A couple weeks ago I finished leading a small group study through George Guthrie’s Read the Bible for Life video and study series.
It’s a good introduction to the Bible, and I found it helpful – though I think that video-based studies like that are too slow-paced, and encourage “waiting for the fill-in” to appear so you know when to write something on your study page.
It’s a good series, though, and I would recommend at least the book and study guide (even if not the videos) to anyone.
I am a contributor on Eschewmenical – the blog for Christianity.SE.
My first contribution is my testimony of being saved.
In Acts 17, we are introduced to the Bereans:
The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so. Therefore many of them believed, along with a number of prominent Greek women and men. {17:10-12}
In when Paul writes his second letter to Timothy, he tells him:
All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. {3:16-17}
If scripture – God’s holy, inspired word – is profitable, and it makes one “adequate” for the worship of God and for “every good work”, does it not behoove us to study it?
Yet when you look at the curriculum outlines and descriptions for most seminaries, you’ll see they have a variety of classes and topics that are not – at least directly – “examining the Scriptures”. While there are, certainly, valid “non-scripture” classes you can take in the path of studying the Bible (biblical Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic, or public speaking, for example), the main focus of all disciples of Christ should be His Word as recorded in the Bible.
But beyond this, my son, be warned: the writing of many books is endless, and excessive devotion to books is wearying to the body. {Ecclesiastes 12:12}
There is an over-focus on credentials and education in modern society – but it is displayed most detrimentally in the church. Churches who base their criteria of hiring or calling a pastor based on their education are missing the boat: the point of being a pastor is not education. The point of being a pastor is to lead Jesus’ sheep in this world, help them come to a deeper understanding of and relationship with Him, and try to reach the lost.
I think the concept of a seminary is a good one – a place to train men to serve in churches and give them an opportunity to focus their time and energy on studying the Word is excellent.
The implementation of seminaries, though, has some serious deficiencies when compared to how Jesus trained His disciples, and how they trained the next generation, etc.
Jesus taught His disciples daily – mentoring them into those he could “apostle” (send out) into the world. He did not give them ministry classes, worship techniques, etc: He gave them Himself and His Word, which He expected to be sufficient for them to go into the world.
“Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves; so be shrewd as serpents and innocent as doves. But beware of men, for they will hand you over to the courts and scourge you in their synagogues; and you will even be brought before governors and kings for My sake, as a testimony to them and to the Gentiles. But when they hand you over, do not worry about how or what you are to say; for it will be given you in that hour what you are to say. For it is not you who speak, but it is the Spirit of your Father who speaks in you.” {Matthew 10:16-20}
Why do we feel the need in modern society to go beyond what Jesus Himself gave His disciples when we prepare future pastors? I cannot answer why Christendom as a whole has this felt need, but I can say that straying too far from God’s Word is dangerous.
You older children of the faith – mentor the younger:
“Do not sharply rebuke an older man, but rather appeal to him as a father, to the younger men as brothers, the older women as mothers, and the younger women as sisters, in all purity.” {1 Timothy 5:1-2}
and
“But as for you, speak the things which are fitting for sound doctrine. Older men are to be temperate, dignified, sensible, sound in faith, in love, in perseverance. Older women likewise are to be reverent in their behavior, not malicious gossips nor enslaved to much wine, teaching what is good, so that they may encourage the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, to be sensible, pure, workers at home, kind, being subject to their own husbands, so that the word of God will not be dishonored. Likewise urge the young men to be sensible; in all things show yourself to be an example of good deeds, with purity in doctrine, dignified, sound in speech which is beyond reproach, so that the opponent will be put to shame, having nothing bad to say about us.” {Titus 2:1-8}
If the more mature in the faith were to mentor the less mature, we would see a swell of Godly activity in the church: it is His normal way of acting, and we should be participating in that means by all means!
There is a lot of debate in the so-called “pro-choice” camp about when an unborn child is a “person”, and when it is merely a mass of cells that can be terminated with no qualms.
Since I am a Christian, I like looking at what God says about the issue first.
Some selected passages on the topic:
God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that [b]moves on the earth.” {Genesis 1}
Surely I will require your lifeblood; from every beast I will require it. And from every man, from every man’s brother I will require the life of man. “Whoever sheds man’s blood, By man his blood shall be shed, For in the image of God He made man. “As for you, be fruitful and multiply; Populate the earth abundantly and multiply in it.” {Genesis 9}
If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise. {Exodus 21} [Yes – this was given directly to the nation of Israel, but certainly it should be noted as how serious God viewed the offense in His people.]
For You formed my inward parts; You wove me in my mother’s womb. {Psalm 139}
Since I am interested in history, I like looking at what previous generations did:
Eugenics – `the “applied science or the bio-social movement which advocates the use of practices aimed at improving the genetic composition of a population”, usually a human population.` {wikipedia}
The philosophy was most famously expounded by Plato, who believed human reproduction should be monitored and controlled by the state.
Other ancient civilizations, such as Rome, Athens[44] and Sparta, practiced infanticide through exposure as a form of phenotypic selection. In Sparta, newborns were inspected by the city’s elders, who decided the fate of the infant. If the child was deemed incapable of living, it was usually exposed in the Apothetae near the Taygetus mountain.
After reading Darwin’s Origin of Species, [Sir Francis] Galton built upon Darwin’s ideas whereby the mechanisms of natural selection were potentially thwarted by human civilization. He reasoned that, since many human societies sought to protect the underprivileged and weak, those societies were at odds with the natural selection responsible for extinction of the weakest; and only by changing these social policies could society be saved from a “reversion towards mediocrity”, a phrase he first coined in statistics and which later changed to the now common “regression towards the mean”…In 1904 he clarified his definition of eugenics as “the science which deals with all influences that improve the inborn qualities of a race; also with those that develop them to the utmost advantage”.
Charles Davenport, a scientist from the United States, stands out as one of history’s leading eugenicists. He took eugenics from a scientific idea to a worldwide movement implemented in many countries. Davenport obtained funding to establish the Biological Experiment Station at Cold Spring Harbor in 1904 and the Eugenics Records Office in 1910, which provided the scientific basis for later Eugenic policies such as enforced sterilization.
[In the UK] it was supported by many prominent figures of different political persuasions before World War I, including: Liberal economists William Beveridge and John Maynard Keynes; Fabian socialists such as Irish author George Bernard Shaw, H. G. Wells and Sidney Webb; and Conservatives such as the future Prime Minister Winston Churchill and Arthur Balfour.
In 1907 Indiana became the first of more than thirty states to adopt legislation aimed at compulsory sterilization of certain individuals. Although the law was overturned by the Indiana Supreme Court in 1921, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of a Virginia law allowing for the compulsory sterilization of patients of state mental institutions in 1927.
Some states sterilized “imbeciles” for much of the 20th century. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the 1927 Buck v. Bell case that the state of Virginia could sterilize those it thought unfit. The most significant era of eugenic sterilization was between 1907 and 1963, when over 64,000 individuals were forcibly sterilized under eugenic legislation in the United States. A favorable report on the results of sterilization in California, the state with the most sterilizations by far, was published in book form by the biologist Paul Popenoe and was widely cited by the Nazi government as evidence that wide-reaching sterilization programs were feasible and humane.
When Nazi administrators went on trial for war crimes in Nuremberg after World War II, they justified the mass sterilizations (over 450,000 in less than a decade) by citing the United States as their inspiration. The Nazis had claimed American eugenicists inspired and supported Hitler’s racial purification laws, and failed to understand the connection between those policies and the eventual genocide of the Holocaust.
The idea of Social Darwinism was widespread among Brazil’s leading scientists, educators, social thinkers, as well as many elected officials, in the late 1800s and early 1900s. This led to the “Politica de Branqueamento” (Whitening Policies) set in practice in Brazil, in the early part of the 20th Century. This series of laws intended to enlarge the numbers of the white race in Brazil while reducing the numbers of descendents of African Slaves and Asians made the ground fertile for Eugenic theories.
Nazi Germany under Adolf Hitler was well known for eugenics programs which attempted to maintain a “pure” Aryan race through a series of programs that ran under the banner of racial hygiene. Among other activities, the Nazis performed extensive experimentation on live human beings to test their genetic theories, ranging from simple measurement of physical characteristics to the research for Otmar von Verschuer carried out by Karin Magnussen using “human material” gathered by Josef Mengele on twins and others at Auschwitz death camp. During the 1930s and 1940s, the Nazi regime forcibly sterilized hundreds of thousands of people whom they viewed as mentally and physically unfit, an estimated 400,000 between 1934 and 1937…The Nazis went further, however, killing tens of thousands of the institutionalized disabled through compulsory “euthanasia” programs such as Aktion T4.
In the early part of the Shōwa era, Japanese governments executed a eugenic policy to limit the birth of children with “inferior” traits, as well as aiming to protect the life and health of mothers.
Singapore practiced a limited form of eugenics that involved discouraging marriage between university graduates and nongraduates through segregation in matchmaking agencies, in the hope that the former would produce better children; and paid incentives for the uneducated to undergo sterilisation, among other procedures. The government introduced the “Graduate Mother Scheme” in the early 1980s to entice graduate women with incentives to get married, which was eventually scrapped due to public criticism and the implications it had on meritocracy.
A few scientific researchers such as psychologist Richard Lynn, psychologist Raymond Cattell, and scientist Gregory Stock have openly called for eugenic policies using modern technology
In Russia, one supporter of preventive eugenics is the president of the Independent Psychiatric Association of Russia Yuri Savenko, who justifies forced sterilization of women, which is practiced in Moscow psychoneurological nursing homes. He states that “one needs a more strictly adjusted and open control for the practice of preventive eugenics, which, in itself, is, in its turn, justifiable.”
The issue at hand is not whether you are “pro choice” – it is whether or not you are ProDeath. If you claim to be “pro-choice”, you have fully dehumanized the developing baby – and, by extrapolation, dehumanized humans.
I wrote about this a few years ago with why I would not vote for then-Senator Obama – he is pro-death. If personhood is up for redefinition, you will progress through the stages of Animal Farm – “All animals are equal” to “All animals are equal; some are more equal than others”. By allowing abortions for any reason of convenience, the mother’s life has been elevated above that of her child, and that makes the child no longer human.
If the unborn child is no longer human, then none of us are – and we might as well line up to be removed from the gene pool all at once, since we do not matter.
Are you Pro-Life? Or are you Pro-Death?
For the past several months I have been meeting with 1-3 other guys at the Panera in Nicholasville to study the book of Matthew.
It has been an amazing time, and I can’t overstate how much I have both learned, and grown through meeting with D, E, & P 🙂
Going methodically through the book takes time, and we “Elmer Fudd” a lot (a term E coined to indicate how many rabbit trails we chase), but it’s a great opportunity to share in the Word with fellow Christians.
So far (as of today) we’ve made it through chapter 9 … so we only have about 19 to go 😀
Here’s to a great group of guys and taking time studying God’s word!
I saw a recent sermon series being promoted at one of the churches in Lexington on “The Church: Finding the Niche” (I may have the title slightly off, but it’s close).
Unless I am grossly mistaken, the “niche” of the church is to:
There is no other “niche” into which we must fall as a church – we’re not to be the
because “there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28).
The mentality of corporate America and modern education has infiltrated the church, and it is extremely dangerous. While there is to be specialization within the church (“He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ” Ephesians 4:11ff), there is not be be specialization OF the church.
Ecclesiology, of the Doctrine of the Church, covers in intimate detail the purpose of the church in the world, and that which is to come. Without commenting on the denominational views of that term, one thing all true Christians agree on is that God put the church here to do His work after Christ ascended into heaven.
That work was clearly articulated by Jesus before His ascension – “go..make disciples, baptizing them”. We are to GO, MAKE, and BAPTIZE. Three simple verbs. We are not to ISOLATE and WAIT – we are to GO and MAKE.
There’s our niche as the church of God in this world:
I find it fascinating that the English words “chaste” and “chasten” have the same Latin roots, and that the verbal form has as its goal the noun form.
“The wife’s conduct is also characterized as chaste (hagnen), ‘pure’ or ‘holy.’ The concept is not to be limited to sexual chastity; it denotes that purity in character and conduct that should characterize all of the Christian life (Phil. 4:8; 1 Tim. 5:22; Titus 2;5; James 3;17; 1 John 3:3).” Clowney, p. 185. (ref)
“Chaste” (1Pe 3:2) can be translated “purity” (NIV). It is used in the New Testament to refer to abstaining from sin (1Ti 5:22). John uses this word when he tells us to purify ourselves just as Jesus is pure (1Jn 3:3). This means that a wife who wants to win her husband to Christ must live in obedience to God. She will be morally pure. Her husband won’t distrust her because she’s a flirt with other men. She won’t use deception or dishonesty to try to get her own way. She will learn to handle anger in a biblical way. Her hope will be in God (1Pe 3:5) so that she will have a sweet spirit, even toward a difficult husband. He will see Christlikeness in her. (ref)
Blessed is the man whom You chasten, O Lord, And whom You teach out of Your law;
Isaiah 53:5 (about Messiah):
But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, And by His scourging we are healed.
In vain I have struck your sons; They accepted no chastening. Your sword has devoured your prophets Like a destroying lion.
While not using the word “chasten”, Hebrews 12:6 (ref Proverbs 3:12; cf Psalm 119:75 & Revelation 3:19) talks about the same topic:
For those whom the Lord loves He disciplines, And He scourges every son whom He receives.
This is the model shown for parents to use in Proverbs 22:15:
Foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child; The rod of discipline will remove it far from him.
The properly-chastened (and, therefore, chaste) child of God can say the following (emphasis added):
Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for You are with me; Your rod and Your staff, they comfort me.
While the Greek words translated “chasten” (paideuo|paideia) is typically applied to children, as applied to adults, it has to do with the moral training and improvement of character and soul. It can connote discipline of both mind and body*.
This raises an interesting question, in my mind: if the goal of chastening is to produce chasteness, then how is it to be approached in the context of the home and family? There is a subset of the Christian community that terms themselves in the camp of “domestic discipline“. Without addressing the wide array of thoughts presented in those search results^, I want to ask what are we, as Christian men, doing to “discipline” our families?
Discipline has a variety of applications, from habitual to punitive, and does not necessarily demand that it be corporal in nature (though I can not eliminate that as a possibility).
Certainly, the husband and father is responsible for the well-being of his family. Else how could Paul direct the Ephesians to “Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord.” or to “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her .. love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself” & “Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything.”
Given that children are to learn from their fathers and mothers “Hear, my son, your father’s instruction And do not forsake your mother’s teaching”, and that husbands are to be models of Christ to the wives (modeling the church), there certainly is a wide variety of chastening (discipline) that must go on in the family.
| 1 Peter 3:2 (chaste) | |
| ASV | beholding your chaste behavior coupled with fear |
| ESV | when they see your respectful and pure conduct |
| KJV | While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear |
| NASB | as they observe your chaste and respectful behavior |
| NIV | when they see the purity and reverence of your lives |
| Titus 2:5 (chaste) | |
| ASV | to be sober-minded, chaste, workers at home, kind, being in subjection to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed |
| ESV | to be self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be reviled |
| KJV | to be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed |
| NASB | to be sensible, pure, workers at home, kind, being subject to their own husbands, so that the word of God will not be dishonored |
| NIV | to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God |
| M-W chaste (adj), chastely (adv), chasteness (n) | M-W chasten (v), chastener (n) |
| 1) innocent of unlawful sexual intercourse 2) celibate 3) pure in thought and act : modest 4) severely simple in design or execution |
1)to correct by punishment or suffering : discipline; also : purify 2a) to prune (as a work or style of art) of excess, pretense, or falsity : refine 2b) to cause to be more humble or restrained : subdue |
| Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin castus; pure First Known Use: 13th century |
alteration of obsolete English chaste to chasten, from Middle English, from Anglo-French chastier, from Latin castigare, from castus + –igare (from agere to drive) see also castigate First Known Use: 13th century |
| Vine’s chaste | Vine’s chasten |
| {1,,53,hagnos} signifies (a) “pure from every fault, immaculate,” 2 Cor. 7:11 (AV, “clear”); Phil. 4:8; 1 Tim. 5:22; Jas. 3:17; 1 John 3:3 (in all which the RV rendering is “pure”), and 1 Pet. 3:2, “chaste;” (b) “pure from carnality, modest,” 2 Cor. 11:2, RV, “pure;” Titus 2:5, “chaste.” See CLEAR, HOLY, PURE. Note: Cp. hagios, “holy, as being free from admixture of evil;” hosios, “holy, as being free from defilement;” eilikrines, “pure, as being tested,” lit., “judged by the sunlight;” katharos, “pure, as being cleansed.” |
{A-1,Verb,3811,paideuo} primarily denotes “to train children,” suggesting the broad idea of education (pais, “a child”), Acts 7:22; 22:3; see also Titus 2:12, “instructing” (RV), here of a training gracious and firm; grace, which brings salvation, employs means to give us full possession of it; hence, “to chastise,” this being part of the training, whether (a) by correcting with words, reproving, and admonishing, 1 Tim. 1:20 (RV, “be taught”); 2 Tim. 2:25, or (b) by “chastening” by the infliction of evils and calamities, 1 Cor. 11:32; 2 Cor. 6:9; Heb. 12:6,7,10; Rev. 3:19. The verb also has the meaning “to chastise with blows, to scourge,” said of the command of a judge, Luke 23:16,22. See CORRECTION, B, INSTRUCT, LEARN, TEACH, and cp. CHILD (Nos. 4 to 6).{B-1,Noun,3809,paideia} denotes “the training of a child, including instruction;” hence, “discipline, correction,” “chastening,” Eph. 6:4, RV (AV, “nurture”), suggesting the Christian discipline that regulates character; so in Heb. 12:5,7,8 (in ver. 8, AV, “chastisement,” the RV corrects to “chastening”); in 2 Tim. 3:16, “instruction.” See INSTRUCTION, NURTURE. |
*I use a dichotomous view here, though trichotomous – and even quadrichotomous – views are plausible and defensible
^christiandd.com, christiandomesticdiscipline.com, yahoo group, gotquestions, change.org, salon
Quoting from a reliable source, the Ark was made of acacia wood overlaid with gold.
Also, the depiction here is highly likely to be wrong, especially since the rings are said to be on the feet!
It was 2.5 cubits long, 1.5 cubits wide and high. Above the chest was the Mercy Seat, upon which were a pair of cherubim shrouding the ark.
There were four cast gold rings on the feet, in which were placed gold-overlaid acacia carrying poles.
Converting from cubits to feet, using 18″ per cubit, the chest portion of the Ark was 3.75′ (45″) by 2.25′ (27″) by 2.25′ (27″). For sake of argument, I am going to presume the boards were 2″ thick. Acacia has a good density, at roughly 650kg per m3, or about 40.6lbs per ft3, or about .373 oz per in3. 3.75*2.25*4 (if the Mercy Seat was actually gold overlay on acacia) + 2.25*2.25*2 is a total of 43.875, or 43 7/8 ft2 of acacia boards (the 4 sides, bottom, and mercy seat area). That is a total of about 25 pounds of wood (rounding) for the Ark proper.
I am going to presume a 1/32″ layer of gold within and without for the overlay. There is no set of dimensions given for its thickness in the Bible, so I’m giving a generous guess. Gold is roughly 11.16 ounces per cubic inch. Given the above dimensions, there are approximately 87.75 ft2 of gold to be applied to the chest. At 1/32″ all around, that is approximately 395 in3 of gold needed, or about 275 pounds. Perhaps this thickness estimate is wrong, but it is a starting point.
The cherubim are described as being of hammered gold. I don’t know if they were to be solid or not, but I will guess if they are roughly cylindrical, and about4″ in diameter and 18″ long, they would weigh 158 pounds each. That has to be a wildly-off guess, so let’s say they were each 1/3 that size, or about 52 pounds each.
Now we need the cast rings on the feet. Let’s say the poles are two inches in diameter, plus their gold overlay, so the rings need to be about 2.5″ ID. Maybe they were 3.5″ OD and 5″ long. That would give a total weight of gold needed for each ring of nearly 40 pounds. That seems too high, but as a rough guess it’s a starting point.
This gives a total weight of the materials of the Ark, using the above assumptions, of about 565 pounds. The estimates of the weight of the cherubim and gold overlay may be off by as much as a factor of two – but 565 pounds is still quite maneuverable by four men using poles. Also, it is plausibly light enough to be “steadied” by a man seeing it totter on a cart.
Also inside the Ark were the Tables of the Law, an urn of mana, and Aaron’s rod which budded. I would guess their total weight at under 50 pounds.
This would give a maximum plausible weight of the Ark of the Covenant at approximately 615 pounds, or roughly 160 pounds per man on the poles.
Using half the gold, and thinner boards, the total weight of the Ark, including its sacred contents, would be closer to 330 pounds, or about 85 pounds per man.
What a sight the Ark must have been!
As an interesting sidebar, acacia wood is aromatic, and has been used in forms as preservatives and pharmaceuticals for thousands of years. Additionally, the branches are thorny on most varieties.
There has been a massive over-complexification that has taken place in modern [Western] “Christianity” that needs to be seriously and radically addressed.
All throughout the Bible, God is portrayed as a God of exactness, precision, detail, and immense variety.
He is also portrayed as a God who is very simple – infinitely powerful, wise, knowledgeable, and perfect: yes, God is all of those things. But He displays those infinite perfections in intentional simplicity.
God’s directives for praise and worship are both viscerally powerful, and intensely simple: “make a joyful noise“, “praise Him“, “extol Him“, “sing“, “shout“, “pray“, “lift hands“.
Nothing in that list requires any special skills, training, or knowledge that is not to be had by all of God’s people.
Where, then, does complexity in the church come from:
I’m sure part of this is due to the entertainment culture and mindset that pervades modern Western culture: we have our iPods, our smart phones, laptops, TV, radio, internet, Playstations – and we think we are supposed to be entertained all the time. We have entitlement programs from the government, and we think it’s someone else’s job to take care of us.
We have seminaries to train our young men to be pastors, and we think if you haven’t gotten your degree from a seminary, you’re somehow “less” of a pastor than a man with a Doctor of Divinity.
One prime area I see this displayed is in the overtly complicated and highly specific church budgets with dozens upon dozens of line items: staff salaries, pastoral salaries, building maintenance, VBS materials, promotional banners, decoration, vehicle upkeep, janitorial supplies, food, children’s ministry, women’s ministry, singles’ ministry, missions trips, outreach, denominational requirements (eg participating the SBC’s NAMB and IMB), lights, music licensing … and the list goes on and on.
Several of these topics will be addressed in future posts, but I propose the following simplification for church budgets:
That’s it. five categories. Maybe one or two additional / altered for a specific church.
Over the years, I have witnessed many many churches doing things and performing activities both at the church and outside the church that have left me questioning “where did that come from – biblically”?
From “worship experiences” to children’s church, seeker-sensitivity to ministry breakdowns for every conceivable age group | demographic – the modern church (and, I suppose, the not-so-modern church) has failed to keep the Bible – God’s own Holy Word – at the forefront.
What concerns me today is the unbiblicality of the vast majority of so-called “children’s programs”. I have heard statistics quoted to me that “80% of all believers are converted as children”, and Jesus’ own words, “suffer the little children to come” used in defense of the dizzying array of children’s programs made available many churches. Awana is not – inherently – a Bad Thing™, but the focus that it gets among far too many parents, teachers, and the children themselves is frightening much of the time.
As an introduction, I have been working with the Awana program (in a 2d grade class) this school year at the church my wife and I attend (she is with kindergarteners this year). Prior to me joining as a “full-time”* Awana teacher, I had volunteered with my wife’s 1st grade class last year. I think the basic goals of Awana are good – reach children with the Gospel of Christ Jesus!
However, the program – as implemented at our church – separates children from their parents for the entirety of the Wednesday evening service of the church. This is Not Good™. Children were not designed to be constantly split apart from their parents – even with good intentions (education, church programs, etc).
Families should be worshiping God together as much as feasible – and separating them for “children’s church” on Sundays and programs like Awana other days is not at all healthy.
Another statistic tossed-about is the percentage of “churched” individuals who leave when they are old enough to do so. Some say it’s as low as 20% – others will claim as high as 90%. What’s wrong with this picture?!
What’s wrong is that we have split children away from their parents starting in nursery … and have NEVER reunited them in the church! Parents have willingly sent their children to nursery, Sunday School, children’s church, Awana – and the like – and as a “church culture”, we are seeing the effects of this segregation.
If a parent is unable (or unwilling .. but that’s the topic for a different day) to educate their children primarily themselves (be it homeschooling, tutoring, or private/public school with intentional involvement), it is only natural they would feel incompetent to educate them spiritually as well.
God would much prefer a non-scholar with a heart that burns for Him than a Nobel-winning scientist who claims He does not exist. That’s where our focus should be, raising kids for Christ, no matter where they go to school. —Dan Edelen
parents did have family times of studying the Bible, but never claimed to be expert theologians. They’re continuing to learn even now, but they understood that the ‘heavy lifting’ in Biblical study was being done by my Sunday school teachers and our pastors. They reinforced what I was hearing at church —Warren Myers
I am fully convinced that parents are not half as involved as they should be in their children’s spiritual lives – as a general rule. As a child, I was fortunate to have parents who showed interest in what I was being taught in Sunday School by my teachers – and who would correct those teaching if they went awry.
Outsourcing spiritual education to others is not exclusively bad – but when no (or little) insourcing is done in conjunction, there is a HUGE disconnect between the children and the church.
To keep children engaged in church for the rest of their lives, of course, requires the working of the Holy Spirit. However, if we instill in our children the mindset that they have “kiddie church” while their parents go to “big church” – we have failed.
Add on top of this mix the fact that the “church” is expressly the collection and communion of believers – and you have to wonder where a church gets off having a “children’s church” service: children are NOT a “church” on their own; the CHURCH is the group of believers who meets together on a routine basis to worship, and, let’s face it, most children are not believers. Most Children are rank sinners who urgently need the gospel! Confining them to their own group(s) on a Sunday encourages them to think they’re – at best – ‘special’, and – at worst – unwanted. Children need to learn with their parents. They need to hear what their parents hear, and parents need to reinforce that teaching at home.
*We’ll [temporarily] ignore my work-related travel and how that has affected the “full-time” aspects of my volunteering this year