For many years generation after generation of Christians have witnessed an all out assault on the worship of God. We grow accustomed “innovations” by the religious world so it doesn’t surprise us to see practices not in line with Scripture. However, in recent history, we find congregations of the Lord’s people literally assaulting the God given methods of worship. Recently, I have been presented with the practice of having a “Kid’s Church.” From what I understand at some point in the worship services usually before the sermon the children (ages varies) are removed and are put into a class environment where they are taught the same lesson, only on their level. The parents are then left to listen to the sermon unencumbered.

The following are my initial thoughts: The first thing that comes to mind is their use of the word “church.” The term ‘church’ means, “a called out group of people." It comes from the Greek word ekklesia (from ek, "out" and kaleo, "called") and it is Christ who does the "calling out." The calling out comes via the gospel. Paul writes in 2 Thess 2:13-14, “But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God from the beginning chose you for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth, to which He called you by our gospel, for the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ”. As I noted in a recent sermon, the word "church" is used in the Bible in one of two ways: As inclusive of all Christians, everywhere and for all time (often referred to as the "universal church"); and to refer to a group of people in a particular location ("local churches"). Whether universal or local it is a group of believers. Young children are not believers nor are they “a called out group of children.” To use the term “church” so flippantly is another indicator of the direction they are headed.

Secondly, no matter when they decide to remove the children from the worship and begin the children’s church whether it is at the beginning or after those who would be conducting the children’s church have partaken of the Lord’s Supper they would be forsaking the assembly. Every element of the worship services is as important as the other. Singing is not more important than praying. The Lord’s Supper is not more important than the teaching, etc…therefore to purposely remove oneself from the worship is to forsake it and to sin willfully (Heb 10:23-29), no matter how often you rotate the duties as some are suggesting.

Thirdly, parents have the responsibility to raise and train their children. Eph 6:4 says, “And you, fathers, do not provoke your children to wrath, but bring them up in the training and admonition of the Lord”. Our children watch our behavior. They learn more from our actions than what we say. During the worship time our children learn to sit still and quiet. They learn to bow humbly in prayer, they learn to sing praises to God, they learn to sit quietly as the Lord’s Supper is being conducted, they watch their parents pay attention during the sermon and use their Bibles to confirm the thoughts presented by the preacher. Someone other than their parents could teach those lessons in a classroom but they will never learn them unless there is an application made. We read in Prov 22:6, “Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it.” Besides this, the act of raising godly children is very important in God’s eyes. So important that He states that is the purpose of marriage. In Malachi 2:14-15 we read, “Yet you say, "For what reason?" Because the LORD has been witness between you and the wife of your youth, with whom you have dealt treacherously; yet she is your companion and your wife by covenant. But did He not make them one, having a remnant of the Spirit? And why one? He seeks godly offspring. Therefore take heed to your spirit, And let none deal treacherously with the wife of his youth”. We can only produce godly offspring if we are putting forth the effort to raise them ourselves. To entrust their development in this area to someone else is to shirk our responsibilities. Paul writes to Timothy to instruct the women concerning their outward apparel, modesty, their inward qualities, their conduct in the church, and as it relates to this subject their role as a mother. He writes, “Nevertheless she will be saved in childbearing if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control” (1 Tim 2:15). She will be saved in childbearing as long as she continues in faith, love and holiness, with self-control. So important is her role in training a child that God says it will save her. The word not only refers to the act of bearing children but also to the maternal duties involved in raising the child. Consider these definitions: Robinson, Lexicon. Rosenmuller regards the words rendered "child-bearing" teknogonia (NT:5042), as synonymous with education, and supposes that the meaning is, that a woman, by the proper training of her children, can obtain salvation ((from Barnes' Notes). Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance: NT:5042 teknogonia (tek-nog-on-ee'-ah); from the same as NT:5041; childbirth (parentage), i.e. (by implication) maternity (the performance of maternal duties): Vines Expository Dictionary: …teknon and a root gen--, whence gennao, "to beget," denotes "bearing children," implying the duties of motherhood, 1 Tim 2:15. The bottom line is this, you brought them into this world, you are responsible for them, and God expects you to take responsibility for them. In my discussion with my wife about this she remembers when we were living in Washington and Brynna was a young baby. She asked one of the older ladies to watch Brynna for a few hours so that she can clean our one bedroom apartment. The women told Kim, “NO.” She realized what Kim had not. It was Kim’s job to take care of her own children and clean her own house. What may seem overwhelming in a young mother’s life can be handled if she and her husband apply the principles within Scripture to raise their children. Discipline is training. And God expects us to discipline our children. Some can be simply corrected by our words others need to be spanked. In Proverbs 13:24 we read this, “He who spares his rod hates his son, but he who loves him disciplines him promptly.” God confirms for us in His word that spanking is O.K. Also in Proverbs 23:13-14, “Do not withhold correction from a child, for if you beat him with a rod, he will not die. You shall beat him with a rod, and deliver his soul from hell.”

Fourthly, to distinguish, elevate or otherwise single out any group of people for special treatment is unscriptural. God is not a respecter of persons and neither should we be. We read in Acts 10:34-35, “Then Peter opened his mouth and said: "In truth I perceive that God shows no partiality…” And in Acts 15:8-9-“So God, who knows the heart, acknowledged them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He did to us, and made no distinction between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.” He sees all Christians equally (Gal 3:27-28; 1Pet 3:7). While young children may not be Christians they are still being singled out. This special treatment creates a seed, which will be deeply rooted in them. As they grow they will continue to demand to be treated different (teenager church, young unmarried people church, young married people without children church, young married couples with only one child church, young happily married couples with 2 or less children and a dog…sorry I felt I needed to point out the absurdity of this process). Where is it going to end? Why is it even beginning?

Finally any other arguments are going to require some speculation? Are they arguing that the way the “church” conducts its worship is merely traditional. Since the 1960’s there has been a definite aversion to anything that would be viewed as "the establishment" or "traditional" and this is true whether or not something traditional was right or wrong. Certain "traditions" are right and good. Paul writes, “Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle” (2 Thess 2:15) and must not be changed. Paul used this principle to remind the Corinthians about the Lord’s Supper (1Cor 11:23ff). He also used the term “tradition” in 1Cor 11:2. He said, “Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you.” The context of chapter 11 is in reference to the public worship of the church. That this section pertains to public worship seems evident from the following evidences: The general context, the references in v.16 to the custom of the churches (11:16), and the phrase “when you come together as a church.” (Verses 17-18). The word “keep” in verse 2 (katechete) means, "to hold fast" or "retain faithfully;" the present tense indicates that this was their habitual practice. “Tradition” (paradoseis) and “I delivered” (paradooka-to hand over) are cognates. The verb means, "to hand over" or "hand down, pass on;" the noun paradoseis refers to that which is handed down or passed on. Both words reflect the idea that the doctrine, which was revealed to Jesus, was to be handed down or passed on. Both words reflect the idea that the doctrine, which was revealed to Jesus, was to be handed down, without any additions, subtractions, or alterations, from one generation to another. The verse reminds me of Jesus' charge in the Great Commission - "Go…teach all nations…teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you…" (Mt. 28:19-20). Because the teachings of Jesus Christ are to be handed down, the doctrine of Jesus Christ can properly be referred to as a tradition (paradoseis) as it is in 2 Thess. 2:15, and 3:6. “But we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us” (2 Thess 3:6). The “tradition” (paradoseis) would include both doctrine and manner of conduct (ethical matters). The essential point for Paul is that it has been handed down, “For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, (1Cor 5:13) and that it derives from the Lord (11:23). It is no contradiction that Jesus repudiates tradition (cf. Mt. 15:2, 3, 6; Mk. 7:3, 5, 8-9, 13) and Paul champions it. Paul's tradition agrees with Jesus' rejection, since they are both opposed to human tradition." While we have some options in the worship (what time to meet, how long the services are going to be, how many prayers, songs, when we partake of the Lord’s Supper, i.e., at the beginning, in the middle or at the end, length of sermon, etc…) we do not have the right to remove or change those elements from the worship. This argument is flawed from the beginning and constitutes a misguided use of Bible Authority. 

CHURCH HISTORY: A BIBLICAL VIEW
Part III - No. 13 Compiled and written by Gary Eubanks

With the accession of Constantine to full and supreme power in the Roman Empire in the early Fourth Century, the Church came under complete imperial favor and influence. Though in one sense the Church had triumphed in that it had adhered to the basic tenets of the gospel despite the fierce persecutions it faced, it was in another sense a long, tragic defeat for her to be so closely aligned with the state. At this time in history the principles of religious freedom and separation of church and state were fairly foreign to the minds of men (cp. Matt. 22:21; Acts 18: 12-17). It was not enough that government remain religiously neutral. There had to be a state religion. For many years the pagan religions had found peaceful co-existence with the church to be impossible and had tried to stamp it out through governmental persecution. After the last fierce but unsuccessful effort during the reign of Diocletian (284-305), it was evident that the church could not be squashed. It was left, then, to Constantine (306-337) to legitimize the Church and use it as one of his tools to forge political unity in the Roman Empire. The Empire was one legally, and it would also be one religiously, the Church replacing the defeated pagan religions as the state religion. This was not the announced plan of Constantine, but this is how it developed.

The "Edict of Milan" (313) only granted legal toleration to Christians; their religion was given a status of equality with all the other religions in the Empire. However, as time went on Constantine began to adopt measures which would set the Church above other religions. Christians were only a small fraction of the population at the beginning of Constantine's reign, but they had demonstrated a tenacious strength and a potential for growth which made them an obvious choice for imperial favor. Hence, not long after the Edict of Milan was issued, Constantine also granted the clergy exemption from public obligations and allowed the Church the right to receive legacies. He also forbade pagan sacrifices and working on Sunday in the cities. In other ways Constantine continued to curry the favor of the Church, and the Church began to take advantage of such favor for its own purposes. Thus, the Church and the state became more and more interdependent. This boded nothing but ill for the Church.

Constantine soon found that managing the Church was no easy task. The Church was so fraught with doctrinal controversies that its usefulness as a tool for effecting unity in the Empire was greatly threatened. One of the first great problems he faced in this matter was the "Donatist" controversy. The Church in North Africa was divided because some objected to the new bishop whom they said had been invalidly ordained by one involved in mortal sin. Donatus was chosen to take his place. When the Donatists did not share in the imperial gifts made to North African clergymen, they appealed to the Emperor. Constantine summoned a synod to Arles in Gaul (France), which subsequently legitimized ordination at the hands of unworthy clerics, upheld the validity of heretical baptisms, and adopted the Roman date for Easter. The Donatists appealed to the Emperor again but he decided against them. Thus, the precedent was set for the Emperor to be given a decisive role in the regulation of ecclesiastical affairs. (Constantine was not even baptized until shortly before his death.)

Another, more serious, controversy arose in connection with the doctrine of Arius of Alexandria about 320. Arius became involved in a bitter dispute with Alexander, the bishop of Alexandria, by asserting that Christ was a created being. Though He was the first-born of creatures and the agent who fashioned the world, He had a beginning and was not one, nor equal, with God. Unlike the West, the East had failed to achieve unanimity in its beliefs regarding the nature of Christ. Some challenged the teachings of Arius and the controversy became so sharp that Constantine felt the need to call the first general council of the Church to Nicea in 325. Bishops traveled to Nicea at government expense. Representation was quite lopsided, with only six of the three hundred bishops being from the West. Since all of the West and a large part of the East rejected the Arian position, Constantine deemed it politically expedient to throw his influence behind those who opposed the Arian position. Hence, the Council adopted a creed which was anti-Arian, and Arius was banished. The Council also issued rules regarding discipline, restoration, and the date of Easter.

Of course, the New Testament is the all-sufficient creed for Christians (II Tim. 3:16,17). Nothing in addition to it is needed, and no group of men has the right to act as representatives of the church in defining its faith. Neither does the New Testament know anything of the general councils of the church that began to convene in the days of Constantine. Some have appealed to the "Jerusalem conference" (Acts 15) for justification of such, but there is no parallel. (1) The Jerusalem conference was not convened by the authority of a civil ruler. (2) This was not a "general conference." Those who gathered were not delegates who formed a representative body of all the churches. Actually, only those of the two churches directly involved - Jerusalem and Antioch - were present. (3) It was altogether appropriate that the matter should be taken by members of the troubled church to the elders of the church from which the trouble-makers had hailed (vs. 24). (4) Most importantly, the decrees issuing from the conference were authoritative only because they were handed down by apostles who were inspired by the Holy Spirit (vs. 28). The general meeting (vss. 12-29) was called for the purpose of revealing and explaining the decision which had already been reached in an apostolic council (Gal. 2:1-10). Hence, without apostles inspired by the Holy Spirit present to participate in, and hand down, decisions, modern-day ecclesiastical councils can find neither precedent nor parallel in the Jerusalem conference.