One of the Christian discussion points that rolls round time and again is whether church is also for children. The more irritable versions of the question usually sneer at things like Sunday School, suggesting that we just want the kids out the room so the adults can get on with the real business. The nicer versions tend to make a more positive case for including the children during the sermon, often on the basis that Paul addressed children in his letters so they must, for definites, have been in the main service listening to sermons.
As it goes, I don’t know anyone who runs mid-service Sunday Schools who argues anything other than church is for the children so some of these things are shooting at straw men. Unless a church runs a Sunday School for the entirety of the service, you are hard pressed to argue that they are insisting church is not the children. The kids are in for the majority of the service and are included in all that goes on.
You might have more luck arguing that sermons are not for children. Or, maybe even more charitably, not primarily aimed at children. That might well be true. But then we’re having a different discussion, aren’t we? Then we’re talking about whether it is best to have sermons that meaningfully engage both children and adults or is it better to have age-appropriate stuff for at least some of the children. But that conversation is less about whether church is for children, whether they should be included or if we actually want them there and centres more at the heart of the issue: what will best serve to build everyone in the church up?
On that question (in my humble opinion) you can pay your money and take your choice. I don’t think there is a right or wrong. There is a case to be made for having the children in the service the whole time. There is a case to be made for serving them with lessons that are tailored more directly for them. There is a case to be made for a hybrid mix of the two options; sometimes in and sometimes out. It is not, so far as I can see, a matter of biblical fidelity. Not really. I don’t think the references to children in the letters is the absolute defeater argument some keep-the-kids-in advocates think it is, legitimate as the choice to keep them in is.
In our case, we run a hybrid system. It is one week in the sermon (and everything else), the remaining weeks of the month out for the sermon (but in for everything else). I don’t presume it is the right or only legitimate way. But I think it has some benefits.
We believe that the best discipleship tool we have is the parents. You can search this blog for more on why we think that. But if that is true, we want to prioritise building up the parents who can then disciple the children. It is my personal view that giving the parents undistracted attention for the sermon is going to serve this aim best. Further, particularly for the single parents among our number, the least we can do is give them half an hour a week of undistracted bible teaching. That seems like a sensible way to build them up and make sure the children will be best discipled at home.
We ensure that the Sunday School and the main service consider the same passage of scripture, which will facilitate conversations at home about what the Bible had to say to each of us this week. The children aren’t hived off from what the church are doing, but do the same thing. They are also able to engage with the rest of the service on the same terms as they respond to their lesson on the same terms as the adults.
At the same time, we think it is good for children to learn to sit and listen to sermons. So, once per month – not only do we as a small church want to give our Sunday School teachers a break – we also want to help our children learn how to sit and listen. Rather than having a cliff-edge at 11 years old, when we pull the Sunday School out from them and expect them to sit in the sermon, they are used to doing so at least once a month as a matter of course.
As it is, many of our children choose to sit in the main service anyway. This means families (and children themselves) have choice. Those who think their children will be best served by going out have that as an option. Those who think their children are best served by staying in can do that. It is not a one-size-fits-all policy. We are keen to make sure people are built up in the most suitable way and this approach (in my view) gives us the ability to do that.
Again, I don’t presume ours is the right way. I don’t suggest it is the only way. It is simply a way with its own particular benefits and, no doubt, its particular draw backs.