Let me start this discussion by asking a question,
the same kind of question that Jesus asked about the baptism of John: Mark 11:30 The
baptism of John, was it from heaven, or of men? answer me. Now let us ask the question: The class room arrangement for teaching, is
it from God, or did it come as a invention of men?
First let us consider a generic command to go
teach. Mat. 28:18-20 And Jesus came
and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of
the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20 Teaching them to
observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you
alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
This is a generic command. We are told to go teach. The command for communion is also a generic
command. We are instructed to have the
communion but are not told how often. 1 Cor. 11:26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and
drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come. However, we have
an example as to how often we are to have the communion service. This example is found in Acts 20:7, And upon the
first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul
preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech
until midnight. We understand that when we have an example
relating to a generic command, that example becomes binding as is with how
often we should have communion. In
reference to the generic command to go teach, we have an example in Acts 20:20,
And how I kept back nothing that was
profitable unto you, but have shewed you, and have taught you publickly, and
from house to house. Since we have this holy example given by the
apostle Paul, we understand that teaching is either done publicly or
privately. When it is done privately,
it is done by individuals or house to house, individually. The church as a body (collectively) has nothing
to do with it. We find examples of this
taking place in the book of Acts, (Acts 18:26, Acts
21:8-9).
As we examine the Sunday School or Bible Class that
many churches have, we see that they are clearly more public than private. The leadership of the Church decides that
they will have them. They decide who is
to do the teaching. Also, this work is
financed by the Church just like a gospel meeting. The whole congregation is expected to attend, that is, in their
perspective places. The public is
invited through signs and announcements, just as with a gospel meeting, however, women are allowed to teach, in different
capacity depending on the congregation and its leadership. In the individual capacity, the leadership
of the Church has nothing to do with where a person goes or whom they teach. In Acts 18 and Acts 21, they were teaching
in the individual realm (house to house).
The Church as a body had nothing to do with it. In Titus we find that the aged women are to
teach the younger women. Since women
are forbidden to do this in a public way, then it must be done privately, or as
individuals. Notice what they are
instructed to teach, Titus 2:2 That the aged men be sober, grave, temperate, sound in
faith, in charity, in patience. 3 The
aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false
accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things; 4 That they may teach the young women to be
sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, 5 To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home,
good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not
blasphemed. 6 Young men likewise
exhort to be sober minded. 7 In
all things shewing thyself a pattern of good works: in doctrine shewing
uncorruptness, gravity, sincerity, 8
Sound speech, that cannot be condemned; that he that is of the contrary part
may be ashamed, having no evil thing to say of you. These are things we are to teach with
our example of life, as well as privately, and publicly. What he is not instructing Titus to do is to
divide into groups and teach them separately.
Now as far as children are concerned, parents need to be present when
their children are taught. They need to
know what their children are taught.
Certainly there are things that women need to teach that do not need to
be taught in the presence of men, and likewise with the men. These things are better taught
privately. Paul made a point that he
taught “house to house” or privately and publicly.
Now let us consider "necessary
inference." We are commanded to
meet, therefore we must have some place to meet. It can be a house or a larger building. We have examples of both.
There is no necessary inference for the bible classes which divide into
little groups to teach. There is not
one passage that even hints that the Church in the first century had such
meetings. We can teach without
them! They are not necessary to
teach. Some say that they are necessary
for children to learn. They say that
children cannot be taught as they should in the general assembly. This in fact contradicts what God has
said. Consider Deuteronomy 31:12-13
and Deuteronomy 32:1-2. Deut. 31:12 Gather the people together, men, and women, and
children, and thy stranger that is within thy gates, that they may hear, and
that they may learn, and fear the LORD your God, and observe to do all the
words of this law: 13 And that their
children, which have not known any thing, may hear, and learn to fear the LORD
your God, as long as ye live in the land whither ye go over Jordan to possess
it. God said that the
children can learn in an audience with adults and parents. Deut. 32:1 Give
ear, O ye heavens, and I will speak; and hear, O earth, the words of my
mouth. 2 My doctrine shall drop as the
rain, my speech shall distil as the dew, as the small rain upon the tender
herb, and as the showers upon the grass:
3 Because I will publish the name of the LORD: ascribe ye greatness unto
our God. 4 He is the Rock, his work is
perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity,
just and right is he. Notice
how the rain falls. It falls on the
large mature oak tree as well as the tender baby oak tree. It falls on both alike and each absorbs what
it needs for growth. God’s word, works
the same way. It is taught to all and
each one absorbs what it needs to sustain life and to grow. As one grows it is able to understand more
and more. There is no inference for the
classes, neither is the class arrangement necessary for us to teach.
Let us consider what was commanded about public
teaching. 1 Cor. 14:31 For ye may all prophesy one
by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted. This passage says all may teach or prophesy
in turn. This would be all who do
prophesy or have a desire to speak in the assembly may do so, one at a time. What I want you to notice is “all may
learn” and “all may be comforted”.
For all to learn and for all to be comforted, then all must be in the
room with the one who is teaching and all must hear what the one has
spoken. When we are in different rooms
being taught by different people, all do not learn nor are all comforted by
what any one person is teaching. Also
the commandment says the women are to be silent. They are commanded not to speak. They cannot be a speaker in
church assemblies. 1 Cor. 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the
churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to
be under obedience, as also saith the law.
35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at
home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. This passage is teaching the
same thing as does 1 Timothy 2:11-12 Let the woman learn in silence with all
subjection. 12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority
over the man, but to be in silence. These two passages teach basically the same thing. That is that women are to be silent in
church meetings. The commandment for
public teaching of the church is that the men may teach one at a time and the
women are silent.
Some say that 1 Corinthians 14:34 is speaking of the
prophet's wives and does not apply to us today because we do not have inspired
prophets. Inspired or not, he is giving
regulations for teaching. They use this
same chapter to regulate the use of tongues.
Also notice, if it was only speaking to the wives of the prophets then a
young woman who was not married could teach.
Certainly this is not the case.
When he says let them ask their husbands at home, he is speaking of the
realm of the individual, like the “house to house” (Acts 20:20) that Paul spoke
of, or like “what have ye not houses to eat in” (1 Cor.11:22), or “eat at home”
(1 Cor. 11:34). By these statements he
is speaking of the realm of the individual or private. Certainly he does not mean that we have to
be in our house to eat. Neither does a
woman have to have a husband to ask a question. She is to ask privately and not in church meetings. Notice he said, “it is a shame for a
woman to speak in the church”. This
does not apply to singing. Singing is
not the same thing as taking the leadership in teaching others. As this chapter is dealing with speaking in
the church for edification and instruction, the woman cannot take a spot in the
pulpit nor lead the singing, but she is to sing as she is commanded to.
Still some will say that 1 Corinthians chapter 14
only deals with worship. By this they
mean that it only pertains to the assembly where communion is served. The bible does not say this. They bring up 5 elements of worship,
however, we worship God daily in many different aspects. The wise men worshipped and they certainly
did not have 5 elements there (Mat. 2:11).
But when these speak of this worship, they have reference to the
assembly when communion is taken.
Certainly at this time there is teaching, praying, singing, and a
collection is taken up (Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:1-2), however, the church in the
first century had meetings for other reasons also, (Acts 15). The context of 1 Corinthians 14 is teaching
or edifying in a church gathering. 1 Cor. 14:3 But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men
to edification, and exhortation, and comfort; 1 Cor. 14:26 How is it then,
brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a
doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all
things be done unto edifying. While
this chapter deals with tongues, teaching, and singing, it does not deal with
communion nor giving. It seems to me
that it would apply when any of these things are being done by the body, the
church. 1 Cor. 14:15 What is it then?
I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I
will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also. Certainly one could not be right by
singing praying, or teaching in a tongue that he does not understand. This chapter must apply to any gathering
where teaching is taking place.
Now one advocate of the classroom arrangement for
teaching said, “we practice I Cor. 14:31.
In each of the classes has only one person speaking at a time and all
hear what the one says”. But you see he
could not nor would he have communion in each of those classes. Neither does he follow the rest of I Cor.
14, because they have women speaking or teaching some of the classes. You see the classes are public, and if not,
then the women could teach anyone, but they divide the congregation, and that
is why they could not have communion in them.
Furthermore, if they had communion in them, each would be a separate
congregation. If each is a separate
congregation, then it should have all kinds of people in it and should have one
teacher at a time and the women should be silent.
A church paper published an article which said that in Acts 2 they had to have
classes. They reasoned that since 3,000
were baptized in one day, they could not get all in one room, but they did have
large meeting places in Jerusalem, as well as other Roman Cities in those
days. If they did have to meet in
different places, buildings, or rooms, they would have met with men, women and
children in each of these meetings. If
they did such, each group would have been a separate congregation of the Lord’s
Church. Each congregation would also
have followed the instructions given in 1 Corinthians chapter 14. Those assemblies would not have been
anything like the bible classes or Sunday School which churches have today.
When do individual study groups cross over to be
public teaching? Suppose some men or
women, or both, decide to meet some friends at the church building to study some
subject in the bible, is that ok? Yes,
that is ok. However, when the church as
a body takes charge or takes the oversight of these who are meeting, then it
goes into the public realm of teaching.
They are no longer acting as individuals, but are a function of the
body, the Church. Thus they would come
under the regulations of 1 Corinthians 14.
The same line of argument which will not allow
instrumental music to be used in Church assemblies, would also close the door
on Bible Classes or Sunday School. Not
one passage or reference to them can be found in the New Testament, neither can
they be found in the Old Testament.
Thus an argument can be made from the silence of the scripture. The reason for this, is the fact that the 1st
century church did not have bible classes.
They are a modern addition.
The following are some things that I got off the
internet showing that the class arrangement of teaching was not in the 1st
century of the Church.
A Primitive Baptist Statement on Sunday School
Sunday School is a relatively late development in the history of the
Christian church. The first Sunday school was established by the English
Methodist Robert Raikes at the end of the 18th century. Sunday school
originally was intended as a means to reach the children of unbelieving
parents, not the children of church members. However, in the middle decades of
the 19th century a growing number of church members enrolled their children in
Sunday schools. Some Christians, especially Presbyterians and Baptists, were
not convinced of the Scriptural warrant for Sunday school in teaching the Bible
to the children of Christians. In 1832, a Reformed Baptist denomination, the
Primitive (in the sense of harkening back to "primitive" or early
Christianity) Baptists stated:
"Sunday schools claim the honor of converting their tens of
thousands; of leading the tender minds of children to the knowledge of
salvation, [just] as the preaching of the gospel [does] that of bringing adults
to the same knowledge, etc. Such arrogant pretensions, we feel bound to oppose.
First, because they 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 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 them
in the New Testament.
"The Scriptures enjoin upon parents to bring up their children in
the nurture and admonition of the Lord.
"But while we stand thus opposed to the plan and use of these Sunday
schools 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
(Cited in Mike Strevel. "Family Church," in Quit You Like Men,
October 1994. pp.11-12)."
Return to the Covenant Family Fellowship home page.
A Brief History of Biblical Family Worship
by Kerry Ptacek
[This is a slightly edited version of an article which appeared in the
November 1997 issue of Ligonier Ministries' Table Talk. Many of the documents
cited may be found at the Covenant Family Fellowship homepage.]
The distinctive elements of Biblical family worship, leadership by the
male head of the family and the use of God's word, are found throughout the
Bible, in the ancient Church, and in those churches which prepared and continue
the Reformation to this day.
[Biblical History]
God's plan for Abraham involved spiritual leadership in his household:
"For I have known him, in order that he may command his children and his
household after him, that they keep the way of the LORD, to do righteousness
and justice, that the LORD may bring to Abraham what He has spoken to him"
(Gen 18:19). Jacob recovered leadership in his household by emphasizing God's
word and worship in the family (Gen 31:4-16; 35:1-15).
The law required that the father answer questions posed by his children
on the meaning of the Passover, the firstborn and the covenant (Ex 12:1-28;
13:1-16). The responsibility of men to teach their families God's words
generally also was affirmed: "You shall teach them diligently to your
children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, when you walk by
the way, when you lie down, and when you rise up" (Dt 6:6-7; 11:18-19).
This spiritual role for fathers was understood in the time of David.
Asaph wrote of "sayings of old, which we have heard and known, and our
fathers have told us" and promised: "We will not hide them from their
children, telling the generation to come the praises of the LORD, and His
strength and His wonderful works that He has done. For He established a
testimony in Jacob, and appointed a law in Israel, which He commanded our
fathers, that they should make them known to their children" (Ps 78:1-6).
The spiritual leadership of the male family head continues in the New Testament.
The husband was to model the love of Christ in washing his wife "by the
word" (Eph 5:26). So, too, the fathers were commanded to "bring up
your children in the training and admonition of the Lord" (Eph 6:4).
[The Ancient Church]
Ignatius, who as a boy in Antioch saw Paul, said fathers should teach
their children the Bible. His contemporary, Clement of Rome (30-100) reminded
the Corinthians to teach their wives the Bible. Clement of Alexandria (153-217)
preached that the husband and wife should practice united prayer and Scripture
reading every morning. The North African elder Tertullian (142-220), in a book
dedicated to his wife, spoke of the spiritual unity of Christian marriage
through prayer, the word of God, and singing.
The Apostolic Constitutions (200-400) emphasized the need to examine a
candidate for the office of overseer as to "whether he hath a grave,
faithful wife, or has formerly had such a one; whether he hath educated his
children piously, and has 'brought them up in the nurture and admonition of the
Lord.'" The Apostolic Constitutions paraphrases Paul's command: "Ye
fathers, educate your children in the Lord, bring them up in the nurture and
admonition of the Lord."
John Chrysostom (347-407), Bishop of Constantinople, witnesses to the
continuation of the Biblical view in urging that every house should be a
church, and every head of a family a spiritual shepherd. However, in the
western church married men gradually were removed from church leadership by
canon law. Celibate clergy supplanted the father's role as a spiritual leader.
[The Reformation]
Through Waldensian Bible distribution and later the invention of the
printing press, Biblical family worship is reported again in European homes
before the Reformation. Handbooks for fathers and manuals for catechizing in
the home were produced. The earliest Protestant confession, the Bohemian,
included such a manual.
The revival of family worship became part of the Reformation's agenda of
restoring the life of the church on a Biblical basis. The practice especially
was developed among British Puritans and Presbyterians. Thomas Becon
(1512-1567), Thomas Cranmer's chaplain, said through a son being catechized by
his father: "Every man is a bishop in his own house. Who seeth not then
that the householder is bound to teach his household, the chief member whereof
the wife is, and therefore necessarily to be instructed and taught of her
husband?" In 1557 John Knox wrote to his congregation as he went into
exile: "you are bishops and kings; your wife, children, servants, and
family are your bishopric and charge. Of you it shall be required how carefully
and diligently you have instructed them in God's true knowledge... And
therefore I say, you must make them partakers in reading, exhorting, and in making
common prayers, which I would in every house were used once a day at
least."
[Puritanism]
This emphasis was carried to America. The first settlers of Salem entered
into a covenant in 1629 “Promising also unto our best ability to teach our
children and servants the knowledge of God, and of His Will, that they may
serve Him also.” Cotton Mather recounts many examples of prominent New
Englanders leading their households in family worship. With the rise of
Christian state education, family worship began to decline in New England at
the end of the 17th century.
In the Westminster Confession of Faith daily family worship is taken for
granted (XXI.VI). Thomas Manton's preface to the Confession spoke entirely of
its use by heads of families in the home. However, only a Directory for Public
Worship was adopted by the Assembly. The Church of Scotland fulfilled the
Assembly's intent in adopting a Directory for Family Worship in 1647.
English Puritanism after Westminster continued to emphasize the
distinctive features of Biblical spiritual leadership in the home. Richard
Baxter stated that "The husband must be the principal teacher of the
family. He must instruct them, and examine them, and rule them about matters of
God." Three decades later, Matthew Henry preached in his 1704 sermon
"On Family Religion" that "Masters of families, who preside in
the other affairs of the house, must go before their households in the things
of God. They must be as prophets, priests, and kings in their own families; and
as such they must keep up family-doctrine, family-worship, and
family-discipline..."
[18th & 19th Century America]
American Presbyterianism was shaped by The Directory for Family Worship,
which stated that family worship was necessary so that "the power and
practice of godliness, amongst all ministers and members of this kirk,
according to their several places and vocations, may be cherished and
advanced." In 1733 the Synod of Philadelphia, in seeking "some proper
means to revive the declining Power of Godliness," recommended "to
all our ministers and members to take particular Care about visiting families,
and press family and secret worship, according to the [W]estminster
Directory."
During the Great Awakening George Whitefield preached that "we must
forever despair of seeing a primitive spirit of piety revived in the world
until we are so happy as to see a revival of primitive family religion."
He reiterated that "every governor of a family... [is] bound to instruct
those under his charge in the knowledge of the Word of God." Jonathan
Edwards (1703-58) stated in his "Farewell Sermon" that "family
education and order are some of the chief means of grace. If these fail, all
other means are likely to prove ineffectual."
After Independence from Great Britain, all American Presbyterians adopted
some form of The Directory for Family Worship. Many Presbyterians shared the
view in the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Christian Magazine of the South, in
1845 that "Family Worship is one of [the] singular actions of God's people.
We do not look for this, we do not expect it, from those 'who are the enemies
of the cross of Christ.'" Failure to carry out family worship was treated
as a matter of church discipline: "by no means to admit either to the
table of the Lord, or to baptism for their children, any by whom it is
habitually neglected."
[The 20th Century]
Family worship began to decline even among Presbyterians from the middle
of the 19th century with the rise of Sunday school. Nevertheless, at the
beginning of this century the Southern Presbyterian General Assembly still
affirmed that "God requires in the home daily instruction of the children
in the Scriptures and the training of the children in all forms of Christian
service. God lays on the man, as the head of the family, the chief
responsibility for the performance of these requirements... and will not
sanction the delegation of this responsibility to the wife, the Sabbath school,
or to any other agency."
Family worship continued to be spoken of and advocated in some Presbyterian
denominations and groups such as the Family Altar League down to the middle
decades of this century. From the late 1980s a revived interest in Puritanism
and concern about the spiritual condition of Christian families have combined
in a renewed interest in Biblical family worship. Whether it is the Lord's will
that this be a time of Reformation, remains to be seen.
Material History of American Religion Project
Moravian Sunday School Certificates
The first Sunday schools predate the public school system. Christian
groups founded the schools to teach young workers to read; the school was held
on their only day off. By the late nineteenth century, however, public schools
had taken over the teaching of basic literacy. Moreover, they began to define
education in America. Soon Sunday schools began to copy the age-based class
structure, work requirements, and rewards of the public school.
These objects came from a Moravian Sunday school in Winston-Salem, North
Carolina, dating from the 1920s. They show how closely the school mimicked the
public schools. Note that class members received credit for bringing their
offering and Bible, being on time, and preparing their lesson. If they received
a top grade, they were added to the honor roll; if they failed to attend,
however, the teacher lowered their grade. As the record card shows, regular
attendance was very important.
The world's first Sunday Schools were
established in the 16th century. In the 1770s the Unitarian minister Theophilus
Lindsey provided free lessons on Sunday at his Essex Street Chapel in London.
However, it is Robert Raikes, the owner of the Gloucester
Journal who started a Sunday School at St. Mary le Crypt Church in
Gloucester, who usually gets the credit for starting the movement. Although not
the first person to organize a school in a church, Raikes was able to use his
position as a newspaper publisher to give maximum publicity for his educational
ideas.
The bishops of Chester and Salisbury gave support to Raikes and in 1875 a
London Society for the Establishment of Sunday Schools was established. In July
1784 John Wesley recorded in his journal that Sunday Schools were "springing
up everywhere". Two years later it was claimed by Samuel Glasse that there
were over 200,000 children in England attending Sunday schools.
In 1801 there were 2,290 Sunday schools and by 1851 this had grown to 23,135.
It was estimated that by the middle of the 19th century, around two-thirds of
all working class children aged between 5 and 15 were attending Sunday Schools.
***************************************************************************************************************************************************************
"REFLECTIONS"
by Al Maxey
Issue #184 -------
April 14, 2005
**************************
I verily think these Sunday
Schools are one of the noblest specimens of charity which have been set on foot
in England since William the Conqueror.
John
Wesley (1703-1791)
**************************
Raikes' Ragged Regiment
Reflecting on the Sunday School and
Non-Sunday School Movements
Sunday Schools have been around for so long, and have
become so much a part of most of our lives, that a great many of us may believe
they have just always been there! Have you ever wondered about the source of the Sunday
School? Who started it? And why?
The actual concept
of providing spiritual instruction for children and youth is nothing new.
Indeed, it's as ancient as mankind. Moses told the people of Israel,
"These words, which I am commanding you today, shall be on your heart; and
you shall teach them diligently to your sons and shall talk of them when you
sit in your house and when you walk by the way and when you lie down and when
you rise up" (Deut. 6:6-7). "The people were not to concern
themselves only with their own attitudes toward the Lord. They were to concern
themselves with impressing these attitudes on their children as well" (The Expositor's Bible Commentary,
vol. 3, p. 66).
The ancient Jewish historian Josephus, in his classic
work Antiquities of the
Jews, informs us that children were regularly instructed in
the Law of God beginning at a very early age. "Let the children also learn
the laws, as the first thing they are taught, which will be the very best thing
they can be taught, and will be the cause of their future felicity" (book
4, chapter 8, section 12). This early instruction of the young was so thorough
that Josephus observed, "If any one of us should be questioned concerning
the laws, he could much more easily repeat them all, than his own name."
Few people question the need for instruction of the young (or even of adults,
for that matter). The problem has always been associated with how, when, and by whom this instruction
should be accomplished.
The focus of this present issue of my Reflections, however, is the modern Sunday
School movement of which most of us are familiar, and in which most of us
probably participated as children, and with which we most likely still involve
ourselves at the present in some capacity. Although there is some debate as to
exactly when,
where,
and by whom
the first Sunday School was established, most attribute its development, if not
its origin, to a man by the name of Robert Raikes (1735-1811). He was born
September 14, 1735 in Gloucester, England, to Robert and Mary Raikes. He served
as an apprentice to his father, who was a printer and the founder of the Gloucester Journal. When
his father died in 1757, Raikes became editor of the paper, enlarging its size
and making significant improvements to the layout.
- Robert Raikes was a good
man and a beloved employer. A woman by the name of Fanny Burney described
him as "a good liberal master who paid good wages." Others
characterized him as "cheery, flamboyant and warm-hearted" (T.
Kelly, A History of Adult Education in Great Britain, p. 75). He
was also a very compassionate man, and a religious man. He loved people
and he loved his community, seeking to ennoble and enrich the lives of
both. Raikes was also passionate about the need for prison reform,
deploring the conditions of the British penal system, feeling it did more
harm than good. He spent a lot of time visiting the prisons, and then used
the Gloucester Journal to inform the public of the horrendous
conditions he observed therein.
One of the concerns Raikes had was over the plight of the poorer children
of his city. He observed how easy it was for them to drift into a life of
crime, and thus end up in the prison system. It was his conviction that a great
many of the parents of these poor children -- children who were spending a lot
of time on the streets while the parents were working in the factories (and
oftentimes the children themselves were forced to work in the factories) --
were "totally abandoned themselves, having no idea of instilling into the
minds of their children principles to which they themselves were entire
strangers." If these parents were neglecting their obligation to teach
their children, and to pass on to them good moral qualities, then Raikes felt another means of doing so
must be found. Robert Raikes had once commented, "The world marches forth
on the feet of little children." Thus, he believed very strongly that if
one sought to change society for the better, and ultimately decrease the prison
population, one must reach the children.
The children of the poor were in particular need of help, as they often
had to work in the factories six days a week to help support their parents.
Thus, they were uneducated, with little prospect for bettering themselves as
they grew older. They were poorly dressed, ragged, unwashed, and often hungry
and sickly. Sunday was the only day they had free, and many of these children
would roam the streets on Sunday, making a lot of noise and getting into all
kinds of mischief. There were often complaints from the "good church
folk" that on Sunday, as they were attempting to worship, "the street
was full of children cursing and swearing and spending their time in noise and
riot."
To help solve this problem, Robert Raikes, along with a local pastor
named Thomas Stock, decided to start a Sunday School at St. Mary le Crypt Church
in Gloucester. This was July, 1780. He hired four local women to serve as
teachers, and began to put the word out through his newspaper. In rather short
order they were able to enroll about 100 children, ranging in age from five to
fourteen years old. Some of the children were reluctant to come at first; they
were embarrassed because their clothes were so torn and ragged. However, Raikes
told them that all they needed was "a clean face and combed hair."
Every Sunday the school provided reading lessons from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. (with
an hour in the middle for lunch, which was provided). They were then taken to
the church and instructed in the catechism until about 5:30 p.m. Raikes also
printed up the reading and study materials, providing them to the children at
no cost. He proved to be quite a generous benefactor to the poor children of
his city.
- There were a great many
people in the city, however, who thought it was a complete waste of time
for Raikes to attempt to educate "the little savages," as they
called the children of the street. Even some of the officials in the
church would not back his efforts, suggesting his school dishonored the
Lord's Day. He and his Sunday School were derisively nicknamed "Bobby
Wildgoose and his Ragged Regiment." Others mocked him by speaking of
his "Ragamuffin Roundup." Robert Raikes was not easily
discouraged, however, and was all the more determined to try and make a
difference in the lives of these children, and also in the life of his
community.
In time, the transformation of these young people was dramatic. They ceased
their swearing and cursing, they began to behave responsibly, and developed a
desire to better themselves. A hemp and flax manufacturer in the city, a man by
the name of Mr. Church, who employed many of these children during the week,
said, "The change could not have been more extraordinary, in my opinion,
had they been transformed from the shape of wolves and tigers to that of
men." Society also benefited from this Sunday School. After Raikes began
this effort the crime rate dropped astoundingly both in the city and county
where Raikes lived. In fact, in 1786 the magistrates of the area passed a
unanimous vote of thanks
for the impact Robert Raikes and his Sunday School had upon the morals of the
youth of that area.
In 1785 a Sunday
School Society was formed in London for the purpose of
helping distribute Bibles and spelling books, as well as to help coordinate and
develop the work of this growing movement. By 1784, just four years after
Robert Raikes started his Sunday School with a hundred students in Gloucester,
there were said to be thousands
of students in Sunday Schools across England, with adults attending as well as
children. The movement grew impressively, and by 1851 it was reported that
three quarters of all working class children were attending such Sunday Schools
(T.W. Laqueur, Religion and
Respectability: Sunday Schools and Working Class Culture, p.
44). Just eight years after Raikes formed his first Sunday School, John Wesley
wrote to a friend, "I verily think these Sunday Schools are one of the
noblest specimens of charity which have been set on foot in England since
William the Conqueror."
Raikes himself, not one to seek personal acclaim for his efforts, gave
all the glory and praise for this work to the Lord God. He wrote,
"Providence was pleased to make me the instrument of introducing Sunday
School and regulations in prisons. Not unto us, O Lord, but unto Thy name be the
glory." Robert Raikes died of a heart attack in 1811. The local children
of the Sunday Schools attended his funeral, and each child, by prior order, was
given a shilling and a large piece of Raike's famous plum cake. Even in death
he was thinking of the children!
Expansion to America
As one might imagine, Sunday Schools became far too popular a concept to
remain only in England. The idea began to spread rapidly to other nations as
well. There is some argument as to exactly when and where the first Sunday
School was started in the American colonies. Some historical evidence exists to
suggest that Sunday instruction of children occurred as early as 1669 at the
Plymouth colony, and also at Roxbury, Massachusetts in 1674. In 1785 a Sunday
School was begun by William Elliott in Accomac County, Virginia. Each Sunday
afternoon Elliott arranged to have several white boys and girls meet in his
home to be instructed in the Bible. The Negro slaves were taught at a different
hour. A year later, in 1786, a second school was founded in Hanover County,
Virginia by a Methodist preacher named Francis Asbury. This Sunday School was
primarily concerned with the instruction of the Negro slaves.
Initially, both in Europe and America, the Sunday School was a private endeavor, largely
run by individuals who simply had an interest in the education, both spiritual
and secular, of the underprivileged children of the day. Soon, however, people
began to see the need for a more organized, united effort to spread this
concept throughout the land. Thus, with the dawning of the 19th century, more
and more Sunday Schools came to be established, organized and overseen by
various societies and unions. In other words, they came to be
institutionalized. The first one in America was formed in Philadelphia in
January, 1791. It was known as the "First
Day School Society," and was formed to provide for the
education of the poor female children of that city. Other large cities soon
followed the lead of Philadelphia, including Pittsburgh, Boston, New York,
Albany, Hartford, Baltimore, and Charleston.
The spirit of Nationalism contributed to a growing demand for a Sunday
School organization on a national
level. This perceived need led to the formation, in May, 1824, of the "American Sunday School Union."
Its purpose, as stated in its constitution, was: "To concentrate the
efforts of Sabbath School societies in different portions of our country; to
disseminate useful information; to circulate moral and religious publications
in every part of the land; and to endeavor to plant Sunday Schools wherever
there is a population." Six years later they decided to send missionaries
over the Alleghenies into the Mississippi Valley. Perhaps the best known of
these missionaries was a man by the name of Stephen Paxson. He traveled from
one small community to another, from the Alleghenies to the Rockies, all on his
horse, which he had named "Robert Raikes." During his many years of
service to the ASSU,
he established and organized 1314 Sunday Schools, with a total of 83,405
teachers and students. Many of these planted Sunday Schools eventually grew to
become churches
within the community in which they had been established. The churches then
typically retained the Sunday School as a part of their organization and
missionary outreach.
Eventually it was decided that National
Sunday School Conventions were needed, and that they should
be held annually. The first was held in Philadelphia in 1832. There were 220
delegates from 15 states present. Some of the topics discussed at this
convention were the need for organizing an Infant/Toddler program in the Sunday
Schools and the need for qualifying teachers. The second national convention
was held in 1833, also in the city of Philadelphia. The third convention was
again held in Philadelphia, but it was 26 years later, in 1859. Seventeen
states were represented, with one visitor from Great Britain. The fourth
national convention was held ten
years later, in 1869, in Newark, New Jersey. There were 526 delegates in
attendance, representing 28 states. Visitors from England, Canada, Ireland,
Scotland, and South Africa attended.
- The fifth convention was
held in Indianapolis, Indiana in 1872. This was a very important
convention because it was at this time that the International Uniform
Lesson was adopted. Up to this point there had been no common
curriculum for the Sunday Schools throughout the country. Each
denomination was preparing and providing its own lessons. Thus, a
committee was formed that would arrange for a uniform curriculum
to be shared by all. Some did not like this idea, however, and the International
Graded Series was created (also known as the Closely Graded
Lessons). This series provided a bit more variety. Others developed
the Group Graded Lessons (also known as the Departmental
Graded Lessons), which were designed to be age appropriate. Many
denominational groups in more recent times, however, are moving away from uniform
lesson materials and are returning to the previous independence
-- i.e.: each group independently determining for itself its own
curriculum based on its own needs.
From 1872 onward, the National
Sunday School Conventions have met every three years, and,
due to a large number of foreign nations participating in these conventions,
they have changed their name to the International
Sunday School Convention. Many religious education scholars,
as well as church history scholars, believe that the Sunday Schools did as much
to "tame the west" in the early days of our history as just about
anything else. It also had a tremendous impact on the spread of Christianity
westward. Although not everyone appreciated the concept of the Sunday School,
few would deny its impact upon society.
The Anti-Sunday School Movement
As might be expected with virtually any new concept or practice, there has
always been an element of fierce opposition to Sunday Schools running parallel
to this movement throughout history. Whereas some happily embraced the idea of
a Sunday School, and others were basically indifferent to it, some were vehemently
opposed to the whole concept. Indeed, there were a few radical opponents who
even went so far as to declare that anyone
who endorsed or participated in a Sunday School would go to hell. This
was not a minor issue to these people; it was not a matter of personal opinion.
It was a matter of FAITH, and heaven and hell rested in the balance!
In 1830, a Baptist
Association in the state of Illinois passed a resolution
which said, in part, "We as an Association do not hesitate to say that we
declare an unfellowship
with Foreign and Domestic Mission and Bible Societies, Sunday Schools, and all
other Missionary Institutions." A good many of the Baptist churches in the
Midwest at that time adopted this anti-mission society and anti-Sunday school
position. In the early 19th century in America, many "extra-church"
societies and institutions began forming. There were foreign missionary
societies, Bible societies, tract societies, temperance societies, anti-Masonic
societies, and countless others. Most all of these were operating outside of
the oversight of regular denominational groups. They had become independent
efforts to do the work of the Lord. This raised significant concerns in many of
the more fundamentalist groups -- a concern that the church was being
supplanted by a human institution. Therefore, these various efforts, among
which was the Sunday School, were perceived by some to be an attack against the
church itself, and thus the work of Satan.
Several denominational groups split over this Sunday School versus
Anti-Sunday School issue. The Churches
of Christ were no exception. In an article he titled,
"A Muddled Movement," brother Carl Ketcherside noted the fierce
animosity that had developed between the two perspectives and practices in the Churches of Christ.
"Neither regards the other as in its 'fellowship;' both brand and
stigmatize each other as 'unfaithful' and 'disloyal,' each using its party
prejudices as the criterion of faith and loyalty to the Lord Jesus" (Mission Messenger, vol.
22, no. 6, June, 1960). "Each looks upon its own party as being the one
holy, catholic church, and apostolic church of God on earth, regarding the
others as apostates"
(ibid).
- In the Churches of
Christ most of the Anti-Sunday School congregations have also divided
among themselves over an issue regarding the cup in the Lord's
Supper. Many of them are One Cup advocates, regarding those who
use "multiple cups" as apostates who are bound for
hell. These factions have further divided among themselves regarding when
and how the bread should be broken during the Lord's Supper. Some
feel it should be broken before the prayer by the one administering the
meal, others feel each person should break off their own piece. Thus, we
have the "Bread-breakers" versus the "Bread-pinchers."
We have the "Wine Only" versus the "Grape Juice Only"
groups. The "One Cup" versus the "Multiple Cup"
groups. And on and on and on ... ad infinitum. With every newly
perceived particular of the Pattern a new party is
formed, with each splinter group claiming that it, and it
alone, is the "one true church" on the face of the earth,
with all others who differ with them being godless apostates.
Dr. Dallas Burdette, a devoted brother in Christ, and also one of the
early subscribers to and supporters of my Reflections ministry, has written a fabulous
in-depth history and examination of this whole issue. It is titled -- A Brief History of the One-Cup and
Non-Sunday School Movement. I would strongly urge everyone
to go to his web site and read this study. You will be greatly enlightened. The
URL for his web site is -- www.freedominchrist.net
-- When you get to his web page, click on "Sermons and Essays" to
find this study. His background was in
that movement, so he speaks from personal experience in his marvelous essay! I
also want to thank Dallas for including my Reflections web site in his list of
"Online Resources" under the category "Outreach Ministries for
Unity."
The pioneers of the Stone-Campbell
Movement were largely opposed to the Sunday School, at least
during the early years, because they believed there was great potential for
sectarian abuse and misuse of these institutions. As he reflected back to the
apostolic church, Alexander Campbell observed, "Their churches were not
fractured into missionary societies, Bible societies, and education societies;
nor did they dream of organizing such in the world. ... They knew nothing of
the hobbies of modern times" (The
Christian Baptist, January, 1827). Campbell had earlier
characterized Sunday Schools as "a sort of recruiting establishment to
fill up the ranks of those sects which take the lead in them" (The Christian Baptist, August,
1824). "If children are taught to read in a Sunday school, their pockets
must be filled with religious tracts, the object of which is either directly or
indirectly to bring them under the domination of some creed or sect" (ibid).
- In fairness to Alexander
Campbell, however, it should be pointed out that years later he had come
to a much different conviction regarding these Sunday Schools. In 1847 he
wrote, "Next to the Bible Society, the Sunday School institution
stands preeminently deserving the attention and co-operation of all good
men" (The Millennial Harbinger, April, 1847). He went on to
explain that his previous concern with the institution was simply over
"the sectarian abuse" of the system, when various groups and
factions sought to use the Sunday School for indoctrinating their youth in
their particular party positions.
"At the beginning of the twentieth century Churches of Christ
experienced sharp disagreements over the legitimacy of Sunday Schools,
reflecting attitudes from the Stone-Campbell Movement's earliest leaders. Many
congregations began to incorporate classes based on age into their programs.
The most conservative restorationists in Churches of Christ objected to the Sunday
School because it was not authorized by Scripture. Others opposed it because,
as conducted by other religious bodies, it was an extracongregational
organization with its own officers and governance. The fact that women often
taught the classes was yet another point of contention for some members.
Several hundred non-Bible-class congregations had separated from mainstream Churches of Christ by the
1920s. These churches emphasize the responsibility of parents to teach their
own children and the corporate nature of instruction in the church. The
majority of Churches of
Christ, however, accepted the Sunday School as an integral
part of their educational ministry" (The Encyclopedia of the Stone-Campbell Movement,
p. 296).
As just noted, there were some in the Churches of Christ (as well as other groups)
who took exception to the idea of having a Sunday School for the simple reason
-- "You can't find it in the Bible!" This, of course, is the notion
of Patternism.
If one can't show "book, chapter and verse" where the early church
had a Sunday School, then we
can't have a Sunday School. One of the most visible and vocal of these
Anti-Sunday School advocates was Dr. George Averill Trott (1855-1930), who for
a time served as one of the early editors of the Firm Foundation
periodical. Early in the 20th century a battle of journal editorials was waged
over this issue. Not only the Firm
Foundation, but also the Gospel Advocate got involved in this
struggle. For example, J.T. Showalter wrote the following: "Whenever any
man proves the Sunday school to be of divine authority, he can prove missionary
societies to be of divine authority. By all rules of logic, he that 'would the
one retain, must to the other cling.' I emphatically deny that there is any
divine authority for Sunday schools, either by precept or precedent, hint or allusion
... In all the writings of the New Testament there is not one word that even
squints in that direction" (Gospel
Advocate, April, 1910).
The strict patternists believe that if something can't be found
specifically mentioned in the NT writings (a Sunday School, for example), then
for men to practice such is SIN. This is the old "law of silence" or
"law of exclusion" argument of the CENI (command, example, necessary inference)
advocates. Their view is that the silence of the Scriptures is prohibitive (although
even they themselves are grossly inconsistent in the application of this
interpretive rule). In 1928, the proponents of the Anti-Sunday School position,
as well as the One-Cup position (these two positions are almost always found
together in Churches of
Christ), established their own publication. It was called --
Old Paths Advocate -- and is still
being published today.
These legalistic patternists, as a rule, have tended to be very rigid in
their resolve that ALL of those who differ with them on these issues are LOST.
Indeed, when their own
members begin to raise questions, or to suggest another perspective, they are
quickly and decisively cast from the "loyal church." We all saw this
happen very dramatically with the One-Cup brother in Texas who was recently
fired for daring to suggest an expanded view of God's grace! They are typically
extremely intolerant of any view other than their own, although, praise God, we
are seeing some of their leaders (some of whom are subscribers to these Reflections) begin to
move away from this rigid intolerance, and they have actually begun to become
increasingly grace-centered and accepting of others.
- Don L. King, who serves as
the publisher of Old Paths Advocate, clearly conveyed his belief
that the Sunday School issue was indeed a salvation issue. Notice
the following from one of his editorials -- "Is it wrong, sinful to
use more than one cup? Answer: yes, because more than one cup violates the
example given in Scripture; it violates the command for
us to do as Jesus did. ... Listen, brethren: we believe it is wrong to use
more than one cup. We believe people are going to be lost for
using more than one cup. Surely, we believe that! If people are not going
to be lost for using more than one, then let's give up the fight and
heal the division. .... What about Bible Classes? Is it right to divide
the public assembly into classes for the purpose of teaching and allow
women to teach? ... The pattern is always an undivided
assembly with one man at a time doing the teaching" (Old Paths
Advocate, September, 1995).
Conclusion
The purpose of this Reflections
has not been to take sides in this issue either one way or the other, but
merely to present a brief history of the Sunday School movement, and to make
note of those who both approved and opposed it. I am personally willing to
regard as "brethren" those on both sides of the debate. For me personally the whole
Sunday School issue is a NON-issue.
I presently serve in a congregation that has a Sunday School; I could just as easily
serve in one that does not.
What does
concern me, however, is when brethren fuss and fight over such matters, and in
the process fragment
the One Body of our Lord Jesus Christ. Disciples of Christ have been engaging
in dissension for too long, and the only visible result is a divided church.
The Family of God has been fractured into scores of feuding factions, each
claiming to be the "one true church" on the face of the earth. This
is nothing but abominable arrogance, and many will have much to answer for when
they stand one day before the Father. When we all appear before the Throne it
will matter little whether we used one cup or many; what will matter is whether
we surrounded that table united
as One Body. It will matter little on that day whether we
had a Sunday School or not; what will matter is whether we taught our children
to love one another. Brethren, as we look at our history, we
ought to be ashamed of ourselves!! Our behavior is blasphemous!! May God open
our eyes to our condition before it is too late!! “
****************************************************************************************************
Conclusion
Let me ask a question. Are the Bible Classes from God, or from Men. Jesus asked this question about the baptism
of John. We know today, John’s baptism
is from God. If the classes are from
God then let us all have them. But it
seems to me they are from men. As has
been stated they were not in the Church of the 1st century. If we are doing things that were not in the
church of the 1st century, then we are no longer practicing
restoration. If we say we speak where
the bible speaks and are silent where the bible is silent, then we need to try
doing just that, or we are hypocrites .
Show me the classes in scripture and I will join the crowd. Now let me say that I do not hate my fellow
“Class” brethren, the “one container” brethren nor all the 'brethren' of the
denominations (Baptist and all). I have
come to know from God’s word that I cannot hate any, and I am to treat each man
with respect. This does not mean that I
am to join them in their folly. I
understand where he is coming from in the reflections,
but I must disagree with his conclusion.
We must teach what we know and understand as the truth. We must back up our teachings with the word
of God. The atheist teaches to love one
another. Those who believe in evolution
teach tolerance, acceptance, and love of their fellow man. I like what Paul said when he wrote “let
your moderation be known to all men”. I
think that a little moderation, understanding and love would help us in our
endeavor to teach our brethren in error.
In fact I have more respect for those who say let us turn to the Bible
rather than those who say it does not matter, let’s all just get along. The one who is contending for something
which is not found in scripture is the one who causes division in our Lord’s
Church. They are not allowing Christ to
be the head. We must have scripture to
back up what we practice, teach and do, or we are no different from any
denomination.
Lindeal Greer
Friday, March 10, 2006