Note to family integrated churches
BibleNavigators.com does not show preference to traditional youth programs or family integrated churches. We feel that there is no biblical preference given to one model over the other. Our primary concern is training a child in the way they should go. Under what church context that occurs does not really matter. We love both family integrated churches as well as effective youth programs.

Why doesn't BibleNavigators.com oppose traditional youth ministry?
Deuteronomy 31:12-13 is a common proof text given for why youth ministry is “unbiblical.”  The principle behind this argument appears to be that because all the men, women and children were gathered into one place that it (a) must be the only allowed way to teach children and (b) other methods of teaching children are in violation of this commandment.  The problem with this interpretation is that there is no logical contradiction between God commanding, “Gather the people around to learn my law” and “Gather children together to be taught by a teacher.”  In fact, when the tribes of Israel were gathered together, they had to break into smaller groups taught by the elders. How these divisions occurred is not commanded.  The only element of import to this command is that they (a) be gathered and (b) be taught the law and that (c) children receive special attention so they will come to know God’s laws. It could easily be argued (though not dogmatically) that verse 13 is a basis for children’s ministry because although men, women, children and aliens are commanded to hear God’s laws in verse 12, only the commandment concerning children being taught God’s law is repeated. It’s God’s way of saying, “Pay special attention just to the children who need to learn my laws as well.”

A common belief held by some family integrated churches is that children should not be taught by persons other than their parents or only by others in the presence of parents. If this is true, then Paul would be in violation for teaching John Mark or Timothy away from their parents. John Mark and Timothy were most likely children during their journeys with Paul.  This view would also be problematic for children of non-Christian parents. The church would have no basis for evangelizing unsaved children.  Though it is common to make an exception and say that children from unsaved families are allowed to be evangelized, the question must be asked, “If the church can single out children from unsaved families, why not the children from saved families?”  Nowhere in the bible is there a commandment saying, “Children cannot be taught by adults other than their parents unless the parent is present.” To say that Deuteronomy prohibits Sunday school and youth programs is to read between the lines. It also makes Paul out to be a sinner for mentoring John Mark and Timothy on his journeys.  It’s a case that can’t hold water.

Why can’t children receive specialized attention and lessons just for them? Why can’t those lessons be taught by spiritual leaders other than the child’s own parents? A common objection is that parents need to be the primary spiritual authority teaching their children. But one has to wonder how taking a child for only one hour each week threatens the role of an involved parent for the remaining 167 hours in the week! Sunday schools and youth programs offer little threat to the influence parents have over their children. If parents and churches are concerned about other people influencing their children’s spiritual upbringing then greater influences such as the 30 to 40 hours each week children spend in secular public schools needs to be pointed out.

If it’s important to simplify lessons in math, writing or science for children shouldn’t it be infinitely more important to simplify lessons just for children? An integrated church’s response to this question may be, “That’s why parents should teach their children at home, but children still need to go to an integrated church service on Sundays.” But where is it a contradiction in the Bible to plan biblical lessons just for children while they are at church? Prohibitions to Sunday school programs are not found in Scripture. It also seems odd that a parent would worry about a church that creates programs focusing just on children. Such special attention to children is a sign of a healthy church not a bad one. This doesn’t mean that there aren’t bad Sunday school programs and bad Sunday school teachers. The solution, however, should not always be to eradicate Sunday school programs. If better equipping Sunday schools is an option, then a church should let the program remain. If the church is not prepared to teach children in youth programs or cannot control its programs, then family integration is a great solution.

The problems facing our youth have nothing to do with whether your church does or does not have a Sunday school program. The issue is whether children are being singled out to be taught the Gospel message and whether parents remain the primary spiritual guardians of their children. What most family integrated churches have right is that parents need to be the primary spiritual teachers in their child’s life. What many integrated churches and mainstream churches have wrong is the belief that any other church structure is unbiblical or that one is more biblical than another.

I’ve received the objections that “the Bible teaches that parents should be the primary teachers of their children.”  The logic of this argument seems to be that sending your children off to Sunday school replaces the parent’s primary role in the child’s life.  Again it must be asked, how does only one hour each week threaten the role of an involved parent who has the child for the remaining 167 hours in the week?  Secondly, having the child in the main service still doesn’t solve the objector’s problem because the child is still learning from the pastor and not the parent during the service. In either scenario, the child is being taught by someone other than the parent.  Family integrated churches do not solve the “problems” they claim to fix.  The fact is that neither family integrated churches nor youth programs are better than the other so long as children receive attention in being taught biblical truths at the level they understand.

Family integration and youth programs become a problem when churches develop an elitist attitude concerning how children ought to be taught. Children in family integrated churches are sometimes (rarely) indoctrinated by anti-Sunday school beliefs to such an extant that they are incapable of healthy interaction around new adults and children in large group settings. Youth programs are often a detriment because so many rely of hype instead of spiritual substance. Children in many youth programs are often incapable of sitting still long enough to learn anything of spiritual import. By the same token, family integrated churches can teach children to tune out teaching adults because they grow so accustom to hearing sermon content vastly over their heads. Again, the solution isn’t to get rid of youth programs or get rid of family integration. The solution is to devote church time and resources to teaching kids about God.  Many integrated churches have a superb culture for training children, but so do many churches with youth programs. Either church model can be really good or really bad. To say that either youth programs or family integration is “the solution” to problems facing children in the church misses the point. The solution is that, starting with the parents, we devote ourselves to our family learning God’s word regardless of church structure.