... here are the areas you led well, here are the areas you failed in.
But the church cannot and should not make any such judgement. The church can and should judge only by the results: Does this father have disciplined, faithful children.
And you seem to miss my second point. A father with an apostate child has a *major* distraction. He has a big job to do in praying for that child, and continuing what influence he still has to bring that child back. He may have other children that he now needs to be doubly diligent with... since they have the negative influence of the apostate child hanging over their heads.
I suppose it's simply a matter of your reading of the appropriate passages. As an example, we have Titus 1:6 --
"having children steadfast, not under accusation of riotous living or insubordinate" (Young's Literal)
"one who has faithful children who do not swear and who are not intemperate." (Peshitta Translation)
(The same holds for the 1 Timothy passage.) In the translation, it can be that they are required to be "believers" or "faithful". If "faithful" (and "not riotous" or "insubordinate"), it would suggest that the father properly raised them in the discipline and admonition of the Lord even if they stray from being believers. (This is, in fact, the case in my family. My brother has become an atheist ... but he is neither riotous nor insubordinate.)
But, I suppose if it is prayer for your children that occupies so much time that you can't be an elder (or deacon), then it's wise not to be an elder (or deacon). (I cannot imagine that being the case, but if it is ...)
But, I suppose if it is prayer for your children that occupies so much time that you can't be an elder (or deacon), then it's wise not to be an elder (or deacon). (I cannot imagine that being the case, but if it is ...)
I am not suggesting it is merely prayer, but that it is a huge distraction. You will recall that the apostles didn't even believe they could serve tables and be apostles... they selected a special group of men to do that for them.
Similarly then elders, the church should choose men who, for wahtever reason, have too much on their minds to do handle the responsibilities effectively. Should a doctor be an elder? One who is on call 24/7 for his patients? A CEO?
You make a valid point, of what if the child does not believe, but is still living in obedience to his father. I would think the church would have to handle that on a case by case basis... since, as you point out, the Greek seems iffy at that point.
von: "I would think the church would have to handle that on a case by case basis."
Wow! I like that. Two people discuss an idea and come to a point of agreement. And the very idea that the church would have to handle that on a case-by-case basis is a good one. (We really want formulas, algorithms if you will that we can use to determine mathematically without full examination what should or shouldn't be done.)
I think that we should discuss "a husband of one wife" at a different time. ;)
As long as you understand I am not saying to discuss the validity of the Biblical requirements 'on a case by case basis'... just how they apply to this person. Someone who stood up and said 'my children are righteous and unruly, but I want my case discussed....' would be well beyond the pale.
You think we disagree on the husband of one wife thing?
No, no, there is already too much defection from biblical requirements. I'm with you there.
Of course, we do disagree on "the husband of one wife", but, as I said, another time. (I have a real hard time reading "the husband of one wife" to mean what you think it does because it would, for instance, exclude a widower (no wife) who was married for 25 years -- as an example.) But ... another time.
No, I would not exclude a widower.
As I said, these qualifications are way for a church to judge whether someone would make a good elder. A widower would, in my understanding of these verses, be perfectly qualified to be an elder... assuming that his marriage and family reflected the qualities required.
There you go, von, playing fast and loose with Scripture. (I'm joking, of course.) It says, "Husband of one wife", not "Husband of no wife" or "Once was a husband of a wife". I actually know of no one who would exclude a widower on the basis of being a widower ... but a rigid reading of the text would require it.
You WOULD, however, exclude a divorcee, even if that divorce occurred when the guy was 23, she married someone else, then he remarried, he and his wife became Christians, and raised godly children. So "widowed" doesn't negate "husband of ONE WIFE", but divorced does.
I'm trying to think of where better to discuss this than here ... since it is TOTALLY unrelated.
If you want we can discuss it on my blog... just let me know and I will post a blog post that will fit.
Von
Whenever you want. (I read all your entries.)
You do??!!
(His coworkers help Von up from the floor and he continues...)
It's up.
Post a Comment