Family sunday school

Thank You Olivebranch. I appreciate the difficulty you had in your family Sunday School. Let me remind everyone that the key to a good family Sunday School is parent involvement and a very good teacher (or leader). The problem you experienced is most often the "excuse" and reason given for why they "can't work". This does not have to be the case. The teaching can be done in such a way that all ages benefit (4 of my kids are 6 and under). Well, maybe infants don't get much out of the teaching! But nurseries don't teach anything either!

To Larry, this is not something that we just flippantly discuss. This has been a subject that we have studied and prayed about. It is something that is definitely being discussed in a very sincere and sober frame of mind!!!

My father teaches this way very effectively. He will present a lesson (maybe a Bible story, or perhaps a passage with no "story" in it) using flannelgraph. That way the kids get an idea what is being taught. Then he progresses into a discussion of the meaning and application of the lesson. Now, not all of the kids will understand everything. But, they will at least comprehend the very beginning. And they will also be challenged every week to understand more than what is usually considered "age appropriate". During the course of the lesson, the leader will give opportunities for the parents to ask questions, and then if the kids still have some questions they can ask them (maybe to their parents who are then given opportunity to answer or refer to the leader for an answer). This system works. My dad uses it. It is very beneficial for the adults because they are taught on their own level while still being required (or at least encouraged) to be able to teach it to someone else (their child). Teaching is very often the best way to make sure you have learned! Furthermore, the kids are not bored either. They get a chance to learn on their own level. Then they are stretched to learn at a higher level. Then when they are actually "lost" and they no longer follow the lesson, they still have the flannelgraph to look at and at least keep them thinking about what they have already been taught. The opportunities for question and discussion also keep them interested in the class. (Some kids will ask too many questions and the parents must also teach them when they have asked enough.)

As far as Bible verses not being used, well maybe I did not actually quote them. Here they are. "And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord." Ephesians 6:4

In the OT, when certain ceremonies were performed, it is assumed that the children were present (Ex. 12:21-27). Certainly, they did not understand the first time, but it was expected that eventually they would wonder what the deal is. They would ask, and the parents (fathers particularly) would be ready with an answer. This is also the case with the pillars erected (Ex. 13:14) The assumption was that the kids were exposed to information that they could not understand, thus making it necessary for them to ask questions.

In the NT, it is very obvious that when Christ taught there were children present. They were there when he fed the multitudes (twice). The disciples were rebuked for hindering the parents from bringing the children. Paul preached to a large group and a "young man" fell asleep and fell out the window. It seems that all scriptural examples given where children receive instruction, it is either by or in the presence of the parents. The only exception that I can think of is when it speaks of the heir being "under tutors" until he is of age. That is also directly under the authority of his father!

To say that there is NO Biblical basis for families learning TOGETHER is simply not true. There is no Biblical basis for doing what we generally see today---dividing up the family to learn apart!

Finally, what about the kids who do not come with parents. Well, hopefully you have some single people in your church. Or even some parents who are willing to "adopt" these kids for the class. That way these kids get the benefit of learning in a "family" unit even when their actual family is not on the scene. Obviously this is not the best situation for them, but neither is the age segregated scenario everyone seems to think is the only solution. The best thing would be for the church to attempt to reach out to the parents also!

 

Just last night, in our evening service, I watched while 30% of the congregation was continually distracted by a 2 year old who was pretty quiet but pretty active. Her 6 month old baby cried for part of it. It was distracting no matter who you are. My purpose in a church is for people to give their full attention to the word of God, not to babies or other distractions.

Did you and your two year old go home and discuss how the preacher's message applies to his life on a daily basis? If not, why not?

No one is suggesting that we send children to church to learn to pray. Neither is anyone suggesting that you allow your child to be trained by someone else. I don't konw where that came from.

Neither is anyone suggesting that the father not train up the child in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. But none of the necessitates that children be exempted from learning Scripture at their own level.

If a SS takes away from the authority of the parents, than it is unbiblical. I have never seen that in any church; I have never seen that suggested in any church. I think it is a straw man.

But here you misunderstand apparently. No one is suggesting that you not train your children. I don't even know where that comes from. It is not from me and it is not from any SS program that I have ever seen.

My encouragement is that we provide people of all levels with spiritual instruction that is appropriate for them. If you are learning at the same spiritual level that your kids are, then stay with them, by all means. Most adults in my church. They are more spiritually and educationally mature than their children are and that is why we separate them.

The verses listed by Olive Branch do not even address this topic. Folks, the Bible does not even address SS. So let's not twist it. The Bible does address Bible study in corporate circles and that is what SS is. No one is discouraging families from learning together. When I was at home, we had family devotions 7 nights a week. I never one time sat in a SS class with my dad and I never had one doubt that my dad was the authority, spiritually or otherwise. It was a simple way to raise us and it was effective. When I teach my class, I teach it to the level of the people there. If I were teaching kids, the adults would get much less out of it. We have classes for the children so that they can learn about God at their own level.

[ September 02, 2002, 10:15 AM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

No, my two year and I did not discuss what the Pastor said but again at the evening service the child did pick something up. The speaker said, "Work for Jesus." Then the child whispered, "Work for Jesus." No, the child is not about to become a theologian but the child is learning important spiritual truths and learning self control.
Unfortuneately many who teach Sunday school are themselves quite immature and out of order in their own homes. This is a big reason why we do not use the program. If I put my children there they might think that such and such behavior is ok, because that person is a leader. I am not saying all Sunday school teachers are like this. I taught Sunday school myself for six years. In truth I was quite immature at the time myself.
So, I do not see that the ones who teach will encourage what we are teaching at home, but instead will confuse it. That is where the danger is.
I do not mean you any disrespect. If that is how you run your church that is fine. I know that is how most Baptist churches are run. But, I am simply sharing my discouragement with all the negative comments we receieve for training our children how to behave in church.

HCL

[ September 02, 2002, 11:18 AM: Message edited by: Headcoveredlady ]

 

Pastor Larry, it IS Biblical for parents to teach their OWN children in the nuture and admonition of the Lord! Sixkids listed some scriptures...there is also Deuteronomy 6:6-7, the book of Proverbs (which is instructions written to a son by his father...not his SS teacher ). Not one place in the KJBible will you ever find God instructing us to leave the education of our children to a sunday school teacher. WHY?...because Sunday School is an invention of man rather than an institution authorized by God. Sunday School is a MAN-made tradition! So churches need to be careful today not to teach for doctrine the commandment of men. If 'your' church wants to follow the tradition of men...then that's y'alls business between you and God...but it is unscriptural to insist that all churches participate in something that God Himself did not ordain!

 

Larry let me answer your arguments.

First, if 30% of your congregation was "continually distracted" by a quiet but restless 2 y.o. Then I think thye need to grow up. If a whole bundh of adults can't seem to pay attention because one 2 y.o. Is wiggling, I wonder how they ever get anything done at work?! Just as many distractions there. Or college students. I went to college and there were always a lot more distractions in class than anything ever encountered because of one 2 y.o. In a church service. Perhaps all of your congregation needs to learn about focusing and "tuning out" distractions.

Second, you said to HCL

Did you and your two year old go home and discuss how the preacher's message applies to his life on a daily basis? If not, why not?

Well, that is a really ridiculous question. And it does not serve any purpose. The answer is obvious. A 2 y.o. Does not understand life application ideas most of the time. You would not ask this kind of question to the child even if he went to "Children's Church". They don't teach it there either (I know because I have taught Children's Church in 2 churches). But you would ask that child what the preacher talked about, whether he had any questions, etc.

You also said,

Neither is anyone suggesting that you allow your child to be trained by someone else.

Well, then what do you call it when it is expected (even required in some churches) that children NOT go with their parents but instead go in a class of kids with some other teacher who is not under the direct authority of that parent? That IS someone else training my child!

Then you said,

If a SS takes away from the authority of the parents, than it is unbiblical. I have never seen that in any church; I have never seen that suggested in any church. I think it is a straw man

You NEVER saw a SS that undermined parents?!? My own brother used to quote the SS teacher to my Dad when they argued about stuff! This is not the only case where this happened. I have witnessed this numerous times. The whole problem was that the teacher, unknowingly in this case, DOES do this simply by being in charge of teaching the children without being DIRECTLY answerable to the parent!

Next,

My encouragement is that we provide people of all levels with spiritual instruction that is appropriate for them. If you are learning at the same spiritual level that your kids are, then stay with them, by all means. Most adults in my church. They are more spiritually and educationally mature than their children are and that is why we separate them.

I think you are trying to insult parents here. This is really sad. YOU obviously don't get it. We are NOT trying to teach the kids "at their own level". That is NOT a scriptural idea. We are trying to RAISE their level. If you always teach a child at their own level they will not progress to a higher level. A good teacher teaches in a ladder fashion. He begins easy and gradually works up to a very "scholarly level that perhaps even most of the adults won't get. This is GOOD. It prompts everyone to make the effort to try harder. Also, my kids get most of their training at home anyway. They do not need SS to teach them "at their own level." For the kids that don't have this benfit (a Christian home) let me suggest that a church can encourage singles (or families) to adopt these kids to help bring them along. It works. We attended a church once that did this. They have since stopped because it was time consuming and people did not feel they could fit it into their busy Sunday Schedules (got to get to Luby's you know).

.............................................................................................................................................

the Bible does not even address SS. So let's not twist it. The Bible does address Bible study in corporate circles and that is what SS is.

............................................................................................................................................
You are right. The Bible does not mentions SS. Actually, it doesn't even mention Sunday! However to claim that SS is a corporate Circle goes back to the original argument. Are the Children part of the church? Part of the body? Or are they a separate body? They are, obviously part of the same body as the adults. They need to be made aware of this. There is an article written about 2 years ago that explains much of this but it is too long to post here. I will try to see if it is on the web somewhere and then will post a link to it.

 

Though I tend to have a problem with threes and under being unruly in the sanctuary, sometimes we fail to help parents learn to manage their own children in the confines of church. We think things have to be absolute silence.

Not so, but in the same sense, when we take them and have "children's church" we separate families even more.

 

Sixkids,
Amen, I agree completely. The Word says that foolishness is bound in the heart of the child. So, we want the foolishness out, we do not want to cater to it. I have always enjoyed that method of teaching with my children, giving them harder things to learn and helping them to press on to higher heights.
John3;36, very funny, thank you for the laugh. But, you are right. No one seems to bat an eyelash when we hear all the men saying Amen very loud but to hear one small sound from a child, that seems so bad to so many.

Saggy,
I think you touched on a very important point. You said we need to teach parents to teach their children to obey. I hardly ever hear sermons about that. I truly believe this one of the missing links in the Body today and it is causing us to lose our children to the world and not have very good testimonies.

HCL

 

I don't want to give a wrong impression. I keep my child out of the nursery because that baby is my resposibility. I know my child. I know when the noise is coming. There are many mothers that wait too long, and do become a distration. A child that starts to whimper is completely different than one screaming at the top of their lungs.

But I have to agree that the point of distraction comes more quickly to some more than others. I sit at the back of the church. I see the rubber-neckers when someone comes in the door, or when something goes past a window. No sound, just a flash turns their heads. And how about those bathroom breaks. Then we have the cough, paper ruffling, flipping hair, picking fingernails, talking. If we were all in the situation where we didn't have a nursery, I don't think a baby's cry would make much difference.

 

Pastor Larry,

What do you mean?

Also:

I haven't given any verses. At least not on this thread.

Sixkids, I certainly understand where some can do a "family Sunday school". I homeschool and there are countless people that don't understand how I do it.

 

Let me make a few (more) comments that no doubt will add fuel to the fire. These are brief and simplistic. I have made no attempt to address everyone's individual arguments. I summarize for brevity and time.

1. There is a growing attitude of independence of the church, an attitude that bucks the authority that God has placed in the corporate body. There is an individualism that is dangerous. Be wary of it. Too many people approach the church with “What can it do for me” rather than “What can I do for it.” The church is not our servant. We are its servants and ministers. Let us be careful to hold the church in a biblical perspective. As a pastor, I am increasingly concerned about a church that is dispensable. I am concerned about those who elevate the family to a position over the church. Remember, one lasts forever and one does not. Treat them accordingly.

2. Children and adults learn on different levels. This is so patently obvious that it is remarkable that in a discussion about learning, it is necessary to discuss it. Children do not learn in the same way and at the same rate that adults do. I do not have one adult in my church who would find a children’s lesson to be spiritual stimulating on a regular basis. Nor do I have one child that would find an adult lesson to be the least bit edifying. That is why they are split. We split them because we take seriously the command to learn and study the Bible. That command does not just apply to adults; it includes children. Therefore, it is incumbent on us to make sure that children are given opportunity to learn at their level. Regardless of protestations to the contrary, there is a level of learning that is evident in people’s lives. To try to “raise their level” is a nice sounding argument but does not contribute to the discussion. Raising the level of a six year old is different than raising the level of a 15 year old which is different than raising the level of a 30 yearold with two kids which is different than raising the level of a sixty year old. I seriously doubt that you teach your 6 year old the same material that you teach your 15 year old. In fact, I imagine you have different books, different lesson plans, probably even different schedules. It is a simple fact of life. There is no intent to be offensive to parents but if your child learns at the same rate and nature that you do, then something has to be wrong. You live in a different life context (work, marriage, children, lust, bitterness, etc); your child deals with weighty matters like obeying parents, being nice to others, pouting, cleaning up after themselves, etc. Why do you think these two life contexts should be treated the same? I don’t and I cannot find one piece of biblical data on your side.

3. As for distractions and growth, someone suggested that a person distracted by a restless two year old needs to grow up. I have been a Christian for over 25 years, with 17 years of Christian education pre college, almost 200 hours of college education, and 130 hours of graduate and post graduate education. I have been in the ministry for 15 years in various capacities. And I was distracted. I say all that to say this: distraction is not a matter of spiritual growth. Growing up is not the answer. Appropriate teaching ministries is the answer. To suggest that people who are distracted need to grow up is to give cause to wonder what world one lives in.

4. As for parents being undermined by SS, if two-three hours a week at your church can undermine your teaching then I have two questions: 1) What in the world are you doing to teach your children at home; and 2) Where is your discernment to stay in a church that teaches something unbiblical? I cannot understand such a scenario or why one would stay in it.

5. The one body argument has no place here. No one is suggesting that children are not a part of the same body as we are.

6. As for man made traditions, the choir in your church is a man made tradition. Are you upset with that? Your pastor having an office at the church is a man made tradition? Are you upset with that? Your baptistry at the front of your church is a man made tradition. Are you upset with that? Of course not. I say all this to show how that argument doesn’t hold water. The biblical mandate is to teach the Scripture in order to equip saints for the work of ministry. The method through which that teaching takes place is not mandated, either positively or negatively. In our culture and context, we need to find the way that people best learn and then use it. It used to be large classes of lectures; now small interactive classes are much more conducive to it. Neither are right or wrong.

7. As to talking to your kids about the service, SixKids suggested it was a ridiculous question. I cannot imagine she said that with a straight face. You better be asking your kids what they learned and how it applied because they might not be learning anything. A two year old can learn some things. I routinely ask the kids of our church what they learned in their Sunday school and Children’s Church. I want to know if anything is getting across. I want to know if they are understanding how it applies to life. Jonah and the whale is not about fishing expeditions, storms, or the bodily functions of sea creatures. It is about obedience to authority. If you are not asking your kids how the lesson applies, you might not be doing your job to bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.

 

I think that most here have valid points. One,
however, that stuck out to me was the comment
about parents who are not good parents
attempting to teach their own children. Such
children would definitely need someone else
to teach them, and I am not sure how this
could be handled in the family Sunday school.
Being from such a home, I wonder how it would
be handled.

However, I went to Sunday school until age 8.5,
and the only thing I remember from it is the song
"We're Marching to Zion" and the music leader,
who was thin and tall, and his arms looked as
long as his legs. I got far more out of the
services while I was playing with my mother's
handkerchief, drawing on paper, reading the
hymnal, and doing long division in my head in
an attempt to block out the service.

I then restarted Sunday school at age 13, contin-
uing until I married, and it was an absolute
waste of time. They had no concept how to
treat teens, and we were treated as infants.

Now, I attend a place which has no Sunday
school. Rather, the children stay with their
parents throughout the whole 3.25 hour long
service then eat with them and stay the rest
of the day with them until the evening service.

I see no children hurting for this; rather, I am
watching children growing into responsible
adults who get engaged, marry, and bring
their children to do the same thing their parents
did.

The children are encouraged and catered to in
the services, and no one is bothered by it. They
are given coloring pages and puzzles to do,
because the pastors know what I learned--
that children learn a LOT while the parents think
they are not paying any attention.

But the children are also expected to participate
in certain parts of the service. When the Torah
is brought out, they drop what they are doing and
stand. When it is taken around the synagogue,
they follow behind it in a joyous procession. Etc.
Children are a lot smarter and aware than they
are given credit.

With regard to the children being a distraction,
those children thought of as a distraction now
are suposed to be the future congregation. How
are they to learn if they are not allowed to par-
ticipate? How will their love for the services be
cemented in young minds unless they can be
there? It is no wonder that pastors worry about
the church losing relevance in the lives of the
young growing up now--they have been hushed
and rushed off to the nursery and the "junior
church" for babysitting so that the adults can
enjoy a little free time.

[ September 05, 2002, 05:30 PM: Message edited by: Abiyah ]

 

Pastor Larry,
You say that you are concerned about those who uplift family above church. This to me is a frightening statement.
It is my understanding that in 1 Tim 3 the qualifications are given for Bishops and Deacons. Most of them are that each man be a godly overseer of his own home. My sincere concern with many is that their own homes are a shamble and they have neglected to train their own first all the while they "minister" to others. Do you not think that the Lord has given them charge to train their own first?
I believe that most who hold to training their own first, desperately want to see revival in the Church, but they beleive that it begins with them, in their own homes.

HCL

 

Wow! I missed that. Pastor Larry wrote:
"I am concerned about those who elevate the
family to a position over the church." and he
said that the family is not forever, but the
church is.

Larry, what is your biblical basis for this?

 

I fully agree that pastors are to be men who manage their own households well. If they do not, they should not be in the ministry. However, that was not my point. My point was more to the issue of families and their involvement in churches. I have heard people say "We don't go to such and such a service because that is our family night." They routinely absent themselves from the corporate body and its functions for things not nearly so important as the body of Christ. Many have raised the family to a level of near idolatry and said that everything else comes second. I can find no biblical basis for that. In fact, in the NT, you have very little focus on teh family. You have much on the church. The institution of marriage was a man and woman leaving their parents and forming a new family. Hence you see a dissolution of one family unit for another. The church will never be dissolved. It will last throughout all eternity, when family and blood ties are forever gone. That is why the church is more important. However, don't take me to mean that the family can be ignored for the sake of ministry. They cannot be. A man who ignores his family is wrong, just as a man who does not have them in the church body as much as possible. I am convinced that the best thing a man can do for his family is have them regularly involved in the functions and ministries of the church, building redemptive and peer discipleship relationships with people of their own age. That's another reason why age graded classes are an important part of spiritual growth. No 15 year old will ever disciple a 30 year old. But he can disciple and build a relationship with another 15 year old. That is what I encouraged as a youth pastor (with my 40 or so kids, most of whom came without a parent).

 

Pastor Larry --

Your experiences and mine are, obviously,
different, so our opinions will be different; I
hope, then, that you do not take the following as
criticism.

I believe that our God gave us families as our
first commitment and our first work for Him. If
we loose the members of our very own families,
in whose creation we have had an active part,
because we have neglected them for the church
family, we have utterly lost our first obligation.

I believe I understand that you are saying that
the eternal Church is forever, but it must
be separated from the earthly church. The
earthly church is not forever; the Church is.
People leave the earthly church for various
reasons--moves, dissatisfaction, disabling
illness, etc.--but that does not constitute
leaving the Church.

I believe that our God comes first in all things,
but our God is not equal to the church. I recently
came out of a church which actually equated
itself to our God in this manner, placing itself
above our famiy obligations.

My father believed that his church obligations
came before family; the result is that not one of
his five children are in his church: three are
irreligious and two are believers who are in
places of worship which do not even resemble
his church. When, as an adult, I asked him about
his commitment to me, he informed me that he
never had such a commitment. How sad that
people join in the creation of life then walk away
from the results, leaving them to chance.

No, Larry, our obligation is first to our families
whom we are to teach and "church" at home.
The church cannot do for us what our God
intended us to do.

 

With no offense intended, on which scriptural basis are you going to make this claim and on what scriptural basis are you going to drive such a dichotomy? Your father was wrong if he did that. His involvement in the church should have involved you. My father and mother were radically devoted to the church. We were at church every time the doors were open. Homework and school activities came second (with no noticeable effect on grades). Sports came second. Vacation travel was done on Saturday or Monday so we could be in church on Sunday. We never missed Wednesday night. We never missed the weeknights of evangelistic services. We were not permitted to skip youth activities. He went on church visitation, taught SS, was deacon and chairman of the deacons. My mother played the piano, was involved in the ladies' ministries. We kids were involved in the music program. Our home was constantly open to people for fellowship and visits. We rarely had a Sunday night where it was just "the family" at home after church. They almost all included another family or group of families for fellowship and dinner. They devoted their whole lives to Christian ministry.

As a result, all three kids share the same passion for church and ministry that they had. They are actively and intimately involved their churches in many ways. It is that way because my parents modeled what it meant and passed it on. The biggest trouble I have with members involvement is from those who parents never modeled it for them.

Those whose lose their families are not doing it for the sake of the church family. They are doing because of laziness and selfishness. We cannot adjust our theology simply because some people live in sin. The Scripture and its teaching on teh church is the foundation. Study through Scripture on teh family and the church and figure out which one gets more emphasis and has more teaching about it. Then ask yourself, "Why?" I think it is because of the importance of the church. We as believers do not exist for ourselves or for our families. We exist for the glory of God in teh body of Christ. All other pursuits are extraneous and risk carrying us away from our mission.

The eternal church cannot be separated from the earthly church. People do leave churches, mostly for bad reasons in my experience. The church is the church. The church in eternity is the church in time. You cannot separate the two. That is faulty theology that has spawned the very attitude that I am addressing in these posts.

"Church at home" as you put it is no where found in SCripture. In fact, it is a contradiction in terms. "Church" is the gathered body of believers. It is different than the family.

You must remember, I am not suggesting that the family be ignored for the church. A man who does not care for his family is worse than an infidel. You have simply set two things in tension between which there should be no tension.

[ September 06, 2002, 10:36 AM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

Pastor Larry --

You sound like you came from the first Baptist
family I ever got to know to a great extent. The
father was a deacon, and the whole family was
deeply involved in their church as you des-
cribed. They were a wonderful family in Min-
nesota.

I do not have the ability to copy your post and
delete those parts I am not addressing without
individually deleting each letter (don't get
WebTV!!!), so I will have to answer what I recall.

First of all, my use of the word, "church," was
probably faulty. I do not normaly use that word
at all, as I do not attend a church; I thought I was
using it correctly for religious training in the
home, which I think you will agree must be pre-
sent. I spent much time in our home both ver-
bally teaching religious values and specifically
modeling them: this is what I intended by
"church in the home." I took my children as my
first responsibility to our God, and I believe,
then, that they held the right place before Him.
I had/have a commitment to my children.

Well, I got distracted by activities here while
writing, so I willl have to go back and check your
note before continuing to answer. 8o)

Basically, you said that my father, and others like
him, lose their families out of laziness and selfish-
ness. You have presumed much, Larry, and you
are wrong. My father lost his family because the
church came first, as he was taught it should. He
was a minister who preached in the church, in
street meetings, and in prisons and jails, then
taught Sunday school every Sunday. He also held
a full-time job to support his family. He went
to work in the morning and came home at night
only to go out again for the church---whether it
was a meeting to which the whole family went,
one of the activities listed above, or ministry to
the sick and elderly. Lazy? Hardly.

Until I was 8.5 years old, we went to three ser-
vices on Sunday, then there were Tuesday and
Thursday night services, and Saturday morning
prayer meeting. I only missed any one of these
because of illness. Then they became "mission-
aries," to a part of the states where that organiza-
tion had no churches, for four years, then it was
back to Father's old routine. Father may have
been "selfish" and misguided in his later years,
but he never was lazy. I really resent your impli-
cations.

Regardless, Father set the church up before his
family, and he was in error. If we do not minister
to our families first, what right do we have to think
we can minister to those outside the family?

[ September 06, 2002, 12:05 PM: Message edited by: Abiyah ]

 

First, I didn't specifically accuse your father of laziness. I said "some" I believe. However, if a man is not spending time with his family, he is sinning. If he is not taking care of his family, he is sinning. That does not mean that we ditch church and ministry involvement. It means that we repent and change the behavior. It sounds like your father, as many men do, were not properly discipling other people to fulfill roles in ministry. Perhaps a case in point for this discussion. There is a certian amount of work in a church that needs to be done. If all the men are saying "My family is too important for me to get involved in that" than the workload is spread between fewer and fewer people. In other words, it sounds like your dad's problem may have been brought on by the perspective which you now hold.

Secondly, if your father was a pastor, why was the church not supporting him so he didn't have to work full time? They should have stepped up to the plate.

Part of my job as pastor is to equip saints to do the work of the ministry. I tell my people all the time, it is not my job to do the work of the ministry. It is my job to train you to do it. Now get trained and get out there and get active. We encourage every member ministry. We do not condone members who just sit and let others do it. We believe God has called everyone to minister in the body and when one person is not active, it hurts everyone -- those who need to be ministered to and those who have to pick up the slack for those who are not ministering.

Bottom line, and again out of respect for you and your family, perhaps it is your perspective that brought on your dad's problems in ministry. Had people been involved, he would have been able to do less and do better at what he was doing.

As an aside, you say you don't attend church. Why? The Bible commands us to be in fellowship with the body on a regular basis. Why do you absent yourself from the body and from your responsibility to the body? Or have I misread your post?

[ September 06, 2002, 01:11 PM: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

Okay! Finger on the delete key a lot here, in order
to answer you directly . . . 8o)

Will answer in a moment . . .

Sorry! My daughter dropped by.

I attend a Baptist-based synagogue and am a
member there. All the children are grown, so I
am signed up for three weekly classes there and
also go to Sabbath services there.

[ September 06, 2002, 02:03 PM: Message edited by: Abiyah ]