Has anyone watched this? If not, please take an hour and watch Divided the Movie. It is a documentary examining the age-segregated church. Voddie Baucham, Paul Washer, and Scott Brown are interviewd among others. This documentary is exploring the same issues as Scott Brown's book A Weed in the Church. I would really appreciate y'all's thoughts.

I'm tempted to comment before I see it. But I probably should watch it. Maybe I can make time after some breakfast. I'll get back to you.

It's worth the watch.

I just finished watching it. It was very good. Perhaps I am assuming too much here, but I believe that most of our reformed churches already buy into this understanding, that youth ministry as the evangelical church is predominantly doing it, is not biblical, but youth ministry where the father is the head of the household and he takes responsibility for training his children in the faith, is biblical. Again, it was a very good film and I think it would do much to at least get the modern evangelical church to re-think it's understanding of what youth ministry should be.

One of the problems that I have observed in churches, Reformed and otherwise, is that they are beginning to see the need to return to Father led family discipleship, but as mentioned in the film, try and create a hybrid of age / stage ministry and father led discipleship. That hybrid is still synchrestic in nature and ultimately fails. In essence that is what the 19th century church did with the integration of Sunday schools into the ministry of the local church.

This film is great (so far). I think the problem with youth ministry is that youh pastors are only in that slot waiting until they can become "real" pastors so they become glorified baby sitter. That leads to a total lack of discipleship as a focus and leads to entertainment. Youth groups need to be focused on training teens in discipleship and creating a generation of people who truely love Jesus. This has to involve parents as well. Training parents to train their children in godliness is key to sucess in the church. However, some children don't have Christian parents and they need training in godliness as well.

It's consistent with most material from the NCFIC. It makes very good and necessary points like:

- Fathers need to take responsibility for the spiritual training of their kids.

- Families should worship together, and the whole church should worship together.

- Youth ministries easily supplant the spiritual role of parents, doing damage to kids and to the church.

- Many, many youth/kids programs are just bad programs.

- Pandering to youth culture and allowing a youth sub-culture to grow within the church is divisive and hurts kids.

But then it goes on to claim that teaching church kids in age groups is an idea that derives 100% from people who hate God. And without citing any Scripture, it claims that ANY age segregated activity in the church is forbidden by Scripture (because the Bible doesn't mention such things), and it accuses churches that do anything age segregated of sinning against God and deserving his judgment. This is where an otherwise excellent message goes off track by overreaching.

It may indeed be a wise move for many churches to abandon all age segregated activities. We can discuss this. Perhaps I can learn from you. But please don't take a bad principle of biblical application and use it to accuse me of sinning if my church does things somewhat differently.

Originally Posted by Joseph Scibbe

Youth groups need to be focused on training teens in discipleship and creating a generation of people who truely love Jesus. This has to involve parents as well. Training parents to train their children in godliness is key to success in the church. However, some children don't have Christian parents and they need training in godliness as well.

Here is where I (and I think the film) will respectfully disagree with you brother. Youth groups aren't to be focused on training teens in discipleship, but rather this is the father's job. When the youth groups try to do this, they, sometimes unknowingly, usurp the father's authority. As for children in our churches that don't have Christian parents, is this really a statistic? With the exception of possibly a few older teens, are there really children that are attending our churches and their parents aren't? I can think of a few scenarios where this would be possible and that is with things like bus ministry and VBS. My old church used to do both. At one point we were even busing in upwards of 60 youth on Wednesday nights. The problem was we never reached their parents and even though those kids came week after week, we rarely saw any fruit in their lives. An hour or two a week is just not enough time to impact change, when the remainder of the week is spent in pagan households.

---------- Post added at 12:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:54 PM ----------

Originally Posted by Jack K

But then it goes on to claim that teaching church kids in age groups is an idea that derives 100% from people who hate God. And without citing any Scripture, it claims that ANY age segregated activity in the church is forbidden by Scripture (because the Bible doesn't mention such things), and it accuses churches that do anything age segregated of sinning against God and deserving his judgment. This is where an otherwise excellent message goes off track by overreaching.

I watched the whole film and I don't remember this being mentioned. I do remember when they discussed Plato, so I do remember something about your first sentence being true, but I don't recall the rest of what you said. Could you maybe give some specific reference from the film or tell us at what part in the documentary this comes out?

Andrew,

Unfortunately the scenario of kids coming and not the parents is not that uncommon in rural churches. When I was in high school, all of my friends would come to church on Wednesday night mainly to hang out with friends. There simply wasn't anything else to do. We would all come to church an hour or so early, play basketball in the church parking lot, and then go have youth service.

You also can't just stop having these services either. Our church decided to do this (for a host of goofy reasons). When the church stopped providing spiritual support for these kids, the kids just went off the deep end. Without getting into details, I can look back and see where the lives of several of my friends turned for the worse shortly after the church abandoned them. Although we may not like how those services were conducted, we cannot deny that these Wed. Bible studies provided spiritual guidance to kids who were not going to get it anywhere else.

I don't know what the right answer should be, but the answer, "Let the Fathers take control" doesn't always work.

PS. I still plan on watching the video later tonight.

Here is where I (and I think the film) will respectfully disagree with you brother. Youth groups aren't to be focused on training teens in discipleship, but rather this is the father's job. When the youth groups try to do this, they, sometimes unknowingly, usurp the father's authority.

And, as you will note, I mentioned that the parents need to be involved too. Is it really sinful to use as many means as possible to equip young people to reach their culture? The parents and the church, working hand in hand, can be a great tool in raising up Godly men and women from our youth.

Boliver, excellent points as always friend. I too know first-hand what evangelical youth groups are like, except, I wasn't in one, rather I helped lead one. You're probably right that it wouldn't be wise to just completely abandon all the youth whose parents don't come to our church. So what I would try my best to do would be to reach out to those children's parents. Then I would also gradually assimilate my youth into our Wednesday evening classes with the adults. If they youth were still showing up at this point, then I am going to be encouraged because it would seem at this point they are being drawn to something other than loud music, free food, and flirting with the opposite sex. Again, although I was a bit older, I started attending church when I was 18 all by myself. I had pagan parents but God was truly doing a work in my heart and eventually I brought my siblings and my mother into the church too. Fast forward though, my sibling enjoyed the church and youth group while it served them, but once they became adults, none of them are in church now. So I would say, while it's heartbreaking that your friends abandoned the faith when the church abandoned them, I hate to say it, but it's most likely they would have abandoned the faith anyway once they out-grew the youth group.

---------- Post added at 01:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:11 PM ----------

Originally Posted by Joseph Scibbe

Here is where I (and I think the film) will respectfully disagree with you brother. Youth groups aren't to be focused on training teens in discipleship, but rather this is the father's job. When the youth groups try to do this, they, sometimes unknowingly, usurp the father's authority.

And, as you will note, I mentioned that the parents need to be involved too. Is it really sinful to use as many means as possible to equip young people to reach their culture? The parents and the church, working hand in hand, can be a great tool in raising up Godly men and women from our youth.

I don't know if it's sinful to use as many means as possible to reach youth, but it's definitely counter-productive at times. Again, often times youth groups usurp the authority of the father in training his children in godliness. Second, divides the church. We tell the younger people that "real church" isn't for them and they won't relate, that's why we send out the little ones on Sunday mornings to watered down church. I fully believe our kids receive this underlying message and take it to heart.

Andrew,

Good points. I like the idea of slowly integrating the two groups (not quite sure how to put it into action yet, but conceptually it is good). I am also glad to see that you are not advocating shutting down all youth ministries tomorrow.

Originally Posted by Andres

Originally Posted by Jack K

But then it goes on to claim that teaching church kids in age groups is an idea that derives 100% from people who hate God. And without citing any Scripture, it claims that ANY age segregated activity in the church is forbidden by Scripture (because the Bible doesn't mention such things), and it accuses churches that do anything age segregated of sinning against God and deserving his judgment. This is where an otherwise excellent message goes off track by overreaching.

I watched the whole film and I don't remember this being mentioned. I do remember when they discussed Plato, so I do remember something about your first sentence being true, but I don't recall the rest of what you said. Could you maybe give some specific reference from the film or tell us at what part in the documentary this comes out?

It was toward the end. I don't have time to watch again right now. I will admit it's possible these things were mentioned rather briefly but I picked up on them because I'm wary of them and was looking for them.

I don't want to be too critical of the film. Again, there are many good points that need to be heard. But I start to turn a deaf ear towards the good stuff when I sense some overreaching. Please take that comment more as a disappointment than a complaint.

If one is looking for a pastor who wrote, " I was reading Plato and Dewey the other day and I think that I will use their thinking about child training and development in implementing my new youth/Sunday School programme.', or something similar in internal church documentation to prove that Platonic - evolutionary philosophy is behind much of the reason for the modern model of youth discipleship you may be disappointed.

If however, one looks at the way those philosophies have shaped modern Western thought and culture and how the church has incorporated the educational models developed by those philosophies it becomes rather obvious where the roots of the practice lie.

Originally Posted by Jack K

But then it goes on to claim that teaching church kids in age groups is an idea that derives 100% from people who hate God. And without citing any Scripture, it claims that ANY age segregated activity in the church is forbidden by Scripture (because the Bible doesn't mention such things), and it accuses churches that do anything age segregated of sinning against God and deserving his judgment. This is where an otherwise excellent message goes off track by overreaching.

Jack, excellent point. That is my main problem with NCFIC. If you're going to make the case that the NCFIC makes, do so on the basis of sound exegesis. Display conclusive evidence from Scripture that all age segregated activities are sinful. I'm not saying the video, or the NCFIC in general, fails to make a compelling and logical case, however that's not enough.

For the record, I am not NCFIC friendly (for a lot of reasons) but I am against age segregation in worship and Sunday School. My church does not segregate in either.

Originally Posted by Joseph Scibbe

Here is where I (and I think the film) will respectfully disagree with you brother. Youth groups aren't to be focused on training teens in discipleship, but rather this is the father's job. When the youth groups try to do this, they, sometimes unknowingly, usurp the father's authority.

And, as you will note, I mentioned that the parents need to be involved too. Is it really sinful to use as many means as possible to equip young people to reach their culture? The parents and the church, working hand in hand, can be a great tool in raising up Godly men and women from our youth.

I don't know if it's sinful to use as many means as possible to reach youth, but it's definitely counter-productive at times. Again, often times youth groups usurp the authority of the father in training his children in godliness. Second, divides the church. We tell the younger people that "real church" isn't for them and they won't relate, that's why we send out the little ones on Sunday mornings to watered down church. I fully believe our kids receive this underlying message and take it to heart.

i agree. I am an advocate for changing the way we do student ministries. I think we might have misunderstood each other.

If however, one looks at the way those philosophies have shaped modern Western thought and culture and how the church has incorporated the educational models developed by those philosophies it becomes rather obvious where the roots of the practice lie.

Very well said!

---------- Post added at 04:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:45 PM ----------

conclusive evidence from Scripture that all age segregated activities are sinful

How are you defining the "all" in this statement? Do you mean in the context of the the meeting of the Church or all as in everything? I just want to better understand your position.

I appreciate the comments thus far. I am compelled by the arguments presented in the film, but don't want to make hasty judgements.

To start with asking kids about a literalistic Genesis 1 vs something else is to assume that everyone who loves Jesus believes in a literal 6 day 24 hour creation account. In my opinion that is polarizing to a point that is unnecessary.

It is not polarising. It is a question that determines whether or not a person views Scripture as ultimately authoritative in spite of cultural or 'scientific' proof to the contrary.

But there are still different ways to read Genesis 1 other than a literal 6 day 24 hour creation account and still be orthodox.

True, but in all honesty that was not really an issue of any significance in the Church until recent 'science' demanded it.

Originally Posted by LawrenceU

True, but in all honesty that was not really an issue of any significance in the Church until recent 'science' demanded it.

And justification wasn't an issue big issue until the Reformation. The Church responds to things that challenge it.

Joseph, I know this is not a debate about origins, but I want to point out that the justification was the issue of the Reformation. It was not a reaction to the Roman discovery of 'new evidence'. Justification was a return to the original. The sensed need to reconcile the plain reading of Genesis with scientific 'evidence' is the exact opposite of what the Reformers did regarding justification. The move toward long eras, millions of years, theistic evolution, Gap Theory, etc. was a capitulation to the new evidence, not a defense of the accepted interpretation.

Watched the movie last night with my wife. We recently changed churches (from AOG/Baptist to Reformed Baptist) and we told the kids that we had decided to not allow them to participate in youth groups anymore once we left our old church. This has been our conviction for quite a while and when we switched churches to one that lined up with our beliefs, we figured this was the best time to put an end to the youth group with our kids as we had started noticing some very disturbing trends in their attitudes and actions because of some of the influences in the youth group from their peers. Anyways...they have taken it pretty well actually and seemed to understand our explanations. We also let them watch the video tonight and ask questions, etc. I would've changed a few things about how the video was made, and there may have been a few instances of overreaching, but really....I was very impressed with how this was done and the overall message of fathers taking responsibility, the churches training the fathers, and the fathers no longer neglecting their responsibilities and letting someone else disciple their kids was presented extremely well.

I think that one of the key points is that we expect our children to be exposed to the culture of the world, wade through it knee-deep, and come out unchanged. In this movie, we see 'youth ministry' geared to the music and entertainment of this world; so who wants to comb through scripture and see what the truth is when instead we can rock things out at a concert followed by pizza and a movie. That's fun, that's cool. Being serious is not cool.

Also, the chasing after 'relevance' is frightening. How do we be 'relevant' to a fallen world and retain our integrity in Christ? The Gospel is not relevant to the lives of most of the youth today because they live the lives the World wants them to. Yes, there are exceptions, but find me a teen male who spends more time in the Word than on his X-Box in general. X-Box is relevant, the Bible is not, but only because we have let the X-Box fill that void completely instead of filling it with the Word.

One other thought here: why is it that the cool guy is the one my son wants to go to instead of me? Giving him that avenue simply perpetuates a misunderstanding of whose authority he is under.

Moral of the story: don't go down to Egypt for help.

Well, Pastor Mathis weighed in with this on his blog June 23rd. I like what he perceives.
Christian Nurture: Divided the movie

Divided the movie

Why are churches losing upwards of 80% of the youth?
Why are Christian youth increasing in childishness?
What can be done to stop the demise of the next generation?


A new, provocative movie, Divided, seeks to give an answer. The movie was shown on June 17th at the Christian Home Educators of Colorado conference in north Denver.


Summary
The movie was fifty minutes long. The producer, Mr. LeClerk, takes the viewer on a grim journey into the heart of youth ministries. He interviews church kids, youth ministry experts, statisticians, and pastors.


In an ever-spiraling descent into marketing madness, the film ably portrays the deep-seated pragmatism of the teenagers and their would-be pied-pipers. One youth leader bluntly told the camera that the youth did not need more Biblical truth but more practical things, more relationships, more fun.


Mr. LeClerk then "discovers the shockingly sinister roots of modern, age-segregated church programs..." The roots do not begin with Mr. Raikes of late eighteenth-century England but with Plato and Rousseau. And even more, there is no biblical precedent for such programs. Therefore, the solution is to tear down the entire youth ministry--branch, root and all.


To rescue a lost generation it will take churches and families following the Word of God. Churches should stop usurping parental responsibilities. And parents should take back their God-given duty to train and nurture their own children. This will rescue the next generation.


Analysis
The movie was created in conjunction with the National Center for Family Integrated Churches (NCFIC). The president of this organisation, Mr. Brown, figures predominately in the movie.


The photography, mood and music were spot-on. This is obviously a professionally made film. The pacing was good. Its presentation was not over-the-top or in-your-face, but subtle and dramatic. Aesthetically, the movie deserves full marks.


But presentation aside, what of the content? Given the applause at the end of the Friday night showing in Denver, it grabbed the audience. Setting the problem up with multiple teen-interviews, peppered with real-time video of Christian "rock concerts," LeClerk masterfully guides the audience through the entertainment-minded youth ministries of today.


This is a serious problem. Children, teenagers and youth alike are baptized in a sea of childish entertainment all for the sake of "relevance." If the statistics are only partially accurate, they are astounding enough. Too many youth are leaving the church.


And the parental problem is equally heinous: too many parents feel godly sending their children off to youth camp while neglecting family worship, home discipleship and basic doctrinal fidelity. Added to this problem are too many churches willing to accept the status quo.


In fact, a Pew study shows 57% of confessing Evangelicals deny that Christ is the only way to heaven. Barna numbers suggest that being a homeschooler is no sure defense either: half of those polled believe that salvation is not by faith alone.


Although the show does a good job presenting the youth problem, it misses the wider context of that problem. With such wide-spread doctrinal ignorance, is it any wonder the youth leave the shallow churches?


Unfortunately, the history section leaves much to be desired. Pointing out that Plato wished to send children to the state schools is not the same as proving this as the intellectual source of today's age-segregation. The omission of the fact that the Reformers and Puritans practiced age-segregation is another problem.


What of the solution: to demolish youth ministries and incorporate family discipleship?


The solution is wonderful...if understood correctly. But proper understanding cannot come from the movie since it leaves out important pieces of information. For instance, Mr. Brown believes there are times and occasions for the family to be separated (see his book, A Weed in the Church). Likewise, Mr. Phillips thinks there are times to speak to teenagers as teenagers.


In other words, the rhetoric of the movie would forbid any and all age-segregation. When in actuality the leading proponents have a more nuanced position. If the film were twenty-minutes long this lack of nuance could be tolerated.


What family discipleship entails was lightly touched upon. But the proper role of the church was not clearly articulated. In contrast, Mr. Brown's book helpfully clarifies that the pastors and laymen have a role in the life of the youth.



Overall, the movie delivers the content and delivers it well. The problem is that the content is one-sided. There is a youth problem but there is a larger problem of Gospel ignorance. It would be better to read the book, but at least the movie will challenge Christians to rethink the role of youth ministries.

[More about the NCFIC organization here. More about Mr. Phillips here. A Review of Mr. Brown's book here.].

[/h]

Agreed. That's a fair assessment.

I thought the movie was well done and had some good points. I personally think one of the big problems is that parents aren't concerned with orthodoxy. And poor teaching whether or not you are NFIC or not will ever benefit anyone. Good teaching and Covenantal Parenting will usually win whether or not you have segregated stuff or not. And that is just my opinion. And I am correct. Just ask me. LOL

"Youth groups aren't to be focused on training teens in discipleship, but rather this is the father's job. When the youth groups try to do this, they, sometimes unknowingly, usurp the father's authority."

Andrew, I believe I understand the gist of your statement. But for clarity I would point out to those who have not considered that other people in the church (both as an organization (officers) and organism) have a duty to "disciple" the youth--if by disciple one means exercising the duties of one's office or station in life toward the youth.

For instance, Titus 2:3 states clearly that the older woman (it does not say mothers) have a duty to be "teachers of good things [in general]" and in particular to "train/teach/advise" the "younger woman" [neos--younger]. In this sense they are discipling the youth (younger) of the church. Men have the same duty, mutatis mutandis.

And, naturally, the church officers have a duty (hence catechizing, etc.).

So, if by youth group people mean any and every bad sense of the term, then it should be abolished. But if it means simply fulfilling Titus 2:3, etc. --in a systematic form (a mature man meeting with some young men monthly for lunch) for instance--then it should not be abolished but encouraged!

---------- Post added at 03:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:46 PM ----------

Originally Posted by caoclan

I appreciate the comments thus far. I am compelled by the arguments presented in the film, but don't want to make hasty judgements.

Sean, I am happy to see you wish to be cautious in your evaluation. To that end, I present the following articles for your consideration:

1. What is a Family Integrated Church?

2. A Rejoinder to Recent Family Integrated Church Comments

3. Uniting Church and Family (a positive presentation of my views)

4. A Weed in the Church: A Review

(If interested in the real history of Christian education, check out the blog, Christian Nurture )

---------- Post added at 03:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:51 PM ----------

Originally Posted by LawrenceU

If however, one looks at the way those philosophies have shaped modern Western thought and culture and how the church has incorporated the educational models developed by those philosophies it becomes rather obvious where the roots of the practice lie.

Mr. Underwood,

Could you please prove this broad sweeping claim? Or at least point to resources that do?

thanks,

I think a good youth ministry would have 2 goals of training parents to disciple their children and to allow fellowship, discipleship, and outreach with their peers.

Having worshipped with these guys for a few months, Jack you hit it right on the head

Mr. Underwood,

Could you please prove this broad sweeping claim? Or at least point to resources that do?

thanks,

I think the video itself did that, did it not? The talk of Dewey, etc. is where I saw this in evidence...

Originally Posted by kvanlaan

Mr. Underwood,

Could you please prove this broad sweeping claim? Or at least point to resources that do?

thanks,

I think the video itself did that, did it not? The talk of Dewey, etc. is where I saw this in evidence...

It was asserted and named maybe. I can say things off handed and accusatory and still be incorrect. References and Resources are very beneficial. The Berean's were more noble. Why? They checked the resources. Pastor Mathis is very good and patient about doing this I believe. He doesn't want to be incorrect. So help him out.

Kevin,

I think the video stringed together unsubstantiated assertions masquerading as proof--unless I forgot something pertinent.

It is one thing to say: "hey, some particular methods used today are the same as ones used by culture/person/belief-system X. Therefore, that method must come from that culture, etc. And since that culture, etc. is unbiblical (i.e., sinful, wrong, etc.), then all methods from that culture, etc. are wrong. Ergo, the same methods used by Christians that are the same methods used by non-Christians are wrong."

Now, fill in the word "method" with: picture-books, memorization, computer-usage, etc. and one will readily see the fallacious nature of such reasoning. The other way to say this is: common grace. People use medical, engineering, etc. methods discovered or created by unbelievers all the time. Its origin is irrelevant (the genetic fallacy).

What it comes down to is that the makers of this movie (NCFIC in particular) believe such methods already wrong in light of their view of the Bible--which is the very thing in debate. I encourage you to read my What is a Family-integrated Church?

Pastor Mathis, I think what makes this a little more difficult to nail down is that the video puts forward as examples practises that most here on the PB are viscerally opposed to. It is not that the method is really so evil in and of itself but that the manifestations thereof as laid out in the video is indeed beyond the pale to almost everyone - we are only given examples in the extreme. And certain examples, such as that of Dewey's organization of schools, do indeed invoke a spectre of human secularism in the classrooms of the church, another viscerally opposable example. But realistically, most churches (especially of the reformed tradition), though they cater in some ways to the youth, would never use as an evangelism tool most of what was shown in the film, and that is perhaps where the movie crosses a line that most of us would never get to in the first place.

That being said, I've read a lot of Kevin Swanson's material (full books, not just articles) and greatly appreciate Pastor Baucham's views on the family and the church, and consider Paul Washer the hard medicine that much of the church is desperately in need of today. So I wouldn't say I am prematurely coming to a favorable judgment of these gentlemen based on a sound bite here and there; I know much of their material through and through, and the idea of 'going down to Egypt' for aid in teaching our youth is something that makes me throw up a little in my mouth. I know that here on the PB, Rick Warren's seeker sensitive methodology is roundly discounted as unbiblical, etc. and yet when we see a very similar creature, in many ways, unleashed upon our youth (as we did in this movie), we are hard-pressed to go as hard on it, since we too have youth programs in our churches (but would never have Saddleback ministry materials in our libraries). I hate looking in the mirror on this issue, there are too many things we do wrong but have solidly ensconsed in our personal practises, traditions that are sacrosanct for the sake of tradition and not for Berean reasons.

While I would agree that not all this born of secular culture are intrinsically evil, I think discernment is often tossed aside. When Adolf Hitler tells me that it is 3:15pm and the sky is blue, I will believe him, not subject him to vigorous examination, nor dismiss his answer due to the fact that his wristwatch that told him the time has a swastika on it. However, I will not take his advice on social planning or political thought, and I am afraid that we in some cases are allowing the clergy of another religion into our classrooms when we implement a lot of the world's methodology, as much of their method and material are inseparably intertwined. Pragmatism for the sake of 'efficiently' reaching youth has no place in the church.

Also, when we look to scripture as the Bereans did, do we really see clear ordinances for male/female separation in worship as per Jewish tradition, or was it just a continuation of Jewish tradition and nothing more which simply carried on to the days of the Puritans (and this I ask from ignorance)? Again, this is likely my ignorance at work, and not solid scholarship, so please do enlighten me.

All in all, I really enjoyed the movie. I'd like to send that boy a vest.

Shawn, I am not sure what you are asking. Do you deny that Platonic philosophy influenced Rousseau? If so, then you are in disagreement the standard view of educational philosophy. Surely that is not what you ask. Dewey himself frequently praises Rousseau. (Have you read much Dewey? If not I would recommend it. It is very enlightening to read the work of such a devious mind.) Dewey, in essence, is the synthesis of three very intelligent apostates: Charles Pierce, G. Stanley Hall, and George Morris.

Dewey's philosophy has become predominant in America, not just in the classroom. It is part and parcel of standard educational theory. Asking whether one is in an educational setting, religious or secular, that has been influenced in large part by Dewey is a bit like asking a fish if he is wet.

Originally Posted by kvanlaan

Pastor Mathis, I think what makes this a little more difficult to nail down is that the video puts forward as examples practises that most here on the PB are viscerally opposed to.

Hello Kevin,

Let me back up here. I think I presumed too much in my answer, thinking you read my review. I do state unequivocally that there is a problem and that the movie properly and effectively paint this problem among the youth. And I also unequivocally state that the solution offered--parental discipleship--is part of the biblical solution. So, you and Doug and I agree on a large amount of things than perhaps my short response let on.

As for the practices put forward, I was specifically referring to formal meetings of the youth with mature oversight--something that the movie heavily implied (if not outright denied) as wrong. But the leaders of the movement actually think such meetings, at times, can be acceptable--something the movie never pointed out. That is why my review noted that reading the book would be better.

Originally Posted by kvanlaan

And certain examples, such as that of Dewey's organization of schools, do indeed invoke a spectre of human secularism in the classrooms of the church, another viscerally opposable example.

Please remind me what "Dewey's organization of the schools" looks like? Thanks.

Originally Posted by kvanlaan

So I wouldn't say I am prematurely coming to a favorable judgment of these gentlemen based on a sound bite here and there;

That is good to know. I am only commenting on the movie as the movie presents itself. I do encourage you to read my What is a Family Integrated Church to find out what the NCFIC believes (Mr. Brown and Mr. Phillips) because what they believe many sound Reformed-minded people would reject. And it is not the emphasis on family or responsibility or the like that all parties agree upon.

Originally Posted by kvanlaan

I know much of their material through and through, and the idea of 'going down to Egypt' for aid in teaching our youth is something that makes me throw up a little in my mouth. I know that here on the PB, Rick Warren's seeker sensitive methodology is roundly discounted as unbiblical, etc. and yet when we see a very similar creature, in many ways, unleashed upon our youth (as we did in this movie), we are hard-pressed to go as hard on it, since we too have youth programs in our churches

Kevin, perhaps this is where the confusion lies: I do agree that many of the methods documented in the movie are a "going down to Egypt"--I never denied that. But the assumption seems to be that all youth groups use such deplorable methods (eg. "we too have youth programs"). My church does nothing of the kind. By the same token, my church does not have a youth "program" anyway.

Originally Posted by kvanlaan

Also, when we look to scripture as the Bereans did, do we really see clear ordinances for male/female separation in worship as per Jewish tradition, or was it just a continuation of Jewish tradition and nothing more which simply carried on to the days of the Puritans (and this I ask from ignorance)? Again, this is likely my ignorance at work, and not solid scholarship, so please do enlighten me.

I would make a distinction between public worship which elements must be proscribed (commanded) by the Word of God. And Christian liberty outside of worship (Sunday school, for instance). [And unfortunately the movie makes no such distinction and leaves the listener thinking it is an all or nothing proposition (eg., remember Voddie's allusion to the ark? Biblically that refers to the holy worship of God not youth groups)]. Furthermore, the examples in the Bible of public worship (which includes the entire family) do not (as I recall) specify exactly the physical arrangement of the family. It is an historical fact that the Temple during Christ's time was separated by sexes (court of the men and court of the women (and children)). The synagogues followed the same pattern. (The NE Puritans separated similarly). What is of note is that Jesus did not stand up and condemn said practice. He went after the false Gospel of the day. And I believe we must do the same given the huge ignorance of the truth in the American churches (see my review above for statistical details).

Originally Posted by kvanlaan

When Adolf Hitler tells me that it is 3:15pm and the sky is blue, I will believe him, not subject him to vigorous examination, nor dismiss his answer due to the fact that his wristwatch that told him the time has a swastika on it. However, I will not take his advice on social planning or political thought, and I am afraid that we in some cases are allowing the clergy of another religion into our classrooms when we implement a lot of the world's methodology, as much of their method and material are inseparably intertwined. Pragmatism for the sake of 'efficiently' reaching youth has no place in the church.

There is truth in what you say but it is still vague. I think using words such as "methodology" is unclear because there may be means that an unbeliever uses or discovers that Christians can employ without imbibing the "methodology" or spirit of their worldview. Let me quote Jay Adams:

"Sometimes people think that while rejecting the philosophies of worldly counselors...they can adopt their methods. They say "Well, Freud used talk in counseling; so can I' That is wrongheaded idea. Think about it. You see, talk is a means, not a method. What is the difference between the two? A means is uncommitted to the principles and practices of a system. To use talk is not to say how you use talk. Freud used free association as a method in counseling. Free association is a means committed to the ends of his system; it is not a method that Christians may use to achieve the ends that they have in view. Rogers used listening; so does the Christian. Listening, per se, is not a method but a means. If listening is to gather no facts but feelings alone, then that sort of listening is not the sort that Christian may use. That is listening committed to the ends of a false system...." (Commentary on John, p.91)

But since the co-producer of the movie, NCFIC, believes that age-segregation can be used, the real issue has become obscured by the movie (since the listener never knew that). The issue is not, "Is age-segregation unbiblical?" but "when and how can age-segregation be best used in accordance to the general rules of the Bible?"

I hope this clarifies things.

Very well said Kevin and you make great points.

Thanks

I watched it last night and enjoyed it, got to work and recommended to some folks. The Primitive Baptists were right about this one.

Black Rock Address

Sunday Schools

Sunday Schools come next under consideration. These assume the same high stand as do Tract Societies. They claim the honor of converting their tens of thousands; of leading the tender minds of children to the knowledge of Jesus; of being as properly the instituted means of bringing children to the knowledge of salvation, as the preaching of the gospel that of bringing adults to the same knowledge, &c. Such arrogant pretensions we feel bound to oppose. First, because these as well as the pretensions of the Tract Societies are grounded upon the notion that conversion or regeneration is produced by impressions made upon the natural mind by means of religious sentiments instilled into it; and if the Holy Ghost is allowed to be at all concerned in the thing, it is in a way which implies his being somehow blended with the instruction, or necessarily attendant upon it; all of which we know to be wrong.

Secondly, because such schools were never established by the apostles, nor commanded by Christ. There were children in the days of the apostles. The apostles possessed as great a desire for the salvation of souls, as much love to the cause of Christ, and knew as well what God would own for bringing persons to the knowledge of salvation, as any do at this day. We therefore must believe that if these schools were of God, we should find some account of them in the New Testament.

Thirdly. We have exemplified in the case of the Pharisees, the evil consequences of instructing children in the letter of the Scripture, under the notion that this instruction constitutes a saving acquaintance with the word of God. We see in that instance it only made hypocrites of the Jews; and as the Scriptures declare that Christ's words are spirit and life, and that the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, we cannot believe it will have any better effect on the children in our day.

The Scriptures enjoin upon parents to bring up their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord; but this, instead of countenancing, forbids the idea of parents entrusting the religious education of their children to giddy, unregenerated young persons, who know no better than to build them up in the belief that they are learning the religion of Christ, and to confirm them in their natural notions of their own goodness.

But whilst we thus stand opposed to the plan and use of these Sunday Schools, and the S.S. Union, in every point, we wish to be distinctly understood that we consider Sunday Schools for the purpose of teaching poor children to read, whereby they may be enabled to read the Scriptures for themselves, in neighborhoods where there is occasion for them, and when properly conducted, without that ostentation so commonly connected with them, to be useful and benevolent institutions, worthy of the patronage of all the friends of civil liberty.