Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Forum for Polls' started by SaggyWoman, Oct 6, 2007.
Should a church staff member's children attend the same church that their parents are serving in?
If they live at home, yes. But if they are grown, they are answerable for their own life.
I voted for the above. Teenagers need good, Christian social connection more than a church needs a couple of extra noses. Just my two cents.
I know this sounds strange coming from a Pastor but I don't believe in forcing anyone to attend Church. My prayer is that the kids are there because they want to be there. I know this is an individual house thing but I'm lucky my daughter Loves the Church and is mad if she doesn't go or misses a service even for a good reason.
I say this because each of the choices seem to imply staff kids MUST attend Church. I don't want to see anyone at Church against their will.
If you truly mean this as written, then you don't approve of forcing a child to:
1 brush their teeth
2 take a bath
3 eat their vegetables
4 go to school
5 etc, etc, etc
Any kid, at any given time, is going to buck doing any of the above simply cause they "don't want to"! That's ONE purpose of parents; to teach the kids that some things are necessary for living in a civilized society and maintaining health. Forcing compliance is part of the deal in much of this endeavor.
My kids were required to attend church, and when they grew to make their own decisions, they continued. To neglect this part of their upbringing is to disobey God as shown below.
As long as the child lives under your roof, your rules are in place. At least that's how I was raised.
Having said that, if my son (or daughter) was over 18 and living at home, if they wanted to attend another church I would let them. It's their relationship with the Lord that matters the most to me, not which local congregation they are members of.
My interpretation of the OP poll was children at an age to begin deciding for themselves. When you say taking a bath or brushing teeth, you are talking about a little child so choices like membership at another Church would not be an option.
I know this is a “Me and My house” decision but I take the Bible at its word, even if they do depart, they’ll be back. Forcing something on someone whose heart is elsewhere would only serve to drive them away and not draw them closer to the Lord. Again, that is my opinion and only goes at my house. As much as I want my child to be saved, I know in the end only she can accept Christ as her Lord and Savior. I know the seed was planted, I know the seed was watered, I trust God to give the increase.
Parents are responsable for their children, responsable for making decisions for them, such as are they going to church, going to school, how about the doctor when they don't want to go. Thats what being a parent is.
18 is not a magic number...
If a child is living at home, no matter what their age, they are under the parent's authority and should do what they say.
In plainer words, "If you're putting your feet under my table, you're going to be subject to house rules".
There is no valid reason for a child to attend church elsewhere, except with their parents, unless they are married, away at college, or in the armed forces.
When one steps out from under the authority of a parent (under 21), they are also stepping out from under God's 'umbrella of protection'.
Many 18-year-olds have made this mistake and lived to regret it...
I just don't think that there is a pat answer for this.
What if a Minister of Education gets a calling to a new church across town and his teenage/college age children are extremely active in the church that they are already in? Should they go to a brand new church with their dad just because it's their "dad's church"? Do we follow people or do we follow the LORD?
I think that their father would still be in authority over them and would still see to it that they are in attendance and actively involved in God's ministries.
Personally, I believe that families should go to church together.....the same church. However, that's not always feasible nor realistic. And if we make it a man-made rule or tradition, then it's legalism.
To me, as long as people are going to church and seeking God's will for their life, then the whole "clan" attending the same church or the same denomination even, is secondary to their obedience to the bible when it says, "forsake not the assemblying of yourselves together."
Certainly, young children do not make that decision on their own. But older children can. What if they like their grandparent's church better and go with them every Sunday? That's alright.
I am 46 and single. I do not attend the same church as my parents do and have not since I was in my early 20's.
This "umbrella of protection" metaphor is straight out of Bill Gothard's garbage. If a person is an adult, they have freedom of conscience, regardless of living with parents or not.
Isn't answering "I choose not to answer this question", answering the question?
MP: You do not have to agree with my beliefs, but it not very Christian to call what I believe 'garbage'. Shame on you.
Apply this in its most thorough fashion and examine your conclusion (I speak in general and to no one specifically).
And for those that might add, well what if the staff member lets the child choose what church they attend they wouldn't be disobeying then would they?
I would respond no, they aren't but the staff member's ignorance and foolishness with such a policy I believe disqualifies them from functioning in any Pastoral/Ministerial capacity.
*My comments are for children under the legal age of adult, beyond that the argument involves additional dynamics and principles to consider.
I called Gothard's teaching garbage, and it is. I said nothing about you. If you were offended by that, it was not my intent, so please accept my apology. I wasn't attacking you. I am sorry for the misunderstanding. I was making a statement about the idea, not you personally.
I think that a child under the authority of their parents should go with their parents to church. When they leave home in marriage, they are no longer under their authority and can go where they want. Also, if they move out of the area (college or whatever), then they will not be able to continue going to their parent's church but it should still be considered their home church as long as their parent's home is considered home.
Hey - I agree with Sue on the Gothard 'garbage'. The umbrella of protection is a real thing.
Not to derail, but do you have scripture to back up this so-called "umbrella"?
I prefer a bumbershoot myself.
The original question is about staff members, but doesn't what we say about the staff members hold true for any church member if we are honest here?
I wanted my kids in church. This was not a decision we were ever faced with because the kids always wanted to be in the same church we were at. We did just have a conversation which involved services. We have five. They were also in the same service we were in so we could always visually "spot" them. This conversation came about because Ron had some parents who had come checking up on their sweeties because they hadn't been going to church. I imagine if they'd wanted to go to a different service, we'd have gone with them.
I agree that ALL children - not just a pastor's kids - should attend church with their parents. I also think that children should SIT with their parents if possible. I can't stand seeing the group of youth sitting in the back of the church not paying attention because they're passing notes and such. I want my kids to concentrate on the service - they can visit before and after church.
As I said, ours didn't sit with us. They didn't sit in the balcony either though. Mine sat on the front row. Dead center. They were much more visible to the pastor than we were. We sat off to the side.
I sure didn't have a problem when Brother Mark said, "Brandon, what do you think about so-n-so?" Kept 'em on their toes.