A 50-Year Failed Experiment?

OK...we have a worship service that incorporates all ages....on Wednesday PM, we do have a worship service geared specifically to teenagers. But our Sunday worship service is a "cradle-to-grave" entity.

My goal in this whole process is to get our youth "plugged in"......so that when they are "on their own," they will understand the concept of "plugged in."

 

Beware of men who come to you bearing opinions and statistics and proclaiming them as the very truth of God for all. :smilewinkgrin:

 

Plugged into what?

 

I would assume rbell means vitally "plugged into" the life of that particular local church/fellowship...rather then just being a benign, non participatory observer.

 

Let me clarify my comment re gender segregated Bible study.

I do not think it is necessary, but do think there are times when it is helpful.

Examples would be boys going into puberty in one class, girls in another. I guarantee you both groups would find it easier to focus on the Scripture.

There have been times when I've benefitted from a ladies only group and I would suppose guys might at times benefit from that also.

As a kid, SS was for kids or not kids. Youth went in with adults. We did segregate by gender more than age--offering primary, juniors, seniors (grades 6 and 7) and then adult from grade 8 on. All groups were gender segregated.

But that was back in the day boys wanted to grow up to be men, girls to be women, and adults were not running around trying to imitate teenagers.

Back when teens strove to be seen as adults rather than adults trying to be youthful.

 

nodak...

Boy..isnt THAT truth!

I was born in the late 50's and grew up in the 60's. As a little fella growing up I wanted to dress like my dad, talk like my dad, act like my dad, play sports like my dad, watch the TV shows he liked..(back then there was no filth on TV)..etc etc etc. I wanted to be JUST LIKE HIM!

Here a nice link. (get a kleenex, as It usually makes me cry like a baby)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8Lf7Hk-sEE

 

Way back when this is how godly families worshipped:

P.E. Burroughs, The Baptist People, p. 45:

"Among the English Baptists of the seventeenth century some interesting customs prevailed, which were likewise to be found in America in the eighteenth and even the nineteenth centuries. The men sat on one side of the meeting house, while the women sat on the other side."


Robert J. Dinkin, "Seating the Meeting House in Early Massachusetts," New England Quarterly, Vol. 43, No. 3 (Sep., 1970), p. 457:

"In a few instances children were seated in accordance with their family's standing, but most frequently they were assigned gallery seats, the rear seats, or the stairs."


The History of the European Family: Family life in the Long Nineteenth Century 1789-1913, p. 215:

"women [sitting] next to their husbands in church rather than following traditional customs of sex segregated seating reflected modern norms about gender relations."


19th Century Southern Methodist Bishop George Foster Pierce decried family seating as a modern and unwelcome innovation:

"I avow myself in favor of the old rule. 'Let the men and the women sit apart in all our congregations' It may be pleasant and convenient for families to occupy the same pew, but pleasure and convenience ought to be given up for the sake of religious interest."

 

I think that statement would have been more accurate with the word "some" inserted between "how" and "godly". I don't have any source for this, but on the other hand, nor have I seen before the notion that all godly families were separated by gender during services. Hyperbole?

 

I would challenge this "study" and those linked in the post on several grounds:

1. They seem to define church involvement using a paradigm from last century of being involved with one institutional/traditional church 2+ times a week at least 3 weeks a month. When students go to college they lose the consistency of attendance for a lot of reasons. The reality for most adults under the age of 35 is that their regular church attendance is defined as maybe 2 times a month. These kinds of studies don't adequately gauge the level of parachurch ministry (i.e. Campus Crusade, or Cru, BSM, Sojouners, etc.)

2. These studies don't differenieniate between casual student attenders and active student attenders. For instance in our student ministry we keep a track of the students who graudate, their involvement prior to, and then resulting engagement post-high school. The students who leave in droves were actually never there to begin with. They attended a local assembly with their parents but never got highly involved. They sat at the periphery at best. Thus there is nothing to keep them involved once away.

3. Most of these studies ask the wrong questions. They never penetrate below a surface level attendance test to see how deep someone's spirituality flows. I know several students who went off to colleges, were casually involved in churches, but had major involvement in unstructured small groups and ended up pursuing ministry degrees and positions post-college. They wouldn't fit into the box these surveys mandate for recognition.

4. These surveys aren't broad and certainly aren't scientific. Most of the surveys related below aren't scientific surveys conducted by independent agencies. Rather they are conducted by the individuals seeking to draw down the influence of student/youth ministries. When one encounters actual surveys done by reputable groups the numbers change.

Maybe the final point I would make (which is unrelated to the surveys) is that when these students are returning to church (or staying in church) while in college the churches aren't traditional/institutional churches. Now I know you'll find some samples of 18-24 year olds staying in their home churches or returning to a traditional church. Yet the vast majority of these individuals are going to large churches that are specifically geared towards and attracting under 35 year old worshippers. When I attend these churches I see crowds of young adults who have, for the most part, all left traditional churches for these more progressive style gatherings. They are hard to track because most of the young adults don't attend group gatherings but only go to worship.

All that said I have a set of links myself to respond so here is the basis for a lot of what I've said above.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/college-not-public-enemy-for-religiosity-study-shows-27982/
http://experimentaltheology.blogspot.com/2010/03/how-facebook-killed-church.html
http://www.edstetzer.com/2007/08/listening_to_students_about_le_1.html

I think student ministries are among the best ways to continue to reach a rising generation. That said student ministries that are devoid of parental involvement will not see sustainability. For a student ministry to be successful, parents must be involved. Churches can't raise kids but can provide effective environments for kids to grow and be reached.

 

My two cents, which won't even buy bubblegum: the church is also a family.

Fathers (and mothers) work; children have school. They attempt to have their circles of friends. Then there's "sports and entertainment" activities. And, of course, church.

So the core family has challenges (notice I didn't say "problems") being a cohesive unit; and then we bring them into our churches, and what's the first thing we do? Separate them.

How does this relate back to "the church is also a family"? If we acknowledge that the core family needs cohesiveness, and time together, then why do we believe that our church family doesn't?

As I said, just my two cents.

 

-----------

 

Of course, FaL knows the answer...no sense pretending he doesn't.

 

How does everyone sitting quietly listening to one man pontificate encourage a family atmosphere? Families interact, talk together & get to know each other. How is this accomplished in a lecturing environment? It isn't. Perhaps more than just the youth programs needs to be reformed in our churches.

 

The myth here is that everything in the church must be done with all in the same room for there to be a family atmosphere.

 

That's worth exploring further.

 

I think this is the first time I've disagreed with you on any subject.

Someone posted earlier about "the way things used to be done"; here's the scripture support for my viewpoint:
Nehemiah 8:1-2 And all the people gathered themselves together as one man into the street that was before the water gate; and they spake unto Ezra the scribe to bring the book of the law of Moses, which the LORD had commanded to Israel. And Ezra the priest brought the law before the congregation both of men and women, and all that could hear with understanding....

Again, I offer my personal opinion on the subject. As I've stated before, opinions are like armpits: everyone has two, and some smell worse than others.

 

Honestly I am not sure what you are disagreeing with or how these verses apply.

 

I may have misunderstood your previous post to Michael, where you stated "The myth here is that everything in the church must be done with all in the same room for there to be a family atmosphere."

Thinking that you were saying that it's a myth that we "have" to have everyone together for there to be a family atmosphere, and thus interpreting that to mean you disagree that all members of the family "have" to be in the preaching service together, I posted verses to show that at least one place in scripture, everyone gathered together.

One could also use the second verse where it specifically says "all that could hear with understanding" to give leeway to say the younger kids can be moved to a different location. Then it should be up to the parents to determine if their children are able to "hear with understanding," as opposed to arbitrary grade levels.

Again, my opinion.

 

You were correct.

But that in no way applies to this. Coincidental at best.

How are they arbitrary

 

And thus, the first time I think I've disagreed with you about anything.

Opening post talks about youths being separated from parents, and how one group is talking about it being wrong; verses from Nehemiah seem to support that family members (at least those that are able to hear with understanding) should be together. Not sure I'm understanding why you think the verses are "coincidental."

"Arbitrary" - a course of action or a decision that is not based on reason or judgment but on personal will or discretion without regard to rules or standards.

Thanks to the military, I've been a member of about a half dozen different churches. One church has "children's church" for 4th grade and under; another says 3rd grade and under. As I mentioned in a previous post in this thread, my current church sends the 6th graders and under out to one location, and teens to another.

I don't know what the average Southern Baptist, or Reformed Baptist, or Landmark Baptist, or Freewill Baptist, or GARBC, or other churches practice or determine as their "standard." Thus, my use of the term "arbitrary."