There are those who call for "family-integrated church" in which they oppose the current "age-segregated" approach. Typically, churches, if they have more than 50 people, have "children's ministries" including nursery. Of course, the more children, the bigger the ministries. Larger churches have youth pastors and include specific ministries for a variety of age groups from nursery through college age. In a majority of churches these days, younger children (typically under 12 years old) don't even go to church. They're gathered apart from parents and older siblings while the over-12 group is in the sanctuary. Often they're taught, but always they're entertained. Cuts down on disturbances, you know. Interestingly, no such process is offered in Scripture. There are no "youth pastors," no nurseries listed, no Sunday schools. Not to say that such things didn't exist, but they aren't cited or explained in the Bible. What does the Bible say about children's ministries? The biblical version of children's ministries is "fathers." It isn't the church body that is tasked with bringing them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord; it's fathers (Eph 6:4). It's not the church corporate that is warned not to exasperate children so they don't lose heart; it's fathers (Col 3:21). Conversely, it's not church leaders that children are urged to be obedient to; it's parents (Eph 6:1-3; Col 3:20). God's Word overwhelmingly lays the responsibility of teaching children about God in the lap of the parents in general and the fathers in particular.
Modern society has figured out that a "50-50 marriage" is the way to go. Husband and wife share the responsibilities. Admittedly, we don't do that very well. Women these days end up tending to the house and the kids as well as helping to earn an income. But "50-50" serves as the general rule. Scripture, on the other hand, shifts that a bit. Well, a lot. Okay, completely. The responsible authority in the home is laid on the back of the husband (1 Cor 11:3; Eph 5:25-30; 1 Peter 3:1-7). The responsibility for discipline belongs to fathers (Prov 3:11-12; Heb 12:7). The primary responsibility for teaching children is the parents (Deut 6:6-9). That silly Bible -- it's all out of kilter with our modern sensibilities.
On these points and others our current society has managed to alleviate a lot of responsibility assigned to husbands and fathers and spread it out over all sorts of others. Scripture calls for fathers to teach their children and we've taken that responsibility and given it to schools and churches. God's Word calls for husbands to be the responsible authority in the home and feminism has taken that responsibility and shifted it to the government and women. The Bible tells wives to keep silent in churches and, instead, to ask their husbands the questions they have (1 Cor 14:34-35). That "suggestion" is so offensive that hardly anyone will allow it anymore -- including Bible-believing Christians. So, instead of men taking responsibility for their homes, their wives, and their children, our society has realized God's folly in such a plan and taken that responsibility off men, leaving it to others to accomplish. I don't suppose it's a surprise, then, when moderns complain long and loud about irresponsible men. What do we expect? We made it a rule!
I wonder, then, what would happen to men if we shifted these responsibilities back to them? Would they "man up"? Don't worry, guys. Our culture (under the leadership of the god of this world) is insuring that that will never happen.
11 comments:
I've always been of the opinion that any of those Church programs are intended to assist the parents in their spiritual development, not to replace the parents. Most good children's/youth ministry staff understand this. In my experience, it's usually he parents abdicating their responsibilities than the Church usurping them.
I'm sure they are (or, at least, were) intended to assist rather than replace, but it's not what I've seen and it doesn't seem to be the general idea among parents. They seem to tend to see these ministries more like a babysitter with, perhaps, a few good things to say. It takes a dedicated and conscientious parent to monitor, to keep track, to even participate. I have been at some churches that specifically refused to have a child's parent participate as a matter of policy. Those are rare (I hope), but I still think that the world's method of "Give us your kids and we'll teach them ... and you just keep out" has seeped into the church mentality as well. (I would suggest that the difficulty of getting volunteers to do children's ministry stuff is Exhibit A. If parents understood this was augmentation rather than replacement, they'd understand that they'd need to be participating ... heavily.)
On the side, I wonder how parents managed to get anything out of church before nurseries and children's ministries managed to relieve them of any distractions from church? Oh, wait, I remember. That was back when parents kept control of their kids.
I often wonder the same thing about parents controlling their kids with screens.
You're right. Same basic thing.
I like the double meaning of the title, by the way.
Yeah, David, you got it ... except I didn't mean it as a double meaning. I meant that while we talk about "taking responsibility," what we see too often is others taking it from us. Can you imagine if a father and husband suddenly found that no one else was stepping up to do what God had commanded him to do and now he HAS TO act? Yikes! (For a lot of guys.)
Stan,
I agree that many/most parents have willingly given their responsibilities over to churches, and I know a lot of people in those ministry areas who are just as frustrated with that situation as you are. This seems to raise an interesting discussion. What are churches to do, given this reality? It seems like the two options main are; 1) Do nothing, 2) Do the best they can with a bad situation.
I will say that my view might be affected by the fact that I've been in churches where there wasn't a problem with getting volunteers for kids/youth ministries, and where there was good involvement from parents as well.
I strongly support parents who bring their children to worship services, in addition to whatever children's programming they are involved with.
David,
Absolutely the same thing with screens. I'd argue that sports can fill this role as well, although sports has the benefits of physical activity and interacting with others face to face.
Unfortunately for him, women are all too ready to succumb to the curse of the Fall.
"It seems like the two options are; 1) Do nothing, 2) Do the best they can with a bad situation."
I think that, in our comfort and, perhaps, laziness, we (the church) have skipped over a LOT of things that we should have been doing differently. Should we have children's ministries? Sure. But if we were training parents at the same time regarding their responsibilities for raising and training their own kids, this would look quite different. The same is true in other areas. If we were discipling our members to be loving, to be welcoming, to embrace others -- the "one anothers" -- then it wouldn't be so hard to "break into a church" as it is in most. If we were walking alongside parents rather than letting them muddle through by themselves, children would be raised differently. If we were intentionally engaging young people and young marrieds in terms of relationships, sexual morality, biblical love ... on and on ... things would look a lot different. In my church we have a "discipleship program" because that's what Christians are supposed to do, but it's a program with a curriculum and a group gathering and not a lot of concern about the "one anothers" as much as the program. And most of the churches I've been in didn't have that much.
I think "doing church" is a lot of work and in many cases we've lost sight of the requirements ... and the benefits ... of doing it God's way.
Agreed
Post a Comment